04-3: UPDATED Zoning Change Review Sheet with Amendment — original pdf

Backup

SECOND AND THIRD READINGS SUMMARY SHEET DISTRICT: 9 CASE: C814-89-0003.02 – 305 S. Congress ADDRESS: 305 South Congress Avenue PROPERTY OWNER: Richard T. Suttle, Jr. (Trustee) AGENT: Armbrust & Brown PLLC (Richard Suttle) CASE MANAGER: Jerry Rusthoven, 512-974-3207, jerry.rusthoven@austintexas.gov REQUEST: Approve Second and Third Readings From planned unit development – neighborhood plan (PUD-NP) To planned unit development – neighborhood plan (PUD-NP), with conditions This ordinance may include waiver of fees, alternative funding methods, modifications of City regulations, and acquisition of property. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: July 28, 2022 June 16, 2022 April 7, 2022: Approved a Postponement to July 28, 2022. Vote: 11-0. Approved an amendment to the PUD with a Restrictive Covenant for the conditions of the Traffic Impact Analysis memo as the Planning Commission recommended, with additional amendments from Council Member Tovo, on First Reading. Vote: 10-0, Council Member Harper-Madison was off the dais. ORDINANCE NUMBER: ISSUES: The ordinance for an amendment to PUD zoning reflects Council action taken on First Reading. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Rusthoven, Jerry Rivera, Andrew; Rhoades, Wendy Fwd: Q&A for Item 69 Thursday, April 7, 2022 9:28:42 AM image001.png Andrew, I sent this yesterday evening. Jerry Get Outlook for Android From: Rusthoven, Jerry Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 5:26:11 PM To: Roberts, Kaycie <Kaycie.Roberts@austintexas.gov> Cc: Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov> Subject: Q&A for Item 69 Questions from MPT Alter 1. Please provide a copy of the existing PUD ordinance for this site. Original ordinance (1989): 19890720-E, Ordinance (austintexas.gov); Amended ordinance (1993): 19931202-H, Ordinance (austintexas.gov) 2. How will the ordinance, which we do not yet have, codify the requirements for which party shall pay for which costs associated with the trail creation and other park amenities? RESPONSE: The ordinance should clearly establish responsibility and timing for construction of baseline amenities. The responsible party would be the applicant / owner. 3. Given our code requirements, why is the preservation of a heritage tree considered to be a superiority element? RESPONSE: The PUD amendment has met Tier 2 superiority for heritage, protected, and all other native trees within the PUD by: committing to preserve or transplant all Heritage trees unless the tree is dead, fatally diseased, or poses an imminent hazard. The PUD has also committed to preserve or transplant 75% of the caliper inches associated with native protected size trees; and preserve 75% of all other native caliper inches within the PUD. 4. How will ownership of the trail and parkland be structured in the ordinance? RESPONSE: The great majority of the Parkland (6.53 acres), including the trail is to be dedicated by deed to the City of Austin. Some additional areas (1.67 acres) is to be dedicated via easement. It would be a requirement of the ordinance to dedicate these lands based on certain triggers (by way of example first residential site plan), and tied to development. 5. What percentage of the proposed public amenities and parkland will be in the floodplain? RESPONSE: 62.3% of the fully dedicated parkland will be in the Floodplain and Critical Water Quality Zone. See chart below for a full breakdown of percentages. Parkland Dedication Acres Factor Credit Unencumbered Land (Full Credit) Encumbered Land (e.g. Floodplain/ CWQZ) (Half Credit) Inundated Land (Zero Credit) Fully Deeded Land 1.60 4.07 0.86 6.53 1 0.5 0 1.6 2.04 0 3.64 Percentage of Dedicated Area 24.5% 62.3% 13.1% 100% 6. How much parkland was required in the SCW Vision Framework Plan? How much parkland was required in prior PUD? also included new streets. RESPONSE: The SCW Plan (p55-56) shows 9.6 acres of parkland / open space. The 9.6 acres In the existing (nonresidential) PUD, a Restrictive Covenant (RC) was put in place to require recordation of a 15’ Trail Easement. This easement was recorded and became part of the Butler trail. The current PUD contemplates 8.2 acres to be dedicated by deed or easement. 7. Has the applicant agreed to fund and construct the park amenities on page 5 of Planning Commission recommendations? be funded by the TIRZ. RESPONSE: No. It is the Department’s understanding the applicant stated that these would 8. Are there any needs identified in the draft ASMP amendment or existing ASMP that are not already agreed to in the PUD? RESPONSE: The ASMP amendment adopts the cross-section of the Barton Springs extension as four-lane undivided. The current ASMP and South Central Waterfront Plan shows the extension as a 2-lane road with protected bike lanes and sidewalks on each side of the street. The applicant is dedicating the ROW for the approved cross-section and constructing the extension to an interim condition with TIRZ funding. This includes a two-way cycle track placed on the north side of the Barton Springs extension with a sidewalk. When the property to the south of the 305 S Congress PUD (commonly referred to as the Crocket Property) submits an application for redevelopment, ATD will require the ROW and construction of the ultimate cross-section: a four-lane divided road with protected bike lanes on both sides of the street with planting zones and sidewalks. The current ASMP also shows three additional new, public roads within the interior of the 305 S Congress PUD. Because of rough proportionality issues, these roads will be constructed as private roads with public access easements placed over these streets. These three roads will have bicycle access and sidewalks. The current ASMP and proposed ASMP addendum show a trail access that preserves the current path from the S Congress bridge down to the hike/bike trail on the far west side of the property. ATD deferred to PARD on this item because this access path is considered as a recreational facility and not as transportation infrastructure. 9. How will the PUD ordinance obligate the applicant to construct the underground parking? What consequences are in the PUD if that is not adhered to? RESPONSE: This is a superiority item in the PUD amendment and therefore, ordinance language will be created that requires that 95% of the parking be located below-grade. ATD’s responsibility is to identify the required number of parking spaces and work with the applicant to obtain parking reductions. The placement of parking – surface or underground – is considered an urban design topic. From ATD’s point of view, underground parking is not considered superior in relationship to transportation requirements. 10. What will be allowed in the Critical Water Quality Zone? RESPONSE: The applicant proposes a PUD note to allow the following within the CWQZ (See Note 23) Section 25-8-261 (Critical Water Quality Control Development) and the Environmental Criteria Manual (ECM) is modified to allow development within the Critical Water Quality Zone (CWQZ) that is in accordance with the PUD Land Use Plan and Conceptual Open Space Plan. This includes vegetation filter strips, rain gardens, underground rain cisterns, stormwater outfall structures designed in accordance with the ECM, park improvements including hard surface trails, bicycle trails, picnic facilities, playscapes, concessions including food and beverage vendors, bicycle rentals, sports equipment rentals, boat rentals, dining facilities, performance and special events facilities, boardwalks, sidewalks, pavilions, gazeboes, exercise equipment and courses, water steps, boat landings, piers, rail station, stream bank stabilization to the proposed steps. Additional open space park elements not documented on the PUD Land Use Plan and Conceptual Open Space Plan can be located within the CWQZ with the following limitations: impervious cover is limited to 5% of the total CWQZ, impervious cover must be located in the outer half of the CWQZ, must be situated to avoid areas shown to be restored with native vegetation on the Environmental Protection and Restoration Plan, and may not include restrooms. 11. Has the applicant agreed to the following conditions and will each of them be in the ordinance? If not, which ones are not currently agreed to and will not be in the ordinance? Please see responses below. Public Art: o The proposed redevelopment will participate in the city’s Art in Public Places program and incorporate a minimum of two art pieces into their development. RESPONSE: The Applicant and Art in Public Places (AIPP) staff will be discussing incorporating public art into the project. Community Amenities: Dedicating by deed a minimum of 6.53-acres of land adjacent to Lady Bird Lake as well as additional area through public access easements to access the waterfront. RESPONSE: Yes, must be included in ordinance.  