Planning Commission - Aug. 9, 2022

Planning Commission Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission

02 NPA-2022-0007.01 - 10810 Newmont Rd; District 4.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 2 pages

City of Austin Housing and Plannin g Department P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 -1088 (512) 974-3100 ♦ Fax (512) 974-3112 ♦ www .c ity o fau s tin .o rg/ h ou s in g MEMORANDUM TO: Todd W. Shaw, Chair & Planning Commission Members August 2, 2022 Maureen Meredith, Senior Planner, Inclusive Planning Division Housing and Planning Department NPA-2022-0007.01_10810 Newmont Rd North Austin Civic Association Neighborhood Planning Area (No zoning application has been filed at this time) FROM: DATE: RE: Staff requests a postponement of this case from the August 9, 2022 Planning Commission hearing to the September 27, 2022 hearing date to allow additional time for the applicant to file the associated zoning application. The postponement request was made in a timely manner and meets the Planning Commission’s policy. Attachment: Plan Amendment Map The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request. 1 of 22 The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request. 2 of 22

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 5:30 a.m.

03 NPA-2022-0017.01 - Crestview Village; District 7.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 2 pages

City of Austin Housing and Plannin g Department P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 -1088 (512) 974-3100 ♦ Fax (512) 974-3112 ♦ www .c ity o fau s tin .o rg/ h ou s in g MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Todd W. Shaw, Chair & Planning Commission Members Maureen Meredith, Senior Planner, Inclusive Planning Division Housing and Planning Department August 2, 2022 NPA-2022-0017.01_Crestview Village 6916, 6926, 6928 N. Lamar Blvd and 808, 810, 812, 906 Justin Ln Crestview/Wooten Combined Neighborhood Planning Area Staff requests a postponement of this case from the August 9, 2022 Planning Commission hearing to the September 27, 2022 hearing date to allow staff additional time to review the application. The postponement request was made in a timely manner and meets the Planning Commission’s policy. Attachment: Plan Amendment Map The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request. The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request.

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 5:30 a.m.

04 NPA-2022-0020.01 - Industrial Blvd and Terry O Ln; District 3.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 2 pages

City of Austin Housing and Plannin g Department P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 -1088 (512) 974-3100 ♦ Fax (512) 974-3112 ♦ www .c ity o fau s tin .o rg/ h ou s in g Todd W. Shaw, Chair & Planning Commission Members Maureen Meredith, Senior Planner, Inclusive Planning Division Housing and Planning Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: August 2, 2022 NPA-2022-0020.01_Industrial Blvd & Terry O Lane 439-511 & 515 INDUSTRIAL BLVD (odd #s only) & 4208 Terry O Lane South Congress Combined Neighborhood Planning Area Staff requests a postponement of this case from the August 9, 2022 Planning Commission hearing to the September 27, 2022 hearing date to allow staff additional time to review the application. The postponement request was made in a timely manner and meets the Planning Commission’s policy. Attachment: Plan Amendment Map The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request. 4 The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request. 4

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 5:30 a.m.

05 NPA-2022-0026.01 - 8226-8240 Georgian Drive; District 4.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 2 pages

City of Austin Housing and Plannin g Department P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 -1088 (512) 974-3100 ♦ Fax (512) 974-3112 ♦ www .c ity o fau s tin .o rg/ h ou s in g MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Todd W. Shaw, Chair & Planning Commission Members Maureen Meredith, Senior Planner, Inclusive Planning Division Housing and Planning Department DATE: August 2, 2022 RE: NPA-2022-0026.01_8226-8240 Georgian Drive North Lamar/Georgian Acres Combined Neighborhood Planning Area Staff requests a postponement of this case from the August 9, 2022 Planning Commission hearing to the September 27, 2022 hearing date to allow staff additional time to review the application. The postponement request was made in a timely manner and meets the Planning Commission’s policy. Attachment: Plan Amendment Map The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request. 5 The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request. 5

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 5:30 a.m.

