backup item #2 — original pdf

Backup

ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CASE: C814-2023-0057 (200 E. Riverside PUD) DISTRICT AREA: 9 ADDRESS: 200 East Riverside Drive ZONING FROM: LI-NP TO: PUD-NP SITE AREA: 3.95 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Garwald Company, Inc. AGENT: Armbrust & Brown, PLLC (Richard T. Suttle, Jr.) CASE MANAGER: Sherri Sirwaitis PHONE: 512-974-3057 sherri.sirwaitis@austintexas.gov STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommendation is to approve the 200 E Riverside Planned Unit Development (PUD) subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditions of the PUD shall be established in - a) the proposed Land Use Plan that includes a breakdown of: the planning site area, exhibit of the surrounding tract uses and acreages, the Site Development Regulations, Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses and Prohibited Uses Tables, proposed maximum Land Use Summary Table and Land Use Notes. 2. The PUD shall comply with the following Environmental staff recommendations: Tier 1 and Tier 2 Chart P. 3 of 3 Other Amenities Specific to PUD: Landscape superiority items. The applicant has agreed to amend the following superiority item: 4. All new perimeter right-of-way trees installed on the property shall be planted with a minimum soil volume of 1,000 cubic feet at a minimum soil depth of 3 feet. Such soil volume may be shared up to 25 percent between trees in continuous plantings. Where necessary, load bearing soil cells shall be used to meet the soil volume requirement. Nothing limits the City’s authority to reduce the minimum soil volume if necessary to reduce utility conflict or to address other constructability issues. If the City reduces the minimum soil volume, Landowner remains compliant with the PUD Ordinance and Environmental Criteria Manual. By replacing the strike-through with: C814-2023-0057 Page 2 “All soil volume and depth that cannot be achieved in the ROW due to utility placement will be offset, on a 1:1 basis, by providing soil volume and depth in other locations within the PUD, such as parking.” 3. Austin Fire Department requests the following to be provided by the developer: 9,000 to 11,000 square feet unfinished space within the level of discharge ("ground floor") and floor above, with a private convenience stair, adequate space for 2-3 apparatus bays and appropriate apron for fire/EMS apparatus, and an entrance/egress on a major roadway. Final selection of the location must be approved by the Austin Fire Department, Austin-Travis County EMS, and the Developer, with a lease executed or the space conveyed prior to 55% of certificates of occupancy for the development having been issued. 4. The development of the PUD site will be subject to the attached TIA memorandum from the Transportation and Public Works Department (TPW) dated April 25, 2024 – Exhibit L. The TIA memo limits the site development to uses and intensities that will not exceed or vary from the projected traffic conditions assumed in the final TIA [prepared by BOE, dated March 20, 2024]. TPW’s outstanding items with applicant: Applicant has agreed to TCM standards for all roadways and back-of-curb improvements, with the flexibility that the required improvements may be modified as needed, per the Director’s approval, in consideration of Project Connect improvements. Applicant has agreed to ROW dedication, in accordance with the ASMP, for adjacent roadways at either subdivision or site plan phase. Unaddressed PUD exhibit comments: The proposed language of Land Use Note #1 should be modified to reflect this Land Use Note #24- at this time it is unclear how these “improvements” will be above and beyond the base line requirements of the TCM. Please clarify what these improvements may entail and add the language “subject to approval from Director” to the proposed note. Please remove any reference to site access points from the PUD exhibits or note that they are only demonstrative and subject to review at the time of site plan. The proposed language of Land Use Note #1 should be modified to reflect this. C814-2023-0057 Page 3 SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: August 14, 2024 SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD ACTION: August 19, 2024 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: August 13, 2024 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE NUMBER: Page 4 C814-2023-0057 ISSUES: Per the Code: The applicant has requested that this case be scheduled for public hearings citing LDC Section 25-2-282(E) (please see Applicant’s Letter Requesting Scheduling for Land Use Commission – Exhibit M). The PUD must be reviewed by the Environmental Commission. Subsections (I)(11) and (M) of code section 2-1-144 require PUDs to go to this commission before Planning Commission. The PUD must also go to the South Central Waterfront Advisory Board. This requirement is noted in Subsection (F) of 2-1-172. Because this PUD is located within the Waterfront Overlay (WO) combining district, we must also request a recommendation from the Small Area Planning Joint Committee of the Planning Commission. This requirement is noted in Sections 25-2- 715 and 25-2-282. CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted a rezoning request for a proposed office and commercial development on 3.9555 acres known as the 200 E. Riverside Planned Unit Development (PUD). The property in question is currently developed with a 92,892 square foot two-story vacant office building, with surface parking, that was constructed in 1970. This tract of land has driveway access to East Riverside Drive and “Little” East Riverside Drive, a 60-foot wide private access easement adjacent to the western property line. To the north there is a food mart (Thom’s Market) and an office complex (former TXDoT offices) that are zoned CS-V-NP. The lot to the south is developed with a multifamily use (Water Marq) zoned L-NP. To the east, along Lady Bird Lake, there is another multifamily use (So Co on the Lake Apartments) zoned PUD-NP. Across East Riverside Drive to the west, there are office buildings (Pfluger Architects) that are zoned CS-V-CO-NP, CS-CO-NP. This property is within the Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Planning area (South River City) and is designated as “Mixed Use” on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Therefore, a neighborhood plan amendment is not required. The property is located within the Lady Bird Lake and East Bouldin Creek Watersheds, which are classified as Urban Watersheds. The banks of Lady Bird Lake are approximately 160 feet to the northeast of this tract of land. This site is within the South Central Waterfront subdistrict of the Waterfront Overlay and within the South Central Waterfront Vision Framework Plan district boundaries. The Long Range Planning division in the Planning Department is currently in the process of revising the South Central Waterfront Regulating Plan and the accompanying South Central Waterfront Vision Framework Plan ("Vision Plan") per City Council Resolution No. 20220915-090. According to the staff, the Regulating Plan will now be known as the South Central Waterfront Combining District and Density Bonus Program and has evolved significantly and is based on the Downtown Density Bonus Program. These changes are scheduled to come before the City Council for consideration on August 29, 2024. C814-2023-0057 Page 5 The property is currently zoned with the L-NP, Lake Commercial – Neighborhood Plan district. