Domain/North Austin Development Updates

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by drummer

Yep! I haven't kept up with that one as much - just knew it was happening. Cool to see some work happening.

It's really kicked in to high gear the last couple of weeks, which is great to see finally. That pause was starting to get worrisome.

[Novacek]

This could be a big one

Item 49 at council meeting on the 16th is
"Approve a resolution relating to potential updates and modifications to the North Burnet/Gateway Regulating Plan."

https://www.austintexas.gov/departme...220616-reg.htm

1. Expand Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and TOD-Gateway
subdistricts to parcels within one-half mile of the McKalla and UptownATX
Red Line stations, parcels west of Mopac, and others as appropriate; and
2. Evaluate all subdistricts for opportunities to increase the maximum height
and FAR with a development bonus; and
3. Review opportunities to apply appropriate subdistricts to new areas,
including parcels west of Mopac; and
4. Amend sign regulations in the NBG Plan to align with City Code Chapter
25-10 (Sign Regulations), including common area signage, directional
signage, free standing and wall signage on buildings, wayfinding signage,
park signage, and Capital Metro signage, and any other signage regulations;
and
5. Expand the current boundary of the NBG Plan area to encompass industrial
and/or commercial areas adjacent to the NBG Plan area, while avoiding
existing, developed single family neighborhoods; and
6. Adjust the Land Use Standards for General Retail Sales (Figure 2-1) to
remove square footage limitations in cases where a single project or property
owner may provide retail space to multiple small businesses that will
enhance the pedestrian experience; and
7. Eliminate the current requirement for a 30-foot step-back for building
facades at the 6th 74 story and above, which limits potential housing
developments, retails choices, or office development; and
Page 4 of 4
8. Consider alternatives to prevent the “canyon effect” caused by commercial
structures; and
9. Clarify the application of the 120-foot height limit in the TOD and Corridor
Mixed Use (CMU) subdistricts when adjacent to and across the street from
NR subdistrict, and consider capping the limit under a 100-foot distance; and
10. Apply relaxed compatibility and parking requirements, aligned with
applicable Council directives and actions associated with citywide
compatibility and parking requirement changes; and
11. Evaluate the development bonus provisions and fees for the NBG Plan for
potential updates.


"Expand the current boundary of the NBG Plan area to encompass industrial and/or commercial areas adjacent to the NBG Plan area" jumps out at me. Expanding to industrial uses across Metric seems like a no brainer. Expansion to west of Mopac, north of Braker? Will they jump accross highways, like W of 183 to Arboretum area? How about S of 183 at Burnet? NI property across Mopac? The industrial/commercial stuff in North Shoal Creek east of Mopac?

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by Novacek

This could be a big one

Item 49 at council meeting on the 16th is
"Approve a resolution relating to potential updates and modifications to the North Burnet/Gateway Regulating Plan."

https://www.austintexas.gov/departme...220616-reg.htm

1. Expand Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and TOD-Gateway
subdistricts to parcels within one-half mile of the McKalla and UptownATX
Red Line stations, parcels west of Mopac, and others as appropriate; and
2. Evaluate all subdistricts for opportunities to increase the maximum height
and FAR with a development bonus; and
3. Review opportunities to apply appropriate subdistricts to new areas,
including parcels west of Mopac; and
4. Amend sign regulations in the NBG Plan to align with City Code Chapter
25-10 (Sign Regulations), including common area signage, directional
signage, free standing and wall signage on buildings, wayfinding signage,
park signage, and Capital Metro signage, and any other signage regulations;
and
5. Expand the current boundary of the NBG Plan area to encompass industrial
and/or commercial areas adjacent to the NBG Plan area, while avoiding
existing, developed single family neighborhoods; and
6. Adjust the Land Use Standards for General Retail Sales (Figure 2-1) to
remove square footage limitations in cases where a single project or property
owner may provide retail space to multiple small businesses that will
enhance the pedestrian experience; and
7. Eliminate the current requirement for a 30-foot step-back for building
facades at the 6th 74 story and above, which limits potential housing
developments, retails choices, or office development; and
Page 4 of 4
8. Consider alternatives to prevent the “canyon effect” caused by commercial
structures; and
9. Clarify the application of the 120-foot height limit in the TOD and Corridor
Mixed Use (CMU) subdistricts when adjacent to and across the street from
NR subdistrict, and consider capping the limit under a 100-foot distance; and
10. Apply relaxed compatibility and parking requirements, aligned with
applicable Council directives and actions associated with citywide
compatibility and parking requirement changes; and
11. Evaluate the development bonus provisions and fees for the NBG Plan for
potential updates.