Environmental Design: Reconstructing approximately 1,700 linear feet of the Hike and Bike Trail to ‘best practice’ standards detailed in the "Safety & Mobility Study" commissioned by The Trail Foundation. RESPONSE: Yes, must be included in ordinance. Creating a minimum of five ADA access points to the Hike and Bike trial within their proposed project. RESPONSE: Yes, must be included in ordinance. Providing a larger and enhanced bat viewing area that will include signage and educational elements. RESPONSE: The proposed great lawn will be an area for bat watching. The applicant will work with Bat Conservation International and other groups on signage and educational elements. o Treating 100% of the onsite water quality volume through green stormwater infrastructure. RESPONSE: The applicant has agreed and this will be in the ordinance. However during construction the existing sedimentation filtration pond will be used temporarily until permanent controls can be constructed. See PUD note 30 for further clarification. o Constructing some of the water quality systems underground to allow for a larger and enhanced bat viewing area near the S. Congress bridge. RESPONSE: The applicant has agreed and this requirement will be noted in the ordinance. o Protecting 100% of the heritage trees unless the tree is dead, fatally diseased or poses an imminent hazard and 75% of the trees overall onsite. RESPONSE: Yes, the PUD amendment has committed to these. To preserve or transplant all Heritage trees unless the tree is dead, fatally diseased, or poses an imminent hazard. The PUD has also committed to preserve or transplant 75% of the caliper inches associated with native protected size trees; and also preserve 75% of all other native caliper inches within the PUD. This requirement will be noted in the ordinance. o Constructing 95% of required parking within a below grade structure(s) instead of above ground structures. RESPONSE: Up to this time, the Applicant has always presented to ATD staff that parking will be in an underground parking garage. As the Applicant considers site phasing and construction sequencing, they indicated that a small surface parking lot (less than 100 spaces) may be necessary. Such temporary parking arrangements will be reviewed and considered a time of site plan. This requirement will be noted in the ordinance. o Dedicating all required right-of-way for the Barton Springs Road extension on their property. RESPONSE: The Applicant is dedicating the necessary ROW and constructing the Barton Springs extension on their property. When the property to the south come in for redevelopment, additional ROW and constructed elements will be required to obtain the ultimate cross-section for the extension. Dedicating space for the future Project Connect transit line and/or station. RESPONSE: The Blue Line station planned for this area is not located on the site of the 305 S Congress PUD. The Applicant has preserved a clear space (i.e., includes no structures) on the far east side of their property to account for the rail line and bridge across Lady Bird Lake. Once the exact alignment of the bridge across the lake and the design of the bridge is Transportation and Parking: known, discussions will need to occur regarding the necessary easements to accommodate the Project Connect infrastructure. Questions from CM Tovo Affordable Housing Please indicate the percentage, MFI levels, and time period that would be required for affordable housing under Tier 2 PUD requirements and provide that as a comparison to the current PUD proposal. RESPONSE: The current zoning case is an amendment to an existing PUD so the Tier 3 standards were not applied since they are only applied to new proposed PUDs. Code requirements for Tier 3 affordability are included below. Tier 3 PUD Affordability Requirements: 2.5.3. Requirements for Rental Housing. If rental housing units are included in a PUD, dwelling units equal to at least 10 percent of the bonus area square footage within the PUD must: A.be affordable to a household whose income is 60 percent or below the median family income in the Austin metropolitan statistical area; B.remain affordable for 40 years from the date a certificate of occupancy is issued; and C.be eligible for federal housing choice vouchers. 2.5.4. Requirements for Ownership Housing. If owner occupied housing is included in a PUD, dwelling units equal to at least five percent of the bonus area square footage within the PUD must be: A.affordable to a household whose income is 80 percent or below the median family income in the Austin metropolitan statistical area; and B.affordable in perpetuity from the date a certificate of occupancy is issued; and C.transferred to the owner subject to a shared equity agreement, land trust, or restrictive covenant approved by the Director of the Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department. 2.5.5.   Alternative Affordable Housing Options. A developer of a residential project may request an exception to the contract commitments and performance guarantees in Section 2.5.3 (Requirements for Rental Housing) and Section 2.5.4 (Requirements for Ownership Housing) as follows: A.Subject to approval by the Director of the Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department, the developer may provide to the Austin Housing Finance Corporation land within the PUD that is appropriate and sufficient to develop 20 percent of the residential habitable square footage planned for the PUD; or B.Subject to approval by the city council, the developer may provide all or a portion of the amount established under Section 2.5.6 (In Lieu Donation) for each square foot of bonus square footage above baseline to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be used for producing or financing affordable housing, as determined by the Director of the Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department. C.A request to pay a fee in lieu to meet all or a portion of the residential affordability requirement in Section 2.5.2.B must be submitted in writing to the Director of Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department, must include supporting documentation sufficient to demonstrate the infeasibility of compliance with Section 2.5.2.B., and must be approved by city council as provided in Section 2.5.5.B above. D.Regardless of whether a developer requests an exception under this section, the Director of Neighborhood Housing and Community Development may recommend that a developer be allowed to pay a fee in lieu in order to comply with the contract commitments and performance guarantees in Section 2.5.3 (Requirements for Rental Housing) and Section 2.5.4 (Requirements for Ownership Housing). The recommendation must be in writing, supported by the Director's reasons as to why the fee in lieu option is appropriate, and approved by city council to be effective. E.Council approval of any alternative affordable housing project shall expire 36 months after the date of approval if the project has not been initiated. In the hypothetical situation of applying the Tier 2 standards a PUD baseline would first have to be set. The original Statesman PUD ordinance entitled the site to roughly 600,000 square feet. The proposed PUD amendment is requesting an entitlement of approximately 3,500,000 square feet. That would equate to an estimated bonus area of 2,900,000. Applying the Tier 2 affordability formula this would mean an estimated 290,000 square foot of affordable rental space and 145,000 square foot of affordable ownership space. It would depend on the development how many units the affordable square footage would equate to. The current PUD amendment proposal for affordable housing is 4% of the total number of residential units which is estimated to be 55 units. Open Space/Parks and Trails As proposed, would the park design go through a public design process? RESPONSE: No. At this time there is no such process proposed. As included on a chart the applicant has submitted, the PUD proposal describes “a pier, a boardwalk, and one hardened water access point.” Would staff recommend these elements be included in the public park? RESPONSE FROM PARD AND WPD: Yes, contingent on support from WPD. WPD supports strategically located hardened access points to allow for access to the lake and to help guide pedestrians away from natural areas in order to help protect those areas from foot traffic. As such WPD supports a pier and the steps to the water as shown on the plan. WPD does have concerns about the boardwalk however, due to both over development of the shoreline as well as the future need for a floodplain variance that such a structure would later require. The Applicant lists these as elements of superiority; are they proposing to fund construction of these elements? RESPONSE: No. These elements are not committed to with the PUD. It is the Department’s understanding that the applicant stated that these would be funded by the TIRZ (Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone). If not, what is the estimated cost of these elements? RESPONSE: A 2020 report prepared by Endeavor and verified at that date in time by a third-party consultant estimated these costs: Boardwalk: $3,587,850. Pier: $737,240 Water Theater (Concrete Steps / Seatwall at Water’s Edge): $800,000 Does this proposal meet the superiority requirements for parkland as described by the Parkland Dedication Ordinance with regard to PUDs? (That ordinance appears to require a certain amount of land, a parks plan approved by PARD, and the developer to pay costs of park development.) RESPONSE: The park amenities exhibit is a vision document. The Department has an understanding that the developer has committed to completion of rough grading, reconstruction of the trail, revegetation, irrigation, and water quality ponds. Within the current PUD documents there is a list of other park elements. To date, the Parks and Recreation Department does not have a single formalized agreement or plan outlining specifics. The requirement for land is met by land dedication and fees in lieu. The requirement for the developer to build the park is met, however, the developer has proposed that the bulk of funding would come from the TIRZ. When viewed in totality (from a Parks perspective), the PUD meets superiority. The “hardened water