According to this article in the Community Impact Newspaper (Lake Travis/Westlake Edition), v 5 issue 11, written by Leslee Bassman, land for first class office space along 360 is almost used up, and thet development is moving west to Bee Cave and 620.
The Marshall tract development is briefly mentioned:
"The last parcel along Capital of Texas Hwy. destined for commercial development—known as the Marshall Tract—lies within Lost Creek. Community residents are concerned about the effect of an office project on the surrounding residential neighborhood, Lost Creek Neighborhood Association president Jennifer Lamm said.
Cousins Properties purchased the Marshall Tract—a 37.25-acre parcel located at 1300 Lost Creek Blvd., Austin—to develop into an office complex, parking garage and possibly a fire station or senior living center, Senior Vice President Tim Hendricks said. The project is not in the permit stage yet, but a development assessment report was presented to Austin City Council on Nov. 20.
The height of the two proposed buildings will be about 100 feet for one and 74 feet for the other, Hendricks said.
“The proposed [project] would significantly impact the longstanding character of our neighborhood,” Lamm said."
Several comments. Is the land "destined for commercial development"? There are more reasons why the land should not be commercially developed then there are supporting it's commercial development.
Has the land been purchased? My understanding was that the contract was pending a rezoning of the land from SF-2 to a PUD.
And, lastly, in my opinion, we should be stating our opposition to the project more affirmatively. We do not want that land developed commercially!
Read article here.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Marshal Tract PUD: Briefing before Austin City Council
A briefing was held on the proposed PUD for the Marshall Tract before the Austin Mayor and City Council on November 20, 2014. This is the beginning of the zoning change process for the tract. The video is embedded below:
Marshall Tract PUD from Paul Schumann on Vimeo.
In copying and embedding the video in this blog, some resolution was lost. You can also find the video as item 174 here.
The presentation was scheduled for 2 pm, and I understand it finally happened at 10:30 pm. Thanks to all the intrepid Lost Creek residents who saw it through, but especially to Jenn Lamb, LCNA President, who did a great job representing our interests.
Just remember, this was the first engagement in a protracted battle. We have to stay involved and committed to the protection of our interests to get this bad idea defeated.
Marshall Tract PUD from Paul Schumann on Vimeo.
In copying and embedding the video in this blog, some resolution was lost. You can also find the video as item 174 here.
The presentation was scheduled for 2 pm, and I understand it finally happened at 10:30 pm. Thanks to all the intrepid Lost Creek residents who saw it through, but especially to Jenn Lamb, LCNA President, who did a great job representing our interests.
Just remember, this was the first engagement in a protracted battle. We have to stay involved and committed to the protection of our interests to get this bad idea defeated.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Loop 360 Coalition of Neighborhood Associations
Loop 360 (Capital of Texas Highways) is designated a Hill Country Roadway (1) by the City of Austin. The City annexed the roadway and land on either side of it and protected it's character though land use zoning for new construction withing 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the road. The City also planned retail development only at the major intersections of the road. The rest of the land along the road was zoned for office, residential or civic use.
At the time of the creation of the Hill Country Roadway Ordinance, there was a lot of opposition from developers and land owners. This was described by E. Charles Palmer:
“Growth-control measures inevitably cause economic hardships in some areas. The Hill Country Road Ordinance, for example, has had considerable economic impact on the investors who purchased the land at inflated prices based on highest possible building density and height. The banks that lent money for purchase of the land are also hurt, as are the architects, contractors and others affected by loss of jobs. The developers accuse city government of being inconsistent and unprogressive, while city government consoles the developers on their poor business decisions. Despite efforts at compromise and talk of working toward common goals, the lines between proponents of rapid growth and the advocates of slower, more controlled growth seem to be more clearly drawn in Austin than in San Antonio. (2)”
620 was also classified as a Hill Country Roadway. However, incremental development, traffic congestion and widespread retail zoning has greatly degraded the road's scenic value.
Developers and land owners have continued to put pressure on the development of land along the Loop 360 corridor and left unchecked will gradually, incrementally destroy its character.
Loop 360 is already classified as a congested roadway by the Mobility Investment Priorities Project (3). “The rapid growth of Austin over the last several decades has exacerbated traffic congestion on Loop 360, as the city has nearly doubled in size every twenty years. Geography and environmental constraints contribute to limiting the right of way, complicating expansion plans, because this particular segment of 360 crosses over the Barton Creek Greenbelt, an environmentally sensitive area.” Continued development of office space in the area will increase traffic congestion all over the city as people have to commute to the area. Rapid transit systems have to play a role in solving Austin traffic congestion problems and it it is not likely that a rapid transportation system would reach this area of office development.
Attempts to modify Loop 360 by TxDOT have met a considerable amount of resistance (4, 5, 6). Yet continued development coupled with the facts that there is no alternative north-south route in west Austin, and the lack of mass transit, is going to increase congestion in the corridor.
Two recent developments in Austin's land planning efforts – Imagine Austin (7) and CodeNEXT (8) – have possibly opened the 360 corridor up for expansion discussion once again.
The concept of a neighborhood being developed in Austin's CodeNEXT project could positively or negatively influence the development along 360. If the developers and land owners manage to get this corridor classified as a neighborhood, then they could possibly control its development based on an incremental approach of “more of the same”. With the establishment and recognition of a 360 CONA, we might be able to use the concept of the 360 corridor as a neighborhood to keep it a scenic roadway.
The 360 CONA would be modeled after the 2222 CONA (9) created by Peter and Carol Torgrimson
“The purpose of the 2222 Coalition of Neighborhoods Associations (2222 CONA) is to provide a forum for influencing development of the 2222 Hill Country Corridor in a manner that benefits the people who live, work, and enjoy recreation in the 2222 Corridor
Our focus is to encourage development that minimizes traffic safety problems, minimizes negative impact on the environment, preserves the natural resources, and blends aesthetically with the natural beauty of the Hill Country.”
I think it is imperative to the future of the Loop 360 corridor that this 360 CONA be developed. Together we can exert more power than we can individually. I have estimated almost 9,000 households would be contained within this corridor. If we don't have a way to look at the Loop 360 corridor as a system, understand its past and protect its future, we will see a degradation in the scenic road way and a decrease in the quality of life for us, and a possible degradation of the economic value of our homes. As the old saying goes, we re in danger of “being nibbled to death by ducks.”
If you are interested in representing your neighborhood in discussions about the formation of a 360 CONA, please contact me.
1. Hill Country Roadway Ordinance (1985)
2. E. Charles Palmer, The Balcones Escarpment, https://www.lib.utexas.edu/geo/balcones_escarpment/pages153-162.html
3. Texas A&M Transportation Institute
4. Texas State Highway Loop 360: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Highway_Loop_360
5. Loop 360 Issues: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Loop-360-Issues/322112161136138
6. Austin Comp Planning: A Brief History: http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2010-02-05/953471/
7. https://austintexas.gov/imagineaustin
8. http://www.austintexas.gov/codenext
9. http://www.2222cona.org/
At the time of the creation of the Hill Country Roadway Ordinance, there was a lot of opposition from developers and land owners. This was described by E. Charles Palmer:
“Growth-control measures inevitably cause economic hardships in some areas. The Hill Country Road Ordinance, for example, has had considerable economic impact on the investors who purchased the land at inflated prices based on highest possible building density and height. The banks that lent money for purchase of the land are also hurt, as are the architects, contractors and others affected by loss of jobs. The developers accuse city government of being inconsistent and unprogressive, while city government consoles the developers on their poor business decisions. Despite efforts at compromise and talk of working toward common goals, the lines between proponents of rapid growth and the advocates of slower, more controlled growth seem to be more clearly drawn in Austin than in San Antonio. (2)”
620 was also classified as a Hill Country Roadway. However, incremental development, traffic congestion and widespread retail zoning has greatly degraded the road's scenic value.
Developers and land owners have continued to put pressure on the development of land along the Loop 360 corridor and left unchecked will gradually, incrementally destroy its character.
Loop 360 is already classified as a congested roadway by the Mobility Investment Priorities Project (3). “The rapid growth of Austin over the last several decades has exacerbated traffic congestion on Loop 360, as the city has nearly doubled in size every twenty years. Geography and environmental constraints contribute to limiting the right of way, complicating expansion plans, because this particular segment of 360 crosses over the Barton Creek Greenbelt, an environmentally sensitive area.” Continued development of office space in the area will increase traffic congestion all over the city as people have to commute to the area. Rapid transit systems have to play a role in solving Austin traffic congestion problems and it it is not likely that a rapid transportation system would reach this area of office development.
Attempts to modify Loop 360 by TxDOT have met a considerable amount of resistance (4, 5, 6). Yet continued development coupled with the facts that there is no alternative north-south route in west Austin, and the lack of mass transit, is going to increase congestion in the corridor.
Two recent developments in Austin's land planning efforts – Imagine Austin (7) and CodeNEXT (8) – have possibly opened the 360 corridor up for expansion discussion once again.
The concept of a neighborhood being developed in Austin's CodeNEXT project could positively or negatively influence the development along 360. If the developers and land owners manage to get this corridor classified as a neighborhood, then they could possibly control its development based on an incremental approach of “more of the same”. With the establishment and recognition of a 360 CONA, we might be able to use the concept of the 360 corridor as a neighborhood to keep it a scenic roadway.
The 360 CONA would be modeled after the 2222 CONA (9) created by Peter and Carol Torgrimson
“The purpose of the 2222 Coalition of Neighborhoods Associations (2222 CONA) is to provide a forum for influencing development of the 2222 Hill Country Corridor in a manner that benefits the people who live, work, and enjoy recreation in the 2222 Corridor
Our focus is to encourage development that minimizes traffic safety problems, minimizes negative impact on the environment, preserves the natural resources, and blends aesthetically with the natural beauty of the Hill Country.”
I think it is imperative to the future of the Loop 360 corridor that this 360 CONA be developed. Together we can exert more power than we can individually. I have estimated almost 9,000 households would be contained within this corridor. If we don't have a way to look at the Loop 360 corridor as a system, understand its past and protect its future, we will see a degradation in the scenic road way and a decrease in the quality of life for us, and a possible degradation of the economic value of our homes. As the old saying goes, we re in danger of “being nibbled to death by ducks.”
If you are interested in representing your neighborhood in discussions about the formation of a 360 CONA, please contact me.
1. Hill Country Roadway Ordinance (1985)
2. E. Charles Palmer, The Balcones Escarpment, https://www.lib.utexas.edu/geo/balcones_escarpment/pages153-162.html
3. Texas A&M Transportation Institute
4. Texas State Highway Loop 360: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Highway_Loop_360
5. Loop 360 Issues: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Loop-360-Issues/322112161136138
6. Austin Comp Planning: A Brief History: http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2010-02-05/953471/
7. https://austintexas.gov/imagineaustin
8. http://www.austintexas.gov/codenext
9. http://www.2222cona.org/
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Cousins Presentation Monday Night
Tim Hendricks, Senior VP, Cousins Properties, spoke to the neighborhood at a meeting Monday (11/17). He presented visualizations of the two towers from various perspectives, as well as two other options for development of the land (all PUDs). Unfortunately, he gave us present no handouts and no permission to reproduce anything he presented. If any thing is made available, I'll pass it on to you.
