SUBDIVISION REVIEW SHEET CASE NO.: C8-2018-0211.0A PC DATE: July 14, 2020 SUBDIVISION NAME: Cherico resubdivision AREA: 0.41 acre LOTS: 2 APPLICANT: Una Kerensa AGENT: Jennifer Hanlen, Permit Partners ADDRESS OF SUBDIVISION: 3409 Neal Road DISTRICT: 3 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Govalle VARIANCES: flag lot variance SIDEWALKS: Sidewalks will be constructed along Neal Street. GRIDS: ML22 COUNTY: Travis WATERSHED: Boggy Creek JURISDICTION: Full Purpose EXISTING ZONING: SF-3-NP LAND USE: residential DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The request is for the approval of the Resubdivision of the east half of Lot 3, Block A, Cherico subdivision, with a flag lot variance. The plat is comprised of two lots on 19,660 sf. The applicant proposes to resubdivide an existing lot into two lots for residential use. Lot 3A is 49.1 feet wide, but the minimum required width is 50 feet. On May 11, 2020, the Board of Adjustment approved a lot width variance for Lot 3A. With the flag lot variance, the lots comply with zoning requirements for use, lot width and lot size. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the plat. With the flag lot variance, the resubdivision meets all applicable State and City of Austin Land Development Code requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: CASE MANAGER: Steve Hopkins PHONE: 512-974-3175 E-mail: steve.hopkins@austintexas.gov 1 of 7B-20 Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 1120 South Capital of Texas Hwy, Bldg 3, Suite 220, Austin, Texas 78746 Phone: (512) 327-1180 Fax: (512) 327-4062 www.bowmanconsulting.com (cid:136) Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 2 of 7B-20 Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 1120 South Capital of Texas Hwy, Bldg 3, Suite 220, Austin, Texas 78746 Phone: (512) 327-1180 Fax: (512) 327-4062 www.bowmanconsulting.com (cid:136) Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 3 of 7B-20 4 of 7B-20 5 of 7B-20 6 of 7B-20 7 of 7B-20
Street Impact Fee Briefing: Study Results & Policy Recommendation Urban Transportation Commission July 10, 2020 Austin Transportation Department Overview • Impact Fees in Texas • Street Impact Fee Study Results • Staff Recommendation • Next Steps 2 Texas Local Government Code Chapter 395 • "Impact fee" means a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development. • Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Roadways 3 Why Street Impact Fees? • Determining a method for growth to pay for necessary infrastructure in a way that is: • Equitable – the same type and intensity development pays equal fee within a Service Area • Predictable – can determine the fee without doing an intensive study • Transparent – a worksheet to calculate the fee would be publicly available • Flexible – fees collected can be spent within a Service Area on any projects identified in the study within 10 years of being collected • Ultimate purpose is to develop a fair and reasonable fee development should pay for vehicle capacity improvements 4 Example Developments Austin Development Round Rock+ Frisco+ Fort Worth+ Prosper+ Austin Mitigation/TIA 298 Apartments $86,288 $424,104 55,000 ft2 Office $317,388 $107,402 $631,164 $177,870 397,000 ft2 Office 46,700 ft2 Restaurant 250 Apartment 100 Room Hotel Single Family: 153 D.U. Office: 7,700 ft2 Retail: 7,700 ft2 $561,325 $1,566,632 $2,274,362 $260,000 $1,051,057 $624,023 $365,348 - $803,408 $216,315 - $475,915 $2,395,819 - $5,270,671 $375,130 - $785,925 $1,059,688 - $1,397,620 $214,005 - $282,260 $2,785,632 - $3,674,050 $761,045- $1,003,832 + Note: Comparison cities are collection rate. 5 LGC Chapter 395 Required Study • Project new growth for the next 10 years • Establish Service Areas within which a maximum impact fee is determined • Develop Land Use Assumptions and corresponding growth projections within each Service Area • Project corresponding roadway capacity needs (Roadway Capacity Plan) to accommodate that growth within each Service Area 6 Texas Law: CIP Definition • Roadway (Street) facilities means arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted roadway plan of the political subdivision, together with all necessary appurtenances. The term includes the political subdivision share of cost for roadways and associated improvements designated on the federal or Texas highway system, including local matching funds and costs related to utility line relocation …
4. 5. Special Meeting of the Planning Commission July 14, 2020 Planning Commission to be held July 14, 2020 with Social Distancing Modifications Public comment will be allowed via telephone; no in-person input will be allowed. All speakers, including applicants and representatives, must register in advance (Day before the scheduled meeting, July 13, 2020 by Noon). To speak remotely at the July 14, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, residents must: Call or preferably email the board liaison at 512-974-6508 and andrew.rivera@austintexas.gov (the day before the meeting). The following information is required: 1. The speaker name. 2. Item number(s) they wish to speak on. 3. Whether they are for/against/neutral. Mailing address. Telephone number. Must be the number that will be used to call-in. Failure to provide the required information by noon July 13, 2020 shall render a request null and void. A registered speaker may not sign up another speaker. Previous registration on an item does not automatically roll over. • Once a request to register to speak has been called in or emailed to the