Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Policy Plan City of Austin Public Review Draft - Not Adopted BAUSTINpaletas 6 Appendix BAUSTINpaletas BAUSTINpaletas paletas F. Comprehensive ETOD Policy Toolkit B AUSTIN How to use the Toolkit The ETOD Policy Toolkit provides a framework for Project Connect station- area planning and investment so that residents, businesses, and neighborhoods can fully and equitably realize the benefits of transit investment in Austin. The 6 ETOD goals guided the identification of 46 policies for pursuing equitable outcomes across five broad categories: small business and workforce, housing, mobility, land use and urban design, and real estate and finance strategies. includes four main Each policy tool sections. To the left of the toolkit, a sidebar includes details on the proposed implementation lead and partners, relevant goals, and policy timeline, prescription set. Description: This section provides a summary of the recommended tool and suggestions for what considerations should and the guide implementation of the tool. design At the end of each Description section, for tools that are not already active in Austin we provide a national example to help demonstrate what the tool can look like in Austin and offer any lessons learned where applicable. Does something like this exist in Austin today?...: This section describes how to update existing tools to reflect ETOD goals, lessons from similar existing tools in Austin, and information on feasibility. Some policy tools already exist but are recommended for expansion/updates, some tools don’t exist but could be modeled on existing Austin efforts, and some tools would be brand new to the Austin context. This Challenges and Implementation section outlines Considerations: any financial, legal, and programmatic considerations for the Implementation Lead to know when planning and designing the tool. Success Metrics: This section includes a small set of metrics that will be developed further by the Implementation Lead to measure the success of the tool over time. or Implementation organization who would create or manage the tool. Agency Lead: A24 DRAFT - ETOD Policy Plan Partners: Additional agencies or organizations who can support in tool implementation. Timeline: Details including how soon to begin preparing and designing the tool (within 1 year, 1-2 years, 3-4 years, and 5+ years) and when the tool should be used (before, during, or after construction of Project Connect). City Council Goals: Identifies which portion of the guidance in City Council’s June 2021 ETOD Resolution (Resolution 20210610-093) that a specific policy tool …
Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Policy Plan City of Austin Public Review Draft - Not Adopted BAUSTINpaletas BAUSTINpaletas Acknowledgements We would like to thank everyone involved in creating Austin’s Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Policy Plan, especially the Community Advisory Committee working group members and Community Connectors who put in countless hours engaging their networks and advising staff over the course of a year. We also appreciate the City of Austin, CapMetro, and Austin Transit Partnership staff who reviewed drafts of the policy tools and contributed key information on local context and implementation considerations. We could not have completed the ETOD Policy Plan without the hard work of our consultant team, including HR&A Advisors, Nelson\Nygaard, Perkins&Will, Asakura Robinson, Cultural Strategies, and Movitas Mobility. Lastly, we thank the people of Austin, especially historically marginalized communities, for joining us as partners. You helped envision the future we want and you’ll be the key to implementing ETOD so that we can achieve the equitable outcomes that everyone deserves. BAUSTINpaletas Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................5 1. Background.........................................................................................6 Introduction...................................................................................8 Planning History and Impact of Existing TODs in Austin...................9 Adding the “E” to TOD...................................................................12 2. ETOD Goals........................................................................................14 Approach to ETOD Goal Development.............................................16 ETOD Goals....................................................................................17 3. Station Area Typologies and Planning Priorities..................................18 Typologies Background.................................................................20 Elements of the ETOD Station Typologies......................................22 Austin’s ETOD Typologies..............................................................24 Station Area Planning Priorities.....................................................28 4. ETOD Policy Toolkit............................................................................38 Introduction to the Policy Toolkit..................................................40 Summary of Policy Tools................................................................41 5. Next Steps / Action Plan...................................................................48 6. Appendix...........................................................................................56 A. ETOD Engagement Process.......................................................A2 B. Station Area Existing Conditions Analysis.................................A5 C. ETOD Goals Development.........................................................A6 D. ETOD Typology Methodology.....................................................A8 E. Station Area Planning Priority Methodology.............................A14 F. Comprehensive ETOD Policy Toolkit.........................................A24 How to Use the Toolkit........................................................A24 Small Business & Workforce Development...........................A27 Housing Affordability..........................................................A46 