06 C14H-2022-0078 - Miller-Long House; District 9.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 76 pages

ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET HLC DATE: July 6, 2022 PC DATE: August 9, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C14H-2022-0078 ADDRESS OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: 813 Park Boulevard APPLICANT: O’Connell Architecture, LLC HISTORIC NAME: Miller-Long House WATERSHED: Waller Creek ZONING CHANGE: SF-3-CO-NP to SF-3-CO-NP-H COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the proposed zoning change from family residence (SF-3) – conditional overlay (CO) – neighborhood plan (NP) to family residence (SF-3) – conditional overlay (CO) – neighborhood plan (NP) – historic landmark (H) combining district zoning. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Architecture and historical associations HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend historic zoning (Koch/Myers, 10-0) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: CITY COUNCIL DATE: ACTION: ORDINANCE READINGS: ORDINANCE NUMBER: CASE MANAGER: Kalan Contreras, 512-974-2727 NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District, Austin Lost and Found Pets, Austin Neighborhoods Council, CANPAC (Central Austin Neigh Plan Area Committee), Central Austin Community Development Corporation, Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, Hancock Neighborhood Assn., Homeless Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation, North Austin Neighborhood Alliance, Preservation Austin, SELTexas, Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The 2021 North Loop-Hancock-Boggy Creek historic resource survey recommends the property as eligible for local landmark designation, a contributing resource to a potential local historic district, individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and contributing to a potential National Register Historic District. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION: Architecture: The Miller-Long House demonstrates significance in the categories of Architecture as a beautiful example of the Tudor Revival style popular from 1890-1940 and specific to the Perry Estate Addition, developed by D.W English in 1928. The home’s massing and detailing are representative of the Tudor Revival style, with a steeply pitched frontfacing gable with wing, a smaller gable nested within the larger one, shed dormers, arched detailing, and distinctive patterned brickwork. The material pallet of variegated brick, stucco, steel casement windows and Tudor-styled entry doors. The original roof was wood shingles but is now composition shingle. The interior paneling and woodwork are intact as other interior features, including Tudor arches over interior doorways, built-in cabinetry, a brick fireplace with a Tudor arch and a decorative surround embellished with a floral and drape relief. The asymmetrical design of the front façade is typical of the style after 1920. A detached garage is located just southwest of the main house and dates to the same period of construction as the main house. The garage matches the house in form, roof pitch and wall materials, and …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 5:30 a.m.

07 C14H-2022-0073 - Westgate Tower; District 9 Part 1.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 124 pages

HLC DATE: July 6, 2022 PC DATE: August 9, 2022 ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CASE NUMBER: C14H-2022-0073 ADDRESS OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: 1122 Colorado Street APPLICANT: Brian Evans, Westgate Condominium Association HISTORIC NAME: Westgate Tower WATERSHED: Lady Bird Lake ZONING CHANGE: CBD to CBD-H COUNCIL DISTRICT: 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the proposed zoning change from Central Business District (CBD) zoning to Central Business District – Historic Landmark (CBD-H) combining district zoning. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Architecture and historical associations: The Westgate Tower is an excellent example of New Formalism, is the only building in Austin designed by architect Edward Durell Stone, and has served as a model for mixed-use building.1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: 2012 – recommend historic zoning; 2022 – recommend historic zoning PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: CITY COUNCIL DATE: N/A ORDINANCE READINGS: N/A CASE MANAGER: Kalan Contreras, 974-2727 ACTION: N/A ORDINANCE NUMBER: N/A NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District, Austin Lost and Found Pets,Austin Neighborhoods Council, Central Austin CommunityDevelopment Corporation, City of Austin Downtown Commission,Downtown Austin Alliance, Downtown Austin Neighborhood Assn.(DANA), Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, Homeless NeighborhoodAssociation, Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation, PreservationAustin, SELTexas, Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2010. Land Development Code §25-2-352(A)(3)(a) states that City Council may designate a historic landmark if it retains integrity, is over 50 years old, and is individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Historic Landmark Commission recommended historic zoning in 2012; however, the application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to Planning Commission hearing. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION: §25-2-352(A)(3)(a) The property is individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places; or is designated as a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark, State Archeological Landmark, or National Historic Landmark. The building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2010. §25-2-352(A)(3)(b)(i) Architecture. The property embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a recognized architectural style, type, or method of construction; exemplifies technological innovation in design or construction; displays high artistic value in representing ethnic or folk art, architecture, or construction; represents a rare example of an architectural style in the city; serves as an outstanding example of the work of an architect, builder, or artisan who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation; possesses cultural, historical, or architectural value as a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian or vernacular structure; or represents …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 5:30 a.m.

