22 and 23 C20-2024-018 - Downtown Density Bonus Update Phase I - Downtown Density Bonus Program Working Group Draft Amendments — original pdf

Backup

Am. Commissioner Proposed Amendment Justification Maxwell Vote Gannon Vote Ahmed Vote Powell Vote 1 Maxwell Strike sections L, M & N of the draft ordinace 2 Maxwell General recomendation: to delay implementation of sections L, M +N to phase II of the DDB process In PART 8,25-2-65x, Letter C, Revise Line 151 to read: (C) If this section conflicts with (1) Pecan street overlay (PS) district, the more restrictive provision controls and (2) Properties subject to Section 25-2-168 (Downtown Parks (DP) Overlay District are eligible DENSITY BONUS COMBINING DISTRICTS as outlined in PART 7. General recomendation: In Phase II Expand the number of UDS options as outlined in Section R General Recommendation: In Phase II revise section G + H number 2 to adjust the number of optional urban design standards required for participation in the DB 400 and DB 850 programs General Recommendation: In Phase II revisit and revise UDS-6 (Upper Story Design) to match North Burnet Gateway + PC recommendations for UNO and remove stepback requirements Replace Section Q, Mandatory Urban Design Standards (UDS) and Section R, Optional Urban Design Standards (UDS) with revised standards as outlined in PC back up from the design commission, titled Downtown Density Bonus Urban Design Standards (see link https://services. austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=473003) 3 Maxwell 4 Maxwell 5 Maxwell 6 Maxwell 7 Maxwell 8 Ahmed General Recommendation: Offer incentives for supporting existing tenants Due to stakeholder concerns, these requirements should be updated and recalbirated after additional community engagement. Calibration on this should include both changes to requirements within this section as well as changes to commercial requirements within 4-18. Yes Yes Yes Yes Due to stakeholder concerns, these requirements should be updated and recalbirated after stakeholder engagement. This should include updating which spaces should qualify for protecttion. Phase II should apply the updated commercial redevelopment requirements to the entire downtown area, not just the Phase II area. Yes Yes Yes Yes Incoporate PC Initiated code changes (10/25/25) to the Downtown Parks Overlay into the Downtown Density Bonus Update Phase I draft ordinance. The proposed changes to the Downtown Parks Overlay were initaited last fall by Planning Commission, and have support from key downtown stakeholders. This update takes into account concerns raised in Attachment C of the staff report The costs and impact of current UDS standards as outlined in Phase I are varied and several may not be feasible, particularly on smaller sites or those without historic zoning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Current requirement of 7/14 and 10/14 could prove challenging to achieve particularly for non-historic or small sites Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes This revision in Phase II would provide consistency between Density Bonuses where stepbacks requirements have been eliminated in favor of more pedestrian focused design at the street level vs. unnecessary and costly building cut outs that do not address street level view Per City of Austin Design Commission, the revised standards are more precise, and proscriptive set of guidelines that ensure better builiding outcomes for our downtown community and projects using the DDB program If we are not striking L, M, and N from the draft ordinance, consider offering incentives to developers for supporting existing tenants instead of making them requirements. This way, landlords downtown are not disincentivized from signing or renewing leases for these types of businesses. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 22 and 23 C20-2024-018 - Downtown Density Bonus Update Phase I1 of 2Per 'Bird-building collisions in the United States' (Loss et al., The Condor, 2014), building collisions kill over a billion birds annually — a problem addressable through bird-friendly design. However, the same study finds that less than 1% of collisions occur at buildings over 12 stories; the vast majority happen at mid-rises and residences. Given this, does it make sense to apply this requirement specifically to the downtown density bonus? Certain standards in this list, like "Enhanced Pedestrian-Oriented Frontage", seem to offer more value to the community than others, like "Stepbacks" and "Match Historic Building Scale". The costs to developers to implement these standards also varies. Instead of incentivizing developers to implement the lowest cost standards, incentivize them to implement the ones that provide the most community benefit. Per the consultant report, address the delta between FIL for DDB program vs. the costs as outline for onsite affordable units in the district. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes General Recommendation: Revisit the Gateway requirements related to Bird Friendly design in Phase II offering more options regarding this requirement 9 Gannon General Recommendation: For Optional Urban Design Standards, offer a weighted value for each item proportional to the amount of community benefit. Instead of requiring a minimum number of standards, require a minimum total value from the chosen standards. General recomendation to revisit the FIL calibratiion for DDB, particularly focusing on the cost difference between FIL fees and onsite affordability 10 Ahmed 11 Gannon 12 Maxwell General Recomendation: Expedite the inclusion of the South Central Waterfront District to the map referenced in Appendix _x_ to provide options for that planning district to participate in DDB 400 and DDB 850 Expanding the map to include South Central Waterfront expedites participation from those properties without the delay of waiting for Phase II and offers much needed alternatives to PUD process 22 and 23 22 C20-2024-018 - Downtown Density Bonus Update Phase I2 of 2