Mobility...............................................................................A74 Land Use & Urban Design.....................................................A95 Real Estate & Financial Strategies.....................................A117 BAUSTINpaletas City of Austin - DRAFT 5 BAUSTINpaletasExecutive SummaryPurpose of the PlanThe Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (ETOD) Policy Plan is a comprehensive framework to help the Austin community ensure that future development around the Project Connect transit system supports residents of all incomes and backgrounds, especially those who have been disproportionately burdened by past transportation and land use decisions. The City of Austin worked with our partners at CapMetro and the Austin Transit Partnership as well as the community to craft the goals of ETOD in Austin, the tools that can help us reach those goals, and the actions we must take to achieve equitable outcomes along the transit system. Ultimately, the …
Equitable Transit-Oriented Development ETOD Policy Plan Planning Commission - November 2022 Purpose of the Plan Provide a comprehensive framework to help the Austin community ensure that future development around the Project Connect transit system supports residents of all incomes and backgrounds, especially those who have been disproportionately burdened by past transportation and land use decisions. ETOD Resolution 20210610-093 • Prioritization of equitable outcomes • Categorization of TODs by tiers using context-sensitive criteria • Anti-displacement strategies • Preservation of existing and creation of affordable housing • Creation of market-rate housing • Compact, connected and transit-supportive • Mix of land uses • Codify community benefits What is ETOD? TOD vs. Equitable TOD Why we are going from this.... To this! 4 The ETOD Team 5 Austin’s ETOD Journey Corridor Bond, ASMP, and Project Connect ETOD Study ETOD POLICY PLAN REGULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION Established corridors of Establishes protypes for TOD Recommendations for focus, mode split goals, that reflect Austin’s vision to planning prioritization, and procured funding for equitably share the benefits typologies, policy tools, high-capacity transit of transit investments for and next steps to project delivery. residents of all income levels, implement ETOD in Austin. to zoning. Could be and backgrounds. Adopt ETOD station area plans and code amendments that may include updates expanded to other geographies in the future. WE ARE HERE 2016 - 2020 2021 - 2022 2022 - 2023 2023 - onward 6 ETOD Study • $1.65 million in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) TOD planning grants • 98 stations across all Project Connect lines 1 2 Quantitative analysis of existing conditions within ½ mile of station areas Qualitative data collection through robust community engagement 7 Dashboard – Existing Conditions Dashboard Home Page Multifamily Inventory Total Jobs by Industry Station Tour Interactive Data : • Population • Displacement Risk • Jobs • Urban Fabric • Real Estate • Mobility s c i m a n y D s c i t s i r e t c a r a h c l a i c o S l a c i s y h P 8 8 Engagement Touchpoints Community Presentation Large format meetings to present project milestones CAC Working Group Briefings Monthly meetings, Ongoing guidance throughout project and major milestones Tabling/Intercept Surveys In-person events to target specific neighborhoods or demographics Focus Groups & One-on-ones Guided discussions with groups to identify vision and needs and to build consensus amongst stakeholders …
November 10, 2022 -- Meeting Notes – Re: Brodie Oaks Development Austin Energy, COA Law Dept, Brodie Oaks Development Team, Planning Commissioner Greg Anderson • AE: Andy H., Stuart, Scott B., Lisa, Maria, Michael P., Reza, Nick S., Noelle, Pamela E. • COA: Kait • Armbrust & Brown: Jewel, David Lionheart: Rebecca, Abby • • Brodie Oaks Owner Rep: Milo • Engineers & Planners: Steven, Joe Longaro Intros Rebecca Leonard • Apologized for communication breakdowns; transparency and engagement have been cornerstones of the approach for the last 3 years • Have had many meetings with AE staff • Most recently Summer 2022; included Stuart and Jackie o Clear direction that only option was 1.5 acre substation site on property o Approx 1/3 of substation capacity would be for the Brodie Oaks development Left the mtg thinking that was AE's final say; didn't realize AE was still working on things • • Does not support substation on site • Have met with several entities and none of them think this is a great location for a substation • Stuart Interested in hearing more from AE in terms of what options are available • Did not intend that meeting to be final • • We have not been approaching this as, this is a nice to have, so we can burden this site and Left the meeting with the intent that the teams would look for creative solutions together • serve other areas First and foremost, we need a substation to serve this site and we don't have the substation capacity elsewhere to serve it • All sites are not the same from an engineering perspective • Never encountered this issue at the zoning stage of the work • This is a long way out; why now? • What would AE do if Milo decided not to do this project? How would you serve S. Austin • Can't plan out too far due to 10 year rule associated with eminent domain • A load such as this, which is a few years out, is really right around the corner for us • Team provided very preliminary loading estimate; was very conservative on it • Expect they will come in lower than that • AE recognizes that load estimates are estimates and that load varies over time; thus, AE applies a diversification factor to load estimates; used to determine how to feed the …