07 C14H-2022-0073 - Westgate Tower; District 9 Part 3.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 120 pages

A.4 - 1 ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET HLC DATE: PC DATE: September 24, 2012 CASE NUMBER: C14H-2012-0089 APPLICANT: Westgate Condominium Association HISTORIC NAME: The Westgate Tower WATERSHED: Lady Bird Lake ADDRESS OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: 1122 Colorado Street ZONING FROM: CBD to CBD-H SUMMARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the proposed zoning change from Central Business District (CBD) zoning to Central Business District – Historic Landmark (CBD-H) combining district zoning. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION: The Westgate Tower is an excellent example of the New Formalism approach to modern architecture, is the only building in Austin designed by internationally-known architect Edward Durell Stone, and has served as a model for continued mixed-use growth in the city, combining residential, commercial, and social uses in the same building. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The building is not listed in the Comprehensive Cultural Resources Survey (1984) because of its age. ACTION: PHONE: 974-6454 ORDINANCE NUMBER: CITY COUNCIL DATE: ORDINANCE READINGS: 1ST 2ND 3RD CASE MANAGER: Steve Sadowsky NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION: Downtown Austin Neighborhood Association BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION: Architecture: The Westgate Tower was designed by internationally-known New York architect Edward Durell Stone in 1962; the building was completed under the supervision of prominent local architects Fehr and Granger in 1966. It is an excellent example of the New Formalism in the modern movement of architecture in the 1960s, as espoused by Stone, who was known throughout the world for his high-rise buildings that combined verticality with the monumental scale, refinement, and ornamentation of Classical building styles. The Westgate, named for its location just west of the State Capitol grounds, also served Stone’s philosophy of building up-scale residential buildings in park-like settings in or near downtown areas, luring wealthy residents away from single-family houses in the suburbs. Stone was concerned that most high-rise architecture of the era was sole solution to A.4 - 2 overdevelopment where going up was the only way to develop a site that was otherwise overbuilt already. The location of the Westgate Tower provided Stone the opportunity to express the ideals of downtown living with a green setting. The Westgate was also innovative in several other ways, providing a model for future central city development – combining residential and commercial uses, and a necessary amenity in the modern era – an integral parking garage that formed a significant part of the entire composition rather than as an auxiliary, utilitarian structure. …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 5:31 a.m.

Planning Commission August 9 2022 Agenda.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 9 pages

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, August 9, 2022 The Planning Commission will convene at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at City Hall, Board and Commissions Room 1101 301 W. Second Street, Austin, TX. Some members of the Planning Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Greg Anderson Awais Azhar Grayson Cox Yvette Flores – Secretary Claire Hempel – Vice-Chair Patrick Howard Jennifer Mushtaler Solveij Rosa Praxis Carmen Llanes Pulido Robert Schneider Todd Shaw – Chair James Shieh – Parliamentarian Jeffrey Thompson Ex-Officio Members Arati Singh – AISD Board of Trustees Jessica Cohen – Chair of Board of Adjustment Spencer Cronk - City Manager Richard Mendoza - Director of Public Works EXECUTIVE SESSION (No public discussion) The Planning Commission will announce it will go into Executive Session, if necessary, pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, to receive advice from Legal Counsel on matters specifically listed on this agenda. The Commission may not conduct a closed meeting without the approval of the city attorney. Private Consultation with Attorney – Section 551.071 Attorney: Steven Maddoux, 512-974-6080 Commission Liaison: Andrew Rivera, 512-974-6508 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION The first four (4) speakers signed up prior to the commencement of the meeting will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of July 27, 2022. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Plan Amendment: Location: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: Postponement Request 3. Plan Amendment: Location: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: Postponement Request NPA-2022-0007.01 - 10810 Newmont Rd; District 4 10810 Newmont Road, Little Walnut Creek Watershed; North Austin Civic Association (NACA) NP Area 10810 Newmont Apartments, LLC (Kinereth Polner) Kim Polner From Single Family to Multifamily Residential land use Pending Maureen Meredith, 512-974-2695, maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov Housing and Planning Department Staff postponement request to September 27, 2022 NPA-2022-0017.01 - Crestview Village; District 7 6916, 6926, 6928 N. Lamar Blvd and 808, 810, 812, 906 Justin Ln, Waller Creek Watershed; Crestview/Wooten Combined and Lamar/Justin Station Area Plan 3423 HOLDINGS LLC (Peter Barlin, Manager) Armbrust & Brown, PLLC (Michael Gaudini) To amend the Lamar/Justin Station Area Plan to allow a maximum building height of 160 feet on the subject tract. The existing land use on the future land use map is Specific Regulating District. There is no proposed change to the future land use map. Pending …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 8 p.m.