"Expand the current boundary of the NBG Plan area to encompass industrial and/or commercial areas adjacent to the NBG Plan area" jumps out at me. Expanding to industrial uses across Metric seems like a no brainer. Expansion to west of Mopac, north of Braker? Will they jump accross highways, like W of 183 to Arboretum area? How about S of 183 at Burnet? NI property across Mopac? The industrial/commercial stuff in North Shoal Creek east of Mopac?

I'd be a lot more excited about the massive potential of the "parcels west of mopac" in #3 if UT wasn't the owner of all of that undeveloped space.

Also I wonder what #8 means. Are they talking about setbacks like the with the waterfront? Or are they referring to methods of mitigating urban canyon impacts like heat islands, wind gusts?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

I'd be a lot more excited about the massive potential of the "parcels west of mopac" in #3 if UT wasn't the owner of all of that undeveloped space.

Also I wonder what #8 means. Are they talking about setbacks like the with the waterfront? Or are they referring to methods of mitigating urban canyon impacts like heat islands, wind gusts?

The west pickle track that UT owns isn't actually covered by NBG currently (just like east Pickle).

https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/do....cfm?id=376313

Hard to tell exactly what parcels they're referring to, but they could also be referring to the non UT commercial stuff west of Mopac (the "Gateway" part of north burnet gateway). Maybe bringing some of that into the higher CMU-Gateway district instead of its current CMU?

I'm assuming that #8 goes along with #7. The 30 foot setback was a brute force regulation to prevent "canyons".

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Novacek

7. Eliminate the current requirement for a 30-foot step-back for building
facades at the 6th 74 story and above, which limits potential housing
developments, retails choices, or office development; and
Page 4 of 4
8. Consider alternatives to prevent the “canyon effect” caused by commercial
structures; and
9. Clarify the application of the 120-foot height limit in the TOD and Corridor
Mixed Use (CMU) subdistricts when adjacent to and across the street from
NR subdistrict, and consider capping the limit under a 100-foot distance; and

So are these at all opposed to one another? I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around eliminating step-back requirements while also preventing a canyon effect. And then the height limits are just confusing to me for this area anyway.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by drummer

So are these at all opposed to one another? I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around eliminating step-back requirements while also preventing a canyon effect. And then the height limits are just confusing to me for this area anyway.

9. is something different. It's a setback from the residential zoning of NR. It's the NBG equivalent of the "compatibility" arguments we're all having with VMU.

7 and 8 seem complementary, not opposed. They want something less restrictive than the current 100% 30 foot setback. But they (maybe) don't want to go all the way and have nothing, or at least they want to know what the options are.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by AustinYIMBY

For sure! Sorry if that sounded like I was questioning you. I wasn’t and I agree that those 2 points do seem to be in opposition of each other. I was just throwing out a general question of why the council would be trying to specifically reduce the canyon effect, when I think it’s side effects would be great for making the (usually long) walks around the area much more bearable in the summer.

Hey, no worries! I wasn't offended or anything. And yeah, I like shade also - particularly when we're looking at having 2+ weeks of 100 degrees or more (and then like three more months).

Originally Posted by Novacek

9. is something different. It's a setback from the residential zoning of NR. It's the NBG equivalent of the "compatibility" arguments we're all having with VMU.

7 and 8 seem complementary, not opposed. They want something less restrictive than the current 100% 30 foot setback. But they (maybe) don't want to go all the way and have nothing, or at least they want to know what the options are.

That makes sense. Thanks.

[H2O]

My first take on 7 & 8 was that they may be somewhat contradictory, and when I look at the sponsors, I think that might play a role. The lead sponsor is Pool, and the majority of the NBG is in her district. The resolution reads to me like Vela was the initiator, and his district is on the eastern edge of NBG across the railroad tracks from where most of the action is to date. Depending on how far the expansion goes, Districts 6 and 10 might be involved, and they are also co-sponsors. I can see Vela saying "I want to expand NBG and make development easier in my District" and the others saying "Yes, but".

On the canyon effect, I agree that we are far too fearful of shade and shadows from development in Austin when they are mostly helpful. However, if you are a pedestrian Downtown on a cold, windy day November through February, wind gusts from the north channeled through canyons of tall buildings can be rather unpleasant (but nowhere near as bad as northern cities experience 6 months of the year). The most effective way of combating downdrafts from tall buildings is to break them up with setbacks and canopies just above the street level. Thirty feet is not necessarily better than 10.

[AustinYIMBY]

My understanding of why people don’t want a “canyon effect” is because of the near constant shade it produces, therefore making areas of cities colder and devoid of sunlight. That is an understandable argument in northern cities that are already cold, but honestly, that sounds great in places like Austin that can hit 100 degrees for several months each year. Last time I was at the Domain, walking from one area to another, I was actively trying to walk in the shade because it was so damn hot.
Am I missing some other horrible side effect of the “canyon effect”???

