07 C14-2024-0121 Red River; District 9 Staff Report

Planning Commission – Feb. 11, 2025

07 C14-2024-0121 Red River; District 9 Staff Report — original pdf

Backup

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF — Page 1 of 46 pages

ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CASE: C14-2024-0121– Red River Rezone DISTRICT: 9 ADDRESS: 4305, 4307 & 4309 Red River Street ZONING FROM: SF-3-CO-NP TO: LR-MU-DB90-NP SITE AREA: 0.35 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Sierra Halo LLC (C. Copeland) AGENT: Thrower Design, LLC (Victoria Haase) CASE MANAGER: Marcelle Boudreaux (512-974-8094, marcelle.boudreaux@austintexas.gov) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommendation is to grant general neighborhood commercial– mixed use building – vertical mixed use building – conditional overlay - neighborhood plan (LR- MU-V-CO-NP) combining district zoning. The Conditional Overlay would prohibit the following uses permitted within the LR base zoning district: alternative financial services; consumer convenience services; communication services facilities; financial services; food sales; local utility services; off-site accessory parking; personal improvement services; pet services; plant nursery; printing and publishing; restaurant (limited); restaurant (general); safety services; service station; urban farm; community recreation; club/lodge; custom manufacturing; college and university facilities; community events; community recreation (private); community recreation (public); guidance services; hospital services (limited); residential treatment; and special use historic. The Conditional Overlay would make conditional the following uses permitted within the LR base zoning district: community garden; day care services (general); day care services (commercial); family home; bed & breakfast (group 1); bed & breakfast (group 2); and medical offices – not exceeding 5,000 sq. ft. gross floor area. The Staff recommendation is to not continue the Conditional Overlay limiting maximum height to 30 feet or 2 stories, added to the site in 2004. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION / RECOMMENDATION: January 28, 2025: APPROVED AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT REQUEST TO FEBRUARY 11, 2025. 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 1 of 46C14-2024-0121 Page 2 [R. JOHNSON; F. MAXWELL – 2ND] (10-0); G. ANDERSON, A. WOODS, A. HAYNES – ABSENT February 11, 2025: CITY COUNCIL: ORDINANCE NUMBER: ISSUES: Staff recommends LR-MU-V-CO-NP. However, staff does not recommend the DB90 combining district. The applicant’s requested zoning of LR-MU-DB90-NP does not promote compatibility with adjacent and nearby uses. This area of Red River is low-slung, primarily single family or townhome-type density with some limited sites zoned for and being used as neighborhood commercial uses. It is not an area of sites developed for dense and intense multifamily uses also situated in tall (greater than 40 feet) buildings. And, although Red River Street is categorized as ASMP level 3 at the site, it changes to an ASMP level 1 just two blocks north. Staff does support rezoning this site as mixed use and supports an increase in housing density, including affordable units. Staff recommends rezoning the site to include the Mixed Use (MU) and Vertical Mixed Use Building (V) combining districts, which allows for a reasonable use of the property without detrimental impacts to the adjacent neighborhood. There is an existing transition of sites from single family land use to neighborhood commercial land use across the street and south along Red River Street. The base district of neighborhood commercial (LR) supports and promotes a transition between adjacent and nearby zoning districts, especially those immediately adjacent properties zoned single family. Staff recommends a Conditional Overlay (“CO”) with prohibited and conditional uses similar to a site rezoned LR-MU-CO-NP located 100 feet south on the west side of Red River Street (C14-2012-0065). Further, during the 2004 rezoning for the Hancock Neighborhood Plan area, a CO was placed on the site, and others, to limit height to 30 feet and two stories, including the subject property. In order for the LR base district zoning height to be applicable for this rezoning (maximum of 40 feet or 3 stories), removing the height limitation from the NP rezoning is recommended by Staff (Ordinance 040826-59). On September 30, 2024, City of Austin staff sponsored a virtual community meeting to provide an opportunity for the neighborhood plan contact team, nearby residents, property owners, and any other interested parties to discuss the proposed development and the neighborhood plan amendment request. CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: The subject rezoning area consists of two legally platted lots (“site”) and is approximately 0.35 acres. They are developed with three single-family residences, which are occupied. The 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 2 of 46C14-2024-0121 Page 3 rezoning area is on the east side of Red River Street, at the corner of and with access to East 44th Street. Development along Red River Street in the vicinity of the site is primarily residential in nature, with some intermittent neighborhood commercial and civic uses, such as small medical office, guitar store, middle school and church, with a multifamily apartment and commercial shopping center further to the south (SF-3-CO-NP; LO-MU-NP; LR-MU- CO-NP; LR-MU-NP; CS-CO-NP). Please refer to Exhibits A (Zoning Map), A-1 (Aerial View). The site is equidistant from the Imagine Austin activity corridor on Airport Boulevard (less than 1/3rd mile) and three Imagine Austin activity centers (approximately .6 miles from each). A neighborhood traffic analysis (NTA) memo has been revised, and re -issued February 5, 2025 (see attached), analyzing traffic on the neighborhood streets, at the corner of the site at East 44th Street and at Bennet Ave. The analysis found that based on the LDC criteria, E 44th St and Bennett Ave are currently operating at desirable levels and will continue operating at desirable levels with the addition of site traffic. The Applicant proposes to rezone the property to the neighborhood commercial – mixed use - density bonus 90- neighborhood plan (LR-MU-DB90-NP) combining district that could include multi-family units requiring an affordable component. A building constructed under density bonus 90 (–DB90) standards allows for a mix of residential uses and commercial uses, and the result is typically retail, restaurants and offices on the ground floor, and residential units on upper levels. A development utilizing the “density bonus 90” incentives is permitted with a base LR zoning district, and must include an affordability component for residential use in order to obtain incentives, including height maximum of 70 feet in the LR district (40 feet base plus 30 feet incentive) and relaxation of development and compatibility standards, such as FAR, setbacks and building coverage. The applicant’s requested rezoning would allow for a mixed use redevelopment that could yield approximately 25-32 residential units and 4,000 square feet commercial. Staff’s recommendation is for LR-MU-V-CO-NP, which would also allow for a mix of uses, including residential, and multi-family with an affordable component. The -V combining district allows for relaxation of some development standards, such as building coverage, setbacks and floor-to-area (FAR) ratio, in exchange for income-restricted housing; however, no additional height is incentivized. The maximum permitted height would be 40 feet, which is the maximum height in the base district of LR. This rezoning could allow approximately 7 residential dwelling units and 750 square feet commercial. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: 1. The proposed zoning should be consistent with the purpose statement of the district sought. The Neighborhood Commercial (LR) district is intended for neighborhood shopping facilities which provide limited business service and office facilities predominately for the convenience of residents of the neighborhood. 