access” is suggested to be a series of steps into the lake; how will these be maintained so that they are free from zebra mussels? Which entity would bear the responsibility for such maintenance and which entity would bear the costs? RESPONSE: Maintenance of the park will be addressed with a parks maintenance agreement and clarification would be needed on whether this maintenance includes the water steps. The mechanics of maintaining this feature are unknown at this time. Environment The PUD proposes to draw water from Lady Bird Lake for irrigation as a primary source of non- potable water to be used for irrigation. On page 68, the South Central Waterfront Plan (approved 2 years *before* Water Forward) describes a different method for irrigation: irrigation from rainwater, air conditioning condensate, and treated greywater. Does staff recommend this method of irrigation? RESPONSE: WPD fully supports the goals and objectives of the Water Forward plan. Provided none of the irrigation from on-site water will occur within the 100-year-floodplain or Critical Water Quality Zone, reusing water from on-site sources is preferrable to drawing from a source of water that has been identified in the plan as important component maintaining the City’s future water supply. Which Water Forward strategies does this PUD incorporate? Please provide a list of any other Water Forward goals and elements that Staff would recommend incorporating into the PUD. RESPONSE: Pending Jerry Rusthoven Chief Zoning Officer Housing and Planning Department City of Austin, Texas 512-974-3207 Council Member Kathie Tovo Q/A 4.5.22 Item 69 Affordable Housing Please indicate the percentage, MFI levels, and time period that would be required for affordable housing under Tier 2 PUD requirements and provide that as a comparison to the current PUD proposal. RESPONSE: Open Space/Parks and Trails As proposed, would the park design go through a public design process? RESPONSE: No. At this time there is no such process proposed. As included on a chart the applicant has submitted, the PUD proposal describes “a pier, a boardwalk, and one hardened water access point.” Would staff recommend these elements be included in the public park? RESPONSE FROM PARD AND WPD: Yes, contingent on support from WPD. WPD supports strategically located hardened access points to allow for access to the lake and to help guide pedestrians away from natural areas in order to help protect those areas from foot traffic. As such WPD supports a pier and the steps to the water as shown on the plan. WPD does have concerns about the boardwalk however, due to both over development of the shoreline as well as the future need for a floodplain variance that such a structure would later require. The Applicant lists these as elements of superiority; are they proposing to fund construction of these elements? RESPONSE: No. These elements are not committed to with the PUD. It is the Department’s understanding that the applicant stated that these would be funded by the TIRZ (Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone). If not, what is the estimated cost of these elements? RESPONSE: A 2020 report prepared by Endeavor and verified at that date in time by a third- party consultant estimated these costs: Boardwalk: $3,587,850. Pier: $737,240 Water Theater (Concrete Steps / Seatwall at Water’s Edge): $800,000 Does this proposal meet the superiority requirements for parkland as described by the Parkland Dedication Ordinance with regard to PUDs? (That ordinance appears to require a certain amount of land, a parks plan approved by PARD, and the developer to pay costs of park development.) RESPONSE: The park amenities exhibit is a vision document. The Department has an understanding that the developer has committed to completion of rough grading, reconstruction of the trail, revegetation, irrigation, and water quality ponds. Within the current PUD documents there is a list of other park elements. To date, the Parks and Recreation Department does not have a single formalized agreement or plan outlining specifics. The requirement for land is met by land dedication and fees in lieu. The requirement for the developer to build the park is met, however, the developer has proposed that the bulk of funding would come from the TIRZ. When viewed in totality (from a Parks perspective), the PUD meets superiority. The “hardened water access” is suggested to be a series of steps into the lake; how will these be maintained so that they are free from zebra mussels? Which entity would bear the responsibility for such maintenance and which entity would bear the costs? RESPONSE: The Applicant has agreed to maintain the park proper, and clarification would be needed on whether this maintenance includes the water steps. The mechanics of maintaining this feature are unknown at this time. Environment The PUD proposes to draw water from Lady Bird Lake for irrigation as a primary source of non- potable water to be used for irrigation. On page 68, the South Central Waterfront Plan (approved 2 years *before* Water Forward) describes a different method for irrigation: irrigation from rainwater, air conditioning condensate, and treated greywater. Does staff recommend this method of irrigation? RESPONSE: WPD fully supports the goals and objectives of the Water Forward plan. Provided none of the irrigation from on-site water will occur within the 100-year-floodplain or Critical Water Quality Zone, reusing water from on-site sources is preferrable to drawing from a source of water that has been identified I the plan as important component maintaining the City’s future water supply. Which Water Forward strategies does this PUD incorporate? Please provide a list of any other Water Forward goals and elements that Staff would recommend incorporating into the PUD. RESPONSE: Staff are neutral on the question of utilizing their LCRA contract to use lake water for irrigation, which is a form of alternative water source from potable water and not entirely inconsistent with the South Central Waterfront plan. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Importance: Rivera, Andrew Rhoades, Wendy; Rusthoven, Jerry; Harden, Joi Camara, Karina FW: Q&A Item 69 Wednesday, April 6, 2022 9:44:42 AM High FYI From: Powers, Catie <catie.powers@austintexas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 9:37 AM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov>; Thompson, Lucy [CMO] <Lucy.Thompson2@austintexas.gov>; Camara, Karina <Karina.Camara@austintexas.gov> Cc: Roberts, Kaycie <Kaycie.Roberts@austintexas.gov>; Gallegos, Cassandra <Cassandra.Gallegos@austintexas.gov> Subject: Q&A Item 69 Importance: High Hi all, looks like CM Vela posted some questions on the message board, but we need to process them as Q&A. Lucy, there are some homeless related questions here, can you loop in appropriate APH folks and have them start working on a response? 1. Approximately how much money could the City gain if we leveraged the PUD agreement to request the cash value of the on-site subsidized housing? 2. How quickly could those additional funds be put to use to help our homeless neighbors after the PUD agreement is finalized? What are the biggest barriers to using these funds quickly? 3. In what ways could those funds be used? How many people could be housed, and for how long? Given that the City already has relationships with hotel owners, would this money be sufficient to lease and operate one or more hotels until permanent housing is available? 4. Currently, the HEAL initiative has a goal of housing 200 people, a small fraction of the number of people who need our help. How much money would be needed to house the actual homeless population of Austin? 5. Roughly what proportion of camp closures does the City conduct without providing housing through the HEAL initiative? 6. When a camp is closed without housing support, where do the residents go? How does this displacement affect social services and outreach? 7. Do we have sufficient funding to house all the people displaced by the City’s camp closures this year? 8. When will the permanent supportive housing funded through ARPA funds begin to become available? How many units will be available and on what timetable? Catie Powers Council Agenda Process Manager  City Manager’s Office From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Harden, Joi Rivera, Andrew Rhoades, Wendy; Rusthoven, Jerry FW: Q&A for Item 69 Thursday, April 7, 2022 2:46:48 PM image001.png Andrew, Will you please send the response below to the appropriate staff? Thanks! Best, Joi Harden, AICP Division Manager|Zoning and Urban Design City of Austin, Housing and Planning Department O: (512) 974-1617 Please note: E-mail correspondence to and from the City of Austin is subject to required disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act. From: Radtke, Alex <Alex.Radtke@austintexas.