Austin | Domain/North Austin

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Personally (this is my own opinion, so feel free to disagree)

Gladly

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I think of Anderson Lane as the demarcation line between a North Burnet/Gateway development thread and Central Austin Infill development thread for upcoming and under construction projects.

183 is the dividing line. Both legally and functionally.

Wooten and North Shoal Creek have the same zoning as Crestview and the rest of the central city (McMansion). CodeNext may tweak that slightly, but they'll still be closer than the NBG regulations.

Projects on Burnet Road in North Shoal Creek have the same NIMBY problems as elsewhere on lower Burnet (we saw this with the proposed apartments replacing Gordon Automotive).

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...g99WG9yjnubHK/

Burnet road north of 183 is a whole different beast (there is no NA to fight redevelopment, and the zoning encourages it much more).

Finally, it doesn't make sense to split whatever future redevelopments occur above and below Anderson in the Northcross area.

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Personally (this is my own opinion, so feel free to disagree) I think of Anderson Lane as the demarcation line between a North Burnet/Gateway development thread and Central Austin Infill development thread for upcoming and under construction projects. Mueller, East Austin, Highland, and West Campus should continue to have their own threads, however.

All the links you provided constitute a wonderful summation, and yes I already avidly look at nearly all of them as updates come, but I find that those don't see updates as much as major downtown projects. While that's not that surprising, the idea of infill in Austin (in my mind, anyway) is going to be of nodes of new development merging at the edges as they grow to become a more flush urban cityscape.

The arc from the Domain, past North Burnet, over to Crestview Station, through Highland, and on to Mueller, is a great example of a fertile ground for such a dynamic. I think what I'd love is a more comprehensive discussion on macro impacts from all this infill, the progress of these major redevelopment hubs, and how these changing patterns continue to evolve beyond their current limits.

Reinforcing this argument are news of major plans that are only just now emerging within the core of the city, like the Grove at Shoal Creek, the Broadmoor/IBM property next to the Domain, the North Shoal Creek neighborhood plan, the RBJ Center, and even the Austin State Hospital land or the Colony Park plan... just to name a few.



Major projects like Brackenridge, Catalyst and Saltillo aside, these other redevelopment initiatives are what are going to make future Austin what it will be.

[The ATX]

From the ABJ:

TIER REIT Inc. is expanding the borders of the Domain — and considering adding 1 million more square feet of office space — in a plan to vastly grow what many people consider to be Austin's "second downtown."

The Dallas-based real estate company confirmed this week that it formed a joint venture with Endeavor Real Estate Group to purchase two office buildings totaling 240,000 square feet near Burnet Road and North MoPac Expressway. The 9.5-acre site could eventually be redeveloped to add 1 million square feet of additional office space in a tight sub-market already crowded with tenants such as Facebook Inc., Indeed Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., among others.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...ys-office.html

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by The ATX

From the ABJ:


https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...ys-office.html

Interesting. Stone Creek II (Domain Point II) was only built in 1999. The other was in 84.

If they're already considering redeveloping the former, I wonder how much longer the old IBM stuff in the domain proper will last.

[wwmiv]

I'd hope that the La Quinta is redeveloped as well, so that this expansion is tied as best as possible into both the Domain and Broadmoor.

[freerover]

The Cap Metro plan that came out this week is a draft and certain elements like where the route ends can change. That means it's possible the North light rail line goes to the Domain instead of Tech Ridge as shown in the map.

The line goes north from Downtown via Guad and N. Lamar and then (I believe) turns left at 183 and runs parallel with it until turning right onto Burnet. It then goes to the Northern edge of the Domain. It would be great but you do have close service via the Red Line nearby even though a Burnet light rail line would be a lot more convenient. I can't imagine it will be swapped for Tech Ridge portion but it's technically possible according to Cap Metro.

The plan also has the planned Broadmoor Red Line Station and Relocated Braker Ln Station.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

The Cap Metro plan that came out this week is a draft and certain elements like where the route ends can change. That means it's possible the North light rail line goes to the Domain instead of Tech Ridge as shown in the map.