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PUD-NP zoning to develop a multi-use project that would include two high-rise buildings with approximately 1,377,787 square feet of office uses and 29,318 square feet of ground floor commercial/ retail uses, with a maximum height of 500 feet and a maximum FAR of 14:1. The project proposes access to the surrounding roadway network via one full-access driveway along Little Riverside Drive, one right-in right out driveway along E. Riverside Drive and one service driveway along E. Riverside Drive. The development will be built in one phase and is anticipated to be completed in 2026. The applicant has had conversations with Capital Metro regarding an at- grade train station for the Project Connect Blue Line on “Little” East Riverside Drive. A transportation impact analysis (TIA) was submitted with this rezoning application and the recommendations are listed in the TIA Memorandum - Exhibit L. The PUD application is requesting 7 code modifications and the applicant has demonstrated in the submittal materials that the project will meet all of the applicable Tier One PUD development standards and offer elements of superiority in ten Tier 2 categories (Open Space/Parkland; Environmental/ Drainage; Austin Energy Green Building; Art; Community Amenities; Transportation; Building Design; Parking Structure Frontage; Accessibility; Local Small Business) to Development Regulations (please see Proposed Code Modifications – Exhibit E). Therefore, they have stated that the proposed PUD will result in a superior development to that which could be developed under conventional zoning standards (please see the Tier One and Tier Two Superiority Chart – Exhibit D). The staff has reviewed the application for PUD-NP zoning and the stated intent is to comply with all of the Tier One and Tier Two requirements for the proposed office/commercial development. The base zoning district for the PUD is lake commercial (L) which allows for up to 200 feet in height. However, the property’s location within the South Shore Central Subdistrict of the Waterfront Overlay is currently more restrictive as it pertains to height and establishes a 96-foot maximum height limit, thus superseding the 200-foot height allowed by the L base zoning district (Section 25-2-742(G)(4)). In the proposed changes to the South Central Waterfront Regulating Plan and the accompanying South Central Waterfront Vision Framework Plan (now known as the South Central Waterfront Combining District and Density Bonus Program), this property is within Subdistrict 4 and the staff’s recommendation is for no maximum height limit and a maximum FAR of 24:1 on this tract of land. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 1. The proposed zoning should be consistent with the purpose statement of the district sought. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is intended for large or complex developments under unified control, planned as a single contiguous project. The PUD is intended to allow single or multi-use projects within its boundaries and provides greater design flexibility for development proposed within the PUD. Use of the PUD district should result in development superior to that which would occur using conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. PUD zoning is appropriate if C814-2023-0057 Page 6 the development enhances preservation of the natural environment; encourages high quality development and innovative design and ensures adequate public facilities and services for development within the PUD. 2. Zoning changes should result in a balance of land uses, provide an orderly and compatible relationship among land uses and incorporate environmental protection measures. The proposed PUD zoning will permit a high-quality office and retail development that will provide for employment opportunities in an area that has been identified as a designated Regional Center (South Central Waterfront) by the Growth Concept Map in the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan. The staff recommends PUD zoning based on the following factors: additional accessibility features to exceed local legal requirements, participation in the Art in Public Places Program, superior building design options, provision for community amenity space on the ground floor, environmental superiority, compliance with at least a 3-Star Green Building rating, provision for approximately 3,500 square feet of commercial space to a local small business, approximately 12,845 square feet/0.295 acres of publicly accessible open space, including two pocket parks and significant improvements for pedestrian and bicycle activity from East Riverside Drive toward Lady Bird Lake in coordination with Project Connect and Austin Transit Partnership. 3. Zoning should allow for reasonable use of the property. The proposed PUD zoning will enable the applicant utilize this vacant property to construct a higher density office and commercial development known as the Met Center II along an Imagine Austin Corridor, East Riverside Drive. The redevelopment of this site will remove the existing building and surface parking areas to construct two new towers which will reduce the overall impervious cover on the property by 9.8%. The PUD will encourage a pedestrian environment by expanding open space with connections to the waterfront at this location along the Project Connect Blue Line near a proposed future Capital Metro rail station. There are numerous transportation options currently available in this area with the Ann and Roy Butler Hike And Bike Trail along the northern border of this tract connecting to the Boardwalk to Congress Avenue on Lady Bird Lake and Capital Metro bus routes (# 7, 20, 483 and 935) along E. Riverside Drive, with a bus stop directly across from this property to the west (Stop #3847: 205 Riverside/Congress). PURPOSE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Per the Land Development Code, PUD district zoning was established to implement goals of preserving the natural environment, encouraging high quality development and innovative design, and ensuring adequate public facilities and services. The City Council intends PUD district zoning to produce development that achieves these goals to a greater degree than and C814-2023-0057 Page 7 thus is superior to development which could occur under conventional zoning and other development-related regulations. The City Council approved revisions to the PUD regulations that became effective June 29, 2008. To help evaluate the superiority of a proposed PUD, requirements are divided into two categories: Tier 1, which is requirements that all PUDs must meet, and Tier 2 which provides criteria in 13 topical areas in which a PUD may exceed Code requirements and therefore demonstrate superiority. A PUD need not address all criteria listed under Tier 2, and there is no minimum number of categories or individual items required. PROPOSED CODE MODIFICATIONS There are 7 modifications to Code and Criteria Manual requirements requested by the applicant (please refer to Exhibit E – Proposed Code Modifications for details). These proposed modifications are summarized below: Section 9-2-21(A)(2) (Permit for Concrete Installation During Non-Peak Hour Periods) -To authorize the director to issue a Non-Peak Hour Permit to construct improvements on the Property. Chapter 25-2 (ZONING), Article 2 (Special Requirements for Certain Districts) Division 5, Subpart B (Planned Unit Development Standards) 2.3.1(L) (Tier 1 Requirements) – Planned Unit Developments – To allow for a PUD to be less than 10 acres. Chapter 25-2 (ZONING), Article 3 (Additional Requirements for Certain Districts), Section 25-2-742(F) (South Shore Central Subdistrict Regulations) – To reduce the basewall setback requirements along Riverside Drive. Chapter 25-2 (ZONING), Article 3 (Additional Requirements for Certain Districts), Section 25-2-742(F) (South Shore Central Subdistrict Regulations) – To allow for a maximum building height of 410 feet. Chapter 25-2 (ZONING), Article 10 (Compatibility Standards), Section 25-2-1065 (Scale and Clustering Requirements) – To not apply to development within the PUD. Chapter 25-6 (TRANSPORTATION), Section 25-6-532 (Off-Street Loading Standards) – To allow shared loading and unloading spaces for the various uses within the PUD regardless of where the use or loading and unloading is located within the PUD. Chapter 25-10 (SIGN REGULATIONS), All signage on the Property shall comply with the requirements of Section 25-10-129 (Downtown Sign District Regulations). C814-2023-0057 Page 8 SUPERIORITY ELEMENTS As more fully detailed in the Basis for Superiority - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Compliance Summary Table (Exhibit D) and on the proposed PUD Land Use Plan (Exhibit H), this proposed PUD meets the applicable Tier 1 items and offers elements of superiority in ten Tier 2 categories (Open Space/Parkland; Environmental/ Drainage; Austin Energy Green Building; Art; Community Amenities; Transportation; Building Design; Parking Structure Frontage; Accessibility; Local Small Business). The applicant is proposing the following benefits for the PUD: Accessibility As the project’s design is