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 1:13 PM To: Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov> Cc: Rusthoven, Jerry <Jerry.Rusthoven@austintexas.gov>; May, James <James.May@austintexas.gov> Subject: RE: Q&A for Item 69 Hey Joi, Below is our response to CM Vela’s question: 1. Approximately how much money could the City gain if we leveraged the PUD agreement to request the cash value of the on-site subsidized housing? Pending The cash value of the on-site affordable restricted rental units has not been studied and to calculate the true value would mean taking into consideration the 40-year restricted affordability term on the affordable rental units. HPD and the developer came to an agreement to value the affordable restricted ownership units at $450,000 per unit. If the $450,000 per unit multiplier was used for both unit types then based on the developer’s estimated 55 affordable unit set aside the resulting cash value would be $24,750,000. Alex Radtke Project Coordinator Housing and Planning Department Street-Jones Building 1000 E 11th Street, Ste 200, 78702 Tel: 512-974-2108 Office Hours: Mon – Thurs 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m., Out on Friday’s From: Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 12:02 PM To: Radtke, Alex <Alex.Radtke@austintexas.gov> Cc: Rhoades, Wendy <Wendy.Rhoades@austintexas.gov>; Rusthoven, Jerry <Jerry.Rusthoven@austintexas.gov> Subject: FW: Q&A for Item 69 Hi Alex, Thanks for taking the time to speak with me. Below is the question that was referred to the Housing and Planning Department. Thanks! Best, Joi Harden, AICP Division Manager|Zoning and Urban Design City of Austin, Housing and Planning Department O: (512) 974-1617 Please note: E-mail correspondence to and from the City of Austin is subject to required disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act. From: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 11:01 AM To: Rusthoven, Jerry <Jerry.Rusthoven@austintexas.gov>; Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov>; Rhoades, Wendy <Wendy.Rhoades@austintexas.gov> Subject: FW: Q&A for Item 69 Do we have a response to this question? 1. Approximately how much money could the City gain if we leveraged the PUD agreement to request the cash value of the on-site subsidized housing? Pending Setbacks and Land Use Map 25 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LINE 432.57’ ELEVATION ACCORDING TO COA RAS MODEL HALF CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE SETBACK LINE 50’ FROM SHORELINE ’ 0 5 1 CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE SETBACK LINE 100’ FROM SHORELINE PRIMARY SETBACK LINE 90’-150’ FROM SHORELINE ’ 0 5 1 ’ 0 5 90’ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SHORELINE 429’ ELEVATION AREA 1 AREA 2 AREA 1 AREA 2 INCLUDE PARK LAND INUNDATED LAND BARTON SPRING EXTENSION INTERNAL PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS PLAZA/LANDSCAPE AREAS DEVELOPABLE PARCELS S O U T H C O N G R E S S A V E N U E PRIVATE DRIVE: MINIMUM 170' DISTANCE FROM BARTON SPRINGS INTERSECTION B A RT O N S P RIN G S R O A D 0 100’ 200’ 300’ 150’ 50’ 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LINE 440.88’ ELEVATION ACCORDING TO COA RAS MODEL PRIMARY SETBACK LINE 150’ FROM SHORELINE SECONDARY SETBACK LINE 50’ FROM PRIMARY SETBACK LINE 15 0’ LADY BIRD LAKE POTENTIAL FUTURE CAPMETRO STATION PRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVE: MINIMUM 100' DISTANCE FROM LANEWAY C INTERSECTION Site Boundary (821,517 sf/18.86 acre) Area 2: Future Barton Springs R.O.W. (83,815 sf/1.92 acre) Area 2: Developable Parcel (307,098 sf/7.05 acre) Area 1: Park Land (284,447 sf/6.53 acre, which in- cludes the inundated land.) Area 1: Inundated Land (24,342 sf / 0.56 acres) Area 2: Internal Private Driveway (77,078 sf/1.77 acre) Area 2: Plaza/Landscape Area (69,233 sf/1.59 acre) 5 / 8 Submitted: July 24, 2019Updated: June 26, 2020Updated: July 9, 2021Updated: December 7, 2021Updated: January 31, 2022Updated: April 6, 2022Updated: April 14, 2021305 S. CONGRESS PUDCASE NUMBER: C814-89-0003.02Updated: October 12, 2020Updated: June 1, 2022305 S. Congress Avenue Sub Area Height Map Open Space C O N G R E S S A V E N U E Lady Bird Lake Sub Area 1 Maximum Building Height: 525’ Sub Area 2 Maximum Building Height: 485’ Sub Area 3 Maximum Building Height: 250’ S ub Area 1 Sub Area 2 S reaAub 3 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD 305 S. CONGRESS AVENUEMAY 25, 2021 Property Boundary and Right of Way Map S O U T H C O N G R E S S A V E N U E B A RT O N S P RIN G S R O A D 0 100’ 200’ 300’ Site Boundary (821,517 sf/18.86 acre) Area 2: Future Barton Springs R.O.W. (83,815 sf/1.92 acre) BOUNDARY LINE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN CITY OF AUSTIN AND MILLER AND TRUSTEE VOL. 2221, PG. 69 VOL. 4297, PG. 439 VOL. 4439, PG. 1203 VOL. 4435, PG. 1744 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SHORELINE 429’ ELEVATION LADY BIRD LAKE 3 / 8 Submitted: July 24, 2019Updated: June 26, 2020Updated: July 9, 2021Updated: December 7, 2021Updated: January 31, 2022Updated: April 6, 2022Updated: April 14, 2021305 S. CONGRESS PUDCASE NUMBER: C814-89-0003.02Updated: October 12, 2020Updated: June 1, 2022Street Sections and Internal Private Driveway Typical Sections Congress Avenue A A’ D’ C’ D E’ E C B’ B C C’ STREET SECTION A-A’ SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE EDGE CONDITION Note: Congress Avenue section represents the condition where the finished floor of the new development aligns with the adjacent elevation of Congress Avenue. INTERNAL PVT DRIVEWAY SECTION C-C’ ENTRY STREET TYPICAL SECTION 66' WIDE i e n L y t r e p o r P 66' 10' 30' 66' e n i l b r u C e n i l b r u C e n i l b r u C e n i l b r u C Active Ground Floor Active Ground Floor Active Ground Floor 30' PEDESTRIAN + LANDSCAPE PEDESTRIAN 6'-6" 2' VEHICULAR LANE BIKE LANE AND BUFFER SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE 11' 7' 10' 10' 7' 11' PEDESTRIAN LANDSCAPE/ DROP OFF 18' LANDSCAPE/ DROP OFF PEDESTRIAN 18' STREET SECTION B-B’ BARTON SPRINGS AVENUE TYPICAL SECTION 58' WIDE INTERNAL PVT DRIVEWAY SECTION D-D’ SHARED STREET TYPICAL SECTION 66' WIDE 69' 58' 305 S Congress Avenue Property 11' Easement i e n L y t r e p o r P s e n i l b r u C s e n i l b r u C Congress Avenue FUTURE SIDEWALK FUTURE LANDSCAPE TWO-WAY BIKE LANE LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK EASEMENT 10' 10' 10' 2' 8' 8' 11' 10' 50' CURB-TO-CURB 11' 7' 10' 10' 10' 7' 11' PEDESTRIAN LANDSCAPE BIKE/PEDESTRIAN ZONE LANDSCAPE PEDESTRIAN 18' 30' 18' SHARED ZONE PEDESTRIAN + TRAFFIC LANES PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY TYPICAL SECTION E-E’ 45' WIDE Active Ground Floor Active Ground Floor Rooftop Active Ground Floor 12' 25' 8' CAFE ZONE SIGNATURE WALK (FIRE LANE ACCESS) CAFE ZONE 45' 4 / 8 67' Option with bike track Bike Track - near term Rooftop Active Ground Floor Submitted: July 24, 2019Updated: June 26, 2020Updated: July 9, 2021Updated: December 7, 2021Updated: January 31, 2022Updated: April 6, 2022Updated: April 14, 2021305 S. CONGRESS PUDCASE NUMBER: C814-89-0003.02Updated: October 12, 2020Updated: June 1, 2022BARTON SPRINGS ROAD SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE DRIVEWAY BDRIVEWAY ADRIVEWAY CConceptual Open Space Map WATER QUALITY FEATURE / UNDERGROUND CISTERN 25 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LINE 432.57’ ELEVATION ACCORDING TO COA RAS MODEL GREAT LAWN PIER WATER STEPS TREE 1450 . X A M " 0 - ' 0 7 30'-0" MAX. 40'-0" MAX. CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE SETBACK LINE 100’ FROM SHORELINE HALF CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE SETBACK LINE 50’ FROM SHORELINE WATER QUALITY FEATURE / RAIN GARDEN 35''-0" MAX. TREE 1402 TREES 1396-7 6 75'-0" M A X. 70'-0" X. A M BOARDWALK WATER STEPS CONCEPTUAL DETAIL GREAT STEPS PRIVATE DRIVE: MINIMUM 170' DISTANCE FROM BARTON SPRINGS INTERSECTION S O U T H C O N G R E S S A V E N U E NOTES: 1. The location and size of all improvements shown on this Exhibit are approximate and subject to change based upon final design. 2. Location and size of improvements shown on the plan may be modified and approved administratively by city staff, so long as such modification is in accordance with Section 3.1.3. Such modification must be approved by the Parks Department and Watershed Protection. 3. The average width of the trail will be up to 15 feet. In conjunction with the Environmental Protection and Restoration Plan, shoreline improvements include the removal of all non-native, invasive species and the following native trees: Tag # Species DBH (in.) 1086 1087 1396 1397 1402 1450 Sycamore American Elm Sycamore American Elm American Elm American Elm 16 10 10 11 8 14 Note: This table does not represent a comprehensive list of trees located within the PUD that will be affected by the redevelopment of the Property. B A RT O N S P RIN G S R O A D 0 100’ 200’ 300’ Site Boundary (821,517 sf/18.86 acre) Plaza/Landscape Area (69,233 sf/1.59 acre) MULTI-USE TRAIL PLAY AREA TREES 1086-7 LADY BIRD LAKE WATER QUALITY FEATURE / RAIN GARDEN 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LINE 440.88’ ELEVATION ACCORDING TO COA RAS MODEL PRIMARY SETBACK LINE 150’ FROM SHORELINE SECONDARY SETBACK LINE 50’ FROM PRIMARY SETBACK LINE PRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVE: MINIMUM 100' DISTANCE FROM LANEWAY C INTERSECTION PROPOSED FUTURE PROJECT CONNECT RAIL LINE AND/OR STA- TION Park Land (284,447 sf/6.53 acre, which includes the inundated land.) *PARKLAND AREA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LOCATION AND DESIGN OF CAPMETRO STATION 6 / 8 Submitted: July 24, 2019Updated: June 26, 2020Updated: July 9, 2021Updated: December 7, 2021Updated: January 31, 2022Updated: April 6, 2022Updated: April 14, 2021305 S. CONGRESS PUDCASE NUMBER: C814-89-0003.02Updated: October 12, 2020Updated: June 1, 2022305 S. Congress Avenue Conceptual Phasing Plan S O U T H C O N G R E S S A V E N U E PHASE 1 PHASE 2 LANEWAY B L A N E W A Y A L A N E W A Y C PHASE 3 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD 100’ 200’ 400’ EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION LEGEND 2 9 5 2 - 8 9 2 ) 2 1 5 ( x a F 4 8 2 3 - 8 9 2 ) 2 1 5 ( . l e T 2 2 0 2 t h g i r y p o C © C L L , C M E a z r a G 9 2 6 4 1 - F # E P B T 5 2 1 e t i u S l , . d v B o t l a R 8 0 7 7 i 5 3 7 8 7 s a x e T , n i t s u A I N O S V E R I . O N E T A D I T N E M N G L A E R L I A R T N A L P T C A R T N A M S E T A T S S A X E T , I N T S U A , S S E R G N O C H T U O S 5 0 3 E T A T S E L A E R R O V A E D N E P U O R G 3 0 0 0 0 - 1 3 2 1 0 1 : . O N T C E J O R P : Y B D E N G S E D I : Y B N W A R D : C Q / A Q SHEET EXH OF M A 7 3 9 2 2 : , 1 n u J n o l a r b a e d p y b d e i f i d o m g w d H X E . t f i h S l i a r T - 3 0 0 0 0 - 1 3 2 1 0 1 \ S T B H X E D A C - 0 0 \ l i I \ I i v C \ 3 0 0 0 0 - 1 3 2 1 0 1 \ : V SP-2020- 305 S. CONGRESS PUD Environmental Protection and Restoration Plan Environmental Protection and Restoration Plan UNDERGROUND RAINWATER CISTERN BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL PIER FOR BAT VIEWING 305 S. CONGRESS PUD Environmental Protection and Restoration Plan HALF CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE (50' FROM SHORELINE) BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL PIER FOR BAT VIEWING CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE (100' FROM SHORELINE) UNDERGROUND RAINWATER FORMAL WATER CISTERN ACCESS TO REDUCE TRAMPLING* FORMAL WATER ACCESS TO REDUCE TRAMPLING* BOARDWALK FOR BAT HALF CRITICAL WATER QUALITY VIEWING ZONE (50' FROM SHORELINE) CRITICAL WATER QUALITY LADY BIRD LAKE ZONE (100' FROM SHORELINE) SHORELINE (429') BOARDWALK FOR BAT VIEWING LADY BIRD LAKE 100 YEAR FLOOD SHORELINE (429') (440.88' - COA RAS MODEL) L L a a d d y Bir y Bir L L a a d d 100 YEAR FLOOD (440.88' - COA RAS MODEL) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION* ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION* d L d L y Bir y Bir a a k k e e d L d L a a k k e e 0 100 ft ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ELEMENTS 0 100 ft ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ELEMENTS Herbaceous Riparian GSI with Pollinator and Prairie Plants Floodplain Forest Cistern CASE NUMBER C814-89-003.02 Herbaceous Riparian GSI with Pollinator and Prairie Plants Floodplain Forest Cistern * final location determined during site plan process Study Area Environmental Protection* Wetland Fringe Study Area Environmental Protection* Wetland Fringe * final location determined during site plan process CASE NUMBER C814-89-003.02 Notes: 1. Environmental protection and enhanced cultural experience: A major threat to environmental superiority of the site is the regular degradation of areas due to heavy use of the property by the public to view the bats and access the water. To accommodate additional park users, reduce trampling of restored areas, create additional bat viewing areas, and improve the views of Lady Bird Lake and the downtown Austin skyline, this project proposes to construct a pier; a boardwalk, and one hardened water access point. By directing users to these landscape features, other parts of the open space can be protected, restored, and maintained to create Notes: an environmentally superior site. Please refer to the Open Space Map for maximum 1. Environmental protection and enhanced cultural experience: shoreline amenity dimensions. A major threat to environmental superiority of the site is the regular degradation of areas due to heavy use of the property by the public to view the bats and access the 2. Bat conservation: water. To accommodate additional park users, reduce trampling of restored areas, The project will protect the Austin Bat Colony by using dark sky compliant lighting create additional bat viewing areas, and improve the views of Lady Bird Lake and the (as defined in Note 62 on Sheet 8) within 75’ of the shoreline, creating safe vantages downtown Austin skyline, this project proposes to construct a pier; a boardwalk, and one hardened water access point. By directing users to these landscape features, for bat viewing that do not disturb bat behavior, maintaining the bald cypress other parts of the open space can be protected, restored, and maintained to create fringe along the shoreline critical for bat navigation, and maintaining an area free an environmentally superior site. Please refer to the Open Space Map for maximum of trees directly east of the Congress Avenue Bridge at the lakeshore for bats to shoreline amenity dimensions. congregate before flight. The applicant will also continue to coordinate with local bat The project will protect the Austin Bat Colony by using dark sky compliant lighting conservation groups for best practices during the design and construction phases of (as defined in Note 62 on Sheet 8) within 75’ of the shoreline, creating safe vantages the project. for bat viewing that do not disturb bat behavior, maintaining the bald cypress fringe along the shoreline critical for bat navigation, and maintaining an area free of trees directly east of the Congress Avenue Bridge at the lakeshore for bats to wetland plantings: congregate before flight. The applicant will also continue to coordinate with local bat conservation groups for best practices during the design and construction phases of used to protect the wetland fringe and floodplain forest adjacent to the trail and will the project. include at least 800 linear feet of protection. wetland plantings: 3. Protect critical environmental features, floodplain forest, and A combination of split rail fence, cable fence, boulders, and/or equivalent will be 3. Protect critical environmental features, floodplain forest, and 2. Bat conservation: 4. Restore floodplain forest: A combination of split rail fence, cable fence, boulders, and/or equivalent will be 4. Restore floodplain forest: Restore at least 1 acre of riparian woodland forest between the water edge and used to protect the wetland fringe and floodplain forest adjacent to the trail and will include at least 800 linear feet of protection. the trail. Restoration includes the invasive species removal (Ligustrum, Nandina, Chinaberry, Chinese tallow, Arundo, Japanese honeysuckle, lacebark elm, tree of Restore at least 1 acre of riparian woodland forest between the water edge and heaven, English Ivy, Asian Jasmine, Vitex, and poison ivy along with other invasives the trail. Restoration includes the invasive species removal (Ligustrum, Nandina, will occupy no more to less than 5% vegetative cover), temporary irrigation, soil Chinaberry, Chinese tallow, Arundo, Japanese honeysuckle, lacebark elm, tree of amendments where needed (up to 3” of native compost gently raked into upper heaven, English Ivy, Asian Jasmine, Vitex, and poison ivy along with other invasives will occupy no more to less than 5% vegetative cover), temporary irrigation, soil surface), planting 500 native herbaceous and ground cover plants (1 gallon) planted amendments where needed (up to 3” of native compost gently raked into upper in clumps 18" on center, as well as seeding 28 pounds of native riparian seed. surface), planting 500 native herbaceous and ground cover plants (1 gallon) planted in clumps 18" on center, as well as seeding 28 pounds of native riparian seed. The wetland fringe is shaded out by invasive understory and is trampled in numerous The wetland fringe is shaded out by invasive understory and is trampled in numerous areas. Restoration of the 1,000 square feet of wetland fringe will entail the removal of areas. Restoration of the 1,000 square feet of wetland fringe will entail the removal of invasive species as described above in note 4 and begin the establishment of wetland invasive species as described above in note 4 and begin the establishment of wetland plants where feasible with a total planting of at least 15 obligate and facultative plants where feasible with a total planting of at least 15 obligate and facultative wetland species, planting at least 200 one gallon containers in up to 10 clumps. wetland species, planting at least 200 one gallon containers in up to 10 clumps. 5. Restore and enhance the wetland fringe: 5. Restore and enhance the wetland fringe: 7. Pollinator plants: 8. Sustainable management plan: 6. Restore riparian herbaceous vegetation: 6. Restore riparian herbaceous vegetation: At least 800 square feet of herbaceous riparian vegetation will be planted adjacent to At least 800 square feet of herbaceous riparian vegetation will be planted adjacent to Congress Avenue Bridge between the trail and the lake to keep the area open for the bats and to add plant diversity. The planting will include at least 300 plants (1 gallon) Congress Avenue Bridge between the trail and the lake to keep the area open for the planted in clumps 18" on center to reduce weeds and will include physical barriers to bats and to add plant diversity. The planting will include at least 300 plants (1 gallon) help minimize trampling. Preparation of the area will include woody species removal, planted in clumps 18" on center to reduce weeds and will include physical barriers to invasive species removal, soil amendments as necessary, and temporary irrigation help minimize trampling. Preparation of the area will include woody species removal, installation. 