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 3 of 46C14-2024-0121 Page 4 Mixed Use combining district (MU) is intended for combination with selected base districts, in order to permit any combination of office, retail, commercial, and residential uses within a single development. Vertical Mixed Use Building (V) combining district may be applied in combination with any commercial base zoning district and allows for a combination of office, retail, commercial and residential uses within a vertical mixed use building. The Conditional Overlay (CO) combining district may be applied in combination with any base district. The district is intended to provide flexible and adaptable use or site development regulations by requiring standards tailored to individual properties. The neighborhood plan (NP) district denotes a tract located within the boundaries of an adopted Neighborhood Plan. 2. Zoning should promote clearly-identified community goals, such as creating employment opportunities or providing for affordable housing. This rezoning authorizes a property to participate in a voluntary density bonus or incentive program that provides modifications to dimensional requirements in exchange for income- restricted housing. The recommendation for the -V combining district continues to align with City objectives to increase density and affordability in exchange for relaxed development standards. 3. The rezoning should be consistent with the policies and principles adopted by the City Council. City Council has provided policy and direction for having more residential density and increased affordability, as well as incentivizing vertical mixed use buildings throughout the City. This supports the Climate Equity Plan’s goal to locate new housing within half mile of Imagine Austin activity corridor. Zoning changes should promote an orderly relationship among land uses. 4. The staff recommends rezoning the site to include the Mixed Use (MU) and Vertical Mixed Use Building (V) combining districts, which allows for a reasonable use for the property without detrimental impacts to the adjacent neighborhood. The base district of neighborhood commercial (LR) promotes a transition between adjacent and nearby zoning districts, especially those immediately adjacent properties zoned single family. EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES: Site North ZONING SF-3-CO-NP SF-3-CO-NP; LR- MU-NP LAND USES Single family residential Single family residential; Private secondary educational facilities 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 4 of 46C14-2024-0121 Page 5 South SF-3-CO-NP; CS-CO- NP East West SF-3-CO-NP LO-MU-NP; SF-3- CO-NP; LR-MU-CO- NP Single family residential; Undeveloped/ Construction staging; Commercial center anchored by Food sales, includes General retail sales (convenience), Personal improvement services, Personal services, Pet services, Medical offices, Restaurant (Limited & General) Single family residential Professional office; Single family residential; General retail sales (convenience) SCENIC ROADWAY: No NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA: Central Austin Combined (Hancock) WATERSHED: Boggy Creek – Urban CAPITOL VIEW CORRIDOR: No SCHOOLS: Austin Independent School District Lee Elementary School COMMUNITY REGISTRY LIST: Austin Neighborhoods Council Austin Independent School District Friends of Austin Neighborhoods CANPAC (Central Austin Neigh Plan Area Committee) Homeless Neighborhood Association Preservation Austin AREA CASE HISTORIES: Kealing Middle School North Austin Neighborhood Alliance Hancock Neighborhood Assn. 45th Street Concerned Citizens McCallum High School NUMBER C14-2012-0065 – Austin Vintage Guitars – 4306 Red River St REQUEST LO-MU-NP to LR-MU-NP CITY COUNCIL Apvd LR-MU-CO- NP, as Commission recommended COMMISSION To Grant (7/24/12) LR- MU-CO-NP per Staff recommendation, with CO Prohibiting uses: Alternative financial services, consumer convenience services, communication services facility, counseling services, financial services, food sales, local utility services, off site accessory parking, personal improvement services, pet service, 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 5 of 46C14-2024-0121 Page 6 plant nursery, printing and publishing, restaurant (limited and general), safety services, service station, urban farm, community recreation, club/lodge, custom manufacturing, college and university facilities, community events, community recreation (private and public), guidance services, hospital services (limited), residential treatment and special use historic. And CO establishing Conditional Uses: community garden, day care services (general and commercial), family home, bed & breakfast (group 1 & group 2), medical offices – not exceeding 5,000SF gross floor area. To Grant SF-6-CO-NP, as staff recommended (7/22/14) SF-3-CO-NP to SF-6-CO-NP C14-2014-0063 – Commodore Perry Estate – Tract 3 – 710 East 41st Street C14-2014-0064 – Commodore Perry Estate – 710 East 41st Street GR-MU-CO-NP, GR-CO-H-NP to GR-MU-CO-NP, GR-MU-CO-H- NP to change conditions of zoning To Grant GR-MU-CO- NP, GR-MU-CO-H-NP to change conditions of zoning (regarding access to Red River Street and residential setbacks) (5/27/14) Apvd SF-6-CO-NP, as Commission recommended (8/7/14) Apvd GR-MU-CO- NP, GR-MU-CO-H- NP to change conditions of zoning (6/26/14) RELATED CASES: The subject property is within the boundaries of the Central Austin Combined (Hancock) Neighborhood Planning Area. The –NP combining district was added to the existing SF base district in 2004 (Ordinance No. 040826-56). 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 6 of 46C14-2024-0121 Page 7 NPA-2022-0019.01 – corresponding neighborhood plan amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation from Single Family to Neighborhood Mixed Use. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: Drainage The developer is required to submit a pre- and post-development drainage analysis at the subdivision and site plan stage of the development process. The City’s Land Development Code and Drainage Criteria Manual require that the Applicant demonstrate through engineering analysis that the proposed development will have no identifiable adverse impact on surrounding properties. Environmental The site is not located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. The site is located in the Boggy Creek Watershed of the Colorado River Basin, which is classified as an Urban Watershed by Chapter 25-8 of the City's Land Development Code. It is in the Desired Development Zone. Zoning district impervious cover limits apply in the Urban Watershed classification. According to floodplain maps there is no floodplain within or adjacent to the project location. Standard landscaping and tree protection will be required in accordance with LDC 25-2 and 25-8 for all development and/or redevelopment. At this time, site specific information is unavailable regarding vegetation, areas of steep slope, or other environmental features such as bluffs, springs, canyon rimrock, caves, sinkholes, and wetlands. This site is required to provide on-site water quality controls (or payment in lieu of) for all development and/or redevelopment when 8,000 s.f. cumulative is exceeded, and on site control for the two-year storm. At this time, no information has been provided as to whether this property has any preexisting approvals that preempt current water quality or Code requirements. Fire Department No comments. PARD – Planning & Design Review Parkland dedication will be required for the new applicable uses proposed by this development, (Mixed use in the LR-MU-DB90-NP zoning category) at the time of subdivision or site plan, per City Code § 25-1-601. Whether the requirement shall be met with fees in-lieu or dedicated land will be determined using the criteria in City Code Title 25, Article 14, as amended. Should fees in-lieu be required, those fees shall be used toward park 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 7 of 46C14-2024-0121 Page 8 b. Reference 25-2-1061 c. investments in the form of land acquisition and/or park amenities within the surrounding area, per the Parkland Dedication Operating Procedures § 14.3.11 and City Code § 25-1-609, as amended. If the applicant wishes to discuss parkland dedication requirements in advance of site plan or subdivision applications, please contact me at: scott.grantham@austintexas.gov. At the applicant’s request, PARD can provide an early determination of whether fees in-lieu of land will be allowed. Site Plan Site plans will be required for any new development other than single-family or duplex residential. Any new development is subject to Subchapter E. Design Standards and Mixed Use. Additional comments will be made when the site plan is submitted. Compatibility Standards, if not complying with DB90: The site is subject to compatibility standards due to the surrounding SF3 properties. Reference 25-2-1051, 25-2-1053 Any structure that is located: a. At least 50 feet but less than 75 feet from any part of a triggering property may not exceed 60 feet. Less than 50 feet from any part of a triggering property may not exceed 40 feet. Less than 25 feet from any part of a triggering property requires a compatibility buffer. An on-site amenity, including a swimming pool, tennis court, ball court, or playground, may not be constructed 25 feet or less from the triggering