further developed, the project proposes to include additional accessibility features to exceed local legal requirements including, but not limited to, additional accessible restrooms and shower stalls. Art Participate in the Art in Public Places Program. The landowner shall spend a minimum of one $100,000.00 on one art piece and installation with a preference for local artists. The landowner will review the public art plan with the City’s AIPP Manager for approval. The art piece will be displayed in a prominent location onsite or may be incorporated into nearby public realm space including the bus stop, rail line, or other public uses. The City shall not issue the final certificate of occupancy for the final phase of development within the PUD until the art piece is on display. Building Design Achieve a minimum of 9 points under the building design options of Section 3.3.2 of Chapter 25-2, Subchapter E (Design Standards and Mixed Use). Community Amenities Provide approximately 450 square feet as community amenity space on the ground floor at no cost to the neighborhood association and/or community. Environmental/Water Quality Complying with current code except as modified by the PUD. Meet and exceed the required water quality control standards as described in Section 25-8 by providing at least 100% of the required water quality volume onsite and treatment for 100% of the required water quality volume of the site using Green Storm Water Quality Infrastructure as described in Section 1.6.7 of the ECM. The PUD will include green water quality controls such as, but not limited to, biofiltration pond(s), rainwater harvesting, rain gardens, vegetated filter strips, pervious pavers, porous pavement, and non required vegetation. Provide water quality treatment using 100% Green Stormwater Infrastructure. Remove the existing building and surface parking areas and construct new towers which will reduce the overall impervious cover by 9.8%. The proposed project is not making any modifications to the existing 100-year floodplain. 100% of all plantings on the Property shall be from the ECM Appendix N (City of Austin Preferred Plant List) or the City of Austin’s “Grow Green Native and Adapted Landscape Plants” guide. All new perimeter right-of-way trees installed on the property shall be C814-2023-0057 Page 9 planted with a minimum soil volume of 1,000 cubic feet at a minimum soil depth of 3 feet. Such soil volume may be shared up to 25 percent between trees in continuous plantings. The street trees will be a minimum of 3-inch caliper as measured 6 inches above grade. Provide approximately 18,000 square feet of porous pavement for all pedestrian areas located onsite. Include rainwater harvesting, which will be used to irrigate 100% of the required landscape area. Whenever permitted by site topography & circulation routes, stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces will be directed to landscaped areas equal to or greater than the required landscape area (min 20% site area). Utilize Integrated Pest Management controls as well as reclaimed double plumbing lines within the new buildings on the Property. Green Building Comply with a 3-Star Austin Energy Green Building rating for development. Local Small Business Provide approximately 3,500 square feet of commercial space to a local independent service provider, restaurant, or small business for a period of 25 years and at 80% of the market rates as similarly located properties. Parkland and Open Space Provide approximately 12,845 square feet/0.295 acres of publicly accessible open space, including two pocket parks. Parking Structure 75% of the ground floor space of a parking garage of a commercial or mixed use building fronting Riverside Drive or the future Metro Rail may provide pedestrian-oriented uses as defined in Section 25-2-691. Transportation The PUD will be focusing on significant improvements for pedestrian and bicycle activity from East Riverside Drive toward Lady Bird Lake in coordination with Project Connect and Austin Transit Partnership. Those improvements will be on the west side of the Property with connectivity to the parkland dedication area on the adjacent property to the north. The improvements will provide clarity in both wayfinding and greater pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety with clearly delineated pathways. EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES: ZONING LAND USES Site North L-NP CS-V-NP South East West NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA: Greater South River City Neighborhood Plan L-NP PUD-NP CS-V-CO-NP, CS-CO-NP Office Food Mart (Thom’s Market), Office (former TXDoT offices) Multifamily (Water Marq) Multifamily (So Co on the Lake Apartments) Office (Pfluger Architects), Vacant WATERSHED: East Bouldin Creek and Lady Bird Lake Watershed C814-2023-0057 Page 10 CAPITOL VIEW CORRIDOR: No SCENIC ROADWAY: No NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District, Austin Lost and Found Pets, Austin Neighborhoods Council, Downtown Austin Alliance, Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Plan Contact Team, Homeless Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation, Preservation Austin, SELTexas, Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group, South Central Coalition, South Central Waterfront Advisory Board, South River City Citizens Assn., Zoning Committee of South River City Citizens SCHOOLS: Austin Independent School District Travis Heights Elementary School Lively Middle School Travis High School AREA CASE HISTORIES: NUMBER C14-2017-0026 (Bouldin Creek Neighborhood Plan Garage Placement Zoning) C814-2017-0001 (425 W. Riverside Drive PUD) REQUEST Area wide plan: To add Garage Placement provisions to Bouldin Creek Neighborhood Area Plan CS-1-V-NP to PUD-NP COMMISSION Recommended adding placement to planning area CITY COUNCIL The case was indefinitely postponed by staff; the City Council did not act. 5/10/2018: Approved PUD-NP zoning, with additional direction to staff and revisions to the ordinance Recommended staff rec., with additional direction provided by 1) the Environmental Commission, 2) the Small Area Planning Joint Committee, and 3) the South Central C814-2023-0057 Page 11 Waterfront Advisory Board Working Group Recommended PUD-NP zoning Recommended PUD-NP zoning 10/18/2012: Approved PUD- NP zoning 10/16/2008: Approved PUD- NP zoning Recommended adding V overlay to zoning districts. 12/13/2007: Approved adding VMU to tracts C814-2012-0071 (422 W. Riverside) C814-2008-0165 (222 E. Riverside Drive PUD) C14-2007-0224, C14-2007-0220 (Vertical Mixed Use (VMU) Zoning Cases) C814-06-0106 C814-06-0106.01 C814-06-0106.02 C814-06-0106.03 (Hyatt PUD - 208 Barton Springs) C14-99-0069 (200 S. Congress) C814-89-0003.02 (305 S. Congress PUD Amendment) LI-NP to PUD- NP L-V-NP and L- NP to PUD-NP Area wide plans: To add VMU to various tracts in the Greater South River City and the Bouldin NP Areas CS-1-NP and L-NP to PUD-NP Amendments were to add additional permitted uses within PUD LI to LI-PDA PUD-NP to PUD-NP, to change conditions of zoning Recommended PUDNP with conditions. Recommended both amendments. Recommended LI-PDA zoning 2/08/2022: Approved an amendment to the PUD as Staff recommended, with conditions and amendments Vote: 12-0. [Commissioner Azhar; Vice-Chair Hempel – 2nd] Commissioner Praxis was absent 2/15/2007: Approved PUD- NP zoning 9/26/2013, 8/7/2014 and 11/30/2023: Approved PUD amendments 10/26/2000: Approved LI- PDA zoning 11/03/2022: Approved an amendment to the PUD with a Restrictive Covenant for the conditions of the Traffic Impact Analysis as on First Reading, on Second Reading. Vote: 7-1, Council Member Alter voted nay. Council Members Kelly and Kitchen abstained. Council Member Tovo was off the dais. 12/01/2022: Approved 3rd reading RELATED CASES: C14-2007-0224, C14-05-0139, C14-72-161 – Previous Zoning Cases C814-2023-0057 Page 12 OTHER STAFF COMMENTS: Austin Energy Closed. No comments. Austin Fire Department Facilities This project is likely to bring many new employee and commercial visitors to an already strained area, which exceeds National Fire Protection Agency standards of 8 minute emergency response time, 90 percent of the time. This anticipated growth could add unsustainable strain to the limited public safety resources available downtown. AFD has already asked for dedicated space for a