B-01 (NPA-2019-0022.02 - 305. S. Congress PUD; District 9).pdf — original pdf

Backup

Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET DATE FILED: July 24, 2019 (Out-of-Cycle) NEIGHORHOOD PLAN: Greater South River City Combined CASE#: NPA-2019-0022.02 PROJECT NAME: 305 S. Congress PUD PC DATES: January 25, 2022 December 14, 2021 October 27, 2020 May 26, 2020 December 17, 2019 305 South Congress Avenue ADDRESSES: DISTRICT AREA: 9 SITE AREA: 18.858 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: Richard T. Suttle, Jr. Trustee AGENT: Armbrust & Brown, LLC (Richard T. Suttle, Jr.) CASE MANAGER: Maureen Meredith, Housing & Planning Dept. PHONE: (512) 974-2695 STAFF EMAIL: Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov TYPE OF AMENDMENT: Change in Future Land Use Designation From: Industry Base District Zoning Change To: Mixed Use Related Zoning Case: C814-89-0003.02 From: PUD-NP To: PUD-NP The Applicant is proposing to amend the planned unit development to modify the permitted land uses and site development regulations. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTION DATE: September 29, 2005 1 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 ACTION: CITY COUNCIL DATE: Date pending PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: January 25, 2022 - December 14, 2021 – After discussion, postponed to January 25, 2022. [G. Cox – 1st; A. Azhar – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 [J. Mushtaler off the dais. J. Shieh absent]. October 27, 2020 – Approved Staff’s request for an indefinite postponement on the consent agenda. [C. Hempel– 1st; C. A. Azhar – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 [J. Shieh absent. One vacancy on the Commission]. May 26, 2020 – Approved Staff’s request for an indefinite postponement on the consent agenda. [C. Hempel – 1st; R. Schneider – 2nd] Vote: 12-0 [C. Llanes Pulido off the dais]. December 17, 2019 – Approved on the consent agenda an indefinite postponement request made by staff. [P. Howard – 1st; Y. Flores – 2nd] Vote: 10-0 [Commissioners G. Anderson, C. Llanes-Pulido and T. Shaw off the dais]. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the applicant’s request for Mixed Use land use. BASIS FOR STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: The property is an 18.86-acre tract of land that has been used as a printing and publishing facility for the Austin American Statesman newspaper. It is located on the south side of Lady Bird Lake and directly south of Downtown Austin. It is within the South Central Waterfront Overlay and the Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Plan. The applicant proposes to change the land use on the future land use map from Industry to Mixed Use for office, retail, hotel, and residential uses, 4% of which will be affordable. To the west and south of the property is mixed use land use. The applicant’s request for mixed use land use is appropriate for this location. See FLUM map below. Mixed use land use is shown as brown on the map. Industry land use is shown as purple and Civic land use is shown as light blue. Below are sections of the Greater South Austin Neighborhood Plan document that supports this request. The plan document mentions preservation of housing affordability and increasing housing types. The applicant proposes up to 1,378 residential units (55 units affordable) which will increase the housing options in the neighborhood and the city. 2 2 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 3 3 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS EXISTING LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Industry - Areas reserved for manufacturing and related uses that provide employment but are generally not compatible with other areas with lower intensity use. Industry includes general warehousing, manufacturing, research and development, and storage of hazardous materials. Purpose 1. To confine potentially hazardous or nuisance‐creating activities to defined districts; 2. To preserve areas within the city to increase employment opportunities and increased tax base; 3. To protect the City’s strategic advantage as a high tech job center; and 4. To promote manufacturing and distribution activities in areas with access to major transportation systems. Application 1. Make non‐industrial properties in areas with a dominant industrial character compatible with the prevailing land use scheme; 4 4 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 2. Where needed, require a buffer area for industrial property that abuts residentially used land; 3. Industry should be applied to areas that are not appropriate for residential or mixed use development, such as land within the Airport Overlay; 4. In general, mixed use and permanent residential activities are not appropriate in industrial areas. An exception may be the edge of an industrial area along the interface with an area in which residential activities are appropriate. Such exceptions should be considered case by case, with careful attention to both land use compatibility and design; 5. Industry should not be either adjacent to or across the road from single family residential or schools; 6. Use roadways and/or commercial or office uses as a buffer between residential and industry; and 7. Smaller scale “local manufacturing” districts may be appropriate in some locations to preserve employment opportunities and cottage industries of local artisans. In these areas, hazardous industrial uses (i.e. basic industry, recycling centers, and scrap yards) should be prohibited. PROPOSED LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Mixed Use - An area that is appropriate for a mix of residential and non‐residential uses. Purpose 1. Encourage more retail and commercial services within walking distance of residents; 2. Allow live‐work/flex space on existing commercially zoned land in the neighborhood; 3. Allow a mixture of complementary land use types, which may include