property. Reference 25-2-1062 This tract is already developed, and the proposed zoning change is a footprint within the existing development. DB90 Rezoning: This site must meet affordability minimums to be eligible for DB90. A signed approval letter from the Housing Department will be required with site plan submittal. Red River is the Principal Street for this site. Any buildings fronting this street will be required to have 75% of the ground floor as commercial uses. This site is adjacent to a site that contains one to three dwelling units and is zoned SF-5 or more restrictive. A compatibility buffer 25’ in width, designed to 25-8-700 and 25-2- 652(G) will be required. FYI, this site is within the Hancock Neighborhood Plan. Austin Transportation Department – Engineering Review Assessment of required transportation mitigation, including the potential dedication of right of way and easements and participation in roadway and other multi-modal improvements, will occur at the time of site plan application. The traffic impact analysis for this site is not 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 8 of 46C14-2024-0121 Page 9 required, the traffic generated by the proposal does not exceed the thresholds established in the City of Austin Land Development Code. [LDC 25-6-113]. The Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) calls for 80 feet of right-of-way for RED RIVER ST. It is recommended that 40 feet of right-of-way from the existing centerline should be dedicated for RED RIVER ST according to the Transportation Plan with the first subdivision or site plan application. [LDC 25-6-51 and 25-6-55]. The Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) calls for 58 feet of right-of-way for E 44TH ST. It is recommended that 29 feet of right-of-way from the existing centerline should be dedicated for E 44TH ST according to the Transportation Plan with the first subdivision or site plan application. [LDC 25-6-51 and 25-6-55]. The adjacent street characteristics table is provided below: Name ASMP Classification ASMP Required ROW Existing ROW Existing Pavement Sidewalks Bicycle Route RED RIVER ST Corridor Mobility - Level 3 80 feet 58 feet 35 feet Existing 6 feet sidewalks Shared lane (on- street) Capital Metro (within ¼ mile) Yes E 44TH ST Local Mobility 58 feet 46 feet 23 feet No No Yes - Level 1 Austin Water Utility No comments on zoning change. The landowner intends to serve the site with existing City of Austin water utilities. Based on current public infrastructure configurations, it appears that service extension requests (SER) will be required to provide service to this lot. For more information pertaining to the Service Extension Request process and submittal requirements contact the Austin Water SER team at ser@austintexas.gov. INDEX OF EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS TO FOLLOW: Exhibit A: Zoning Map Exhibit A-1: Aerial Map 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 9 of 46C14-2024-0121 Page 10 Exhibit B: Applicant’s Summary Letter Public Correspondence Attachment A: Neighborhood Transportation Analysis (NTA), February 5, 2025 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 10 of 46( ( ( ( ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( E H U N E AV SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( LO-NCCD-NP MF-3-NCCD-NP T L S A V U D ( ( ( 64-68 MF-3-NCCD-NP 04-0196 69-188 C14-04-0196 GR-NCCD-NP ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( ( ( ( 04-0196 ( ( ( 04-0196 ( ( ( ( E V S A R E EIL ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( ( 04-0196 ( ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( ( CS-NCCD-NP APTS. SF-3-NCCD-NP ( LR-HD-NCCD-NP G R O C. CS-HD-NCCD-NP ( CS-1-MU-V-CO-NP ( C14-2013-0119 C14-01-0046.01 C14-01-0046 ( C14H-2010-0019 CS-MU-V-CO-NP SF-3-HD-NCCD-NP ( ( ( ( ( C14-2007-0262 ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP W A O R R A B ( MF-2-NP E V ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 84-287 SF-3-CO-NP ( 0 1 73-0 ( 72-150 ( SF-3-CO-NP ( HYD C H RISTIA E PARK N C H U R C H APTS. 80-113 5 2 64-1 65-168 ( C14-04-0196.03 ! ! ( 04-0196 ! ! ( ! ( ! SF-3-NCCD-NP ! ( ! ! ( ( ( 04-0196 ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 04-0196 ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( 85-074 ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( E V L A L E W S A C ( ( ( ( ( ( ( C14H-04-0025 ( ( SF-3-H-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP ( H2008-0039 ( ( E 47T ( C14H-2008-0039 SF-3-H-NCCD-NP ( ( H S T ( 04-0196 ( ( MF-2-NP ( ( CS-MU-CO-NP E 47T ( CS-MU-CO-NP H S T NPA-2008-0011.01 C14-2008-0002 CS-MU-CO-NP ( C14-2008-0002 NPA-2008-0011.01 ( MF-3-NP ( NPA-2008-0011.01 C14-2008-0002 MF-3-NP ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( ( ( E V A N O S K R A L C ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( NPA-2008-0011.01 C14-2008-0002 CS-MU-CO-NP SF-3-NP ( ( ( ( ( MF-3-NP ( ( ( R O ( LT A E R ( ( ( 04-0196 ( ( ( E 46T SF-3-NCCD-NP H ST ( ( SF-3-NCCD-NP SF-3-H-NCCD-NP 04-0196 ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( E 45TH H 04-0196 ( ( ALF ST ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( ( ( 96 1 04-0 ( ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP 71-036 ( ( ( ( MF-2-NP E 46TH ST ( MF-2-NP ( ( E V W A ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( E P E D ( SF-3-NP ( A PT S. MF-3-NP ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( C14-02-0009 H80-02 ( SF-3-H-CO-NP MF-4-NP COND OS ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( SF-3-CO-NP 72-55 S. T P A ( ( SF-3-H-CO-NP ( SF-3-CO-NP ( H84-004 ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( 04-0196 ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( 96 1 04-0 ( ( ( H S T ( ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( ( E 45T ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( 4 0 1-0 9 ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( ( KE A S ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( B E ( Y ST ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( 7 73-7 74-127 ( ( ( ( A P T S. MF-4-NP 7 6 7-1 6 ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( C H U R C H 54-48 LR-MU-NP ( MF-4-NP APTS. ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( ( E V T A T E N N E B ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( A P T S. ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( E 43R ( ( ( D S T ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( E 44TH ST ( ( ( ( ( ( VAC ANT LO-MU-NP OFFC. NURSING HOME ( ( ( ( MF-3-NP SF-3-CO-NP L. H C S ( ( ( 72-120 ( ( ( ELLIN ( ( G S O N LN ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( MF-2-NP APTS. ( ( ( ( NPA-2012-0019.04 C14-2012-0065 LR-MU-CO-NP MF-3-NP ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ( ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! ( ( ! ! ! ! ( ( ( E 44T ( SF-3-CO-NP ( H ST ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ELLIN ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( G S O ( ( ( N LN ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( E V A N O S K R A L C 67-96R CS-MU-CO-NP R67-96 MF-4-CO-NP APTS. E 43 ( ( R D S T ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( E V W A O R R A B ( ( ( ( ( ( ( P A R ( ( K BLV D ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( E ( V K A C E P ( ( ( ( ( ( ( E 43R ( D ST ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP LO-MU-NP ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-H-CO-NP 1 0 0 9-2 9 H ( ( ( ( APTS. ( ( 7 1 7-1 7 ( 5 7-5 6 ( ( 67-82 ( C14H-2022-0078 ( SF-3-H-CO-NP GR-MU-CO-NP BALLET SC HO OL NPA-2013-0019.01 C14-2014-0064 T E R S D RIV E R GR-MU-CO-H-NP SP-91-0030C C14-2008-0071 CS-1-CO-NP 98-0105 CS-CO-NP RZ86-0071 C14-98-0105 CS-1-CO-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( E V N A O M R A H ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 2 5 66-1 MF-3-NP ( ( 2 71-9 ( ( SF-3-CO-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( SP-90-0038C SP-96-0237C ( ( SF-6-CO-NP C14-2014-0063 NPA-2014-0019.01 76-62 P-NP 65-137 C14-2008-0002 GAS ( E 48TH ST GAS CS-CO-NP SF-3-NP GR-CO-NP C14-2014-0085 P85-037 C14-2008-0002 C14-2014-0085 59-34 D V L B T R O P R A I E V N A O M R A H ( ( ( 58-93 CS-V-CO-NP CS-CO-NP CS-1-V-CO-NP C14-2008-0002 CS-V-CO-NP C14-2019-0045.SH EQUIP. T I R C E O . P M A R B S D U 5 3 H I O T B S T R O P R A I P M A R B S D U 5 3 H B K S C E R D E P P 5 U N IH 3 B D N R V 5 S N IH 3 I O T T R O P R A I B D S R V 5 S N IH 3 B B 5 S 5 N N IH 3 N IH 3 SF-3-NP ( NO-NP N W O O D R D B K N C E R D E P P 5 U N IH 3 AR D E PRIVATE PRIMARY C14-02-0057 81-118 ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( D R D O O W D A R B SHOPPING CENTER SP95-0436C SP91-0030C 92-111 S A G 95-75 59-172 0 67-9 E TIR CENTE ( R A P A R T M E N T S E 41S T ST APTS. 6 7 - 7 1 MF-3-NP C14-2007-0262 GR-MU-V-CO-NP 83-259 E 40TH ST 70-238 MF-3-NP ( 9 70-8 67-71 9 9 64-1 9 O 62-6 FFIC E S ZONING ZONING CASE#: C14-2024-0121 CS-MU-V-CO-NP ( 02-0057 ( 02-0057 HANCOCK GOLF COURSE & RECREATION CENTER 72-184 SP90-0004B ± SUBJECT TRACT ! ! ! ! ! ! PENDING CASE ZONING BOUNDARY This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. 