Amend Commissi Section Pg # Proposed Amendment Proposed Text Change Text Change Included References and Notes (if WG Vote Tally ment # oner (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) in Amendment (YES/NO) needed) 1 Shieh § 25-2-769.04 (D) 5 of 14 strike out "two stories" and "three stories" in this section The height limitation for Yes 5-0-0 and remove the reference to stories from all other parts of a structure is: the ordinance. (1) two stories and 35 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from a triggering property; (2) three stories and 45 feet, if the structure is more than 50 feet and not more than 100 feet from a triggering property; or 2 3 Thompson § 25-2-769.06 (F) 10 and 11 of 14 Fee in lieu funds must be used within 1 mile of the property and within 0.25 miles of a corridor. Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 Allow the same compatibility standards on both light rail No No We want housing in 4-0-0 transit supported areas 5-0-0 4 Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 The compatibility standards for medium corridors should No 5-0-0 (2) and (3), and § 25-2-769.04 (B) (2) (4), and § 25-2- 769.04 (B) (2) and large corridors. This standard should be the following: - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property if it is not participating in an affordable housing program. be the following: - a structure can reach a maximum height of 65 ft if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing - a structure can reach a maximum height of 75 ft if the structure is located at least 150 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. program. - a structure can reach the allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property, whether it is participating in an affordable housing program or not. 5 Shieh § 25-2-769.04 (C) 5 of 14 Define what is or is not allowed in the 25 foot compatibility No This …
Last week, staff did not address Commissioner Schneider’s question about “the 10 percent Opposition to Case C814-2021-0099, Brodie Oaks PUD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND PUD BONUS CALCULATIONS Nov. 14, 2022 From: Lorraine Atherton, member, Zilker Neighborhood Association Zoning Committee 2009 Arpdale, Austin TX 78704 Council District 5 Over the three years that ZNA has been aware of this case, the affordable housing component has always come up at the end of the discussion, when everybody is ready to go home. If affordable housing is the Planning Commission’s and City Council’s top priority, however, the PUD requirements for affordable housing really should be examined more closely. standard in typical bonus programs.” They simply stated that the package met superiority. If the applicant did intend to develop on-site affordable units at the 10% standard, the PUD would be incorporating 170 affordable units (10% of 1,700) onsite, in addition to contributing an $8.6 million fee- in-lieu to cover the nonresidential bonus area. Also, it should be noted that the new standard for bonus height programs is 12% of units (in this case 204 affordable units). Please ask staff to explain how the value of the land under an unfunded future affordable housing complex of only 100 units can be higher than the value of 170 affordable units onsite and a cash contribution of $8.6 million to NHCD that could be used to support projects offsite immediately. The “stand-alone”affordable apartment building offered in the Brodie PUD is not a gift, and it is not even a reliable commitment. To make a long story short, Austin cannot rely on speculative rezoning agreements to provide affordable housing in the short-term. The history of the tiny PUD at Riverside and South Lamar (Taco PUD) is instructive. TACO PUD COMPARISONS To summarize: vaguely defined fee-in-lieu of less than $500,000 was deemed superior as an affordable housing contribution. The PUD ultimately delivered no housing and no fee-in-lieu. 108 hotel rooms and 27 luxury condos; plus, a direct, immediate cash donation was made to a deeply affordable 110-unit permanent supportive apartment project about one mile away from the PUD site. Construction on the nonprofit project began almost immediately, followed closely by the PUD hotel project, delivering $3.7 million to Austin’s affordable housing program. 2013 Taco PUD ordinance The Affordable Housing section of the 2013 PUD ordinance for 1211 W. Riverside (211 S. Lamar) reads: “PART 9. Affordable Housing Program. The …
From: To: Subject: Date: JJ Reinken Rivera, Andrew Janis Reinken comments for PC Mtg 11-15-22, Items 19 and 21 Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:33:39 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** 11-15-22 Dear Mr. Rivera, Please distribute these comments to the Planning Commission for the special called meeting today. I oppose Item 19 and Item 21, and urge the PC members to follow the city staff recommendation opposing Item 19, and reject the city staff recommendation that favors Item 21. PC members would be way off base to push these proposals forward without current, verifiable facts to support them. Population demographic information prepared by the previous City Demographer was ignored, and the alternate data used for these proposals is overly broad and out of date. Infrastructure needs to augment and improve water / wastewater capacity in Austin are being ignored, and the "notice" sent to a limited number of persons about encroachments in their vicinity fails for lack of sufficiently specific information to enable people to know what changes are afoot, and the notice is lacking about how to protest these actions. A thorough analysis of the labor market and earning power of workers within Austin city limits needs to be made and adjustments to the concept of “affordability” and the FPL limits need to be modified to include 10-50% levels. Fees in lieu of providing affordable units need to be removed. This undermines the goals of helping "working class" residents find adequate housing for their needs. Building tall towers of "Class A Luxury Apartments" does not address the affordability issue. It is time for the City Commissions and City Council to quit making sweeping decisions first, and thinking afterward about the adverse implications imposed on the residents and taxpayers of Austin. Sincerely, Janis Reinken reinken.austx@gmail.com Austin, Texas 78757 (CD 7, Precinct 220) CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.