housing, retail, offices, commercial services, and civic uses (with the exception of government offices) to encourage linking of trips; 4. Create viable development opportunities for underused center city sites; 5. Encourage the transition from non‐residential to residential uses; 6. Provide flexibility in land use standards to anticipate changes in the marketplace; 7. Create additional opportunities for the development of residential uses and affordable housing; and 5 5 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 8. Provide on‐street activity in commercial areas after 5 p.m. and built‐in customers for local businesses. Application 1. Allow mixed use development along major corridors and intersections; 2. Establish compatible mixed‐use corridors along the neighborhood’s edge 3. The neighborhood plan may further specify either the desired intensity of commercial uses (i.e. LR, GR, CS) or specific types of mixed use (i.e. Neighborhood Mixed Use Building, Neighborhood Urban Center, Mixed Use Combining District); 4. Mixed Use is generally not compatible with industrial development, however it may be combined with these uses to encourage an area to transition to a more complementary mix of development types; 5. The Mixed Use (MU) Combining District should be applied to existing residential uses to avoid creating or maintaining a non‐conforming use; and 6. Apply to areas where vertical mixed use development is encouraged such as Core Transit Corridors (CTC) and Future Core Transit Corridors. IMAGINE AUSTIN PLANNING PRINCIPLES 1. Create complete neighborhoods across Austin that provide a mix of housing types to suit a variety of household needs and incomes, offer a variety of transportation options, and have easy access to daily needs such as schools, retail, employment, community services, and parks and other recreation options. • The applicant proposes a mixed use development with retail, office, hotel and up to 1,378 residential uses, 4% will be affordable at 80% MFI for 40 years. The property is near public transportation, a range of retail and office uses are located along the major roadways South Congress Avenue and E. Riverside Drive. 2. Support the development of compact and connected activity centers and corridors that are well-served by public transit and designed to promote walking and bicycling as a way of reducing household expenditures for housing and transportation. • The property is within the South Central Waterfront Regional Activity Center and south of the Downtown Regional Activity Center, as identified on the Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map. It is located on the east side South Congress Avenue and north of E. Riverside Drive which are activity corridors. The property is near public transportation and is in a walkable and bike- friendly environment. 6 6 of 50B-1 3. Protect neighborhood character by ensuring context-sensitive development and directing more intensive development to activity centers and corridors, redevelopment, and infill sites. Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 • The property is within the South Central Waterfront Regional Activity Center and south of the Downtown Regional Activity Center. It is also on South Congress Avenue and north of E. Riverside Drive which are an activity corridors where mixed use developments are encouraged. 4. Expand the number and variety of housing choices throughout Austin to meet the financial and lifestyle needs of our diverse population. • The development is proposed for up to 1,378 dwelling units, with approximately 55 units affordable. 5. Ensure harmonious transitions between adjacent land uses and development intensities. • The current land use on the property is Industry, the proposed land use is Mixed Use. Directly to the west and south of the property is Mixed Use land use (shown in brown on the map below. Transitioning the property from Industry to Mixed Use is appropriate in this location. 6. Protect Austin’s natural resources and environmental systems by limiting land use and transportation development over environmentally sensitive areas and preserve open space and protect the function of the resource. • The property is not located in the Drinking Water Protection Zone. 7. Integrate and expand green infrastructure—preserves and parks, community gardens, trails, stream corridors, green streets, greenways, and the trails system—into the urban environment and transportation network. • The proposed development will include water quality ponds and reconstructing 1700’ liner feet of the hike and bike trail and will dedicate 6.54 acres of public parkland along Lady Bird Lake. See the zoning case report C814-89-0003.02 for more detailed information. 7 7 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 8. Protect, preserve and promote historically and culturally significant areas. • To staff’s knowledge there is no historic or cultural significance to this property. 9. Encourage active and healthy lifestyles by promoting walking and biking, healthy food choices, access to affordable healthcare, and to recreational opportunities. • The property is in a walkable and bikeable area located near the Vic Mathias Shores at Lady Bird Lake Metro Park, the Roy and Ann Butler Hike and Bike Trail and the Long Center for the Performing Arts. 10. Expand the economic base, create job opportunities, and promote education to support a strong and adaptable workforce. • The mixed use development is proposed to have up to 1,378 residential units, a 275-key hotel, 1,500,000 square feet of office space and 150,000 square feet of retail. This could create the opportunity for new job opportunities. 11. Sustain and grow Austin’s live music, festivals, theater, film, digital media, and new creative art forms. located. • The property is near downtown Austin where numerous music venues are 12. Provide public facilities and services that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease water and energy usage, increase waste diversion, ensure the health and safety of the public, and support compact, connected, and complete communities. • The property is not proposed as a public facility but will meet 2-Star Austin Energy Green Building Standards. 