1 " = 400 ' This product has been produced by the Planning Department for the sole purpose of geographic reference. No warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness. Created: 8/12/2024 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 11 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 12 of 46 August 26, 2024 Ms. Lauren Middleton-Pratt Director, Planning Department City of Austin 1000 E 11th Street Austin, TX 78702 Dear Ms. Middleton-Prat: Via Electronic Delivery Re: Rezoning & Neighborhood Plan Amendment Application – 4305, 4307, 4309 Red River St. On behalf of the Owner(s) of the properties referenced above, we respectfully submit the enclosed Neighborhood Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications. The subject properties are comprised of two legally platted lots in the Speckles & Staehely Addition Subdivision that total 0.35 acres located within the Hancock Neighborhood Planning Area, in District 9, representing by Council Member Zo Qadri. The lots have a combination “Single Family” Future Land Use designation, and SF-3-CO-NP zoning established per Ord. No. 040826-59. There is a building height limitation of the CO restricting building height to no greater than 30ft of 35ft and 2-stories, depending on proximity of building to property lines. There is 155 ft of frontage on Red River Street with CapMetro Bus lines 345 & 10 and a bus stop immediately at the corner of the property, intersecting with E 44th Street. Red River is an ASMP Level 3 roadway and Airport Boulevard, an Imagine Austin Activity Corridor is 0.34 miles away, by walking path. The request is to amend the FLUM to Neighborhood Mixed-Use for both parcels and to rezone the properties to LR-MU-DB90-NP zoning. The properties are on the edge of the residential block with frontage on Red River, immediate access to bus service, and near existing, major commercial development, the request creates a transition in intensity of uses and development that does not exist today. The rezoning will allow for in-fill mixed use opportunity at 40feet or 70 feet at most, if utilizing the DB90 overlay and providing income restricted units. The location of these properties along a neighborhood throughway will bring development that aligns with the goals of increasing housing in proximity to transit, resulting in a more sustainable Austin now and for generations to come. As such, we respectfully request Staff’s support. Please contact our office or me directly should you have need for additional information. Thank you for your time and attention to this application. P . O . B O X 4 1 9 5 7 , A U S T I N , T E X A S 7 8 7 0 4 1 5 0 7 I N G L E W O O D S T . , A U S T I N , T E X A S 7 8 7 4 1 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 13 of 46Kind regards, Victoria Haase cc: Joi Harden, Housing & Planning Department (via electronic delivery) 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 14 of 46From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Margo Whitt Hempel, Claire - BC; Azhar, Awais - BC; Anderson, Greg - BC; Cohen, Jessica - BC; Johnson, Ryan - BC; Phillips, Alberta - BC; Cox, Grayson - BC; Ramirez, Nadia - BC; Maxwell, Felicity - BC; Woods, Alice - BC; Howard, Patrick - BC; Haynes, Adam - BC; Haney, Casey - BC; Skidmore, Danielle - BC Boudreaux, Marcelle; Qadri, Zo; Muckelroy, Anna Austin Planning Commission Case Nos. NPA-2024-0019.01 and C14-2024-0121 (4305, 4307 and 4309 Red River Street) Monday, February 3, 2025 11:15:07 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from important Learn why this is External Email - Exercise Caution Dear Planning Commission Members, Council Members and Mayor, I live on E 44th Street very close to 4305, 4307, and 4309 Red River Street (the “Subject Properties”). I, and my neighbors, oppose the proposed rezoning of the subject properties. Key Concerns: Loss of Existing Affordable Housing: The current single-family homes on the Subject Properties already provide affordable housing that aligns with our neighborhood’s character. If the owner has a strong desire for more rental property then Increasing density through small-lot development would be a more appropriate alternative. By my calculations, 8 single family homes could be built on these 2 lots. Excessive Building Height & Density: The DB90 density bonus would allow a 70-foot structure, significantly out of scale with our mostly single-story neighborhood and negatively impacting adjacent properties (see attached photo.) Even the recommended 40-foot height is excessive given the lack of setbacks. Recently, two 2,500 sq. ft. houses were built on a single lot on East 44th under the old building codes. Each rents for over $4,000/month. Multiple families share them in an attempt to make them more affordable. When they are all home, I’ve counted 12 cars associated with these two houses. The owner has plans to build two more houses on the adjoining empty lot. Strain on Infrastructure: In this past year, multiple water main breaks have occurred along E 44th, and increased density will further stress our aging utilities. Traffic Study Deficiencies: The traffic analysis does not account for the expansion of Hancock Shopping Center, the I-35 project, or the impact of a DB90 bonus, all of which will contribute to significant congestion. The analysis is further skewed because it was conducted while the N side of the Hancock Center was inaccessible due to construction, thus temporarily creating less than normal traffic on the North side. Safety & Accessibility Issues: Red River between 43rd and 44th Streets already presents hazards due to bus stops, bike lanes, and poor visibility. Increased traffic and commercial activity would further endanger pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. On trash collection days, garbage bins from the high-occupancy houses on 44th Street overflow into the bike lane, blocking cyclists and making the bus stop difficult to access. Additional density would worsen this issue. Parking & Spillover Effects: Additional residents and businesses would create additional congestion on adjoining neighborhood streets, narrowing the roadway and 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 15 of 46compromising the walkability and safety of our neighborhood. Flooding and Climate: Paving over these 2 lots will not only increase the risk of flooding, but it will contribute to the “heat island” effect that this area already experiences. Conclusion Given these issues, I urge the Commission and Council to reject the proposed zoning changes in their entirety. I welcome the opportunity to discuss any solutions that maintain the character and safety of our community. Sincerely, Margo Whitt, 906 E 44th Street scale with Red River in the foreground. This photo is to 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 16 of 46CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 17 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 18 of 46From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Andy Schulz Boudreaux, Marcelle Dohn Larson Case Nos. NPA-2024-0019.01 and C14-2024-0121 Tuesday, January 28, 2025 12:31:09 PM External Email - Exercise Caution Dear Ms. Boudreaux, Thank you again for your time yesterday discussing the above cases with me and my neighbor. I live on East 44th Street near Bennet Street, and I write on behalf of myself, my wife, and several neighbors on 44th Street who are deeply concerned about the changes requested by the applicant in the above cases. To be clear, we support efforts to create more housing, and especially more affordable housing, in the City of Austin. However, the effort to do so in the proposed manner at this specific location is not appropriate for our neighborhood. We are mindful that the Planning Department has recommended approval of the requested change from residential to mixed use, but without the DB90 density bonus. Although elimination of the DB90 bonus density certainly is a necessary improvement, they are not sufficient and the proposed changes remain inappropriate for multiple reasons. As an initial matter, there are currently three modest detached single-family dwellings on these properties, each with off-street parking. Notwithstanding the applicant’s representation that these dwellings are in poor condition, from the exterior they appear to be fine. In one case, some fresh paint and trimming of shrubbery seems to be all the house needs. These small homes are in keeping with our