board liaison, residents will receive either an email or phone call with additional information regarding the call in process. • Handouts or other information must be emailed to andrew.rivera@austintexas.gov by 1:00 PM Tuesday, July 14, 2020. This information will be provided to Commission members in advance of the meeting. • Residents may watch the meeting here: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Postponement requests must be submitted to the case manager and Andrew Rivera by 5PM Monday, July 13, 2020 Order of Meeting Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order Reading of Proposed Consent Agenda *Vote and Disposal of Consent Agenda **Determination of Discussion Postponement Items Discussion Cases (Including public comment, staff and applicant / representative presentations) Other Business Adjournment * The consent agenda may be acted upon by one vote without separate discussion. Speakers are allowed to provide testimony on an item proposed for the consent agenda. At the discretion of the Commission the item may remain on the consent agenda. ** Discussion postponement consists of public comment by 2 individuals for the postponement and 2 individuals against the postponement at 2 minutes each per speaker. Testimony should not delve into the merits of the case. The granting of a postponement must be approved by affirmative vote of the Commission. Speaker Applicant / Agent Speakers For Speakers For Primary Speaker Against Speakers Against Speakers Against Speaker Testimony Time Allocation …
Inspiring Conservation through Birding 3710 Cedar Street, Box 5 Austin, TX. 78705 512.300. BIRD (2473) www.travisaudubon.org info@travisaudubon.org July 14, 2020 To the Planning Commission: Travis Audubon remains in favor of MF-3 zoning for the property adjacent to Blair Woods, 5201 E MLK. We support the City of Austin and Stonegate Neighborhood Association’s assessment that a lower- density zoning designation is more appropriate for the site. We have gathered independent geological and hydrological assessments of both tracts. We now understand that increasing impervious cover to 65% at 5201 E MLK is unlikely (but not impossible) to affect the pond, wetlands, and drainages on our property. We continue to have concerns about other effects of high-density development adjacent to the restored habitat. Travis Audubon will continue to stand for development at scale rather than maximal up-zoning; the City can provide protection for natural spaces and still provide housing in growing neighborhoods. We appreciate that Thrower showed several examples of MF-6 development in their discussion, but we would like to ask whether any of them are next door to a 10-acre nature preserve? Blair Woods is the only greenspace within a 10-minute walk for almost 1000 neighbors in this community. That number will only continue to increase. Being sure that the preserve is protected as even more people move to this part of town benefits everyone. The Austinites who will live along MLK in 20 or 50 or 100 years will thank the Commission for having the foresight to balance development with protection for an important natural and historical site that future generations can enjoy. We must think about and try to avoid potential unintended negative effects of such intense development so near the preserve. Travis Audubon’s mission is to be good stewards of this habitat both now and in the future, and that requires us to support zoning no higher than MF-3. Sincerely, Nicole Netherton Executive Director, Travis Audubon 10-Minute Walk Impact Report The Trust for Public Land August 6, 2019 P a g e 1 o f 2 P r o j e c t A r e a s B l a i r W o o d s A l l s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s a r e a g g r e g a t e d f o r t h e l …
Joe Reynolds July 14 Planning Commission Meeting Items 6, 7, 8 7113 Burnet Rd Chair and Commissioners, I’m Joe Reynolds; I live on West 49th St. I’m a member of the Allandale Neighborhood Assn. Zoning Committee. I’ve also been very active with the Burnet Rd Corridor Project. I’ve been to two meetings with presentations describing this project and I have reservations and concerns. 1] The height included in the applicant’s proposed land use category is excessive. In the earlier meetings the potential height was disavowed, yet is still included. The height profiles in the staff alternative MF-6-NP are more appropriate. The required height compatibility in the staff land use category is preferred. 2] In the two presentations I attended, the developer indicated that a completely residential development was the goal. I agree with that goal. Commercial uses in similar settings are often unsuccessful. They fail because the customer base within the project is too small to support the business, and ‘outside’ customer access isn’t supported by the development standards. Access from Burnet Rd to commercial use at this site is highly problematical because of the road configuration and commercial use should not be included. 3] For Allandale, traffic is the most troubling aspect of this project. As part of my efforts on the Burnet Corridor Project, I studied this intersection. The Burnet Corridor Project road design has all left-turn exits from property blocked by a median barrier. So, for this proposed development all southbound destinations must be accomplished by first going North. The Burnet Corridor expects this part of Burnet to be worked by 2023. Until the southbound travel is completely blocked, staff has flagged the trouble caused by vehicles queued for the existing Greenlawn traffic signal which is located just at the northern boundary of this property. The presentations, made in the two meeting I attended, asserted that the developer would secure a binding agreement with the shopping complex adjoining just North, for residential traffic to use the parking area of the complex to access the Greenlawn traffic signal. Access to Burnet via the signal would allow southbound traffic turns. That agreement for use of the center is missing. None of the three agenda items associated with this project should be approved absent that traffic light access. I have found no TIA for the proposed project. Analysis of traffic at this location, as part of the Burnet Corridor studies, …
