C20-2024-017 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET Amendment: C20-2024-017 Planned Development Area 2 (PDA2) & C20-2024-022 Density Bonus for Commercial Highway and Industrial Zones (DB240) Description: Amend City Code Title 25 (Land Development) to create a Planned Development Area 2 (PDA2) combining district and a Density Bonus for Commercial Highway and Industrial Zones (DB240) combining district. The PDA2 combining district is proposed to allow for modification of use and site development standards in certain commercial and industrial base districts. Under the proposal, additional residential uses would not be allowed under the PDA2 combining district. The Density Bonus for Commercial Highway and Industrial Zones (DB240) combining district is proposed to allow additional residential uses and modification of certain site development standards for residential uses in certain commercial and industrial base districts through a voluntary density bonus program. Under the proposal, PDA2 could be added to the IP, MI, LI, and R&D base zoning districts and DB240 could be added to the CH, IP, MI, LI, and R&D base districts. Moving forward, sites would no longer be able to rezone into PDA, but would need to request either PDA2 or the DB240. Background: Initiated by City Council Resolution No. 20240718-091. Planned Development Areas (PDA) were first added to the land development code in 1966 (19660616, City Council Meeting Minutes (austintexas.gov)) for the following purpose: “to provide suitable and conducive environment for the development of modern administrative facilities, research establishments, specialized manufacturing plants, and similar enterprises plus retail and other customer service facilities… and not intrude upon nearby existing or future residential and associated development.” (page 21) The use of a PDA allows for modifications to site development standards, including maximum height and floor-to-area ratio (FAR), as well as modifications to allowed and prohibited uses within a zoning district. On May 23rd, 2023, via Resolution No. 20230323-085, the City Council initiated an amendment to Land Development Code Section 25-2-582 (Commercial Highway (CH) District Regulations) to eliminate all the regulations found in 25-2-582(C) and clarify that a zoning ordinance establishing a CH-PDA controls over any conflicting CH regulations. This allowed for wider use of PDA zoning for Commercial Highway (CH) districts. Based on staff analysis of PDA zoning ordinances over the last ten years, there has been an increase in the number of cases where residential uses have been permitted: since 2014, 45 PDA zoning ordinances have permitted residential uses, with 31 of those cases since …
Infill Plats & Site Plan Lite: Update on Staff Proposal Planning Commission| Oct. 22, 2024 Changes to Staff Proposal Since 08/27/2024 Commission Meeting Change Effect Revise Sec. 25-7-67 to increase site area for “no drainage review” tier for resubdivisions from 0.25 acres to 11,500 square feet. Facilitates re-subdivision into two HOME-1 lots and provides greater flexibility for re-subdividing into HOME-2 lots. TPW to implement a policy providing automatic relief from right-of-way dedication for infill projects on Level 1 streets that meet a few simple criteria. By eliminating requirement to obtain a waiver, this policy will help reduce review times and streamline the permitting process for infill projects. PARD to streamline process for approving payment of fee in-lieu for residential infill projects. Reduce review times and streamline the permitting process for infill projects. Recap of Staff Proposal: Infill Plats Example “Greenfield” Subdivision For scale: A ¼-acre area, eligible for streamlined resub per “Infill Plat” proposal Summary of Infill Plat Proposal: Drainage Code Amendments Lot Size Proposed Requirements for Resubdivision Additional Info. Up to 11.500 sq. ft. No drainage studies or onsite detention ponds Same as 1-4 units on a single lot No drainage studies or onsite detention ponds are required if these requirements are met: More than required for 1-4 units on a single lot, but less than a standard subdivision or site plan >11,500 sq. ft. to 1.0 acres Lot drains to street right-of- way (ROW) or storm drain without grading: Just a drainage map depicting direction of water flow No engineering or fee payment Grading is required to drain lot to ROW or storm drain: Compliance with Regional Stormwater Management Program (RSMP) Engineering & RSMP fee, as well as grading inspection >11,500 sq. ft. If the above requirements are not met, compliance with all applicable drainage regulations (Land Development Code & Drainage Criteria Manual) is required Required today for all re- subdivisions 6 Infill Plat Scenario 1: Lot no greater than 11,500 square feet HOME-1 Project (building permit) HOME-2 Project (subdivision with lots lines) No drainage studies or on- site detention ponds Same max. footprint as building permit/HOME-1 No difference in drainage requirements from surrounding 1-4 unit housing on single lots 7 Infill Plat Scenario 2: 11.5K sq. ft. to 1-acre lot with natural surface flows to road/drainage system Drainage map depicting direction of water flow No stormwater engineering, detention pond, or RSMP payment …