7. Pollinator plants: invasive species removal, soil amendments as necessary, and temporary irrigation The project will include at least 30 native pollinator and prairie species (both planted installation. and seeded) in green stormwater infrastructure that covers at least 0.75 acre of the site. The project will include at least 30 native pollinator and prairie species (both planted The applicant is committed to creating a sustainable land management plan for and seeded) in green stormwater infrastructure that covers at least 0.75 acre of the the site in coordination with appropriate entities that could include the Trail site. Foundation, bat conservation organizations, South Central Waterfront entities, and others. The plan will use an adaptive management framework that focuses on an enhanced user experience and ecological functionality that results in long-term, The applicant is committed to creating a sustainable land management plan for sustainable management of the site. At a minimum, the land management plan the site in coordination with appropriate entities that could include the Trail will include bi-annual management of invasive species (as listed above), increases in Foundation, bat conservation organizations, South Central Waterfront entities, and diversity through planting and seeding, ensuring native vegetative cover, and annual monitoring. others. The plan will use an adaptive management framework that focuses on an enhanced user experience and ecological functionality that results in long-term, sustainable management of the site. At a minimum, the land management plan will include bi-annual management of invasive species (as listed above), increases in diversity through planting and seeding, ensuring native vegetative cover, and annual monitoring. 8. Sustainable management plan: 7/8 7/8 7 / 8 Submitted: July 24, 2019Updated: June 26, 2020Updated: July 9, 2021Updated: December 7, 2021Updated: January 31, 2022Updated: April 6, 2022Updated: April 14, 2021305 S. CONGRESS PUDCASE NUMBER: C814-89-0003.02Updated: October 12, 2020Updated: June 1, 2022South CongreSSSouth CongreSSSouth CongreSSSouth CongreSSTREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR landscape architects, planners & designers 1705 guadalupe street suite 500 austin, tx 78701 [512] 327-1011 tbgpartners.com project 305 South Congress - PUD Tree Preservation Plan 305 South Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78731 project number A20224 issue date March 21, 2022 designed: drawn: reviewed: XXX XXX XXX sheet title permit overall site plan sheet L.00 OVERALL PLAN 1 0' 30' 60' 120' SCALE: 1"=60' N O R T H MATCHLINE: REF. 1/L.02 TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") landscape architects, planners & designers 1705 guadalupe street suite 500 austin, tx 78701 [512] 327-1011 tbgpartners.com EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES project 305 South Congress - PUD Tree Preservation Plan 305 South Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78731 project number A20224 issue date March 21, 2022 designed: drawn: reviewed: XXX XXX XXX sheet title permit site plan sheet L.01 3 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M 8 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 KEY MAP 0' 10' 20' 40' SCALE: 1"=20' N O R T H MATCHLINE: REF. 1/L.02 TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") landscape architects, planners & designers 1705 guadalupe street suite 500 austin, tx 78701 [512] 327-1011 tbgpartners.com EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES project 305 South Congress - PUD Tree Preservation Plan 305 South Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78731 project number A20224 issue date March 21, 2022 designed: drawn: reviewed: XXX XXX XXX sheet title permit site plan sheet L.02 LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 KEY MAP 0' 10' 20' 40' SCALE: 1"=20' N O R T H 3 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M 8 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M MATCHLINE: REF. 1/L.02 TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES landscape architects, planners & designers 1705 guadalupe street suite 500 austin, tx 78701 [512] 327-1011 tbgpartners.com project 305 South Congress - PUD Tree Preservation Plan 305 South Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78731 project number A20224 issue date March 21, 2022 designed: drawn: reviewed: XXX XXX XXX sheet title permit site plan sheet L.03 3 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M 8 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 KEY MAP 0' 10' 20' 40' SCALE: 1"=20' N O R T H MATCHLINE: REF. 1/L.02 TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") landscape architects, planners & designers 1705 guadalupe street suite 500 austin, tx 78701 [512] 327-1011 tbgpartners.com EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES project 305 South Congress - PUD Tree Preservation Plan 305 South Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78731 project number A20224 issue date March 21, 2022 designed: drawn: reviewed: XXX XXX XXX sheet title permit site plan sheet L.04 3 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M 8 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 KEY MAP 0' 10' 20' 40' SCALE: 1"=20' N O R T H MATCHLINE: REF. 1/L.02 TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") landscape architects, planners & designers 1705 guadalupe street suite 500 austin, tx 78701 [512] 327-1011 tbgpartners.com EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES project 305 South Congress - PUD Tree Preservation Plan 305 South Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78731 project number A20224 issue date March 21, 2022 designed: drawn: reviewed: XXX XXX XXX sheet title permit site plan sheet L.05 3 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M 8 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 KEY MAP 0' 10' 20' 40' SCALE: 1"=20' N O R T H MATCHLINE: REF. 1/L.02 TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") landscape architects, planners & designers 1705 guadalupe street suite 500 austin, tx 78701 [512] 327-1011 tbgpartners.com EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES project 305 South Congress - PUD Tree Preservation Plan 305 South Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78731 project number A20224 issue date March 21, 2022 designed: drawn: reviewed: XXX XXX XXX sheet title permit site plan sheet L.06 3 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M 8 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 KEY MAP 0' 10' 20' 40' SCALE: 1"=20' N O R T H MATCHLINE: REF. 1/L.02 TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) TREE LEGEND: EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO REMAIN (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE RELOCATED (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING KEYSTONE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR (Appendix F below 19") EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING NON APPENDIX F TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1/4 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED FOR EXISTING TREE LEGEND: "H" REPRESENT HERITAGE TREES landscape architects, planners & designers 1705 guadalupe street suite 500 austin, tx 78701 [512] 327-1011 tbgpartners.com project 305 South Congress - PUD Tree Preservation Plan 305 South Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78731 project number A20224 issue date March 21, 2022 designed: drawn: reviewed: XXX XXX XXX sheet title permit site plan sheet L.07 3 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M 8 0 . L / 1 . F E R : E N I L H C T A M LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 KEY MAP 0' 10' 20' 40' SCALE: 1"=20' N O R T H 305 S. Congress Mixed Use PUD Austin, Travis County, Texas Job Number: A20224 DEAD OR POOR M ULTI-TRU N K TAG# *removed HERITAGE SPECIES P X X X X 799 800* 801 806 809 810 812 813 817 819 820 822 823 825 826 827 829* 830* 831* 832 833 834 835 836 837* 838* 839* 840* 841* 842* 843* 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK HACKBERRY PECAN LIVE OAK PECAN AMERICAN ELM AMERICAN ELM AMERICAN ELM PECAN LIVE OAK LIVE OAK CEDAR ELM CEDAR ELM LIVE OAK HACKBERRY LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK SPANISH OAK BALD CYPRESS LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK 7 9 18 CAL 1 17 12 17 16 16 21 36 13 12 13 22 24 27 17 16 22 8 17 18 26 14 16 24 22 15 16 10 17 10 17 12 22 26 20 17 22 15 18 11 10 18 17 20 23 14 24 15 20 11 X X 13 X X X X TREE LIST / MITIGATION CALCULATIONS - PROPOSED (APPENDIX F) Heritage Trees Trees Removed ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories Heritage Trees Trees Preserved ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories CAL 2 CAL 3 CAL 4 CAL 5 CAL 6 HERITAGE 30"+ HERITAGE 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" NON APPDX- F <8" APDX-F <8" I E TREE HEALTH GRADED AS POOR V S A V N I HERITAG E 30"+ HERITAG E 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" 17 NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" NON APPDX-F <8" I E V S A V N I APDX-F <8" APDX-F TREES INSTALLAED PER SPC-2014- 0356C INVASIVE CALIPER INCHES IN RED POOR HEALTH TREES IN BLUE TOTAL APPENDIX F PRESERVATION RATE: 77.36% 15.5 8 17 18 15 16 10 17 10 17 12 (=) 17.0 15.5 21.5 16.0 16.0 20.5 45.0 13.0 12.0 13.0 22.0 23.5 27.0 17.0 16.0 22.0 8.0 17.0 18.0 25.5 14.0 16.0 23.5 22.0 15.0 16.0 10.0 17.0 10.0 17.0 12.0 22.0 25.5 20.0 17.0 22.0 15.0 24.5 11.0 10.0 18.0 17.0 19.5 23.0 14.0 23.5 15.0 20.0 11.0 45 21.5 20.5 22 23.5 22 23.5 22 22 20 22 19.5 23 23.5 20 27 25.5 25.5 24.5 16 16 13 12 13 17 16 14 16 17 15 11 10 18 17 14 15 11 DEAD OR POOR M ULTI-TRU N K TAG# *removed HERITAGE SPECIES CAL 1 CAL 2 CAL 3 CAL 4 CAL 5 CAL 6 HERITAGE 30"+ HERITAGE 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" 17 <8" NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" APDX-F NON APPDX- F <8" I E TREE HEALTH GRADED AS POOR V S A V N I HERITAG E 30"+ HERITAG E 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" NON APPDX-F <8" I E V S A V N I APDX-F <8" APDX-F TREES INSTALLAED PER SPC-2014- 0356C Heritage Trees Trees Removed ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories Heritage Trees Trees Preserved ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories X X X X X X 865* 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889* 890* 891* 892* 893* 894 895 896* 897* 898 899 900* 901* 902* 903* 904* 905* 906* 908* 909* 910* 912* 914* 915* 916* 917* 918* 919* 920* 921* 922* 923* LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK SPANISH OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 17 14 19 18 18 14 23 22 18 18 21 18 33 18 25 27 25 18 18 15 18 25 22 15 11 15 11 15 11 13 17 15 20 26 14 19 17 21 24 19 9 15 16 16 18 15 18 10 23 16 11 19 14 18 11 10 (=) 17.0 14.0 18.5 18.0 18.0 14.0 22.5 22.0 18.0 18.0 21.0 18.0 33.0 18.0 25.0 26.5 24.5 18.0 18.0 15.0 18.0 24.5 21.5 15.0 11.0 15.0 11.0 15.0 11.0 13.0 17.0 15.0 20.0 25.5 14.0 19.0 17.0 21.0 23.5 19.0 9.0 15.0 16.0 16.0 18.0 15.0 18.0 10.0 23.0 16.0 11.0 19.0 14.0 18.0 11.0 10.0 20 19 21 23.5 19 23 19 11 15 11 15 11 15 17 9 15 16 16 18 15 18 10 16 11 14 18 11 10 33 25 26.5 24.5 24.5 25.5 22.5 22 21 21.5 14 18.5 18 18 14 18 18 18 18 18 18 15 18 15 13 17 14 DEAD OR POOR M ULTI-TRU N K TAG# *removed HERITAGE CAL 1 CAL 2 CAL 3 CAL 4 CAL 5 CAL 6 HERITAGE 30"+ HERITAGE 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" NON APPDX- F <8" APDX-F <8" I E TREE HEALTH GRADED AS POOR V S A V N I HERITAG E 30"+ HERITAG E 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" NON APPDX-F <8" I E V S A V N I APDX-F <8" APDX-F TREES INSTALLAED PER SPC-2014- 0356C Heritage Trees Trees Removed ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories Heritage Trees Trees Preserved ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories X 15 15 P P P P P P P P SPECIES LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK YAUPON HOLLY LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK YAUPON HOLLY SPANISH OAK SPANISH OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK AMERICAN ELM LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK BALD CYPRESS HACKBERRY LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK TEXAS MOUNTAIN LAUREL LIVE OAK 924* 925* 926* 927* 928* 929* 930* 931* 932* 933* 934* 935* 936* 937 938 939* 940* 941* 942 943 944* 945* 946* 947* 948* 949* 950 951 952* 955* 957* 958* 959* 960* 961* 962* 964* 965* 966* 967* 968* 969* 970* 973* 974* 975* 976 978 980 981* 982* 983* 985* 987* 991* 998* 12 12 12 9 9 9 20 19 17 12 10 11 11 12 12 15 11 18 16 19 15 13 12 15 11 13 13 15 10 16 13 11 20 13 17 9 12 8 12 18 9 18 11 11 8 8 8 16 25 12 8 9 9 16 10 17 X (=) 12.0 12.0 12.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 20.0 19.0 17.0 12.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 12.0 12.0 15.0 11.0 18.0 16.0 34.0 15.0 13.0 12.0 15.0 11.0 13.0 13.0 15.0 10.0 16.0 13.0 11.0 20.0 13.0 17.0 9.0 12.0 8.0 12.0 18.0 9.0 18.0 11.0 11.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 16.0 24.5 12.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 16.0 10.0 17.0 20 19 20 12 12 12 9 9 9 17 12 10 11 11 15 11 18 15 13 12 15 11 13 10 16 13 11 13 17 9 12 8 12 18 9 18 11 11 8 8 12 8 9 9 16 10 17 34 24.5 12 12 16 13 15 8 16 DEAD OR POOR M ULTI-TRU N K TAG# *removed HERITAGE CAL 1 CAL 2 CAL 3 CAL 4 CAL 5 CAL 6 HERITAGE 30"+ HERITAGE 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" APDX-F NON APPDX- F <8" I E TREE HEALTH GRADED AS POOR V S A V N I 12 <8" HERITAG E 30"+ HERITAG E 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" NON APPDX-F <8" I E V S A V N I APDX-F <8" APDX-F TREES INSTALLAED PER SPC-2014- 0356C Heritage Trees Trees Removed ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories Heritage Trees Trees Preserved ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories 18 20.5 SPECIES LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS YAUPON HOLLY YAUPON HOLLY SPANISH OAK LIVE OAK HACKBERRY PECAN PECAN PECAN LIVE OAK LIVE OAK HACKBERRY LIVE OAK BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS CEDAR ELM BALD CYPRESS AMERICAN ELM BALD CYPRESS AMERICAN ELM AMERICAN ELM BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS AMERICAN SYCAMORE BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS AMERICAN SYCAMORE BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS BALD CYPRESS AMERICAN SYCAMORE 999* 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017* 1018 1019* 1022 1023 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1033 1034 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1052 1053 1054 1055 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 P 12 16 22 11 16 9 11 8 10 30 18 11 14 13 13 27 18 11 21 27 21 23 22 19 18 37 22 24 23 14 19 12 15 23 11 30 33 21 23 17 30 11 27 16 20 24 9.5 25 13 10 23 22 23 20 10 17 X X X X X X X X X X X (=) 12.0 16.0 22.0 11.0 16.0 9.0 11.0 8.0 10.0 29.5 18.0 11.0 14.0 13.0 13.0 26.5 18.0 11.0 20.5 27.0 21.0 22.5 22.0 19.0 18.0 37.0 22.0 24.0 23.0 14.0 19.0 11.5 14.5 21.0 10.5 29.5 33.0 21.0 23.0 16.5 30.0 11.0 27.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 9.5 25.0 13.0 10.0 22.5 22.0 23.0 20.0 10.0 16.5 37 33 30 22 21 22.5 22 19 22 23 19 21 21 23 20 22.5 22 23 20 29.5 26.5 27 24 29.5 27 24 25 16 11 16 9 11 8 10 18 11 14 13 13 11 18 14 11.5 14.5 10.5 16.5 11 16 9.5 13 10 10 16.5 DEAD OR POOR M ULTI-TRU N K TAG# *removed HERITAGE P Heritage Trees Trees Removed ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories Heritage Trees Trees Preserved ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories CAL 1 CAL 2 CAL 3 CAL 4 CAL 5 CAL 6 HERITAGE 30"+ HERITAGE 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" NON APPDX- F <8" APDX-F <8" I E TREE HEALTH GRADED AS POOR V S A V N I HERITAG E 30"+ HERITAG E 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" NON APPDX-F <8" I E V S A V N I APDX-F <8" APDX-F TREES INSTALLAED PER SPC-2014- 0356C 16 10 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SPECIES BALD CYPRESS 1065 BALD CYPRESS 1066 BALD CYPRESS 1067 BALD CYPRESS 1068 BALD CYPRESS 1069 BALD CYPRESS 1070 EASTERN COTTONWOOD 1072 AMERICAN ELM 1073 BALD CYPRESS 1074 BALD CYPRESS 1075 BALD CYPRESS 1076 BALD CYPRESS 1077 EASTERN COTTONWOOD 1078 BALD CYPRESS 1079 CEDAR ELM 1080 AMERICAN ELM 1081 BALD CYPRESS 1082 BALD CYPRESS 1083 BLACK WILLOW 1084 1085 AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1086* AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1087* AMERICAN ELM BALD CYPRESS 1088 AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1089 BALD CYPRESS 1090 BALD CYPRESS 1091 AMERICAN ELM 1092 AMERICAN ELM 1093 BLACK WILLOW 1094 BLACK WILLOW 1095 AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1096 BALD CYPRESS 1097 BALD CYPRESS 1098 BALD CYPRESS 1099 AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1100 BALD CYPRESS 1101 BALD CYPRESS 1102 BALD CYPRESS 1103 BALD CYPRESS 1104 BALD CYPRESS 1105 BALD CYPRESS 1106 BALD CYPRESS 1107 BLACK WILLOW 1108 BALD CYPRESS 1383 BALD CYPRESS 1384 BALD CYPRESS 1385 BALD CYPRESS 1386 BALD CYPRESS 1387 BALD CYPRESS 1388 BALD CYPRESS 1389 BALD CYPRESS 1390 BALD CYPRESS 1391 AMERICAN ELM 1392 BALD CYPRESS 1393 AMERICAN ELM 1394 BALD CYPRESS 1395 9 8 28 27 30 31 11 10 27 31 14 30 19 19 10 9 26 26 14 16 16 10 31 8 22 15 8 8 15 13 13 22 30 29 14 31 26 32 31 27 29 35 15 17 44 32 22 29 33 37 35 29 13 36 13 22 (=) 9.0 8.0 28.0 27.0 29.5 31.0 11.0 10.0 26.5 31.0 14.0 29.5 19.0 19.0 10.0 9.0 26.0 26.0 14.0 16.0 16.0 10.0 31.0 8.0 22.0 15.0 8.0 8.0 14.5 13.0 13.0 22.0 30.0 29.0 14.0 31.0 26.0 32.0 31.0 27.0 29.0 35.0 15.0 17.0 44.0 32.0 22.0 29.0 33.0 38.0 35.0 29.0 13.0 36.0 13.0 22.0 28 27 29.5 26.5 29.5 26 26 29 26 27 29 29 29 31 31 31 30 31 32 31 35 44 32 33 38 35 36 9 8 11 10 14 10 9 14 16 8 15 8 8 14.5 13 13 14 15 17 13 13 19 19 22 22 22 22 DEAD OR POOR M ULTI-TRU N K TAG# *removed HERITAGE CAL 1 CAL 2 CAL 3 CAL 4 CAL 5 CAL 6 HERITAGE 30"+ HERITAGE 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" NON APPDX- F <8" APDX-F <8" I E TREE HEALTH GRADED AS POOR V S A V N I HERITAG E 30"+ HERITAG E 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" NON APPDX-F <8" I E V S A V N I APDX-F <8" APDX-F TREES INSTALLAED PER SPC-2014- 0356C Heritage Trees Trees Removed ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories Heritage Trees Trees Preserved ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories 10 11 8 13.5 SPECIES AMERICAN SYCAMORE BALD CYPRESS CEDAR ELM 1396* AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1397* AMERICAN ELM 1399 1400 1401 1402* AMERICAN ELM AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1403 CEDAR ELM 1404 BALD CYPRESS 1405 BALD CYPRESS 1406 BALD CYPRESS 1407 BALD CYPRESS 1408 BALD CYPRESS 1409 BALD CYPRESS 1410 CEDAR ELM 1411 LIVE OAK 1412 HACKBERRY 1413 PECAN 1414 LIVE OAK 1415 BALD CYPRESS 1416 BALD CYPRESS 1417 BALD CYPRESS 1418 HACKBERRY 1419 AMERICAN ELM 1420 BALD CYPRESS 1421 PECAN 1422* PECAN 1423 BALD CYPRESS 1424 AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1425 BALD CYPRESS 1426 BALD CYPRESS 1427 BALD CYPRESS 1428 BALD CYPRESS 1429 BALD CYPRESS 1430 AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1431 PECAN 1432 AMERICAN ELM 1433 BALD CYPRESS 1434 AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1435 HACKBERRY 1436 HACKBERRY 1437 AMERICAN ELM 1438 BALD CYPRESS 1439 AMERICAN ELM 1440 PECAN 1441 AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1442 AMERICAN ELM 1443 BALD CYPRESS 1444 AMERICAN SYCAMORE 1445 BALD CYPRESS 1446 HACKBERRY 1447 BALD CYPRESS 1448 1450* AMERICAN ELM P 10 11 10 22 9 8 17 8 23 32 21 17 32 15 8 19 11 19 8 27 37 10 9 20 29 14 14 31 19 24 28 23 39 18 27 23 14 29 14 8 19 8 22 18 26 11 14 47 19 23 8 40 14 X X X X X X X X X X X X (=) 10.0 11.0 10.0 22.0 9.0 8.0 17.0 8.0 23.0 32.0 21.0 17.0 32.0 15.0 8.0 19.0 11.0 19.0 8.0 26.5 37.0 10.0 9.0 20.0 29.0 13.5 14.0 31.0 19.0 23.5 27.5 23.0 39.0 18.0 26.5 23.0 14.0 29.0 