8 8 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 9 9 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 10 10 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 11 11 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 IMAGINE AUSTIN GROWTH CONCEPT MAP Definitions Neighborhood Centers - The smallest and least intense of the three mixed-use centers are neighborhood centers. As with the regional and town centers, neighborhood centers are walkable, bikable, and supported by transit. The greatest density of people and activities in neighborhood centers will likely be concentrated on several blocks or around one or two intersections. However, depending on localized conditions, different neighborhood centers can be very different places. If a neighborhood center is designated on an existing commercial area, such as a shopping center or mall, it could represent redevelopment or the addition of housing. A new neighborhood center may be focused on a dense, mixed-use core surrounded by a mix of housing. In other instances, new or redevelopment may occur incrementally and concentrate people and activities along several blocks or around one or two intersections. Neighborhood centers will be more locally focused than either a regional or a town center. Businesses and services—grocery and department stores, doctors and dentists, shops, branch libraries, dry cleaners, hair salons, schools, restaurants, and other small and local businesses—will generally serve the center and surrounding neighborhoods. Town Centers - Although less intense than regional centers, town centers are also where many people will live and work. Town centers will have large and small employers, although fewer than in regional centers. These employers will have regional customer and employee 12 12 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 bases, and provide goods and services for the center as well as the surrounding areas. The buildings found in a town center will range in size from one-to three-story houses, duplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses, to low-to midrise apartments, mixed use buildings, and office buildings. These centers will also be important hubs in the transit system. Job Centers - Job centers accommodate those businesses not well-suited for residential or environmentally- sensitive areas. These centers take advantage of existing transportation infrastructure such as arterial roadways, freeways, or the Austin-Bergstrom International airport. Job centers will mostly contain office parks, manufacturing, warehouses, logistics, and other businesses with similar demands and operating characteristics. They should nevertheless become more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, in part by better accommodating services for the people who work in those centers. While many of these centers are currently best served by car, the growth Concept map offers transportation choices such as light rail and bus rapid transit to increase commuter options. Corridors - Activity corridors have a dual nature. They are the connections that link activity centers and other key destinations to one another and allow people to travel throughout the city and region by bicycle, transit, or automobile. Corridors are also characterized by a variety of activities and types of buildings located along the roadway — shopping, restaurants and cafés, parks, schools, single-family houses, apartments, public buildings, houses of worship, mixed-use buildings, and offices. Along many corridors, there will be both large and small redevelopment sites. These redevelopment opportunities may be continuous along stretches of the corridor. There may also be a series of small neighborhood centers, connected by the roadway. Other corridors may have fewer redevelopment opportunities, but already have a mixture of uses, and could provide critical transportation connections. As a corridor evolves, sites that do not redevelop may transition from one use to another, such as a service station becoming a restaurant or a large retail space being divided into several storefronts. To improve mobility along an activity corridor, new and redevelopment should reduce per capita car use and increase walking, bicycling, and transit use. Intensity of land use should correspond to the availability of quality transit, public space, and walkable destinations. Site design should use building arrangement and open space to reduce walking distance to transit and destinations, achieve safety and comfort, and draw people outdoors. BACKGROUND: The application was filed on July 24, 2019, which is out of cycle for neighborhood planning area located on the west side of IH-35. The month of February would normally be the out-of-cycle filing period. Jerry Rusthoven, Assistant Director of the Planning and Zoning Department at the time of filing, provided a memo to allow the out-of- cycle plan amendment and zoning change applications. The memo is provided in this report. The applicant proposes to change the land use on the property from Industry to Mixed Use. The applicant proposes to amend the permitted land uses and site development regulations of the exist PUD zoning on the property. For more information, see the associated zoning case report for zoning case C814-89-0003.02. 