02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1 - Staff Report Part 1 — original pdf

Backup

ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CASE: C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) DISTRICT: 1 ADDRESS: 3127 East Howard Lane ZONING FROM: W/LO SITE AREA: 8.37 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Peter Pham TO: GR CASE MANAGER: Sherri Sirwaitis (512-974-3057, sherri.sirwaitis@austintexas.gov) STAFF RECOMMEDATION: Staff recommends GR-CO, Community Commercial-Conditional Overlay Combining District, zoning. The conditional overlay will prohibit the following uses on the property: Automotive Repair Services, Automotive Sales, Automotive Washing (of any type), Bail Bond Services, Club or Lodge, Commercial Off-Street Parking, Drop Off Recycling Collection Facility, Exterminating Services, Funeral Services, Hotel/Motel, Off-Site Accessory Parking, Outdoor Entertainment, Outdoor Sports and Recreation, Pawn Shop Services and Service Station. ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION ACTION / RECOMMENDATION: August 4, 2026: Granted the neighbors request for a postponement to September 15, 2026 by consent (6-0, R. Puzycki, A. Flores, S. Boone, A. Cortes and T. Major-absent); B. Greenberg-1st, D. Fouts-2nd. September 15, 2026 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE NUMBER: 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 11 of 192 C14-2026-0046 ISSUES: N/A CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: 2 The property in question is an undeveloped 8.37 acre tract that fronts onto East Howard Lane. This lot was annexed by the City of Austin on December 31, 2007 (Case C7a-07-024) and received W/LO zoning in 2017 through case C14-2016-0119 (please see Area Case Histories below). The property owner has a site plan – case SP-2023-0053C - that is approved to permit four 15,000 sq. ft. buildings and a 7,200 pavilion on the site. Therefore, the applicant is requesting GR zoning to allow for office (professional office), religious assembly, indoor entertainment (wedding venue) and an indoor sports and recreation use (pickleball courts) within these structures on the property. The staff is recommending GR-CO, Community Commercial-Combining District, zoning for this site. The proposed GR-CO zoning will allow for office, civic and commercial uses on a tract of land that fronts onto an arterial roadway, East Howard Lane. The zoning will provide a transition across Howard Lane, to the planned residential uses to the north in the Cantarra Residential Neighborhood and to the east to the Mixed Residential Area in the Pioneer Crossing PUD. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: 1. The proposed zoning is consistent with the purpose statement of the district sought. Community Commercial district is intended for office and commercial uses serving neighborhood and community needs, including both unified shopping centers and individually developed commercial sites, and typically requiring locations accessible from major traffic ways. 2. The proposed zoning should allow for a reasonable use of the property. The GR-CO zoning would allow for reasonable use of the site because it will permit the applicant to develop a mixture of office, civic and commercial uses on a site that fronts onto an arterial roadway, East Howard Lane, that will provide services to the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the north and east. EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES: ZONING Site North W/LO I-SF-4A, SF-4A South East West County PUD (Pioneer Crossing PUD: Mixed Density Residential Designation) County LAND USES Undeveloped Undeveloped: Platted Single Family Residential Lots (Cantarra Residential Subdivision) Undeveloped Single Family Residence, Undeveloped Single-Family Residence 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 12 of 192C14-2026-0046 3 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA: N/A WATERSHED: Harris Branch CAPITOL VIEW CORRIDOR: N/A SCENIC ROADWAY: N/A NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, Harris Branch Master Association, Inc., Harris Branch Residential Property Owners Assn., Homeless Neighborhood Association, Pflugerville Independent School District SCHOOLS: Manor ISD, Pflugerville ISD AREA CASE HISTORIES: NUMBER C14-2016-0119 (3119 E Howard Lane) REQUEST I-RR to LI COMMISSION 1/03/17: Approved staff’s recommendation of W/LO zoning (6-3, A. Denkler, J. Kiolbassa, B. Greenberg-No and S. Lavani, T. Weber-absent); B. Evans-1st, S. Harris-2nd. C14-2014-0167 (Cantarra Mixed Use: 13007 Cantarra Drive) I-RR to LR-MU 3/03/15: Approved staff’s recommendation of LR-MU-CO zoning with conditions, adding a new condition to prohibit Off-Site Accessory Parking on the property (6-0, G. Rojas-absent); P. Seeger-1st, R. McDaniel-2nd. CITY COUNCIL 01/26/2017: Approved W/LO zoning, with conditions, on consent on 1st reading (11-0); D. Garza-1st, P. Renteria-2nd. 3/02/17: Ordinance No. 20170302-049 was approved for warehouse-limited office (W/LO) combining district zoning, with ROW dedication, on Council Member Troxclair’s motion, Council Member Flannigan’s second on a 10-0 vote. Council Member Kitchen was off the dais. 4/16/15: Approved LR-MU-CO zoning, include the conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation, with the exception/removing the fencing prohibition, on first reading (11-0); G. Casar-1st, O. Houston-2nd. 6/11/15: Approved LR-MU-CO zoning on consent on 2nd/3rd 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 13 of 192C14-2026-0046 4 readings (11-0); A. Kitchen-1st, P. Renteria-2nd. 2/26/09: The public hearing was closed neighborhood commercial (LR) district zoning with TIA conditions was approved on consent on Council Member Morrison's motion, Council Member Cole's second on a 6-0 vote. Mayor Wynn was off the dais. 2/25/10: Case expired per LDC Section 25-2- 246(B). The applicant did not submit Corporate Authorization information as to who could sign the public restrictive covenant document for the TIA for this case. Therefore, this zoning case was not scheduled for 2nd/3rd readings to approve an ordinance and public restrictive covenant at City Council. 7/24/08 : Approved SF-4A zoning by consent (5-0, Cole and Shade-off the dais) 1/20/09: Approved staff recommendation of LR zoning with conditions by consent (4-0, K. Jackson, T. Rabago, R. Evans-absent) C14-2008-0127 (Cantarra Commercial Zoning: 3112 ½ Gregg Lane) I-SF-4A to GR* *On January 7, 2009, the staff received an e- mail from the applicant stating that they would like to amend their zoning request to the ‘LR’ district (Attachment A). Neighborhood Commercial zoning will permit the uses that they have listed on their TIA submittal for this case. C14-2008-0013 (Cantarra Zoning: Gregg Lane) I-SF-4A to Tract 1: SF-4A and Tract 2: GR 5/20/08: Approved staff’s recommendation for SF-4A zoning by consent (7-0, J. Martinez-absent); K. Jackson-1st, T. Rabago-2nd. RELATED CASES: C14-2016-0119 – Previous Zoning Case SP-2023-0053C, C14R-84-301 - Site Plan Cases C7a-07-024 – Annexation Case C8-76-35 Subdivision Case 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 14 of 192 C14-2026-0046 5 OTHER STAFF COMMENTS: Comprehensive Planning Project Name and Proposed Use: 3127 E HOWARD LANE. C14-2026-0046. Project: Howard Plaza. 8.37 acres from W/LO to GR. Existing: warehouse. Proposed: pickleball courts, general office building, and recreational community center. Yes Y Imagine Austin Decision Guidelines Complete Community Measures * Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map: Located within or adjacent to an Imagine Austin Activity Center, Imagine Austin Activity Corridor, or Imagine Austin Job Center as identified the Growth Concept Map. Names of Activity Centers/Activity Corridors/Job Centers *: • Adjacent to Howard Lane/Gregg Activity Corridor Mobility and Public Transit *: Located within 0.25 miles of public transit stop and/or light rail station. Y Mobility and Bike/Ped Access *: Adjoins a public sidewalk, shared path, and/or bike lane. • Sidewalk and Bike Lane present along E Howard Lane Connectivity, Good and Services, Employment *: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles to goods and services, and/or employment center. Connectivity and Food Access *: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles of a grocery store/farmers market. Connectivity and Education *: Located within 0.50 miles from a public school or university. Y Connectivity and Healthy Living *: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles from a recreation area, park or walking trail. • Site to provide recreational community center Connectivity and Health *: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles of health facility (ex: hospital, urgent care, doctor’s office, drugstore clinic, and/or specialized outpatient care.) Housing Choice *: Expands the number of units and housing choice that suits a variety of household sizes, incomes, and lifestyle needs of a diverse population (ex: apartments, triplex, granny flat, live/work units, cottage homes, and townhomes) in support of Imagine Austin and the Strategic Housing Blueprint. Housing Affordability *: Provides a minimum of 10% of units for workforce housing (80% MFI or less) and/or fee in lieu for affordable housing. Mixed use *: Provides a mix of residential and non-industrial uses. Culture and Creative Economy *: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles of a cultural resource (ex: library, theater, museum, cultural center). Culture and Historic Preservation: Preserves or enhances a historically and/or culturally significant site. Creative Economy: Expands Austin’s creative economy (ex: live music venue, art studio, film, digital, theater.) Workforce Development, the Economy and Education: Expands the economic base by creating permanent jobs, especially in industries that are currently not represented in a particular area or that promotes a new technology, and/or promotes educational opportunities and workforce development training. Industrial Land: Preserves or enhances industrial land. Y Not located over Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone or Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone 4 Number of “Yes’s” 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 15 of 192 C14-2026-0046 Drainage 6 The developer is required to submit a pre- and post-development drainage analysis at the subdivision and site plan stage of the development process. The City’s Land Development Code and Drainage Criteria Manual require that the Applicant demonstrate through engineering analysis that the proposed development will have no identifiable adverse impact on surrounding properties. Environmental The site is not located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. The site is in the Harris Branch Watershed of the Colorado River Basin, which is classified as a Suburban Watershed by Chapter 25-8 of the City's Land Development Code. The site is in the Desired Development Zone. Under current watershed regulations, development or redevelopment on this site will be subject to the following impervious cover limits: Development Classification % of Gross Site Area % of Gross Site Area Single-Family (minimum lot size 5750 sq. ft.) Other Single-Family or Duplex Multifamily Commercial 50% 55% 60% 80% with Transfers 60% 60% 70% 90% According to floodplain maps there is a floodplain within or adjacent to the project location. Based upon the location of the floodplain, offsite drainage should be calculated to determine whether a Critical Water Quality Zone exists within the project location. Standard landscaping and tree protection will be required in accordance with LDC 25-2 and 25-8 for all development and/or redevelopment. At this time, site specific information is unavailable regarding vegetation, areas of steep slope, or other environmental features such as bluffs, springs, canyon rimrock, caves, sinkholes, and wetlands. Under current watershed regulations, development or redevelopment requires water quality control with increased capture volume and control of the 2 year storm on site. At this time, no information has been provided as to whether this property has any preexisting approvals that preempt current water quality or Code requirements. Fire No comments. 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 16 of 192C14-2026-0046 Parks and Recreation 7 Parkland dedication fees may apply to any future site or subdivision applications resulting from this rezoning. As of January 1, 2024, new commercial, non-residential uses are not subject to parkland dedication requirements at the time of site plan and subdivision. Site Plan FYI: All comments regarding the effects of the proposed rezoning on subsequent Site Plan Review applications are intended to assist in identifying potential development constraints but do not include all regulations which may affect a specific proposal. Changes to property boundaries and requests for development cannot include all regulatory limitations which may apply to a specific subject to modification or reconsideration if affected by a change in property boundaries or if development is proposed on only a portion of the land proposed for rezoning. These comments are intended to assist in identifying potential development constraints, but do not address the actual restrictions which will apply to a specific development proposal. Austin Development Services offers a variety of pre- application review options to assist in evaluating specific development proposals prior to Site Plan Application. Site plans will be required for any new development except for residential only projects with up to 4 units. Any new development is subject to Subchapter E Commercial Design Standards. Additional comments will be made when the site plan is submitted. Compatibility Standards The site is subject to compatibility standards due to the proximity and adjacency of SF- 4 zoning on the North and East side of the triggering property. Reference 25-2-1051, 25-2-1053 Any structure that is located: a) At least 50 feet but less than 75 feet from any part of a triggering property may not exceed 60 feet b) Less than 50 feet from any part of a triggering property may not exceed 40 feet Reference 25-2-1061 A 25-foot (15-foot if site is less than 75 feet wide) compatibility buffer is required along the property line shared with the triggering property. No vertical structures are permitted in the compatibility buffer. Reference 25-2-1062(B), 25-8-700 An on-site amenity, including a swimming pool, tennis court, ball court, or playground, may not be constructed 25 feet or less from the triggering property. Reference 25-2-1062 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 17 of 192 C14-2026-0046 8 There is a site plan currently under review for this property SP-2025-0311C which provides for 69696 square feet of Commercial Mixed Use uses, along with associated parking and drainage facilities. Transportation Transportation assessment/traffic impact analysis and transportation demand management plan shall be required at the time of site plan if triggered per LDC 25-6 and TCM 10.2.1. Assessment of required transportation mitigation, including the potential dedication of right of way and easements and participation in roadway and other multi-modal improvements, will occur at the time of site plan application. The adjacent street characteristics table is provided below: Name ASMP Classification ASMP Required ROW Existing ROW Existing Pavement Sidewalks Bicycle Route Capital Metro (within ¼ mile) E HOWARD LN Level 3 116’ 111 73’ Yes Yes No Water Utility No comments. INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO FOLLOW A: Zoning Map B. Aerial Map C. Site Plan - SP-2023-0053C D. Comments Received 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 18 of 192EXHIBIT A 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 19 of 192EXHIBIT B 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 110 of 192N 10114489.8034 E 3150370.7164 COA ETJ LOC COA ETJ LOC CITY LIMIT LINE ( AT PROPERTY LINE) 5' BLDG. SETBACK WWE (VOL.10860, PG.94) All activities within the Critical Environmental Feature and associated CEF setback must comply with the City of Austin Land Development Code. The natural vegetative cover must be retained to the maximum extent practicable; construction is prohibited; and wastewater disposal or irrigation is prohibited. ) E N I L Y T R E P O R P T A ( E N I L T I M I L Y T I C Z Q W C C O L 22,500 S.F. (5.1%) NATURAL UNDEVELOPED PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE ' 2 7 . 4 9 1 150 FT. CEF SETBACK K C A B T E S . G D L B ' 5 2 K C A B T E S . G D L B ' 5 2 10' E/TE (PER PLAT) CWQZ C O L 3' x 3' CONT. ROCK GABION LEVEL SPREADER (TOP @ 630.5) 25' DRAINAGE ESMT. (Doc # 2021217308) K N A B Y A H T A C S E R C A 3 5 0 3 . 4 6 3 ) 0 8 5 8 4 0 1 1 0 2 . C O D ( ' 4 0 . 5 9 2 , W ' " 9 5 8 0 ° 6 6 N I T F 0 5 N H T I W S G N D L I U B O N I T N A C A V : E S U D U P : I G N N O Z ' 2 3 . 0 0 1 E C N E F K N I L N A H C I . X E DETENTION POND FILTRATION POND SEDIMENTATION POND DE-WATERING SKIMMER REF. FIG. 1.4.5.K.1, SHT. 15 * LOC 6 FT. HT. WOOD SCREEN FENCE AT PROPERTY LINE (LDC 25-2-1006) DRAINAGE CHANNEL S 19°30'30" W, 800.00' 6,000 S.F. OUTDOOR PAVILION (ACCESSORY BLDG) F.F. 645.75 F.H. 7 BUILDING - 4 FF = 646.75 Community Recreation (Private) = 10,000 SF Admin. & Business Office = 5,000 SF Total = 15,000 SF SHOWERS & LOCKERS OFFICE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE F.F. 646.75 BICYCLE PARKING 8 SPACES FDC ELEC. METER RISER ROOM FIRE LANE SIGN PER COA STD. 901S-6 ' 0 0 . 5 ' 0 0 . 7 5 ft. Clear Zone 7 ft. Planting Zone F.F. 646.75 FIRE LANE FIRE LANE 11 DUMPSTER 10 E N A L E R F I E N A L E R F I N A V F.H. UE 19 13 LOT 1 BLOCK A 17 E N I L H C T A M 9 16 86 8 ACCESSIBLE ROUTE UE TRANSF FIRE LANE FIRE LANE U E 8 11 15 63 12 C 12 LOT 1 BLOCK A UE 9 5 ft. Clear Zone ' 0 0 . 5 ' 0 0 . 7 7 ft. Planting Zone LOC 48" PB ' 4 0 . 0 0 1 W ' " 5 1 6 3 ° 9 6 N FIRE LANE 7 UE 48" PB 14 C UE EXIST. CONC. EXIST. 3,613 Sq. Ft. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FF = 658.30 UE LOC FIRE LANE 7 C 48" PB 18" SUB-SURFACE STORM PIPE FOR FUTURE FIRE LANE 25' DRAINAGE ESMT. (Doc # 2021217308) LOC 15' WW ESMT. DOC. # 2022167428 3131 E HOWARD LANE 15' WW ESMT. DOC. # 2022167428 LOC E N I L H C T A M LOC LOT 1 EAST VILLAGE SINGLE FAMILY PH2 C8-2018-0122.3B Zoning: PUD ' 9 7 . 4 0 1 C O L B R U C C O L . R D I S S A O E D A J " A " L S S " 8 1 . X E APPENDIX Q-2: IMPERVIOUS COVER NOTE: Q1 TABLES ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR SUBURBAN WATERSHEDS ) . . W O R . ' 0 5 ( B R U C LOT 19 EAST VILLAGE SINGLE FAMILY PH2 C8-2018-0122.3B Zoning: PUD PORTION OF 10' E/TE ESMT. TO BE VACATED ARTISIAN COVE LIVE-WORK EAST AUSTIN SP-2021-0058C Zoning : PUD (3211 E. Howard Lane) LOC N 19°40'40" E, 1477.16' EXIST. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COA ETJ LOC EXIST. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COA ETJ CITY LIMIT LINE (AT PROPERTY LINE) DUMPSTER 10 ' 5 4 X 2 1 E C A P S G N D A O L I ELEC. METER UE E N A L E R F I ' 0 0 . 0 5 DOCK FF 660.50 O.H. DOOR ' BUILDING - 3 FF = 660.50 Ltd. Warehouse & Dist. = 13,000 SF Admin. & Business Office = 2,000 SF Total = 15,000 SF 6' x 6' RISER ROOM BICYCLE PARKING 2 SPACES OFFICE HANDRAIL @ UPPER SIDEWALK AEC BENCH (SHADE SEATING) FF 660.50 FDC ACCESSIBLE ROUTE OFFICE ENTRANCE OFFICE O.H. DOOR FF 660.50 Clear Zone F.H. 9 FIRE LANE DOCK O.H. DOOR DUMPSTER ' BUILDING - 2 FF = 667.75 Ltd. Warehouse & Dist. = 13,000 SF Admin. & Business Office = 2,000 SF Total = 15,000 SF DOCK O.H. DOOR DUMPSTER ' ' 5 4 X 2 1 E C A P S G N D A O L I 6' x 6' RISER ROOM BICYCLE PARKING 2 SPACES OFFICE HANDRAIL @ UPPER SIDEWALK AEC BENCH (SHADE SEATING) FF 667.75 FDC E N A L E R F I ' 0 0 . 0 5 HC PARKING SIGN (TYP.) Clear Zone 8 FIRE LANE ' 5 4 X 2 1 E C A P S G N D A O L I OFFICE ENTRANCE OFFICE ELEC. METERS FF 667.75 O.H. DOOR E N A L E R F I ' 0 0 . 0 5 U E 5' BLDG. SETBACK BUILDING - 1 FF = 675.0 Ltd. Wrhouse & Dist. = 13,000 SF Admin. & Business Office = 2,000 SF Total = 15,000 SF 6' x 6' RISER ROOM BICYCLE PARKING 2 SPACES OFFICE HANDRAIL @ UPPER SIDEWALK AEC BENCH (SHADE SEATING) F.F. 675.0 FDC ' 0 0 . 5 2 ACCESSIBLE ROUTE OFFICE ENTRANCE 40.00' OFFICE F.F. 675.0 O.H. DOOR Clear Zone F.H. 8 FIRE LANE VAN EX. F.H. 552048 LOC BM 2.00'6.00'12.51' K C A B T E S . G D L B ' 5 2 ) T A L P R E P ( . T M S E E T E / ' 0 8 . 9 8 1 , W ' " 5 1 6 3 ° 9 6 N ACCESSIBLE ROUTE REMOVE EXIST. 6' SIDEWALK 7'+ PLANTING ZONE 6' SIDEWALK/ CLEAR ZONE C O L E N A L D R A W O H . E ' 5 1 EX. EX. P.P. P.P. 114.00' EX. R.O.W. 77.00' EX. PAVEMENT PRIMARY RISER OE 48" PB E N A L E R F I S. Stookey 06/02/2024 P.L. D100 = 0.57' WSEL 100 3 1 E N I L . T M S E IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED AT _______% X _____ (GROSS SITE AREA) =________ACRES 6.70 80 8.37 ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER BREAKDOWN BY SLOPE CATEGORY 0.067 TOTAL ACREAGE 15-25% = ___________ACRES X 10% = __________ 0.0067 PROPOSED TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVER TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVER = _______ACRES =________% 4.24 51.0 June 13, 2024 June 13, 2024 Austin Water Austin Water Larry Williams Larry Williams Larry Williams 6.0' (nts) 4.50' 4.00' 13.00' 4.50' 6.0' (nts) 25.0' DRAINAGE ESMT. (nts) Manning's n = 0.03 (grassy channel) 1 TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL (IN 25' DRAINAGE EASEMENT) 1" = 5.0' PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVER ON SLOPES IMPERVIOUS COVER BUILDING/ AND OTHER IMPERVIOUS COVER DRIVEWAYS ROADWAYS ACRES % OF CATEGORY ACRES 1.72 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.52 21.0 ________ __________________ _____ 0.0 0.0 ________ __________________ _____ 0.0 0.0 ________ __________________ _____ 0.0 0.0 ________ __________________ _____ SLOPE CATEGORIES ACRES ________ 0-15% ________ 15-25% 25-35% ________ OVER 35% ________ 8.278 0.063 0.029 0.0 TOTAL SITE AREA ________________ 8.37 655 654 653 652 651 650 649 648 647 646 645 644 643 642 641 640 639 638 637 636 635 634 633 632 631 630 629 628 627 626 625 WSEL100 TOP OF BERM BOT. OF CHANNEL Q100 = 16.97 cfs V100 = 5.13 ft/s D100 = 0.57 ft. Q2 = 5.01 cfs V2 = 3.51 ft/s D2 = 0.29 ft. TOP OF BERM BOT. OF CHANNEL WSEL100 18" HIGH ROCK BERM TOP OF BERM HORIZ. 1" = 40' VERT. 1" = 4' Figure 34: Examples of fully-shielded light fixtures. NOTES: 1. Exterior lighting above the second floor is prohibitied in the GO, LR, GR, CS, or CS-1 zoning districts, when adjacent to an SF-5 or more restrictive use or district. 2. All exterior lighting will be full cut-off and fully shielded in compliance with Subchapter E 2.5 and will be reviewed during building plan review. Any change or substitution of lamp/light fixtures shall be submitted to the Director for approval in accordance with Section 2.5.2.E 3. Screening for solid waste collection and loading areas shall be the same as, or of equal quality to, principal building materials. 4. Approval of these plans by the City of Austin indicates compliance with applicable city regulations only. Compliance with accessibility standards such as the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design or the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards was not verified. The applicant is responsible for compliance with all applicable accessibility standards. 5. Yards, fences, vegetative screening or berms shall be provided to screen adjacent SF-5 or more restrictive residential districts from views of off- street parking areas, mechanical equipment, storage areas, and for refuse collection. (LDC Section 25-2-1066) 6. Each compact parking space/aisle will be signed "small car only". 655 654 653 652 651 650 649 648 647 646 645 644 643 642 641 640 639 638 637 636 635 634 633 632 631 630 629 628 627 626 625 E N I L Y T R E P O R P E N I L Y T R E P O R P 0 + 00 1 + 00 2 + 00 3 + 00 4 + 00 5 + 00 6 + 00 6 + 50.8 7 + 00 CHANNEL PROFILE EXHIBIT C 9 0 9 4 # M R F I 5 6 8 3 5 # E P 04/12/24 . C N I , I S R E E N G N E G N I T L U S N O C Y A W y n a p m o C g n i r e e n i g n E l a r u t c u r t S & l i i v C m o c . g n i r e e n i g n e y a w @ l i a m 6 6 7 0 - 3 4 3 ) 2 1 5 ( 9 5 7 8 7 s a x e T , n i t s u A , 9 1 1 e t i u S , d a o R s u g n A 5 0 5 1 1 A Z A L P D R A W O H n o i t i d d A 3 # e s u o h e r a W e n a L d r a w o H . E 7 2 1 3 3 5 6 8 7 s a x e T , n i t s u A I N A L P E T S L L A R E V O 93 E U UE 12 C UE 12 C UE N 19°30'30" E, 700.00' LOC TRANSF 12 C UE 48" PB TT EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVE LOC EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVE LOT 2 BLOCK A ZONING: LR-MU Ord. # 20220901-118 USE: Residential S 19°30'30" W, 700.00' 10' E/TE (PER PLAT) FIRE LANE UE 48" PB (EXISTING CONC. DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN) 30' X 75' J.U.A.E. per Plat C O L FIRE LANE SIGN PER COA STD. 901S-6 FIRE LANE LOC K C A B T E S . G D L B ' 5 2 ) T A L P R E P ( . T M S E E T E / ' 5 1 ' 4 0 . 0 0 1 , W ' " 5 1 6 3 ° 9 6 N LOC EXIST. 6' SIDEWALK TO REMAIN 5 FT. DEDICATED R.O.W. DOC. # 2017038450 (R.O.W. WIDTH = 114 FT.) True LIVE-WORK BLDG. Parking LIVE-WORK BLDG. LIVE-WORK BLDG. Parking 1" = 50'-0" LIVE-WORK BLDG. CATEGORY ZONING SITE AREA TOTAL AREA W/IN L.O.C. BUILDING AREA (GROSS) 0 25 50 100 SITE DATA TABLE MAX. ALLOWED PROPOSED --- --- --- --- W / LO 8.37 AC 364,597 SF 7.09 AC 308,970 SF 15,000 SF - BLDG 1 15,000 SF - BLDG 2 15,000 SF - BLDG 3 15,000 SF - BLDG 4 7,200 SF - PAVILION 67,200 SF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE --- 18 % F.A.R. 0.25 : 1 0.18 : 1 IMPERVIOUS COVER (ZONING) 5.86 AC 255,218 S.F. (70%) 4.23 Acs 184,215 SF (51 %) PROPOSED USE ----- LIMITED WAREHOUSE & DIST., ADMIN. & BUSINESS OFFICE, COMMUNITY RECREATION (PRIVATE) HEIGHT 25 FT. or 1 STORY 24 FT 06/14/2024 FOUNDATION TYPE FINISH FLOOR ELEV. ---- ---- 675.00, 667.75, 660.50, 646.75, 645.75 CONC. SLAB OPEN SPACE CALCULATION RATE REQUIRED PROVIDED MIN. 5% OF GROSS SITE AREA (364,597 SF X .05 = 18,230 S.F.) 18,230 S.F. (5%) 22,500 S.F. (6.2%) OFF-STREET PARKING USES 11,000 Sq. Ft. OFFICE / ADMIN. @ 1 SPACE / 275 Sq. Ft. 39,000 Sq. Ft. INDOOR STORAGE, WAREHOUSING, EQUIPMENT SERVICING, OR MANUFACTURING @ 1 SPACE / 1000 Sq. Ft. 10,000 Sq. Ft. COMMUNITY RECREATION (Private) @ 1 SP / 55 Sq. Ft. per Schedule B SUB-TOTALS - Prior to reduction REQUIRED PROVIDED 40 39 182 261 STD. 28 ACCESSIBLE 2 COMPACT 30 TOTAL 60 31 120 179 4 3 9 27 12 69 62 135 257 * 10% Parking Requirement Reduction per LDC 25-6-478 (D) (2) by providing a minimum of one shower and changing facility available to each gender (1 per gender = Total 2 ) 261 spaces X 0.9 = 235 spaces required. 1 LOADING SPACE REQUIRED for 39,000 Sq. Ft. INDOOR WAREHOUSE per Shedule C. - 3 LOADING SPACES PROVIDED. 235* 69 (27%) 179 9 257 BICYCLE PARKING The greater of 5 spaces or 5% of the vehicle spaces required per Appendix A, part 2 REQUIRED 13 PROVIDED 14* * ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY (See Sub-Chapter E sheet 23) 1. Increase required bicycle parking by 10% (13 spaces required x 1.1 = 14) (14 Bicycle Spaces Provided) 2. South facade of Bldg. 4 is shaded 100% with trees. BICYCLE PARKING SPECIFICATION Bicycle parking racks shall be Class II per C.O.A. detail 710S-1 Pg. 1 of 3. Each rack provides two (2) spaces. Each rack shall be anchored per manufacturer's specifications. Revisions/Issues: PHASING - See Phasing Plan & Phasing Calulations on Sht. 23 SITE PLAN RELEASE: Sheet 4 27 of FILE NUMBER: CASE MANAGER: SP-2023-0053C Randall Rouda EXPIRATION DATE: APPLICATION DATE: 02-13-2023 APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY ON: APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON: APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: 112 Under Section of Chapter 25-5 of the Austin City Code. Development Services Department DATE OF RELEASE Zoning: W / LO Rev. 1 Rev. 2 Correction 1 Correction 2 CASE #: SP-2023-0053C May 31, 2024 May 31, 2024 Industrial Waste Industrial Waste Nicole Morr Nicole Morris Nicole Morris Drawn by: Job No. Sheet No. 18112 4 27 OF SUBMITTAL DATE: 02-13-2023 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 111 of 192  4" WATER 4" WW N 19°40'40" E, 1477.16' DOCK FF 660.50 O.H. DOOR DUMPSTER 2-WAY C.O. OWNER'S SHUTOFF 4" WATER (PVC SCH 40) EXIST. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COA ETJ 2-WAY C.O. OWNER'S SHUTOFF EXIST. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COA ETJ CITY LIMIT LINE (AT PROPERTY LINE) 4" WATER (PVC SCH 40) 2-WAY C.O. OWNER'S SHUT OFF 4" SDR 26 WW @ 2% MIN. 4" SDR 26 WW @ 2% MIN. C.O. 5' BLDG. SETBACK 4" SDR 26 WW @ 2% MIN. 6 9 3 1 3 . T N I EX. F.H. 552048 BM 2.00'6.00'12.51' BUILDING - 3 FF = 660.50 Ltd. Warehouse & Dist. = 13,000 SF Admin. & Business Office = 2,000 SF Total = 15,000 SF DOCK O.H. DOOR DUMPSTER BUILDING - 2 FF = 667.75 Ltd. Warehouse & Dist. = 13,000 SF Admin. & Business Office = 2,000 SF Total = 15,000 SF DOCK O.H. DOOR DUMPSTER BUILDING - 1 FF = 675.0 Ltd. Wrhouse & Dist. = 13,000 SF Admin. & Business Office = 2,000 SF Total = 15,000 SF (w / Visible & Sound Alarm) FL in 641.5 (Warehouse Bldg) FL in 641.5 (Community Bldg) BOT OF BASIN = 637.0 (Detail on sheet 27) DUMPSTER 6" INDUSTRIAL WASTE SAMPLE PORT PER AW-SPECIAL-07 IN LANDSCAPE AREA REF. DETAIL ON SHT. 14 CHECK VALVES E N A L E R F I F.H. UE E N I L H C T A M 4" WATER (PVC SCH 40) 4" SDR 26 WW @ 2% MIN. 3" FORCE MAIN WW MH-1 w/ FM CLEANOUT & 3" SHUT-OFF VALVE LOT 1 BLOCK A UE 5 ft. Clear Zone 7 ft. Planting Zone ' 0 0 5 . ' 0 0 7 . I N A M E C R O F " 3 UE TRANSF FIRE LANE FIRE LANE U E 48" PB ' 4 0 . 