C20-2022-004 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET (Planning Commission 11/15/22) Amendment: C20-2022-004 Compatibility on Corridors Description: Consider an amendment to Title 25 of the City Code to modify compatibility standards as applied to certain projects on certain corridors. Proposed Language: See attached draft code language and background information. Summary of proposed code amendment • The proposed amendment will generally reduce compatibility for a residential or mixed-use project on a defined set of corridors: Medium, Large, or Light Rail Line. For all eligible projects on a corridor: o Compatibility will extend 300’in distance (vs 540’ today) o Compatibility will be triggered by zoning only (not use) o An additional 5’ of height will be allowed vs current standards • Projects providing affordable housing may be granted a further reduction in compatibility: o Maximum height at a distance of 100’ from a triggering property for projects on a light rail line o 65’ of height at a distance of 100’ from a triggering property and 90’ of height at 200’ from a triggering property on a large corridor o 65’ of height at a distance of 150’ from a triggering property and 90’ of height at 250’ from a triggering property on a medium corridor • Minimum parking requirements are reduced for residential or mixed-use corridor properties: o 25% of what would otherwise be required for a light rail line or large corridor o 50% of what would otherwise be required for a medium corridor Background: Initiated by City Council Resolution 20220609-066. The City of Austin’s current compatibility standards apply to sites that are within 540 feet (or nearly two downtown blocks) of the property line of an urban family residence (SF-5) or more restrictive zoning district. Compatibility standards also apply when a site is adjacent to a lot on which a use permitted in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district is located. Current compatibility standards include: • Height and Setback Limitations • Scale and Clustering Requirements • Screening Requirements 11/15/2022 1 C20-2022-004 The dimensional characteristics of the City’s current compatibility standards are shown in the image below, with annotations in pink text showing the proposed compatibility standards along light rail lines, large corridors, and medium corridors as defined in the ordinance: Existing Compatibility Standards and Proposed Compatibility Standards Along Specified Corridors In June 2022, City Council adopted a resolution that directed staff to modify the application of compatibility to projects on certain …
Amend Commissi Section Pg # Proposed Amendment Proposed Text Change Text Change Included References and Notes (if ment # oner (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) in Amendment (YES/NO) needed) 1 Shieh § 25-2-769.04 (D) 5 of 14 strike out "two stories" and "three stories" in this section The height limitation for Yes and remove the reference to stories from all other parts of a structure is: the ordinance. (1) two stories and 35 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from a triggering property; (2) three stories and 45 feet, if the structure is more than 50 feet and not more than 100 feet from a triggering property; or 2 3 Thompson § 25-2-769.06 (F) 10 and 11 of 14 Fee in lieu funds must be used within 1 mile of the property Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 Allow the same compatibility standards on both light rail and within 0.25 miles of a corridor. No No We want housing in transit supported areas (2) and (3), and § 25-2-769.04 (B) (2) and large corridors. This standard should be the following: - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property if it is not participating in an affordable housing program. [Proposed Amendment 1: Light rail not participating in an affordable housing program: 1) 65' @ >100' and <150' from triggering property, 2) 85' @ >150' and <200' from triggering property. This would allow by right density along light rail. 65' and 85' building heights are outside of line of sight with 35' and 45' heights at 25' and 50' from triggering property line respectively.] 4 Shieh § 25-2-769.06 (F) 4 and 10 of 14 The compatibility standards for medium corridors should No (4), and § 25-2- 769.04 (B) (2) be the following: - a structure can reach a maximum height of 65 ft if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. - a structure can reach a maximum height of 75 ft if the structure is located at least 150 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an …