MEMORANDUM ************************************************************************ TO: Conner Kenny, Chair Planning Commission Members July 13, 2020 Planning and Zoning Department C14-2020-0016, – 7113 Burnet Road Late Backup – Reciprocal Access Easement Agreement FROM: Mark Graham, Senior Planner DATE: RE: ************************************************************************ On Thursday, July 9, 2020, Michael Gaudini, Agent with Armbrust and Brown, submitted a copy of the executed and recorded “Reciprocal Access Easement Agreement” that provides signalized access to 7113 Burnet Road. The Agreement was reviewed by Austin Transportation Engineering, Sangeeta Jain, and her comments were revised in the Amanda system on Friday July 10, 2020. These comments were received after the staff report was submitted for the July 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Please see Sangeeta Jain comments below. Updated July 10, 2020: “A reciprocal access easement has been created and recorded by the owner with the tract to the north of this site. This will allow for safe ingress and egress from this property at the Greenlawn Parkway, which has a traffic signal. Additional mitigations may be required at the time of site plan, when the land uses and intensities have been finalized. Attachment: Reciprocal Access Easement Agreement
July 10, 2020 RE: C14-2017-0010 - 4500 Nuckols Crossing Road Rezoning NPA-2016-0014.01 Plan Amendment - 4500 Nuckols Crossing Road Rezoning To Planning Commissioners and City Council Members, Based on information received at the 07/08/2020 meeting with City Staff, Applicant, Austin Transportation Department, SE Combined Neighborhood Plan Contact Team and concerned neighbors, the Los Arboles Homeowners' Association OPPOSES the proposed development at 4500 Nuckols Crossing. Some of the considerations for opposition are listed below. 1. The proposed driveway to 4500 Nuckols Crossing will be only 150 ft from Viewpoint Dr on the east side of Nuckols Crossing and an entrance to Woodway Village Apartments on the west side of Nuckols Crossing. The accepted distance between driveways should be 500 ft. 2. The proposed solution to the driveway problem of adding turn lanes with vertical delineators in the middle of Nuckols Crossing will cause a major hazard, in our opinion. Nuckols Crossing/E St Elmo is used as a thoroughfare for many commuters in SE Austin to and from downtown. Traffic that is driving from the blind curve at E St Elmo onto Nuckols Crossing must go up a hill which will make it difficult to see the vertical delineators in the middle of the street. And the traffic driving north from Stassney and Teri Rd on Nuckols Crossing will need to go around the vertical delineators onto a widened area of the right of way before swerving back onto the main road, a short distance from the blind curve where the road turns into E St Elmo. 3. Traffic on Nuckols Crossing is already 10 times the amount that this road is designed to ideally handle. Traffic counts taken in February 2020 indicate that existing vehicle trips is at 14,929. According to Section 25-6-116 of the Land Development Code, streets which have pavement width less than 30 feet are considered to be operating at an undesirable traffic level if the average daily traffic volume for such roadway exceeds 1,200 vehicles per day. Nuckols Crossing Road is currently operating at an undesirable level and will continue to do so with the addition of site traffic. These statistics, and the opinion that Nuckols Crossing is currently at an undesirable level, are taken directly from the Zoning Review Change Sheet provided by City Staff. The proposed development will add another 979 vehicle trips, an increase of over 13%. 4. The City has no plan to …
From: Fred McGhee < Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:41:59 PM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Subject: Planning Commission, 7/14/20 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Andrew, Please sign me up in opposition and not wishing to speak for the following cases at tomorrow's Planning Commission meeting: (C14-2020-0029 - Montopolis Acres Rezoning; District 3) (C14-2020-0030 - 200 Montopolis Rezoning; District 3) (C14-2020-0039 - Clovis and Kemp Rezone; District 3) (C14-2020-0044 - Saxon Acres Residential Zoning; District 3) Thanks, flm
July 14, 2020 Jerry Rusthoven Assistant Director Planning & Zoning Department City of Austin Re: 200 Montopolis Rezoning, C14-2020-0030 Respectfully, Victoria Haase Ron Thrower On behalf of the property owners, we respectfully request a postponement of this case from July 14, 2020 to July 28, 2020 to assure that surrounding property owners and renters have access to accurate information before the cases are discussed at public hearing. We remain available for any questions or clarifications on the matter.