Case No. C20-2023-045 Planning Commission: October 22, 2024 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET Amendment: C20-2023-045 | Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 & Infill Plats Amendment Introduction: This staff report discusses amendments to the Land Development Code (“LDC”) proposed in response to two separate council initiatives intended to facilitate construction of infill housing: Resolution No. 20221201-048 (“Site Plan Lite”) and Resolution No. 20230504-023 (“Infill Plats”). These amendments, which will be included in a single ordinance, seek to better calibrate non-zoning regulations and review procedures to the scale of “missing middle” housing. The report also describes changes initiated or under consideration by individual departments to address non-LDC related challenges to development of missing middle housing, including amendments to administrative criteria manuals and improvements to existing review procedures. Revisions to Original Proposal: Following the Planning Commission’s public hearing on August 27, 2024, staff continued to meet with stakeholders to discuss ways of improving the proposal to better address their concerns. As a result, staff’s proposal includes the following changes: • Under the revised proposal, residential re-subdivisions of up to 11,500 square feet are exempt from drainage review. This will provide greater flexibility than the originally proposed cap of a quarter-acre (10,890 square feet). • The Transportation and Public Works Department (TPW) is instituting a streamlined process for approving relief from right-of-way dedication requirements, which will make the process easier and quicker for most infill projects. • The Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) has committed to streamlining the process for approving payment of a fee-in-lieu of parkland dedication for infill projects that meet certain criteria, with the goal of greater predictability and a quicker review process. These changes are discussed in more detail throughout this report and, for easy reference, are flagged as “[UPDATED] or “[NEW].” {intentionally left blank} Case No. C20-2023-045 | Page - 1 Case No. C20-2023-045 Planning Commission: October 22, 2024 Amendment Background: — Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 On December 1, 2022, the City Council passed Resolution No. 20221201-048 initiating LDC amendments to better scale site plan review for residential projects of three to sixteen units located on a single lot. For Phase 1, Council adopted Ordinance No. 20230720-158 on July 20, 2023, creating a site plan exemption for projects of four or fewer residential units. This change, coupled with subsequent passage of the “HOME-1” ordinance, has enabled staff to conform the review process for three to four-unit residential projects more …
To: From: Chair Hempel Vice Chair Azhar Planning Commission Members Brent Lloyd Development Officer Development Services Department Date: October 18, 2024 Subject: Case No. C20-2023-045 |Response to Questions re: Infill Plats & Site Plan Lite, Pt. 2 To assist the Planning Commission in considering the above-referenced item, this memo provides staff responses to questions sent to us by a commissioner earlier this week. (Each question, quoted from the commissioner’s email, is followed by a staff response.) An interdepartmental staff team will be available to address additional questions at the Planning Commission’s October 22, 2024 meeting. “You mentioned previously, the current draft language is a result of ‘a lot of input Question 1. and discussion from stakeholders that have occurred over the last several months.’ Please let me know which stakeholders have agreed to this draft, specifically which environmental groups or any specifically focused on flood controls?” Response: of the proposal. In general: Staff cannot speak to which stakeholder groups support or oppose the latest version Stakeholders associated with environmental groups have expressed concerns regarding flooding impacts, particularly with respect to the “Site Plan Lite” portion of the proposal. Staff from the Watershed Protect Department have addressed these concerns on several occasions, including at two stakeholder engagement sessions, two Environmental Commission meetings, and a meeting of the Housing & Planning Committee. Stakeholders associated with the infill development community have expressed concerns that the proposal does not sufficiently relax regulations. While differences remain, staff has made numerous changes to address practical concerns raised by these stakeholders. As discussed in the staff report, these changes will help to increase flexibility and reduce costs for residential infill projects while maintaining existing floodplain and water quality protections. “In your previous presentation, you cite this proposal will streamline the Question 2. development process for approximately 3,500 sites. Is that the total universe of which properties could utilize this streamlined process? Or an estimated number who DSD believes will use the streamlined process?” Under the Site Plan Lite (“SP-Lite”) proposal, no engineered drainage analysis or Response: onsite detention facilities would be required for 5-16 projects if: (1) the site is no greater than 0.50 acres; and (2) the applicant provides a topographic drainage plan demonstrating that water flows naturally to the street or storm drain system. Providing engineered drainage analysis and onsite detention facilities can account for at least 30-40% of total costs, so projects that meet …
Affordability Impact Statement Infill Plats & Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 Initiated by: Resolution No. 20221201-048, 20230504-023 Case number: C20-2023-045 Date: October 21, 2024 Proposed Regulation The proposed amendments would do the following: Infill Plats • • • • Provides small-scale residential developments with a streamlined subdivision review process to facilitate fee-simple ownership of lots as an alternative to condominium regimes. • Aligns impervious cover assumptions used in the streamlined subdivision review with impervious cover limits imposed by zoning regulations, which will provide more flexible subdivision options, allowing landowners to create smaller lots without triggering full subdivision review. The modified drainage standards are limited to applications that meet the following criteria: Less than one acre in site area; o Not located within the Wildland Urban Interface; o Is within a previously platted residential subdivision; and o Does not require a plat vacation. Projects under 11,500 square feet are not required to provide a drainage study or onsite detention. Projects between 11,500 square feet and one acre must provide a drainage plan demonstrating that, without altering natural topography, stormwater will discharge to an existing storm drainage system or right-of-way. Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 • • • The modified drainage standards are limited to applications that meet the following criteria: o Less than 11,500 square feet in site area; and o 5 to 16 units on a single lot. • Qualifying projects must provide a drainage plan demonstrating that, without altering natural topography, stormwater will discharge to an existing storm drainage system or right-of-way. Establishes a new “small-project” category for developments of 5 to 16 units that qualify for the modified drainage standards, streamlining the review process with shorter review times and reduced fees. Land Use/Zoning Impacts on Housing Costs The proposed changes would have a positive impact on housing costs by facilitating the delivery of missing middle projects through a less onerous permitting process and by expanding options for “fee simple” ownership of units on separate lots rather than condominium regimes. Like Home I and Home II, this housing strategy is aimed at increasing attainable housing options for middle-income Austinites, which is supported by many of the Strategic Housing Blueprint and Imagine Austin Goals to encourage diverse housing types throughout Austin. The modified drainage standards apply only to areas outside the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). However, further analysis and discussion are necessary to determine if these standards are entirely unavailable …
Case Number: C14-2024-0104 PETITION Total Square Footage of Buffer: Percentage of Square Footage Owned by Petitioners Within Buffer: Date: 10/22/2024 383964.4944 26.64% Calculation: The total square footage is calculated by taking the sum of the area of all TCAD Parcels with valid signatures including one-half of the adjacent right-of-way that fall within 200 feet of the subject tract. Parcels that do not fall within the 200 foot buffer are not used for calculation. When a parcel intersects the edge of the buffer, only the portion of the parcel that falls within the buffer is used. The area of the buffer does not include the subject tract. TCAD ID Address Owner Signature Petition Area Precent 3001 E 51ST LLC ATKINS CARLA D AUSTIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AUSTIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORP BISHOP JULIAN NEPEAN CARTER MAXINE COCHRAN LIFE ESTATE & EASLEY GILBERT JR GAMMILL PATRICK & JANIS JOHNSON RUFUS ET AL TRUSTEE KIRKWOOD LEAH & RYAN MIKULENKA LOPEZ JOHNNY M & IRENE V MENDEZ ROBERT PATRICK 3005 E 51 ST 78723 5223 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 3015 E 51 ST 2989 E 51 ST 78723 5207 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5107 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5111 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 3037 PECAN SPRINGS RD AUSTIN 78723 3103 E 51 ST 78723 5112 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5205 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5113 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 0216200116 0218201213 0216200103 0216200123 0218201211 0218201204 0218201206 0218201215 0216200104 0218201111 0218201210 0218201207 0217221502 - 0217221509 3108 E 51 ST UNITS 101-103, 201-203, 301-302 MULTIPLE OWNERS (CONDOMINIUMS) 0218201217 0218201209 0218201214 0218201208 0218201205 0218201108 0218201110 0218201212 0217200314 0218201112 0216200124 0218201109 Total 3006 E 51 ST 78723 5203 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5225 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 5201 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5109 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5204 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5200 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5221 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 3107 E 51 ST 78723 5110 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 3007 E 51 ST 5202 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 MUSGROVE MARCELLA E ODEN ALMA & JOHNNIE POWELL OLINGER JAMES & WAYDE FREY PHILLIPS EMILY & NICKOLAS NOBEL RANDLE JOHN C JR ROSAL ANA IXCHEL & LISA V BYRD SHORT DAVID JR & LOLA MAE SMITH CONSTANCE Y & DAVID ST STEPHENS BAPTIST CHURCH TAO ROBERT D & QUYNH N NGUYEN THOMPSON GLENN WAYBORNE LLC no no no no no no no no no no no no yes no no …
Case Number: C14-2024-0104 PETITION Total Square Footage of Buffer: Percentage of Square Footage Owned by Petitioners Within Buffer: Date: 10/21/2024 383964.4944 20.77% Calculation: The total square footage is calculated by taking the sum of the area of all TCAD Parcels with valid signatures including one-half of the adjacent right-of-way that fall within 200 feet of the subject tract. Parcels that do not fall within the 200 foot buffer are not used for calculation. When a parcel intersects the edge of the buffer, only the portion of the parcel that falls within the buffer is used. The area of the buffer does not include the subject tract. TCAD ID Address Owner Signature Petition Area Precent 3001 E 51ST LLC ATKINS CARLA D AUSTIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AUSTIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORP BISHOP JULIAN NEPEAN CARTER MAXINE COCHRAN LIFE ESTATE & EASLEY GILBERT JR GAMMILL PATRICK & JANIS JOHNSON RUFUS ET AL TRUSTEE KIRKWOOD LEAH & RYAN MIKULENKA LOPEZ JOHNNY M & IRENE V MENDEZ ROBERT PATRICK 3005 E 51 ST 78723 5223 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 3015 E 51 ST 2989 E 51 ST 78723 5207 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5107 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5111 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 3037 PECAN SPRINGS RD AUSTIN 78723 3103 E 51 ST 78723 5112 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5205 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5113 