Two things he said that I want to comment on:
Two things he said that I want to comment on:
- While I can't remember his exact words, in response to a question of why there was nothing in his proposed PUD for the neighborhood, he stated that PUDs were designed for the benefit of the land owner and the developer, not the neighborhood, or community at large. This is not true. The concept of a PUD was originated in the U.S., recognizing the power it provided, that: “PUDs have not been recognized explicitly under state statutory law. The establishment of any PUD must correspond with the general authority delegated to local governments by the state. Thus, under Town Law for example, the PUD must "promot[e] the health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community" and it must be created "in accordance with a comprehensive plan”."
- He stated that he was reading our blogs and that they had errors in them. First, as far as I know this is the only blog addressing this issue. His plural blogs also might refer to Next Door Lost Creek. If that's so, then he is unethically reading correspondence specifically controlled to Lost Creek residents only. If that expectation of privacy is non existent, then I have a real problem with Next Door. As far is this blog is concerned, it's open for anyone to read and comment on. If he sees an error, then comment on it in public. I'm reduced to calculating or estimating all the variables around Cousins development of the Marshall Tract because I've not been given any information from Cousins. And, if Cousins has provided information to the LCNA, and they have kept it secret...
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Athletic Center's Proposed Site Near School Worries Neighbors
Katie Urbaszewski
Austin American Statesman, 11/13/14
Neighbors said, "they are worried that the building will affect their property value due to the building's height, proximity to their homes, and the noise and traffic the building will bring".
Seems like a common problem.
Read article here.
Austin American Statesman, 11/13/14
Neighbors said, "they are worried that the building will affect their property value due to the building's height, proximity to their homes, and the noise and traffic the building will bring".
Seems like a common problem.
Read article here.
Friday, November 14, 2014
Issues Concerning the Proposed Development of the Marshall Tract as a PUD
The following is a list of issues
related to the proposed rezoning of the Marshall Tract from Single
Family (SF-2) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a base General
Office (GO) Zoning with many variances. This list has not been
prioritized. Each issue has a link to further discussion on this blog
– Marshall Tract Development.
Please write to the City of Austin expressing the concerns you may have regarding this PUD development. All the important contacts are given in the post here. You can write to any or all of the city contacts, but please write the Mayor and City Council before their first discussion of this project on November 20th. Don't send all of these. Choose the
ones important to you and write it in your own words. Please include the case number in all your correspondence.
Case Number: CD-2014-0015
- The two proposed 373,000 square feet of office buildings would have a carbon footprint 4 times that of a single family development. It would require 354,000 acres of acres of average biological productivity land to offset the carbon dioxide generated. More
- The proposed PUD would require numerous variances from the proposed base General Office (GO), and a variance from the Austin Hill Country Roadway ordinance. Whereas, the land could be developed as SF-2 with no zoning variances. See following blog post for descriptions of zoning classifications. More
- The proposed PUD with two office buildings would increase traffic on already congested Loop 360 by 10% to 17%. More
- The proposed PUD is in violation of Austin's PUD ordinance in many ways. Especially it fails to meet the basic criteria set forth in the ordinance: “Be consistent with applicable neighborhood plans, neighborhood conservation combining district regulations, historic area and landmark regulations, and compatible with adjacent property and land uses.” It fails to meet several Tier 1 requirements established in the ordinance. And, the developer has failed to demonstrate that the proposed PUD is superior through Tier 2 requirements. More
- The proposed PUD is essentially spot zoning that is prohibited by law. More
- The proposed buildings will dominate the landscape and are inconsistent with all other office buildings in the area. More
- The proposed development of the Marshall Tract is intrusive into the residential development of Lost Creek. More
- The proposed development of two tall office buildings will degrade several of the characteristics of the Lost Creek neighborhood valued by its residents: privacy, hill country vistas, trees, night sky, fresh air and low noise. More
- The proposed PUD is inconsistent with CodeNEXT* in which compatibility with neighborhoods is a significant issue. More
- The proposed PUD is inconsistent with the strategic direction for Austin expressed in Imagine Austin, a master plan approved by City Council. The land is not in any preferred growth corridor nor will it be served by any mass transit. It is in the master planned Hill Country Roadway Corridor. Austin's city charter states “ no public or private development shall be permitted, except in conformity with such adopted comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof”. More
- The Marshall Tract was annexed into the City of Austin in 2008 as SF-2. It was a part of the Las Cimas property annexation which was zoned for offices. In the zoning report the office buildings on Loop 360 adjacent to Lost Creek were clearly marked “Lost Creek Commercial Area”. The Marshall Tract was correctly zoned upon annexation as SF-2. More
- Cousins is a professed exploiter of circumstances. Their CEO has stated that Cousins will employ a strategy of urban trophy assets and opportunistic investments. By CodeNEXT terms Lost Creek is best described as a Driveable Suburban neighborhood, not urban. “Urban trophy assets” do not belong in the neighborhood. More
- Lost Creek needs parkland. If Lost Creek had been developed under the Austin Parkland Dedication ordinance, approximately 20 acres would have been set aside for parks. Lost Creek has nowhere near that amount. If the Marshall tract was to be developed into residences, an additional 1 to 4 acres would be added as park land under the Parkland Dedication ordinance. More
- The Marshall Tract is surrounded by property zoned Limited Office (LO), SF-2 and a Hill Country Roadway Corridor. General Office (GO) is not compatible with it's neighbors. More
- The PUD will decrease the assessed value of residential land adjacent to the Marshall Tract. In Lost Creek, land with greenbelt behind it was appraised 13% higher than land with houses behind it. Land with offices behind it was appraised 9% lower than land with houses behind it. More
- The two Cousins office buildings would consume 7 times more electricity than a residential development. More
- The PUD will consume 13% more water than if the land was used for single family homes. Over ten years, a residential development will save 14 million gallons of water. More
- The PUD as proposed would violate at least 10 of Austin's 12 Principles of Zoning. More
- The tallest of the two office buildings proposed will be one of the highest altitude buildings in Austin. More
- The economic value of the houses in Lost Creek is at least $600M. That far exceeds the value of proposed construction on the Marshall Tract, and this home owner value must be protected. More
- Safety and security are important concerns for Lost Creek residents. Increased density of development in close proximity to housing can affect crime rates. More
- The Marshall Tract is a remnant of one of many ranches and farms in the Eanes community. Almost all have been developed in one fashion or another. It has a rich archeological and early settler history. In its early days the Ford Motor Company used mohair from goats to make a soft, long-lasting fabric which was used to upholster the seats in its "tin lizzies". H.B. Marshall was one company's first mohair suppliers. The cemetery is a Texas Historical Cemetery (TV-C136). Members of the original founding Eanes family are buried here. The first Eanes settler – Alexander- is buried in an unknown location. Robert Eanes' grave (1805 – 1895) is also commemorated with a Texas Historical Marker (15597), although the grave is unmarked by a stone. More
- The construction of the two office buildings will be an ecological disaster to the Marshall Tract. Natural habitat will be destroyed through massive cut and fill operations and Golden Cheek Warbler habitat will be destroyed. More
- Austin is annexing a unique and valuable neighborhood at the end of 2015. It needs to be protected by Austin. More
*
CodeNEXT is the new
City of Austin initiative to revise the Land Development Code, which
determines how land can be used throughout the city – including
what can be built, where it can be built, and how much can (and
cannot) be built. The process is a collaboration between Austin’s
residents, business community, and civic institutions to align our
land use standards and regulations with what is important to the
community. This initiative to revise the Land Development Code is a
priority program out of Imagine
Austin, our plan for the future adopted by City Council in 2012.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
People to Contact to Express Opinions on Cousins PUD
Planning and Development Review Department
505 Barton Springs Rd.
Austin, TX 78704
Phone: 512-978-4000
E-Mail
For information about the commissions associated with the Planning and Development Review Department (land use commissions), click here.
Planning Commission
To make and amend a master plan, recommend approval or disapproval of proposed zoning changes and control land subdivision within neighborhood planning areas and submit, annually, a list of recommended capital improvements. See Article X of the City Charter and Section 2-1-166 of the City Code for additional duties.
Members
Staff:
Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-2104
Jerry Rusthoven, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-3207
Greg Guernsey, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-7668
Meeting information (agenda, time, date) is at this link.
Contact Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review - 5th Floor, One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road , (512) 974-2104. Deadline for comments is 4:30 pm, Wednesday the week prior to the Commission meeting. Only 1 copy needed.
Zoning and Platting Commission
Perform duties relating to land use and development, as prescribed by Title 25 (Land Development) of the City Code and other duties as assigned by the council. Section 2-1-188 of the City Code.
Pursuant to ordinances adopted by the Council, exercise control over platting and subdividing land within the corporate limits of the City and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City to insure the consistency of and such plats or subdivision with the adopted comprehensive plan or element
or portion thereof. Recommend to the Council approval of disapproval of proposed zoning changes;
Members
Staff:
Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-2104
Jerry Rusthoven, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-3207
Greg Guernsey, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-7668
Meeting information (agenda, time, date) is at this link.
Contact Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review - 5th Floor, One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road , (512) 974-2104. Deadline for comments is 4:30 pm, Wednesday the week prior to the Commission meeting. Only 1 copy needed.
City Council
Physical Address:
301 W. Second St.
Austin, TX 78701
Mailing Address:
P. O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78767
Phone: 512-974-2250
Fax: 512-974-2337
Members
E-Mail
Speaking at City Council Meetings (from the City Council Web Site)
“Citizens may speak on most agenda items by completing an electronic registration in person on the kiosks located in the lobby of City Hall. Citizens can sign up at the kiosks after 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to the council meeting. You can speak on several items; however, citizens may not speak on briefings, executive sessions or on items where the public hearing has been closed.
Donating Time
You may also donate your time to another speaker if:
A speaker may receive donated time from a maximum of four people present and may speak for a maximum of 15 minutes. The council may limit the number of speakers or the length of testimony in compliance with state law.
Consent Agenda Items
The council may adopt items without a separate vote on each item as the consent agenda. You may register to speak on consent agenda items.
You may speak one time, for up to three minutes on the consent agenda as a whole, regardless of the number of items for which you have signed up to speak.
You may not participate in removing more than three items from the consent agenda during a council meeting.”
505 Barton Springs Rd.
Austin, TX 78704
Phone: 512-978-4000
For information about the commissions associated with the Planning and Development Review Department (land use commissions), click here.