July 14, 2020 Jerry Rusthoven Assistant Director Planning & Zoning Department City of Austin Re: Clovis & Kemp Rezoning, C14-2020-0039 Respectfully, Victoria Haase Ron Thrower On behalf of the property owners, we respectfully request a postponement of this case from July 14, 2020 to July 28, 2020 to assure that surrounding property owners and renters have access to accurate information before the cases are discussed at public hearing. We remain available for any questions or clarifications on the matter.
July 14, 2020 Jerry Rusthoven Assistant Director Planning & Zoning Department City of Austin Re: Saxon Acres Rezoning, C14-2020-0044 Respectfully, Victoria Haase Ron Thrower On behalf of the property owners, we respectfully request a postponement of this case from July 14, 2020 to July 28, 2020 to assure that surrounding property owners and renters have access to accurate information before the cases are discussed at public hearing. We remain available for any questions or clarifications on the matter.
Allandale Neighborhood Association • P.O. Box 10886 • Austin, Texas 78766 July 14, 2020 Reference: Austin Planning Commission Meeting of July 14 2020 Items B6-7-8 PROJECT NAME: 7113 Burnet Dear Chairman and Planning Commission Members, I am writing on behalf of the Allandale Neighborhood Association regarding items B6-7-8 on the agenda for the July 14th meeting. While our neighborhood association supports a transition from commercial to multi-family zoning on this property, we do not support the MF-6 zoning that is requested. Instead, we favor the city staff recommendation to grant multifamily residence, moderate high density - neighborhood plan (MF-4-NP) district zoning. A 90-foot height limit far exceeds any other nearby development and is not in keeping with the neighborhood. Further, we are concerned that the applicant suggests that this project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. Flooding, water quality and utility infrastructure are all key concerns to Allandale residents and others in the Shoal Creek watershed. Per the staff recommendation, the proposed zoning should be consistent with the purpose statement of the district sought. We oppose the applicant’s request for MF-6-NP – Multifamily Residence (Highest Density) district that would enable building 360 residential units on the property (an estimated 81 units per acre). We concur with the staff recommendation for a change to MF-4 – Multifamily Residence (Moderate-High Density) district, which can accommodate multifamily residential use with a maximum density of 36 - 54 units per acre, depending on unit size. This change will allow for moderate-high density housing near supporting transportation and commercial facilities, while supporting and respecting the adjacent neighborhoods. The MF-4-NP zoning is more compatible with our neighborhoods and nearby businesses, July 14, 2020 Page | 2 providing for increased setbacks near the Single-Family zones and reduced building heights. There are many questions remaining about ingress/egress to Burnet Road and related traffic problems that will cause – predominantly to Allandale residents. For these and other reasons, we urge you to vote against the proposal to grant MF-6-NP zoning and to support MF-4-Multifamily Residence zoning on this project. Allandale Neighborhood Association Board of Directors
7713 Burnet Zoning & FLUM Amendment Overview • Request: • Rezone from CS-1-CO-NP/CS-CO-NP/LO-CO-NP to MF-6-NP. • Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to reflect multi-family. • Terminate an outdated restrictive covenant. • Bottom Line: The applicant is requesting the ability to provide a 360-unit apartment on Burnet, with 10 percent of units affordable at 60 percent MFI. • Rationale: Approving this downzoning would support the City’s housing and mobility goals while decreasing overall site development entitlements. 