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 0216200116 0218201213 0216200103 0216200123 0218201211 0218201204 0218201206 0218201215 0216200104 0218201111 0218201210 0218201207 0217221502 - 0217221509 3108 E 51 ST UNITS 101-103, 201-203, 301-302 MULTIPLE OWNERS (CONDOMINIUMS) 0218201217 0218201209 0218201214 0218201208 0218201205 0218201108 0218201110 0218201212 0217200314 0218201112 0216200124 0218201109 Total 3006 E 51 ST 78723 5203 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5225 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 5201 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5109 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5204 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 5200 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 5221 MARYMOUNT DR AUSTIN 78723 3107 E 51 ST 78723 5110 WAYBORNE HILL DR 78723 3007 E 51 ST 5202 WAYBORNE HILL DR AUSTIN 78723 MUSGROVE MARCELLA E ODEN ALMA & JOHNNIE POWELL OLINGER JAMES & WAYDE FREY PHILLIPS EMILY & NICKOLAS NOBEL RANDLE JOHN C JR ROSAL ANA IXCHEL & LISA V BYRD SHORT DAVID JR & LOLA MAE SMITH CONSTANCE Y & DAVID ST STEPHENS BAPTIST CHURCH TAO ROBERT D & QUYNH N NGUYEN THOMPSON GLENN WAYBORNE LLC no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes no yes yes …
310 Inner Campus Drive, B7500 Austin, Texas 78712-1009 T: 512.471.1922 F: 512.471.0716 soa.utexas.edu October 22, 2024 Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my concern about the proposal to add residential uses to areas zoned for Commercial Highways, and for a variety of high intensity industrial uses. A recent report published by the American Planning Association summarizes a decade of research conducted by the EPA detailing the connections between ambient pollutants coming from highways and industrial facilities and health outcomes including cancers, fertility disorders, kidney diseases, stroke, lung cancers or diseases, lower life expectancy, thyroid disorders, depression, autoimmune conditions, and the leading cause of death in the United States: cardio-vascular disease (Quattro 2024, pg 28). For the past two years I have been working with an interdisciplinary team at UT on a study of the relationship between neighborhood air quality and asthma, under a grant funded by the National Institutes of Health. The team is led by Elizabeth Matsui, MD, at the Dell Medical School and includes experts in air pollution/air quality and in health conditions resulting from exposure to pollutants, including asthma. The team has been studying the relationship between neighborhood air quality and trips to the emergency room for acute asthma. The study was motivated by a desire to explain the disparately high levels of asthma experienced by people of color in Travis County. In 2017, 8 times as many black children, and 2.5 times as many Latinx children were hospitalized for asthma, compared to rates for white children. And people coming to the emergency room for treatment for asthma were concentrated in a subset of Austin neighborhoods. Highways and industrial facilities are key sources of the pollutants linked to asthma. My colleague, Dr. Alex Karner, has published a review of the existing literature on the connection between exposure to pollutants from highways and health. I include his letter giving you the key points from his review. There is widespread agreement that placing residential uses or uses for sensitive populations next to highways is a bad idea. While there are strategies for mitigating the impacts of exposure, they are second best options. The first best is not to place these uses alongside highways. A recent study from the Urban Institute documents the disproportionate siting of MF housing close to highways in Los Angeles and makes recommendations aimed at preventing co-location of housing and highways, and for reducing dependence …
Residential Infill Subdivision and Site Plan Lite Recommendations The AIC and HBA appreciate the opportunity to offer recommendations on ways to improve the subdivision process for much needed missing middle and infill housing. These projects will bring gentle density to Austin by making the subdivision process more efficient and using Austin’s limited developable land more efficiently. Prior to 1984, these types of projects were common and are heralded today as some of Austin’s most affordable housing stock. Change is difficult, and the development process is complicated. We understand that many of the necessary changes will require thoughtful, in-depth analysis and compromise among city departments and city priorities. Ultimately, housing affordability and housing supply should be the guiding priority. We hope that the city and its departments will come to the table and work with the development community to find solutions that will improve the process while maintaining a high standard of construction and safety. Several departments have already made good efforts to improve their processes. We hope these recommendations will build on those efforts. In this report, we offer two separate sets of recommendations for residential infill subdivision and site plan lite, broken down by department. These lists of recommendations illustrates the need change in almost every department involved in the development process. These recommendations are not exhaustive but are designed to be a starting point for improvements. In the recommendations, you will also find our goals and guiding principles that helped shape our recommendation. Some of these recommendations will require changes to the land development code while others will require edits to the city’s criteria manuals or administrative processes. While there is some overlap between the two, after diving into our recommendations in greater detail, we have come to agreement that residential infill subdivision and site plan lite should be considered separately. The two different processes present different challenges as projects increase in size. In order to improve the site plan and subdivision process globally, the city must: • One of the biggest barriers to missing middle housing is the time it takes for approval. Establishing reasonable and achievable goals for review times will encourage simplification and process improvements. • Modify applicable regulations and processes for predictability, consistency and increased • • feasibility for compliance. Implement a speedy resolution process for inter departmental conflicts. Identify and publish applicable regulations across departments so applicants can get it right with their …