0 0 1 W ' " 5 1 6 3 ° 9 6 N 22.29' ) 0 4 H C S ( I N A M E C R O F " 3 STA. 2 + 84.9 WW MH-3 RIM 653.25 FL in 651.5 (3" FM) FL out 650.20 (8" ) 7.00' 25' DRAINAGE ESMT. (Doc # 2021217308) I E N L H C T A M 8" WW (SDR 26) (MIN. 1.0%) 6' x 6' RISER ROOM BICYCLE PARKING 2 SPACES ELEC. METER HANDRAIL @ UPPER SIDEWALK OFFICE ENTRANCE 6' x 6' RISER ROOM BICYCLE PARKING 2 SPACES HANDRAIL @ UPPER SIDEWALK UE E N A L E R F I ' 0 0 0 5 . AEC BENCH (SHADE SEATING) FF 660.50 FDC O.H. DOOR FF 660.50 Clear Zone E N A L E R F I ' 0 0 0 5 . AEC BENCH (SHADE SEATING) FF 667.75 FDC OFFICE ENTRANCE ELEC. METERS HC PARKING SIGN (TYP.) Clear Zone FF 667.75 O.H. DOOR . I . D " 6 FIRE LANE 1 - 8"x 6" TEE 1 - 6" G.V. 1 - 6" x 43' D.I. UE 48" PB FIRE LANE 8" C-900 PVC FIRE F.H. . I . D " 6 UE UE 1 - 8"x 6" TEE 1 - 6" G.V. 1 - 6" x 18' D.I. EXIST. CONC. EXIST. 3,613 Sq. Ft. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FF = 658.30 3131 E HOWARD LANE 15' WW ESMT. DOC. # 2022167428 REFER TO SHT. 27 FOR WW PLAN & PROFILE STA. 1 + 63.70 WW MH 1 4' DIA. STD. MH W/ 32" WATER TIGHT COVER FL ( in) 648.85 FL (out) 648.75 15' WW ESMT. DOC. # 2022167428 8" WW (SDR 26) (1.0%) (PUBLIC) 2 + 00 PROP. 8" WW (By Artisan Cove development) SP-2021-0058C LOT 1 EAST VILLAGE SINGLE FAMILY PH2 C8-2018-0122.3B Zoning: PUD B R U C ' . 9 7 4 0 1 . R D I S S A O E D A J ) % 0 . 1 ( @ ) 6 2 R D S ( W W " 8 . P O R P 1 + 00 L W W " 8 . X E % 8 7 . 2 @ " P " STA. 2 + 75.2 WW MH-2 with 32" Water tight cover RIM 653.5 8" FL in 650.10 8" FL out 650.0 COA STD. 506S-10 WW MH #2 shall be a polymer concrete manhole per SPL WW-146 F (Sht. 14) with 32" water tight cover. ) . . W O R . ' 0 5 ( B R U C " E " L W " 8 . X E LOT 19 EAST VILLAGE SINGLE FAMILY PH2 C8-2018-0122.3B Zoning: PUD STA. 1 + 00 = EX. WW MH STA. 1+98.68 (END WWL " P " PER C8-2018-0122.3B) PROPOSED 8" WW F.L. IN = 648.09 EX. 8" WW F.L. OUT = 647.99 LOT 18 . I . D " 6 FIRE LANE 1 - 8"x 8" TEE 1 - 8" G.V. 1 - 8" x 40' D.I. . I . D " 8 UE UE UE N 19°30'30" E, 700.00' EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVE LOT 2 BLOCK A ZONING: LR-MU Ord. # 20220901-118 USE: Residential S 19°30'30" W, 700.00' 10' E/TE (PER PLAT) 1 - 8"x 6" TEE 1 - 6" G.V. 1 - 6" x 43' D.I. FIRE LANE 48" PB FIRE LANE PORTION OF 10' E/TE ESMT. TO BE VACATED ARTISIAN COVE LIVE-WORK EAST AUSTIN SP-2021-0058C Zoning : PUD (3211 E. Howard Lane) K C A B T E S . G D L B ' 5 2 I R E T A W C T S E M O D C V P 0 4 . H C S " 4 OFFICE ENTRANCE F.F. 675.0 O.H. DOOR Clear Zone ' 4 6 . 8 0 1 ) T A L P R E P ( . T M S E E T E / ' 5 1 ' 0 8 . 9 8 1 , W ' " 5 1 6 3 ° 9 6 N 9 0 7 0 - 7 0 0 2 - W . . L W . I . D " 6 1 . X E EX. EX. P.P. P.P. 19.55' EX. 12" D. I. WATERLINE KEARNES DR. REMOVE EXIST. 6' SIDEWALK 7'+ PLANTING ZONE 6' SIDEWALK/ CLEAR ZONE I E N L R E T A W . I . C " 6 . X E ) 0 0 5 0 - 6 5 ( E N A L D R A W O H . E REFER TO SHT. 27 FOR 8" WATER LINE PLAN & PROFILE WATER METER CONNECTION DETAIL THIS SHEET 114.00' EX. R.O.W. 77.00' EX. PAVEMENT 6' x 6' RISER ROOM BICYCLE PARKING 2 SPACES HANDRAIL @ UPPER SIDEWALK E N A L E R F I ' 0 0 0 5 . U E 1 - 8"X 6" TEE 1 - 6" G.V. 1 - 6" x 43' D.I. AEC BENCH (SHADE SEATING) F.F. 675.0 FDC F.H. . I . D " 6 . I . D " 6 1 - 8"X 6" TEE 1 - 6" G.V. 1 - 6" x 18' D.I. E U TRANSF 48" PB TT VAN FIRE LANE 8" C-900 PVC FIRE FIRE LANE UE PRIMARY RISER OE 48" PB E N A L E R F I . I . D UE " 8 1 - 8"x 8" TEE 1 - 8" G.V. 1 - 8" x 40' D.I. 48" PB (EXISTING CONC. DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN) 30' X 75' J.U.A.E. per Plat FIRE LANE EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVE K C A B T E S . G D L B ' 5 2 S. Stookey 06/02/2024 ) T A L P R E P ( . T M S E E T E / ' 5 1 ' 4 0 . 0 0 1 , W ' " 5 1 6 3 ° 9 6 N FIRE LANE SIGN PER COA STD. 901S-6 EXIST. 6' SIDEWALK TO REMAIN 5 FT. DEDICATED R.O.W. DOC. # 2017038450 (R.O.W. WIDTH = 114 FT.) 9 0 9 4 # M R F I 5 6 8 3 5 # E P 04/12/24 . C N I , I S R E E N G N E G N I T L U S N O C Y A W y n a p m o C g n i r e e n i g n E l a r u t c u r t S & l i i v C m o c . g n i r e e n i g n e y a w @ l i a m 6 6 7 0 - 3 4 3 ) 2 1 5 ( 9 5 7 8 7 s a x e T , n i t s u A , 9 1 1 e t i u S , d a o R s u g n A 5 0 5 1 1 A Z A L P D R A W O H n o i t i d d A 3 # e s u o h e r a W e n a L d r a w o H . E 7 2 1 3 3 5 6 8 7 s a x e T , n i t s u A GENERAL UTILITY NOTES 1. Prior to submitting a bid, Contractor shall visit the site and determine all existing conditions which may affect his work. Any conditions resulting in extra work (arising after award of contracts) which could have been avoided and/or resolved had the Contractor visited the site, shall be performed by the Contractor at no cost to the Owner. 2. Contractor is responsible for locating and verifying all existing underground utilities. Locations and elevations shown on these plans are only approximate, and are not to be scaled. Contractor shall make the necessary adjustment for connections to existing lines. 3. Contractor is fully responsible for any and all damages to existing utilities and other improvements. 4. Contractor is responsible for preparation of the Traffic Control plan. If construction is within the State right-of-way, contractor shall submit plan to TxDOT for approval. June 13, 2024 June 13, 2024 5. Contractor shall contact the City's utility Inspector or any governing agencies, for inspections and approvals prior to backfilling of water line, wastewater line, meter, valves, and other utility lines and related items. 6. Contractor shall provide an "AS-BUILT" survey plan prepared and sealed by a Licensed Surveyor. The As-Built drawings shall show horizontal and vertical locations of all pipes, flowlines, hydrants, meters, valves, manhole rim, manhole flowlines, existing lines at tie-in. The surveyor shall issue a sealed hard copy drawings and a CAD file to the Client and the Engineer of Record. 7. All utility lines shown on this plan end at 5 feet away from the building. Contractor shall provide the necessary utility connections at building penetrations to account for soil-foundation differential movements. Particular attention must be given to rigid tie-in connections, such as drain lines to bath tubs and toilets. 8. The water and wastewater lines and meter shown on this plan were sized based on estimation only. They are subject to change upon determination of final design by the MEP engineer of record. The General Contractor is responsible for verifying these sizes, and shall inform the Civil Engineer of Record if there is any discrepancy, or if changes are needed. 9. The onsite wastewater lines shall have a minimum of 1.0% slope, unless otherwise noted. 10. Contractor is responsible for confirming and verifying all City of Austin Standards & Specifications with the appropriate City Department and/or the official City-published standards manuals. 11. Before ordering materials, Contractor shall review all construction documents, including Architectural, Structural, MEP, Civil, Landscape, and other related drawings, to verify and coordinate dimensions, locations, placement, and applicability of construction components. If there is any discrepancy and/or conflict, Contractor shall notify the Architect and the Civil Engineer of Record as soon as possible. PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT NOTES Austin Water Utility : Special Services Division 1. 2. 3. This project has private hydrants located within the property. Fire hydrants on private property are required to be serviced, maintained, and flowed ANNUALLY, using a contractor registered with the City of Austin to provide the service. The property owner is required to comply with the applicable City of Austin fire code. Failure to comply may result in civil and/or criminal remedies available to the City. 4. The performance of this obligation shall always rest with the owner of record. Austin Water Austin Water Larry Williams Larry Williams Larry Williams 06/14/2024 May 31, 2024 May 31, 2024 Industrial Waste Industrial Waste Industr Nicole Morr Nicole Morris Nicole Morr LIVE-WORK BLDG. Parking LIVE-WORK BLDG. LIVE-WORK BLDG. Parking NFPA 24 - UNDERGROUND MAINS FEEDING PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS Underground mains feeding private fire hydrants must be installed and tested in accordance with NFPA 24 and the Fire Code by a licensed contractor with a plumbing permit. The entire main shall be hydrostatically tested at one time, unless isolation valves are provided between tested sections. LIVE-WORK BLDG. EX. 2" A. R. VALVE 552035 LOT 1 BLOCK A EX. P.P. PRIVATE LIFT STATION IN WET WELL (w / Visible & Sound Alarm) RIM 644.0 FM FL out 642.5 FL in 641.5 (Warehouse Bldg) FL in 641.5 (Community Bldg) BOT OF BASIN = 637.0 (Detail on sheet 27) E N I L H C T A M 4" WATER (PVC SCH 40) 4" SDR 26 WW @ 2% MIN. DUMPSTER 6" INDUSTRIAL WASTE SAMPLE PORT PER AW-SPECIAL-07 IN LANDSCAPE AREA REF. DETAIL ON SHT. 14 3" FORCE MAIN COA ETJ 3" DIA. PVC (SCH 40) VENT PIPE 10' HT. ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE SECURELY ATTACHED TO BUILDING 5' BLDG. SETBACK CITY LIMIT LINE ( AT PROPERTY LINE) 6" SDR 26 WW @ 2% MIN. 6" C.O. FUTURE GREASE INTERCEPTOR PER MEP PLANS OWNER'S SHUTOFF 6,000 S.F. OUTDOOR PAVILION (ACCESSORY BLDG) F.F. 645.75 BUILDING - 4 FF = 646.75 Community Recreation (Private) = 10,000 SF Admin. & Business Office = 5,000 SF Total = 15,000 SF RISER ROOM FIRE LANE SIGN PER COA STD. 901S-6 F.F. 646.75 1 - 8"x 6" REDUCER 1 - 6" G.V. 1 - 6" x 3' D.I. F.H. . I . D " 6 ' 0 0 . 5 ' 0 0 . 7 5 ft. Clear Zone 7 ft. Planting Zone 1 - 8" x 6" TEE 1 - 6" G.V. 1 - 6" x 23' D.I. FIRE LANE FIRE LANE 8" C-900 PVC FIRE 1 - 8" x 6" TEE 1 - 6" G.V. 1 - 6" x 27' D.I. 2-WAY C.O. SHOWERS & LOCKERS 2-WAY C.O. F.L. 641.5 F.F. 646.75 BICYCLE PARKING 8 SPACES FDC ELEC. METER CHECK VALVES IN BOX E N A L E R F I E N A L E R F I F.H. UE N A V . I . D " 6 BUILDING 1 SIDEWALK 4" x 2" REDUCER 4" WATER 8" D.I. WATER (CL 350) 8" BACKFLOW PREVENTER DCDA 674.80 8" D.I. WATER (CL 350) " 0 - ' 5 W E N K L A W E D S I LANDSCAPE 35.00' JT. RESTRAINT ' 0 8 . 9 8 1 ' E " 8 1 5 5 ° 9 6 S 6' D E S O P O R P K L A W E D I S 15' E/TE ESMT. (PER PLAT) NEW CURB B R U C W E N 1 WATER METER CONNECTION DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" FIRE LANE FIRE LANE City of Austin Water and Wastewater Utility Special Services Division (512) 972-1060 This project has private hydrants located within the property. The property owner is required to comply with Austin Fire Code. Failure to comply may result in civil and/or criminal remedies available to the City. The performance of this obligation shall always rest with the owner of record. Fire hydrants on private property are required to be serviced, maintained, and flowed annually, using a contractor registered with the City to provide the service. This project includes 4 private hydrants. 1" IRRG. METER w/ 1" DCVA BACKFLOW PREVENTER & OWNER SHUT-OFF 1-1/2" DOMESTIC METER W/ OWNER SHUT-OFF E N A L D R A W O H . E 1 - 16"x8" CUT IN TEE 1 - 8" D.I. WATER (CL 350) 1 - 8" GATE VALVE WITH FOSTER ADAPTER ' 0 0 . 4 I T N A R T S E R . T J 2" SERVICE CLAMP W / 2" COPPER (TYPE K) SERVICE LINE REF. COA STD. 520AW-02 2" SERVICE CLAMP W / 2" COPPER (TYPE K) SERVICE LINE REF. COA STD. 520AW-04 ' 0 . 0 7 Y T R E P O R P O T N P I R E T A W . I . D " 6 1 . X E 9 0 7 0 - 7 0 0 2 - W 2.00' 3.00' MIN. R E T A W E T S A W + R E T A W N A L P Y T I L I T U EXISTING 6' SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED Revisions/Issues: SITE PLAN RELEASE: Sheet 12 of 27 FILE NUMBER: CASE MANAGER: SP-2023-0053C Randall Rouda EXPIRATION DATE: APPLICATION DATE: 02-13-2023 APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY ON: APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON: APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: 112 Under Section of Chapter 25-5 of the Austin City Code. Development Services Department DATE OF RELEASE W / LO Zoning: Rev. 1 Rev. 2 Correction 1 Correction 2 Drawn by: Job No. Sheet No. 18112 12 27 OF SUBMITTAL DATE: 02-13-2023 LOT 1 BLOCK A True 1" = 30'-0" PLAN NORTH 0 15 30 60 CASE #: SP-2023-0053C 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 112 of 192 EXHIBIT D From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Nick G Sirwaitis, Sherri Gobel, Jim; Sherry Graham Re: Howard Plaza - C14-2026-0046 and SP-2025-0311C - Adjacent Property Owner Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:50:57 AM image001.png External Email - Exercise Caution Hi Ms. Sirwaitis, Thank you for your response and for providing the Zoning Case Report and supporting materials. They clarify several important aspects of the application. After reviewing the report, I want to clarify my current position as the owner of a residence directly adjoining the property. I oppose the proposed use of the site for an indoor wedding venue and religious assembly. Both uses could generate substantial concentrated traffic, amplified music and other noise, alcohol-related activity, ride-share traffic, parking demand, and weekend and late-evening activity immediately beside residential backyards. These are precisely the periods when residents reasonably expect to be able to relax and quietly enjoy their homes. These proposed uses expressly interfere with the ability of homeowners to do that. Moreover, this represents a significant departure from the City's original compatibility rationale for approving Howard Plaza in 2021, when staff specifically found that the proposed daycare use would serve as a lower-intensity buffer between the commercial development and the adjacent residential neighborhood. I will address this evolution of the project, and its implications for compatibility, in greater detail in a forthcoming planning memorandum I plan to submit by the end of the week. Professional-office use does not raise the same level of concern. Indoor pickleball may also be potentially compatible, depending on its exact location, operating hours, occupancy, sound attenuation, parking requirements and relationship to the adjoining homes. I appreciate that staff is recommending a conditional overlay prohibiting Outdoor Entertainment and Outdoor Sports and Recreation. However, those restrictions do not address the principal impacts of the expressly proposed indoor wedding venue and religious-assembly uses, including indoor amplified sound, event hours, concentrated arrivals and departures, parking-lot activity, ride- share circulation and weekend operations. I therefore oppose the rezoning in its present form. At minimum, I request that the wedding- venue and religious-assembly uses be prohibited through the conditional overlay or another binding and enforceable instrument. As stated above, I also intend to submit a more substantial written planning memorandum by the end of this week addressing the project history, the City’s earlier compatibility findings, the cumulative evolution of Howard Plaza and the specific impacts of the proposed uses. Please include this email and my forthcoming memorandum in the official record for Case C14-2026-0046. 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 113 of 192One point remains unclear: the November 2025 notice identifies SP-2025-0311C as Howard Plaza Lot 2 at 3131 E. Howard Lane, while the current Zoning Case Report describes SP-2025-0311C as a site plan under review “for this property” involving 69,696 square feet of Commercial Mixed Use. I will contact the site-plan case manager separately, but I would appreciate confirmation of whether the rezoning and site-plan cases concern different legal tracts, overlapping property, or separate phases of one integrated Howard Plaza development. Thank you again for your assistance. Best, Nicholas Graham 12604 Hallstatt Drive, Manor, TX 78653 On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 10:10 AM Sirwaitis, Sherri <Sherri.Sirwaitis@austintexas.gov> wrote: Hi Nicholas, The notices you are referencing refer to two separate cases. Case C14-2026-0046 concerns the request to rezone the property from the W/LO, Warehouse Limited Office district to the GR, Community Commercial district to develop a mixture of uses on the site. The zoning will address the permitted uses and site development standards that are required by the district in the Code. The staff is recommending a conditional overlay to prohibit the more intensive commercial uses in the GR district on this property because it is adjacent to residential uses. I have included the Zoning Case Report for your review. You will need to reach out to the case manager who is listed on the notice for case SP-2025- 0311C to ask them questions about the site layout, parking, traffic analyses, drainage plans, lighting plans, landscape-buffer requirements and the overall status of the site plan application. Please let me know if you have any other questions concerning the rezoning case. Thank you, Sherri Sirwaitis Planner Principal, Current Planning Division Austin Planning 512-974-3057 sherri.sirwaitis@austintexas.gov 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 114 of 192Please note: E-mail correspondence to and from the City of Austin is subject to required disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act. From: Nick G <> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:10 AM To: Sirwaitis, Sherri <Sherri.Sirwaitis@austintexas.gov> Cc: Sherry Graham <> Subject: Howard Plaza - C14-2026-0046 and SP-2025-0311C - Adjacent Property Owner Y External Email - Exercise Caution Hi Ms. Sirwaitis, I am writing regarding the Howard Plaza rezoning application at 3127 E. Howard Lane, Case C14-2026-0046. My property directly abuts the Howard Plaza property. I also received a prior City notice in November 2025 concerning Howard Plaza Lot 2 at 3131 E. Howard Lane, Case SP-2025- 0311C, which described the proposed project as a mixed-use development. I am generally supportive of appropriate neighborhood-serving development, but I would like to understand how these two applications relate to one another before taking a position on the rezoning request. Could you please help clarify the following? 1. Are C14-2026-0046 and SP-2025-0311C part of the same overall Howard Plaza development? 2. Do the two cases involve separate tracts, overlapping tracts, or different phases of the same project? 3. What specific uses are currently proposed, including any warehouse, retail, restaurant, event venue, entertainment, or residential uses? 4. Does “mixed-use” in the site-plan application include apartments or other residential units? 5. Is the applicant requesting only GR zoning, or is an MU combining district or other residential entitlement also contemplated? 6. Has the applicant proposed a conditional overlay, restrictive covenant, or other limitations on the uses permitted under GR? 7. Are there current site plans, applicant narratives, parking plans, traffic analyses, drainage plans, lighting plans, landscape-buffer plans, or architectural renderings that I may review? 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 115 of 1928. What is the current status of site-plan case SP-2025-0311C? Because my property directly borders the site, I am particularly interested in potential impacts involving: Noise Outdoor or event activity Hours of operation Lighting Parking Traffic Loading and delivery operations Drainage Screening and buffering from the adjoining homes. Please include this email in the official record for Case C14-2026-0046, and kindly confirm receipt. I would appreciate receiving any application materials or staff reports as they become available, as well as notification of any future hearings or significant updates related to this case. I intend to submit additional written comments for inclusion in the official record before the August 4 hearing, after I have had an opportunity to review the requested materials. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you for your assistance. Best, Nicholas Graham 12604 Hallstatt Dr, Manor, TX 78653 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 116 of 192PLANNING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO, OR CONDITIONAL SUPPORT OF, REZONING APPLICATION C14-2026-0046 Howard Plaza — 3127 East Howard Lane, Austin, Travis County, Texas Requested Change: Warehouse/Limited Office (W/LO) to Community Commercial (GR) Zoning & Platting Commission Public Hearing: September 15, 2026, 6:00 p.m. (postponed from August 4, 2026) Prepared and Submitted by: Nicholas Graham Owner, 12604 Hallstatt Drive, Manor, Texas 78653 Directly Abutting Property Owner and Interested Party Submitted to: City of Austin Planning Department (Attn: Sherri Sirwaitis, Case Manager); Zoning & Platting Commission; Austin City Council Revised September 7, 2026 — Incorporating the Zoning Case Report and Staff Recommendation, the August 2, 2026 Meeting with the Applicant (Section VI.E), and the Applicant's Current Public Sale Listing for the Approved Buildings (Section VI.F; Exhibits Q–R) Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 1 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 117 of 192TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary............................................................................................ 4 II. Interest of the Submitting Party; Basis of Knowledge......................................6 III. Procedural History and Documentary Record (2019–2026)............................7 A. Annexation and the 2017 Zoning Determination (C14-2016-0119)...............7 B. SP-2019-0141C: Original Site Plan (2019–2021)...........................................7 C. SP-2023-0053C: Warehouse 3 Addition (2023)..............................................8 D. Related Action on the Adjoining Parcel: 2022-013928 ZC.............................9 E. SP-2025-0311C: Howard Plaza Lot 2 Mixed-Use Application (2025).............9 F. C14-2026-0046: The Present Rezoning (2026)...............................................9 G. The Zoning Case Report and Staff Recommendation (July 2026)................10 H. Consolidated Timeline.................................................................................11 IV. Project Evolution: The Cumulative-Change Problem.....................................11 V. Zoning Framework: What the W/LO → GR Change Actually Entitles.............13 A. The Existing W/LO District...........................................................................13 B. The Requested GR District...........................................................................13 C. The Quantitative Entitlement Delta.............................................................13 D. The Use Delta and the Reach of the Staff Overlay.......................................14 E. The Decision Actually Before the Commission.............................................14 VI. Compatibility Analysis.................................................................................... 16 A. The Compatibility Baseline Established in 2019–2023................................16 B. Compatibility Standards Confirmed — and Their Limits.............................16 C. The 2021 Buffer Rationale Versus the Proposed Assembly Uses: A Materially Different Impact Profile...................................................................17 D. Remaining Compatibility Deficiencies Under the Staff-Recommended Overlay............................................................................................................. 18 VII. Planning Analysis..........................................................................................19 VIII. Legal and Procedural Analysis.....................................................................20 A. The Two-Hearing Structure and the Council’s Options...............................20 B. Conditional Overlays and Restrictive Covenants Under Austin Practice.....20 C. The Amended Protest Statute (H.B. 24, 2025).............................................20 D. Religious Assembly, Equal Terms, and RLUIPA...........................................21 E. Procedural Requests....................................................................................21 F. Reservation of Rights and Remedies............................................................22 IX. Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................ 22 X. Requested Conditions of Approval (If Not Denied).........................................23 Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 2 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 118 of 192Why Verbal Assurances and “Intended Tenant” Representations Are Insufficient........................................................................................................ 24 XI. Unanswered Questions for Staff and the Applicant.......................................25 XII. Conclusion.....................................................................................................25 Appendix A: Draft Conditional Overlay Language (Illustrative)..........................27 Exhibits (Placeholders)........................................................................................28 Endnotes..............................................................................................................29 Bibliography and Research Sources.................................................................... 30 Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 3 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 119 of 192I. Executive Summary This memorandum is submitted by the owner of 12604 Hallstatt Drive, Manor, Texas, a single-family residence whose rear property line directly abuts the tract that is the subject of Rezoning Case No. C14-2026-0046 (the “Subject Tract,” an 8.37-acre parcel locally known as 3127 East Howard Lane and commonly referred to, together with the adjoining commonly owned parcel at 3131 East Howard Lane, as “Howard Plaza”). The applicant requests a change of base zoning from Warehouse/Limited Office (W/LO) to Community Commercial (GR). The application is scheduled to be heard by the Zoning and Platting Commission on September 15, 2026.1,17 The City’s Zoning Case Report, provided to the undersigned by the case manager on July 28, 2026, materially clarifies the application. According to the Report, the applicant holds an approved site plan (SP-2023-0053C) permitting four 15,000- square-foot buildings and a 7,200-square-foot pavilion, and “is requesting GR zoning to allow for office (professional office), religious assembly, indoor entertainment (wedding venue) and an indoor sports and recreation use (pickleball courts) within these structures.” Staff recommends GR-CO zoning with a conditional overlay prohibiting fifteen enumerated uses, including Outdoor Entertainment and Outdoor Sports and Recreation.17,18 The position of the undersigned, stated plainly at the outset and developed with evidence throughout, is as follows: • Professional office use: no objection. Office use is consistent with the daytime, moderate-intensity character on which this project’s approvals have always been premised. • Indoor pickleball: conditional support. The undersigned is prepared to support an indoor pickleball facility subject to recorded conditions: operations ending by 7:00 p.m., limited weekend hours, all courts and gathering areas fully enclosed, demonstrated sound attenuation at the residential property line, adequate parking, and identification of which of the four approved buildings would house the use — a fact the record does not yet disclose. The staff overlay’s prohibition of Outdoor Sports and Recreation, which is supported, helps secure enclosure. • Assembly and event uses — including the indoor wedding venue and religious assembly: prohibition requested. The undersigned requests outright exclusion, by conditional overlay, of the class of uses whose defining operating pattern is heavy, concentrated activity on evenings, weekends, and holidays — amplified music, alcohol-related activity, ride-share and drop-off Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 4 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 120 of 192surges, parking-lot congregation, and late-night departures immediately beside residential backyards. Staff’s own overlay already prohibits Club or Lodge on exactly this rationale; consistency requires the same treatment of Indoor Entertainment (the wedding venue), Theater, and — on the equal- terms basis set out in Section VIII.D — Religious Assembly. These uses are also a direct reversal of the City’s documented 2021 compatibility rationale, under which the non-warehouse component of this project was approved as a lower-intensity day-care/community-recreation buffer for the neighborhood to the east. The staff-recommended conditional overlay is a constructive step, and every one of its fifteen use prohibitions is supported and should be retained. But the overlay does not reach the two uses the applicant has actually proposed that generate the impacts of greatest concern: Indoor Entertainment (the wedding venue) and Religious Assembly remain permitted under the recommendation, and no condition in the record addresses indoor amplified sound audible at the property line, event hours, concentrated arrivals and departures, or parking-lot and ride- share activity along the residential boundary. The overlay, in short, prohibits the uses the applicant has not proposed while leaving unconditioned the uses it has.17 Accordingly, this memorandum respectfully requests the following, and the sequencing is part of the request. GR-CO should not be approved at the September 15, 2026 hearing, because the conditional overlay necessary to make GR compatible at this location has not yet been written. Approval, if it comes at all, must follow — not precede — agreement on the overlay’s terms. Specifically: • A. Deny the rezoning at the September 15, 2026 hearing; or • B. Postpone the hearing by at least one month — a postponement of up to 60 days is expressly contemplated by the City’s hearing procedures without further notice — to allow the applicant, staff, and the adjoining owners to settle a complete conditional overlay and companion recorded covenant that (i) retain all fifteen staff-recommended prohibitions; (ii) additionally exclude the assembly/event class (Indoor Entertainment, Theater, and, on equal terms, Religious Assembly); (iii) carry forward the W/LO site development standards the neighborhood relied upon — the 25-foot setbacks, the 25-foot/one-story height limit, and the W/LO limits on impervious cover and floor-area intensity; and (iv) impose the enforceable operational standards (amplified sound measured at the residential property line, hours, trip limits or a pre-Council traffic analysis, lighting, loading, screening, buffer preservation) detailed in Section X. Only with such an overlay in final form should GR-CO come forward for approval. Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 5 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 121 of 192Two intervening changes in law reinforce why these protections must be written into the zoning itself. The City’s 2024 citywide compatibility amendments (Ordinance No. 20240516-005) reduced default protections dramatically — compatibility now ends 75 feet from a triggering property — and while the Zoning Case Report confirms compatibility standards apply to this site, those standards govern building form (height stepdowns, a buffer strip), not operations: they say nothing about noise, hours, events, or traffic. And House Bill 24 (89th Leg., eff. Sept. 1, 2025) restructured the statutory protest process under Texas Local Government Code § 211.006. Verbal assurances and present tenant intentions bind no one; zoning runs with the land. Only conditions embodied in the conditional overlay ordinance or a recorded restrictive covenant protect the adjoining homes against successor owners and operators. Finally, the Commission should understand the posture in which this memorandum is submitted. The undersigned has engaged constructively at every stage — in 2023 correspondence with the reviewing planner and inspector, and in July 2026 correspondence with the case manager — and remains willing to support appropriate development of this tract, as the positions on office and indoor recreation demonstrate. But the documentary record assembled here shows a seven-year, one-directional pattern in which each of the City’s own protective determinations — the 2017 selection of W/LO over the requested industrial district, the 2021 lower-intensity-buffer finding, the compatibility premises confirmed in writing in 2023 — has been set aside or proposed for reversal at the point it became inconvenient to the next expansion, while the affected homeowners have never once had a discretionary forum in which to be heard. The September 15 hearing is that forum. The undersigned submits this memorandum both to inform the Commission’s decision and to establish a complete written record, and expressly reserves all rights and remedies, administrative and judicial, as set out in Section VIII.F. Update since initial preparation (August 2, 2026 meeting with the applicant). After this memorandum was first prepared, the applicant, Mr. Peter Pham, invited the undersigned to meet at the Subject Tract, and the parties met there on August 2, 2026. At that meeting Mr. Pham confirmed, in substance, the two facts that bear most directly on the compatibility analysis below: that the indoor wedding and event venue is intended for the approved building nearest the undersigned’s home, and that a sound system is already being installed in that building, to be tested before the Commission has acted on the rezoning. Those statements, and the undersigned’s contemporaneous record of the meeting, are set out in Section VI.E and submitted as Exhibit P. The undersigned also restated to Mr. Pham the position taken in this memorandum — no objection to professional office use; conditional support for indoor pickleball; opposition to the wedding and event venue — and offered to support the rezoning if the protections requested here are embodied in a conditional Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 6 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 122 of 192overlay and a recorded restrictive covenant. As of this submission, no terms have been agreed. On August 3–4, 2026 the undersigned sent Mr. Pham a written Neighbor Support Framework with draft conditional-overlay and restrictive-covenant language; on August 12, 2026 Mr. Pham replied that his attorney was reviewing it, and no substantive response had been received as of this revision. Separately, the applicant's public sale listing for Building 1, discussed in Section VI.F and submitted as Exhibit Q, now describes the three approved warehouse buildings as “General Retail condo buildings” offered for sale to third-party owner-users, and recites the zoning as GR. The hearing on this case was postponed from August 4, 2026 to September 15, 2026, and the hearing references in this revision have been updated accordingly. II. Interest of the Submitting Party; Basis of Knowledge The undersigned owns and occupies the single-family residence at 12604 Hallstatt Drive, Manor, Texas 78653, in the East Village community. The rear property line of this residence directly abuts the Howard Plaza tract. The undersigned is within the 500-foot notification area for the pending rezoning and received the City’s mailed Notice of Public Hearing dated July 24, 2026.1 The undersigned has followed this project continuously since 2023 and has corresponded in writing with City staff across both reviewing departments: Randall Rouda, Planner Senior, Land Use Review, Development Services Department (the City’s reviewer for SP-2019-0141C and SP-2023-0053C); Arester Randle, the environmental inspector assigned to the project (Development Services Department); Jim Gobel, case manager for site plan case SP-2025-0311C (Development Services Department); and Sherri Sirwaitis, Planner Principal, Current Planning Division, Planning Department, the case manager for this rezoning. On July 28, 2026, Ms. Sirwaitis provided the Zoning Case Report and supporting materials relied upon throughout this memorandum and confirmed in writing that “[t]he staff is recommending a conditional overlay to prohibit the more intensive commercial uses in the GR district on this property because it is adjacent to residential uses.” That correspondence, the Zoning Case Report, the City’s mailed notices for SP-2025-0311C and C14-2026-0046, and contemporaneous photographs form the documentary basis of this memorandum and are attached as exhibits. Where this memorandum relies on City statements quoted within that correspondence — including Zoning and Platting Commission minutes of July 6, 2021 as quoted therein — the original source documents are identified for verification and are requested to be included in the staff backup for this case.2,3,4,17,18 Throughout, this memorandum distinguishes among (a) established facts appearing on the face of City documents; (b) reasonable inferences drawn from those documents, identified as such; and (c) unanswered questions that the Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 7 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 123 of 192undersigned respectfully submits should be resolved on the record before final action. III. Procedural History and Documentary Record (2019– 2026) A. Annexation and the 2017 Zoning Determination (C14-2016- 0119) The Zoning Case Report establishes the tract’s entitlement history. The property was annexed by the City of Austin on December 31, 2007 (Case C7a-07-024) and received its current W/LO zoning in 2017 through Case C14-2016-0119. Notably, the applicant in that case requested Limited Industrial (LI) zoning; the Zoning and Platting Commission instead approved staff’s recommendation of W/LO on January 3, 2017, and Council adopted W/LO “with conditions” and right-of-way dedication by Ordinance No. 20170302-049.17 This history matters. The tract’s current W/LO designation is not a historical accident awaiting correction; it is the product of a considered, recent intensity determination in which the City expressly declined the applicant’s request for a more intensive district and selected W/LO — with conditions — as the appropriate ceiling for this location. The present application asks the City to revisit that determination less than a decade later, on a boundary that has since become fully occupied single-family homes. B. SP-2019-0141C: Original Site Plan (2019–2021) The original Howard Plaza site plan, SP-2019-0141C, was approved administratively on October 27, 2021. The City’s reviewing planner described the approved project in writing as consisting of “2 warehouse buildings and a community recreation building, an outdoor pavilion, driveways, parking, drainage facilities, utilities and [an] on-site sanitary facility (septic system).”2 Two features of the 2021 approval are material here. First, the record before the Zoning and Platting Commission expressly relied on the lower intensity of the non- warehouse uses as the compatibility rationale with respect to the residential development to the east. The Commission’s July 6, 2021 materials state: “As proposed the Day Care and Community Recreation uses are less intensive and provide a buffer for the PUD to the east.”4 Second, on June 1, 2021, following notice and public hearing, the Zoning and Platting Commission approved a compatibility waiver permitting “development of parking and drive aisles as close as five feet from the property line between the Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 8 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 124 of 192warehouses and the existing house at 3131 E. Howard Lane.” No objections were received at that hearing.2 The Commission’s 2021 materials also record two facts relevant to how that waiver was obtained and should now be weighed. The parcels at 3127 and 3131 East Howard Lane were “under common ownership and the property owner ha[d] submitted a letter on behalf of the parcel with the residential use expressing support for the compatibility waiver” — that is, the only “residential” support for the waiver came from the applicant’s own commonly owned parcel. The materials further acknowledge that “[t]he subject parcel is unusually narrow, making compliance with the compatibility standards quite challenging.”4 It is an established fact that, at the time of the June–July 2021 waiver proceedings, the land to the east was already zoned and planned for the single-family planned unit development in which the undersigned’s home now sits; the Commission’s own “buffer for the PUD to the east” finding confirms the City’s awareness. It is a reasonable inference — not an accusation of dishonesty, but a structural observation about the record — that the waiver was granted without the participation of any of the future residents most affected by it, because the homes on Hallstatt Drive were not yet occupied when notice issued. C. SP-2023-0053C: Warehouse 3 Addition (2023) In 2023 the applicant filed SP-2023-0053C, “Howard Plaza Warehouse 3 Addition.” The City’s reviewer described it as “a project very similar to the original approval, but with the addition of a third warehouse building, relocation of the proposed pavilion and a reconfiguration of the proposed parking areas,” and confirmed that “the revised plans do move parking closer to your property than originally anticipated,” while noting that only grass-lined swales and ponds were shown within the first 25 feet of the shared property line. The Zoning Case Report confirms the approved program: SP-2023-0053C “is approved to permit four 15,000 sq. ft. buildings and a 7,200 [sq. ft.] pavilion on the site.” The approved site plan (Staff Report Exhibit C) shows warehouse/distribution buildings with accessory office (13,000 + 2,000 square feet each) and a building incorporating “Community Recreation (Private)” space of 10,000 square feet with 5,000 square feet of office, together with an outdoor pavilion accessory building (labeled 6,000 square feet on the overall site plan sheet; the Report narrative states 7,200 square feet — a minor discrepancy the applicant should clarify).2,17 In September 2023 the undersigned submitted a written letter of concern and follow-up correspondence, with photographs documenting heavy construction equipment operating within feet of the shared rear property line. The City’s planner responded in writing with several clarifications that now form part of the Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 9 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 125 of 192compatibility baseline for this case: (1) the drainage swale and basin along the rear property lines of the Hallstatt Drive homes “will carry stormwater, not wastewater (sewage)”; (2) the 2021 compatibility waiver “only affected the allowed location of drive aisles, parking and a concrete curb adjacent to the existent residence facing Howard Plaza” and “was not needed and did not apply” to the swale adjacent to the Hallstatt Drive homes; and (3) the 25-foot compatibility setback “applies to vertical construction, or ‘hardscape’ construction such as sidewalks, parking lots, concrete lined drainage facilities and similar features,” while grading and landscaping are permitted within it.3 The City’s planner also confirmed the limits of administrative review: “once the applicant demonstrates that they have met code requirements, there is typically no provision for conducting the more project and site specific studies” requested by neighbors, and he was “not aware of any available mechanism to halt construction on the existing approved project.” This is significant for the present case: the 2026 rezoning is the first — and, as a practical matter, may be the last — discretionary, noticed public proceeding in which the cumulative effects of this project on the adjacent homes can be weighed and conditioned.2,3 D. Related Action on the Adjoining Parcel: 2022-013928 ZC City records referenced in the 2023 correspondence indicate that on January 31, 2022 — approximately seven months after the compatibility waiver hearing — the owner applied to rezone the adjoining commonly owned parcel at 3131 East Howard Lane (the parcel whose “residential use” had supplied the letter of support for the waiver) to GR-MU. The sequence is an established fact of the record as referenced; its characterization is left to the Commission. At minimum, it demonstrates that the residential character of 3131 East Howard Lane, which figured in the 2021 waiver record, was not durable, and it underscores why unrecorded assumptions about how neighboring land will be used should not substitute for enforceable conditions.5 E. SP-2025-0311C: Howard Plaza Lot 2 Mixed-Use Application (2025) On November 20, 2025, the City mailed notice of a new administrative site plan application, SP-2025-0311C, “Howard Plaza Lot 2,” at 3131 East Howard Lane: “The applicant is proposing Mixed-Use development along with associated improvements.” The applicant is Way Consulting Engineers (Way Atmadja); the owners are Peter Pham, Ha Nu, and Christina Hongnhi Phamvu. As an administrative site plan, the notice states that “there is no appeal of an approval of this application in the City Code.”6 Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 10 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 126 of 192The Zoning Case Report adds — and complicates — the picture: it states that “[t]here is a site plan currently under review for this property SP-2025-0311C which provides for 69696 square feet of Commercial Mixed Use uses, along with associated parking and drainage facilities.” The November 2025 notice, however, identified SP-2025-0311C as “Howard Plaza Lot 2” at 3131 East Howard Lane, while the Report describes it as pending “for this property” — i.e., the 3127 East Howard Lane rezoning tract. Whether the two cases concern different legal tracts, overlapping property, or phases of one integrated development is a question the undersigned has posed to staff in writing and which should be answered on the record before the hearing: nearly 70,000 square feet of commercial mixed use bears directly on the traffic, parking, and boundary conditions the Commission is being asked to entitle.17,18 F. C14-2026-0046: The Present Rezoning (2026) On July 24, 2026, the City mailed notice of the present rezoning application for 3127 East Howard Lane, owner/applicant Peter Pham. The notice describes the existing W/LO district as “intended predominantly for office and warehousing activities for building trades and similar businesses having operating characteristics that do not necessarily require highly visible locations or the type of access needed for retail and have low or moderate trip generating characteristics, do not involve substantial volumes of heavy truck traffic, but may require special measures to remain compatible with adjacent uses.” It describes the requested GR district as “intended for office and commercial uses serving neighborhood and community needs, including both unified shopping centers and individually developed commercial sites, and typically requiring locations accessible from major traffic ways.” The case is scheduled before the Zoning and Platting Commission on September 15, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.; the case manager is Sherri Sirwaitis, Planning Department.1 G. The Zoning Case Report and Staff Recommendation (July 2026) The Zoning Case Report discloses, for the first time in this record, the development program motivating the rezoning:17 “The property owner has a site plan – case SP-2023-0053C – that is approved to permit four 15,000 sq. ft. buildings and a 7,200 pavilion on the site. Therefore, the applicant is requesting GR zoning to allow for office (professional office), religious assembly, indoor entertainment (wedding venue) and an indoor sports and recreation use (pickleball courts) within these structures on the property.”17 Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 11 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 127 of 192Staff recommends GR-CO with a conditional overlay prohibiting fifteen uses: Automotive Repair Services, Automotive Sales, Automotive Washing (of any type), Bail Bond Services, Club or Lodge, Commercial Off-Street Parking, Drop Off Recycling Collection Facility, Exterminating Services, Funeral Services, Hotel/Motel, Off-Site Accessory Parking, Outdoor Entertainment, Outdoor Sports and Recreation, Pawn Shop Services, and Service Station. The stated basis is that GR-CO “will allow for office, civic and commercial uses on a tract of land that fronts onto an arterial roadway” and “will provide a transition across Howard Lane, to the planned residential uses to the north in the Cantarra Residential Neighborhood and to the east to the Mixed Residential Area in the Pioneer Crossing PUD.”17 Three observations frame the analysis that follows. First, the overlay list does not include Indoor Entertainment or Religious Assembly — the two proposed uses with the most significant operational impacts on the abutting homes — even though it does prohibit Club or Lodge, an assembly-type use with a closely comparable impact profile. Second, staff’s transition rationale is oriented to residents “across Howard Lane” and in the broader PUD area; the homes most affected, including the undersigned’s, do not face the site across an arterial — they share its rear lot line. Third, the Report confirms that compatibility standards apply to this site (Section VI below), which resolves a question earlier drafts of this memorandum posed, while also confirming that those standards regulate building form only, not the operational impacts — sound, hours, event traffic — at issue here. H. Consolidated Timeline Date Action Key Facts of Record Dec. 31, 2007 Annexation (C7a-07- 024) Jan.–Mar. 2017 C14-2016-0119 zoning Tract annexed into the City of Austin. Applicant sought LI; ZAP and Council approved staff-recommended W/LO with conditions and ROW dedication (Ord. No. 20170302-049). 2019 SP-2019-0141C filed Original Howard Plaza site plan application. June 1 / July 6, 2021 ZAP compatibility waiver Parking/drive aisles permitted to 5 ft of line at 3131 E. Howard Ln.; support letter from commonly owned parcel; parcel found “unusually narrow”; day care/community recreation cited as “buffer for the PUD to the east.” Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 12 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 128 of 192Date Action Key Facts of Record Oct. 27, 2021 SP-2019-0141C approved (administrative) 2 warehouses, community recreation building, outdoor pavilion, parking, drainage, septic. Jan. 31, 2022 2022-013928 ZC filed Application to rezone adjoining 3131 E. Howard Ln. to GR-MU (as referenced in correspondence). 2023–2024 SP-2023-0053C filed; later approved Third warehouse added; pavilion relocated; parking reconfigured and moved closer to residential line. Now approved for four 15,000 sq. ft. buildings and a pavilion. Sept. 2023 Resident correspondence Letters of concern; photographs; City clarifications on swale (stormwater), waiver scope, 25-ft setback. July 15, 2024 Ord. 20240516-005 effective Citywide compatibility standards reduced; compatibility ends at 75 ft; triggering properties narrowed. Sept. 1, 2025 H.B. 24 effective Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 211.006 protest procedures amended. Nov. 20, 2025 SP-2025-0311C noticed “Howard Plaza Lot 2” mixed-use development at 3131 E. Howard Ln.; administrative approval; no appeal. July 24, 2026 C14-2026-0046 noticed W/LO → GR rezoning of 3127 E. Howard Ln.; ZAP hearing Aug. 4, 2026. July 28, 2026 Zoning Case Report provided Program disclosed: professional office, religious assembly, indoor entertainment (wedding venue), indoor pickleball. Staff recommends GR-CO prohibiting 15 uses; Indoor Entertainment and Religious Assembly not among them. IV. Project Evolution: The Cumulative-Change Problem Rezoning review in Texas is a legislative act in which the decision-maker may — and should — consider the whole record of a property’s development, the assumptions underlying prior approvals, and changed conditions. The central analytical point of this memorandum is that the Howard Plaza project has evolved through a sequence of individually low-visibility actions whose combined effect was never evaluated in any single proceeding: • Composition. The approved project has grown from two warehouses to four buildings and a pavilion, and the commonly owned Lot 2 has moved from a single residence (whose owner supplied the 2021 waiver support letter) to a Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 13 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 129 of 192proposed ~69,696-square-foot commercial mixed-use development. Most significantly, the “community recreation/day care” component — the very element the City identified in 2021 as the compatibility buffer — is now proposed to be repurposed: the Zoning Case Report states the rezoning is sought precisely so that “religious assembly, indoor entertainment (wedding venue)” and other uses may occupy the approved structures. The buffer element is not being preserved; it is being converted into the highest-impact component of the project.17 • Intensity. W/LO is defined by “low or moderate trip generating characteristics” and non-retail access needs. GR is defined by community- scale commercial uses “typically requiring locations accessible from major traffic ways.” The request is therefore not a technical adjustment; it is a change in the intensity class of the entitlement itself. • Process posture. Every approval since the 2017 zoning case has been administrative — by the City’s own written account, without provision for site- specific study of neighborhood effects and without appeal rights from approval. The September 15, 2026 hearing is the first discretionary forum since the homes on Hallstatt Drive were occupied in which their owners can be heard on the project as it now exists. • Regulatory backdrop. The code-based compatibility standards that existed when the project was first approved have since been substantially reduced citywide. Assumptions that were safe to leave implicit in 2021 (setbacks, screening, buffer distances) are no longer secured by the default code. The cumulative-change problem is not an allegation that any individual application was improper. It is the observation — grounded entirely in the City’s own documents — that every discretionary and quasi-discretionary judgment in this project’s history has resolved in one direction. The City selected W/LO over the applicant’s requested industrial district in 2017 as a considered intensity ceiling; that ceiling is now proposed for removal. The Commission granted a compatibility waiver in 2021 in reliance on a lower-intensity buffer finding and a support letter from the applicant’s own commonly owned parcel; the “residential” parcel that supplied the letter was proposed for GR-MU rezoning within months, and the buffer use is now proposed for conversion into an event venue. The reviewing planner’s written 2023 assurances about the character of development at the residential boundary described a project the applicant now seeks entitlement to exceed. At no point in this sequence has any protective determination, once made, constrained the next application — and at no point have the homeowners who were the intended beneficiaries of those determinations had a discretionary forum in which to be heard. A municipality’s Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 14 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 130 of 192zoning power exists to balance development against the settled expectations of adjoining owners; a record in which the balance moves only one way is a record that calls for correction at the first available hearing, not further accommodation. A request for substantially broader commercial entitlement is precisely the occasion on which the abandoned assumptions must be confronted. V. Zoning Framework: What the W/LO → GR Change Actually Entitles A. The Existing W/LO District Warehouse/Limited Office is among the most narrowly drawn of Austin’s commercial-industrial districts. As the City’s own hearing notice summarizes, it is intended “predominantly for office and warehousing activities for building trades and similar businesses” with “low or moderate trip generating characteristics” that “do not involve substantial volumes of heavy truck traffic” and “may require special measures to remain compatible with adjacent uses.” W/LO district regulations appear at Land Development Code § 25-2-584, and the permitted-use structure at § 25-2-491 confines the district to a limited menu of office and warehousing-type uses.1,7,8 B. The Requested GR District Community Commercial (GR) is a general commercial district “intended for office and commercial uses serving neighborhood and community needs, including both unified shopping centers and individually developed commercial sites, and typically requiring locations accessible from major traffic ways.” Under the § 25-2- 491 use tables, the GR district permits — as of right or conditionally — a materially broader and higher-impact range of uses than W/LO, including (by way of illustration and subject to verification against the current use chart for this site): general retail sales; restaurants; food sales; personal and financial services; indoor entertainment and indoor sports and recreation; automotive-oriented uses such as automotive repair and service station uses; hotel/motel; and, as conditional uses subject to additional review, higher-impact uses such as outdoor entertainment and cocktail lounge. If a Mixed Use (MU) combining district were added now or later, residential uses could be combined as well.1,7,9 C. The Quantitative Entitlement Delta The City’s site development standards quantify how much entitlement the requested change confers, independent of use. Under the standards summarized in the City’s commercial zoning table:19 Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 15 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 131 of 192Standard W/LO (Existing) GR (Requested) Maximum height 25 feet / 1 story 60 feet Maximum impervious cover 70% Maximum floor-area ratio 0.25 : 1 Maximum building coverage — (see LDC) Minimum front setback Minimum rear setback 25 feet 25 feet 90% 1 : 1 75% 10 feet — (compatibility governs) On an 8.37-acre tract, the change from a 0.25:1 to a 1:1 floor-area ratio is, in principle, a fourfold increase in buildable intensity, and the height ceiling more than doubles from one story to sixty feet. The applicant’s presently approved site plan does not approach these maxima — but the zoning, once granted, is not limited to the presently approved site plan, and the compatibility height stepdowns confirmed in the Staff Report (Section VI) constrain only the portion of the tract within 75 feet of the triggering boundary. D. The Use Delta and the Reach of the Staff Overlay Under the Land Development Code use summary table, the GR district permits as of right — among many other uses — Indoor Entertainment, Indoor Sports and Recreation, Religious Assembly, Restaurant (General and Limited), Food Sales, General Retail Sales, Personal Services, Financial Services, Medical Offices, Theater, and Hotel-Motel. The staff-recommended overlay would remove fifteen uses, including several of the most intensive automotive and outdoor categories, and those prohibitions are supported. But the overlay leaves Indoor Entertainment and Religious Assembly — the applicant’s stated program — fully permitted, along with restaurants and other evening-oriented uses. Whatever the applicant presently intends, an unconditioned permitted use is an entitlement held by every successor owner and tenant, indefinitely.7,17,19 E. The Decision Actually Before the Commission The decision before the Commission is therefore not “warehouse versus something similar.” It is whether a tract that (i) is unusually narrow (per the City’s 2021 finding), (ii) shares an extended rear boundary with occupied single-family homes, and (iii) was approved for its current configuration on an express lower- intensity-buffer rationale, should receive an entitlement class defined by retail visibility, community-scale trip generation, and major-roadway access. The following characteristics of the delta deserve particular attention: Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 16 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 132 of 192• Trip generation and access. GR-level uses generate customer traffic across extended hours, including evenings and weekends, on a site whose access is from East Howard Lane adjacent to a residential subdivision. No traffic impact analysis appropriate to GR-scale entitlement appears in the record of this application; if the application proceeds, one should be required or trip generation should be capped by conditional overlay, a device Austin has used repeatedly (e.g., 2,000-vehicle-trip-per-day overlay limits).10 • Hours and operational character. Warehouse/limited office uses are predominantly daytime. GR permits uses whose peak activity is nights and weekends — exactly the hours when adjacent residents are home and noise, light, and traffic impacts are most acute. • Noise-generating uses. GR opens the door to entertainment and assembly- type activity — and the applicant’s stated program consists substantially of such uses. The staff overlay addresses outdoor entertainment but is silent as to indoor assembly uses whose amplified sound, arrivals, departures, and parking-lot activity occur at the residential boundary regardless of whether the event itself is under a roof. • Successor uses. The appropriate question is not only “what does the applicant plan,” but “what does GR-CO, as recommended, still allow” — for this applicant and for every successor. Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 17 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 133 of 192VI. Compatibility Analysis A. The Compatibility Baseline Established in 2019–2023 Three compatibility premises are documented in the City’s own record for this project: • A 25-foot undeveloped compatibility buffer along the shared residential boundary, within which only grading, landscaping, and grass-lined drainage features (not buildings, parking, or hardscape) are permitted — confirmed in writing by the City’s reviewing planner in 2023;2,3 • A lower-intensity land-use buffer — the day care/community recreation component — expressly cited by the Zoning and Platting Commission as the compatibility rationale relative to “the PUD to the east”; and4 • A drainage configuration in which the features nearest the homes are grass- lined stormwater swales and basins, not structures, pavement, or wastewater facilities.3 These premises were relied upon by the City in approving the project and by purchasers (including the undersigned) in evaluating homes on Hallstatt Drive. A rezoning that expands the entitlement without carrying these premises forward in enforceable form effectively repeals them sub silentio. B. Compatibility Standards Confirmed — and Their Limits Effective July 15, 2024, Ordinance No. 20240516-005 restructured Austin’s compatibility standards citywide: compatibility-based controls now end 75 feet from a triggering property (previously up to 540 feet), and the set of “triggering” properties was narrowed. The Zoning Case Report resolves how those amended standards apply here: “[t]he site is subject to compatibility standards due to the proximity and adjacency of SF-4 zoning on the North and East side of the triggering property,” citing LDC §§ 25-2-1051 and 25-2-1053. Specifically, per the Report: a structure at least 50 but less than 75 feet from a triggering property may not exceed 60 feet in height, and a structure less than 50 feet from a triggering property may not exceed 40 feet (§ 25-2-1061); a 25-foot compatibility buffer (15 feet if the site is less than 75 feet wide) is required along the shared property line, within which no vertical structures are permitted (§ 25-2-1062(B), § 25-8-700); and an on-site amenity, “including a swimming pool, tennis court, ball court, or playground,” may not be constructed 25 feet or less from the triggering property (§ 25-2-1062).11,17 This confirmation is welcome, and the undersigned requests that the buffer and stepdown determinations be carried into any approval. But the Commission Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 18 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 134 of 192should be clear-eyed about what compatibility standards do and do not regulate. They govern building form: height near the boundary, a strip in which nothing vertical may be built, and the location of certain outdoor amenities. They impose no limits whatsoever on operations: not on amplified sound (indoor or outdoor), not on hours, not on event frequency or occupancy, not on parking-lot activity, ride-share staging, loading, or late-night departures. A 40-foot event hall operating until midnight fifty feet from a bedroom window complies fully with every compatibility standard the Staff Report cites. For the uses actually proposed here, the compatibility regime — even as confirmed — is simply not the instrument that addresses the impacts at issue. Only use prohibitions and operational conditions in the overlay or a recorded covenant can do that. C. The 2021 Buffer Rationale Versus the Proposed Assembly Uses: A Materially Different Impact Profile The 2021 approval record justified the non-warehouse component of this project on the express finding that “the Day Care and Community Recreation uses are less intensive and provide a buffer for the PUD to the east.” The rezoning now seeks to place, within the same approved structures, an indoor wedding venue (Indoor Entertainment) and religious assembly. Whatever their merits in the abstract, these are not lower-intensity buffer uses. They are assembly uses, and their operating profile inverts the 2021 rationale on every dimension that matters to an abutting home:4,17 Operating Dimension Day Care / Community Recreation (2021 buffer rationale) Peak activity periods Weekday daytime; closed evenings, weekends, holidays Arrival/departure pattern Staggered drop-off and pick-up across hours Amplified sound None characteristic of the use Alcohol None Wedding Venue / Religious Assembly (2026 proposal) Evenings, weekends, and holidays — the precise periods of residential quiet enjoyment Concentrated: dozens to hundreds arriving and departing within narrow windows, including late- night egress Characteristic of the use: amplified music, DJs/bands, speeches, celebrations; sound and bass carry from doors, patios, and parking areas even when the event is indoors Customary at wedding and event venues, with associated late-night noise and behavior in parking Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 19 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 135 of 192Operating Dimension Day Care / Community Recreation (2021 buffer rationale) Wedding Venue / Religious Assembly (2026 proposal) Vehicle activity at the boundary Modest lot turnover Frequency/duration Predictable daily rhythm ending by early evening areas Event-scale parking demand; ride- share and shuttle circulation; idling, headlights, door slams, and congregation adjacent to rear yards Multi-hour events, potentially multiple days per week, extending into night hours The point is not that assembly uses are illegitimate. It is that the City approved this project’s configuration — including a compatibility waiver on a tract it found “unusually narrow” — on the strength of a lower-intensity buffer rationale, and the present application proposes to occupy the buffer element with uses at the opposite end of the operational-impact spectrum, without any condition in the recommended overlay addressing that reversal. Staff’s own recommendation implicitly recognizes the category of concern: it prohibits Club or Lodge — an assembly use — as among “the more intensive commercial uses in the GR district . . . because it is adjacent to residential uses.” The same logic, consistently applied, reaches an event venue and other assembly uses with equivalent or greater impact profiles. D. Remaining Compatibility Deficiencies Under the Staff- Recommended Overlay Measured against ordinary planning criteria for boundaries between commercial districts and single-family neighborhoods, the application as recommended — GR- CO with the fifteen staff prohibitions — leaves the following concerns unaddressed, each matched to a requested condition in Section X: Impact Category Noise / amplified sound Concern Under Unconditioned GR Requested Treatment (§ X) Overlay prohibits outdoor entertainment but permits indoor assembly uses whose amplified sound, patio/door spill, and parking-lot noise reach the boundary; City noise enforcement (City Code ch. 9-2) is after-the-fact and does not run with the zoning. Prohibit outdoor amplified sound; sound-level limit at the residential property line; prohibit Indoor Entertainment. Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 20 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 136 of 192Impact Category Event/venue activity Concern Under Unconditioned GR Requested Treatment (§ X) Wedding venue and religious assembly remain permitted; both concentrate traffic, sound, and activity on evenings, weekends, and holidays. Prohibit Indoor Entertainment; treat Religious Assembly on equal terms (§ VIII.D); binding hours and occupancy conditions for any assembly use. Hours of operation No condition limits hours; proposed uses are characteristically late- operating adjacent to rear yards. Lighting Retail-scale site lighting adjacent to rear yards. Parking / circulation 2023 revisions already moved parking closer to homes than originally anticipated. Truck loading / delivery GR retail implies frequent delivery and refuse service. Hour limits for outdoor activity, events, loading, and refuse collection within a defined distance of the residential boundary. Full-cutoff fixtures; height and shielding limits along the boundary. No parking, drive aisles, dumpsters, or hardscape within the 25-ft band; orient circulation away from the boundary. Locate docks/service areas away from the boundary; restrict delivery hours. Landscaping / screening Default screening obligations post- 2024 are reduced for some configurations. Recorded vegetative buffer and masonry/solid screening along the residential boundary. Drainage Traffic Intensified impervious cover changes runoff into the swale system behind the homes. Preserve the grass-lined swale/basin function; no conversion to hardscape drainage. Report defers TIA to site plan stage (LDC 25-6 / TCM 10.2.1); nearly 70,000 sq. ft. of mixed use is separately under review; no trip analysis is before the Commission. Require TIA before Council action or cap vehicle trips per day by CO. E. The Applicant’s August 2, 2026 Confirmation of the Venue Location and Pre-Approval Build-Out The concerns set out above are no longer a matter of inference from the site plan alone. At the August 2, 2026 meeting described in Section I, the applicant identified the building intended for each proposed use. Mr. Pham stated that the indoor pickleball facility is intended for one building and that the wedding and event venue is intended for a separate building — the structure closest to the undersigned’s residence, and the same “Community Recreation (Private)” building, with its covered pavilion, that the 2019–2021 approval record Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 21 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 137 of 192presented as the lower-intensity buffer element. The buffer-to-venue reversal described in Section VI.C is therefore not merely a reading of the paper record; it is the applicant’s own stated intention for the building nearest the homes. Mr. Pham further stated that a sound system is being installed in that building and that the applicant intends to test it in the near future. If accurate, this means the applicant is equipping the event use before the Commission has acted on the rezoning that would authorize it, and while the tract remains zoned W/LO — a district that does not permit an indoor entertainment or event venue. The undersigned offers this as a contemporaneous account of the applicant’s oral statements at a private meeting, not as a verified description of construction. The point for the Commission is narrow but material: the applicant’s own representations describe an event use planned for the building at the residential boundary and already being outfitted for operation, which underscores why the protections requested here should be fixed in the overlay and a recorded covenant now, rather than left to statements of present intent. Two further statements bear on the operating profile. Mr. Pham described the venue as operating “only on Fridays and Saturdays, for the most part,” and cited planted vegetation as intended noise mitigation. The first confirms that the venue’s operating days are precisely the weekend evenings on which the adjoining residents most rely upon the quiet enjoyment of their homes; the second is not a substitute for an enforceable sound limit measured at the shared property line. Neither the days of operation, the hours, nor the adequacy of any acoustic screening is addressed by the compatibility standards or by the staff- recommended overlay; each is addressed by the conditions requested in Section X. F. The Applicant’s Current Public Marketing of the Approved Warehouse Buildings as “General Retail” Condominium Units for Sale to Third Parties As of September 7, 2026, the applicant’s broker is publicly marketing Building 1 of the Subject Tract for sale on LoopNet (Listing ID 39906358; “Date on Market: 3/25/2026”; “Last Updated: 8/20/2026”) as a “15,000 SF Retail Building,” property type “Retail,” sale type “Owner User,” tenancy “Multiple.” The listing states that “[t]he project includes three of 15,000 SF General Retail condo buildings,” that “[c]ondominium fees apply,” and — under the words “Please Note” — that the “[z]oning reference in Marketing brochure has been changed from light industrial to General Retail!” Its property-facts table recites the zoning as “GR - General Retail.” The same listing describes the buildings as “[t]he warehouses.” A capture of the listing as it appeared on September 7, 2026 is submitted as Exhibit Q. Three points follow. First, the Subject Tract is zoned W/LO; the GR designation the listing recites is the relief requested in this case, not the zoning of record. The undersigned does not suggest that marketing a building for a future use is itself a violation — it is not, and none is alleged — but the Commission is entitled to know that the applicant is presenting the requested entitlement to the public as an accomplished fact while the case is pending. That is consistent with Mr. Pham’s statement on August 2 that he believed the tract to be “already approved for GR” (Exhibit P). Second, Buildings 1 through 3 were approved under SP-2019-0141C and SP-2023-0053C as Limited Warehousing and Distribution (13,000 square feet each) with 2,000 square feet of accessory office (Exhibit A; Exhibit M, Exh. C) — the “warehouses” whose low trip generation Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 22 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 138 of 192and daytime operating profile framed the City’s compatibility findings and the Zoning Case Report’s decision to defer any transportation assessment to the site-plan stage. The applicant now describes all three as “General Retail condo buildings.” Conversion of 39,000 square feet of limited warehousing to general retail sales is a materially different trip-generation and operating profile, which nothing in the record before the Commission analyzes; it reinforces the requests in Sections VIII.E and X for a trip-generation statement or a trip cap in the overlay. Third, and most important for the relief requested here: the buildings are being offered for sale individually, as condominium units, to unidentified third-party owner-users. Whatever Mr. Pham’s present intentions, every use permitted by GR-CO that is not expressly prohibited in the overlay will be held by each purchaser and successor, indefinitely. The sale program the applicant is now advertising is precisely the circumstance in which conditions must be fixed in the ordinance and a recorded covenant rather than left to representations of intent (Section X). The undersigned also searched the Travis County Clerk’s Official Public Records index on September 7, 2026 (Exhibit R). As of that date the index reflects no declaration of condominium, condominium plat, or declaration of restrictions recorded against Lot 1 or Lot 2, Block A, Amended Plat of Replat of Howard Subdivision under the record owner’s name or the applicant’s related entity names; the most recent instruments of record are a February 21, 2024 UCC financing statement in favor of Fifth Third Bank covering Lots 1 and 2, a March 21, 2025 affidavit concerning Lot 2, and the 2021–2023 easements to the City. The undersigned draws no conclusion beyond the index itself — a condominium regime may be in preparation, and a declaration recorded under another name would not appear in a name search. But the absence of any recorded regime confirms that no instrument now of record limits the uses to which the marketed units may be put. The conditional overlay requested in Section X is, at present, the only mechanism available to do so. VII. Planning Analysis Texas zoning must be adopted “in accordance with a comprehensive plan” and with statutory purposes that include promoting health, safety, and general welfare and securing compatibility of uses. Austin’s adopted comprehensive plan, Imagine Austin, directs growth in intensity toward centers and corridors while protecting the character and livability of existing neighborhoods, and Austin practice implements these principles at commercial-residential boundaries through transitions in intensity, conditional overlays, and recorded covenants.12,13 Applying accepted planning principles to this record: • Transition, not juxtaposition. Sound practice steps intensity down toward single-family boundaries. The 2021 approval embodied this principle explicitly — the “less intensive” recreation/day-care uses were the transition. The Staff Report’s transition rationale addresses “planned residential uses” across Howard Lane and in the broader PUD; but the homes with the greatest Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 23 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 139 of 192exposure do not view this site across a 111-foot arterial right-of-way — they share its rear lot line at distances the compatibility buffer measures in tens of feet. A district-level “transition” argument calibrated to the far side of an arterial does not answer the abutting-boundary condition, and the proposed occupancy of the former buffer element by assembly uses inverts the 2021 logic rather than continuing it.17 • Site suitability. The City’s own 2021 finding that the parcel is “unusually narrow, making compliance with the compatibility standards quite challenging” cuts against assigning it a district whose characteristic development form (shopping center or pad-site commercial with field parking, circulation, and service areas) is the most demanding to fit compatibly on a narrow tract abutting homes.4 • Consistency of City findings. The City’s prior approvals were expressly premised on lower-intensity buffering. Granting materially broader entitlement without addressing those findings would render the 2021 record internally inconsistent — the buffer rationale would have been used to obtain approvals and waivers, then discarded when no longer needed. Consistency of findings across a project’s life is a legitimate and important consideration for a land use commission. • Notice-reliance. Purchasers on Hallstatt Drive took title against a backdrop of W/LO zoning and an approved plan with defined buffers. While zoning is not immutable and no owner has a vested right in a neighbor’s zoning, reasonable investment-backed reliance on the character of adjacent entitlements is a recognized equitable consideration in legislative rezoning decisions — particularly where, as here, every intervening approval was administrative and unappealable. VIII. Legal and Procedural Analysis A. The Two-Hearing Structure and the Council’s Options This request will be heard by the Zoning and Platting Commission (as land use commission) and then by City Council. As the City’s notice states, Council “may grant or deny a zoning request or rezone the land to a less intensive zoning than requested but in no case will it grant a more intensive zoning.” The Commission may recommend denial, approval, approval of a less intensive district (e.g., LR, GO, or retention of W/LO), or approval subject to conditions.1 B. Conditional Overlays and Restrictive Covenants Under Austin Practice Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 24 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 140 of 192Austin implements site-specific zoning conditions through the conditional overlay (CO) combining district, adopted as part of the rezoning ordinance itself, and through public restrictive covenants recorded against the property in favor of the City. Both instruments run with the land and bind successors. Austin ordinances routinely prohibit specified uses, cap vehicle trips per day, and impose development limitations by CO, while placing companion commitments — screening walls, dumpster prohibitions, landscaping obligations, hours — in recorded covenants. Illustrative examples from the City’s own files include: a GR- CO rezoning at 13825 FM 2769 (C14-2011-0121); a rezoning at 1706–1708 W. Sixth Street in which two conditions (access limits and a 145-trip/day cap) were placed in the CO and five (masonry fence, dumpster prohibition, site plan submittal, construction commencement, rollback) in a private restrictive covenant; staff-recommended 2,000-trip/day CO caps in multiple cases; and use prohibitions such as cocktail lounge adopted by CO.10,14 The significance for this case is straightforward: the relief requested in Section X is not novel. It is the City’s standard toolkit for exactly this boundary condition, and staff and the Commission have ample precedent for recommending it. C. The Amended Protest Statute (H.B. 24, 2025) Texas Local Government Code § 211.006 historically provided that a written protest by owners of 20 percent of the area of adjoining lots within 200 feet required a three-fourths vote of Council to approve a zoning change. House Bill 24 (89th Leg.), effective September 1, 2025, restructured these provisions, exempting “proposed comprehensive zoning changes,” adding new procedures, and creating a separate regime — with a higher 60-percent protest threshold and a simple-majority approval vote — for certain changes that enable additional residential development and do not allow additional commercial or industrial uses beyond defined limits.15,16 Because the present request would allow additional commercial uses, it appears that the traditional protest pathway — written protest by owners of at least 20 percent of the adjoining land area within 200 feet, triggering a three-fourths Council approval requirement — remains available for this case. The undersigned states this as a reasonable reading of the amended statute, requests that the case manager or the Law Department confirm the applicable protest standard on the record, and reserves the right, together with similarly situated neighbors, to file a written protest under § 211.006 as amended. D. Religious Assembly, Equal Terms, and RLUIPA Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 25 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 141 of 192The undersigned raises the religious assembly use with care. Federal law — the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) — prohibits land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise without compelling justification, and requires that religious assemblies be treated on “equal terms” with nonreligious assemblies and institutions. Nothing requested here conflicts with those principles, and the request is framed to honor them: the operational concerns identified in this memorandum — amplified sound, event- hour traffic, late-night activity at a residential boundary — are use-neutral, arising identically from a wedding venue, a banquet hall, a club, or any other assembly of comparable scale and schedule. Accordingly, the undersigned’s primary request is exclusion of the assembly/event class as a whole — Indoor Entertainment, Theater, and Religious Assembly alike, alongside the already-recommended Club or Lodge prohibition — which treats religious and secular assembly on precisely equal terms and is therefore fully consistent with RLUIPA. In the alternative only, if any assembly use is retained, all retained assembly uses must be subject to identical, binding operational conditions — sound limits at the residential property line, hours, occupancy, parking, and loading. What the record cannot support is the asymmetry in the current recommendation, under which some assembly uses (Club or Lodge) are prohibited as “more intensive” while others with equivalent or greater impact profiles remain wholly unconditioned.20,17,18 E. Procedural Requests • That this memorandum, its Exhibits A–R, the undersigned’s July 28, 2026 correspondence, and all prior correspondence be included in the backup materials for the September 15, 2026 hearing and any subsequent Council hearing; • That staff state on the record: (i) the trip-generation estimate for the proposed program and for full GR-CO entitlement, and why a traffic analysis should await the site plan stage when nearly 70,000 square feet of commercial mixed use is already under review; (ii) the relationship between SP-2025-0311C and this rezoning tract (separate tracts, overlapping property, or phases of one development); and (iii) which building(s) would house the wedding venue and religious assembly uses, their occupancies, and their distances from the shared residential boundary; • That, if the Commission is not prepared to recommend denial, the case be postponed by at least one month — a postponement of up to 60 days without further notice is expressly contemplated by the City’s hearing procedures — so that a complete conditional overlay and recorded covenant can be settled before, not after, any approval of GR-CO.1 Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 26 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 142 of 192F. Reservation of Rights and Remedies The undersigned submits this memorandum in a spirit of engagement and remains willing to reach a negotiated, recorded resolution. At the same time, this memorandum and the accompanying exhibits are submitted to establish a complete written record, and nothing in them waives any right or remedy. Without limitation, the undersigned expressly reserves: (i) the right to file, alone or with similarly situated owners, a written protest under Texas Local Government Code § 211.006, as amended, and to insist on the correct approval-vote threshold; (ii) all rights to challenge, by any available administrative or judicial avenue, an approval adopted without compliance with the notice, hearing, and procedural requirements of Chapter 211 and the City Code, or unsupported by the record before the Commission and Council; (iii) all common-law rights and remedies — including private nuisance — against any owner or operator whose use of the Property substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of the undersigned’s home, it being noted that this memorandum and the correspondence of record place both the City and the applicant on documented, advance notice of the specific interferences at issue (amplified sound, late-night event activity, and boundary-adjacent traffic and lighting); and (iv) all rights under federal law. The undersigned intends and prefers that none of these avenues become necessary; whether they do will depend on whether the compatibility premises documented in this record are honored in enforceable form.15,21 IX. Cumulative Impacts The impacts of the requested change cannot be assessed against a vacant-land baseline. They land on top of impacts the adjacent homes have already absorbed through the project’s evolution: • Construction conducted to within feet of rear property lines under the compatibility framework described above, documented photographically in 2023 (dust, equipment operation immediately over the shared fence);2,3 • A parking and circulation layout that the City acknowledges moved closer to the homes than originally anticipated;2 • The prospective addition of