Public Safety Station within the 500 South Congress PUD. An additional Public Safety Station at that location could suffice in covering this development as well. Otherwise, AFD requests the following to be provided by the developer: 9,000 to 11,000 square feet unfinished space within the level of discharge ("ground floor") and floor above, with a private convenience stair, adequate space for 2-3 apparatus bays and appropriate apron for fire/EMS apparatus, and an entrance/egress on a major roadway. Final selection of the location must be approved by the Austin Fire Department, Austin-Travis County EMS, and the Developer, with a lease executed or the space conveyed prior to 55% of certificates of occupancy for the development having been issued. Austin Water Utility AW1. The 200 East Riverside PUD shall build an off-site reclaimed main from the nearest existing or planned point of intersection of the reclaimed system to the development. AW2. Reclaimed water shall be used to meet all non-potable uses within the development including irrigation, cooling, and toilet/urinal flushing within buildings. FYI: The landowner intends to serve the site with City of Austin water and wastewater utilities. The landowner, at own expense, will be responsible for providing the water and wastewater utility improvements, offsite main extensions, system upgrades, utility relocations and or abandonments required. Each lot in the P.U.D. shall have separate wastewater taps, separate water meters, and their respective private water and wastewater service lines shall be positioned or located in a manner that will not cross lot lines. No lot shall be occupied until the structure is connected to the City of Austin water and wastewater utility system. The water and wastewater plan must be in accordance with the City of Austin utility design criteria. The water and wastewater utility plan must be reviewed and approved by Austin Water. All water and wastewater construction must be inspected by the City of Austin. The C814-2023-0057 Page 13 landowner must pay the City inspection fee with the utility construction. The landowner must pay the tap and impact fee once the landowner makes an application for a City of Austin water and wastewater utility tap permit. Dedication of private streets and public utility easements does not obligate the City to approve the placement of City water and wastewater mains within same. Water and wastewater service shall be provided to each lot at their Right of Way frontage. Provided that the information in this exchange will be included in the ordinance, please consider AW comments resolved with this update. FYI—ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MAY BE GENERATED WHEN THE REQUESTED INFORMATION IS PROVIDED. City Arborist UPDATE 1: 12/7/23 UPDATE 2: 7/15/24 CA 0 The current PUD development amendment proposes no code modifications to LDC SUBCHAPTER B. - TREE AND NATURAL AREA PROTECTION; ENDANGERED SPECIES. ARTICLE 1. - TREE AND NATURAL AREA PROTECTION. UPDATE 1: Comment cleared. CA 1 To achieve compliance with Tier 1 requirement 2.3.1 H, the PUD amendment would need to exceed the minimum landscape requirement. Please clarify specifically how the PUD will exceed the landscape requirement for tree plantings as required by the 25-2 landscape code. UPDATE 1: Is the PUD able to commit to greater than the two additional street trees proposed? May the trees planted be larger? Are there other tree related superiorities proposed that may not have been addressed? Please confirm in the superiority exhibit and within the ordinance the listing of all tree superiority. Additionally, the south-central waterfront district plan would require any new utilities proposed to be placed within the limits of the Barton Springs Rd. extension only and not within its ROW. Is the PUD currently committing to this? Comment pending. C814-2023-0057 Page 14 UPDATE 2: Comment not sufficiently addressed. Illustrate, with an exhibit, the specific elements proposed for tree superiority. Quantify the amount of additional trees that will be planted as a result of the reduced 20’ on-center spacing commitment. Further, illustrate, by exhibit, how the additional trees will be accommodated on a schematic site plan that will not require the City Arborist to waive this requirement due to location of utilities, loading docks, and entrances to the parking garages. Also illustrate, by exhibit, where the commitment to new perimeter right of way trees will receive a minimum soil volume of 1,000 cubic feet at a minimum depth of 3 feet (allowed to be shared up to 25% between trees in continuous planters). Diagram how such trees will be accommodated without the need to reduce the minimum soil volume because of utility conflicts or other constructability issues. If the commitment to a minimum soil volume of 1,000 cubic feet cannot be met then this cannot be considered an element of superiority for landscape requirements. Comment is pending. CA 2 Per the 2.4 Tier two requirements, the PUD agrees to preserve 100% of protected and heritage trees unless they are dead, fatally diseased, or an imminent hazard to life or property which cannot reasonably be mitigated without removing the tree. The PUD also included a tree condition report that indicates low, poor, and dead condition of the trees. Please arrange a meeting and site visit with staff to discuss what actual superiority the PUD agrees to. UPDATE 1: Thank you for your response. Staff will make themselves available for any meeting request. Comment pending. UPDATE 2: As per comment above, illustrate, by exhibit, where the commitment to new perimeter right of way trees will receive a minimum soil volume of 1,000 cubic feet at a minimum depth of 3 feet (allowed to be shared up to 25% between trees in continuous planters). Diagram how such trees will be accommodated without the need to reduce the minimum soil volume because of utility conflicts or other constructability issues. If the commitment to a minimum soil volume of 1,000 cubic feet cannot be met then this cannot be considered an element of superiority for landscape requirements. Comment is pending. CA 3 In this same Tier 2 section, the PUD is proposing to plant native tree stock with adequate soil volume. Please clarify the proposed minimum soil volume to be used. UPDATE 1: Thank you for confirming the 1000CY of soil volume for the trees proposed. Please confirm in the superiority exhibit and within the ordinance the listing of all tree superiority. Comment pending. UPDATE 2: Illustrate by exhibit where the commitment to new perimeter right of way trees will receive a minimum soil volume of 1,000 cubic feet at a minimum depth of 3 feet (allowed to be shared up to 25% between trees in continuous planters). C814-2023-0057 Page 15 Diagram how such trees will be accommodated without the need to reduce the minimum soil volume because of utility conflicts or other constructability issues. If the commitment to a minimum soil volume of 1,000 cubic feet cannot be met then this cannot be considered an element of superiority for landscape requirements. Note: Since the Barton Springs Road Extension is a private driveway and the owner does not have the right to place utilities within the property then show how utilities and trees will be accommodated on site without conflict. Comment is pending. CA 4 Pending the confirmation of the overall superiority of the PUD for these three previous items, staff may not be able to agree that the PUD is superior for tree preservation and/or planting. Comments on needing additional superiority items may be generated. UPDATE 1: Comment pending. UPDATE 2: Comment pending. Comprehensive Planning The proposed project and Planned Unit Development for 200 East Riverside, as described in the supporting materials, meets the intent of the South Central Waterfront Vision Framework Plan. Drainage Engineering RELEASE OF THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VERIFICATION OF ALL DATA, INFORMATION, AND CALCULATIONS SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT. THE ENGINEER OF RECORD IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, AND ADEQUACY OF HIS/HER SUBMITTAL, WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICATION IS REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE BY CITY ENGINEERS. DE1. Demonstration of compliance with drainage and detention requirements will be required with subsequent development applications for the subject site. This includes demonstration of no adverse flooding impact to other property. [LDC 25-7-61] Update 1: Comment cleared. Acknowledged. C814-2023-0057 Page 16 DE 2. It is understood that no superiority is proposed with this subject application for drainage/detention requirements. Please confirm. Update 1: Comment cleared. See water quality comments. Electric Environmental FYI: If/when a final plat application is submitted for this site, Austin Energy will likely require electric easements. Easements will be requested on any future site plan submittals. EV 1 TIER ONE. For Tier One requirements 2.3.1.F & H, provide quantifiable, verifiable proposals – how many, what area (sf), what percentage, etc. Reviewers will have to measure compliance. Avoid words or phrases such as ‘more than,’ ‘almost all,’ ‘lively and attractive,’ and ‘such as but not limited to.’ For example, exactly how will you expand open space? In comparison to what and by how many feet/percent? What green infrastructure are you proposing? For landscape, exactly how will you exceed the landscape requirements? U1 Comment pending. Open Space: All landscape that is over the below grade parking structure is a green roof. Take credit for this. A quantifiable element that I recommend is providing a deeper soil than is required. Take credit for any depth you can provide over the 6-inch requirement for non-tree areas and 1-foot depth requirement for trees. Continuous trenches are proposed for street tree planting. That is excellent. Provide a utility exhibit to demonstrate that there are no conflicts. o UPDATE 2. Since utility alignment will be determined at the time of site plan, make a provision that all soil volume and depth that cannot be achieved in the ROW due to utility placement will be offset, on a 1:1 basis, by providing soil volume and depth in other locations within the PUD, such as parking. (See sh. 3 of 3, Landscape Superiority Items) Pollinator resources are provided. This is excellent. To be effective, a single resource needs to cover at least 9 contiguous square feet. Specify that resources will be planted in blocks of a minimum of 9 contiguous square feet. Clarify what the current code requirement is for street trees. The landscape exhibit shows it as 1tree per 30 feet per the ECM. Please let me know where this requirement is. Also, 1 tree/20 feet is preferable. C814-2023-0057 Page 17 The idea that structural parking allows more room for landscape is interesting. But given that the PUD is asking for so much more impervious cover than code allows, I am not sure that it is very significant. Irrigation. There are conflicting statements about this. If purple pipe will be used, then that would be backup for condensate and rainwater collection. Superiority depends on how much of this is required by AWU. If it is not, then rainwater and condensate collection, with purple pipe as backup, is an excellent superiority element. o UPDATE 2. Strike “potable water or” in landscape superiority item #6 (sh. 3 of 3): “100% of the landscaped area will be irrigated with rainwater harvesting or other non-potable alternative water sources that are sourced on the Property. However, when alternative water sourced on the Property is depleted or unavailable, the property owner shall have the right to supplement such landscape irrigation with potable water or reclaimed water.” Since dual plumbing will be provided, it will not be necessary to have potable water as a backup. EV 2 TIER TWO. The provided Tier Two requirements include some quantification. Thank you. Please keep in mind that they should provide benefits over and above the Tier One requirements. Review of Tier Two proposals will follow receipt of quantifiable Tier One proposals. U1 Comment pending. Further review will follow provision of quantifiable proposals for both Tier One and Two. In the meantime, please note the following about impervious cover. The PUD claims to decrease IC by 9.8% from the existing IC, implying that without the PUD, development would be allowed to maintain the existing IC. I do not believe that this is the case. I believe that new development would have to follow current regulations (see impervious cover comments below). If this is not the case, please explain. U2 Cleared. Thank you for the explanation. EV 3 Regarding rainwater harvesting for irrigation, this may already be a requirement for AWU. Given the size of the building in comparison to the landscape, it will not be difficult to provide 100% of irrigation by rainwater harvesting. U1 Comment pending. The applicant response states, “Irrigation demand will be met by connecting to the proposed reclaimed water main referenced in AW1. Please update the Tier 2 notes. Clarify whether this is a requirement by AWU. If it is, then it is not a superiority element. U2 EV 4 The pedestrian areas will be relatively small. Porous pavers for 100% would provide multiple benefits, including onsite infiltration of stormwater and a cooler surface. A landscape architect could recommend a drought-tolerant groundcover that could be grown between pavers, such as oregano, horse herb, or creeping thyme. There are many possibilities. Cleared C814-2023-0057 Page 18 Cleared Comment pending. When I recommended this, I did not realize that all of the IMPERVIOUS COVER. Impervious cover impacts the environment, from increasing U1 pedestrian walkways would be over the below grade parking structure. Since there is no ground for rainwater to soak into in this situation, I am not sure that it provides much benefit. Also, I would need verification from an engineer that this is structurally feasible. U2 U1 NEW COMMENT EV 5 runoff, stormwater pollution, and flooding, to causing the urban heat island effect. To demonstrate superiority, compare the proposed project with what you are currently allowed, not the currently existing development. Per the Waterfront Overlay [LDC 25-2-721(B) & (C)], the maximum impervious cover in the primary setback 15%, and the maximum impervious cover in the secondary setback is 30%. The rest of the lot is governed by the existing zoning, L-NP, which allows 50% impervious coverage. The primary setback is 35 feet north of the northern public right-of-way boundary of Riverside Drive [LDC 25-2- 742(B)(3)], and the secondary setback is 130 feet from the primary setback line parallel to the East Bouldin Creek centerline [LDC 25-2-742(C)(2)]. The provided Code Comparison Chart states that the “PUD proposes a maximum impervious cover.” On another exhibit, 80% is shown as the IC proposal. Provide that information on the Code Comparison Chart and all other relevant documents/exhibits. From an environmental perspective 80% IC is a big request, and I do not see evidence of compensatory environmental advantages being offered. U2 EV 6 SETBACKS. Setbacks affect the space available for plants, which in turn affects air quality, ambient temperature at ground level, and human health, among other aspects of the pedestrian experience. A sidewalk/pedestrian zone, consisting of a planting zone and a clear zone, will be required adjacent to the curb. Riverside is a Level 3 street, which requires a planting and street furniture zone of 7 or 8 feet, depending on the ROW width [TCM 2.8.2.4]. A 10-foot streetside/front yard setback is proposed in the Code Comparisons Chart. Where is the curb in relation to the Riverside ROW (existing and/or proposed in the future), and what will the width of the pedestrian area be with a 10-foot building setback? The Tier One table, under Commercial Design Standards, implies that enhanced street sections have been provided. Please upload these through the AB+C portal so that all reviewers can access them. U2 Comment pending. I do not see the street sections in the database. Cleared. Environmental Officer EO1 U0 Consider incorporating light pollution reduction criteria into the development by committing to compliance with Austin Energy Green Building ST7 Light Pollution Reduction criteria as a part of achieving 3-star Austin Energy Green Building Rating. Update 1: Comment cleared. Applicant is committing to comply. Update 2. The commitment to comply with the light pollution reduction criteria must be added to PUD notes and subsequently the PUD ordinance C814-2023-0057 Page 19 EO2 U0 Consider incorporating bird friendly