Planning Commission
To make and amend a master plan, recommend approval or disapproval of proposed zoning changes and control land subdivision within neighborhood planning areas and submit, annually, a list of recommended capital improvements. See Article X of the City Charter and Section 2-1-166 of the City Code for additional duties.
Members
Staff:
Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-2104
Jerry Rusthoven, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-3207
Greg Guernsey, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-7668
Meeting information (agenda, time, date) is at this link.
Contact Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review - 5th Floor, One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road , (512) 974-2104. Deadline for comments is 4:30 pm, Wednesday the week prior to the Commission meeting. Only 1 copy needed.
Zoning and Platting Commission
Perform duties relating to land use and development, as prescribed by Title 25 (Land Development) of the City Code and other duties as assigned by the council. Section 2-1-188 of the City Code.
Pursuant to ordinances adopted by the Council, exercise control over platting and subdividing land within the corporate limits of the City and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City to insure the consistency of and such plats or subdivision with the adopted comprehensive plan or element
or portion thereof. Recommend to the Council approval of disapproval of proposed zoning changes;
Members
Staff:
Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-2104
Jerry Rusthoven, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-3207
Greg Guernsey, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-7668
Meeting information (agenda, time, date) is at this link.
Contact Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review - 5th Floor, One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road , (512) 974-2104. Deadline for comments is 4:30 pm, Wednesday the week prior to the Commission meeting. Only 1 copy needed.
City Council
Physical Address:
301 W. Second St.
Austin, TX 78701
Mailing Address:
P. O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78767
Phone: 512-974-2250
Fax: 512-974-2337
Members
Speaking at City Council Meetings (from the City Council Web Site)
“Citizens may speak on most agenda items by completing an electronic registration in person on the kiosks located in the lobby of City Hall. Citizens can sign up at the kiosks after 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to the council meeting. You can speak on several items; however, citizens may not speak on briefings, executive sessions or on items where the public hearing has been closed.
Donating Time
You may also donate your time to another speaker if:
- You were present when the speaker began to address council
- You can specify the name of the speaker
A speaker may receive donated time from a maximum of four people present and may speak for a maximum of 15 minutes. The council may limit the number of speakers or the length of testimony in compliance with state law.
Consent Agenda Items
The council may adopt items without a separate vote on each item as the consent agenda. You may register to speak on consent agenda items.
You may speak one time, for up to three minutes on the consent agenda as a whole, regardless of the number of items for which you have signed up to speak.
You may not participate in removing more than three items from the consent agenda during a council meeting.”
Cousins Land Use Plan
Here's the current land use plan for the Marshall Tract.
Unfortunately in their specifications the total acreage of the 4 areas is more than all the acres in the tract.
Things We Don't Know Yet
There are two things that we know that we don't know about Cousins PUD. How many things should we know about that we don't know we need to know????
We don't know what the construction plan is. How much will it annoy the neighborhood? Where's the construction traffic going to be routed? How much noise? How much dust and other pollutants?
All I can tell you is if they get what they've asked for, namely taking 50 feet off the top of the two hills and filling the space between, it's going to take some big equipment and I don't see how they will get that equipment in and out of the project through Las Cimas. Not my problem I guess unless they have to use Lost Creek Blvd.
How about equipment like this?
OK, maybe I exaggerate. Something like this?
And, use of explosives?
It's going to be ugly, like strip mining on a smaller scale.
We don't know where the catchment is going. We know it's about 2 acres. The lowest spot on the Marshall Tract is in the south west corner. The square below in the left bottom area shows the relative size of the retention pond.
And, we don't know where the compressors, air handlers, and garbage collection equipment is going.
We don't know what the construction plan is. How much will it annoy the neighborhood? Where's the construction traffic going to be routed? How much noise? How much dust and other pollutants?
All I can tell you is if they get what they've asked for, namely taking 50 feet off the top of the two hills and filling the space between, it's going to take some big equipment and I don't see how they will get that equipment in and out of the project through Las Cimas. Not my problem I guess unless they have to use Lost Creek Blvd.
How about equipment like this?
It's going to be ugly, like strip mining on a smaller scale.
We don't know where the catchment is going. We know it's about 2 acres. The lowest spot on the Marshall Tract is in the south west corner. The square below in the left bottom area shows the relative size of the retention pond.
Zoning Specifications for Marshall Tract PUD
When a PUD is created, the zoning for the land is custom and does not necessarily conform to Austin's zoning classification. However, for communication purposes, a base zoning is identified. Cousins has chosen a General Office (GO) zoning as their base. Technically they are not asking for variances on the GO base, they are only using that as a structure for their custom zoning, and that will not fit into any standard classification. The characteristics of the custom zone will be embedded in the ordinance creating the PUD.
When Cousins filed their Development Assessment Application for a PUD, Cousins was asking for significant changes to the GO specifications.
The author states the PUD seeks GO zoning for the base district and proceeds to indicate all the City Code modifications to the proposed PUD District:
* This means they will take 50 feet off the tops of the two hills and probably fill in between them to create a level platform for their massive construction.
For more information on this Development Assessment Application, read Marshall PUD: Development Assessment Application.
When Cousins filed their Development Assessment Application for a PUD, Cousins was asking for significant changes to the GO specifications.
The author states the PUD seeks GO zoning for the base district and proceeds to indicate all the City Code modifications to the proposed PUD District:
- Maximum height 122 feet instead of 60 feet
- A maximum of 50 feet of cut* instead of four feet of depth
- A maximum of 35 feet of fill instead of four feet.
- A maximum height of buildings of 120 feet more than 200 feet from Loop 360 instead of the Hill County Roadway ordinance of 40 feet.
- An assertion for the Hill Country Roadway ordinance that the area is in a moderate intensity zone.
- Instead of a Floor to Area (FAR) of 1:
- 0. 5 for a building on property with a slope gradient of 15% or less
- 0.25 for more than 15% but less than 25%
- 0.2 for more than 25% but less than 35%
- 0.1 for more than 35%
- Can construct a roadway or driveway with a gradient of greater than 35% instead of not greater than 15%
- Can construct a building or parking structure on a gradient of more than 35% instead of 25%
- May provide for water diversion of up to two acres instead of 1 acre.
* This means they will take 50 feet off the tops of the two hills and probably fill in between them to create a level platform for their massive construction.
For more information on this Development Assessment Application, read Marshall PUD: Development Assessment Application.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Comparison of Trip Generations for Various Elements of the Marshall Tract
The data we have available to us from the Texas Department of Transportation for existing traffic is shown below:
The following is a list of estimates of average daily traffic counts generated by various elements:
The following is a list of estimates of average daily traffic counts generated by various elements:
- 373,000 square feet of office space will generate 4,364 trips daily. This estimate was made using Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) tables. This seems low to me because Austin offices average 100 square feet per employee or for these two buildings, 3,730 people. With only two trips per day, 7,460 trips would be generated. All of this traffic would enter and exit through Las Cimas on to Loop 360. Loop 360 has 44,000 average daily traffic counts, so the two buildings would increase traffic on Loop 360 by between 10% and 17%.
- 74 homes, according to ITE tables, would generate between 740 and 788 trips per day. All of this traffic would enter and exit on Lost Creek Blvd. increasing the existing 10,970 by 7%, and Loop 360 by 2%.
- A 100 bed senior living center would generate 348 daily trips according to ITE tables on Lost Creek Blvd, or an increase of 3%. It would increase the traffic on Loop 360 by 0.8%.
- I really don't have good data for a fire house without EMS. The best I could find was between 3 and 5 calls per day or 6 to 10 trips per day. This is not high from a traffic perspective, but is from a noise perspective, and getting the fire truck through gridlocked traffic on Lost Creek Blvd.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Carbon Footprint
I estimated the carbon footprints for single family homes and the two large office buildings proposed for the site. I used averages provided by the two calculators I used for this zip code when available and national otherwise. If the Marshall Tract was developed under the current SF-2 zoning, approximately 74 homes could be built on the property meeting all the conditional overlays. Each home would generate about 109 tons of carbon dioxide a year, or 8,044 tons of carbon dioxide a year for all the homes. The two office buildings totally 373,000 square feet of office space would have to violate many zoning conditions to be built, and would generate 31,500 tons of carbon dioxide each year. The carbon footprint for the office buildings alone, not counting any other development of the land, would be 3.9 times that of single family homes.
These translate into global acres of average biological productivity to offset the carbon dioxide generated as 90,403 vs. 354,016 acres
The two carbon footprint calculators I used were:
These translate into global acres of average biological productivity to offset the carbon dioxide generated as 90,403 vs. 354,016 acres
The two carbon footprint calculators I used were:
- For homes, Cool Climate Carbon Footprint Calculator
- For Office, The Green Office
Friday, October 31, 2014
Notice to Residents Living Within 500ft of Marshall Tract
Letter from City of Austin to residents living withing 500 feet of Marshall Tract.
Please be advised that the City of Austin has received an application for a Development Assessment for a Planned Unit Development zoning of a property that is within 500 feet of your property. You are being notified because City Ordinance requires that all property owners within 500 feet, those who have a City utility service address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet be notified when a Development Assessment has been completed and a briefing to the City Council has
been scheduled.
Case Number: CD-2014-0015
Owner: Dan H. Marshall & Winifred Marshall
Applicant: Drenner Group (Amanda Swor)
Telephone: 512-807-2904
Location: 1300 Lost Creek Boulevard
Project Name: Marshall Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Proposed Zoning Change:
From: Single-family residence standard lot (SF-2) district is intended for moderate density single-family residential use on a lot that is a minimum of 5,750 square feet. An SF-2 district designation may be applied to a use in an existing single-family neighborhood that has moderate sized lots or to new development of single-family housing on lots that are 5,750 square feet or more.
To: PUD - Planned Unit Development district is intended for large or complex developments under unified control planned as a single contiguous project. The PUD is intended to allow single or multi-use projects within its boundaries and provide greater design flexibility for development proposed within the PUD. Use of a PUD district should result in development superior to that which would occur using conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. The minimum size generally considered appropriate for a PUD is ten acres,
City Staff has completed a Project Assessment of the proposed Planned Unit Development and the case file may be viewed by visiting the Planning and Development Review Department, located at 505 Batton Springs Road - 5th Floor; Austin, TX 78704.
You may also contact Sherri Sirwaitis of the Planning and Development Review Department at (512) 974-3057 or sherri.sirwaitis@austintexas.gov and refer to the Case Number if you have any questions concerning this application.
You may also find the Project Assessment Report and other information on this case at our web site
https://www.austintexas.gov/devreview/a_queryfolder_permits.jsp.