08 C14H-2022-0099 - Delisle House; District 10 Part 1.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 100 pages

ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET HLC DATE: July 6, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C141H-2022-0099 PC DATE: 8/9/2022 ADDRESS OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: 2002 Scenic Drive APPLICANT: Historic Landmark Commission (owner-opposed) HISTORIC NAME: Delisle House WATERSHED: Lady Bird Lake ZONING CHANGE: SF-3-NP to SF-3-H-NP COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the proposed zoning change from family residence – neighborhood plan (SF-3-NP) zoning to family residence – historic landmark – neighborhood plan (SF-3-H-NP) combining district zoning. Should the Commission decide against recommendation over owner objection, require completion of a City of Austin Documentation Package prior to permit release. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Architecture, landscape features, and historical associations HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend historic zoning based on architectural significance, landscape features, and historical associations, on a motion by Commissioner Koch. Commissioner Tollett seconded the motion. Vote: 10-0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: CITY COUNCIL DATE: ORDINANCE READINGS: CASE MANAGER: Kimberly Collins, 974-2727 ACTION: ORDINANCE NUMBER: NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Lost and Found Pets, Austin Neighborhoods Council, Central West Austin Neighborhood Plan Contact Team, Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation, Preservation Austin, SELTexas, Save Barton Creek Assn., Save Historic Muny District, Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group, TNR BCP - Travis County Natural Resources, Tarrytown Alliance, Tarrytown Neighborhood Association, West Austin Neighborhood Group DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: A valid petition against historic zoning has been filed by the owner’s agent. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION: §25-2-352(A)(3)(b)(i) Architecture. The property embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a recognized architectural style, type, or method of construction; exemplifies technological innovation in design or construction; displays high artistic value in representing ethnic or folk art, architecture, or construction; represents a rare example of an architectural style in the city; serves as an outstanding example of the work of an architect, builder, or artisan who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation; possesses cultural, historical, or architectural value as a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian or vernacular structure; or represents an architectural curiosity or one-of-a-kind building. A property located within a local historic district is ineligible to be nominated for landmark designation under the criterion for architecture unless it possesses exceptional significance or is representative of a separate period of significance. The primary building is a good example of Spanish eclectic architecture with Modern-style Fehr and Granger influences. The accessory structure is a unique example of eclectic, mid-century, and Gothic Revival architecture; it features unique Mansbendel keystones throughout. It appears …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 8 p.m.

08 C14H-2022-0099 - Delisle House; District 10 Part 2.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 35 pages

2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E , E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S | J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 3 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Site Diagram A p a r t m e n t J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 5 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Site Diagram 1. 2. APARTMENT EXTERIOR 1. ROOF DAMAGE INDICATED BY DISPLACED, DAMAGAGED AND MISSING SHINGLES. HOLES IN THE ROOF POINT TO BROAD WATER DAMAGE WITHIN AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO STRUCTURE. 2. WOOD WINDOWS - JAMBS, SILLS, AND FRAME ARE ROTTED. BROKEN PANES THROUGHOUT. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 6 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Apartment - Exterior 1. 2. APARTMENT EXTERIOR 1. METAL IS RUSTED AND VINES ARE ENTERING INTO APARTMENT. 2. WOOD WINDOWS - JAMBS, SILLS, AND FRAME ARE ROTTED. BROKEN PANES THROUGHOUT. VINES ARE OVERGROWN AND ARE ENTERING INTO THE INTERIOR. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 7 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Apartment - Exterior 1. 2. APARTMENT EXTERIOR 1. THE ROOF IS FALLING APART AND IS SHOWING SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE. 2. THE ROOF IS SLANTING, WHICH IS A SIGN OF STRUCTURAL FAILURE AND MATERIAL DETERIORATION. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 8 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Apartment - Exterior …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 8 p.m.

09 C8J-2022-0177 - Easton Park Section 4B Preliminary Plan; District 2.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 13 pages