13 13 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 PUBLIC MEETINGS: The ordinance-required community meeting was held on October 30, 2019. Approximately 222 community meeting notices were mailed to people who own property or have a utility account within 500 feet of the property, in addition to neighborhood and environmental groups who requested notification for the area on the Community Registry. Two staff members, Maureen Meredith and Alan Holt, attended the meeting. Four people associated with the application attended, Richard Suttle and Amanda Morrow from Armbrust and Brown, and Sander Mohn and Andy Pastor from Endeavor Real Estate Group. Five people from the neighborhood were also in attendance. After the Richard Suttle gave a brief presentation, the following questions were asked. Q/C: I see Jerry Rusthoven wrote a memo saying the application was allowed to file out- of-cycle, but I don’t see a memo from the Director of the Appropriate City Department that the Article 16 ordinance says is required. I want to see that letter. A: Existing PUD is not subject to current regulations (C) The director may accept an application regarding an individual property at a time other than as provided in Subsection (B) if the director determines that: (1) prohibiting the filing would result in a hardship to the applicant, and the development proposed by the applicant will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare; (2) a clerical error regarding the designated use of the subject property exists on the future land use map of the neighborhood plan or in the text of the plan; (3) the person submitting the application has received a letter from the director of the appropriate City department stating that the project: (a) is not subject to current City environmental regulations, but is proposed to be developed under current City environmental regulations; (b) promotes the recruitment or retention of an employment center with 100 or more employees; (c) is a S.M.A.R.T. Housing certified project in which at least 40 percent of the proposed units are reasonably priced as provided in Section 25-1-703(C) and (D) ( Program Requirements ); or (4) council has initiated the application Q/C: You say in your Summary Letter that the Industry land use on the future land use map (FLUM) was put on the property in error. It was not an error. A: The assumption was made that industry was not the preferred future land use. There is future Mixed-Use land use all around the property with Industry on the river. Q: Our neighborhood passed a resolution saying we won’t make a recommendation until the South Central Waterfront has community benefits in place. Why is the application done now? It’s not ready to move forward. A. Like other properties in the Plan area, there comes a point where progress has to begin. Q/C: We have been looking for a Regulation Plan. We said no neighborhood would go for this without a regulation plan. 14 14 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 A: We are going to try to march-on with the applications. Q: We want a chart that shows what’s existing and what’s proposed. A. We will get that to you. It’s in the PUD file. Q: What about music and a sound barrier? A. We said we would talk about music and would be open to discuss this with you. Q: Will this be regulated under the TOD? A: No, it will be a PUD. Q: Have you done any testing on the site since it was an industrial use? A. We did an environmental survey and there was no recommendation for any environmental remediation. Q. The current industrial use does not generate many trips. Do you know how many trip the development will generate? A. We are still working on a traffic impact analysis. As far as current trips, we will provide that at a later date. Q/C. There was a purpose for industry land use on this property. The Austin American Statesman (AAS) had 600 employees, but only about 300 worked there. Congress Avenue is very backed-up with traffic trying to turn on E. Riverside Drive. Maybe you could try to get some rapid transit. A. We are in conversations with Capital Metro about reserving land to operate as a transit station for the Blue Line, but we don’t know what mode it will be just yet. Q/C. Traffic around there is bad and AAS is not that busy. A. We are working on a traffic impact analysis. Q/C: We want the multifamily dwelling units created to be added to our expected contribution for our area. A. Our Master Plan currently contemplates about 1,378 residential units. Our Master Plan is subject to change based on market demand. Q. Will you have free parking? People will be parking in our neighborhood. A. Access to the parking will be controlled. Pricing for tenants and the public will be determined by the market. Q. Will you have underground parking? Are you concerned about flooding? A. Yes, we will have underground parking. Our structural engineers will be designing a parking structure that addresses the water table and Lady Bird Lake. Q. Have you discussed this with Watershed Dept.? A. Yes, and details will be worked out. 15 15 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 Q. Have you received the Resolution from the South Central Waterfront Advisory Board? A. Yes, we received it. Q. Why are you building higher than the SCW Plan? A. Based on our analysis, 3.5 million gross square feet of density is required to create a project that both satisfies the community benefits outlined in the SCW Plan and is also financially viable. By placing the majority of the parking below grade, building taller and thinner buildings (rather than shorter and wider buildings as contemplated in the SCW Plan), and providing the land to extend Barton Springs Road on our site, we will be in a better position to realize the community benefits of improving access to and along the waterfront, connecting the city’s street grid to the land in the South Central Waterfront District, creating a lively pedestrian environment and providing the land for a world class waterfront park accessible to everyone in our city. Q/C. You said you will need more capital to make the numbers work. A. Provided the zoning allows for the development of 3.5 million gross square feet on our site, an additional financial contribution from the city as contemplated in the SCWFD Plan would be required to fund the cost of the park and infrastructure (roads and utilities) on our site. Q/C. The transportation is not in place for you to build this, or what your Banker says to you need to build. A. Banks will provide construction financing for this project provided they conclude the developer has a high probability of paying off the loan or that the value of the improvements is sufficiently in excess of the loan amount. We are currently working on a Traffic Impact Analysis that will give more clarity to the effects on traffic from our development. We are also dedicating land to extend Barton Springs Road through our site to Riverside Drive, and reserving land for a future Cap Metro Blue Line Station. 