7113 Burnet Rd. 7113 Burnet Rd. CS-CO-NP CS-1-CO-NP LO-CO-NP Existing Use: Outdated Commercial/Bar Burnet Road is Key to City Goals Burnet Road is Key to City Goals Imagine Austin Corridor Burnet Road is Key to City Goals Imagine Austin Corridor Core Transit Corridor Burnet Road is Key to City Goals Imagine Austin Corridor Core Transit Corridor Transit Priority Network Roadway Burnet Road is Key to City Goals Imagine Austin Corridor Core Transit Corridor Transit Priority Network Roadway 2016 Mobility Bond Corridor Affordable Housing Along Burnet The City has a goal of 1,098 units up to 80 percent MFI by 2027 for Burnet Road… City Goal (1,098 units) Affordable Housing Along Burnet …but is starting with only a limited stock of affordable units… City Goal (1,098 units) Built/Active Affordable Units (168 units) Affordable Housing Along Burnet …and only has a limited number of projects in the pipeline… City Goal (1,098 units) Built/Active + Pipeline (344 units total) Affordable Housing Along Burnet …leaving a meaningful gap that will need to be filled to hit the City’s goals. City Goal (1,098 units) Units Needed by 2027 (930 units total) 7113 Burnet Supports Affordability Goals ON-SITE 60% MFI 10% OF ALL UNITS Total Proposed Housing: Proposed Affordable Housing: Average Annual Affordable Unit Production (Burnet): ~360 units ~36 units ~15 units The City has a goal of 135,197 new units by 2027, or 13,520 per year on average… Housing Goals City Goal Housing Goals …but has not been on track to meet its goal. City Goal Net New Units 7113 Burnet Supports Mobility Goals TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE DENSITY. “Establishing transit-supportive densities along planned high-capacity transit is essential to its success.” (p. 36) SUPPORTING AFFORDABILITY. “Increase the percentage of affordable housing available at 30%, 50%, 60%, and 80% MFI within 1/2 mile of transit and bicycle priority networks.” (p. 221) ✓ ✓ REDUCING CURB CUTS. “We should require and incentivize reducing the number and size of curb cuts.” (p. 21) ✓ …
Dear Planning Commission, I'm writing on behalf of the Crestview Neighborhood Association Executive Committee regarding item B6-7-8 on the agenda for the July 14th meeting.. Before Covid-19 shut everything down, we (CNA and some neighbors) had a couple of meetings with the developer and his agent (Michael Gaudini) to discuss their exploring options for that property. The first meeting was in January but was requested too late to be included on our published agenda. We allowed them to come anyway and speak though because there wasn’t any previous notice to the community there wasn’t much turnout. At that time the biggest request of us seemed to be whether we would support a change from Commercial to Multi-Family. This was exciting to the neighborhood as a whole and brought us to the table hoping to work out a deal to both create a large amount of housing where there was none previously, along a corridor and near transportation. At that time (and in subsequent meetings), most of the usual concerns with the current occupants such as ill placed dumpsters with poorly timed disposal pick-ups, inadequate fencing and the lack of compatibility standards under the current zoning were quickly appeased. We encouraged the developer and the neighbors immediately behind the property to talk about potential concerns regarding height over their backyards and reduction in privacy. They did discuss this, and the developer produced a "compromise package" in June, pushing the start of 40 feet a little further than they could do it by right under current compatibility standards. We appreciated the willingness to talk, and it kept us at the table. As you will see in your back-up material on page 10, at the March 3 public meeting we were told the height of the front of the building would be "60-75 feet" at that time. Here is what was asked: Q. The current zoning of CS allows a maximum height of 60 ft. The proposed zoning of MF-6 allows up to 90 feet. A. We don’t want the 90 feet that would be allowed under the MF-6. We maybe need 60-75 feet with five to six floors. Mid March through April was, admittedly, a down time for our communication as a neighborhood association. We didn't have a lot of pressing items on our plate and were unclear as to what was going to be prioritized by the city. Clearly, this became …