The application is scheduled for a briefing to the City Council on November 20,2014. The briefing will be held at City Hall Council Chambers, 301 West 2nd Street beginning at 2:00 p.m, This is not a public hearing only an informational briefing to Council and the public. You will receive a notice prior to the public hearing of the Planned Unit Development before the Planning Commission and the City Council after a formal application has been submitted to and reviewed by City Staff. For additional information on the City of Austin's land development process, please visit our web site http://www.austintexas.gov/developtnent.
Please be advised that the City of Austin has received an application for a Development Assessment for a Planned Unit Development zoning of a property that is within 500 feet of your property. You are being notified because City Ordinance requires that all property owners within 500 feet, those who have a City utility service address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet be notified when a Development Assessment has been completed and a briefing to the City Council has
been scheduled.
Case Number: CD-2014-0015
Owner: Dan H. Marshall & Winifred Marshall
Applicant: Drenner Group (Amanda Swor)
Telephone: 512-807-2904
Location: 1300 Lost Creek Boulevard
Project Name: Marshall Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Proposed Zoning Change:
From: Single-family residence standard lot (SF-2) district is intended for moderate density single-family residential use on a lot that is a minimum of 5,750 square feet. An SF-2 district designation may be applied to a use in an existing single-family neighborhood that has moderate sized lots or to new development of single-family housing on lots that are 5,750 square feet or more.
To: PUD - Planned Unit Development district is intended for large or complex developments under unified control planned as a single contiguous project. The PUD is intended to allow single or multi-use projects within its boundaries and provide greater design flexibility for development proposed within the PUD. Use of a PUD district should result in development superior to that which would occur using conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. The minimum size generally considered appropriate for a PUD is ten acres,
City Staff has completed a Project Assessment of the proposed Planned Unit Development and the case file may be viewed by visiting the Planning and Development Review Department, located at 505 Batton Springs Road - 5th Floor; Austin, TX 78704.
You may also contact Sherri Sirwaitis of the Planning and Development Review Department at (512) 974-3057 or sherri.sirwaitis@austintexas.gov and refer to the Case Number if you have any questions concerning this application.
You may also find the Project Assessment Report and other information on this case at our web site
https://www.austintexas.gov/devreview/a_queryfolder_permits.jsp.
The application is scheduled for a briefing to the City Council on November 20,2014. The briefing will be held at City Hall Council Chambers, 301 West 2nd Street beginning at 2:00 p.m, This is not a public hearing only an informational briefing to Council and the public. You will receive a notice prior to the public hearing of the Planned Unit Development before the Planning Commission and the City Council after a formal application has been submitted to and reviewed by City Staff. For additional information on the City of Austin's land development process, please visit our web site http://www.austintexas.gov/developtnent.
Views of Marshall Tract
Here are two new views of the Marshall Tract from Google Earth.
These show how intrusive the proposed development is and how large it is compared to other office developments that are close to Lost Creek.
These show how intrusive the proposed development is and how large it is compared to other office developments that are close to Lost Creek.
Lost Creek Neighborhood Characteristics (addendum)
Here' another page added to the Lost Creek Neighborhood Characteristics.
Other blogs describing the neighborhood:
Characteristics of Lost Creek Neighborhood
Lost Creek Neighborhood Character
Lost Creek Neighborhood Character (video)
Lost Creek Character: Dark Sky
Other blogs describing the neighborhood:
Characteristics of Lost Creek Neighborhood
Lost Creek Neighborhood Character
Lost Creek Neighborhood Character (video)
Lost Creek Character: Dark Sky
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
View of Proposed Buildings from Loop 360
The image below is one taken by Wayne Whitney of the balloons from Loop 360. I added the black boxes to illustrate the size of the buildings.
Other visualizations are contained in this blog:
Balloons and Sizes of Proposed Development
Another Photographic Visualization
Photographic Visualizations of Cousins Development of Marshall Tract
Visualization of Buildings in the Context of Lost Creek
Visualization of Cousins Proposed Development of the Marshall Tract
Other visualizations are contained in this blog:
Balloons and Sizes of Proposed Development
Another Photographic Visualization
Photographic Visualizations of Cousins Development of Marshall Tract
Visualization of Buildings in the Context of Lost Creek
Visualization of Cousins Proposed Development of the Marshall Tract
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)
A planned unit development (PUD), is a type of building development and also a regulatory process. As a building development, it is a designed grouping of both varied and compatible land uses, such as housing, recreation, commercial centers, and industrial parks, all within one contained development or subdivision.
PUDs are generally liked by developers and landowners, and disliked by land planners and residents. Politicians are easily swayed by the economic arguments and respond slowly to citizen concerns.
Land and mobility planers as well as residents like to see stable, long range land use plans, while developers enjoy the flexibility of a PUD, and land owners can usually get more money for their land if it is to be turned into a PUD.
PUDs are basically custom designed land use with zoning specific only to the land that the PUD is created for. These disrupt long range planning of the land use in a geographic area. Like the area along Loop 360, PUDs now exist along the roadway disrupting the flow of transition zoning like large boulders in a stream. Moreover, as these PUDs are custom zoned, the only way one can see the zoning is to go back to the ordinance that created it.
Over longer time periods, maintenance of the zoning within the PUD is flexible and can be changed unless the citizens demand covenants written into the deed of the land.
As the PUD concept was originally described, to offset the potential damage to the community, a strict community improvement concept was included. “PUDs have not been recognized explicitly under state statutory law. The establishment of any PUD must correspond with the general authority delegated to local governments by the state. Thus, under Town Law for example, the PUD must "promot[e] the health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community" and it must be created "in accordance with a comprehensive plan”."
There are many variations as to how this concept was implemented. This is made very clear in the District of Columbia ordinance:
The planned unit development (PUD) process is designed to encourage high quality developments that provide public benefits. The overall goal is to permit flexibility of development and other incentives, such as increased building height and density; provided, that the project offers a commendable number or quality of public benefits and that it protects and advances the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience.
A comprehensive public review by the Zoning Commission of the specific development proposal is required in order to evaluate the public benefits offered in proportion to the flexibility or incentives requested and in order to establish a basis for long-term public control over the specific use and development of the property. While providing for greater flexibility in planning and design than may be possible under conventional zoning procedures, the PUD process shall not be used to circumvent the intent and purposes of the Zoning Regulations, nor to result in action that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.”
An additional issue has been the passage of laws at the state level to give cities the ability to develop PUDs. In some states, the laws has been challenged and the community has won.
To read the entire article, click here.
Opinion: To fight the PUD, arguments will have to be made on the specific requirements for a PUD, and it's accordance with Austin's ordinances, charter, and state and federal law.
PUDs are generally liked by developers and landowners, and disliked by land planners and residents. Politicians are easily swayed by the economic arguments and respond slowly to citizen concerns.
Land and mobility planers as well as residents like to see stable, long range land use plans, while developers enjoy the flexibility of a PUD, and land owners can usually get more money for their land if it is to be turned into a PUD.
PUDs are basically custom designed land use with zoning specific only to the land that the PUD is created for. These disrupt long range planning of the land use in a geographic area. Like the area along Loop 360, PUDs now exist along the roadway disrupting the flow of transition zoning like large boulders in a stream. Moreover, as these PUDs are custom zoned, the only way one can see the zoning is to go back to the ordinance that created it.
Over longer time periods, maintenance of the zoning within the PUD is flexible and can be changed unless the citizens demand covenants written into the deed of the land.
As the PUD concept was originally described, to offset the potential damage to the community, a strict community improvement concept was included. “PUDs have not been recognized explicitly under state statutory law. The establishment of any PUD must correspond with the general authority delegated to local governments by the state. Thus, under Town Law for example, the PUD must "promot[e] the health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community" and it must be created "in accordance with a comprehensive plan”."
There are many variations as to how this concept was implemented. This is made very clear in the District of Columbia ordinance:
The planned unit development (PUD) process is designed to encourage high quality developments that provide public benefits. The overall goal is to permit flexibility of development and other incentives, such as increased building height and density; provided, that the project offers a commendable number or quality of public benefits and that it protects and advances the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience.
A comprehensive public review by the Zoning Commission of the specific development proposal is required in order to evaluate the public benefits offered in proportion to the flexibility or incentives requested and in order to establish a basis for long-term public control over the specific use and development of the property. While providing for greater flexibility in planning and design than may be possible under conventional zoning procedures, the PUD process shall not be used to circumvent the intent and purposes of the Zoning Regulations, nor to result in action that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.”
An additional issue has been the passage of laws at the state level to give cities the ability to develop PUDs. In some states, the laws has been challenged and the community has won.
To read the entire article, click here.
Opinion: To fight the PUD, arguments will have to be made on the specific requirements for a PUD, and it's accordance with Austin's ordinances, charter, and state and federal law.
Austin Oaks Office Complex (PUD)
Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LP is proposing to turn a 31-acre office complex located at MoPac and Spicewood Springs Road into a mixed-use development, spawning opposition from many nearby residents who argue the project is not compatible with the neighborhood’s culture. As of Oct. 17, Spire’s plans include building 100,000 square feet of retail, 850,000 square feet of offices, and 610 apartments and townhomes, said attorney Stephen Drenner with The Drenner Group PC, the law firm hired by Spire to assist with the planning. The office complex, called Austin Oaks, is located off Executive Center Drive.
Read about the neighborhood's fight to keep a PUD from forming in their neighborhood. Click here.
Read about the neighborhood's fight to keep a PUD from forming in their neighborhood. Click here.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Friday, October 17, 2014
Balloons and Sizes of Proposed Development
Here's a panorama picture taken from above the intersection of Las Cimas and Loop 360. The arrows indicate where the balloons were at about 11 am yesterday. You can see in comparison to the four story building in Las Cimas why I think that the balloons were too low. I know perspective changes relative sizes but they seem so far off from what they should be.
On the other hand the relative sizes of the two buildings appear to be proportional to the actual difference in heights. Only a corner of the garage was visible from this vantage point.
Also I couldn't show the Cousins building at Loop 360 and Bee Cave Rd. from this same vantage point. I would have had to take some risk of my aged body to make my way above the intersection of Loop 360 and Bee Cave Rd. to get the same perspective on both.
Here are two other perspectives.
A panorama from Loop 360 almost directly across from the proposed building.
Again the building next to the tract in this photo is 3 stories (I think) and the proposed 7 story building doesn't look much bigger, even though it is closer to the camera position.
And, one from Boulder Park.
If you click on the images you can get an enlarged view.
On the other hand the relative sizes of the two buildings appear to be proportional to the actual difference in heights. Only a corner of the garage was visible from this vantage point.
Also I couldn't show the Cousins building at Loop 360 and Bee Cave Rd. from this same vantage point. I would have had to take some risk of my aged body to make my way above the intersection of Loop 360 and Bee Cave Rd. to get the same perspective on both.
Here are two other perspectives.
A panorama from Loop 360 almost directly across from the proposed building.
And, one from Boulder Park.