SUBDIVISION REVIEW SHEET LOT(S): 3 COUNTY: Travis AGENT: Carlson, Brigance, and Doering,Inc (AJ Zorn) PC DATE: August 9, 2022 JURISDICTION: Limited Purpose (Charles Brigance) CASE NO.: C8J-2022-0177 SUBDIVISION NAME: Easton Park Section 4B East Preliminary Plan AREA: 21.067 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: Carma Easton, LLC ADDRESS OF SUBDIVISION: William Cannon and Finial GRIDS: L12 WATERSHED: North Fork Dry Creek EXISTING ZONING: Planned Unit Development (PUD) MUD PLAN: Pilot Knob MUD PROPOSED LAND USE: Mixed Residential, greenbelt/open space/drainage easement lots, and public ROW VARIANCES: None SIDEWALKS: Sidewalks will be provided along all internal streets and the boundary street. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The request is for the approval of the Easton Park 4B East Preliminary Plan. The plan is comprised of 3 lots on 21.067 acres, proposing 1 mixed residential lot, and 2 other lots for greenbelt/open space/drainage easement, and approximately 1,905 linear feet of right-of-way/streets. The property connects to William Cannon Road to the north and will realign a portion of Finial Drive (formerly named Colton Bluff Springs Road). The applicant also proposes to abandon a portion of Finial Drive for the realignment. The owners have submitted an application for this process with Travis County, and has received pre-approval from utility providers and other parties to the street abandonment area. Staff will be coordinating the abandonment application with the final plat application (out of this preliminary plan) to Court for final approval. Sidewalks are proposed on all streets. The proposed lots comply with the PUD zoning requirements for use and lot size. Parkland will be in compliance with the PUD. Water and wastewater will be provided by the City of Austin. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan, subject to the conditions listed in the attached comment report. After the conditions are met, the plan will comply with LDC 30-2-84. The conditions include remove or update notes, update engineer’s report and drainage information, etc. These are administrative actions that require no discretionary review. An application that has been approved with conditions may be updated to address those conditions until the application expires and the plan does not need to be heard before the Commission again. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan, subject to the conditions listed in the comment report dated August 3, 2022 and attached as Exhibit C. CASE MANAGER: Sue Welch, Travis County Single Office Email address: Sue.Welch@traviscountytx.gov Exhibit A: Easton Park 4B East Preliminary Plan Exhibit B: Easton …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 8 p.m.

10 Commercial Parkland Dedication Planning Commission Review Sheet.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 1 page

C20-2022-002 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET Amendment: C20-2022-002 Commercial Parkland Dedication Description: Consider an amendment to Title 25-1 of the City Code to require parkland dedication for commercial developments. Proposed Language: See attached draft ordinance. Summary of proposed code amendment • • • Parkland dedication would apply to new commercial developments, specifically office, retail, industrial/warehouse, and hotel uses. This would be in addition to the existing residential requirements currently in effect. The commercial requirement would use the current formula of 9.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 new users of the parks system. The commercial uses would be calculated based on the number of employees per square foot, discounted by hours of operation, occupancy rate, and commuter percentage rates. Criteria for dedication and fee in-lieu would remain the same as for residential developments. Background: Initiated by City Council Resolution 20220407-042 On April 7, 2022, Council approved resolution No. 20220407-042, which initiated code amendments to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance in City Code Chapter 25- I (General Requirements and Procedures) to require parkland dedication for office, industrial, and commercial developments; and directed the City Manager to place the code amendment on an upcoming Council agenda that provides Council with sufficient time to adopt the ordinance and place the fee into the Fiscal Year 2023 budget; a 10-0 vote with Council Member Harper-Madison off the dais. Staff Recommendation: Staff brings forward the amendment with recommendation. Board and Commission Actions July 12, 2022: Postponed by the Planning Commission until August 9th, 2022. July 25, 2022: Recommended by the Parks and Recreation Board. Council Action July 28, 2022: Postponed until August 11th, 2022. Ordinance Number: NA City Staff: Randy Scott Email: Randy.Scott@austintexas.gov Phone: 512-974-9484 1

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 8:01 p.m.

10 Parkland Dedication-Commercial Ordinance DRAFT_07052022.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 12 pages