16 16 of 50B-1Applicant Summary Letter from Application Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 17 17 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 18 18 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 19 19 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 Out-of-Cycle Letter Authorization from Asst. Dir. PAZ Dept. Jerry Rusthoven 20 20 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 Letter of Recommendation from Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Plan Contact Team From: Elloa Mathews Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:41 PM To: Shaw, Todd - BC <BC-Todd.Shaw@austintexas.gov>; Llanes, Carmen - BC <bc-Carmen.Llanes@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Halley, Shannon <shannon.halley@austintexas.gov>; Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Subject: NPA-2019-0022.02 305 S. Congress *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Chair Shaw and Commissioner Llanes Pulido, Attached please find the GSRCC NPCT comments on the above referenced case. Also attached to this email is a copy of the Floodplain Reviewer notes on this case’s 25 year floodplain issues that existed pre-Atlas 14 adoption. I am requesting that these notes be entered into the back up on the case as well as the zoning case on this site. Thank you for your service to the citizens of Austin. Elloa Mathews Acting Chair Greater South River City NPCT 21 21 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 22 22 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 23 23 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 Site 24 24 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 25 25 of 50B-1 Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 26 26 of 50B-1 Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 27 27 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 28 28 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 29 29 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 30 30 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 Applicant’s Presentation at the Oct. 30, 2019 Community Meeting 31 31 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 32 32 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 33 33 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 34 34 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 35 35 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 36 36 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 37 37 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 38 38 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 39 39 of 50B-1 Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 Correspondence Received 40 40 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 41 41 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 42 42 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 From: Paula Kothmann Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 11:20 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Cc: Paula Kothmann Subject: Opposition to zoning and PUD requested change *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Ms. Meredith and Ms. Clark: SRCC has voted to oppose any change in zoning for 305 S. Congress at this time. We are also waiting for a Traffic Impact Analysis. I do not expect that the item will be discussed today but in case it does I will be opposing and I will have backup materials to post to the Web site. Thank you, Paula Kothmann 43 43 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 44 44 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 45 45 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 From: Russell Fraser Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 11:38 AM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Cc: Tovo, Kathie <Kathie.Tovo@austintexas.gov>; Holt, Alan <Alan.Holt@austintexas.gov>; Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 305 S Congress Zoning Change hearing scheduled for 10/27/2020. *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Mr. Rivera, I'm a member of the South River City Citizens (SRCC) neighborhood association, also chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee of that association, where the subject project is located, and I request that you add my personal comments to the hearing input, in addition to the related documents that you have should have already received from Wendy Todd, our SRCC SCWAB representative. I do not plan to speak, but I am against any zoning change discussion or action until the following steps are completed: • Briefly, SRCC urges immediate and unimpeded implementation of the SCW Vision Framework as adopted by Council in June 2016. "The financial and governance tools must be in place to ensure that the vastly increased development entitlements result in community benefits."1 • South Central Coalition of Neighborhoods resolution that the "Planning Commission defer any action on any PUD amendment request for 305 S. Congress project until regulation and financial plans are completed and adopted by the City Council."2 Russell Fraser 507 Lockhart Dr Austin, TX 78704 512-771-9736 46 46 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 47 47 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 From: Paula Kothmann Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 11:55 