Residential Infill Subdivision Goal: To create an efficient process for residential infill subdivision, allowing for the creation of fee simple lots in existing neighborhoods on legal tracts with existing drainage patterns, and established utilities and services. A streamlined infill lot process will allow either fee simple ownership, or condo form of ownership with densities, lot sizes, and impervious cover limits already allowed under existing zoning. The Primary goal is for missing middle sites to be treated in proportion to their size and have clear, upfront rules. The current process is subjective with open-ended negotiations, inequitable costs, and lengthy review times. Applies to: Previously platted lots, or land status qualifying lots, under one acre and zoned for residential use. LDC SUGGESTED EDITS BY DEPARTMENT Austin Energy • Reduce aerial setback from 15 ft to 10 ft for infill plats. • Only require easements to accommodate existing facilities or to bring service to the lots. Increase minimum distance from right of way that triggers sprinklers in residential units. Austin Fire • • Allow for multiple units to be served by one driveway. • Reduce aerial setback from 15 ft to 10 ft for infill plats Austin Water • • Add flexibility for lot line crossing per uniform plumbing code. 25-9-33 (F) - No Service Extension is required for re-plats six lots or less and under one acre if flow rate and capacity is sufficient. • Create templated Joint Use Access agreements and set timeline goal of seven day turn around for plats. City Legal Development Services • • • • Establish review timeline goal - 60 Days from submission to completion, including 30 Days Shot Clock State Rule 212.009. Benchmark these goals with other similar cities. 25-4-1 - Infill Plats are not subject to 25-7 (drainage) and 25-8 (water quality, environmental). 25-4-1 (D) - An existing legal tract may be re-platted to include up to six lots or less and under one acre without triggering traditional subdivision review 25-4-1 (D)(1) - Additional plat notes that simply mimic existing code will not be required for re-plats six lots or less and under one acre that do not vacate original plat. New plat notes shall be provided in a standardized form. • 25-4-34 (F) - Original Tract requirement does not apply to infill plats (replats six lots or less and under one acre). • 25-4-84 (E) - Fiscal Surety and Engineer's cost estimate is …
Site Plan Lite Goal: To create an efficient process for Site Plan Lite to accommodate missing middle residential projects up to 16 units where allowed by zone that can be approved quickly and efficiently. The site plan light review process for missing middle should closely mirror the review process for similarly sized projects under HOME 1 that utilize a condo regime. The primary goal is for missing middle sites to be treated in proportion to their size and have clear, upfront rules. The current process is subjective with open-ended negotiations, inequitable costs, and lengthy review times. There is a tremendous difference between obtaining permits for two or three units on a property compared to 5-16 units. Applies to: Properties able to accommodate 16 units by zone, up to two acres. It’s critical that the size of the tract be large enough to achieve up to 16 units while also accommodating site conditions like trees and topography. List of recommended changes by department Austin Energy • Reduce aerial setback from 15 ft to 10 ft for infill plats. Austin Water • • Add flexibility for lot line crossing per uniform plumbing code. 25-9-33 (F) No Service Extension is required for re-plats 6 lots or less and under one acre if flow rate and capacity is sufficient City Legal Development Services • Create templates for Joint Use Access and other easement agreements. • • Allow unified processing of easements at a legal “one stop shop.” Track legal approvals in Amanda and in the approval timeline, including response times and customer service information. • • • 25-5-3 - Small Projects. Include provision that any site plan that proposes 5-16 units is qualified as a Small Project. 25-5-21 - Phased Site Plans. Any site that proposes 5-16 units is not required to phase the site plan to allow for individual buildings to gain a separate certificate of occupancy. A site plan with 5-16 units is not required to break out phases for compliance for any code requirement. The Site Plan shall comply with all code requirements as a whole property and not by phase, regardless of the pace of construction. 25-5-62 - Site Plan Extensions. A site plan with 5-16 units may be extended by the Director for a period up to five years without any additional requirements. Environmental and Community Trees 25-8-211 (G) - Fee in Lieu for Water Quality shall be allowed. …