design criteria into the development by committing to compliance with Austin Energy Green Building STEL5 Bird Collision Deterrence criteria as a part of achieving 3-star Austin Energy Green Building Rating. Update 1: Comment cleared. Applicant is committing to comply. Update 2. The commitment to comply with the bird collision deterrence criteria must be added to PUD notes and subsequently the PUD ordinance EO3 U0 Current code requires that water quality treatment must be provided using green stormwater control measures for 100% treatment pursuant to 25-8-213 (Water Quality Control Standards). Non-compliance with this requirement will require a code modification. Update 1. Per approved fair notice application associated with the 200 E. Riverside address, the property is vested to 10/27/2022. However, this application was submitted the day the GSI ordinance was approved by City Council and for the project to demonstrate good faith superiority it should achieve 100% water quality treatment with GSI. Rainwater collection should be considered as an additional option for providing GSI water quality treatment. FYI, beneficial reuse of stormwater, per Austin Water’s standards, can reduce the total amount of water quality treatment required. Update 2. Comment cleared EO4 U0 The use of sedimentation/filtration water quality treatment could be considered superior if the control is designed to treat offsite stormwater. Update 1. Comments cleared. EO5 Update 1. FYI, The WPD Environmental Office will take into consideration resolution of all environmental items related to the proposed PUD development before issuing a staff recommendation. This includes but is not limited to review comments from Environmental, Water Quality, Drainage, City Arborist, Wetland Biologist, Hydrogeologist, and Floodplain review staff. Update 2. Final determination of staff support of the environmental superiority of the PUD from an environmental perspective is pending resolution of Environmental and City Arborist review staff comments. Fire No comments. Floodplain No comments. Hydrogeologist Closed. No comments. Page 20 C814-2023-0057 Housing Parks and Recreation U1: Cleared. No comments as an affordable housing component is not included in the proposal. PR 1: PARD does not currently support modifications to the Waterfront Overlay regulations (comment remains from DA). PR2: Demonstrate how the PUD would advance the South Central Waterfront Vision Plan's parks and open space components. P ARD recommends that parks and open space meet the standards of parkland dedication to meet superiority, including, at minimum, public access via dedication or easement along the identified open space from the Vision Plan (comment remains from DA). U1: Comment noted – applicant is not pursuing parkland dedication superiority. Additional park spaces to achieve superiority. The pocket parks may be considered elements should superiority for parks be sought; if so, please codify the provision of the pocket parks in the applicable exhibit. U1: PARD reviewer acknowledges the pocket parks for open space. Please note the pocket parks on the land use plan notes. PR3: Demonstrate how the PUD would meet parkland dedication superiority for commercial developments, effective since January 1, 2023 (comment remains from DA). U1: Cleared. Site Plan Update #2 SP1 – SP2. Comments cleared. SP3. The applicant has stated that the PUD will comply with the Corridor Overlay Ordinance (Ordinance No. 20221201-056). Add a note to this effect to the PUD land use plan. APPLICANT RESPONSE: For clarification, the Corridor Overlay Ordinance applies to the Property but the Applicant is not required to comply with the Ordinance. A note has been added to the PUD Exhibit which states “The Property is located on Riverside Drive which is classified as a Light Rail Line and is subject to Ordinance No. 20221201-056.” Please see Note 28 on the Notes & Summary PUD Exhibit. C814-2023-0057 Page 21 SP3 Update #1: Due to current litigation challenging the Corridor Overlay Ordinance, the City of Austin currently cannot enforce the adopted ordinance. If the property owner would like to utilize site development standards and criteria, those code modifications must be added to the PUD ordinance. Update #2: Please note that the 25’ setback still applies with the revised compatibility code and adjust your code modifications if necessary to account for that. SP4 – SP13. Comments cleared. Transportation A Traffic Impact Analysis is required and has been submitted. Please see TIA memorandum from the Transportation Public Works Department (TPW) dated April 25, 2024 – Exhibit P. ATD 1. The Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) calls for 116 feet of right-of-way for E. Riverside Drive. It is recommended that 58 feet of right-of-way from the existing centerline should be dedicated for E. Riverside according to the Transportation Plan with the first subdivision or site plan application. [LDC 25-6-51 and 25-6-55]. U1: Response noted. Comment pending. U2: ROW shall be dedicated either at subdivision or site plan, whichever is to occur first. ATD 2. The Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) calls for 116 feet of right-of-way for the Barton Springs Road extension. It is recommended that 58 feet of right-of-way from the existing centerline should be dedicated for Barton Springs Road according to the Transportation Plan with the first subdivision or site plan application. [LDC 25-6-51 and 25-6-55]. U2: ROW shall be dedicated either at subdivision or site plan, whichever is to occur first. ATD 3. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) analysis is required and has not yet been received. Additional right-of-way, participation in roadway improvements, or limitations on development intensity may be recommended based on review of the TIA. [LDC 25-6-142]. Comments will be provided in a separate memo. TPW recommends that the TIA review and final memo be issued prior to 3rd reading at Council at the latest. U1: Comment pending approval of final TIA memo. U2: Comment cleared. Article 2, Division 5 (Tier 1 Criteria) C814-2023-0057 Page 22 ATD 4. 2.3.1.I – Recommendation pending. The PUD shall be subject to the mitigations, conditions and assumptions outlined by the TIA final memo. U1: Comment pending approval of final TIA memo. U2: Comment pending. The TIA final memo states the following: 8. Approval of this TIA does not grant nor guarantee approval of proposed driveway locations or driveway types. An updated TIA or addendum may be required at the time of the site plan when more details about the site are available. Accordingly, please remove any reference to site access points from the PUD exhibits or note that they are only demonstrative and subject to review at the time of site plan. The proposed language of Land Use Note #1 should be modified to reflect this. ATD 5. 2.3.1.J – TPW recommends approval. U1: Comment cleared. ATD 6. 2.3.2.B. –TPW recommends compliance with SCWP streetscape standards for the Barton Springs Road extension and Subchapter E Core Transit Corridor standards for E. Riverside Drive frontage. U1: In lieu of pending adoption of the South-Central Waterfront Regulating Plan and ongoing Project Connect coordination, TPW recommends that the PUD adhere to TCM streetscape standards, at a minimum. If additional widths or facilities are prescribed by Project Connect, the PUD will utilize those identified standards in its streetscape facilities. Please provide this as an explicit PUD note. C814-2023-0057 Page 23 U2: TPW will not recommend approval of the proposed Subchapter E Core Transit Corridor standards (Land Use Note #18). TCM standards for the streetscapes are recommended at this stage and may be modified as needed by Project Connect at the time of site plan. Article 2, Division 5 (Tier 2 Criteria) ATD 7. Great Streets: TPW recommends utilizing the streetscape standards prescribed by the TCM/South Central Waterfront Plan in lieu of Great Streets standards. U1: Comment pending TPW comment #6. U2: TPW will not recommend approval of the proposed Subchapter E Core Transit Corridor standards (Land Use Note #18). TCM standards for the streetscapes are recommended at this stage and may be modified as needed by Project Connect at the time of site plan. ATD 8. Transportation: Comment pending. TPW supports the application’s commitment to coordinating