AM To: Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov>; Walters, Mark <Mark.Walters@austintexas.gov>; PaulaKothmann Properties < Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Opposition to zoning and PUD requested change Thank you, Ms. Clark and Mr. Walters: Attached please find a recap of the meeting that we had Oct 30 and some follow-up questions and concerns. I'd like this backup to be placed for both Item #1 and Item #2 for tonight, since it concerns both, and I plan to be there this evening to present for both items in case it is called. Please verify that I've met the noon deadline. Kind regards, Paula Kothmann December 17, 2019 Re: SRCC Neighborhood Association opposition to requests by 305 S. Congress Ave. Dear Mr. Rusthoven: I am following up on our meeting called by Planning and Zoning designed to receive Community Input on Oct 30, 2019. Below please find notes, which should be included in the record. Recently, Kevin Shunk presented to the SRCC that the development along Lady Bird Lake will be exempt from the ban on development in the Atlas 14 floodplain and recommended that we "buy flood insurance" even as our beloved Venice suffers $1B in damages. We have sent a note to the Mayor demanding to know about this alleged exemption and we are fighting that decision and carefully monitoring the current level of run off in order to prepare for any evidence of more run off that affects our property. The City cannot show favoritism to a developer over the rights of property owners, who may demand compensation if their properties are damaged. The City has a duty to protect its citizens and their property from harm, such as from flooding. 1) Mr. Rusthoven, we were surprised that you were not in attendance since your office called the meeting. We were given little notice and no one asked our input on dates. 48 48 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 2) We asked the applicant to provide the letter from City staff to which you refer as the reason for accepting an out-of-cycle application. Please forward to us the letter that YOU received stating that the project is not subject to environmental regulations, such as the setback from the water. the person submitting the application has received a letter from the director of the (3) appropriate City department stating that the project: is not subject to current City environmental regulations, but is proposed to (a) be developed under current City environmental regulations; is not subject to current City environmental regulations, but is proposed to be the person submitting the application has received a letter from the director of (3) the appropriate City department stating that the project: (a) developed under current City environmental regulations; 4) Mr. Suttle, you wrote in your application that you believed that "industry" was a clerical error and I asked why, since you are aware that there was a printing press on the site, which is "industry". You stated, "I'm an attorney." ??? I do not ask any of my attorneys to falsify information on my behalf, nor do I allow them to do so, and I retain some of the best attorneys in the state. Please correct any misstatements in your application using actual facts. Volunteers have the right to have honest information from which to make recommendations. 5) Past President Gretchen Otto stated that SRCC, the neighborhood most impacted by the proposed project, will not consider any amendments until the SCW regulating plan is in place. 4) She also asked about the great difference in the capacity proposed in your PUD amendment. You explained that the project would not make economic sense if the owner limited its capacity to the current plan. The volunteers emphasized that economic profit is not considered a "hardship," which must be stated in the record of this meeting, so what is the hardship noted in your application? 5) We asked about the progress of the regulatory plan, and Alan explained that his consultants are working on the figures. Alan, exactly what kind of figures are the consultants working on for this project? Are they updating the costs of the "Community benefits" such as the proposed new boardwalk (by the way, there's already a boardwalk there, opening in 2014)? Exactly how much is this project costing the City, Alan? Please send the hours and fees for all consultants working on this project and another report for the Snoopy PUD aka Hooter's PUD. 6) Alan explained how we could help the project.??? We reminded him that he has the duty to ensure that the development must follow the laws and respect the property owners already there. 7) I asked Andy Pastor about parking. He stated that they plan to charge, which means that people will park in front of our houses. Amanda didn't seem to know how close we live to this tract. 8) I asked Andy Pastor what plans the project has to ensure that the concerts planned do not disturb the residents, just like he was asked several months ago when his response was "we studied how to prevent affecting the bats." He offered no update. See note regarding a concert after 11pm on a Sunday: 49 49 of 50B-1Planning Commission: January 25, 2022 Hillary Bilheimer [SouthRiverAustin] AM (17 hours H12:11 ago) to SouthRiverAustin There was an EDM festival at the Statesman. It was so loud at our house as well. I just typed “Austin Rave November 17” into google at around 11pm because we were so baffled. Mr. Rusthoven, we expect you to address our valid concerns and work to protect the homeowners affected by this proposed development. Our neighborhood, SRCC, already voted unanimously to deny any change in FLUM, neighborhood plan, or zoning. You should have received notice from our President. If anyone feels that I misheard what was said, please send your evidence to the contrary and I will gladly apologize. My goal is transparency. Regards, Paula Kothmann Homeowner, Travis Heights and Bouldin Creek, two neighborhoods impacted heavily 50 50 of 50B-1