[drummer]

Originally Posted by AustinYIMBY

My understanding of why people don’t want a “canyon effect” is because of the near constant shade it produces, therefore making areas of cities colder and devoid of sunlight. That is an understandable argument in northern cities that are already cold, but honestly, that sounds great in places like Austin that can hit 100 degrees for several months each year. Last time I was at the Domain, walking from one area to another, I was actively trying to walk in the shade because it was so damn hot.
Am I missing some other horrible side effect of the “canyon effect”???

I mean, I get that it can feel claustrophobic to some. That said, my question was more geared to the perception that some of those items seemed to be in opposition to one another.

[AustinYIMBY]

Originally Posted by drummer

I mean, I get that it can feel claustrophobic to some. That said, my question was more geared to the perception that some of those items seemed to be in opposition to one another.

For sure! Sorry if that sounded like I was questioning you. I wasn’t and I agree that those 2 points do seem to be in opposition of each other. I was just throwing out a general question of why the council would be trying to specifically reduce the canyon effect, when I think it’s side effects would be great for making the (usually long) walks around the area much more bearable in the summer.

[gillynova]

[Novacek]

Rezoning 10321 and 10401 Burnet Road to CMU-gateway (higher height/FAR limit) passed on all 3 readings.


And I hadn't noticed, but at the May 19 meeting the process of upping these limits to 420 feet/12 FAR passed on consent.


At this point, they should just start the planning now for the light rail spur to go through here. At this rate, seems like half the population growth of Austin is going in here.

amazing what can happen when you don't have NIMBYs fighting everything.

https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/do....cfm?id=384748

[kingkirbythe....]

Austin’s Booming North Burnet Corridor Could Add More Height and Housing

https://austin.towers.net/austins-bo...t-and-housing/

A resolution headed to Austin City Council next week could update the North Burnet / Gateway Regulating Plan to bring more dense and transit-oriented growth to the area around the Domain and Q2 Stadium in North Austin. Set for discussion at Council’s upcoming meeting on June 16, the draft resolution seeks to expand the boundaries of the plan and potentially increase the density of buildings constructed inside it using its development bonus program to incentivize affordable housing and other community benefits.

Since its adoption in 2009, the NBG plan has allowed projects in the region to build much higher than usually allowed under the area’s typical zoning, with several new towers in this district rising 20 floors or more — last month, Council already voted to allow buildings inside the plan’s Commercial Mixed-Use subdistrict around the intersection of Burnet Road and West Braker Lane to rise an additional 112 feet under the area’s development bonus program, increasing the maximum height possible around this part of the district from 308 to 420 feet.

[StoOgE]

This should be an absolute no-brainer. Honestly - I think the area should afford even more than 400 footers.

[OU812]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

This should be an absolute no-brainer. Honestly - I think the area should afford even more than 400 footers.

A "Williams Tower" (Houston) would be a cool (as long as it has a public observation deck).
https://www.hines.com/properties/williams-tower-houston

[Jdawgboy]

That lighting has been on for a few months now actually. I saw it back in March or April.

[Riverranchdrone]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

That lighting has been on for a few months now actually. I saw it back in March or April.

Man I havent gotten out much lately.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by kingkirbythe....

Austin’s Booming North Burnet Corridor Could Add More Height and Housing

https://austin.towers.net/austins-bo...t-and-housing/

A resolution headed to Austin City Council next week could update the North Burnet / Gateway Regulating Plan to bring more dense and transit-oriented growth to the area around the Domain and Q2 Stadium in North Austin. Set for discussion at Council’s upcoming meeting on June 16, the draft resolution seeks to expand the boundaries of the plan and potentially increase the density of buildings constructed inside it using its development bonus program to incentivize affordable housing and other community benefits.

Since its adoption in 2009, the NBG plan has allowed projects in the region to build much higher than usually allowed under the area’s typical zoning, with several new towers in this district rising 20 floors or more — last month, Council already voted to allow buildings inside the plan’s Commercial Mixed-Use subdistrict around the intersection of Burnet Road and West Braker Lane to rise an additional 112 feet under the area’s development bonus program, increasing the maximum height possible around this part of the district from 308 to 420 feet.

passed on consent

We'll see what recommendations they come back with and if any of them generate controversy, but for now it's sailing through

https://austintexas.gov/council_meet...s.cfm?mid=1070

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

passed on consent

We'll see what recommendations they come back with and if any of them generate controversy, but for now it's sailing through

https://austintexas.gov/council_meet...s.cfm?mid=1070

I imagine the big targets are going to be the 1 story industrial section of Metric from Rutland to Braker.