7113 Burnet Rd. Rezoning 7113 Burnet would help the city meet its housing and mobility goals and would provide the first income- restricted units in Crestview (See Figure 1). 7113 Burnet is currently zoned for a combination of CS-1-CO-NP, CS-CO-NP, and LO-CO-NP. The applicant is requesting MF-6 zoning in order to replace outdated bar and office space with a roughly 360-unit apartment, including a commitment to 10 percent of units at 60 percent MFI. The project would provide needed housing on Burnet Road, an Imagine Austin and Transit Priority Network corridor in which the city is investing over $45 million to support multi-modal mobility. The proposed rezoning is less intense in many respects than the existing zoning or Vertical Mixed-Use. The proposed MF-6 zoning offers a project with lower impervious cover, building cover, trip generation, and use intensity than what could occur by right under the existing zoning or under Vertical Mixed-Use, which the City has already zoned extensively on Burnet Road (See Figure 2). This request is a downzoning, and while overall height would increase, under compatibility standards the project could not exceed the existing height entitlement of 60 ft. until it is at least a football field- length away from single-family lots (See Figure 2). Approving this request would both further the city’s housing goals and lower the site’s overall intensity. Figure 1. The 7113 Burnet Proposal Delivers on City Goals AREA CITY GOALS 7113 BURNET Housing Obtain 135,000 new housing units citywide by 2027. ✓ 360 new units projected. Affordability Obtain 1,098 income-restricted units on Burnet Road. ✓ Transit- Supportive Pedestrian- Friendly Increase people living near Transit Priority Network. ✓ Reduce the number of curb cuts. ✓ 10 percent of units at 60 percent MFI. Increases density on the Burnet corridor. Reduces curb cuts on the Burnet corridor. Figure 2. Comparing the Proposal to Existing Zoning and Vertical Mixed-Use Existing Zoning CS-V-MU PROPOSAL (MF-6) 40 ft. / 3 stories 30 ft. / 2 stories 40 ft. / 3 stories 30 ft. / 2 stories 40 ft. / 3 stories Height 1 25 ft. to 50 ft. from SF 50 ft. to 100 ft. At 200 ft. At 300 ft. At 420 ft. and Beyond Trip Generation 2 Impervious Cover Building Cover FAR (Base Entitlement) FAR (With Bonus) Allowable Uses Residential Commercial/Office Bar/Club Affordability Commitment 4 50 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. 88% …
MEMORANDUM ************************************************************************ TO: Conner Kenny, Chair Planning Commission Members July 13, 2020 Planning and Zoning Department C14-2020-0016, – 7113 Burnet Road Late Backup – Reciprocal Access Easement Agreement FROM: Mark Graham, Senior Planner DATE: RE: ************************************************************************ On Thursday, July 9, 2020, Michael Gaudini, Agent with Armbrust and Brown, submitted a copy of the executed and recorded “Reciprocal Access Easement Agreement” that provides signalized access to 7113 Burnet Road. The Agreement was reviewed by Austin Transportation Engineering, Sangeeta Jain, and her comments were revised in the Amanda system on Friday July 10, 2020. These comments were received after the staff report was submitted for the July 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Please see Sangeeta Jain comments below. Updated July 10, 2020: “A reciprocal access easement has been created and recorded by the owner with the tract to the north of this site. This will allow for safe ingress and egress from this property at the Greenlawn Parkway, which has a traffic signal. Additional mitigations may be required at the time of site plan, when the land uses and intensities have been finalized. Attachment: Reciprocal Access Easement Agreement
7113 Burnet Rd. Community Engagement Timeline Summer 2019: Applicant lets neighborhood leaders know that they are potentially looking at a project and will be reaching out if it moves forward. December 9, 2019: Initial meeting between applicant and surrounding residents. January 13, 2020: January 29, 2020: February 3, 2020: Applicant files cases. Applicant presents at Crestview Neighborhood Association. Applicant meets with leader of Burnet Road Business Association. February 20, 2020: Applicant presents at Allandale Neighborhood Association Zoning Committee. March 3, 2020: City hosts meeting with community and applicant in Crestview on cases. March 4, 2020: Applicant presents at Allandale Neighborhood Association. Mid-March 2020: Neighborhood requests postponing the March 24 Planning Commission date in order to allow for Contact Team meeting and vote that same evening; applicant agrees to request. Prior to meeting, however, the City issues coronavirus orders and in- person meetings are cancelled for foreseeable future. Early April 2020: Applicant initially floats