improvements with ATP/Project Connect, however, final recommendation is contingent upon the PUD’s commitment to the recommendations of the TIA as well. U1: Comment pending approval of final TIA memo. U2: Comment cleared. ATD 9. Additional Comments: TPW recommends that the PUD specify these improvements by offering deference to the South Central Waterfront Plan, specifically the 22’ “greenway” and/or the desired cross-section as identified by Project Connect when available: C814-2023-0057 Page 24 U1: Comment pending TPW comment #6. U2: Comment pending. Land Use Note #24- at this time it is unclear how these “improvements” will be above and beyond the base line requirements of the TCM. Please clarify what these improvements may entail and add the language “subject to approval from Director” to the proposed note. TPW approves of this note so long as modifications reflecting the SCWP (noted in TPW 6 are added. U1: Comment cleared. To be addressed through TPW comment #6. TPW approves of this proposed modification. C814-2023-0057 Page 25 Capital Metro (within ¼ mile) Name Existing ROW ASMP Required ROW Pavement ASMP Classification Sidewalks Bicycle Route Barton Springs (N-S extension) 0’ 116’ No Yes Yes 40’ (“Little Riverside” easement) 60’ 3 3 Riverside Drive 77’-90’ 116’ Yes Yes Yes Water Quality Release of this application does not constitute a verification of all data, information, and calculations supplied by the applicant. The engineer of record is solely responsible for the completeness, accuracy, and adequacy of his/her submittal, whether or not the application is reviewed for code compliance by city engineers. WQ 1. Demonstration of compliance with all water quality requirements will be required subsequent development application for the subject site. This includes providing water quality controls for all new and/or redevelopment impervious cover if it exceeds 8,000 sf. [LDC 25-8-211] WQ 2. Projects submitted after November 7, 2022, will be required to provide green stormwater control measures to meet water quality control requirements (with some exceptions) in accordance with the recently passed Ordinance No. 20221027-045, Part 18 [25-8-213 (C) and (D)]. Green infrastructure options are outlined in ECM 1.6.7. Administrative waivers may be granted on a case-by-case basis. The ordinance document can be requirements): for pg. https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=399108. infrastructure 24-26 found green here (see Per the superiority table provided, green water quality controls as prescribed in ECM 1.6.7 are proposed to treat 50% of the required water quality volume. Please note that the use of green water quality controls as prescribed in the ECM should not be considered superior for the purposes of Tier 2 requirements. Please confirm acknowledgment. Wetland Biologist No review required. C814-2023-0057 Page 26 INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO FOLLOW Exhibit A: Zoning Map Exhibit B: Aerial Map Exhibit C: Applicant’s Summary Letter Exhibit D: Basis for Superiority - Tier 1 and Tier 2 Compliance Summary Exhibit E: Proposed Code Modifications to Development Regulations Exhibit F: Existing Zoning Exhibit G: Existing Conditions Exhibit H: PUD Land Use Plan Exhibit I: Notes & Summary Sheet (Site Development Regulations Table; Permitted, Prohibited and Conditional Use Tables; Maximum Densities Table and Land Use Notes) Exhibit J: Code Comparison Chart Exhibit K: Carbon Impact Statement Exhibit L: TIA Memorandum Exhibit M: Applicant’s Letter Requesting Scheduling for Land Use Commission C814-2012-0071 PUD-NP CS-1-V-NP STATE OFFICE PUD-NP C814-06-0106.01 C814-06-0106.02 P73-17 C14-2007-0220 C14-99-0069.01 LI-PDA-NP OFFICE LI-NP OUTDOOR\FURN. CS-1-V-NP P81-086 SP90-0122C SP07-0070C 05-0139 C814-2017-0001 REST. C14-2007-0220 CS-1-V-NP CS-1-V-NP C14-2007-0220 PARKING HOTEL REST. NPA-2019-0022.02 C814-89-0003.02 PUD-NP C14-2007-0224 78-179 72-161 C14-78-189(RCT) SP90-0122C 72-161 SP90-0717C 05-0139.001 LI-NP STATE OFFICE CS-NP CS-1-V-NP C14-2007-0220 NPA-2017-0013.01 C14-2017-0026 C14-02-0031 CS-1-V-NP P-NP GAS CS-1-NP APARTMENTS P79-18 C14-2007-0220 CS-1-V-NP 05-0139 CS-1-V-NP SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF UNZ CS-V-NP C14-2007-0224 STATE OFFICES 73-41 APARTMENTS SP-06-0378C SP-06-0715C 05-0139 CS-V-CO-NP C14-05-0077 05-0077 SP-05-1438C 05-0139 CS-1-V-NP L-NP 72-161 OFFICE BLDG. C14-2007-0224 05-0139 CS-V-CO-NP SP-99-0140C 85-351 CS-MU-V-NP 05-0139.001 CS-CO-NP C14-05-0139 C814-2008-0165 SP-06-0347C.SH SP-06-0716C.SH L-NP L-V-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP MF-1-NCCD-NP 81-219 SF-3-NCCD-NP MF-3-NCCD-NP APARTMENTS L-NP APARTMENTS CS-MU-NCCD-NP NPA-2019-0022.01 MF-4-NCCD-NP NPA-2019-0022.01 SF-3-NCCD-NP ( MF-4-NP CONDOS C14-79-065(RCT) CBD C14-04-0078 O4-0078 77-053 SP-05-1575C C14-04-0078 CBD MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER SPC-02-0021C C14-04-0081 P 04-0083 C14-04-0083 CBD C14-00-2048 DMU-CO C14-99-0001 CBD C14-04-0082 99-0001 C14-04-0097 CS-1-NCCD-NP 64-117 C14-2020-0147 NPA-2019-0022.01 CS-1-MU-NCCD-NP C14-2014-0117 CS-NCCD-NP H99-0005 C14-2008-0250 NPA-2014-0022.02 ( C14H-99-0005 C14-02-0067 GR-H-NCCD-NP 02-0067 SP-04-0905CS C14-2007-0220 ( C14-02-0067 ( OFFICE COMPLEX L-V-NP C14-2007-0224 BAR CS-1-V-NP SF-3-H-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP ( 81-219 SF-3-H-NCCD-NP ( 05-0139 SF-3-NCCD-NP 93-0100 ( ( ( C14-02-0067 ( H79-015 ( ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( ( SF-3-H-NCCD-NP MF-3-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP SF-3-H-NCCD-NP C14H-95-0005 CS-MU-V-NCCD-NP CS-1-MU-V-NCCD-NP 57-17 C14-2007-0224 C14-85-351 CS-1-MU-V-NCCD-NP 85-351 53-084 CS-1-MU-V-NCCD-NP C14-2008-0093 ± MF-4-NCCD-NP SF-3-NCCD-NP C14-02-0067 MF-3-NCCD-NP MF-4-NCCD-NP MF-4-NCCD-NP ( 02-0067.01 SF-3-H-NCCD-NP ( 02-0067 MF-2-NCCD-NP C14-02-0067 ( ( PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT C14-06-0009 MF-4-NCCD-NP MF-2-H-NCCD-NP H89-0009 ( ( ( SF-3-H-NCCD-NP ! ! ! ! PENDING CASE ZONING CASE#: C814-2023-0057 SUBJECT TRACT ZONING BOUNDARY This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. 1 " = 400 ' This product has been produced by the Housing and Planning Department for the sole purpose of geographic reference. No warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or 05-0139 P-NP 05-0139 UNDEV GO-NCCD-NP ( ( ( 02-0067 ( 05-0139 ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( MF-4-NCCD-NP C14-02-0067 ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( C14H-2010-0032 SF-3-H-NP ( ( ( SF-3-NCCD-NP ( ( 05-0139 ( SF-3-NP 05-0139 SF-3-NP ( ( SF-3-CO-NCCD-NP ( ( C14-02-0067 C14-02-0067 SF-3-NCCD-NP GO-NCCD-NP P-NCCD-NP SF-3-NP 05-0139 SF-3-NP 200 E. Riverside Code Modifications 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Section 25-6-532 (Off-Street Loading Standards) is modified to allow shared loading and unloading spaces for the various uses within the PUD regardless of where the use or loading and unloading is located within the PUD. Section 25-2-742(F) (South Shore Central Subdistrict Regulations) is modified to reduce the basewall setback requirements along Riverside Drive. Section 25-2-742(G)(4) (South Shore Central Subdistrict Regulations) is modified to allow for a maximum building height of 410 feet. Section 25-2-1065 (Scale and Clustering Requirements) shall not apply to development within the PUD. Chapter 25-10 is modified to provide that the Property shall be subject to the Downtown Sign District regulations. Section 25-2, Division 5, 2.3.1(L) (Planned Unit Developments) is modified to allowed for a PUD to be less than 10 acres. Section 9-2-21(A)(2) (Permit for Concrete Installation During Non-Peak Hour Periods) is modified to authorize the director to issue a Non-Peak Hour Permit to construct improvements on the Property. 4864-5336-8446, v. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 MEMORAN DUM Date: To: CC: Reference: April 25, 2024 Aditya Jatar, BOE Kaylie Coleman, Bryan Golden, Transportation and Public Works Department 200 E Riverside PUD Traffic Impact Analysis (C814-2023-0057) Austin, Final Memo 200 E Riverside Dr, Summary of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA): The Transportation and Public Works Department has reviewed the updated 03/20/2024 submittal of 200 E Riverside TIA BOE. The proposal is for 1,400,000 square feet of general office space and 32,000 square feet of strip retail plaza. It will be located at 200 E Riverside Dr, Austin. The site location is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Site Location The project proposes access to the surrounding roadway network via one full-access driveway along Little Riverside Dr, one RIRO driveway along E Riverside Dr, and one service driveway along E Riverside Dr. The proposed development will be built in one phase and is anticipated to be completed in 2026. As a transportation condition of approval for the above-referenced site plan application, the applicant shall comply with the following: 1. Due to the uncertainty of the LRT Lines (Project Connect) design and construction timeline, this site shall plan its transportation-related improvements for various scenarios. This TIA has analyzed and identified several improvements as shown in Table 2 and Table 3, however, these improvements will be reevaluated at the time of the site plan considering the uncertainty of the LRT Lines adjacent to this site. 2. Considering the uncertainty of the LRT Line options (at-grade or grade-separated), Driveway C can operate as full-access before the implementation of the LRT Lines. However, city will reevaluate once Project Connect LRT line designs are finalized. This driveway may be closed or limited to RIRO based on Project Connect needs. Staff suggests this development shall plan their site layout considering these constraints. The number of driveways, driveway type, and location will be evaluated in detail at the time of the site plan when specific details of the site are available. The City will approve the location, type, and number of driveways, accordingly at the time of the site plan. 3. ASMP currently identifies 116 feet of right-of-way (ROW) for both E Riverside Dr and Little Riverside Dr. Staff recommends that this development plans for ROW dedication per ASMP, however, ROW dedication will be evaluated at the time of the site plan when more detailed information about the site and Project Connect LRT lines will be available. 4. The site must achieve a minimum TDM threshold of 30% using various measures. The applicant has the flexibility to substitute and/or add other relevant TDM measures as per the TCM at the time of the site plan as long as the overall TDM reduction is achieved. TDM measures will be further reevaluated and approved by COA during the site plan review. 5. The proposed development is subject to the City of Austin Street Impact Fee (SIF) (Ordinance # 20201220-061 & 20201210-062). The final SIF will be calculated and invoiced for this development at the time of building permit and will satisfy the mitigation requirements of this site. No building permit shall be issued until the total required SIF collection amount is paid in full. The SIF study identifies that the projected future developments can require improvements to the transportation network. Street impact fees help fund roadway capacity projects necessitated by new developments. Payments to the SIF to build these projects/improvements, which are identified in the Roadway Capacity Plan, will satisfy the mitigation requirements. 6. If the applicant constructs any SIF offset-eligible improvements with this site plan, the cost incurred for construction may be considered as an offset toward the final SIF collection amount through an Offset Agreement. If constructed before building permit issuance, actual construction costs may be used; otherwise, a signed and sealed cost estimate will be required. 7. Development of this property should not vary from the approved uses or deviate from the approved intensities and estimated traffic generation assumptions within the finalized TIA document, including land uses, trip generation, trip distribution, traffic controls, driveway locations, and other identified conditions. Any change in the assumptions made to the TIA document shall be reviewed by TPW and may require a new or updated TIA/addendum. 8. Approval of this TIA does not grant nor guarantee approval of proposed driveway locations or driveway types. An updated TIA or addendum may be required at the time of the site plan when more details about the site are available. 9. The findings and recommendations of this TIA memorandum remain valid until five (5) years from the date of the traffic counts in the TIA or the date of this memo, whichever comes first, after which a revised TIA or addendum may be required. Trip Generation and Land Use: Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), the development will generate 8,015 adjusted daily trips, 1,020 trips during the AM peak hour and 997 trips during the PM peak hour, details are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Trip Generation Land Uses Quantity Units ITE Code 710 General Office 1,400,000 Daily Trips 11,527 1,425 AM Peak Hour Out 195 In PM Peak Hour Out In Total Total 1,620 252 1,232 1,484 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 822 32,000 1,580 45 31 76 89 89 178 Total Unadjusted Daily Trips TDM (30% Reduction) Existing Trips Total Adjusted Daily Trips 13,107 1,470 441 3,932 147 1,160 882 8,015 226 68 20 138 1,696 341 1,321 1,662 102 509 28 167 1,020 211 396 138 787 499 166 997 SF SF Summary of Identified Improvements: Table 2. Improvements Identified in the TIA (This will be reevaluated at the time of the site plan when more information about the site and Project Connect is available.) Name Improvement E Riverside Dr & Little Riverside Dr (See Figure 2 for the improvement extent) E Riverside Dr & S Congress Ave (See Figure 2 for the improvement extent) Back-of-curb Improvements (See Figure 2 for the improvement extent) Restripe existing pavement to 1L, 1 TR along SB Little Riverside approach to accommodate SB LTL on Little Riverside Provide 1 additional LTL to create dual left turn lanes along EB approach Widen NB approach with merge taper along Little Riverside Dr to provide additional receiving lane for EB to NB dual left turns Signal re-timing, lane assignment sign, signal head modification as needed to align with modified geometry Install 1 additional LTL to create dual left turn lanes along EB E Riverside Dr approach Install 1 additional LTL to create dual left turn lanes along WB E Riverside Dr approach Install 1 RTL along WB E Riverside Dr approach Signal re-timing, lane assignment sign, signal head modification as needed to align with modified geometry Design and construct back-of-curb improvements with the coordination of TPW along site frontages on Little Riverside Dr & E Riverside Dr Summary of Identified TDM Measures: Table 3. TDM Measures (This will be reevaluated at the time of the site plan when more information about the site and Project Connect is available.) TDM Measure Internal Trip Capture Transit Proximity Category Contextual Trip Reduction Measures Details 5% At least half of the development site falls within ¼-mile of a High Capacity transit stop, or 1/8-mile of a High Frequency (15 min) transit stop; and a complete sidewalk network is in place between the development site and the nearest transit stop. AND at least 1 point is also received for any Parking measure OR for either API-5 or API-6 21% to 50% of the Parking Ratio Identified in the LDC Exceed the IRS limit on pre-tax parking purchases by at least 10% All non-resident tenants Are at least $2 per hour during identified congestion-pricing periods Yes Yes Yes 50% Subsidy for All Site Employees 50% Subsidy for All Site Employees Program Limited to Building Employees Yes Yes Identified improvements in the TDM plan with this TIA will be reevaluated at the time of the site plan Parking Measures Reduced Parking Supply Amenities, Programs, and Incentives Measures Sustainable Mode Improvement Measures Unbundled Parking Daily Tenant Parking Rates Visitor Parking Pricing Transportation Management Association Membership Designated Mobility Coordinator Marketing and Information Universal Transit Pass Mobility Wallet Ride-Home Benefit Telecommuting Work Option Delivery-Supportive Amenities Pedestrian Access and Connectivity Improvements Bicycle Access and Connectivity Transit Access and Connectivity Site Plan Access and Connectivity Please contact me at (512) 978-1699 if you have questions or require additional information. Assumptions: An annual growth rate of 2.00% Minimum 30% trip reduction for TDM Sincerely, Matiur Rahman, PhD, P.Eng. Figure 2. Improvement Extent