neighborhood, and we think an appropriate alternative would be to use small lot options to increase density while preserving the character of our neighborhood and minimizing the negative impact of the proposed changes. The negative impacts on our neighborhood that would result from approval of the pending applications include the following: First, the DB90 density bonus requested by the applicant would allow a structure up to 70 feet tall, or twice as tall as any other building in the neighborhood and three to four times as tall as most of the single-story homes that predominate in our neighborhood. A building that tall would be grossly out of proportion and would overshadow neighboring properties. This fact alone should cause the application to be rejected out-of-hand. Even the 40-foot maximum height that would be allowed under the Planning Department’s recommendation would result in a structure that looms over the other home on our street and would be inappropriate for that reason alone, especially considering the absence of any setback requirements that could mitigate the 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 19 of 46domineering effect of such a tall structure. Second, the traffic study on which the Department staff’s recommendation is partly based is flawed. To begin with, the analysis is based on the Staff’s recommendation and so does not even purport to address the traffic consequences of the applicant’s request for a DB90 bonus density. Since, among other things, the DB90 bonus density would eliminate any limits on the number of units that could be built, and the applicant has submitted no site development plan, there’s no telling how much additional traffic would result – but without doubt it would be enormous. Even apart from that problem, the study is further flawed because it does not seem to take into account, either separately or collectively, the effects of the significant expansion underway at Hancock Center just a few blocks to the South, or the expansion of I-35 just a few blocks to the East. Both of these projects will increase traffic on Red River and Bennet Street (as well as 44th Street as a route to Bennet Street), and this effect will only be compounded if the pending applications are approved. At Hancock Center, HEB is nearing the completion of its $17.5 million expansion that includes the addition of a BBQ restaurant among other attractions. The former Sears building, which has been vacant for many years, is being converted to a new community health center. Both of these changes will draw more traffic to the area, and Bennet Street serves as an access point to the Hancock Center and its north parking lot. The north parking lot has been closed during construction, and its closure probably skewed the traffic analysis because drivers going to HEB and the other stores there (24 Hour Fitness, Twin Liquor, Petco, and others) likely directed themselves to the south or west side of the Center to park in the south lot. During the years of construction to expand the I-35 corridor, highway traffic will be shunted onto local streets, especially ours on the west side. The construction will eliminate streets on the west side of the highway, so more local traffic will be on our streets even after construction is completed. There will only be more cars on our streets due to the increased commercial activity at Hancock Center. The approach to the Bennet Street entry point will be via our street, or 43rd Street or 45th Street. In short, our neighborhood streets will be far more congested. The traffic analysis does not consider any of these impacts, or how they will be magnified by additional housing and commercial businesses on Red River between 43rd and 44th Streets. Third, the increased traffic created by these changes would lead to several serious health and safety risks for our neighborhood. Red River narrows to become a single lane in each direction exactly at 43rd Street. (At this point it should be designated as an ASMP Level 1 Street, as it is beginning at 45th Street, rather than Level 3). Cars traveling up Red River often do not slow down quickly enough when the street narrows, and so the street is already hazardous at this point, where there is both a bus stop and a pedestrian crosswalk. There is no room for parking on this section of Red River, either for any new residences or commercial businesses. The increased traffic, increased commercial activity, the bus stop, and the crosswalk, all in this 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 20 of 46narrow street with fast moving vehicles, are a recipe for accidents, injuries and fatalities. Around the corner, on our street, is where the new residents and shop owners in the new development, as well as their guests, customers, and delivery trucks, will inevitably park, narrowing the street to just one traveled lane. Combined with the additional traffic, our street will cease to be the quiet family-friendly walkable lane, and instead become a hazardous thoroughfare for pedestrians and vehicles alike. A useful contrast is the mixed use area located several blocks West of Red River, at Duval and 43rd Street where the Duval Center with several neighborhood businesses is located. There, both Duval and 43rd Street are wide, and there is on-site parking on both sides of the street directly in front of the businesses. There is additional parking immediately adjacent to and/or behind these businesses. None of these features are present at Red River between 43rd and 44th Streets, and their absence renders the pending proposals hazardous and unwise for our community. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to reject the above-referenced applications in their entirety on the ground that they are inappropriate for our neighborhood. Sincerely, Andrew Schulz CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 21 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 22 of 46CANPAC Central Austin Neighborhood Planning Advisory Committee Jan 9, 2025 To: Members of the Austin Planning Commission, Maureen Meredith From: CANPAC – Central Austin Neighborhoods Planning Advisory Committee Re: 4305, 4307, 4309 Red River St- Neighborhood Plan Amendment/Rezoning- NPA-2024- 0019.01 / C14-2024-0121 CANPAC, the Neighborhood Plan Contact Team, has voted to oppose the Neighborhood Plan Amendment to revise the Future Land Use Map for the property with the following addresses: 4305, 4307, 4309 Red River St. This opposition is to support Hancock NA in their opposition to the land use application. CANPAC is in District 9, and represents Hancock/Eastwoods, Heritage, North University, Shoal Crest, Original West University Neighborhood and University Area Partners in West Campus. The applicant is requesting the following: 1. Zoning change from SF3-CO-NP to DB-90 2. Revise the FLUM from Single Family to Mixed Use. Hancock has noted to CANPAC the following: 1. No plans or description of project specifics has been submitted to the neighborhood. 2. The applicant told the neighborhood the owner was unsure of what they wanted to do beyond add some mix of uses and density, and they wanted flexibility. 3. The proposed land use is not consistent with surrounding land uses, and it is inconsistent with the future land uses in the neighborhood plan. 4. There are no assurances we will get the same level of affordability or better affordability with the proposed zoning & land use change. We request you oppose the applicant’s request. Sincerely, CANPAC / Central Austin Combined Neighborhood Plan Team Bart Whatley, Co-Chair ( bart.whatley@gmail.com - 512-470-4318 ) Adam Stephens, Co-Chair ( adam.stephens@capstarlending.com - 512-459-2407 ) CANPAC MEMBERS Hancock Neighborhood Association, Heritage Neighborhood Association, North University Neighborhood Association, Shoal Crest Neighborhood Association, Original West University Neighborhood Association, and University Area Partners 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 23 of 46Dear Sirs: I’m going to take off my neighborhood association president hat now and write to you just as someone who’s lived here for fifty years and been involved in neighborhood issues since the mid-1980s. Residents’ concerns not only deserve to be heard at the Planning Commission, but for your commission to be impartial, our views must be given the weight as any investor’s. After all, we live here, we pay taxes, and we suffer the consequences of what you approve if investors merely pocket their profits. I’ve laid awake at night, wondering what I could possibly say to you that would have any impact on your decision to re-zone 4305, 4307 and 4309 Red River St., based on your decisions in the past year, cases that not only were not good planning decisions, but which have probably permanently harmed my neighborhood. I decided that I needed to send you a letter and ask that it be included in the record. Two cases that you decided this past year will already have a fundamental negative impact on our neighborhood. One unique architectural reminder of our history has been erased with its demolition, another may well disappear, and with it, a daily link to history that Austin claims to support preserving, but has consistently ignored in Hancock. First, there was the demolition of the 1925 house on Sparks Ave. that our own city had recommended for the National Register of Historic Places, 71 neighbors signed letters supporting its preservation, but you gave the demolition green light to the absentee owner of this 12th neighborhood property acquisition--an owner who refused to even test it for asbestos and lead—and then the city refused to test accumulated rainwater in the hole left behind by the demolition company----even though the property sits on the edge of Eastwoods Park (and the Waller Creek watershed), the last remnant of Wheeler’s Grove, where Austin’s African-American community was first allowed to celebrate Juneteenth. 