PROPOSED CHANGES TO ARTICLE 14 (PARKLAND DEDICATION) ADDING COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS DRAFT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CHANGES ARTICLE 14. PARKLAND DEDICATION.1 § 25-1-601 GENERAL PROVISIONS. (A) The City of Austin has determined that recreational areas in the form of public parks are necessary for the well-being of residents and employees. The City has further determined that the approval of new residential and commercial development is reasonably related to the need for additional parkland and park amenities to serve new development. This article establishes a fair method for determining parkland dedication, or the payment of a fee in-lieu of dedication, to be required as a condition to the approval of new development in an amount proportionate to the impact of development on existing parks and established levels of service. (B) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the parkland dedication requirements of this article apply to: (1) a residential and commercial subdivision within the planning jurisdiction; a site plan within the zoning jurisdiction that includes residential units or commercial square footage [a hotel-motel use]; and a [residential]building permit for residential and commercial development, as provided under Section 25-1-608 (Dedication of Land or Payment In-Lieu at Building Permit). (C) The following are exempt from the requirements of this article: a subdivision or site plan for which parkland was previously dedicated or payment made under this title, except for the dwelling units or commercial square footage [lots] that exceed the number for which dedication or payment was made; (2) development within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction that is within Travis County and governed by Title 30 (Austin/Travis County Subdivision Regulations); [and] (3) affordable dwelling units that are certified under the S.M.A.R.T. Housing Policy approved by the city council; and[.] (2) (3) (1) (4) civic uses as defined in Section 25-2-6 (Civic Uses). (D) The following definitions apply throughout this article: (1) ANNUAL OCCUPANCY RATE means the hotel-motel occupancy rate for the City of Austin, as reported annually by the Texas Economic Development & Tourism Office. (2) COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY RATE means the commercial, occupancy rate for the City of Austin as determined by the Director annually using the most recent data from the U.S Chamber of Commerce or a comparable equivalent source if deemed necessary by the Director. (3) COMMUTER POPULATION PERCENTAGE means the percentage of employees within the City of Austin that reside outside of the corporate limits based on the most recent U.S. …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 8:01 p.m.

10 PLD Commercial Public Survey Response Report.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 58 pages

PLD Commercial Development Input SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT 09 May 2022 - 11 July 2022 PROJECT NAME: Parkland Dedication for Commercial Development PLD Commercial Development Input : Survey Report for 09 May 2022 to 11 July 2022 SURVEY QUESTIONS Page 1 of 57 PLD Commercial Development Input : Survey Report for 09 May 2022 to 11 July 2022 Q1 Approximately how far is your place of work from a public park? 16 (5.0%) 16 (5.0%) 109 (33.7%) 109 (33.7%) 72 (22.3%) 72 (22.3%) 58 (18.0%) 58 (18.0%) 68 (21.1%) 68 (21.1%) Question options Less than 1/4 mile 1/4 to 1/2 mile 1/2 to 1 mile More than 1 mile I do not know where the closest park or natural space is Optional question (321 response(s), 8 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Page 2 of 57 PLD Commercial Development Input : Survey Report for 09 May 2022 to 11 July 2022 Q2 How often do you access public parks before, during, or after work? 25 (7.7%) 25 (7.7%) 47 (14.5%) 47 (14.5%) 30 (9.3%) 30 (9.3%) 37 (11.4%) 37 (11.4%) 185 (57.1%) 185 (57.1%) Question options Never Rarely (fewer than 5 times a year) Occasionally (5 to 10 times a year) Sometimes (10 to 20 times a year) Often (more than twice a month) Optional question (322 response(s), 7 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Page 3 of 57 PLD Commercial Development Input : Survey Report for 09 May 2022 to 11 July 2022 Q3 If you visit park space before, during, or after the work day, please share how you use the park (choose all that apply). 250 190 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 145 109 50 34 Question options Other (please specify) Exercise (walking, running, biking, workout equipment, etc.) Relaxation, meditation, mental breaks Eating or picnicking Part of your commute to or from work Connecting with friends or family Optional question (304 response(s), 25 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Page 4 of 57 PLD Commercial Development Input : Survey Report for 09 May 2022 to 11 July 2022 Q4 What park amenities would encourage you to visit a nearby public park before, during, or after the work day? (choose all that apply) 251 203 184 115 91 79 71 95 59 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 Question options Multipurpose field or lawn Exercise or workout equipment Trails …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 8:01 p.m.

10 Submitted by Commissioner Azhar - PC Commission Responses Commercial PLD 08042022.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 4 pages