Palm District Planning Initiative Planning Commission November 15, 2022 Content Background and Study Area What We Heard Vision and Scenarios Implementation/Next Steps Background and Study Area Develop a shared vision for a complex, culturally rich, and rapidly transforming part of downtown Austin. 4 5 Resolution 20190523-029 Palm School Negotiations Rainey Street District Fund Fifth Street Mexican American Heritage Corridor Convention Center Expansion District Planning Process Improved Connectivity 6 WE ARE HERE 7 Equity-Based Goals Create a safe, welcoming place history Preserve and interpret Enhance educational and cultural assets Provide economic benefits Increase access to housing Improve mobility and access Improve access to nature, enhance natural systems, and support an equitable, sustainable, resilient future 8 What We Heard Participants • Visits to SpeakUp Austin! Webpage: 3,600 • Survey Responses: 700+ (3 Surveys) • Visioning Forum Attendees: 150+ • Targeted East Austin Outreach: 75 + (Individuals and Organizations) • AIA Event Participants: 60+ • Interactive Map Responses: 25+ 10 Survey Demographics 11 Visioning Forums 12 Targeted East Austin Engagement: • La Raza Roundtable • Current and Former Elected Officials • Greater Austin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce • Tejano Democrats • Palm School Alumni • The Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center (ESB-MACC) • La Pena Arts, Inc. • Mexic-Arte • Nuestro Grupo/Academia Cuauhtli • AHMIGA (Latina civic and social networking organization) • Café Con Letras • L.A.C.E. • PODER • Long-time East Austin residents 13 American Institute of Architects Recommendations: 14 Vision and Scenarios VISION The Palm District is a vibrant historic hub of downtown where the past is honored, culture is celebrated, and the future is shaped. Dense transit-oriented development is balanced with history and natural spaces creating physical connections that invite people to move easily to and through the district. The district is a dynamic place, growing and evolving, while actively retaining families and individuals who have traditionally called this place home. Creativity and innovation are cultivated, and people from Austin and beyond are welcome to live, relax, work, play, learn, and connect with others. 16 INCLUSIVE GROWTH Growth in the district will provide a prosperous future for longtime and recent residents and for established and new businesses. 17 CULTURE The district will become a destination that celebrates its multi- cultural heritage. 18 CONNECTION Physical, cultural and social connections will be strengthened within downtown and between …
From: To: Subject: Date: JJ Reinken Rivera, Andrew Janis Reinken comments for PC Mtg 11-15-22, Items 19 and 21 Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:33:39 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** 11-15-22 Dear Mr. Rivera, Please distribute these comments to the Planning Commission for the special called meeting today. I oppose Item 19 and Item 21, and urge the PC members to NOT follow the city staff recommendation opposing Item 19, and reject the city staff recommendation that favors Item 21. PC members would be way off base to push these proposals forward without current, verifiable facts to support them. Population demographic information prepared by the previous City Demographer was ignored, and the alternate data used for these proposals is overly broad and out of date. Infrastructure needs to augment and improve water / wastewater capacity in Austin are being ignored, and the "notice" sent to a limited number of persons about encroachments in their vicinity fails for lack of sufficiently specific information to enable people to know what changes are afoot, and the notice is lacking about how to protest these actions. A thorough analysis of the labor market and earning power of workers within Austin city limits needs to be made and adjustments to the concept of “affordability” and the FPL limits need to be modified to include 10-50% levels. Fees in lieu of providing affordable units need to be removed. This undermines the goals of helping "working class" residents find adequate housing for their needs. Building tall towers of "Class A Luxury Apartments" does not address the affordability issue. It is time for the City Commissions and City Council to quit making sweeping decisions first, and thinking afterward about the adverse implications imposed on the residents and taxpayers of Austin. Sincerely, Janis Reinken reinken.austx@gmail.com Austin, Texas 78757 (CD 7, Precinct 220) CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20221115-19 Date: November 15, 2022 Subject: Code Amendment - Compatibility and Parking Requirements along Certain Roadways. Seconded By: Commissioner Azhar Motioned By: Commissioner Thompson Recommendation Recommend an ordinance amending City Code Title 25 to create a new overlay that modifies compatibility and parking requirements along certain roadways and include the following amendments: 1. § 25-2-769.04 (D), Strike out "two stories" and "three stories" in this section and remove the reference to stories from all other parts of the ordinance. To read as follows: “The height limitation for a structure is: (1) two stories and 35 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from a triggering property; (2) three stories and 45 feet, if the structure is more than 50 feet and not more than 100 feet from a triggering property; or” 2. § 25-2-769.06 (F), Fee in lieu funds must be used within 0.25 miles of a corridor. 3. § 25-2-769.06 (F) (2) and (3), and § 25-2-769.04 (B) (2), Allow the same compatibility standards on both light rail and large corridors. This standard should be the following: - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. - a structure can reach allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property if it is not participating in an affordable housing program. 