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 24 of 46Then, there are the five units on Duval St. on the site of the farm that Sam Houston sold to a survivor of the Alamo. You gave the green light again to an absentee investor to up-zone the property (which could include complete demolition), even though the owner’s dilemma resulted from a lack of due diligence to learn that two units were illegal when he purchased the property, even though he could have just subdivided the lot, even though it was pointed out to you that the property is on the corner of Harris Ave. where a bus stop lets children off to walk to Lee Elementary. Maximum development could endanger those children because neighbors already complain that impatient drivers routinely speed up when they turn off Duval St and Red River St. onto Harris Ave. What was the owner’s response to our overtures to come up with a satisfactory solution for both him and the neighborhood?---that it was none of our business what he does, that he wanted to keep all his options open------and wasn’t interested in providing affordable housing with any increased development. That bus stop brings up the question why the city would give us signs to promote traffic calming, ----when one side of the sign said Look Out for Our Children---but the other side said---Your Speed, Your Choice. ?! The application before you now to up-zone 4305, 4307, and 4309 Red River St. as well as change the neighborhood plan will disrupt and harm our neighborhood much more than the previous two cases because it consists of little to no planning whatsoever, only up-zoning to benefit an owner who actually lives in the neighborhood. The only contact we have had with the owners was one email claiming that the three modest houses currently on the property were in such disrepair that they can only be demolished. There was a preliminary call in late June, 2024, with the applicant’s agent, the email from the owner I submitted to you from August, 2024, an online Community meeting on September 30, 2024, that the owners did not attend, and neither their representative nor the owners came to our November neighborhood meeting when the opposition vote was taken. The owners’ representative failed to disclose any details of the application other than it would entail allowing height to 70 feet, with housing, commercial and retail zoning, and a mention that a traffic 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 25 of 46study was being done on 44th St. Neighbors at the association meeting said that the houses were currently rented, they are worried that future development would not provide affordable housing and that they could be forced from their homes with few options themselves. The traffic implications are also not being addressed. That’s why the neighborhood voted to oppose the application, because we had no disclosed plan to show any benefit whatsoever to the neighborhood. With respect to traffic, the traffic study for the subject application that I was only provided on January 10th, when I inquired whether it was completed, does not reflect the realities of area traffic or the ability of streets to absorb the kind of development being proposed. Red River St. is on the VisionZero map as a dangerous pedestrian street. Yet, when, several years ago, as someone who depends on public transit, I asked why CapMetro abruptly moved the southbound #10 bus route, forcing bus riders at Hancock Center to cross Red River St. mid-block to take the southbound #10 bus, instead of leaving the stop safely by the H.E.B. along with other route stops, CapMetro’s answer was that it was not safe for the bus to make a left- hand turn onto Red River St. and the #10 was more popular than the other routes that use five feet shorter buses. When I reported that when I crossed Red River St. at the mid-block light, that at least 50% of the time, cars sped up to try to beat me through the light, I was told “that will only become a priority once someone is killed”. CapMetro refused to consider using shorter buses for the #10 or re-routing the bus through the parking lot to turn onto 41st St. and Red River St. at the intersection. The mid-block crossing remains unsafe for pedestrians, many of whom are carrying groceries. Not only is Red River St. narrow as a main corridor street, so are the surrounding streets. Although there may be increasing demand for housing near the University and downtown, the city chose to locate housing for 100 formerly homeless people at 39th St. and I-35, never explaining what services residents would need to get to and how many bus routes and how long multiple bus route trips would take. Three more major developments are in the works along I-35 (one with two fourteen story buildings), which altogether will house at least 700 more residents, but traffic flow during construction—and 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 26 of 46the planned expansion of I-35, have yet to be explained to the neighborhood, or how the new influx of traffic will be absorbed once residents move in. (Neighbors in the Concordia PUD already periodically complain about traffic congestion.) Area residents are not abandoning their cars for public transit because our straight line infrequent bus routes aren’t more efficient than driving to even “nearby” destinations; the #335 route frequency was decreased in January, 2024, to every 30 minutes from every 15 minutes, “due to low ridership”. Currently, it takes longer to take the two required bus routes (the crosstown #335 that runs along 38th St. and the #10 that runs along Red River St.), from 38th and Duval St to 41st5 St and Red River St. (to Hancock Center)----around 45 minutes by bus, than to walk----about 30 minutes, weather---and aggressive drivers----- permitting; it is approximately the same timing southbound to St. David’s Hospital and doctor’s offices. Nothing in CapMetro’s plans will improve neighborhood transit because all routes are straight lines to nowhere nearby in particular, and the old Dillos and UT circulators—that worked---were eliminated. There is no disclosed information whether the proposed Red River St. development will include parking garages, but even if it does, there is an unanswered question whether 44th St.—or Red River St.---provides sufficient ingress and egress, given the traffic congestion that can already be observed every day right now. Adjacent narrow streets also have bike bollards that slow traffic flow. There are also questions about our area infrastructure, and how such a large development would impact surrounding aging infrastructure (water lines, sewer lines, pavement) that never seems to get adequately repaired. If proposed elimination (or reduction) of drainage requirements becomes law, increased flooding is also a distinct prospective problem. Finally, the fact that these neighborhood property owners have declined to speak to the neighborhood association about their proposed project or answer any questions sent to them is a clear indication that they cannot justify the proposed zoning change to their neighbors. 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 27 of 46Please do not approve this re-zoning and neighborhood plan application. Sincerely, Barbara Epstein 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 28 of 46From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Andy Schulz Hempel, Claire - BC; Azhar, Awais - BC; Anderson, Greg - BC; Cohen, Jessica - BC; Johnson, Ryan - BC; Phillips, Alberta - BC; Cox, Grayson - BC; Ramirez, Nadia - BC; Maxwell, Felicity - BC; Woods, Alice - BC; Howard, Patrick - BC; Haynes, Adam - BC; Haney, Casey - BC; Skidmore, Danielle - BC Qadri, Zo; Boudreaux, Marcelle; Muckelroy, Anna Austin Planning Commission Case Nos. NPA-2024-0019.01 and C14-2024-0121 (4305, 4307 and 4309 Red River Street) Friday, January 31, 2025 1:36:19 PM Photo #1.pdf Photo #2.pdf Photo #3.pdf Photo #4.pdf Photo #5.pdf Photo #6.pdf Photo #7.pdf Photo #8.pdf Photo #9.