idea of a virtual neighborhood meeting. April 29, 2020: Staff indicates that they are comfortable with the Contact Team holding a virtual meeting to discuss the cases. May-June 2020: Applicant continues to float idea of virtual neighborhood meeting. May 2020: June 3, 2020: Planning Commission begins hearing discussion cases again. Applicant requests that since discussion cases are now being scheduled, 7113 Burnet Rd. should similarly be scheduled. Applicant floats idea of a potential compromise plan that could be discussed at a virtual neighborhood meeting. Neighborhood requests compromise provisions in writing first. Applicant finalizes potential compromise proposal in writing, circulates it to neighborhood and city staff, and requests a virtual neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. Applicant offers to agree to a neighborhood postponement to July 14 in order to provide more time to hold a virtual neighborhood meeting. June to July 2020: Applicant continues to float idea of virtual neighborhood meeting. ARMBRUST & BROWN, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S A N D C O U N S E L O R S 100 CONGRESS AVENUE, SUITE 1300 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-2744 512-435-2300 FACSIMILE 512-435-2360 July 13, 2020 Planning Commission 301 W. 2nd St. Austin, TX 78701 Dear Members: Re: Voluntary affordable housing commitments for 7113 Burnet Rd. In our cover letter dated January 30, 2019 for the land use applications related to 7113 Burnet Rd., we described our …
Existing Retaining Wall to Remain LOT 2 : MF-s-CO-NP - io'setback r. ,l lrtI I B O LT -9 'LO FACE OF SOIL RETENTION WALL FENCE AND GATE FOR COLORFIELD RESIDENTS LOT 1 : MF-6-CO-NP 3-51aqr ct'iq PARkttJG tllu.r;.FA?,rit? lll t,r{:i5 -l -_-L Gate for Maiqtenance/Resident lngress/Egress r tGoL I I I I I I I I I I I l lLrt l:f lL lb lliil II f--; l! L-l t c -e4* - , a
Springdale Farms Item B-17 07/14/2020 Planning Commission 9/6/2019 1 Site Location • • • • • Area: 4.85 acres Zoning: CS-MU-CO-NP Along Imagine Austin Corridor 2 Blocks from Transit priority (in both directions) Activity Corridor 2 Neighborhood Outreach • Held community meetings to: • Understand from our future neighbors what the Farm has meant to the community • Get a sense of what future uses could be beneficial to • Introduce StoryBuilt and discuss overall design the community strategy the site) • Preservation (trees, existing features important to • Sustainability • Green infrastructure • Neighborhood fabric • Mixed Use (residential for sale and commercial) 3 Community Feedback and Project Goals Feedback from community meetings: • Keep some level of farming and farm-stand operational • Mixed use (residential and commercial) • Open space • Independent grocery • Coffee shop/cafe • Welcoming environment • Pedestrian oriented • Sub-grade parking and limited Impervious cover • Affordable housing component – based on % of total Units built 4 Neighborhood Support Letter of Support for all Entitlements asks including the site plan as presented today 5 Site Overview and Hardship • • • • Total Area = 211,000 sf Buildable area = 108,000 or 50% of total area due to preserving 10 Heritage Trees, floodplain, CWQZ and compatibility setbacks CWQZ created due to basin being approximately 2 acres over 64 ac minimum even though channel is manmade Less than ½ % slope to Boggy Creek drastically increases floodplain and CWQZ. 6 Site Plan Site Plan: • 87 For sale Units • • • • • • • +/- 65,000 sf of commercial Open Space: 2.25 ac (includes 23k sf of Urban Farm 50% Imp cover (95% Allowed) FAR: 0.8:1 (1.2:1 allowed under existing entitlements, 2:1 per Zoning) Tree Preservation Limited alternatives for fire lane so proposed utilization of compatibility setback, as grassed, pervious pavers, with minimal impacts Collaboration of StoryBuilt and the NPCT to accomplish the goals: • • • • Mixed Use Farming Sub-grade parking Pedestrian Oriented Alternative turn- around 7 Proposed Encroachments Fire Lane Encroachment: • Approximately 3500 SF of “Grass- Crete” permeable paving system within Floodplain/CWQZ with only 1200 sf being within the initial 50- ft offset to serve as Fire access Approximately 810 SF of building overhang into proposed urban farm area (overhang: avg 6’5”; max 13ft ) CWQZ Encroachment Calcs: • Total: 73,130 sf Encroachment within 50-ft setback: 1200sf (1.6%) …