10431 Morado Circle, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78759 512-617-3100 fax 512-617-3101 www.freese.com TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Reem Zoun, PE, CFM FROM: SUBJECT: Garrett Johnston, PE, CFM, GISP Kim Patak, PE, CFM, ENV SP CodeNEXT Flood Mitigation Analysis (West Bouldin/Del Curto) PROJECT: AU316288 – WBO WMP Phase II DATE: February 9, 2018 CC: Rupali Sabnis, PE, CFM 1.00 BACKGROUND DRAFT THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF JOHN GARRETT JOHNSTON, P.E., TEXAS NO. 115779 ON FEBRUARY 9, 2018. IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING OR PERMIT PURPOSES. FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F- 2144 The City of Austin (COA) is currently in the process of updating the land development code through a process called CodeNEXT. As part of this effort, the City’s Watershed Protection Department (WPD) is considering changes to flood mitigation requirements. To quantify the flood risk reduction effects of these potential criteria changes, Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) was retained by WPD to perform a case study in the West Bouldin Creek (WBO) watershed. The study area for this task centers on Del Curto Road near South Lamar Boulevard, a primarily residential area that receives runoff from a combination of residential and commercial properties upstream. The study area is generally bounded by Ann Arbor Avenue, Rabb Glen Street, Thornton Road, and Cinnamon Path. Storm runoff from the area is collected into a storm drain system which outfalls just downstream of Thornton Road into a channel that drains to West Bouldin Creek. WPD has received several reports of flooding in this area, as shown in the attached figures. 2.00 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC MODELING The study area was evaluated using Innovyze’s InfoWorks Integrated Catchment Modeling (ICM) 7.0 software, the City’s standard two-dimensional (2D) modeling platform. It was chosen for the study area due to its ability to evaluate a complex combination of storm drain systems and surface flow patterns. 2.01 DATA RECEIVED FROM WPD The following information was provided by the City’s WPD for use in the evaluation. 1. Flooding Complaints. WPD provided a point shapefile detailing 68 flood complaints in the Del Curto area. These are generally categorized as building, street, and yard flooding and include addresses and detailed notes. Refer to the attached figures for a depiction of locations and flood type. 2. ICM Models. The initial ICM models that FNI received, including a …
The Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 22, 2024, at Austin City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 1001, 301 W. Second Street, in Austin, Texas. Chair Hempel called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance: PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 Claire Hempel Greg Anderson Nadia Barrera-Ramirez Casey Haney Adam Haynes Felicity Maxwell Alberta Phillips Danielle Skidmore Alice Woods Awais Azhar Grayson Cox Patrick Howard Ryan Johnson Danielle Skidmore Board Members/Commissioners absent: PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Angela Garza, DB90 Bobby Levinski, Hays Commons 1 Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting on October 8, 2024. The minutes from the meeting of October 8, 2024, were approved on the consent agenda on Commissioner Woods’ motion, Commissioner Maxwell’s second, on a 13-0 vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS Location: 2. Plan Amendment: NPA-2024-0027.01 - Rawson Saunders - Tarrytown Christian Church Improvements; District 10 2614 and 2614 ½ Exposition Boulevard, 2702 McCoullugh Street, 2615 ½ and 2611 Hillview Road, Taylor Slough South Watershed; Central West Austin Combined (West Austin) Neighborhood Planning Area Owner/Applicant: Austin Area School For Dyslexics Inc./Tarrytown Baptist Church Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: Thrower Design, LLC (Ron Thrower & Victoria Haase) Single Family to Mixed Use/Office land use Applicant postponement request to December 17, 2024 Maureen Meredith, 512-974-2695, maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov Planning Department The motion to approve the Applicant’s postponement request to December 17, 2024, was approved on the consent agenda on Commissioner Woods’ motion, Commissioner Maxwell’s second, on a 13-0 vote. 3. Rezoning: Location: C14-2024-0051 - Rawson Saunders - Tarrytown Christian Church Improvements; District 10 2614 and 2614 ½ Exposition Boulevard, 2702 McCoullugh Street, 2615 ½ and 2611 Hillview Road, Taylor Slough South Watershed; Central West Austin Combined (West Austin) Neighborhood Planning Area Owner/Applicant: Austin Area School For Dyslexics Inc./Tarrytown Baptist Church Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: Thrower Design, LLC (Ron Thrower & Victoria Haase) SF-3-NP to GO-MU-NP Applicant postponement request to December 17, 2024 Cynthia Hadri, 512-974-7620, cynthia.hadri@austintexas.gov Planning Department The motion to approve the Applicant’s postponement request to December 17, 2024, was approved on the consent agenda on Commissioner Woods’ motion, Commissioner Maxwell’s second, on a 13-0 vote. 2 4. Plan Amendment: NPA-2023-0017.01 - Anderson Square, District 4 Location: 910, 912, 914 & 916, 1012 & 1012 ½, 1100, 1100 ½ & 1102 ½ W. Anderson Lane, 7905 ½, 8003, …
SPECIAL CALLED MEETING of the PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2024, 5:00 PM AUSTIN CITY HALL, BOARD AND COMMISSION, ROOM 1101 301 WEST 2ND STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Planning Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live. Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely. Registration no later than 2 PM the day of the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. For more information on public comment, please see the agenda section “Speaker Registration”. Please contact Ella Garcia, Staff Liaison, for questions regarding speaker registration at LandUseLiaison@austintexas.gov or by phone at 512-978-0821. CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS/COMMISSIONERS: Claire Hempe1, Chair (District 8) Awais Azhar, Vice Chair (Mayor’s Representative) Greg Anderson, Secretary (District 4) Alice Woods, Parliamentarian (District 2) Patrick Howard (District 1) Nadia Barrera-Ramirez (District 3) Felicity Maxwell (District 5) EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: Casey Haney (District 6) Ryan Johnson (District 7) Danielle Skidmore (District 9) Grayson Cox (District 10) Alberta Phillips (Mayor’s Representative) Adam Haynes (Mayor’s Representative) Jessica Cohen, Chair of