If you click on the images you can get an enlarged view.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Lost Creek Character: Dark Sky
From Deborah Castro, Lost Creek:
"We enjoy a dark sky in Lost Creek because we elected NOT to have street lights. Let's work to establish a neighborhood character of preserving the dark sky because excessive light is wasting energy, causes ill health, contributes to global warming, and adversely affects the environment. Nocturnal animals such as fox, deer, owl, ring tail, bats and others cannot feed, mate or rest in abnormally illuminated trees and forests. The Cousins PUD buildings and parking decks are going to be abnormally highly lit buildings. We want to keep Lost Creek a dark sky in order to protect our natural environment. Since we are a municipality we qualify to start the work of obtaining a dark sky status. Dripping Springs, TX just received their award. Read more at this link.
Hopefully, we can work towards obtaining a Dark Sky Designation."
"We enjoy a dark sky in Lost Creek because we elected NOT to have street lights. Let's work to establish a neighborhood character of preserving the dark sky because excessive light is wasting energy, causes ill health, contributes to global warming, and adversely affects the environment. Nocturnal animals such as fox, deer, owl, ring tail, bats and others cannot feed, mate or rest in abnormally illuminated trees and forests. The Cousins PUD buildings and parking decks are going to be abnormally highly lit buildings. We want to keep Lost Creek a dark sky in order to protect our natural environment. Since we are a municipality we qualify to start the work of obtaining a dark sky status. Dripping Springs, TX just received their award. Read more at this link.
Hopefully, we can work towards obtaining a Dark Sky Designation."
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Lost Creek Neighborhood Character (video)
In a previous post I described the CodeNEXT character in a box exercise and the photographs we took of Lost Creek. To see a video (11 minutes) of those photographs, click here.
Perhaps this will remind you of things you'd like not to lose as a result of rezoning the Marshall Tract. And, if you think of any more assets, constraints or opportunities for improvement, let me know and I'll try to add them version 2 of this video.
Perhaps this will remind you of things you'd like not to lose as a result of rezoning the Marshall Tract. And, if you think of any more assets, constraints or opportunities for improvement, let me know and I'll try to add them version 2 of this video.
Zoning Change Review Process
Declaimer: This guide is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal regulation. Consult the Land Development Code for specific regulations.
This disclaimer is on the front of City of Austin Neighborhood Planning Guide to Zoning, June 2014. As this was the source I used to create this summary, it's only fair that I pass in on through my derivative work. In addition to the Guide to Zoning, I've used our collective experience (at least what's been shared with me) on the current rezoning effort, my 34 years of living in Lost Creek and working on many similar efforts, and discussions with others more knowledgeable in the field than me. Things that are parenthesis are quotes directly from the guide.
My purpose in writing this is to make you aware of when, where and how you can get involved with this project and help to steer its outcome in a direction you want. The keys are knowledge and action, but action at the right time on the right issues to the right people in the right form.
Cousins Properties is proposing the change the zoning of the Marshall Tract from SF-2 to a PUD so that they can place two office towers (5 and 7 stories) totaling 370,000 square feet, a parking garage, and a senior living center, and/or an Austin fire department firehouse. Cousins would sell part of the land for either/and a senior living center and/or a fire department. Cousins is asking for a GO classification (with numerous modification) as the base zoning for the PUD.
SF-2: Single Family Residence-Standard Lot
“Single Family Residence Standard Lot district is intended for a moderate density single-family
residential use on a lot that is a minimum of 5,750 square feet. An SF-2 district designation may
be applied to a use in an existing single-family neighborhood that has moderate sized lots or to
new development of single-family housing on lots that are 5,750 square feet or more.”
PUD: Planned Unit Development
“Planned Unit Development district is intended for a large or complex single or multi-use
development that is planned as a single contiguous project and that is under unified control. The
purpose of a PUD district designation is to preserve the natural environment, encourage high
quality development and innovative design, and ensure adequate public facilities and services
for development within a PUD. A PUD district designation provides greater design flexibility
by permitting modifications of site development regulations. Development under the site
development regulations applicable to a PUD must be superior to the development that would
occur under conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. A PUD district must include at
least 10 acres of land, unless the property is characterized by special circumstances, including
unique topographic constraints. The Land Use Plan establishing uses and site development regulations must be approved by City Council.”
GO: General Office
“General Office district is the designation for offices and selected commercial uses predominantly
serving community or citywide needs, such as medical or professional offices.”
The general review process is outlined in the graphic below obtained from The Guide. Cousins proposed PUD has an additional step it must go through called a Development Assessment and a notification to City Council of its intent to seek a PUD classification for the property.
Interested parties are specifically defined in The Guide: “property owners, registered community associations, and utility account holders within 500 feet of a property that is being rezoned”. The Austin Planning and Development Review web page broadens this definition some: “the applicant and his designated agent, as well as property owners, renters and utility account holders, registered neighborhood associations, community groups and environmental interest groups located within 500 feet of the zoning change.” The notice sent adds some additional information: “You may also wish to contact any neighborhood or environmental organizations that have expressed an interest in cases affecting your neighborhood.” I personally would add to this last list other City of Austin departments, state and county departments, and city,state and national organizations you think should review whats being proposed.
You will undoubtedly have noted that this interested party list ignores almost 1,200 homes in Lost Creek with probably over 3,000 residents. The power of this group lies in sheer numbers. The following statement is my opinion: Regardless of whether you belong to the LCNA or not, your individual letters and/or e-mails will carry a lot of weight.
When a case number has been assigned by the city, I will provide that to you. It's important to include this number in any correspondence you have with the city. I have also given you the contact information for the city council and the two important commissions. You can use these e-mails to communicate to the set of council members or commissioners, but it might be more effective to contact them individually, personalizing your comments if possible. To that end, I have provided you with links to the individuals.
The Guide describes a way to challenge a rezoning effort:
“When a property owner requests a zoning change, nearby neighbors are considered to have a stake
in the zoning as well and have the opportunity to challenge the zoning request before City
Council. Doing so requires that City Council approve the zoning change by a super majority, which
is a vote of at least 6 out of 7 council members. Please note that petition rights do not apply to
interim-zoned property.
Steps involved in challenging a zoning request:
A. Work with the property owner or neighborhood to try to reach a compromise, or work through the neighborhood plan process.
B. Send a letter stating opposition to staff, Planning Commission, and City Council.
C. Appear at the public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council.
D. File a zoning petition.
What is a zoning petition?
A petition is one way a person may oppose a proposed rezoning. A petition may be filed (l) by a property owner opposed to a rezoning of his of her own property or (2) by property owners within 200 feet of the proposed change. In order for a petition by nearby property owners to be considered valid, property owners of 20% or more of the land within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning must sign the petition.”
For more information on this challenge process, click here.
This petition can be filed only after the completion of steps 0 through 5, and the matter is about to be sent to city council.
We have never done a formal neighborhood plan. As far as Austin is concerned, the Marshall Tract is in our neighborhood. Going through a formal process involving everyone in the neighborhood might be a powerful tool to affect the outcome of this rezoning process.
Here's a list of the organizations and people that should be contacted during steps 0 through 5:
Planning and Development Review Department
505 Barton Springs Rd.
Austin, TX 78704
Phone: 512-978-4000
E-Mail
For information about the commissions associated with the Planning and Development Review Department (land use commissions), click here.
Planning Commission
To make and amend a master plan, recommend approval or disapproval of proposed zoning changes and control land subdivision within neighborhood planning areas and submit, annually, a list of recommended capital improvements. See Article X of the City Charter and Section 2-1-166 of the City Code for additional duties.
Members
Staff:
Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-2104
Jerry Rusthoven, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-3207
Greg Guernsey, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-7668
Meeting information (agenda, time, date) is at this link.
Contact Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review - 5th Floor, One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road , (512) 974-2104. Deadline for comments is 4:30 pm, Wednesday the week prior to the Commission meeting. Only 1 copy needed.
Zoning and Platting Commission
Perform duties relating to land use and development, as prescribed by Title 25 (Land Development) of the City Code and other duties as assigned by the council. Section 2-1-188 of the City Code.
Pursuant to ordinances adopted by the Council, exercise control over platting and subdividing land within the corporate limits of the City and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City to insure the consistency of and such plats or subdivision with the adopted comprehensive plan or element
or portion thereof. Recommend to the Council approval of disapproval of proposed zoning changes;
Members
Staff:
Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-2104
Jerry Rusthoven, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-3207
Greg Guernsey, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-7668
Meeting information (agenda, time, date) is at this link.
Contact Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review - 5th Floor, One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road , (512) 974-2104. Deadline for comments is 4:30 pm, Wednesday the week prior to the Commission meeting. Only 1 copy needed.
City Council
Physical Address:
301 W. Second St.
Austin, TX 78701
Mailing Address:
P. O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78767
Phone: 512-974-2250
Fax: 512-974-2337
Members
E-Mail
Speaking at City Council Meetings (from the City Council Web Site)
“Citizens may speak on most agenda items by completing an electronic registration in person on the kiosks located in the lobby of City Hall. Citizens can sign up at the kiosks after 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to the council meeting. You can speak on several items; however, citizens may not speak on briefings, executive sessions or on items where the public hearing has been closed.
Donating Time
You may also donate your time to another speaker if:
A speaker may receive donated time from a maximum of four people present and may speak for a maximum of 15 minutes. The council may limit the number of speakers or the length of testimony in compliance with state law.
Consent Agenda Items
The council may adopt items without a separate vote on each item as the consent agenda. You may register to speak on consent agenda items.
You may speak one time, for up to three minutes on the consent agenda as a whole, regardless of the number of items for which you have signed up to speak.
You may not participate in removing more than three items from the consent agenda during a council meeting.”
This disclaimer is on the front of City of Austin Neighborhood Planning Guide to Zoning, June 2014. As this was the source I used to create this summary, it's only fair that I pass in on through my derivative work. In addition to the Guide to Zoning, I've used our collective experience (at least what's been shared with me) on the current rezoning effort, my 34 years of living in Lost Creek and working on many similar efforts, and discussions with others more knowledgeable in the field than me. Things that are parenthesis are quotes directly from the guide.
My purpose in writing this is to make you aware of when, where and how you can get involved with this project and help to steer its outcome in a direction you want. The keys are knowledge and action, but action at the right time on the right issues to the right people in the right form.
Cousins Properties is proposing the change the zoning of the Marshall Tract from SF-2 to a PUD so that they can place two office towers (5 and 7 stories) totaling 370,000 square feet, a parking garage, and a senior living center, and/or an Austin fire department firehouse. Cousins would sell part of the land for either/and a senior living center and/or a fire department. Cousins is asking for a GO classification (with numerous modification) as the base zoning for the PUD.
SF-2: Single Family Residence-Standard Lot
“Single Family Residence Standard Lot district is intended for a moderate density single-family
residential use on a lot that is a minimum of 5,750 square feet. An SF-2 district designation may
be applied to a use in an existing single-family neighborhood that has moderate sized lots or to
new development of single-family housing on lots that are 5,750 square feet or more.”