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from important . Learn why this is External Email - Exercise Caution Dear Hon. Chair Hempel and Members of the City of Austin Planning Commission, I live on East 44th Street between Bennett Avenue and Red River. I write on behalf of myself, my wife, and several neighbors on our street who are opposed to the changes in the Neighborhood Plan and zoning requested by the applicant at 4305, 4307 and 4309 Red River Street (the “Subject Properties”). These applications are now scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission's meeting on February 11, 2025. To be clear, we support efforts to create more housing, and especially more affordable housing, in the City of Austin. However, the effort to do so in the proposed manner at this specific location is not appropriate for our neighborhood and in fact would be highly detrimental to our neighborhood. In at least partial recognition of the inappropriateness of the pending applications, the City’s Planning Department has recommended approval of the requested change from residential to mixed use but not the DB90 density bonus sought by the applicant. Although elimination of the DB90 bonus density certainly is a welcome and necessary improvement to the proposed changes, it is not sufficient to warrant their approval; the proposed changes remain inappropriate and harmful to our neighborhood for multiple reasons. SUMMARY The three existing dwellings at the Subject Properties offer affordable housing 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 29 of 46consistent with our neighborhood’s character. Small lot options are available to increase density on these two lots and would avoid many of the harmful consequences of the requested changes. The increased height that would be allowed under these changes, especially the DB90 density bonus, would be grossly disproportionate with the other homes in our neighborhood. The traffic analysis that was performed did not take into account the effects of other development occurring just blocks away at the Hancock Shopping Center and on I-35, nor did the analysis even attempt to estimate the effect of approving a DB90 density bonus. The block where these changes would be effective, Red River between 43rd and 44th Streets, is already hazardous and would become even more so with additional housing and commercial activity at this location. The spillover of the requested changes onto East 44th Street would irrevocably alter the character of our neighborhood and make the street more dangerous. OBJECTIONS As an initial matter, there are currently three modest detached single-family dwellings on the Subject Properties, each with off-street parking. Notwithstanding the applicant’s representation that these dwellings are in poor condition, from the exterior they appear to be fine. In one or maybe two cases, the house seems to need some fresh paint and trimming of shrubbery, but nothing more. The attached Photo #1 shows the three dwellings. To the extent that the Subject Properties may be in disrepair, it is only because the owner has neglected them. These small homes are in keeping with our neighborhood, and we think an appropriate alternative would be to use small lot options to increase density while preserving the character of our neighborhood and minimizing the negative impact of the proposed changes. The negative impacts on our neighborhood that would result from approval of the pending applications include the following: The Height Allowances Are Too High Most of the homes in our neighborhood are single-story dwellings, with just a few two- story homes that fit within the 30-foot height limitation under our present SF-3-CO-NP zoning classification. The DB90 density bonus requested by the applicant would allow a structure up to 70 feet tall, or more than twice as tall as any other building in our neighborhood, and four times as tall as most of them. There is no other building that tall, 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 30 of 46and it would be grossly out of proportion and would overshadow neighboring properties. This fact alone should cause the application to be rejected out-of-hand. Even the 40-foot maximum height that would be allowed under the Planning Department’s recommendation would result in a structure that looms over the other homes on our street and would be inappropriate for that reason alone, especially considering the absence of any setback requirements that could mitigate the domineering effect of such a tall structure. Attached Photo #2 shows the single-story dwelling on 44th Street immediately behind the Subject Properties. Attached Photos #3 and #4 show the single-story dwellings directly across 44th Street from the Subject Properties. Attached Photo #5 shows the line of single-story dwellings all along 44th Street. Attached Photo #6 shows the single- story buildings (one is a doctor’s office) directly across Red River from the Subject Properties. The Traffic Study Underpinning the Department’s Recommendation is Flawed and Inadequate The traffic study on which the Department staff’s recommendation is partly based is highly flawed. To begin with, the analysis is based on a maximum of seven residential units and 750 square feet of commercial space, i.e., the mixed-use “Vertical” classification that the Staff’s report recommends, which includes limitations on the number of units based on site area requirements. Thus, the study does not even purport to address the traffic consequences of the applicant’s request for DB90 bonus density, which has no such limitations. Since the applicant has submitted no site development plan, there’s no telling how much additional traffic there would be at this location if the DB90 density bonus were to be approved – but there is no question that it would be enormous. Yet the study does not analyze this at all. For this reason alone, among many others, the Commission cannot approve the DB90 density bonus requested by the applicant. For several additional reasons, the study is fatally flawed even with respect to the mixed- use “Vertical” designation recommended by the Department’s staff. The study does not seem to consider, either separately or collectively, the effects of the significant expansion underway at Hancock Shopping Center just a few blocks to the South, or the expansion of I-35 just a few blocks to the East. Both of these projects will increase traffic on Red River and Bennett Avenue, as well as 44th Street as a route to Bennett Avenue. The effect of those expansions will only be compounded if the pending 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 31 of 46applications are approved (whether with or without the DB90 density bonus). At Hancock Shopping Center, HEB is nearing the completion of its $17.5 million expansion that includes the addition of a BBQ restaurant among other attractions. The former Sears building, which has been vacant for many years, is being converted to a new community health center that will house administrative offices and offer clinical services. Both of these changes will draw more traffic to the area, and Bennett Avenue serves as the access route to the Shopping Center’s north parking lot. Further, the north parking lot at the Hancock Shopping Center has been used as a staging site and has closed during construction. Its closure almost certainly skewed the analysis of current traffic on Bennett Avenue because drivers going to HEB and the other stores there (24 Hour Fitness, Twin Liquor, Petco, and others) likely directed themselves to the south or west side of the Shopping Center to park in the south lot. The study thus does not accurately reflect even the pre-expansion traffic that was common on Bennett Avenue and 44th Street. During the years of construction to expand the I-35 corridor, highway traffic will be shunted onto local streets, especially ours on the west side. Even after construction is completed, there will be more local traffic on our streets due to the elimination of streets between the west side of the highway and the Shopping Center. In short, our neighborhood streets will be far more congested even before the addition of more housing and businesses as proposed by the applicant at the Subject Properties. Yet the traffic analysis does not consider any of these impacts, or how they will be magnified by the requested changes in the Neighborhood Plan and zoning. Existing Safety Hazards Would be Dangerously Increased The increased traffic created by