Board of Adjustment Candace Hunter, AISD Board of Trustees TC Broadnax, City Manager Richard Mendoza – Director of Transportation and Public Works EXECUTIVE SESSION (No public discussion) The Planning Commission will announce it will go into Executive Session, if necessary, according to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, to receive advice from Legal Counsel on matters Executive Liaison: Joi Harden, 512-974-1617 Staff Liaison: Ella Garcia, 512-978-0821 specifically listed on the agenda. The Commission may not conduct a closed meeting without the approval of the city attorney. Private Consultation with Attorney – Section 551.071. CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL AGENDA The first four speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 1. Discussion and action to recommend that Council amend the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan to add the Equity-Based Preservation Plan, which is a historic preservation plan, to the City’s comprehensive plan. Presentation by Cara Bertron, 512- 974-1446, cara.bertron@austintexas.gov, Planning Department. 2. Discussion and action recommending adoption of the Austin Core Transportation Plan (ACT Plan) as an attachment to the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP). Presentation by Cole Kitten, 512-974-6442, cole.kitten@austintexas.gov, Transportation and Public Works Department. STAFF BRIEFINGS 3. …
Equity-Based Preservation Plan Learning from Our Past to Shape a Future for Everyone 2024 Austin, Texas Preservation Plan Working Group Historic Landmark Commission Vision for Historic Preservation Historic preservation in Austin actively engages communities in protecting and sharing important places and stories. Preservation uses the past to create a shared sense of belonging and to shape an equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and economically vital future for all. These images represent community heritage to Austinites: Lunar New Year celebrations, Mayfield Park, the landmarked Mary Baylor House in Clarksville, a Mexican American celebration at the Capitol, Barton Hills homes, Huston-Tillotson University. Preservation Plan Working Group Michelle Benavides Linda Y. Jackson Leslie Ornelas 1 Noel Bridges 1 Julia Brookins* Meghan King* Emily Payne Jolene Kiolbassa 1 Rocio Peña-Martinez* Brita Wallace* 1 Amalia Carmona 2 Kevin Koch Misael Ramos* 1 Bob Ward 1 Ursula A. Carter Kelechi Madubuko 1 Mary Reed* 1 Caroline Wright 1 Maria Solis* 1 Erin Waelder 1 Mary Jo Galindo* 1 Brenda Malik Jerry Garcia 1 Hanna Huang* 1 Alyson McGee 1 Debra Murphy 2 Lori Renteria 1 Gilbert Rivera 1 JuanRaymon Rubio 2 * Drafting Committee member 1 Phase 1 member only 2 Phase 2 member only The Preservation Plan Working Group included 26 community members who developed this draft plan in phase 1. Land Acknowledgment Land acknowledgments are a practice to recognize Indigenous Peoples as original stewards of the land who still have an enduring relationship with their traditional territories. We include this acknowledgment in the Equity-Based Preservation Plan as an expression of gratitude and appreciation to those whose territory we reside on and a way of honoring the Indigenous Peoples who have lived and worked on the land known as Austin, Texas. Land acknowledgments do not exist in the past tense or historical context. Colonialism is a current and ongoing process, and we need to be mindful that we are participating in it by living on colonized land. To ensure meaningful recognition and inclusion of Indigenous Peoples, more work needs to happen as part of the implementation of this plan. We acknowledge, with respect, that the land known as Texas has been home to many groups for more than 16,000 years. These include the Tonkawa, the Mescalero Apache, the Lipan Apache, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (Tigua people), the Texas Band of Yaqui Indians, the Coahuiltecan, the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, the …
M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Cara Bertron, Planning Department DATE: October 17, 2024 Equity-Based Preservation Plan adoption SUBJECT: This memo provides a brief synopsis of the Equity-Based Preservation Plan planning process. In 2021, the Historic Landmark Commission initiated the development of a new historic preservation plan to replace Austin’s existing preservation plan from 1981. The Commission created a community working group, the Preservation Plan Working Group, to develop the plan. In this phase, the Preservation Plan Working Group comprised 26 community members who lived in 19 ZIP codes across the city and reflected Austin’s racial and ethnic diversity. Working Group members brought a range of experiences, perspectives, and expertise to the planning process. They received input and feedback from 275 community members through: • A community heritage survey • Focus groups of representatives from cultural and heritage organizations, legacy businesses, and neighborhood organizations • A Technical Advisory Group of City staff from 12 departments • A Technical Assistance Panel facilitated by the Urban Land Institute The Working Group met monthly from June 2021 to June 2022, with subcommittee meetings between many of the full-group meetings. It presented the Historic Landmark Commission with the draft Equity-Based Preservation Plan on September 7, 2022. From February through May 2024, staff coordinated a robust, inclusive community engagement process. Community members were engaged through a number of methods, including: SpeakUp Austin website (www.speakupaustin.org/ATXpresplan, 34,000 views) • • Online and paper surveys in multiple languages (2,083 surveys completed) • Email newsletters, both plan-specific (1,400 subscribers) and from other City departments and organizational partners Social media from the City of Austin (organic and paid) and organizational partners Flyer distribution at locations, events, and presentations • • • 4 City-hosted outreach events held at community hubs in East, West, and South Austin (350 • Pop-up tabling at 45 community events around Austin (1,000+ people engaged) • 31 presentations to community groups and professional stakeholder organizations, including online discussions hosted by ULI Austin and USGBC-Texas • 29 small-group and 1-on-1 conversations held by community ambassadors and mini-grant partner attendees) organizations • Briefings to 17 City boards and commissions (see below) • Article in Austin Utilities Now newsletter mailed to households citywide in April 2024 • Online survey distributed to 4,400 randomly selected service area households via email by Austin • Distribution of plan information to Small Business …