PUD: Planned Unit Development
“Planned Unit Development district is intended for a large or complex single or multi-use
development that is planned as a single contiguous project and that is under unified control. The
purpose of a PUD district designation is to preserve the natural environment, encourage high
quality development and innovative design, and ensure adequate public facilities and services
for development within a PUD. A PUD district designation provides greater design flexibility
by permitting modifications of site development regulations. Development under the site
development regulations applicable to a PUD must be superior to the development that would
occur under conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. A PUD district must include at
least 10 acres of land, unless the property is characterized by special circumstances, including
unique topographic constraints. The Land Use Plan establishing uses and site development regulations must be approved by City Council.”
GO: General Office
“General Office district is the designation for offices and selected commercial uses predominantly
serving community or citywide needs, such as medical or professional offices.”
The general review process is outlined in the graphic below obtained from The Guide. Cousins proposed PUD has an additional step it must go through called a Development Assessment and a notification to City Council of its intent to seek a PUD classification for the property.
| Step | Name | Description | Parties Involved | Outcome |
| 0 | Development Assessment |
Among other things, Cousins must prove in their documentation that the development under the site
development regulations applicable to a PUD must be superior to the development that would occur under conventional zoning and subdivision regulations.
Among other things, staff has to agree that the PUD is justified.
Interested parties can argue that the PUD is unjustified, unnecessary and potentially harmful to the neighborhood and the city.
| Staff | Notice to City Council of intent to create a PUD |
| 1 | Application Submittal | The request for rezoning is prepared by Cousins and submitted for approval. Staff assigns a case number. | Staff | Acceptance of rezoning request |
| 2 | Notice of Filing | Staff sends notices to interested parties and posts notices on the property. Interested parties can send letters (e-mails) to staff and commissioners with approval/disapproval, reasons and requests for involvement of other city departments or outside organizations Staff involves other city departments as necessary Staff assigns date for Commissions' review. | Staff | Notices sent and posted |
| 3 | Staff Recommendation | Staff completes their research and writes their recommendation to the Commissions | Staff | Recommendation |
| 4 | Notice of Public Hearing | Staff sends notice of public hearing to interested parties 11 days prior to the meeting. | Staff | Notices sent and posted |
| 5 | Planning Commission/ Zoning and Plating Commission | Staff makes recommendation to Commissions Interested parties have a chance to speak at hearing | Commissions Staff | Makes a recommendation to City Council |
| 6 | Notice of Public Hearing for City Council | Notice sent to interested parties16 days prior to City Council Meeting Interest parties can write(e-mail) city council of their approval or disapproval of rezoning. Neighbors within 200 feet of affected property can file a petition with city council opposing the rezoning | Staff City Council | Notices sent and posted |
| 7 | City Council Review (3 readings) | Staff makes recommendation Interested parties can speak | City Council Staff | Approves or denies rezoning |
Interested parties are specifically defined in The Guide: “property owners, registered community associations, and utility account holders within 500 feet of a property that is being rezoned”. The Austin Planning and Development Review web page broadens this definition some: “the applicant and his designated agent, as well as property owners, renters and utility account holders, registered neighborhood associations, community groups and environmental interest groups located within 500 feet of the zoning change.” The notice sent adds some additional information: “You may also wish to contact any neighborhood or environmental organizations that have expressed an interest in cases affecting your neighborhood.” I personally would add to this last list other City of Austin departments, state and county departments, and city,state and national organizations you think should review whats being proposed.
You will undoubtedly have noted that this interested party list ignores almost 1,200 homes in Lost Creek with probably over 3,000 residents. The power of this group lies in sheer numbers. The following statement is my opinion: Regardless of whether you belong to the LCNA or not, your individual letters and/or e-mails will carry a lot of weight.
When a case number has been assigned by the city, I will provide that to you. It's important to include this number in any correspondence you have with the city. I have also given you the contact information for the city council and the two important commissions. You can use these e-mails to communicate to the set of council members or commissioners, but it might be more effective to contact them individually, personalizing your comments if possible. To that end, I have provided you with links to the individuals.
The Guide describes a way to challenge a rezoning effort:
“When a property owner requests a zoning change, nearby neighbors are considered to have a stake
in the zoning as well and have the opportunity to challenge the zoning request before City
Council. Doing so requires that City Council approve the zoning change by a super majority, which
is a vote of at least 6 out of 7 council members. Please note that petition rights do not apply to
interim-zoned property.
Steps involved in challenging a zoning request:
A. Work with the property owner or neighborhood to try to reach a compromise, or work through the neighborhood plan process.
B. Send a letter stating opposition to staff, Planning Commission, and City Council.
C. Appear at the public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council.
D. File a zoning petition.
What is a zoning petition?
A petition is one way a person may oppose a proposed rezoning. A petition may be filed (l) by a property owner opposed to a rezoning of his of her own property or (2) by property owners within 200 feet of the proposed change. In order for a petition by nearby property owners to be considered valid, property owners of 20% or more of the land within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning must sign the petition.”
For more information on this challenge process, click here.
This petition can be filed only after the completion of steps 0 through 5, and the matter is about to be sent to city council.
We have never done a formal neighborhood plan. As far as Austin is concerned, the Marshall Tract is in our neighborhood. Going through a formal process involving everyone in the neighborhood might be a powerful tool to affect the outcome of this rezoning process.
Here's a list of the organizations and people that should be contacted during steps 0 through 5:
Planning and Development Review Department
505 Barton Springs Rd.
Austin, TX 78704
Phone: 512-978-4000
For information about the commissions associated with the Planning and Development Review Department (land use commissions), click here.
Planning Commission
To make and amend a master plan, recommend approval or disapproval of proposed zoning changes and control land subdivision within neighborhood planning areas and submit, annually, a list of recommended capital improvements. See Article X of the City Charter and Section 2-1-166 of the City Code for additional duties.
Members
Staff:
Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-2104
Jerry Rusthoven, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-3207
Greg Guernsey, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-7668
Meeting information (agenda, time, date) is at this link.
Contact Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review - 5th Floor, One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road , (512) 974-2104. Deadline for comments is 4:30 pm, Wednesday the week prior to the Commission meeting. Only 1 copy needed.
Zoning and Platting Commission
Perform duties relating to land use and development, as prescribed by Title 25 (Land Development) of the City Code and other duties as assigned by the council. Section 2-1-188 of the City Code.
Pursuant to ordinances adopted by the Council, exercise control over platting and subdividing land within the corporate limits of the City and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City to insure the consistency of and such plats or subdivision with the adopted comprehensive plan or element
or portion thereof. Recommend to the Council approval of disapproval of proposed zoning changes;
Members
Staff:
Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-2104
Jerry Rusthoven, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-3207
Greg Guernsey, Planning and Development Review Department, 512-974-7668
Meeting information (agenda, time, date) is at this link.
Contact Dora Anguiano, Planning and Development Review - 5th Floor, One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road , (512) 974-2104. Deadline for comments is 4:30 pm, Wednesday the week prior to the Commission meeting. Only 1 copy needed.
City Council
Physical Address:
301 W. Second St.
Austin, TX 78701
Mailing Address:
P. O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78767
Phone: 512-974-2250
Fax: 512-974-2337
Members
Speaking at City Council Meetings (from the City Council Web Site)
“Citizens may speak on most agenda items by completing an electronic registration in person on the kiosks located in the lobby of City Hall. Citizens can sign up at the kiosks after 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to the council meeting. You can speak on several items; however, citizens may not speak on briefings, executive sessions or on items where the public hearing has been closed.
Donating Time
You may also donate your time to another speaker if:
- You were present when the speaker began to address council
- You can specify the name of the speaker
A speaker may receive donated time from a maximum of four people present and may speak for a maximum of 15 minutes. The council may limit the number of speakers or the length of testimony in compliance with state law.
Consent Agenda Items
The council may adopt items without a separate vote on each item as the consent agenda. You may register to speak on consent agenda items.
You may speak one time, for up to three minutes on the consent agenda as a whole, regardless of the number of items for which you have signed up to speak.
You may not participate in removing more than three items from the consent agenda during a council meeting.”
Friday, September 26, 2014
Could planned project set off MoPac development boom?
Neighbors say dense project with proposed towers doesn't fit with area, could worsen traffic problems.
By Lori Hawkins and Shonda Novak - American-Statesman Staff
Two towers that would be among the tallest buildings outside of downtown Austin are being proposed as part of project that envisions bringing 1.6 million square feet of development to MoPac Boulevard and Spicewood Springs Road.
Some area residents oppose the project, which they say could set a precedent for other tall buildings — both along MoPac and elsewhere throughout the city — that would encroach on surrounding neighborhoods.
The developer behind the project is Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LP. Spire’s project is one of several office and residential developments planned or under construction along Spicewood Springs Road.
Real estate experts say the proposed development could set off a wave of development along MoPac.
Spire’s site is a 31-acre tract that now houses Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each and totaling 450,000 square feet. Spire is seeking a zoning change that would allow it to construct buildings of three to five stories on the parts of the site closest to residential areas, and, on the parts closer to MoPac, two office buildings that would tower 17 stories each. Height is currently limited to 60 feet on the site.
Two towers that would be among the tallest buildings outside of downtown Austin are being proposed as part of project that envisions bringing 1.6 million square feet of development to MoPac Boulevard and Spicewood Springs Road.
Some area residents oppose the project, which they say could set a precedent for other tall buildings — both along MoPac and elsewhere throughout the city — that would encroach on surrounding neighborhoods.
The developer behind the project is Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LP. Spire’s project is one of several office and residential developments planned or under construction along Spicewood Springs Road.
Real estate experts say the proposed development could set off a wave of development along MoPac.
Spire’s site is a 31-acre tract that now houses Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each and totaling 450,000 square feet. Spire is seeking a zoning change that would allow it to construct buildings of three to five stories on the parts of the site closest to residential areas, and, on the parts closer to MoPac, two office buildings that would tower 17 stories each. Height is currently limited to 60 feet on the site.
To read more click here. Fee required if not a subscriber.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Austin Oaks Office Complex
Jim Duncan's presentation to the CodeNEXT Advisory Board on September 23, 2014.
This has an overview pertinent to the PUD proposed for the Marshall Tract.
Austin Oaks Office Complex
This has an overview pertinent to the PUD proposed for the Marshall Tract.
Austin Oaks Office Complex
Austin Oaks has no place in established neighborhoods
John Duncan, Austin American Statesman, September 24, 2014
"To follow the plan or not to follow the plan, that is the question.
Several of our local neighborhoods are again under siege by an out-of-town real estate speculator who looks at Austin more as a commodity than a community. This time the neighborhoods are Northwest Hills, Westover Hills, Allandale and North Shoal Creek, and the proposed project is the Austin Oaks PUD.