• Regarding the parkland acquisition list included in the Q&A for PC (answer to question 20), can you please share the data as a spreadsheet with the inclusion of zip codes and/or city council districts? See chart and map below • In terms of the standard of 9.4 acres for every thousand residents, can you please share what standards do other peer cities employ in terms of acreage for every thousand residents? (Peer cities may include Dallas, Houston, Denver, San Diego, Portland) Other cities vary in the level of service required by parkland dedication and/or park impact fees. San Diego ranges across different types (single family, multi family, and accessory) and different planning areas in the city: 165.96 square feet of parkland per unit to 544.94 square feet of parkland per unit – equal to an approximate equivalent of 2.24 acres per 1,000 people to 7.36 acres per 1,000 people. Madison, WI has 10.13 acres per 1,000 people. Dallas ranges from 1 acre per 100 single family homes to 1 acre per 255 multifamily homes; that ranges from an equivalent 3.57 acres per 1,000 people to 2.3 acres per 1,000 people. Minneapolis requirements are 287.5 square feet per every downtown dwelling unit, and 435.6 square feet per dwelling unit outside downtown; that would equate to roughly 3.88 per 1,000 people to 4.55 acres per 1,000 people. Atlanta’s level of service—including commercial--range from 17.07 acres to 2.83 acres for every 1,000 functional population; range is based on region, and discounts are applied to the functional population calculation depending on density Dr. John R Crompton’s studies have documented the requirements across Texas in his study “Parkland Dedication: An Underutilized Resource”, published this year (see attached, page 36-38 includes a table summarizing the requirements across Texas). For further reference, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) states that the typical park service is 9.9 acres per 1,000 people. The 2017 Trust for Public Land City Parks Facts report also includes a table with acres per 1,000 people in all major cities in US: Austin has an established goal of 24 park acres per 1,000 residents. Currently, Austin declined to 18 acres per 1,000, as the city has grown. Parkland dedication is intended to help maintain the park level of service; as such, it is currently set to 9.4 acres per 1,000 people, which was calculated using the acreage of pocket parks, neighborhood parks, …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 8:01 p.m.

10 Submitted by Commissioner Azhar Crompton_Parkland-Dedication-Ordinances-in-Texas-A-Missed-Opportunity.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 66 pages

B-6242 10/10 Parkland Dedication Ordinances in Texas: A Missed Opportunity? Parkland Dedication Ordinances in Texas: A Missed Opportunity? John L. Crompton Distinguished Professor and Regents Professor Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences Texas A&M University Foreword by Jamie Rae Walker Texas AgriLife Extension Specialist This study was supported in part by a grant from the Terese and Jacob Hershey Foundation 1. Executive summary ................................................................................ 7 2. Evolution of parkland dedication ordinances in Texas.......................... 11 3. Assessing the constitutionality of parkland dedication ordinances in Texas: a framework of four criteria .................................................. 19 Contents Calculation of the amount of a park dedication requirement .........................................19 Overview of parkland dedication requirements in Texas cities ..................................23 Calculation of the parkland dedication requirement ..............................................24 Calculation of the fee-in-lieu .......................................................................................26 Calculation of park development fees .......................................................................28 The leverage potential of dedication ordinances .....................................................30 Credit for private park and recreation amenities .....................................................32 Reimbursement clause .................................................................................................34 Timing of the dedication requirement .......................................................................35 Adherence to the nexus principle ....................................................................................35 Time limitation for expending fees-in-lieu .....................................................................36 The scope and range of Texas cities’ parkland dedication ordinances ......................38 Types of parks specified in the ordinances ...............................................................38 Nonresidential parkland dedications ........................................................................40 Extending ordinances to extraterritorial jurisdictions .............................................41 4. Time frame for revising ordinances ...................................................... 43 5. Criteria for acceptance of parkland ..................................................... 45 Minimum size ........................................................................................................................45 Acceptability of floodplain and detention pond land ......................................................45 6. Concluding comments ......................................................................... 49 The unrealized potential of parkland dedication ordinances .........................................49 Restricted scope ..................................................................................................................49 Below-cost dedications ......................................................................................................50 Why is the potential not being realized? ............................................................................52 Inertia ...................................................................................................................................52 Opposition from the development community ............................................................52 The economic case for parkland dedication ordinances ..................................................54 The emerging O&M argument ............................................................................................56 The political case for parkland dedication .........................................................................57 7. References ........................................................................................... 61 1— 5 Executive summary Foreword The population of Texas continues to grow rapidly, and cities are confronted with the challenge of providing facilities to service this growth. Over the past 25 years, about 50 Texas cities have enacted parkland dedication ordinances to address park needs related to such growth. In this publication, John L. Crompton, Distinguished Professor and Regents Professor at Texas A&M University, reviews parkland dedication ordinances that have been enacted in 48 Texas cities. The analysis identifies what constitutes best practices when establishing or revising a parkland dedication ordinance. We hope this information will enlighten Texas community leaders on the possibilities this approach offers for ensuring that future residents have access to parkland and the associated benefits. …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 8:01 p.m.