4. § 25-2-769.06 (F) (4), and § 25-2-769.04 (B) (2), The compatibility standards for medium corridors should be the following: - a structure can reach a maximum height of 65 ft if the structure is located at least 100 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. - a structure can reach a maximum height of 85 ft if the structure is located at least 150 feet from a triggering property if it is participating in an affordable housing program. - a structure can reach the allowable height if the structure is located at least 200 feet from a triggering property, whether it is participating in an affordable housing program or not. 1 of 2 5. § 25-2-769.04 (C), Define what is or is not allowed in the 25 foot compatibility setback. We should ensure that refuse uses such as dumpsters are not allowed and buildings, meaning covered spaces which a human …
Legend GO: General Office LO: Limited Office SF-2: Single-Family Residence - Standard Lot GO-MU: General Office - Mixed Use GR: Community Commercial CH: Commercial Highway GO MF-2: Multi-Family Residence - Low Density CS: General Commercial Services CS-1: General Commercial Services - Liquor Store CS-V: Commercial Services - Vertical Mixed Use GO CS-1-V-CO: Commercial Services - Vertical Mixed Use Conditional Overlay LO-CO: Limited Office - Conditional Overlay MF-2 GR-V-CO: Community Commercial - Vertical Mixed Use - Conditional Overlay GR-MU-CO: Community Commercial - Mixed Use - Conditional Overlay UNZ - Unzoned SF-2 SF-2 GO-MU LO R E F F U 0 ’ B 0 5 SF-2 LO CS BARTON CREEK GREENBELT MF-4 L O O P 3 6 0 MF-2 UNZ CS-1-V-CO CS-1 GR GR CS U S S T O P O E T R R A PID B GR-V A PIT A L M E T R O M C CS-V D R A V E L U O R B A CS-1-V-CO M A S . L CS CH GO GR Legend: Property Boundary 500’ Buffer Existing Buildings Zoning Districts MF-2 SF-2 GR GR-MU-CO GR-V-CO GR MF-2 SF-3 SF-5 SF-3 GR SF-6 SF-3 CS-1-V CS CS MF-2 LO-CO SF-6 0 200 400 800 EXHIBIT B: BRODIE CONTEXT MAP SUBMITTAL DATE: 10/27/2022 PUD CASE: C814-2021-0099 BRODIE OAKS REDEVELOPMENT SITE METRICS 37.6 Acres / 1,637,856 Sq. Ft. 56% NSA; 54% GSA 5,750 Sq. Ft. 50 feet Total Site Area Proposed Impervious Cover Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Minimum Setbacks Front Street Side Yard Interior Side Yard Rear Yard 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet LAND USE AREA METRICS Acres Building Cover Impervious Cover* Non- Residential Maximum Hotel Maximum Residential Max. % Max. Sq. Ft. Keys Sq. Ft. Units Sq. Ft. 1,400,000 200 200,000 1,700 1,500,000 11.7 .5% 5,000 -- -- -- -- Max. 95% 25.9 Land Use Area 1 Land Use Area 2 Site Total 37.6 95% 7.5% 56% *Maximum impervious cover is based on Net Site Area (NSA) and will be tracked by site plan in compliance with Exhibit H - Brodie Oaks Redevelopment Phasing Plan. Impervious Cover will be higher on a site-by-site basis. Maximum floor-to-area ratio is not applicable to the Brodie Oaks Redevelopment. L O O P 3 6 0 BARTON CREEK GREENBELT Legend: Property Boundary Private Streets with Public Access Easements Land Use Area 1 Land Use Area 2 U S S T …
ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CASES: C814-2021-0099 – Brodie Oaks Redevelopment PUD DISTRICT: 5 C14R-81-033(RCA) – Brodie Oaks Restrictive Covenant Amendment ZONING FROM: Unzoned; GR; CS; CS-1 TO: PUD ADDRESS: 4021, 4025, 4107, 4109, 4115, and 4141 South Capital of Texas Highway Northbound; 3940, 4006, 4024 - 4040, 4200, 4220, 4236 South Lamar Boulevard Southbound SITE AREA: 37.606 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Lionstone Investments, LCFRE Austin Brodie Oaks LLC (John Schaefer) AGENT: Lionheart Places (Rebecca Leonard) CASE MANAGER: Wendy Rhoades (512-974-7719, wendy.rhoades@austintexas.gov) STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Staff recommendation is to grant planned unit development (PUD) district zoning, as shown in the Land Use Plan as provided Exhibits C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K. For a summary of the basis of Staff’s recommendation, see pages 3 - 14. The Restrictive Covenant includes all recommendations listed in the Transportation Impact Analysis Memo, dated August 31, 2022, as provided in Attachment A. The Staff recommendation is to grant an amendment of the 1981 Restrictive Covenant and terminate the height limitations for Tracts A1, A2, A3, A4, and B as it applies to this property. For a summary of the basis of Staff’s recommendation, see pages 3 - 14. PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD: September 26, 2022: RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE BRODIE OAKS PUD AS SUPERIOR IF THE APPLICANT AGREES TO: 1) WORK WITH STAFF AND ATD TO PROVIDE 10 FREE PARKING SPACES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SITE; 2) AMEND THE APPLICATION TO STATE THERE WILL BE A PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RESTROOM AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK; 3) CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE HILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY AND AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION TO ENSURE THIS IS A SUSTAINABLE TRAIL ACCESSING THE BARTON CREEK GREENBELT, AND 4) INVESTIGATE AND REPORT BACK ON METHODS TO FUND OFF-SITE BARTON CREEK GREENBELT PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT THROUGH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE SITE (refer to Attachment C) [S. FAUST; N. BARNARD – 2ND] (9-0) D. LEWIS AND K. TAYLOR – ABSENT 21 of 103 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: November 2, 2022: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: November 8, 2022: May 24, 2022: APPROVED AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY STAFF R. SCHNEIDER; J. THOMPSON – 2ND] (9-0) Y. FLORES, C. HEMPEL, J. MUSHTALER – ABSENT December 14, 2021: APPROVED AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY STAFF [A. AZHAR; R. SCHNEIDER – 2ND] (11-0) P. HOWARD – OFF THE DAIS; J. SHIEH – ABSENT CITY COUNCIL ACTION: December 1, 2022: ORDINANCE NUMBER: ISSUES: Austin Energy has requested that …
ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET C14R-81-033(RCA) – Brodie Oaks Restrictive Covenant Amendment CASES: C814-2021-0099 – Brodie Oaks Redevelopment PUD DISTRICT: 5 ZONING FROM: Unzoned; GR; CS; CS-1 ADDRESS: 4021, 4025, 4107, 4109, 4115, and 4141 South Capital of Texas Highway Northbound; 3940, 4006, 4024 - 4040, 4200, 4220, 4236 South Lamar Boulevard Southbound SITE AREA: 37.606 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Lionstone Investments, LCFRE Austin Brodie Oaks LLC TO: PUD (John Schaefer) AGENT: Lionheart Places (Rebecca Leonard) CASE MANAGER: Wendy Rhoades (512-974-7719, wendy.rhoades@austintexas.gov) STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Staff recommendation is to grant planned unit development (PUD) district zoning, as shown in the Land Use Plan as provided Exhibits C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K. For a summary of the basis of Staff’s recommendation, see pages 3 - 14. The Restrictive Covenant includes all recommendations listed in the Transportation Impact Analysis Memo, dated August 31, 2022, as provided in Attachment A. The Staff recommendation is to grant an amendment of the 1981 Restrictive Covenant and terminate the height limitations for Tracts A1, A2, A3, A4, and B as it applies to this property. For a summary of the basis of Staff’s recommendation, see pages 3 - 14. PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD: September 26, 2022: RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE BRODIE OAKS PUD AS SUPERIOR IF THE APPLICANT AGREES TO: 1) WORK WITH STAFF AND ATD TO PROVIDE 10 FREE PARKING SPACES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SITE; 2) AMEND THE APPLICATION TO STATE THERE WILL BE A PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RESTROOM AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK; 3) CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE HILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY AND AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION TO ENSURE THIS IS A SUSTAINABLE TRAIL ACCESSING THE BARTON CREEK GREENBELT, AND 4) INVESTIGATE AND REPORT BACK ON METHODS TO FUND OFF-SITE BARTON CREEK GREENBELT PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT THROUGH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE SITE (refer to Attachment C) [S. FAUST; N. BARNARD – 2ND] (9-0) D. LEWIS AND K. TAYLOR – ABSENT 31 of 103 C814-2021-0099 / C14R-81-033(RCA) Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: November 2, 2022: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: November 8, 2022: May 24, 2022: APPROVED AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY STAFF R. SCHNEIDER; J. THOMPSON – 2ND] (9-0) Y. FLORES, C. HEMPEL, J. MUSHTALER – ABSENT December 14, 2021: APPROVED AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY STAFF [A. AZHAR; R. SCHNEIDER – 2ND] (11-0) P. HOWARD – OFF THE DAIS; J. SHIEH – ABSENT CITY COUNCIL ACTION: December 1, 2022: ORDINANCE NUMBER: ISSUES: …
ITEM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA November 2, 2022 Brodie Oaks Redevelopment PUD C814-2021-0099 Armbrust & Brown (David Armbrust) 4107 S Capital of Texas Highway COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: NAME & NUMBER OF PROJECT: NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: LOCATION: COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STAFF: Leslie Lilly, Environmental Program Coordinator, (512)535- 8914, Leslie.lilly@austintexas.gov WATERSHED: Barton Creek Watershed/Barton Springs Zone REQUEST: PUD zoning for the property STAFF RECOMMENDATION: STAFF CONDITION: Staff recommended with conditions A. Development associated with C814-2021-0099, located at 4107 S Capital of Texas Highway, shall comply with 25-8, Subchapter A, Article 13 (Save Our Springs Initiative) at the time of permit application except as modified below. a. Section A of 25-8-514 (Pollution Prevention Required) shall be modified to allow a maximum impervious cover for the site of 56% net site area. B. Development associated with C814-2021-0099, located at 4107 S Capital of Texas Highway, shall comply with 25-8 Section A (Water Quality) at the time of permit application except as modified by the PUD ordinance. a. ECM 1.6.7.5 (D) shall be modified to allow captured runoff for beneficial reuse b. 25-8-341 shall be modified to allow cut not to exceed a maximum of fourteen (14) feet. c. 25-8-342 shall be modified to allow fill not to exceed a maximum of fourteen (14) feet. d. 25-8-281 shall be