14.0 8.0 18.5 8.0 22.0 18.0 25.5 11.0 14.0 47.0 19.0 23.0 8.0 40.0 14.0 0 0 0 26.5 29 27.5 26.5 29 25.5 22 23 21 19 19 20 19 23.5 23 23 22 19 23 10 9 17 8 17 15 8 11 8 10 9 14 18 14 14 8 18.5 8 18 11 14 8 32 32 37 31 39 47 40 14 0 0 0 Heritage Trees Trees Removed ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories Heritage Trees Trees Preserved ECM 3.5.1 (A)(2) - Tree Type Categories DEAD OR POOR M ULTI-TRU N K TAG# *removed HERITAGE SPECIES CAL 1 CAL 2 CAL 3 CAL 4 CAL 5 CAL 6 HERITAGE 30"+ HERITAGE 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" (=) 0 NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" NON APPDX- F <8" APDX-F <8" I E TREE HEALTH GRADED AS POOR V S A V N I HERITAG E 30"+ HERITAG E 24"+ APDX-F 19" & UP APDX-F 8"-18.9" 0 0 224 1109 0 0 0 0 0 0 940 991 1137.5 1487.5 0 0 0 0 APDX-F TREES INSTALLAED PER SPC-2014- 0356C NON- APDX-F 19" & UP NON APPDX-F 8"-18.9" APDX-F NON APPDX-F <8" I E V S A V N I <8" 0 0 0 4556 Total cal. inch removed per category: Grand Total Cal. Inch Removed: COA Minimum Replacement replace @ % Subtotal Replacement Inches: Total Replacement: (cal. Inches) 1333 300% 0.0 300% 0.0 100% 224.0 50% 554.5 50% 0.0 25% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 100% 0.0 779 Tree REMOVAL Accounting Summary Total Caliper Inches Surveyed 5,889 Tree PRESERVATION Accounting Summary 5,889 Total Caliper Inches Surveyed Total heritage cal. inches 30"+ removed 0 Total heritage cal. inches 24"+ removed 0 Total cal. inches removed, Appendix F, 19" & up 224 Total cal. inches removed, Appendix F, 8"-18.9" 1109.0 Total cal. inches removed, NON-Appendix F, 19" & up 0 Total cal. inches removed, NON-Appendix F, 8"-18.9" 0 Total cal. inches removed, Appendix F, <8" 0 Total cal. inches removed, NON-Appendix F, <8" 0 Total cal. inches removed, Invasives 0 940 Total heritage cal. inches 30"+ preserved 991 Total heritage cal. inches 24"+ preserved 1137.5 Total cal. Inches preserved, Appendix F, 19" & up 1487.5 Total cal. Inches preserved, Appendix F, 8"-18.9" 0 Total cal. Inches preserved, NON-Appendix F, 19" & up 0 Total cal. Inches preserved, NON-Appendix F, 8"-18.9" 0 Total cal. Inches preserved, Appendix F, <8" 0 Total cal. Inches preserved, NON-Appendix F, <8" 0 Total cal. Inches preserved, Invasives Total cal Inches removed: 1333 4556 Total cal Inches PRESERVED TOTAL APPENDIX F PRESERVATION RATE: 77.36% PROTECTED TREE APPENDIX F PRESERVATION RATE: 83.55% TREE LEGEND: PROPOSED STREET TREE 'TYPE A' PROPOSED STREET TREE 'TYPE B' PROPOSED STREET TREE 'TYPE C' PROPOSED STREET TREE 'TYPE D' PROPOSED STREET TREE 'TYPE E' landscape architects, planners & designers 1705 guadalupe street suite 500 austin, tx 78701 [512] 327-1011 tbgpartners.com project 305 South Congress - PUD Street Tree Plan 305 South Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78731 project number A20224 issue date March 21, 2022 sheet title street trees sheet L.01 OVERALL PLAN 1 0' 30' 60' 120' SCALE: 1"=60' N O R T H 821,517 sf / 18.858 acres Breakdown Total Acres Total GSF Percentage Land Use Summary Future Barton Springs Road Extension Internal Private Driveways Public Realm Park Land ** Plaza / Landscape Area R.O.W. Open Space Total Public Realm Area Development Parcel Total Developable Area Developable Land Total Land Area ** Park Land includes inundated land totaling 0.56 acres / 24,342 sf 1.92 1.77 6.53 1.59 11.81 7.03 7.03 18.86 83,815 77,078 284,447 69,233 514,573 307,098 307,098 821,517 10.2% 9.4% 34.6% 8.4% 62.6% 37.4% 37.4% 100% Residential Hotel Commercial Office 1,378 units 275 keys 150,000 gsf 1,500,000 gsf Land use and intensities may change so long as development subject to the PUD adheres to the limitations outlined in the TIA dated July 2, 2021 Data Table and Notes Total Site Area Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Maximum Height Maximum Impervious Cover * Maximum Building Coverage Maximum Floor Area Ratio * Minimum Setbacks 5,750 sf 50 feet 525 feet 68% 55% 4.3 : 1 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet Front Yard Street Side Yard Interior Side Yard Rear Yard * Impervious cover, building coverage, and floor-to-area is based on gross site area of all of the land within the PUD. * Impervious cover and building coverage will be higher on a parcel by parcel calculation. NOTES: 1. The maximum height of any structure within Area 2 shall not exceed 525 feet from finished grade. Professional Office Exceptions from the maximum height limit under 25-2-531 shall apply. • Recreational Equipment Maint. & Stor. 2. The maximum height of any structure within Area 1 shall not exceed 35 feet from finished grade. • Recreational Equipment Sales Exceptions from the maximum height limit under 25-2-531 shall apply. • Research Assembly Services Intentionally omitted. 3. 4. Section 25-2-491 (Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses) is modified to allow so that following uses are conditional uses within Area 2: • General Warehousing and Distribution • Light Manufacturing • Limited Warehousing and Distribution 5. 5. In addition to the uses described in Section 25-2-691 (Waterfront Overlay (WO) District Uses), Theater the following are additional pedestrian-oriented uses allowed in Area 2: • Administrative and Business Offices 6. Section 25-2-491 (Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses) is modified so that the following • Day Care Services (Limited) • Automotive Sales • Automotive Rentals • Automotive Repair Services • Financial Services • Hotel – Motel Indoor Entertainment Indoor Sports/Recreation • Medical Offices – exceeding 5,000 sq. ft. gross floor area • Medical Office – not exceeding 5,000 sq. ft. gross floor area Personal Improvement Services Personal Services Pet Services Professional Office • Recreation and Equipment Sales Theater Transportation Terminal Temporary Uses Described in Section 25-2-921 • Veterinary Service • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • uses are permitted uses within Area 2: • Bed & Breakfast (Group 1) • Bed & Breakfast (Group 2) • Condominium Residential • Multifamily Residential Townhouse Residential Short-Term Rental (Types 1 and 3) • Administrative and Business Office • Art Gallery • Art Work Shop • Automotive Sales • Automotive Rentals • Automotive Repair Services • Business or Trade School • Business Support Services • Cocktail Lounge • Commercial Off-Street Parking • Communications Services • Consumer Convenience Services • Consumer Repair Services • Convenience Storage Electronic Prototype Assembly Electronic Testing Financial Services Food Preparation Food Sales • General Retail Sales (Convenience) • General Retail Sales (General) • Hotel-Motel Indoor Entertainment Indoor Sports and Recreation • Kennels Laundry Services Liquor Sales • Marina • Off-Site Accessory Parking • Outdoor Entertainment • Outdoor Sports and Recreation Pedicab Storage and Dispatch Personal Improvements Services Personal Services • Medical Offices – exceeding 5,000 sq. ft. gross floor area • Medical Office – not exceeding 5,000 sq. ft. gross floor area • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Pet Services Plant Nursery • Research Services • Restaurant (General) • Restaurant (Limited) Service Station Stables Software Development • Vehicle Storage • Veterinary Services • Custom Manufacturing • Community Garden • Indoor Crop Production • Urban Farm • Administrative Services • Camp • Club or Lodge • College and University Facilities • Communication Service Facilities • Community Events • Community Recreation (Private) • Community Recreation (Public) • Congregate Living • Convalescent Services • Counseling Services • Cultural Services • Day Care Services (Commercial) • Day Care Services (General) • Family Home • Group Home, Class I (General) • Group Home, Class I (Limited) • Group Home, Class II • Hospital Services (General) • Hospital Services (Limited) • Local Utility Services • Maintenance and Service Facilities Park and Recreation Services (General) Park and Recreation Services (Special) Private Primary Educational Facilities Private Secondary Educational Facilities Public Primary Educational Facilities Public Secondary Educational Facilities • Religious Assembly Safety Services Telecommunication Tower 7 Transportation Terminal Lake. 7. The construction of the water steps shall not be considered placement of fill within Lady Bird 8. New site controls will be constructed to meet or exceed current requirements for the limits of construction of each phase and the impervious cover within the respective phase. 9. Electrical easements shall be required for all developments. Their location and size on-site will be mutually determined at the subdivision plat/site plan submittal and may require more space than minimum building setback. 10. Riparian restoration, including removal of invasive species, is allowed as long as it does not destabilize the shoreline and is done as part of a restoration plan submitted for review and approved by the Watershed Protection Department. 11. A minimum of 9 points will be achieved by participation in the City’s Carbon Statement Pilot 12. Impervious cover will be reduced in the CWQZ by 10.07%, in the primary setback by 35.44% Program. and the secondary setback by 4%. 13. Signage and wayfinding will be used to provide information on Bat Conservation, Water Quality and Riparian Restoration, Tree Preservation and Relocation, and Pollinator Plants. 8 / 8 Submitted: July 24, 2019Updated: June 26, 2020Updated: July 9, 2021Updated: December 7, 2021Updated: January 31, 2022Updated: April 6, 2022Updated: April 14, 2021305 S. CONGRESS PUDCASE NUMBER: C814-89-0003.02Updated: October 12, 2020Updated: June 1, 2022