10 Version 2 Parkland Dedication-Commercial Ordinance.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 12 pages

PROPOSED CHANGES TO ARTICLE 14 (PARKLAND DEDICATION) ADDING COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS DRAFT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CHANGES VERSION TWO ARTICLE 14. PARKLAND DEDICATION.1 § 25-1-601 GENERAL PROVISIONS. (A) The City of Austin has determined that recreational areas in the form of public parks are necessary for the well-being of residents and employees. The City has further determined that the approval of new residential and commercial development is reasonably related to the need for additional parkland and park amenities to serve new development. This article establishes a fair method for determining parkland dedication, or the payment of a fee in-lieu of dedication, to be required as a condition to the approval of new development in an amount proportionate to the impact of development on existing parks and established levels of service. (B) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the parkland dedication requirements of this article apply to: (1) a residential and commercial subdivision within the planning jurisdiction; a site plan within the zoning jurisdiction that includes residential units or commercial square footage [a hotel-motel use]; and a [residential]building permit for residential and commercial development, as provided under Section 25-1-608 (Dedication of Land or Payment In-Lieu at Building Permit). (C) The following are exempt from the requirements of this article: a subdivision or site plan for which parkland was previously dedicated or payment made under this title, except for the dwelling units or commercial square footage [lots] that exceed the number for which dedication or payment was made; (2) development within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction that is within Travis County and governed by Title 30 (Austin/Travis County Subdivision Regulations); and (3) affordable dwelling units that are certified under the S.M.A.R.T. Housing Policy approved by the city council. (2) (3) (1) (D) The following definitions apply throughout this article: (1) ANNUAL OCCUPANCY RATE means the hotel-motel occupancy rate for the City of Austin, as reported annually by the Texas Economic Development & Tourism Office. (2) COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY RATE means the City of Austin’s current commercial occupancy rate as determined annually by the director annually using the most recent data from the Austin Chamber of Commerce or a comparable source if deemed appropriate by the director. (3) COMMUTER POPULATION PERCENTAGE means the percentage of employees who live outside the City of Austin’s corporate limits, as determined by the most recent United States Census. 1Editor's note(s)—Ord. No. 20160128-086, Pt. 2, adopted February 8, 2016 …

Scraped at: Aug. 5, 2022, 8:01 p.m.

10 Commercial Parkland Dedication WG Recommendations.pdf original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF
Page 1 of 2 pages

Commercial Parkland Dedication WG Recommendations Amend ment # Commis sioner Pg # Section Proposed Amendment Proposed Text Change (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) Text Change Included in Amendment (YES/NO) References and Notes (if needed) PARD Staff Response Cox §25-1-601 (C) 1 Add parkland dedication / fee exemption for small businesses - need to define size of "small business" - 5,000 SF suggested via stakeholder feedback (6) new, addition, and/or remodeled commercial developments that are smaller than 5,000 s.f. in area Cox §25-1-601 (C) 1 Add parkland dedication / fee exemption for certain arts and culture uses - need to define uses - music venues and museums suggested via stakeholder feedback Cox §25-1-602 4 Add parkland dedication / fee credit for private maintenance of public parkland dedicated - a minimum of 10% credit and up to a maximum of 25% credit at the discretion of the Director based on the estimated value of the approved Parkland Development and Maintenance Agreement (5) art galleries, art workshops, theaters, and live music venues (pending Resolution No. 20220728-094) as defined in Section 25-2-4 (M) if the applicant agrees to a private Parkland Improvement and Operations Agreement approved by PARD, the amount of parkland owed may be reduced by a minimum of 10% and up to a maximum of 25% at the discretion of the Director based on the estimated value of the approved Agreement 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 Cox §25-1-607 Shaw §25-1-601 1 10 Parkland dedication and fee-in-lieu assessment is set at the time of site plan submission and the assessment does not change throughout the development process, unless the project substantially changes in nature PARD staff shall reassess ordinance efficacy on an annual basis, and present findings to PARB and PC, including an annual evaluation and update of the estimated telecommuting rates in the Austin metro area. 6 Shaw §25-1-603 (C) 6 Consider allowing partial credit for parkland within the 25-year floodplain if it can be activated safety as determined by the Director. Shaw Explore opportunities to integrate parkland with bus and rail transit stops along transit corridors Azhar §25-1-608 11 All fees should be collected at the time of building Azhar §25-1-602 (E) 3 permit approval and before the permit is issued. the process for land dedication, if required, is unchanged In the case of mixed-use developments, collect the higher fee of the two assessed for residential and commercial …

Scraped at: Aug. 8, 2022, 8:30 p.m.