modified to allow encroachment into CEFs as indicated on Exhibit F. C. Additionally, development associated with C814-2021-0099, located at 4107 S Capital of Texas Highway, shall comply with the following requirements a. Reduction in impervious cover from 84% NSA to 56% NSA b. Bring the site into compliance with SOS water quality treatment requirements c. Clustering impervious cover and disturbance 75’-250’ away from Barton Creek Greenbelt d. Restoring 2 acres of the tract to native vegetation e. Provide 100% GSI for water quality controls. f. Provide rainwater harvesting for landscape irrigation of not less than 50% of the landscaped area. g. Provide superior tree protections. h. Comply with Austin Green Building 3-star rating i. Exceed landscaping requirements. j. Provide superior open space and parkland dedication. COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: NAME & NUMBER OF PROJECT: NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STAFF: WATERSHED: REQUEST: COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: STAFF CONDITION: ITEM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA November 2, 2022 Brodie Oaks Redevelopment Site Specific SOS Amendment C814-2021-0099 Armbrust & Brown (David Armbrust) 4107 S Capital of Texas Highway Leslie Lilly, Environmental Program …
City of Austin Housing and Plannin g Department P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 -1088 (512) 974-3100 ♦ Fax (512) 974-3112 ♦ www .c ity o fau s tin .o rg/ h ou s in g MEMORANDUM TO: Todd W. Shaw, Chair & Planning Commission Members November 1, 2022 Maureen Meredith, Senior Planner, Inclusive Planning Division Housing and Planning Department NPA-2022-0007.01_10810 Newmont Rd North Austin Civic Association Neighborhood Planning Area FROM: DATE: RE: Staff requests a postponement of this case from the November 8, 2022 Planning Commission hearing to the November 15, 2022 hearing date so the plan amendment case can be on the same agenda as the associated zoning case. The postponement request was made in a timely manner and meets the Planning Commission’s policy. Attachment: Plan Amendment Map Zoning Map The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request. 1 of 25 The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will provide reasonable modifications and equal access to communications upon request. 2 of 25
Planning Commission: November 8, 2022 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET DATE FILED: June 29, 2022 (out-of-cycle) NEIGHORHOOD PLAN: East Cesar Chavez CASE#: NPA-2022-0002.01 PROJECT NAME: 1700 E. 2nd Street PC DATE: November 8, 2022 ADDRESS/ES: 1700 E. 2nd Street & 205 Chalmers Ave. DISTRICT AREA: SITE AREA: 0.51 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: 2nd Street, LLC AGENT: Drenner Group, PC (Leah M. Bojo) CASE MANAGER: Maureen Meredith STAFF EMAIL: Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov TYPE OF AMENDMENT: Change in Future Land Use Designation 3 From: Multifamily Residential To: Mixed Use Base District Zoning Change Related Zoning Case: C14-2022-0091 From: CS-MU-CO-NP To: CS-MU-V-NP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTION DATE: May 13, 1999 CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 8, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: November 8, 2022 - ACTION: PHONE: (512) 974-2695 1 of 296 Planning Commission: November 8, 2022 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the applicant’s request to change the future land use map from Multifamily Residential to Mixed use. BASIS FOR STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the applicant’s request for Mixed Use land use because there is existing Mixed Use land use to the north and south of the property. The property is located near public transportation and numerous commercial uses. It is approximately 0.4 miles from the Plaza Saltillo TOD Station. The property is in an area where a mixed use is appropriate. Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Below are sections of the East Cesar Chavez Neighborhood plan that supports the applicant’s request. 2 2 of 296 Planning Commission: November 8, 2022 LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS EXISTING LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Multifamily Residential - Higher-density housing with 3 or more units on one lot. 1. Preserve existing multifamily and affordable housing; 2. Maintain and create affordable, safe, and well-managed rental housing; and 3. Make it possible for existing residents, both homeowners and renters, to continue to live in their neighborhoods. 4. Applied to existing or proposed mobile home parks. Purpose Application 1. Existing apartments should be designated as multifamily unless designated as mixed use; 2. Existing multifamily-zoned land should not be recommended for a less intense land use category, unless based on sound planning principles; and 3. Changing other land uses to multifamily should be encouraged on a case-by-case basis PROPOSED LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Mixed Use - An area that is appropriate for a mix of residential and non‐residential uses. Purpose 1. Encourage more retail and commercial services within walking distance of residents; 2. Allow live‐work/flex space on existing …