mixed-use development on Lot 2 (SP-2025- 0311C), which will share access, drainage, and boundary conditions with the Subject Tract; and6 • The citywide reduction of default compatibility protections in 2024; and11 • A rezoning program that proposes to convert the project’s designated lower- intensity buffer component into event-oriented assembly uses.17 Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 27 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 143 of 192Layering the requested entitlement onto this accumulation — with no traffic analysis before the Commission, no operational conditions, and the buffer element converted to its opposite — would concentrate on a narrow tract, along an extended single-family boundary, the precise combination of intensification and diminished protection that compatibility review exists to prevent. The cumulative record is also why denial, postponement, or strengthened conditional approval is the proportionate response: the ask is not that the City undo prior approvals, but that it decline to broaden them further without enforceable safeguards. X. Requested Conditions of Approval (If Not Denied) The staff-recommended conditional overlay is a starting point, and the undersigned supports retention of all fifteen staff-recommended use prohibitions without dilution. But it is incomplete, and the sequencing matters: GR-CO should not be approved until the overlay below — or a negotiated equivalent — is in final form. In practical terms, the rezoning should be denied on September 15, 2026, or the hearing postponed by at least one month so the applicant, staff, and the adjoining owners can settle these terms. If the Commission and Council thereafter grant entitlement beyond W/LO, approval should be only as GR-CO with the following conditions, implemented through the conditional overlay ordinance and, where noted, a companion public restrictive covenant recorded before or concurrently with ordinance adoption. Conditions 4–6 carry forward the W/LO site development standards on which the adjoining homeowners were entitled to rely when they purchased: GR would otherwise raise the height limit from 25 feet (one story) to 60 feet, the impervious-cover limit from 70 to 90 percent, the floor-area ratio from 0.25:1 to 1:1, and shrink the 25-foot setbacks to as little as 10 feet or none. Draft ordinance-style language appears in Appendix A.17,19 # 1 2 3 Condition Retain all fifteen staff-recommended prohibited uses (Automotive Repair Services; Automotive Sales; Automotive Washing (of any type); Bail Bond Services; Club or Lodge; Commercial Off-Street Parking; Drop Off Recycling Collection Facility; Exterminating Services; Funeral Services; Hotel/Motel; Off-Site Accessory Parking; Outdoor Entertainment; Outdoor Sports and Recreation; Pawn Shop Services; Service Station). Instrument CO Additionally prohibit the assembly/event class: Indoor Entertainment (the wedding/event venue use) and Theater. Prohibit Religious Assembly on equal terms with the Condition 2 uses (see § VIII.D); in the alternative only, permit it subject to the identical binding operational conditions in items 7–11. CO CO / RC Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 28 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 144 of 192# 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Condition Instrument Maximum building height: 25 feet and one story, as under W/LO. CO Setbacks: no building, parking, drive aisle, dumpster, loading area, or hardscape within 25 feet of any property line shared with or across from a single-family residential lot, consistent with the W/LO 25-foot setback and the compatibility buffer confirmed in the Staff Report; the grass-lined stormwater swale and basin function maintained within that band. CO / RC Construction intensity: impervious cover not to exceed 70 percent and floor-area ratio not to exceed 0.25:1, as under W/LO. CO Outdoor amplified sound prohibited; amplified sound generated on the Property (indoor or outdoor) may not exceed applicable City Code ch. 9-2 limits measured at the shared residential property line; doors and openings on building faces oriented to that line closed during amplified activity. CO / RC Commercial activity conducted outdoors, events, deliveries, loading, and refuse collection within 100 feet of the residential boundary limited to 7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m. (or such stricter hours as staff recommends). Development may not exceed 2,000 vehicle trips per day unless a traffic impact analysis approved by the Transportation and Public Works Department, completed before Council action, supports a higher limit. Site lighting within 100 feet of the residential boundary full-cutoff, downward-directed, mounted no higher than 20 feet, shielded from residential view; loading docks, ride-share/drop-off zones, and mechanical equipment located and screened so as not to face the residential boundary. Indoor Sports and Recreation (pickleball), which the undersigned conditionally supports: all courts and player gathering areas fully enclosed; operations ending by 7:00 p.m. daily; weekend operations limited to 10:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.; mechanical and court sound attenuated to meet the Condition 7 standard at the residential line; the building housing the use identified on the record and located away from the shared residential boundary; parking demonstrated at site plan. RC CO RC RC 12 A continuous solid screening element (masonry wall or equivalent) plus an evergreen vegetative buffer along the residential boundary, maintained by the owner. RC 13 These conditions run with the land and bind successors and assigns. CO / RC Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 29 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 145 of 192Why Verbal Assurances and “Intended Tenant” Representations Are Insufficient Statements of present intent — however sincere — do not constrain the entitlement. Zoning runs with the land: a GR-CO designation adopted today defines what every future owner and tenant may do, indefinitely. This record illustrates the point repeatedly. The residence at 3131 East Howard Lane whose owner-supplied letter supported the 2021 compatibility waiver was, within months, the subject of an application to rezone it to GR-MU. The day-care/community-recreation “buffer” on which the 2021 approvals were premised is now, five years later, proposed to house an event venue. A representation today that the venue will be modest, or the tenant considerate, is worth no more than those earlier premises proved to be — not because anyone acted in bad faith, but because unrecorded premises are simply not durable. The only representations that matter at a zoning hearing are the ones written into the ordinance or recorded against the title. Austin’s own practice — splitting commitments between conditional overlays and recorded covenants precisely so they are enforceable against successors — reflects the same judgment. The applicant's current sale listing (Section VI.F; Exhibit Q), which offers the approved buildings to unidentified third-party purchasers as condominium units, makes the point concrete: the parties who would hold the GR entitlement are not yet known to anyone, including the applicant. XI. Unanswered Questions for Staff and the Applicant • Which of the four approved buildings would house the wedding venue and the religious assembly use; what are their occupancies; and what is each building’s distance from the shared residential boundary? • What event frequency, hours, and occupancy does the applicant project for the venue? Will alcohol be served, and under what TABC licensure? • Do the rezoning tract and site plan case SP-2025-0311C concern different legal tracts, overlapping property, or phases of one integrated development — and if integrated, what is the combined trip generation and parking demand? • What is the projected trip generation for the stated program, and why should the traffic analysis await the site plan stage rather than inform the zoning decision? • Does the applicant intend to seek an MU combining district, a density-bonus program, or additional height at any point? Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 30 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 146 of 192• Is the applicant prepared to accept a conditional overlay prohibiting Indoor Entertainment, and equal-terms treatment of Religious Assembly, consistent with staff’s stated rationale of prohibiting “the more intensive commercial uses . . . because [the property] is adjacent to residential uses”? • What replaces the buffering function of the day-care/community-recreation component on which the 2021 approvals were premised? • Does the conversion of Buildings 1–3 from Limited Warehousing and Distribution to General Retail Sales, as the applicant now advertises (Exhibit Q), require a revision or correction to SP-2023-0053C, and did staff’s transportation and compatibility comments in the Zoning Case Report assume the approved warehouse program? • Has a condominium regime been declared, or will one be declared, for the approved buildings (Exhibit R reflects none of record as of September 7, 2026); who will hold title to each building; and who will have signing authority on any restrictive covenant? • Which protest standard under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 211.006, as amended by H.B. 24, governs this application? XII. Conclusion The Howard Plaza record tells a coherent story: a constrained, unusually narrow tract whose W/LO zoning was itself a considered 2017 intensity determination; approvals obtained on an express lower-intensity-buffer rationale; incremental administrative expansions never subject to discretionary review; occupied family homes along the entire shared rear boundary; and now a request to convert the buffer element itself into evening- and weekend-oriented assembly uses. The staff recommendation takes a genuine step toward compatibility — its fifteen use prohibitions are supported — but it prohibits the uses the applicant has not proposed while leaving unconditioned the two it has. None of this requires attributing bad faith to anyone. It requires only that the Commission and Council do what the rezoning process exists to do: test broadened entitlement against the City’s own prior findings and current facts, and either decline the request or bind it to enforceable, recorded conditions — including prohibition of the Indoor Entertainment use, equal-terms treatment of Religious Assembly, and the operational standards of Section X — that preserve the compatibility premises on which every prior approval of this project has rested. The undersigned does not oppose professional office use, and conditionally supports indoor recreation on the terms stated in Section X. But the sequencing of any approval is itself part of the relief requested: the conditional overlay that Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 31 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 147 of 192would make GR compatible at this location does not yet exist, and a zoning district should not be granted on the promise that its terms will be worked out afterward. The undersigned therefore respectfully requests that the Commission recommend denial of C14-2026-0046 on September 15, 2026, or postpone the case by at least one month so that a complete overlay and recorded covenant can be settled first; requests the opportunity to be heard at the public hearing; and, while remaining committed to a negotiated resolution, reserves all rights and remedies as set out in Section VIII.F. Respectfully submitted, Nicholas Graham Owner, 12604 Hallstatt Drive, Manor, Texas 78653 Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 32 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 148 of 192Appendix A: Draft Conditional Overlay Language (Illustrative) The following ordinance-style language builds on the staff recommendation, adding the assembly/event-class prohibitions (indoor entertainment; theater; the bracketed religious assembly item discussed in § VIII.D), the W/LO-equivalent height, intensity, and setback standards, the amplified-sound standard, and the trip limit. Austin conditional overlays routinely cap height, impervious cover, floor-area ratio, and trips in exactly this manner. It follows the structure of prior Austin conditional overlay ordinances. PART 3. The Property within the boundaries of the conditional overlay combining district established by this ordinance is subject to the following conditions: (A) The following uses are prohibited uses of the Property: automotive repair services; automotive sales; automotive washing (of any type); bail bond services; club or lodge; commercial off-street parking; drop-off recycling collection facility; exterminating services; funeral services; hotel-motel; off-site accessory parking; outdoor entertainment; outdoor sports and recreation; pawn shop services; service station; indoor entertainment; theater[; religious assembly]. (B) Building height on the Property may not exceed 25 feet and one story. (C) Impervious cover on the Property may not exceed 70 percent, and floor-to-area ratio may not exceed 0.25 to 1. (D) No structure, parking area, drive aisle, dumpster, loading facility, or impervious hardscape may be located within 25 feet of the eastern property line abutting single- family residential lots; drainage within that area shall be limited to grass-lined stormwater facilities. (E) Outdoor amplified sound is prohibited, and amplified sound generated on the Property may not exceed the limits of City Code Chapter 9-2 measured at the eastern property line abutting single-family residential lots. (F) Development of the Property may not exceed 2,000 vehicle trips per day. Except as specifically restricted under this ordinance, the Property may be developed and used in accordance with the regulations established for the community commercial (GR) base district and other applicable requirements of the City Code. A companion public restrictive covenant is requested to record the operational commitments (hours; lighting specifications; screening wall and vegetative buffer with maintenance obligations; loading dock orientation), consistent with the City’s established CO/RC allocation practice. Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 33 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 149 of 192Exhibits Exhibit Document A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R SP-2019-0141C approved site plan set (2021) [to be obtained from City file] Staff report / backup for SP-2019-0141C administrative approval (Oct. 27, 2021) [to be obtained] Zoning & Platting Commission minutes and backup, compatibility waiver, June 1 / July 6, 2021 [to be obtained; quoted excerpts verified against original] Correspondence with Randall Rouda, City of Austin DSD (Sept. 5–14, 2023), including Sept. 5 letter of concern SP-2023-0053C Warehouse 3 Addition application materials, including Way Consulting Engineers Subchapter E exemption request (July 6, 2023) Notice of Filing, SP-2025-0311C, Howard Plaza Lot 2 (mailed Nov. 20, 2025), with location map Notice of Public Hearing for Rezoning, C14-2026-0046 (mailed July 24, 2026), with zoning map Zoning and aerial maps of the Subject Tract and East Village / Hallstatt Drive [to be compiled] Photographs of construction activity adjacent to 12604 Hallstatt Drive (Sept. 2023) (IMG_5516, 5543–5547, 5552) HOA correspondence, Colby Property Management / East Village (Sept. 2023) Rezoning application 2022-013928 ZC, 3131 E. Howard Lane (GR-MU) [to be obtained] Correspondence with Sherri Sirwaitis, Planner Principal, Planning Department, C14-2026-0046 (July 28, 2026), including the undersigned’s written statement of position City of Austin Planning Department, Zoning Change Review Sheet (Zoning Case Report), C14-2026-0046 (with Exhibits A–C: zoning map, aerial map, SP-2023- 0053C site plan) Austin Land Development Code, Zoning Use Summary Table (as compiled Feb. 3, 2026) City of Austin, Site Development Standards summary tables (residential and commercial districts) Record of the August 2, 2026 meeting between the undersigned and the applicant, Peter Pham, at 3127 East Howard Lane (with cover note on subsequent correspondence) Applicant’s LoopNet sale listing for Howard Plaza Building 1 (Listing ID 39906358; on market Mar. 25, 2026; last updated Aug. 20, 2026), as captured Sept. 7, 2026, with cover summary Travis County Clerk Official Public Records index search, Howard Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 34 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 150 of 192Exhibit Document Subdivision Lots 1–2, Block A, performed Sept. 7, 2026 (no condominium declaration, plat, or restriction of record) Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 35 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 151 of 192Exhibit P — Record of the August 2, 2026 meeting between the undersigned and the applicant, Peter Pham, at 3127 East Howard Lane, prepared by the undersigned from contemporaneous recollection. Exhibit Q — Applicant’s public sale listing for Howard Plaza Building 1, 3127 East Howard Lane (LoopNet Listing ID 39906358), as captured by the undersigned on September 7, 2026, with a cover summary of the statements relied upon. Exhibit R — Summary of the undersigned’s September 7, 2026 search of the Travis County Clerk’s Official Public Records index for instruments recorded against Howard Subdivision Lots 1 and 2, Block A. Endnotes 1. City of Austin, Notice of Public Hearing for Rezoning, Case No. C14-2026-0046, 3127 East Howard Lane (mailed July 24, 2026) (Exhibit G) (district descriptions, hearing information, and public hearing procedures quoted from the notice). 2. E-mail from Randall Rouda, Planner Senior, Land Use Review, City of Austin Development Services Department, to Nicholas Graham (Sept. 5, 2023) (Exhibit D). 3. E-mail from Randall Rouda to Nicholas Graham (Sept. 7, 2023) (Exhibit D) (numbered clarifications regarding drainage, waiver scope, and the 25-foot compatibility setback). 4. Zoning & Platting Commission meeting materials and minutes, compatibility waiver for SP-2019-0141C (June 1 / July 6, 2021), as quoted in the September 2023 correspondence (Exhibits C, D). Quoted passages to be verified against, and cited to, the original minutes in the City record. 5. Rezoning application 2022-013928 ZC (3131 E. Howard Lane, requested GR-MU, filed Jan. 31, 2022), as referenced in the September 6, 2023 correspondence (Exhibits D, K). 6. City of Austin, Notice of Filing of Application for Administrative Approval of a Site Plan, Case No. SP-2025-0311C, Howard Plaza Lot 2, 3131 East Howard Lane (mailed Nov. 20, 2025) (Exhibit F); see Austin City Code §§ 25-1-131 (interested parties), 25-1- 133(D) (notice and decision timing). 7. Austin, Tex., Land Development Code § 25-2-491 (Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses) and accompanying use tables; id. § 25-2-98 (Community Commercial (GR) district designation). 8. Austin, Tex., Land Development Code § 25-2-584 (Warehouse/Limited Office (W/LO) district regulations). 9. See Austin, Tex., Land Development Code ch. 25-2, subch. E, art. 4 (Mixed Use combining district; MU may be combined with GR and other commercial base districts). 10. See, e.g., City of Austin Ordinance, Case No. C14-2011-0121 (13825 FM 2769; DR to GR-CO), and staff zoning change review sheets recommending conditional overlays limiting development to fewer than 2,000 vehicle trips per day under LDC § 25-6-117 (examples available the City’s EDIMS records system, services.austintexas.gov/edims). through 11. City of Austin Ordinance No. 20240516-005 (citywide compatibility amendments, adopted May 16, 2024; effective July 15, 2024); City of Austin, C20-2023-019 Citywide Compatibility (summary of adopted changes: compatibility ends at 75 feet; triggering Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 36 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 152 of 192properties limited generally to single-family-zoned properties with 1–3 homes; landscape buffer requirements; Council authority to modify or waive through site- specific process); City of Austin Planning Dep’t, Ordinance Amendment Review Sheet, C20-2023-019. 12. Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 211.004(a) (zoning regulations must be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan); id. § 211.001 (purposes). 13. City of Austin, Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan (adopted June 2012, as amended) (growth concept directing intensity to centers and corridors). 14. City of Austin zoning files reflecting allocation of conditions between conditional overlays and restrictive covenants, e.g., rezoning of 1706–1708 W. Sixth Street (2005) (access and 145-trip/day cap by CO; masonry fence, dumpster prohibition, and related commitments by restrictive covenant); Case No. C14-05-0166 (cocktail lounge prohibited by CO); Case No. C14-2009-0155 (Villa Court) (compatibility-based conditions and restrictive covenant framework). Documents available through EDIMS. 15. Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 211.006, as amended by Act of May 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., H.B. 24, §§ 1–6 (eff. Sept. 1, 2025) (adding § 211.0061; restructuring protest procedures; exempting proposed comprehensive zoning changes; 60-day presumption-of-validity provision for changes allowing more residential development). 16. Texas Municipal League, Legislative Update No. 34 (Sept. 5, 2025) (summarizing H.B. 24 protest procedures: 20% of area covered, or 20% of adjoining 200-foot area, triggering three-fourths approval vote; separate 60% / simple-majority pathway limited to proposals that do not allow additional commercial or industrial uses beyond defined limits); see also Texas Municipal League, Legal Q&A: Zoning (2023) (pre- amendment framework). 17. City of Austin Planning Department, Zoning Change Review Sheet, Case C14-2026- 0046 (Howard Plaza), Sherri Sirwaitis, Case Manager (provided July 28, 2026) (Exhibit M) (staff recommendation and prohibited-use list; case manager comments; area case histories drainage, environmental, site plan, compatibility, and transportation comments; Exhibits A–C thereto). comprehensive planning, including C14-2016-0119; 18. E-mail from Sherri Sirwaitis, Planner Principal, Current Planning Division, City of Austin Planning Department, to Nicholas Graham (July 28, 2026) (Exhibit L); e-mail from Nicholas Graham to Sherri Sirwaitis (July 28, 2026) (statement of position; request for inclusion in the official record) (Exhibit L). 19. Austin, Tex., Land Development Code, Zoning Use Summary Table (Exhibit N) (district-by-district permitted (P), conditional (C), and prohibited uses, including Indoor Entertainment, Indoor Sports and Recreation, and Religious Assembly as permitted uses in GR); City of Austin, Site Development Standards tables (Exhibit O) (W/LO: 25 ft/1 story height, 70% impervious cover, 0.25:1 FAR, 25-ft front and rear setbacks; GR: 60 ft height, 90% impervious cover, 1:1 FAR, 75% building coverage, 10- ft front setback). 20. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (substantial-burden and equal-terms provisions). 21. See Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2016) (restating Texas private-nuisance law: substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to persons of ordinary Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 37 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 153 of 192sensibilities; noise, light, and odor among recognized interferences). Compliance with zoning is relevant to, but not conclusive of, nuisance liability. Bibliography and Research Sources • Austin, Tex., Land Development Code, Title 25 (Municode / official codifications), including §§ 25-2-91 to 25-2-98 (commercial district designations), 25-2-491 (use tables), 25-2-492 (site development regulations), 25-2-584 (W/LO regulations), and ch. 25-1 (notice, interested parties). • City of Austin Ordinance No. 20240516-005 and C20-2023-019 Citywide Compatibility materials (publicinput.com/j0401; Ordinance Amendment Review Sheet, EDIMS Doc. 425941). • Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code ch. 211 (Municipal Zoning Authority), including §§ 211.001, 211.004, 211.006, 211.007, and § 211.0061 (added 2025). • H.B. 24, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025) (bill text, engrossed analysis, and effective- date materials, capitol.texas.gov); Texas Municipal League, Legislative Update No. 34 (Sept. 5, 2025). • Texas Municipal League, Legal Q&A: What Is Zoning? (Huser, 2023). • City of Austin EDIMS zoning case files cited in endnotes 10 and 14 (services.austintexas.gov/edims). • City of Austin Planning Department, Zoning Resources & Site Regulations; Zoning and Platting Commission procedures (austintexas.gov/planning). • City of Austin public search portal for site plan and zoning cases (abc.austintexas.gov/web/permit/public-search-other): SP-2019-0141C; SP- 2023-0053C; SP-2025-0311C; C14-2026-0046; 2022-013928 ZC. • Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan (2012, as amended). • City of Austin Planning Department, Zoning Change Review Sheet, C14-2026- 0046 (Exhibit M), with Zoning Use Summary Table (Exhibit N) and Site Development Standards tables (Exhibit O). • Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. • Correspondence and notices reproduced as Exhibits D, F, G, I, J, and L. Planning Memorandum — C14-2026-0046 (Howard Plaza) | Page 38 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 154 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 155 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 156 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 157 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 158 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 159 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 160 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 161 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 162 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 163 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 164 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 165 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 166 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 167 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 168 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 169 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 170 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 171 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 172 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 173 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 174 of 19202 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 175 of 192AU STIN TEX A S.GOV AIR PORT L IBR ARY AU STIN EN ER GY AU STIN WATER C ON VEN TION C EN TER VISITOR S B U R EAU Pay Online Services Calendar Media Center 3 Department > Planning > Interactive Development Review Permitting and Inspection Recommended browsers for this website are Google Chrome and Internet Explorer. Home Public Search Issued Construction Permits Apply for Permits/Cases Apply for Right Of Way Permits / Special Events Assign Permit My Permits/Cases My Incomplete Applications My Bills My Licenses My Inspections My Escrow Account My Reports My Profile My Notifications External Reviewers Search Web Help Login/Register Online Survey DevelopmentATX.com Home Return to the first view FOLDER DETAILS Permit/Case: 2021-168643 EV Reference File Name: SP-2019-0141C Description: Sub Type: Work Type: Site Inspected Monthly Site Plan Project Name: Howard Plaza Status: Active Application Date: Oct 27, 2021 Issued: Expiration Date: Related Folder: Yes PROPERTY DETAILS 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 176 of 192 Number Pre Street StreetType Dir Unit Type Unit Number City State Zip Legal Desc 3127 E HOWARD LN AUSTIN TX 78653 Address PEOPLE DETAILS People Type Name / Address Phone Internet User (peter pham) 13930 Immnauel RD Pflugerville TX 78660 Billed To Engineer Other Modern Componenet (Peter Pham) 13930 IMMANUEL RD PFLUGERVILLE TX 78641 Way Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Way Atmadja) 11615 Angus RD Austin TX 78759 Way Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Way Atmadja) 11615 Angus RD Austin TX 78759 Previously Billed To Modern Components 13930 Immanuel Rd. pflugerville TX 78660 (512) 470-0434 (512) 989-1362 (512) 343-0766 (512) 343-0766 (512) 989-1362 FOLDER FEES Fee Description Fee Amount Balance Environmental Reinspection Fee - Tier2(Stop Work Order) Technology Surcharge-DSD $484.00 $19.36 $0.00 $0.00 PROCESSES AND NOTES Process Description Status Start Date Scheduled End Date End Date # of Assigned Attempts Staff Staff EMail Inspection Distribution Closed Apr 6, 2022 Dec 13, 2021 Apr 6, 2022 Routine EV Warning Apr 6, Inspection Issued 2022 May 6, 2022 Apr 6, 2022 Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Apr 11, 2022 Apr 12, 2022 May 2, 2022 Jun 15, 2022 May 31, 2022 Apr 11, 2022 May 31, 2022 Apr 12, 2022 May 31, 2022 May 2, 2022 Jun 30, 2022 Jun 15, 2022 1 1 Marco Mendoza (512-909- 6645) Marco Mendoza (512-909- 6645) Marco 1 Mendoza (512-909- 6645) Marco Mendoza (512-909- 6645) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) 1 1 1 Enrique.Maiz- Torres@austintexas.gov juan.beltran2@austintexas.gov 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 177 of 192Process Description Status Start Date Scheduled End Date End Date # of Attempts Assigned Staff Staff EMail Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Jul 6, 2022 Aug 15, 2022 Jul 31, 2022 Jul 6, 2022 Aug 31, 2022 Aug 15, 2022 Routine EV Inspection Closed Sep 8, 2022 Sep 30, 2022 Sep 8, 2022 Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Oct 13, 2022 Nov 16, 2022 Dec 12, 2022 Jan 17, 2023 Oct 31, 2022 Oct 13, 2022 Nov 30, 2022 Nov 16, 2022 Dec 31, 2022 Dec 12, 2022 Jan 31, 2023 Jan 17, 2023 Routine EV Inspection Closed Feb 8, 2023 Feb 28, 2023 Feb 8, 2023 Routine EV Inspection Closed Mar 2, 2023 Mar 31, 2023 Mar 2, 2023 Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Closed Inspection Mar 28, 2023 Mar 31, 2023 Apr 11, 2023 Apr 19, 2023 Apr 26, 2023 May 4, 2023 May 23, 2023 Jun 20, 2023 Jun 21, Apr 30, 2023 Apr 30, 2023 Apr 30, 2023 Mar 28, 2023 Mar 31, 2023 Apr 11, 2023 May 31, 2023 Apr 19, 2023 May 31, 2023 Apr 26, 2023 May 31, 2023 May 4, 2023 Jun 30, 2023 May 23, 2023 Jun 30, 2023 Jun 20, 2023 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov juan.ponce@austintexas.gov Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov steven.dacke@austintexas.gov William.Waters@austintexas.gov Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov 1 Randle (512- juan.ponce@austintexas.gov 665-2964) Arester 1 Randle (512- Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov 665-2964) Arester 1 Randle (512- steven.dacke@austintexas.gov 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) 1 1 William.Waters@austintexas.gov Jul 31, 2023 Jun 21, 1 Arester 2023 Randle (512- 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 178 of 192Process Description Status Start Date Scheduled End Date End Date # of Attempts Assigned Staff Staff EMail Routine EV Inspection Closed Routine EV Inspection Closed 2023 Jul 5, 2023 Jul 25, 2023 Jul 31, 2023 Jul 5, 2023 Aug 31, 2023 Jul 25, 2023 Routine EV Inspection Closed Aug 8, 2023 Aug 31, 2023 Aug 8, 2023 Routine EV Inspection Closed Aug 15, 2023 Sep 30, 2023 Aug 15, 2023 Routine EV Inspection Open Sep 30, 2023 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) Arester Randle (512- 665-2964) 1 1 1 1 0 Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov juan.ponce@austintexas.gov Patrick.Jones@austintexas.gov Back to Search Results PAY ONLINE CALENDAR MEDIA CENTER FAQ CONTACT US SITE MAP LEGAL NOTICES PRIVACY POLICY 311 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 179 of 192B-9 1 of 1 PLANNING COMMISISON SITE PLAN – COMPATIBILITY VARIANCES ONLY MEMORANDUM ************************************************************************ TO: Nadia Barrera Ramirez, Chair Zoning and Platting Commission Members FROM: Randall Rouda, Senior Planner Development Services Department DATE: May 27, 2021 RE: SP-2019-0141C - Howard Plaza (Compatibility Waiver Case) Request for Postponement by Applicant The Applicant requests a postponement of the above-referenced compatibility waiver case to July 6, 2021. A postponement will allow Staff the time to evaluate and notice a request for a Conditional Use Permit to be considered concurrently with the proposed Compatibility Waiver. 