The PUD applicant wants to convert an idyllic 40-year-old low-rise, low-density, tree-covered neighborhood office park into a high-rise, high-density regional commercial center that would feature the tallest buildings between the UT Tower and Waco and dump 20,000 new vehicle trips onto eight already failing nearby intersections. Such a proposed project clearly does not belong in an established Austin neighborhood. It belongs downtown or at the Domain.
The proposed project went before our City Council in late June for a pre-hearing and, while Council Members Kathie Tovo and Laura Morrison indicated considerable concern, surprisingly no staff or council member noted that it was in direct conflict with Imagine Austin, our new comprehensive plan (which clearly designates the property as a low-intensity neighborhood center and not a high-intensity regional center.) Nor did anyone note that its approval would be an obvious violation of Article X of our City Charter, which mandates that all new development be in compliance with our adopted plan. Adding insult to injury, everyone seemed oblivious to the fact that approval of the project would also be a blatant affront to the 18,000 Austinites who just spent three years and $4 million laboring over Imagine Austin.
As various neighborhoods gear up to oppose the Austin Oaks PUD, I caution them not to get caught up in the Austin “Zoning Game,” which can best be described in three phases. First is the application phase, where developers almost always ask for twice what they really want so that their allies in City Hall can look good by cutting the request in half.
Second is the misdirection phase, where the developer cleverly diverts discussion about the proposed project, again with a little help from his council allies, from the most important and relevant issues of use, density and height, to the less important and irrelevant site-planning issues, such as curb cuts, sidewalks and bikeways.
And third and finally is the barter phase, where the developer offers a lot of nice-sounding amenities like two-star (out of five) buildings, street improvements and affordable housing contributions in exchange for the rezoning. In the end, everything is designed to make the public feel like the proposed project is a “must have” economic stimulus for the city.
The bottom line is that no matter how great the Austin Oaks PUD is made to sound as it goes through the approval process, it should not be approved in any form or fashion. It should be summarily rejected. When it comes to development approvals, Austin needs to stop playing “let’s make a deal” and start following proper planning and zoning principles.
It is acknowledged that cities and their neighborhoods are organic and change over time. It is also acknowledged that existing properties like Austin Oaks will redevelop and change as well. As current homeowners who want to remain in their neighborhoods become empty nesters and then senior citizens, their housing and retailing needs also change. As new young families arrive, their needs are often quite different from previous residents.
Imagine Austin acknowledges those changes and provides guidance for how neighborhoods and neighborhood centers can meet those needs — and Austin Oaks is well-positioned to help in those efforts. It just needs to be done within the framework of good planning and reasonable and compatible zoning. Current residents and businesses in all four of the affected neighborhoods are “entitled” to nothing less."
DUNCAN IS A FORMER AUSTIN
PLANNING DIRECTOR.
"To follow the plan or not to follow the plan, that is the question.
Several of our local neighborhoods are again under siege by an out-of-town real estate speculator who looks at Austin more as a commodity than a community. This time the neighborhoods are Northwest Hills, Westover Hills, Allandale and North Shoal Creek, and the proposed project is the Austin Oaks PUD.
The PUD applicant wants to convert an idyllic 40-year-old low-rise, low-density, tree-covered neighborhood office park into a high-rise, high-density regional commercial center that would feature the tallest buildings between the UT Tower and Waco and dump 20,000 new vehicle trips onto eight already failing nearby intersections. Such a proposed project clearly does not belong in an established Austin neighborhood. It belongs downtown or at the Domain.
The proposed project went before our City Council in late June for a pre-hearing and, while Council Members Kathie Tovo and Laura Morrison indicated considerable concern, surprisingly no staff or council member noted that it was in direct conflict with Imagine Austin, our new comprehensive plan (which clearly designates the property as a low-intensity neighborhood center and not a high-intensity regional center.) Nor did anyone note that its approval would be an obvious violation of Article X of our City Charter, which mandates that all new development be in compliance with our adopted plan. Adding insult to injury, everyone seemed oblivious to the fact that approval of the project would also be a blatant affront to the 18,000 Austinites who just spent three years and $4 million laboring over Imagine Austin.
As various neighborhoods gear up to oppose the Austin Oaks PUD, I caution them not to get caught up in the Austin “Zoning Game,” which can best be described in three phases. First is the application phase, where developers almost always ask for twice what they really want so that their allies in City Hall can look good by cutting the request in half.
Second is the misdirection phase, where the developer cleverly diverts discussion about the proposed project, again with a little help from his council allies, from the most important and relevant issues of use, density and height, to the less important and irrelevant site-planning issues, such as curb cuts, sidewalks and bikeways.
And third and finally is the barter phase, where the developer offers a lot of nice-sounding amenities like two-star (out of five) buildings, street improvements and affordable housing contributions in exchange for the rezoning. In the end, everything is designed to make the public feel like the proposed project is a “must have” economic stimulus for the city.
The bottom line is that no matter how great the Austin Oaks PUD is made to sound as it goes through the approval process, it should not be approved in any form or fashion. It should be summarily rejected. When it comes to development approvals, Austin needs to stop playing “let’s make a deal” and start following proper planning and zoning principles.
It is acknowledged that cities and their neighborhoods are organic and change over time. It is also acknowledged that existing properties like Austin Oaks will redevelop and change as well. As current homeowners who want to remain in their neighborhoods become empty nesters and then senior citizens, their housing and retailing needs also change. As new young families arrive, their needs are often quite different from previous residents.
Imagine Austin acknowledges those changes and provides guidance for how neighborhoods and neighborhood centers can meet those needs — and Austin Oaks is well-positioned to help in those efforts. It just needs to be done within the framework of good planning and reasonable and compatible zoning. Current residents and businesses in all four of the affected neighborhoods are “entitled” to nothing less."
DUNCAN IS A FORMER AUSTIN
PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Lost Creek Neighborhood Character
These photographs were taken as part of Austin's CodeNEXT project in an exercise called Community Character in a Box. This material might be useful in addressing the incompatibility of the proposed Cousins development and the Lost Creek Neighborhood.
Participation in the Development Review Process
With respect to Cousins proposed development of the Marshall Tract, there are five classes of citizens in Lost Creek:
And in some of these classes their a distinction between being a property owner and a tenant who pays utility bills, and possibly whether they are a citizen of Austin. And, often in communication with LCNA, only people with valid e-mail address get notifications. LCNA information about the project is available to LCNA members on their website.The city sends notices by mail only to people living within 500 feet of the property and civic environmental organization with interests in the property.
Outside of the neighborhood there are others who can have a voice including other neighborhoods, and civic and environmental organizations with an interest in the property.
Each has specific rights and responsibilities. All should participate in fact based discussions and make up their own minds about the Cousins proposed development of the Marshall Tract. And everyone should voice their opinions and have access to the mechanism to express that voice.
- Those that live within 200 feet of the Marshall Tract
- Those that live within 500 feet of the Marshall Tract
- Those that belong to the LCNA and attend the meetings
- Those who belong to LCNA but do not attend the meetings
- Those that do not belong to LCNA
And in some of these classes their a distinction between being a property owner and a tenant who pays utility bills, and possibly whether they are a citizen of Austin. And, often in communication with LCNA, only people with valid e-mail address get notifications. LCNA information about the project is available to LCNA members on their website.The city sends notices by mail only to people living within 500 feet of the property and civic environmental organization with interests in the property.
Outside of the neighborhood there are others who can have a voice including other neighborhoods, and civic and environmental organizations with an interest in the property.
Each has specific rights and responsibilities. All should participate in fact based discussions and make up their own minds about the Cousins proposed development of the Marshall Tract. And everyone should voice their opinions and have access to the mechanism to express that voice.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Application of Zoning Heights to Land Contour
Most diagrams that I've seen depicting zoning heights and setbacks are shown on flat land. The Marshall Tract is far from flat. It has a pretty interesting contour. I know that somehow the city accounts for this be applying some averaging technique, but I was curious to see what the heights and setback would look like for various types of zoning, and assuming that the heights are measured from the elevation of Quaker Ridge. What I got is shown below.
GO is General Office, the base zoning planned by Cousins for the PUD (with lots of variances). The East Riverside Corridor is an example of how Austin handled heights and setbacks for better compatibility. The distance scale goes from zero at Quaker Ridge to 2000 at Loop 360 (approximately).
I don't know how Austin will handle the heights and setbacks for the Marshall Tract. But, it should be a strong discussion point for us, after we see what staff recommends.
GO is General Office, the base zoning planned by Cousins for the PUD (with lots of variances). The East Riverside Corridor is an example of how Austin handled heights and setbacks for better compatibility. The distance scale goes from zero at Quaker Ridge to 2000 at Loop 360 (approximately).
I don't know how Austin will handle the heights and setbacks for the Marshall Tract. But, it should be a strong discussion point for us, after we see what staff recommends.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Some Additional Thoughts on Compatibility
A community is formed whenever the neighborhood shares some set of values. It's a vital community if it contains diversity of knowledge. With shared values, communication is open and the members learn from each other's diversity. New members join the community if they share some of the community’s values. The physical characteristics of the community's neighborhood comes to reflect its shared values. A new development that intrudes on the values of the community is rejected by the community, and if it is allowed by the City because of political alliances or the prospect of tax income, it can severely damage the quality of life within the community.
A major issue with compatibility is “compatibility with what?” As an example, consider the Loop 360 corridor. Every housing or office development is considered in only an incremental way, not in a “global” way. As a result, Loop 360 traffic continues to grow way beyond the capacity of the road because each development meets the “local” code.
Tine frame is another compatibility issue. Developments must be considered with respect to the past, present and future.
Compatibility with the environment is also an important issue, as is compatibility with wildlife.
Compatibility has to be defined in a much broader, comprehensive way.
A major issue with compatibility is “compatibility with what?” As an example, consider the Loop 360 corridor. Every housing or office development is considered in only an incremental way, not in a “global” way. As a result, Loop 360 traffic continues to grow way beyond the capacity of the road because each development meets the “local” code.
Tine frame is another compatibility issue. Developments must be considered with respect to the past, present and future.
Compatibility with the environment is also an important issue, as is compatibility with wildlife.
Compatibility has to be defined in a much broader, comprehensive way.
Neighborhood Character and Compatibility
CodeNEXT is an ambitious project to rewrite the land use code for Austin. The present code is the result of years of incremental changes. It is difficult to access and understand. Land developers and owners, as well as citizens are all unhappy with the existing code. Land developers and owners think that the code is too difficult to apply taking too long, being too expensive, and being too restrictive. Citizens think that the code doesn't do enough to protect neighborhood and does not employ a democratic process.
There are two concepts in CodeNEXT that would apply to the rezoning of the Marshall Tract – the concept of neighborhood character and the concept of compatibility.