PLANNING COMMISSION | OCTOBER 21, 2024 Austin History Center (C05767, PICA 24201, PICA 29995); Chen Chen Wu; City of Austin Planning Process HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Michelle Benavides Mary Jo Galindo*1 Jolene Kiolbassa 1 Debra Murphy 2 Misael Ramos* 1 JuanRaymon Rubio 2 Bob Ward 1 Noel Bridges 1 Jerry Garcia 1 Kevin Koch Robin Orlowski 2 Mary Reed* 1 Maria Solis* 1 Caroline Wright 1 Julia Brookins* Hanna Huang* 1 Kelechi Madubuko 1 Leslie Ornelas 1 Lori Renteria 1 Erin Waelder 1 Amalia Carmona 2 Linda Y. Jackson Brenda Malik Emily Payne Gilbert Rivera 1 Brita Wallace* 1 Ursula A. Carter Meghan King* Alyson McGee 1 Rocio Peña-Martinez* *Drafting Committee member 1 Phase 1 only 2 Phase 2 only Plan Vision Historic preservation in Austin actively engages communities in protecting and sharing important places and stories. Preservation uses the past to create a shared sense of belonging and to shape an equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and economically vital future for all. Image sources: Joe’s Bakery, anonymous, Amy Moreland/ Austin’s Atlas Images: Joe’s Bakery, home in Zilker neighborhood, detail from Music Listening Map by Amy Moreland Plan Goals 107 recommendations 1. Tell Austin’s full history 9. Proactively identify important places 2. Recognize cultural heritage 10. Follow good designation practices 3. Preserve archaeological resources 11. Support stewardship of community 4. Stabilize communities assets 5. Support environmental sustainability 12. Be strategic with review 6. Make preservation more accessible 13. Protect historic resources 7. Support people doing the work 14. Implement the plan collaboratively 8. Engage new partners What We Preserve Images, clockwise from top left: Juneteenth parade, unveiling of La Loteria mural, archaeological resources Image sources: The Austin Chronicle (two images), San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation Think broadly. • Recognize Austin’s rich and complex history through active listening, inclusive research, and interpretation • Better recognize and protect legacy businesses, murals, and archaeological resources • Use preservation tools to support displacement prevention and environmental sustainability Who Preserves Invite and support. • Engage new partners and audiences • Help community members access knowledge and resources • Support people doing the work: homeowners and tenants, crafts- people, commissioners, and staff Images, clockwise from top left: Protest at City Hall to preserve Edward Rendon Park (Chicano Park), door hanger in San Antonio, “Stories within Stories” project of the Austin Asian American Film Festival Image sources: Bertha Rendon Delgado, San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation, Austin Asian American …
Austin Core Transportation (ACT) Plan Small Area Mobility Plan of the ASMP: Downtown Austin Planning Commission - October 21, 2024 Cole Kitten, TPW, Division Manager Agenda • ACT Plan Purpose and Background • Planning Process • ACT Plan Project Recommendations • Implementation Plan • Next Steps 2 ACT Plan Purpose • The ACT Plan is a Small Area Mobility Plan covering Downtown Austin and will be adopted by Council as an attachment to the ASMP. • It is an update to previous transportation focused efforts Downtown – dating back to 2000 • Why are we updating the transportation plan for Downtown? • changes in transit and bicycle planning, • changes in highway improvements serving Downtown, • changes in national best practices on urban street design, and • disruptions to traditional mobility • The ACT Plan will create a unified vision for transportation Downtown and align the many projects and initiatives under one actionable plan to help accomplish the goals in the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan. 3 Background • Great Streets Master Plan, 2001 • The goal of the Great Streets program is to pursue the vision of streets for people • Downtown Access and Mobility Plan, 2002 • The emphasis of the access and mobility study was on modeling and simulating intersection traffic operations and determining existing and future levels-of- service and operational needs • Downtown Transportation Framework, 2008 • The Downtown Transportation Framework Plan builds on the Great Streets Master Plan, further developing the system of “priority streets by mode”, and developing more detailed streetscape cross sections of all of the different street types and variations • Downtown Austin Plan, 2011 • Established the vision to develop a multimodal transportation system that improves access to and mobility within Downtown 2001 2002 2008 2011 4 Background • New policy • The Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) aspires to achieve a 50/50 mode share where 50% of commuters use means other than driving alone to get to work in 2039 • Transit planning • The Project Connect Long Term Vision Plan established a High-Capacity Transit System and was adopted as an element of the ASMP – an initial investment was funded in 2020 • Managing demand • Transportation Demand Management programming, parking policy, and curb management are becoming critical strategies to manage congestion • New street design • The Congress Avenue Urban Design Initiative shows how to reimagine the allocation of …