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 180 of 192B-6 1 of 8 ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION SITE PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMPATIBILITY VARIANCE CASE NUMBER: SP-2019-0141C ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: July 6, 2021 PROJECT NAME: Howard Plaza ADDRESS: 3127 East Howard Lane APPLICANT: AGENT: Attn: Peter Pham c/o Platron Manufacturing 13930 Immanuel Rd. Pflugerville, TX 78660 Attn: Way Atmadja, PE WAY Consulting Engineers, Inc. 11615 Angus Road, Suite 119 Austin, TX 78759 (512) 989-1362 (512) 343-0766 CASE MANAGER: Randall Rouda Randall.Rouda@austintexas.gov (512) 974-3338 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: None PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant is proposing to develop a vacant lot, zoned W/LO (Warehouse/Limited Office) with two warehouse buildings and one building for alternating Daycare Services (Commercial) during daily business hours and Community Recreation (Private) in the evenings and weekends. Those uses are defined as follows: DAY CARE SERVICES (COMMERCIAL) use is the use of a site for the provision of daytime care for more than 20 persons. This use includes nursery schools, preschools, day care centers for children or adults, and similar uses, and excludes public and private primary or secondary educational facilities. COMMUNITY RECREATION (PRIVATE) use is the use of a site for the provision of an indoor or outdoor recreational facility for use by residents or guests of a residential development, planned unit development, church, private primary or secondary educational facility, club or lodge, or non-profit organization. Warehouse and Dare Care Services (Commercial) are allowed uses in the W/LO Zone. Community Recreation (Private) is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Each of the three buildings is single story with 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. A 6,000 square foot pavilion is also proposed in the vicinity of the day care/community recreation building. Total gross floor area is 51,000 square feet. Total proposed parking is 242 spaces, (including 7 ADA spaces) and bike rack (6 spaces). The site will have a single driveway, shared with the parcel to the east, accessing East Howard Lane. Public sidewalk improvements are proposed along East Howard Lane. One variance from compatibility setback requirements is being requested. 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 181 of 192 B-6 2 of 8 DESCRIPTION OF COMPATIBILITY VARIANCE: 1) From 25 feet to 5.1 feet for the easterly setback. [LDC § 25-2-1063] SUMMARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Community Recreation (Private) Use and approval of the Compatibility Waiver with the following condition of approval: 1) That all remaining informal administrative comments are cleared prior to site plan approval The site borders the ETJ to the west, and a single family residence and PUD to the east. The adjacent portion of the PUD is subdivided for single family residential development. Adequate parking and facilities are provided for the proposed use and access is available from Howard Lane. This request does not include provision for amplified outdoor sound. The applicant proposes to place shared driveway improvements, paved parking and tree wells within the 25 foot compatibility setback along their entire 700 foot shared property line. The paved areas are approximately 5.1 feet (varying but not less than 5 feet) from the property line. All improvements are flush to the ground. In total, approximately 14,000 square feet of paved improvements are located within the compatibility setback. The landscape plan shows the border between the parking area and the adjacent single family residence as shaded and partially screened by a row of live oaks and red oaks to be planted in the five foot wide landscaped area east of the paved parking lot. The parcel to the east which creates the compatibility setback is zoned W/LO (Warehouse and Limited Office) and is developed with a single family residence. As the residence is an allowed use in zones more restrictive than SF-5, the compatibility requirements of LDC Article 10 apply. The parcels are under common ownership and the property owner has submitted a letter on behalf of the parcel with the residential use expressing support for the compatibility waiver. Note that the parcel to the west is also developed with residential uses, however, Article 10 does not apply as that parcel is within the ETJ. The subject parcel is unusually narrow, making compliance with the compatibility standards quite challenging. The site is approximately 190 feet in width where compatibility applies, and is approximately 1,480 feet in depth. Further, the development requires a substantial area for wastewater treatment (septic) as the site is beyond the limits of the City of Austin’s wastewater collection infrastructure. The site plan complies with all other compatibility standards. PROJECT INFORMATION TOTAL SITE AREA EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING WATERSHED WATERSHED ORDINANCE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Not required CAPITOL VIEW CORRIDOR PROPOSED ACCESS 8.37 acres 364,597 sq. ft. W/LO W/LO Harris Branch (Suburban) Comprehensive Watershed Ordinance None E. Howard Lane Allowed/Required Existing FLOOR-AREA RATIO BUILDING COVERAGE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE PARKING 0.25:1 N/A% 70% 241 (with CUP) N/A N/A N/A N/A Proposed 0.14:1 14% 53.8% 242 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 182 of 192 B-6 3 of 8 COMPATIBILITY The subject site is bordered by a single-family residential land uses, to the east. The proposed parking improvements within the 25 foot setback are typical for warehouse/industrial projects and do not include any vertical construction components. Both parcels are under common ownership and no objections to the compatibility waiver have been presented to date. The site complies with all other compatibility standard requirements. EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES Site North South East West ZONING W/LO I-SF-4A PUD W/LO, PUD ETJ LAND USES Vacant Howard Lane, Vacant and Single family residences Vacant, Critical Water Quality Zone and Critical Environmental Features. Vacant Single Family Residence(s), Vacant ABUTTING STREETS Street East Howard Lane Right-of-Way Width 106 feet Pavement Width 58 feet Classification Suburban NEIGHBORHOOD ORGNIZATIONS: Austin Lost and Found Pets Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Harris Branch Master Association, Inc. Harris Branch Residential Property Owners Assn. Homeless Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation North Gate Neighborhood Association North Growth Corridor Alliance Pflugerville Independent School District SELTexas Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group TechRidge Neighbors 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 183 of 192 B-6 4 of 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW AND EVALUTATION CRITERA The following evaluation is included to provide staff’s position on each point of the conditional use permit criteria. the Land Development Code (EVALUATION OF CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN) states: Section 25-5-145 of A. The Land Use Commission shall determine whether the proposed development or use of a conditional use site plan complies with the requirements of this section. B. A conditional use site plan must: 1. Comply with the requirements of this title; Staff Response: This site plan complies with all regulations and requirements of the Land Development Code. 2. Comply with the objectives and purposes of the zoning district; Staff Response: The W/LO Zone is intended for uses that do not require a highly visible location or generate substantial volumes of heavy truck traffic, that generates low or moderate vehicular trips, and that requires less access than a retail use. When adjacent to single family residential use, the W/LO zone should accommodate buffering. As proposed the Day Care and Community Recreation uses are less intensive and provide a buffer for the PUD to the east. The entire site serves as a buffer between the unregulated land uses of the ETJ to the west and the residential uses to the east. The proposed the proposed development complies with all site development regulations for the zoning district. 3. Have building height, bulk, scale, setback, open space, landscaping, drainage, access, traffic circulation, and use that is compatible with the use of an abutting site; Staff Response: The site plan will comply with all requirements of the Land Development Code and zoning district. In addition, the buildings comply with setback and height requirements, including the height requirements for compatibility with residential uses to the east. The site is providing, shaded sidewalks, and open space as required by Subchapter E (Commercial Design Standards) 4. Provide adequate and convenient off-street parking and loading facilities; and Staff Response: Off-street parking is provided in accordance with Land Development Code requirements. The loading facilities will be screened from view. 5. Reasonably protect persons and property from erosion, flood, fire, noise, glare, and similar adverse effects. Staff Response: The site plan will comply with all requirements of the Land Development Code and reasonably protects the health, safety, and welfare of persons and property. C. In addition, a conditional use site plan may not: 1. More adversely affect an adjoining site than would a permitted use; The site plan will conform to all regulations and standards established by the Land Development Code. This proposed site plan does not more adversely affect an adjoining site than would a permitted use. The portion of the site proposed for Day Care/Community Recreation Use would otherwise be available for additional warehouse uses with associated truck access and equipment use. 2. Adversely affect the safety or convenience of vehicular or pedestrian circulation, including reasonably anticipated traffic and uses in the area; or Staff Response: The site plan does not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 184 of 192 B-6 5 of 8 and pedestrian circulation. A condition of approval is proposed to avoid the loss of pedestrian convenience by requiring the replacement of the existing pedestrian passageway. 3. Adversely affect an adjacent property or traffic control through the location, lighting, or type of a sign. Staff Response: All signs and lighting will comply with the Land Development Code. D. A site plan may not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injure property. If the Land Use Commission determines that a site plan has an adverse effect or causes a material injury under this subsection, the Land Use Commission shall identify the adverse effect or material injury. No such adverse effect has been identified. In addition, Sec. 25-5-146 (CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) states: (A) To make a determination required for approval under Section 25-5-145 (Evaluation Of Conditional Use Site Plan), the Land Use Commission may require that a conditional use site plan comply with a condition of approval that includes a requirement for: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) a special yard, open space, buffer, fence, wall, or screen; landscaping or erosion; a street improvement or dedication, vehicular ingress & egress, or traffic circulation; signs; characteristics of operation, including hours; a development schedule; or other measures that the Land Use Commission determines are required for compatibility with surrounding uses or the preservation of public health, safety, or welfare. The following condition of approval is recommended: 1) That all remaining informal administrative comments are cleared prior to site plan approval 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 185 of 192 B-6 6 of 8 May 17,2021 Mr. Randall Gouda, Case Manager Development Services Department Ciiy of Austin P.O. Box 1088 Austin, T)(78767 RE: HOWARD PLAZA (SP-ZO1q-O L;tC) COMPATIBILITY SETBACK REDUCTION 3127 8,. Howard Lane, Austin, Texas 78653 Dear Mr. Rouda, My name is Peter Pham and I am the owner of the house located at3131 E. Howard Lane directly adjacent to the east side of the proposed Howard Plaza development. I am also the owner of the proposed Howard Plaza development. I, hereby; testify that I have no objection to the proposed reduction of the 25 foot wide compatibility buffer as proposed for the Howard Plaza (SP -20 1 9-0 1 4 1 C). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Peter Pham 3131 E. Howard Lane Austin, Texas 78653 (st2) 989-1362 Cc: Way Atmadja, P.E. Jody Jarrett, RLA t 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 186 of 192B-6 7 of 8 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 187 of 192B-6 N 10114489.8034 E 3150370.7164 K N A B Y A H T A C S E R C A 3 5 0 3 . 4 6 3 ) 0 8 5 8 4 0 1 1 0 2 . C O D ( (cid:10) (cid:23) (cid:19) (cid:17) (cid:24) (cid:28) (cid:21) (cid:3) (cid:15) (cid:58) (cid:10) (cid:3) (cid:5) (cid:28) (cid:24) (cid:27) (cid:19) (cid:131) (cid:25) (cid:25) (cid:3) (cid:49) T N A C A V : E S U D U P : I G N N O Z ' 2 3 . 0 0 1 E C N E F K N I L N A H C I . X E WWE (VOL.10860, PG.94) All activities within the Critical Environmental Feature and associated CEF setback must comply with the City of Austin Land Development Code. The natural vegetative cover must be retained to the maximum extent practicable; construction is prohibited; and wastewater disposal or irrigation is prohibited. ) E N I L Y T R E P O R P T A ( E N I L T I M I L Y T I C COA ETJ LOC 5' BLDG. SETBACK LOC COA ETJ CITY LIMIT LINE ( AT PROPERTY LINE) Z Q W C SHOWER & LOCKERS (AVAILABLE TO BOTH SEXES) 22,500 S.F. (5.1%) NATURAL UNDEVELOPED PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE (SEPTIC AREA) BY OTHERS 9 16 TRASH DUMPSTER 10 E N A L E R F I E N A L E R F I ' 2 7 . 4 9 1 150 FT. CEF SETBACK K C A B T E S . G D L B ' 5 2 K C A B T E S . G D L B ' 5 2 10' E/TE (PER PLAT) CWQZ C O L 3' x 3' CONT. ROCK GABION LEVEL SPREADER (TOP @ 632.5) 20.0' 25' DRAINAGE ESMT. (Doc # ___________________) LOC 3 / 1 (cid:54)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:131)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:58)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:10) USE: VACANT ZONING: PUD RISER ROOM BICYCLE PARKING 2 SPACES FDC ACCESSIBLE ROUTE 8 N A V F.H. FIRE LANE FIRE LANE 11 6,000 S.F. OUTDOOR PAVILION (ACCESSORY BLDG) 2 SEDIMENTATION POND WSEL 637.5 LOWEST 634.0 10 20 LOT 1 BLOCK A 145 10 COA ETJ LOC (cid:49)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:131)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:10) 10 20 10 FIRE LANE FIRE LANE 97 7 E N I L H C T A M E N I L H C T A M FIRE LANE FIRE LANE 7 ' 4 0 . 0 0 1 (cid:15) (cid:58) (cid:10) (cid:3) (cid:5) (cid:24) (cid:20) (cid:25) (cid:22) (cid:131) (cid:28) (cid:25) (cid:3) (cid:49) 7 LOC (EXISTING FISH POND) ) M R E B ( ) M R E B ( C O L 25' DRAINAGE ESMT. (Doc # ___________________) 10' E/TE (PER PLAT) 3 / 1 LOC LOT 2 BLOCK A 3131 E HOWARD LANE (cid:54)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:131)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:58)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:10) CATHAY BANK 364.3053 ACRES (DOC.2011048580) USE: VACANT ZONING: PUD CITY LIMIT LINE ( AT PROPERTY LINE) 5' BLDG. SETBACK EX. F.H. 552048 LOC BM P.P. 3 6 (EX. CHAIN LINK FENCE) TRASH DUMPSTER DRIVEWAY STUB-OUT FOR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY DOCK ' O.H. DOOR LOC ' 5 4 X 2 1 E C A P S G N D A O L I COA ETJ TRASH DUMPSTER DOCK ' O.H. DOOR ' 5 4 X 2 1 E C A P S G N D A O L I RISER ROOM FDC FIRE LANE FIRE LANE 10 ACCESSIBLE ROUTE 3 7 LOC EXIST. CONC. ACCESSIBLE ROUTE BICYCLE PARKING 2 SPACES O.H. DOOR RISER ROOM E N A L E R F I FDC BICYCLE PARKING 2 SPACES F.H. 6 FIRE LANE 25' COMPATIBILITY SETBACK FIRE LANE 10 C 12 C 12 C EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVE LOC 30' X 70' J.U.A.E. per Plat LOC 9 0 9 4 # M R F I 5 6 8 3 5 # E P 8 of 8 m o c . g n i r e e n i g n e y a w @ l i a m 6 6 7 0 - 3 4 3 ) 2 1 5 ( 9 5 7 8 7 s a x e T , n i t s u A , 9 1 1 e t i u S , d a o R s u g n A 5 0 5 1 1 12/11/20 . C N I , I S R E E N G N E G N I T L U S N O C Y A W y n a p m o C g n i r e e n i g n E l a r u t c u r t S & l i i v C ACCESSIBLE ROUTE E N A L 5 FT. CONC. SIDEWALK C O L REMOVE EXIST. SIDEWALK D R A W O H . E C O L REMOVE EXIST. SIDEWALK 5 FT. CONC. SIDEWALK (cid:10) (cid:23) (cid:27) (cid:17) (cid:28) (cid:27) (cid:21) (cid:3) (cid:15) (cid:10) (cid:40) (cid:3) (cid:5) (cid:24) (cid:20) (cid:25) (cid:22) (cid:131) (cid:28) (cid:25) (cid:3) (cid:54) (cid:10) (cid:19) (cid:27) (cid:17) (cid:28) (cid:27) (cid:20) (cid:3) (cid:15) (cid:58) (cid:10) (cid:3) (cid:5) (cid:24) (cid:20) (cid:25) (cid:22) (cid:131) (cid:28) (cid:25) (cid:3) (cid:49) (cid:3) K C A B T E S . G D L B ' 5 2 15' E/TE ESMT. (PER PLAT) O.H. DOOR 6 FIRE LANE EX. CONC. DRIVEWAY FIRE LANE K C A B T E S . G D L B ' 5 2 l t a P r e P E T E / ' 5 1 C O L (cid:10) (cid:23) (cid:19) (cid:17) (cid:19) (cid:19) (cid:20) (cid:3) (cid:15) (cid:58) (cid:10) (cid:3) (cid:5) (cid:24) (cid:20) (cid:25) (cid:22) (cid:131) (cid:28) (cid:25) (cid:3) (cid:49) (cid:3) (cid:49)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:131)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:10) LOC EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVE USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING: W / LO 10' E/TE (PER PLAT) NO BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FT ART COLLECTION INC. 3.553 ACRES (DOC.2003229900) P.L. E N I L . T M S E 3 1 APPENDIX Q-2: IMPERVIOUS COVER NOTE: Q1 TABLES ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR SUBURBAN WATERSHEDS IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED AT _______% X _____ ( GROSS SITE AREA) =________ACRES 6.70 80 8.37 ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER BREAKDOWN BY SLOPE CATEGORY 0.067 TOTAL ACREAGE 15-25% = ___________ACRES X 10% = __________ 0.0067 PROPOSED TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVER TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVER = _______ACRES =________% 3.91 46.7 PROGRESS PRINT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY 06/15/21 6.0' (nts) 4.50' 4.00' 13.00' 4.50' 6.0' (nts) 25.0' DRAINAGE ESMT. (nts) Manning's n = 0.03 (grassy channel) 1 TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL (IN 25' DRAINAGE EASEMENT) 1" = 5.0' PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVER ON SLOPES BUILDING/ AND OTHER IMPERVIOUS COVER DRIVEWAYS ROADWAYS IMPERVIOUS COVER SLOPE CATEGORIES ACRES 8.278 0-15% ________ 0.063 15-25% ________ 0.029 ________ 25-35% 0.0 OVER 35% ________ ACRES % OF CATEGORY ACRES 1.42 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.49 17.1 ________ __________________ _____ 0.0 0.0 ________ __________________ _____ 0.0 0.0 ________ __________________ _____ 0.0 0.0 ________ __________________ _____ TOTAL SITE AREA ________________ 8.37 NOTES: 1. Exterior lighting above the second floor is prohibitied in the GO, LR, GR, CS, or CS-1 zoning districts, when adjacent to an SF-5 or more restrictive use or district. 2. All exterior lighting will be full cut-off and fully shielded in compliance with Subchapter E 2.5 and will be reviewed during building plan review. Any change or substitution of lamp/light fixtures shall be submitted to the Director for approval in accordance with Section 2.5.2.E 3. Screening for solid waste collection and loading areas shall be the same as, or of equal quality to, principal building materials. 4. Approval of these plans by the City of Austin indicates compliance with applicable city regulations only. Compliance with accessibility standards such as the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design or the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards was not verified. The applicant is responsible for compliance with all applicable accessibility standards. 5. Yards, fences, vegetative screening or berms shall be provided to screen adjacent SF-5 or more restrictive residential districts from views of off- street parking areas, mechanical equipment, storage areas, and for refuse collection. (LDC Section 25-2-1066) Q100 = 16.97 cfs V100 = 5.13 ft/s D100 = 0.57 ft. Q2 = 5.01 cfs V2 = 3.51 ft/s D2 = 0.29 ft. 1 LOADING SPACE REQUIRED for 26,000 Sq. Ft. INDOOR WAREHOUSE per Shedule C. - 2 LOADING SPACES PROVIDED. BICYCLE PARKING The greater of 5 spaces or 5% of the vehicle spaces required per Appendix A, part 2 REQUIRED * 5 PROVIDED 6 * ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY (See Sub-Chapter E sheet 21) 1. Increase required bicycle parking by 10% ( 5 spaces required x 1.1 = 6 Bicycle Spaces Provided) 2. South facade of Bldg. 3 is shaded 100% with trees. BICYCLE PARKING SPECIFICATION Bicycle parking racks shall be class ii per c.o.a. detail 710S-1 Pg. 1 of 3. Each rack provides two (2) spaces. Each rack shall be anchored per manufacturer's specifications. SITE PLAN RELEASE: Sheet 3 21 of 1" = 50'-0" 0 25 50 100 LOC True SITE DATA TABLE CATEGORY MAX. ALLOWED PROPOSED ZONING SITE AREA TOTAL AREA W/IN L.O.C. BUILDING AREA (GROSS) --- --- --- --- W / LO 8.37 AC 364,597 SF 6.88 AC 299,829 SF 15,000 SF - BLDG 1 15,000 SF - BLDG 2 15,000 SF - BLDG 3 6,000 SF - PAVILION 51,000 SF - TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE --- 14 % F.A.R. 0.25 : 1 0.14 : 1 IMPERVIOUS COVER (ZONING) 5.86 AC 255,218 S.F. (70%) 4.507 Acs 196,338 SF (53.85%) PROPOSED USE ----- OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, COMMUNITY RECREATION, & DAY CARE HEIGHT 25 FT. or 1 STORY 24 FT FINISH FLOOR ELEV. FOUNDATION TYPE ---- ---- 674.5, 668.25, 646.75, 658.30 CONC. SLAB OPEN SPACE CALCULATION RATE REQUIRED PROVIDED MIN. 5% OF GROSS SITE AREA (364,597 SF X .05 = 18,230 S.F.) 18,230 S.F. (5%) 22,500 S.F. (6.2%) OFF-STREET PARKING USES REQUIRED PROVIDED STANDARD HANDICAP COMPACT 9,000 Sq. Ft. OFFICE / ADMIN. @ 1 SPACE / 275 Sq. Ft. 26,000 Sq. Ft. INDOOR STORAGE, WAREHOUSING, EQUIPMENT SERVICING, OR MANUFACTURING @ 1 SPACE / 1000 Sq. Ft. 10,000 Sq. Ft. COMMUNITY RECREATION (Private) / DAYCARE @ 1 SP / 55 Sq. Ft. TOTALS 33 26 182 241 33 26 142 201 2 2 3 7 TOTAL 47 50 145 12 22 0 34 (14%) 242 A Z A L P D R A W O H e n a L d r a w o H . E 7 2 1 3 3 5 6 8 7 s a x e T , n i t s u A I N A L P E T S L L A R E V O Revisions/Issues: FILE NUMBER: CASE MANAGER: SP-2019-0141C Randall Rouda EXPIRATION DATE: APPLICATION DATE: 04-5-2019 APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY ON: APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON: APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: 112 Under Section of Chapter 25-5 of the Austin City Code. Development Services Department DATE OF RELEASE W / LO Zoning: Rev. 1 Rev. 2 Correction 1 Correction 2 CASE #: SP-2019-0141C Drawn by: Job No. Sheet No. 18112 3 21 OF SUBMITTAL DATE: 04-5-2019 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 188 of 192 Regular Meeting ZONING & PLATTING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 6, 2021 The Zoning & Platting Commission convened in a meeting on Tuesday, July 6, 2021 @ http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Vice-Chair Kiolbassa called the Commission Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Commission Members in Attendance: Timothy Bray Ann Denkler – Parliamentarian Betsy Greenberg David King Jolene Kiolbassa – Vice-Chair Ellen Ray Carrie Thompson Roy Woody Absent: Nadia Barrera-Ramirez – Chair Cesar Acosta Hank Smith EXECUTIVE SESSION (No public discussion) The Zoning & Platting Commission will announce it will go into Executive Session, if necessary, pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, to receive advice from Legal Counsel on matters specifically listed on this agenda. The Commission may not conduct a closed meeting without the approval of the city attorney. Private Consultation with Attorney – Section 551.071 CITIZEN COMMUNICATION The first four (4) speakers signed up prior to the speaker registration deadline will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 189 of 192 A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of minutes from June 15, 2021. Motion to approve minutes from June 15, 2021 was approved on the consent agenda on the motion by Commissioner Bray, seconded by Commissioner Woody on a vote of 8-0. Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Commissioners Acosta and Smith absent. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Rezoning: Location: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: Public hearing closed. C14-2020-0146 - 11705 Research Blvd Zoning; District 6 11705 Research Boulevard, Walnut Creek Watershed 3M Company Drenner Group, PC (Amanda Swor) LI-CO to LI Recommendation of LI-CO Sherri Sirwaitis, 512-974-3057, sherri.sirwaitis@austintexas.gov Housing and Planning Department Motion by Commissioner Greenberg, seconded by Commissioner King to deny Applicant’s request of LI-CO combining district zoning for C14-2020-0146 - 11705 Research Blvd Zoning failed on a vote of 5-2. Commissioners Bray and Ray voted nay. Commissioner Thompson abstained. Chair Barrera- Ramirez and Commissioners Acosta and Smith absent. Forwarded to Council without a recommendation, due to lack of an affirmative vote. 2. Rezoning: Location: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: C14-2020-0090 - 620 Hill Country Center; District 6 11405, 11409 and 11411 North FM 620 Road, Lake Creek and Bull Creek Watersheds Magna Properties, LTD (Elias Sarkas) Mathias Company (Richard Mathias) I-RR, LO-CO, LR-CO, GR-CO to GR-MU Recommendation of GR-MU-CO Sherri Sirwaitis, 512-974-3057, sherri.sirwaitis@austintexas.gov Housing and Planning Department Motion to grant Staff’s request for postponement of this item to July 20, 2021 was approved on the consent agenda on the motion by Commissioner Bray, seconded by Commissioner Woody on a vote of 8-0. Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Commissioners Acosta and Smith absent. 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 190 of 192 3. Rezoning: Location: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: Public hearing closed. C14-2020-0143 - 12121 N. IH 35 Rezoning; District 1 12121 North IH 35, Walnut Creek Watershed Dupius Investments, Ltd. (Daniel McCormack) Coats Rose (John M. Joseph) GR-CO to MF-4 Recommended Heather Chaffin, 512-974-2122, heather.chaffin@austintexas.gov Housing and Planning Department Motion to grant Staff’s recommendation of MF-4 district zoning for C14-2020-0143 - 12121 N. IH 35 Rezoning located at 12121 North IH 35 was approved on a vote of 7-0. Vice-Chair Kiolbassa off the dais. Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Commissioners Acosta and Smith absent. 4. Rezoning: Location: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: Public hearing closed. C14-2021-0087 - CKB Johnny Morris; District 1 6402 Johnny Morris Road, Walnut Creek Watershed LSIR, Ltd. (Carey Legett III) Drenner Group, PC (Dave Anderson) LI-CO to GR-MU-CO Recommended Heather Chaffin, 512-974-2122, heather.chaffin@austintexas.gov Housing and Planning Department Motion to grant Staff’s recommendation of GR-MU-CO combining district zoning for C14-2021-0087 - CKB Johnny Morris located at 6402 Johnny Morris Road was approved on the consent agenda on the motion by Commissioner Bray, seconded by Commissioner Woody on a vote of 8-0. Chair Barrera- Ramirez and Commissioners Acosta and Smith absent. 5. Restrictive C14-88-0137(RCT) - Johnny Morris Multi-Family; District 1 Covenant Termination: Location: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: Public hearing closed. 6402 Johnny Morris Road, Walnut Creek Watershed LSIR, Ltd. (Carey Legett III) Mahoney Engineering (Daniel Mahoney) To terminate a restrictive covenant Recommended Heather Chaffin, 512-974-2122, heather.chaffin@austintexas.gov Housing and Planning Department Motion to grant Staff’s recommendation to terminate a restrictive covenant for C14-88-0137(RCT) - Johnny Morris Multi-Family located at 6402 Johnny Morris Road was approved on the consent agenda on the motion by Commissioner Bray, seconded by Commissioner Woody on a vote of 8-0. Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Commissioners Acosta and Smith absent. 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 191 of 192 6. Site Plan: Location: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Request: Staff Rec.: Staff: Public hearing closed. SP-2019-0141C - Howard Plaza; District 1 3127 East Howard Lane, Harris Branch Watershed Peter Pham and Ha Vu Way Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Way Atmadja, PE) Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Community Recreation (Private) use in the W/LO Zone and waiver to reduce the compatibility setback from 25 feet to 5 feet to permit construction of parking and a drive aisle. Recommended Randall Rouda, 512-974-3338, randall.rouda@austintexas.gov Development Services Department Motion to grant Staff’s recommendation including condition, for SP-2019-0141C - Howard Plaza located at 3127 East Howard Lane was approved on the consent agenda on the motion by Commissioner Bray, seconded by Commissioner Woody on a vote of 8-0. Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Commissioners Acosta and Smith absent. Condition: All remaining informal administrative comments are cleared prior to site plan approval. C. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION 1. Discussion and possible action regarding matters related to any proposed revisions to the Land Development Code including but not limited to staff updates, presentations and scheduling. (Sponsors: Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Vice-Chair Kiolbassa) Disposed without discussion or action. D. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Future agenda items will not be discussed at the current meeting, but will be offered for initiation, discussion or possible recommendation at a future meeting. Commissioners King and Denkler – Budget recommendations E. COMMITTEE REPORTS & WORKING GROUPS Codes and Ordinances Joint Committee (Chair Barrera-Ramirez, Vice-Chair Kiolbassa, Commissioner Denkler) No report provided. Comprehensive Plan Joint Committee (Commissioners: Acosta, Bray and Smith) 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 192 of 192 No report provided. Small Area Planning Joint Committee (Commissioners: Acosta, King and Ray) No report provided. Onion Creek and Localized Flooding Working Group (Commissioners: King, Denkler and Smith) No report provided. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days before the meeting date. Please call Andrew Rivera at the Housing and Planning Department, at 512-974-6508, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Commissioner King adjourned the meeting without objection on Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 9:35 p.m. 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 193 of 192 7/28/26, 8:20 AM Gmail - Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project 4 messages Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> To: randall.rouda@austintexas.gov Mr. Rouda, Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 9:56 AM I am writing to submit a letter of concern regarding the Howard Plaza construction project located at 3127 Howard Ln, Manor, TX which you are overseeing as the city's project manager. If you are not the appropriate person to contact regarding this matter, can you please direct me to the appropriate person and office to express our concerns? Thank you. Best regards, Nicholas Graham Letter of Concern Regarding Howard Plaza (2023-09-05).pdf 88K Rouda, Randall <Randall.Rouda@austintexas.gov> To: Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:29 PM Good evening. Thank you for contacting me about this project. I’ve reviewed your letter and, while I may not be able to resolve your concerns, I can at least offer an explanation for how the project was approved in its current configuration. There are also ongoing modifications to the project that you may want to be aware of. For reference, the project under discussion is SP-2019-0141C: Howard Plaza. The project was approved administratively on October 27, 2021 and consists of 2 warehouse buildings and a community recreation building, an outdoor pavilion, driveways, parking, drainage facilities, utilities and on on-site sanitary facility (septic system). First, you are correct that the zoning ordinance (Article 10 of the Land Development Code) typically calls for a 25 foot undeveloped buffer between residential and commercial properties. That buffer can be reduced to as little as five feet by the Land Use Commission, after a noticed public hearing. “Undeveloped” is generally defined to mean that no buildings and no parking, driveways or similar concrete surfaces are allowed. Grading and landscaping are generally permitted, including the development of grass lined swales, ponds and similar facilities. Based on the approved plans, it appears that the construction adjacent to your property should consist primarily of the installation of that sort of grass-lined drainage facility. If other construction appears to be underway, please let me know so I can look into the specifics. Second, while it shouldn’t affect the portion of the project nearest to your property, the applicant did request a “compatibility waiver” to permit development of parking and drive aisles as close as five feet from the property line between the warehouses and the existing house at 3131 E. Howard Lane. Notice was sent to nearby property owners and a public hearing was conducted on June 1, 2021. No objections to the proposal were received and the Zoning and Platting Commission (Land Use Commission) approved the waiver on that date. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-1843324362073087160&simpl=msg-a:r3733718260745830968&simpl… 1/5 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 194 of 192 7/28/26, 8:20 AM Gmail - Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project Finally, you should be aware that the applicant has submitted a new application for a site plan on the same property. The new application is: SP-2023-0053C - Howard Plaza Warehouse 3 Addition. That new request is for a project very similar to the original approval, but with the addition of a third warehouse building, relocation of the proposed pavilion and a reconfiguration of the proposed parking areas. Initial comments on that project were sent to the applicant on July 3, 2023. The applicant has revised plans in response to those comments and a revised plan set is currently under review. (We typically refer to the first submittal as the “U0” submittal and subsequent updates are “U1” U2” “U3” etc.). The “U1” comments should be sent to the applicant in a couple weeks. While the revised plans do move parking closer to your property than originally anticipated, the plans continue to show only grass lined swales and ponds within the first 25 feet from your shared property line. You can track progress of the new project online at: https://abc.austintexas.gov/public- search-other?t_detail=1&t_selected_folderrsn=13092107&t_selected_propertyrsn=5764559 I’m not able to address the majority of your more specific concerns regarding construction hazards and potential health risks associated with the proposed development. The purpose of our review is to ensure that the project complies with a wide range of codes and regulations, including a number which are intended to reduce the potential effects to neighboring properties. That said, as an administrative review, once the applicant demonstrates that they have met code requirements, there is typically no provision for conducting the more project and site specific studies and regulations you are requesting. Also, as noted, since grading is permitted to the property line as long as the end result will not be paved, the City has no ability or authority to prohibit construction equipment from the areas nearest your property. I recognize that this is not the result you were seeking. While I am limited in the relief I can offer, I do understand that the work taking place adjacent to your property is creating real world concerns that are affecting your ability to enjoy your home in comfort and confidence. That is something we take seriously, even when we don’t have a satisfactory solution available. If you have any other questions, or would like to discuss the circumstances in your neighborhood in greater detail, please let me know. Yours Randy Rouda Planner Senior, Land Use Review City of Austin Development Services Department Office: 512-974-3338 From: Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 9:57 AM To: Rouda, Randall <Randall.Rouda@austintexas.gov> Subject: Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project You don't often get email from nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com. Learn why this is important [Quoted text hidden] External Email - Exercise Caution CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook or forward to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> To: "Rouda, Randall" <Randall.Rouda@austintexas.gov> Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 1:00 PM https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-1843324362073087160&simpl=msg-a:r3733718260745830968&simpl… 2/5 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 195 of 192 7/28/26, 8:20 AM Mr. Rouda, Gmail - Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project I appreciate your detailed response and the additional information about the project. You are right that far from providing relief, this additional information about the project further raises our sense of concern and alarm that such a project was approved this close to a community of family homes. And not only was it approved, but waivers were granted to push it even closer to the adjacent homeowners’ property. It’s difficult for me to fully convey my sense of disbelief that the city has allowed this to proceed this far. Learning that there will also be on-site septic facilities, and that a sewage ditch will run directly behind our back yard means that at best, it will smell awful and further render our backyard unusable. It will also pose additional health risks. As the CDC states on it’s website: Heavy rains, severe flooding, or other types of emergency events could damage sewer systems and cause an overflow of untreated wastewater into communities and the environment. Always avoid contact with any floodwater that may be contaminated with sewage. I’m not sure if you or anyone from the city has had a chance to personally observe how close these facilities are to the backyard of the homes along Hallstatt Drive, but I encourage you to visit and see for yourself. Would you want this project going in this close to your backyard? I have looked into the hearring you mentioned in July of 2021 on the compatibility waiver and found several things I consider to be troubling about the approval process. First, the hearing took place in 2021, when the adjacent lot to the east - where our property now resides - was already zoned for a housing development. Therefore, the project owner and the city were fully aware that his project would be directly adjacent to homeowners like myself. The only attention this was given is this: As proposed the Day Care and Community Recreation uses are less intensive and provide a buffer for the PUD to the east A day care and community recreation Center directly next to 2 (now proposed 3) warehouses? Who thought that was a good idea? Do you know any parents who send their kids to daycare at a facility that shares a parking lot with industrial warehouses? Additionally, adding a day care and community recreation center still doesn’t justify the compatibility waiver to put a sewage ditch within 5 feet of the adjacent homes. After looking into this project further, I found that the owner of 3131 Howard lane, Mr. Peter Pham, is also the owner of the project at 3127 Howard lane. I note from the board’s meeting minutes from July 6, 2021 on the compatibility waiver that Mr. Pham submitted the letter endorsing the compatibility waiver himself. As stated in the minutes: “The parcels are under common ownership and the property owner has submitted a letter on behalf of the parcel with the residential use expressing support for the compatibility waiver.” As stated above, Mr. Pham was already aware that the lots directly to the east of the proposed project would be single family homes like ours. Despite this, it appears that he used the letter he submitted regarding his property as justification to infringe on the property of other home owners. Furthermore, I note that Mr. Pham subsequently submitted to rezone the property he currently resides on at 3131 Howard Ln to GR-MU (2022-013928 ZC). This application was submitted on January 31, 2022, following the approval of the compatibility waiver. In other words, Mr. Pham waived the right to a 25 foot buffer to his single family residence - which he planned to rezone anyway - and used that as a justification to infringe on the 25 foot buffer for other nearby homeowners such as us. Given this tactic by Mr. Pham, I believe there are significant ethical concerns about this project - in particular about the way the compatibility waiver was granted, despite the full knowledge in 2021 that this project was poorly suited for its location next to a housing development. As the minutes from the meeting on July 6, 2021 state: “The subject parcel is unusually narrow, making compliance with the compatibility standards quite challenging.” The Zoning and Platting Commission and the project owner all appear to have been aware of the problems this project was bound to create, but chose to push forward anyway. If this poorly planned project continues to move forward as currently outlined - or worse, according to the updated and even worse plan - it is bound to be a source of constant problems between the businesses that may eventually occupy it and the homeowners directly adjacent to it, like us. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-1843324362073087160&simpl=msg-a:r3733718260745830968&simpl… 3/5 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 196 of 1927/28/26, 8:20 AM Gmail - Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project While you state there is no immediate relief you can offer, I do not believe that you or the commission are powerless to intervene and to help mediate a solution that is less disruptive to the neighbors. If you are not the best person to offer relief or address these concerns, can you point me to someone who is able to help? I note that the updated plan to add a third warehouse shows a master report due on September 12, 2023 - next Tuesday. At a minimum, I would like to request that any approvals be pushed back by a month so that the concerns of the community can be heard and considered. I also ask you to reconsider a temporary injunction against this project so that the compliance waivers can be investigated and reconsidered. I note in the attached document submitted by Way Consulting Engineers that the project continues to seek additional exemptions. I implore you to stop granting additional exemptions, which have the potential to make this project more hazardous and invasive to the nearby community. Again, I do appreciate the time you took to send a detailed response. While the information is disturbing to me, I would rather know the truth now while there is still an opportunity to intervene and arrive at a solution that is more harmonious with the community. Best regards, Nicholas Graham [Quoted text hidden] AEC (Revised)SubChap E -Exemption Request - SP-2023-0053C (7-6-23).pdf 119K Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> To: "Rouda, Randall" <Randall.Rouda@austintexas.gov> Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 4:08 PM Hi Mr. Rouda, I don't mean to send too many emails, but I thought I'd share a few pictures I've taken over the last two days that help highlight the urgency of my concerns. As you can see, there is heavy construction equipment that is operating within a few feet of our backyard, blowing plumes of smoke, creating dust storms, and rendering our backyard unsafe and unusable. This is one of the easily foreseeable negative consequences of the compatibility waiver which has allowed this project to move within 5 feet of our property line. Best regards, Nick Graham [Quoted text hidden] 5 attachments IMG_5544.jpg 1416K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-1843324362073087160&simpl=msg-a:r3733718260745830968&simpl… 4/5 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 197 of 1927/28/26, 8:20 AM Gmail - Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project IMG_5545.jpg 1739K IMG_5516.jpg 2052K IMG_5543.jpg 2507K IMG_5547.jpg 2686K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-1843324362073087160&simpl=msg-a:r3733718260745830968&simpl… 5/5 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 198 of 1927/28/26, 8:21 AM Gmail - SP-2019-0141C: Howard Plaza: RE: Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> SP-2019-0141C: Howard Plaza: RE: Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project 4 messages Rouda, Randall <Randall.Rouda@austintexas.gov> To: Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> Cc: "Randle, Arester" <Arester.Randle@austintexas.gov> Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:32 AM Good morning. Just a couple quick updates on the matters you’ve raised in the last couple of days: 1. I’m still not aware of any available mechanism to halt construction on the existing approved project or to halt review of the ongoing application to address the concerns you have raised. My supervisor is out of town this week, but I have put a meeting on her calendar upon her return to discuss the case and see if she has any additional authority to act or if she is aware of any avenues that I haven’t yet learned. 2. With regard to construction related issues, (dust, smoke, etc) or concerns that the development is not following the approved plans, you can contact the EV inspector assigned to the project. The inspector is Randle Arrester, who is copied on this e-mail. 3. As a clarification, the drainage swale and drainage basin along the rear property lines of the properties on Halstatt will carry stormwater, not wastewater (sewage). 4. Also as a clarification, the approved Compatibility waiver for the project under construction only affected the allowed location of drive aisles, parking and a concrete curb adjacent to the existent residence facing Howard Plaza. The waiver was not needed and did not apply to the development of a grassy swale and drainage basin adjacent to the residence along Halstatt. The 25 foot compatibility setback applies to vertical construction, or “hardscape” construction such as sidewalks, parking lots, concrete lined drainage facilities and similar features. Grading and landscaping are permitted within that 25 foot setback. 5. You are correct that the current (U1) review of the new project is scheduled to complete next week. Due to limited staffing, most of our recent reviews have been sent between 5 and 15 days late. We won’t know until that review is complete whether a formal U2 submittal will be required. If so, final approval is at least another month or two away. If a U2 submittal is not needed, the applicant will still have a variety of informal tasks to complete and signatures to gather. All told, that informal process typically takes at least two weeks after the final letter is sent. In any case, I’ll be back in touch after meeting with my supervisor next week to determine if there are any additional options available for you to register your concerns regarding the neighboring development. Yours. Randy Rouda Planner Senior, Land Use Review City of Austin Development Services Department Office: 512-974-3338 From: Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 4:09 PM https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=msg-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=… 1/7 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 199 of 192 7/28/26, 8:21 AM Gmail - SP-2019-0141C: Howard Plaza: RE: Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project To: Rouda, Randall <Randall.Rouda@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project You don't often get email from nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com. Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Hi Mr. Rouda, I don't mean to send too many emails, but I thought I'd share a few pictures I've taken over the last two days that help highlight the urgency of my concerns. As you can see, there is heavy construction equipment that is operating within a few feet of our backyard, blowing plumes of smoke, creating dust storms, and rendering our backyard unsafe and unusable. This is one of the easily foreseeable negative consequences of the compatibility waiver which has allowed this project to move within 5 feet of our property line. Best regards, Nick Graham On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 1:00 PM Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> wrote: Mr. Rouda, I appreciate your detailed response and the additional information about the project. You are right that far from providing relief, this additional information about the project further raises our sense of concern and alarm that such a project was approved this close to a community of family homes. And not only was it approved, but waivers were granted to push it even closer to the adjacent homeowners’ property. It’s difficult for me to fully convey my sense of disbelief that the city has allowed this to proceed this far. Learning that there will also be on-site septic facilities, and that a sewage ditch will run directly behind our back yard means that at best, it will smell awful and further render our backyard unusable. It will also pose additional health risks. As the CDC states on it’s website: Heavy rains, severe flooding, or other types of emergency events could damage sewer systems and cause an overflow of untreated wastewater into communities and the environment. Always avoid contact with any floodwater that may be contaminated with sewage. I’m not sure if you or anyone from the city has had a chance to personally observe how close these facilities are to the backyard of the homes along Hallstatt Drive, but I encourage you to visit and see for yourself. Would you want this project going in this close to your backyard? I have looked into the hearring you mentioned in July of 2021 on the compatibility waiver and found several things I consider to be troubling about the approval process. First, the hearing took place in 2021, when the adjacent lot to the east - where our property now resides - was already zoned for a housing development. Therefore, the project owner and the city were fully aware that his project would be directly adjacent to homeowners like myself. The only attention this was given is this: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=msg-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=… 2/7 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1100 of 192 7/28/26, 8:21 AM Gmail - SP-2019-0141C: Howard Plaza: RE: Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project As proposed the Day Care and Community Recreation uses are less intensive and provide a buffer for the PUD to the east A day care and community recreation Center directly next to 2 (now proposed 3) warehouses? Who thought that was a good idea? Do you know any parents who send their kids to daycare at a facility that shares a parking lot with industrial warehouses? Additionally, adding a day care and community recreation center still doesn’t justify the compatibility waiver to put a sewage ditch within 5 feet of the adjacent homes. After looking into this project further, I found that the owner of 3131 Howard lane, Mr. Peter Pham, is also the owner of the project at 3127 Howard lane. I note from the board’s meeting minutes from July 6, 2021 on the compatibility waiver that Mr. Pham submitted the letter endorsing the compatibility waiver himself. As stated in the minutes: “The parcels are under common ownership and the property owner has submitted a letter on behalf of the parcel with the residential use expressing support for the compatibility waiver.” As stated above, Mr. Pham was already aware that the lots directly to the east of the proposed project would be single family homes like ours. Despite this, it appears that he used the letter he submitted regarding his property as justification to infringe on the property of other home owners. Furthermore, I note that Mr. Pham subsequently submitted to rezone the property he currently resides on at 3131 Howard Ln to GR-MU (2022-013928 ZC). This application was submitted on January 31, 2022, following the approval of the compatibility waiver. In other words, Mr. Pham waived the right to a 25 foot buffer to his single family residence - which he planned to rezone anyway - and used that as a justification to infringe on the 25 foot buffer for other nearby homeowners such as us. Given this tactic by Mr. Pham, I believe there are significant ethical concerns about this project - in particular about the way the compatibility waiver was granted, despite the full knowledge in 2021 that this project was poorly suited for its location next to a housing development. As the minutes from the meeting on July 6, 2021 state: “The subject parcel is unusually narrow, making compliance with the compatibility standards quite challenging.” The Zoning and Platting Commission and the project owner all appear to have been aware of the problems this project was bound to create, but chose to push forward anyway. If this poorly planned project continues to move forward as currently outlined - or worse, according to the updated and even worse plan - it is bound to be a source of constant problems between the businesses that may eventually occupy it and the homeowners directly adjacent to it, like us. While you state there is no immediate relief you can offer, I do not believe that you or the commission are powerless to intervene and to help mediate a solution that is less disruptive to the neighbors. If you are not the best person to offer relief or address these concerns, can you point me to someone who is able to help? I note that the updated plan to add a third warehouse shows a master report due on September 12, 2023 - next Tuesday. At a minimum, I would like to request that any approvals be pushed back by a month so that the concerns of the community can be heard and considered. I also ask you to reconsider a temporary injunction against this project so that the compliance waivers can be investigated and reconsidered. I note in the attached document submitted by Way Consulting Engineers that the project continues to seek additional exemptions. I implore you to stop granting additional exemptions, which have the potential to make this project more hazardous and invasive to the nearby community. Again, I do appreciate the time you took to send a detailed response. While the information is disturbing to me, I would rather know the truth now while there is still an opportunity to intervene and arrive at a solution that is more harmonious with the community. Best regards, Nicholas Graham https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=msg-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=… 3/7 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1101 of 192 7/28/26, 8:21 AM Gmail - SP-2019-0141C: Howard Plaza: RE: Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:30 PM Rouda, Randall <Randall.Rouda@austintexas.gov> wrote: Good evening. Thank you for contacting me about this project. I’ve reviewed your letter and, while I may not be able to resolve your concerns, I can at least offer an explanation for how the project was approved in its current configuration. There are also ongoing modifications to the project that you may want to be aware of. For reference, the project under discussion is SP-2019-0141C: Howard Plaza. The project was approved administratively on October 27, 2021 and consists of 2 warehouse buildings and a community recreation building, an outdoor pavilion, driveways, parking, drainage facilities, utilities and on on-site sanitary facility (septic system). First, you are correct that the zoning ordinance (Article 10 of the Land Development Code) typically calls for a 25 foot undeveloped buffer between residential and commercial properties. That buffer can be reduced to as little as five feet by the Land Use Commission, after a noticed public hearing. “Undeveloped” is generally defined to mean that no buildings and no parking, driveways or similar concrete surfaces are allowed. Grading and landscaping are generally permitted, including the development of grass lined swales, ponds and similar facilities. Based on the approved plans, it appears that the construction adjacent to your property should consist primarily of the installation of that sort of grass-lined drainage facility. If other construction appears to be underway, please let me know so I can look into the specifics. Second, while it shouldn’t affect the portion of the project nearest to your property, the applicant did request a “compatibility waiver” to permit development of parking and drive aisles as close as five feet from the property line between the warehouses and the existing house at 3131 E. Howard Lane. Notice was sent to nearby property owners and a public hearing was conducted on June 1, 2021. No objections to the proposal were received and the Zoning and Platting Commission (Land Use Commission) approved the waiver on that date. Finally, you should be aware that the applicant has submitted a new application for a site plan on the same property. The new application is: SP-2023-0053C - Howard Plaza Warehouse 3 Addition. That new request is for a project very similar to the original approval, but with the addition of a third warehouse building, relocation of the proposed pavilion and a reconfiguration of the proposed parking areas. Initial comments on that project were sent to the applicant on July 3, 2023. The applicant has revised plans in response to those comments and a revised plan set is currently under review. (We typically refer to the first submittal as the “U0” submittal and subsequent updates are “U1” U2” “U3” etc.). The “U1” comments should be sent to the applicant in a couple weeks. While the revised plans do move parking closer to your property than originally anticipated, the plans continue to show only grass lined swales and ponds within the first 25 feet from your shared property line. You can track progress of the new project online at: https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-search-other?t_detail=1&t_selected_folderrsn=13092107&t_selected_ propertyrsn=5764559 I’m not able to address the majority of your more specific concerns regarding construction hazards and potential health risks associated with the proposed development. The purpose of our review is to ensure that the project complies with a wide range of codes and regulations, including a number which are intended to reduce the potential effects to neighboring properties. That said, as an administrative review, once the applicant demonstrates that they have met code requirements, there is typically no provision for conducting the more project and site specific studies and regulations you are requesting. Also, as noted, since grading is permitted to the property line as long as the end result will not be paved, the City has no ability or authority to prohibit construction equipment from the areas nearest your property. I recognize that this is not the result you were seeking. While I am limited in the relief I can offer, I do understand that the work taking place adjacent to your property is creating real world concerns that are affecting your ability to enjoy your home in comfort and confidence. That is something we take seriously, even when we don’t have a satisfactory solution available. If you have any other questions, or would like to discuss the circumstances in your neighborhood in greater detail, please let me know. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=msg-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=… 4/7 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1102 of 192 7/28/26, 8:21 AM Gmail - SP-2019-0141C: Howard Plaza: RE: Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project Yours Randy Rouda Planner Senior, Land Use Review City of Austin Development Services Department Office: 512-974-3338 From: Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 9:57 AM To: Rouda, Randall <Randall.Rouda@austintexas.gov> Subject: Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project You don't often get email from nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com. Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Mr. Rouda, I am writing to submit a letter of concern regarding the Howard Plaza construction project located at 3127 Howard Ln, Manor, TX which you are overseeing as the city's project manager. If you are not the appropriate person to contact regarding this matter, can you please direct me to the appropriate person and office to express our concerns? Thank you. Best regards, Nicholas Graham CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook or forward to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> To: "Rouda, Randall" <Randall.Rouda@austintexas.gov> Cc: "Randle, Arester" <Arester.Randle@austintexas.gov> Hi Mr. Rouda, Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 2:02 PM Thank you again for your response and the additional information about the project. It does provide some relief to know that you have heard our concerns and are looking into possible ways to address them, even if none are immediately https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=msg-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=… 5/7 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1103 of 192 7/28/26, 8:21 AM Gmail - SP-2019-0141C: Howard Plaza: RE: Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project apparent at this time. Thank you also for the introduction to Mr. Arrester, so I can share some of our environmental concerns. Noted on the drainage swale carrying only stormwater and not wastewater, which is good to know. I do have some additional questions about this: What are the dimensions of the swale? Will it have open, standing water? If so, what risks should I expect from that? (flood potential? Mosquitos, rodents, etc?) Regarding the 25-foot compatibility set-back: is any screening, such as sound & privacy walls, trees, etc, required after the 25-ft setback if it is adjacent to a single family residence? Ie, between the parking lot and the drainage ditch? Regarding the new plan to add a 3rd warehouse: prior to the final review, is there an opportunity for community comment or public hearing? Even if it is not standard process, is it possible to implement it in this case given that the only hearing was held in July 2021 when none of the homes on Hallstatt Drive were occupied? Is there any way to have our concerns factored into the decision? Finally, I wanted to ask whether our home (12604 Hallstatt Drive, Manor, TX 78653) falls within Austin’s jurisdiction for Zoning and Platting purposes, or within Manor’s jurisdiction? The reason I am asking is because Manor’s zoning laws prohibit any office or warehouse facilities within 600 ft of a single-family lot. Sec. 14.02.018 - Non-residential and mixed- use district conditions - states the following conditions for offices and warehouses: It is not located within 600 feet from the lot line of a SF-E, SF-1, SF-2, TF, or TH residential district measured along a straight line between the closest district boundary lines. https://library.municode.com/tx/manor/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH14ZO_ ART14.02ZODIRE_DIV3NSIMIEDI_S14.02.019NSIMIELAUSCO I will also reach out to the Manor Zoning and Planning commission for clarification from them as well. While I have been unable to find a similar condition within Austin's zoning laws so far, it seems like something like this could go a long way to preventing the type of headache we are dealing with now. Thank you again for your help and please let me know when you have any additional updates on this project which is having such a large, unexpected impact on my family and I. Best regards, Nick Graham [Quoted text hidden] Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> To: "Rouda, Randall" <Randall.Rouda@austintexas.gov> Cc: "Randle, Arester" <Arester.Randle@austintexas.gov> Hi Mr. Rouda, Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:04 PM I wanted to send a quick follow-up to see if you had any updates, as well as to see if your manager was able to provide any additional options or clarity on the project? Thank you! Best regards, Nick Graham [Quoted text hidden] Randle, Arester <Arester.Randle@austintexas.gov> To: Nick G <nicholas.g.graham@gmail.com> Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:06 PM Call me please 512 665 2964 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=msg-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=… 6/7 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1104 of 1927/28/26, 8:21 AM Gmail - SP-2019-0141C: Howard Plaza: RE: Letter of Concern regarding Howard Plaza construction project [Quoted text hidden] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=c448a9fd12&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=msg-f:1776389646856215249&simpl=… 7/7 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1105 of 192W A Y C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S , I N C . S T R U C T U R A L & C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G www.wayengineering.com July 6, 2023 Randall Rouda – Case Mgr. City of Austin Development Services Dept. 505 Barton Springs Road Austin, Texas 78704 Re: AEC (Revised) Sub-Chapter E Exemption Request – Howard Plaza Warehouse 3 Addtn.- SP-2023-0053C Dear Mr. Rouda, The following are the AEC Exemptions requests for this project. AEC - Proposed Warehouse Buildings Exemptions Per 1.2.4.9 - The warehouse buildings 1,2, & 3 are exempt from Sub-Chapter E requirements if less than 25% of the gross floor area is used for a non-industrial use. See the calculation on Sub-Chapter E sheet 23 and below. Exemption Calculation for Warehouses Total Bldgs 1,2, & 3 = 45,000 sq. ft. Non-Industrial Use = 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 / 45,000 = 13% (< 25%) This exemption request includes exemptions from 2.2.5.F (Building Placement), 2.2.5 G (Parking between Building and ICR), 2.2.5.E.b.ii (Planting Zone & trees 30 ft. o.c.), & 2.8 (Shade & Shelter). Additionally, this exemption request includes exemption from 2.2.5.E.1.b.i to the requirement for a sidewalk on the east side of the Internal Circulation Route (ICR) because the sidewalk would not serve anyone. Sincerely, Way Atmadja, P.E. President 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1106 of 192 W A Y C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S , I N C . S T R U C T U R A L & C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G www.wayengineering.com August 25, 2023 City of Austin Development Services Dept. 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr, Austin, TX 78752 Re: Response to COA U0 Comments - HOWARD PLAZA Warehouse #3 Addition – SP-2023-0053C 3127 E. Howard Lane, Austin, Texas 78653 Dear C.O.A. Review Staff, Please consider the comment responses below, the attached supplemental information, and plan update. VESTED RIGHTS APPROVAL NOTE: - SP-2023-0053C is approved for Vested Rights to the vesting date of 1-17-2019 with the findings as an ONGOING PROJECT for SP-2019-0141C. Please see attached approval letter which is now shown on the site plan set cover sheet. The following responses reflect this updated condition. Electric Review – Andrea Katz – Andrea.katz@austintenergy.com EL1 – The Austin Energy approved electric service design is now shown on the plan sheets as requested. EL2 – Same as EL 1 above. Electrical routing and underground cabling is shown. EL3 – Same as EL1 above. Meters are shown as requested. EL4 – Tree locations have been updated to provide the mentioned setback distances, and root barriers have been shown where required. Addressing – Kelly Delisio – addressing@austintexas.gov AD1 – The pavilion was not moved from Lot 2 to Lot 1. The pavilion was moved within Lot 1 to the current location behind Bldg 4 as shown on the plans. This site is under construction with approved SP-2019-0141C which was permitted with the 3127 E. Howard Lane address. The requested ADDRESS UNIT PLAN and Address Unit Numbering Table were submitted to the addressing portal on 7-13-23 as requested. Drainage Engineering Review – Kena Pierce – kena.pierce@austintexas.gov DE 1 – ATLAS 14 is used in the design of the detention pond. See calcs. on sheet 10 of the approved Site Plan Correction #1 (If you can’t find that sheet, let us know, we’d be glad to email it to you directly) DE 2 – See DE 1 DE 3 – See DE 1 DE 4 - Approved Pond & Drainage sheets from SP-2019-0141C attached. Impervious cover is accounted for. PARD / Planning & Design Review – Justin Stewart - 512-974-9475 PR 1 – This development is not in the Pioneer Crossing PUD. It is zoned W / LO as noted in the site data table and in several locations in the plans. Site Plan Review – Randall Rouda – 612-974-3338 SP1 – These warehouse buildings are exempt per 1.2.4.9. Building 1 is approved with entrance facing east per SP-2019-0141C. We want to keep the building as permitted by SP-2019-0141C. Please see the attached approved Vested Rights letter. SP2 – Dimension already shown on the Dimension Control Site Plan sheet 5. Proposed paved parking is more than 5 ft away from the Single-Family Residential use as previously confirmed with SP-2019-0141C. SP3 – Noted. SP4 – That item is identified on the Grading Plan, sheet 6 as an 18” RCP stubbed to the property line. It is for potential future commercial development on Lot 2. SP5 – Noted. 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1107 of 192 August 25, 2023 Response to COA U0 Comments - HOWARD PLAZA WH #3 Addition – SP-2023-0053C Page 2 of 5 SP6 – Planting and clear zones are labeled and dimensioned on sheets, 4 Overall Site Plan, 5 – Dimension Control Plan, 16 – Landscape Plan, and on the Sub-Chapter E plan on sheet 23. SP7 – Warehouse buildings 1, 2, &3 are exempt per 1.2.4.9. Entrance to building 4 faces the street and the main entry is provided with a shade awning with an additional entrance shaded by landscape tree(s). All entrances and required shading is depicted on the Sub-Chapter E plan on sheet 23. See landscape plan. SP8 – AEC letter is updated and attached as requested. SP9 – Phasing calculations are shown on the Phasing Plan sheet 23. As it applies to landscape, the phase lines do not affect the plantings and calculations since the phases apply to the buildings. All stormwater ponds, utilities, site work, parking, landscape, and building 4 will be in Phase 1. Phase 2 will be only buildings 1, 2, & 3. SP10 – Phasing fee will be paid and receipt provided prior to site plan approval. SP11 – Noted. SP12 – All signatures will be obtained prior to site plan release. SP13 – All easements are recorded and noted in the plans as required. SP14 - No ROW improvements. No license agreement. SP15 – Current Tax Certificate attached. SP16 – Confirmed. SP17 – Confirmed. SP18 - The application date (2-13-23) is shown in the 3x5 release sticker as required. SP19 – Note is placed on the cover sheet as requested. Please see “City of Austin Disclaimers”. SP20 – LOC includes access drives and off-site utility work and is now shown on the Overall Site Plan, Sht. 4. SP21 - Requested notes are now shown in the SITE PLAN NOTES section of sheet 10, Note Sheet. SP22 – All surrounding land uses, zoning, and/or buildings within 50 ft of this site are depicted on the Overall Site Plan, sheet 4. Site Plan Plumbing – Cory Harmon – 612-974-2882 1. On AWU Sheet, the GPM range has been changed. 2. a. W & WW Plan approved previously with SP-2019-0141C. Irrigation backflow location is illustrated & noted with size and type in the Water Meter Connection Detail shown on the W&WW Utility Plan. b. Note is corrected. Lift station details on sheet 27. 3. a. Sump vent has been shown on sheet 12, at the north west corner of bldg. 4. b. Force main cleanout detail has been shown on sheet 27, at the bottom of the sheet. AW Utility Development Services – Bradley Barron – 512-972-0078 AW1 – Submitting a new site plan to add a building (warehouse #3) is required at the direction of Christine Barton-Holmes, Program Manager III, Land Development Review, COA. AW2 – SER 5451 is now added to the AW General Info Sheet. See sheet 27 for required utility profiles. AW3 – W & WW Plan & Profiles are now shown on the same sheet. See sheet 27. AW4 – Noted. AW review is in-progress. AW5 – Noted. FYI – Noted. Water Quality Review – Kena Pierce – kena.pierce@austintexas.gov WQ1 – The approved Drainage Area Maps sheet & Pond Plan sheet from SP-2019-0141C were included in the previous submittal. These are included in the plan set formal submittal and again in this update submittal. See the ATLAS 14 comparison tables on the Drainage Area Maps for SP-2019-0141C & this submittal (SP-2023-0053C, on sheet 7). Proposed I.C. is 5.46 acres and has not changed. WQ2 - Note added as requested. WQ3 – Note added as requested. WQ4 – All necessary plan sheets are provided. See Site Drainage & Grading Plan sheet 6 which demonstrates the typical storm pipe drainage system to the ponds as approved with SP-2019-0141C. Also see Pond Plan sheet 7. 1 1 6 1 5 A N G U S R O A D , S T E 1 1 9 , A U S T I N , T E X A S 7 8 7 5 9 ● ( 5 1 2 ) 3 4 3 - 0 7 6 6 ● mail@wayengineering.com 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1108 of 192 August 25, 2023 Response to COA U0 Comments - HOWARD PLAZA WH #3 Addition – SP-2023-0053C Page 3 of 5 Environmental Review – Ryan Soutter – Ryan.Soutter@austintexas.gov EV 1 – Note added as requested. EV 2 – As shown in the 1st submittal, please see Q2 table on the Overall Site Plan sheet 4. EV3 – There is no cut or fill over 4 ft. EV4 – Parking lot stormwater is directed to detention and water quality ponds as required. The site meets exemption (a) perimeter landscape areas that are not required to drain to a stormwater control measure; EV5 – The site is under construction per approved site plan SP-2019-0141C with standard curb & gutters per Std. 430S-1. Drainage over the landscape areas mentioned would clog the water quality pond with mulch. Please note the detention pond returns stormwater back to sheet flow over a large un-disturbed landscape area at the rear. COA Std. 430S-1 Curb & Gutter detail is on sheet 9. EV6 – Notes added as requested. EV7 – No areas are greater than 2:1 however additional mulch sock is added to the area depicted. EV8 – Concrete wash out area is in the Temporary Spoils & Const. Staging area shown on the ESC plan. EV9 – Temporary Spoils and Const. Staging area shown near building 1 with silt fence just downstream. EV10 – The site is under construction per SP-2019-0141C using the COA Std. 641S-1 as shown on the ESC Plan. We elect to use the COA standard 641S-1 as previously permitted with SP-2019-0141C per the vested rights approval noted at the beginning of this response letter. EV11- Secondary drive is a Sub-Chapter E requirement (2.3.1.B) for future connectivity. Note added to ESC plan as requested. EV12 – Dewatering skimmer is used and shown on the Pond Plan and the ESC Plan. See detail on sheet 15. EV13 – Continuous silt fence now provided at location indicated. See plan update. EV14 – COA Std. 641S-1 is being used. See response to EV 10. Curb & Gutter 430S-1 is already shown in the plan set on sheet 9, Construction Details. EV15 – This has been updated as requested. EV16 – This note is now provided under “Notes” on the landscape sheet. EV17 – These labels have been provided as requested. EV18 - These islands and trees have been provided as required. EV19 - Additional trees have been added where needed, and 50’ spacing circles have been added with dimensions. EV20 – Provided as requested there’s no parking within the street yard making that requirement not applicable. EV21 – Provided as requested EV22 – The owner of Howard Plaza also owns the house on the adjacent Lot 2 of this subdivision and does not want a screen or screen fence between the two properties. The owner is planning a commercial development for Lot 2 which will be connected to Howard Plaza. See attached letter from the owner. EV23 – Environmental inspection fee will be paid prior to permit release. EV24 - Landscape inspection fee will be paid prior to permit release. EV25 - NOTE: ESC fiscal was posted for SP-2019-0141C which is under construction now. See Vested Rights approval attached. EV26 – Administrative variance note is now removed from the cover sheet as requested. ATD Engineering Review – Daniil Kontsevoy 512-974-1561 ATD 1 – Note added to cover sheet as requested. ATD 2 – SIF worksheet is filled out and submitted to the SIF portal on 7-12-23. Awaiting results. ATD 3 - Existing ROW and pavement widths are shown as requested on the Overall Site Plan. ATD 4 –This project (SP-2023-0053C) is approved for Vested Rights with findings as an Ongoing Project (for SP-2019-0141C) with a vesting date of 1-17-2019 which makes this site subject to the Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan requirement of 114 feet of right of way. The required ROW dedication has already occurred per Street Deed Doc. No. 2017038450 (attached) as required in the SP-2019-0141C review and confirmed by Bryan Golden, Program Manager, ATD. Please see attached street deed. ATD 5 - Note is added to the Overall Site Plan sheet 4 in the notes next to the Site Data Table. ATD 6 - Bicycle parking is added as requested. 14 provided. ATD 7 – This site was previously approved with SP-2019-0141C and is now under construction. See attached 1 1 6 1 5 A N G U S R O A D , S T E 1 1 9 , A U S T I N , T E X A S 7 8 7 5 9 ● ( 5 1 2 ) 3 4 3 - 0 7 6 6 ● mail@wayengineering.com 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1109 of 192 August 25, 2023 Response to COA U0 Comments - HOWARD PLAZA WH #3 Addition – SP-2023-0053C Page 4 of 5 Vested Rights approval with findings as an Ongoing Project for SP-2019-0141C, vesting date 1-17-2019. This site plan application is a continuation of SP-2019-0141C only to add warehouse #3 (COA’s policy for adding a building to an approved site plan). Warehouses are exempt from the sidewalk and ICR requirements per 1.2.4.9 which is illustrated on the Sub-Chapter E Plan sheet 23. The remaining area with no sidewalk is part of the accepted AEC request approved with SP-2019-0141C and updated for this application. See attached. Please consult the Case Mgr., Randall Rouda, for further understanding if necessary. Planting and clear zones are dimensioned and labeled on the Overall Site Plan, Sht. 4, the Landscape Plan, and the Sub-chapter E plan on sheet 23. ATD 8 - Correction 1 to SP-2019-0141C allowed the existing sidewalk along Howard Lane to remain. This application is a continuation of SP-2019-0141C per the Vested Rights approval and the same condition is requested. ATD 9 - See response to ATD 8 above. ATD 10 - This site is under construction as permitted with SP-2019-0141C. The owner would like to keep the 30 ft. curb return radii shown as approved with SP-2019-0141C. See approved Vested Rights letter attached. ATD 11 - The driveway was approved with SP-2019-1041C under the previous COA street class & driveway criteria prior to the TCM driveway criteria changes and the ASMP street classifications. The owner would like to keep the 35 ft. wide driveway as shown and previously approved with SP-2019-0141C and per the Vested Rights approval. Dimension is now shown. ATD 12 - Driveway separations are dimensioned. This driveway was approved with SP-2019-1041C, and SP-2023-0053C, (this project), has Vested Rights approval as an On-Going project for SP-2019-0141C. See attached Vested Rights approval VR-2023-0024000. An administrative waiver to Driveway Separation criteria was approved for SP-2019-0141C. See attached waiver request for this project which now also includes a waiver request to the throat depth for this driveway. ATD 13 – See information provided in response to ATD 12. The request for an administrative waiver to driveway separation criteria is amended to include the driveway throat depth in the waiver request. See attached waiver request. ATD 14 - Curbs on the driveway terminate at the sidewalk. No ramps are used or called out at this location. ATD 15 - Noted. Industrial Waste – Nicole Morris – 512-972-1015 IW 1 - Large diameter cleanout is now located in a landscape area on the 8” WW line (a gravity line) and within the public WW easement. It is labeled “Industrial Waste Sample Port, Large Dia. C.O. – COA Std. 506-AW-04” as requested. IW 2 – Std. 520-AW-01C is now on the W&WW Details sheet 14. IW 3 – This site has one water meter and all waste water lines combine at one location just upstream to the public WW easement. The large diameter sample port is located within the ww easement as requested and labeled “Industrial Waste sample port - Large Dia. C.O. – COA Std. 506-AW-04”. IW 4 – This project was previously permitted under SP-2019-0141C. The AW review required all existing Austin Water infrastructure to be placed on the W&WW Utility Plan. Per UCM 2.5.2(6) and §2.5.1(E)(10), all requested information is shown. This project is approved for Vested Rights with a Vesting date of 1-17-2019. AW Pipeline Engineering – Alfredo Torres – 512-972-0238 AW redlines are executed and attached. Project will not be submitted to AULCC. Traffic Control Review – Noted. AW Facility Engineering Review – Jeffrey Dahm – 512-972-0386 Per your email dated 7-20-23, the WWMH is private. No review required. Fire For Site Plan Review - Scott Stookey - 512-974-0157 1. The actual “curb” returns at the truck dock entries to Buildings 1, 2, and 3 have radii less than 25 ft which allows more fire truck turning space while not compromising the minimum inside turn radii of 25 ft. The “fire lane markings” at these locations have inside radii of 25ft. See updated Dim Control Plan for 1 1 6 1 5 A N G U S R O A D , S T E 1 1 9 , A U S T I N , T E X A S 7 8 7 5 9 ● ( 5 1 2 ) 3 4 3 - 0 7 6 6 ● mail@wayengineering.com 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1110 of 192 August 25, 2023 Response to COA U0 Comments - HOWARD PLAZA WH #3 Addition – SP-2023-0053C Page 5 of 5 clarification. 2. Fire Lane signs per COA std. 901S-6 are now shown as requested on the Dimension control plan and Overall Site Plan. COA Std. 901S-6 is shown on the Construction Details sheet 9. 3. Thank you, however this fire hydrant is already built per SP-2019-0141C and the owner would like to keep it. 4. Note added to W&WW Utility Plan sheet 12 as requested. Located in the center of sheet 12. 5. Same comment as 4 above. Same response as 4 above. 6. Per your email to us dated 8-1-23, based on the Vested Rights provision a new fire flow test is not required. Thank you. Planner 1 Review - Tiffany Turpen - tiffany.turpen@austintexas.gov Site plan approval blocks are filled out as required. Thank you. 1 1 6 1 5 A N G U S R O A D , S T E 1 1 9 , A U S T I N , T E X A S 7 8 7 5 9 ● ( 5 1 2 ) 3 4 3 - 0 7 6 6 ● mail@wayengineering.com 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1111 of 192 August 24, 2023 Mr. Ryan Souer Environmental Review City of Ausn DSD 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive Ausn, TX 78752 RE: HOWARD PLAZA Warehouse #3 Addion SP-2023-0053C Screening between Lots - Comment EV 22-U0 Dear Mr. Souer, My name is Peter Pham and I am the owner of the house located at 3131 E. Howard Lane (Lot 2) directly adjacent to the east side of the proposed Howard Plaza development. I am also the owner of the proposed Howard Plaza development on Lot 1. I, hereby, tesfy that I have no objecon to no screening between the two lots. Lot 2 is in the planning stages for a commercial development that will connect to the Howard Plaza development on Lot 1 and a screen or screen fence is not desired. If you have any quesons, please don’t hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Peter Pham Peter Pham 3131 E. Howard Lane Ausn, Texas 78653 512-989-1362 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1112 of 192 Code A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 E3 F1 F2 F3 F4 O1 G1 J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 N1 N2 S S1 State Property Type Codes (SPTC) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (MH) SINGLE FAMILY RES (DETAILS) CONDOS CONDOS (DETAILS) MULTIFAMILY DUPLEX TRI-PLEX FOUR-PLEX VACANT LOT VACANT LAND/MISC DETAILS ACREAGE (NON-AG) ACREAGE (AG) 1-D-1 FARM AND RANCH IMPR FARM AND RANCH IMPR (MH) FARM AND RANCH IMPR (MISC) COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL (DETAILS) COMMERCIAL (CONDO) RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY MINERAL UTILITY (WATER) UTILITY (GAS) UTILITY (ELECTRIC) UTILITY (TELEPHONE) UTILITY (RAILROADS) UTILITY (PIPELINES) UTILITY (CABLE) UTILITY (OTHER) UTILITY (NOT CODED) COMMERCIAL PP INDUSTRIAL PP TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROP (MH) COMMERCIAL BOAT COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT INTANGIBLE PP RR ROLLING STOCK SPECIAL INVENTORY TAX SPECIAL INVENTORY 02 C14-2026-0046 - Howard Plaza; District 1113 of 192