these changes would lead to several serious safety risks for our neighborhood. Between 43rd and 44th Streets there are bus stops on both sides of the street, a pedestrian crosswalk with a small island in the middle of the street, and two narrow unprotected bike lanes (one in each direction). See attached Photos #1 and #6. Coming from the south, Red River narrows to become a single lane in each direction exactly at 43rd Street. Cars traveling up Red River often do not slow down quickly enough when the street narrows, and there’s a slight bend and rise in Red River just below 43rd Street, making it difficult for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other drivers at 44th Street to see the cars speeding up from the south, and for cars coming north to see pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles at 44th Street. Last year, after the crosswalk was 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 32 of 46installed, one of the reflective e posts marking the island was run over and broken by a car. Photos #7 and #8 show the limited sight distance in each direction (and trash cans placed in the bike lane) due to the bend and rise in Red River at 43rd Street. Photo #9 shows a garbage truck and car stopped at 44th Street, which were invisible to drivers around the bend to the south at the time Photo #8 was taken. In sum, even without any additional activity, Red River is already hazardous. Add to this dangerous mix of uses and activities at this narrow section of Red River the fact that there is no room for parking for any new residences or businesses, and it is readily apparent that the increased traffic and commercial activity resulting from the requested changes at the Subject Properties is a prescription for accidents, injuries and fatalities. Additional Housing Units and New Businesses will Create Congestion and Traffic Hazards on East 44th Street Forty-fourth street between Red River and Bennett Avenue is around the corner from the Subject Properties and is where the additional residents and new shop owners, as well as their guests, customers, and delivery trucks, will inevitably park. This will narrow our street to just one traveled lane. Combined with the additional traffic, our street will cease to be the quiet, family-friendly, walkable lane that is a hallmark of our community, and instead become a hazardous thoroughfare for pedestrians, bicyclists and cars alike. A useful contrast is the mixed-use area located a few blocks West of Red River, at Duval and 43rd Street where the Duval Center with several neighborhood businesses is located. There, both Duval and 43rd Street are wide, and there is on-site parking on both sides of the street directly in front of the businesses. Additional parking is located immediately adjacent to and/or behind these businesses. No vehicles block any traveled lane. The streets are straight for long distances, and approaching vehicles are easily seen. None of these features are present at Red River between 43rd and 44th Streets, and their absence renders the pending proposals for the Subject Properties dangerous and unwise for our neighborhood. CONCLUSION Sincerely, For the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission should reject the above-referenced applications in their entirety on the ground that they are detrimental to and inappropriate for our neighborhood. 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 33 of 46Andrew Schulz CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 34 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 35 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 36 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 37 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 38 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 39 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 40 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 41 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 42 of 4607 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 43 of 46 MEMORANDUM To: CC: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Victoria Haase Kaylie Coleman, Matiur Rahman, Bryan Golden Manar Hasan, P.E. February 5, 2025 Red River Rezoning Neighborhood Traffic Analysis (C14-2024-0121) The proposed development consists of 30 Multifamily Housing units and 4,000 square feet of Retail. The site is a 0.35-acre tract on Red River St, south of E 44th St, as shown in Figure 1 below. This site proposes access to Red River St and E 44th St. E 44th St is a Level 1 street. The Transportation Development Services (TDS) division has conducted an NTA and offers the following comments. Figure 1: Site Location Roadways E 44th St: The ASMP designates E 44th St as a Level 1 road. The pavement width of E 44th St along the site frontage is approximately 30 feet. There are two unstriped travel lanes and on street parking with curb and gutter along the site frontage of E 44th St. There is no continuous sidewalk in the vicinity of the site on E 44th St. It functions as a 25-mph street. According to the ASMP, the required right-of-way of E 44th St in the vicinity of the site is 58/64 feet. Page 1 of 3 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 44 of 46Bennett Ave: The ASMP designates Bennet Ave as a Level 1 road. The pavement width of Bennet Ave along the site frontage is approximately 30 feet. There are two unstriped travel lanes and on street parking with curb and gutter along the site frontage of Bennet Ave. There is sidewalk on the NB side in the vicinity of the site on Bennet Ave. It functions as a 25-mph street. According to the ASMP, the required right-of-way of Bennet Ave in the vicinity of the site is 58/64 feet. Trip Generation and Traffic Analysis Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, the proposed development will generate 341 adjusted vehicle trips per day. See Table 1 for a detailed breakdown of the trip generation. Land Use Units Trip Generation Table 1. Trip Generation ITE Code Existing Proposed Single-Family Detached Housing 210 3 Dwelling Units Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) Strip Retail Plaza 220 822 30 Dwelling Units 4,000 SQFT NET TRIPS 40 268 398 626 24-hour traffic volumes were collected at two points, see Figure 2 below, on E 44th St and Bennett Ave on October 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, 2024. Figure 2: Tube count locations Table 2 provides an assumed trip distribution for the proposed land uses. This development proposes access to E 44th St and Red River St. It has been assumed 40% of the site traffic will use E 44th St to access the site, 60% of the site traffic will use Red River St to access the site, and 5% will use Bennett Ave to access the site (through E 44th St). Page 2 of 3 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 45 of 46Table 2. Trip Distribution Street Expected Trip Distribution (Percentage) E 44th St, East of Red River St (Location 1) Bennett Ave, South of E 44th St (Location 2) Red River St 40% 5% 60% Table 3 represents a breakdown of traffic on E 44th St and Bennett Ave: existing traffic, proposed site traffic, and total traffic after development. Table 3. Traffic Summary Street Adjusted Existing Traffic from Counts (vehicles per day, vpd) E 44th St, East of Red River St (Location 1) Bennett Ave, South of E 44th St (Location 2) 139 276 Site Traffic added to Roadway (vpd) Total Future Traffic (vpd) 250 31 389 307 According to Section 25-6-116 of the Land Development Code (LDC), residential local or collector streets that have between 30 and 40 feet of pavement width are operating at an undesirable level if the average daily traffic volume for such a roadway exceeds 1,800 vehicles per day. Based on the LDC criteria, E 44th St and Bennett Ave are currently operating at desirable levels and will continue operating at desirable levels with the addition of site traffic. This site will be subject to Street Impact Fee (SIF), which will help fund roadway capacity projects identified in RCP necessitated by new developments. SIF calculation shall be performed during the Site Plan review and fee will be collected at the time of building permit. For SIF-related information, please visit the City’s SIF website (https://www.austintexas.gov/department/street-impact-fee). This assessment is based on the proposed uses and access; any changes in these assumptions may require an updated NTA. This NTA does not grant nor guarantee approval of proposed driveway types or locations. Driveway types and locations will be reviewed with the site plan application. Please contact me at manar.hasan@austintexas.gov if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Manar Hasan, P.E. Transportation and Public Works Department, City of Austin Page 3 of 3 07 C14-2024-0121 - Red River; District 9 46 of 46