“Every neighborhood in Austin has a distinct character worth preserving and building upon. The diversity of lifestyles and uniqueness of our living environments has given our city its personality and feel. The new Code will put a framework in place to better protect, enhance, and ensure the long-term stability and appeal of our neighborhoods.
A revised land development code could:
Compatible is defined as (in Dictionary.com):
According to the CodeNEXT team, compatibility is not defined in the present land use code. Their definition is:
“A development, building, and/or land use that is designed to be able to exist or occur without conflict with its surroundings – in terms of its uses, scale, height, massing and location on its site.”
The CodeNEXT team also points out that that “there is a missing middle”, for example between residential and high rise office buildings, in the existing code. This transition zone is different than a buffer.
The CodeNEXT team also pointed out that one size does not fit all. The code for compatibility must consider the context. The example they illustrate in the drawing is an urban, walkable context. Lost Creek is a suburban, drivable context.
The character of Lost Creek is incompatible with the character of the Cousins proposed development. The existing plans by Cousins does not provide a transition from the high rise office buildings to an SF2 residential setting.
Leaving the Marshall Tract zoned SF2 would be compatible with the existing Lost Creek neighborhood, and allow the developer to build in a transition zone between the new residential area and the existing office buildings, and park land.
Here's an overview of the whole CodeNEXT project.
There are two concepts in CodeNEXT that would apply to the rezoning of the Marshall Tract – the concept of neighborhood character and the concept of compatibility.
“Every neighborhood in Austin has a distinct character worth preserving and building upon. The diversity of lifestyles and uniqueness of our living environments has given our city its personality and feel. The new Code will put a framework in place to better protect, enhance, and ensure the long-term stability and appeal of our neighborhoods.
A revised land development code could:
- Provide a document that is more accessible and easier to understand for all users.
- Provide more effective zoning tools to address specific issues.
- Help define what we can build near or within neighborhoods.
- Make neighborhood plans and visions are easier to access and understand.
- Ensure that new buildings will make good neighbors with existing ones – in terms of their size, character and design, and allowed uses.
- Reinforce the mix of creative small businesses that prosper in Austin’s neighborhoods, integral to defining their character.”
Compatible is defined as (in Dictionary.com):
- capable of existing or living together in harmony
- able to exist together with something else
- consistent; congruous (often followed by with)
According to the CodeNEXT team, compatibility is not defined in the present land use code. Their definition is:
“A development, building, and/or land use that is designed to be able to exist or occur without conflict with its surroundings – in terms of its uses, scale, height, massing and location on its site.”
The CodeNEXT team also points out that that “there is a missing middle”, for example between residential and high rise office buildings, in the existing code. This transition zone is different than a buffer.
The CodeNEXT team also pointed out that one size does not fit all. The code for compatibility must consider the context. The example they illustrate in the drawing is an urban, walkable context. Lost Creek is a suburban, drivable context.
The character of Lost Creek is incompatible with the character of the Cousins proposed development. The existing plans by Cousins does not provide a transition from the high rise office buildings to an SF2 residential setting.
Leaving the Marshall Tract zoned SF2 would be compatible with the existing Lost Creek neighborhood, and allow the developer to build in a transition zone between the new residential area and the existing office buildings, and park land.
Here's an overview of the whole CodeNEXT project.
Friday, September 19, 2014
The Character of Lost Creek
Lost Creek Blvd & South Capital of Texas Highway
Neighborhood Scout
Overview
"Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy median real estate price is $504,402, which is more expensive than 98.4% of the neighborhoods in Texas and 92.3% of the neighborhoods in the U.S.
The average rental price in Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy is currently unreported, based on NeighborhoodScout's exclusive analysis.
Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy is a suburban neighborhood (based on population density) located in Austin, Texas.
Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy real estate is primarily made up of medium sized (three or four bedroom) to large (four, five or more bedroom) single-family homes and townhomes. Most of the residential real estate is owner occupied. Many of the residences in the Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy neighborhood are established but not old, having been built between 1970 and 1999. A number of residences were also built between 2000 and the present.
In Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy, the current vacancy rate is 0.7%, which is a lower rate of vacancies than 95.7% of all neighborhoods in the U.S. This means that the housing supply in Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy is very tight compared to the demand for property here."
Notable & Unique Characteristics
"The way a neighborhood looks and feels when you walk or drive around it, from its setting, its buildings, and its flavor, can make all the difference. This neighborhood has some really cool things about the way it looks and feels as revealed by NeighborhoodScout's exclusive research. This might include anything from the housing stock to the types of households living here to how people get around."
People
"The rate of college educated adults in the Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy neighborhood is a unique characteristic of the neighborhood. 87.5% of adults here have received at least a 4-year bachelor's degree, compared to the average neighborhood in America, which has 22.6% of the adults with a bachelor's degree. The rate here is higher than NeighborhoodScout found in 99.8% of all U.S. neighborhoods.
In addition, priests and therapists would like to think they know the secrets to a truly successful marriage, but according to NeighborhoodScout's research, the folks of the Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy neighborhood may actually hold the key. 74.9% of its residents are married, which is a higher percentage than is found in 99.5% of the neighborhoods in America.
Also, wealth makes most things in life easier, and a few things harder. If you are wealthy and enjoy keeping up with the Jones', this neighborhood will interest you. In fact, according to NeighborhoodScout's research, the Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy neighborhood is wealthier than 99.2% of the neighborhoods in the United States. Residents here are truly in a unique situation even when compared to other Americans, based on the shear amount of wealth concentrated here. Even in times of economic downturn, residents of this neighborhood, as a group, suffered less and recovered more quickly. This is indeed a stand-out characteristic of this neighborhood.
Finally, according to NeighborhoodScout's exclusive analysis, Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy is among the best neighborhoods for families in Texas. In fact, this neighborhood is more family-friendly than 98.4% of neighborhoods in the entire state of Texas. Its combination of top public schools, low crime rates, and owner-occupied single family homes gives this area the look and feel of a "Leave It to Beaver" episode. Many other families also live here, making it easy to socialize and develop a strong sense of community. In addition, the high number of college-educated parents influences the academic success of the local schools. Overall, you will find all of the amenities a family needs to thrive in the Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy neighborhood. In addition to being an excellent choice for families with school-aged children, this neighborhood is also a very good choice for urban sophisticates and highly educated executives."
There is much more information about Lost Creek and adjacent neighborhoods in this report. Some can be accessed at no charge and others require the payment of a fee.
Neighborhood Scout
Overview
"Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy median real estate price is $504,402, which is more expensive than 98.4% of the neighborhoods in Texas and 92.3% of the neighborhoods in the U.S.
The average rental price in Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy is currently unreported, based on NeighborhoodScout's exclusive analysis.
Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy is a suburban neighborhood (based on population density) located in Austin, Texas.
Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy real estate is primarily made up of medium sized (three or four bedroom) to large (four, five or more bedroom) single-family homes and townhomes. Most of the residential real estate is owner occupied. Many of the residences in the Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy neighborhood are established but not old, having been built between 1970 and 1999. A number of residences were also built between 2000 and the present.
In Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy, the current vacancy rate is 0.7%, which is a lower rate of vacancies than 95.7% of all neighborhoods in the U.S. This means that the housing supply in Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy is very tight compared to the demand for property here."
Notable & Unique Characteristics
"The way a neighborhood looks and feels when you walk or drive around it, from its setting, its buildings, and its flavor, can make all the difference. This neighborhood has some really cool things about the way it looks and feels as revealed by NeighborhoodScout's exclusive research. This might include anything from the housing stock to the types of households living here to how people get around."
People
"The rate of college educated adults in the Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy neighborhood is a unique characteristic of the neighborhood. 87.5% of adults here have received at least a 4-year bachelor's degree, compared to the average neighborhood in America, which has 22.6% of the adults with a bachelor's degree. The rate here is higher than NeighborhoodScout found in 99.8% of all U.S. neighborhoods.
In addition, priests and therapists would like to think they know the secrets to a truly successful marriage, but according to NeighborhoodScout's research, the folks of the Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy neighborhood may actually hold the key. 74.9% of its residents are married, which is a higher percentage than is found in 99.5% of the neighborhoods in America.
Also, wealth makes most things in life easier, and a few things harder. If you are wealthy and enjoy keeping up with the Jones', this neighborhood will interest you. In fact, according to NeighborhoodScout's research, the Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy neighborhood is wealthier than 99.2% of the neighborhoods in the United States. Residents here are truly in a unique situation even when compared to other Americans, based on the shear amount of wealth concentrated here. Even in times of economic downturn, residents of this neighborhood, as a group, suffered less and recovered more quickly. This is indeed a stand-out characteristic of this neighborhood.
Finally, according to NeighborhoodScout's exclusive analysis, Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy is among the best neighborhoods for families in Texas. In fact, this neighborhood is more family-friendly than 98.4% of neighborhoods in the entire state of Texas. Its combination of top public schools, low crime rates, and owner-occupied single family homes gives this area the look and feel of a "Leave It to Beaver" episode. Many other families also live here, making it easy to socialize and develop a strong sense of community. In addition, the high number of college-educated parents influences the academic success of the local schools. Overall, you will find all of the amenities a family needs to thrive in the Lost Creek Blvd / S Capital Of Texas Hwy neighborhood. In addition to being an excellent choice for families with school-aged children, this neighborhood is also a very good choice for urban sophisticates and highly educated executives."
There is much more information about Lost Creek and adjacent neighborhoods in this report. Some can be accessed at no charge and others require the payment of a fee.
Office Buildings that Blend In
I always admired the way that the office buildings were developed on Loop 360 across from Lost Creek. They blended in with the trees and contours of the land. They are not higher than the trees and the dark glass helps.I just realized yesterday that those office buildings are in the City of West Lake Hills.
Zoning of Marshall Tract in Context of Other Loop 360 Properties
The maps are color coded. The most important ones for this exercise are:
- Single Family - Large Lot (SF1): Medium Purple
- Single Family - Standard Lot (SF2): Medium Brown
- Family Residence: Light Brown
- LO - Limited Office: Pale Purple
- PUD - Planned Unit Development: Grey
- I-RR - Interim Rural Residence: Deep Purple
 |
Loop 360 North |
Loop 360 Central
Loop 360 South
If you want to see the entire Loop 360, view the image below, or download the image by clicking here.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Marshall Tract Zoning Profile Report
The picture below is the Zoning Profile Report for the Marshall Tract from the City of Austin. Following the link to the ordinance creating the zoning for the tract and its annexation into the city was signed in 2008. The Marshalls were happy with the zoning to single family residential (SF2) and the city planned the whole Las Cimas land annexation at that time. Someone must have know in 2008 that this zoning was appropriate for its location.
Here's the whole Las Cimas annexation. Note that the "Lost Creek Commercial Area" is clearly marked.
Here's the whole Las Cimas annexation. Note that the "Lost Creek Commercial Area" is clearly marked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)