The line goes north from Downtown via Guad and N. Lamar and then (I believe) turns left at 183 and runs parallel with it until turning right onto Burnet. It then goes to the Northern edge of the Domain. It would be great but you do have close service via the Red Line nearby even though a Burnet light rail line would be a lot more convenient. I can't imagine it will be swapped for Tech Ridge portion but it's technically possible according to Cap Metro.

My understanding is that it's a spur. That's how it's been described by those that were live-tweeting the meeting. It's also _almost_ (but not quite) readable in the slides here http://kut.org/post/austin-getting-a...ight-rail-line

The route up to Tech Ridge would be the main route and first/guaranteed built (that gets them to the park and ride and I35 access). Then a branch would be added.

It's really hard to tell from the blurry slides, but I'm hopeful that the portion on-Burnet and the portion getting to Burnet being drawn differently means that route is still undecided. Previous maps have shown a couple different options there.

Whenever possible, my feedback to them is that the routing along Anderson Lane is preferable. I'm going to try and convince you all of that, and if successful, hopefully you'll give the same feedback

(to follow)

[Novacek]

Why the Anderson Lane alignment (as shown in previous slides) is better:

1) Just from the slides we can't really tell the cross section of a 183 route, whether it's underneath 183 or one track on each side or both tracks to the north of 183. But I think I can conclusively state that any one of those is not really conducive to a true urban fabric.

In any of those permutations, you severely limit the walking shed and access to the stations. If they're truly proposing putting a station at 183 and Northgate (which is what I think that word in the slide is), then 180 of the station perimeter is blocked by this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3684...7i13312!8i6656


Running it along 183 (or perhaps even worse, trying to wind it through the neighborhood north of that somehow) is basically the exact opposite of what they've said they did in the 2025 plan, that transit should run along the Imagine Austin/Mixed Use Corridors.

Anderson Lane is a Imagine Austin corridor. Burnet Road south of 183 is a Imagine Austin corridor. 183 is not.

2) By spurring off at an acute angle (if they're following 183), they're actually duplicating a lot of their coverage. NACA would have routes on 3 sides, while Wooten would have 1 (if you can accessibly cross 183) while North Shoal Creek would have none. They may feel the (current) demographics of NACA are more conducive to high ridership, but there's no guarantee that lasts.

Now, I'm in Wooten, so I'm biased . But reaching new areas rather than duplicating seems better even from an unbiased system planning perspective.

3) As mentioned, Anderson is an Imagine Austin corridor. But by reaching the Anderson/Burnet intersection, you also provide (some level of) service to the Northcross IA center. You also better provide service to the Crossroads area (183 and Burnet, s of the intersection). This isn't a named center in IA, but the IA map does seem to group that slice south of 183 with the NBG regional center.

4) There's room for it. Anderson Lane is a 4(5) lane road. I'm not sure of the exact RoW width, but that section of Anderson has a daily traffic count of about 20k. You should be able to take a lane each way, especially since some of that traffic will now be riding. Some today is also probably cut-through traffic that could instead that burnet/183 and would reroute.
While Burnet north of Anderson (if I'm remembering the Burnet corridor plan study) actually has a really wide 135' RoW, enough for the existing 4/5 lanes plus transit lanes.


Anyway, those are my arguments, and I hope to convince CM with them. Maybe I've convinced a few of you, and you'll join me.

[nixcity]

^Haha, classic Novacek, I agree and even wonder if there is a point further south to spur off since Burnet is getting denser.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

^Haha, classic Novacek, I agree and even wonder if there is a point further south to spur off since Burnet is getting denser.

Replying in transportation thread.

[The ATX]

The Broadmoor rezoning case continues to get punted month after month at the Planning Commission. It's now scheduled for 03/13 and the reason is is the usual more time needed to study traffic. I don't remember if this has to go to City Council next or not. But that would probably drag on for a while as well.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=293461

[freerover]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The Broadmoor rezoning case continues to get punted month after month at the Planning Commission. It's now scheduled for 03/13 and the reason is is the usual more time needed to study traffic. I don't remember if this has to go to City Council next or not. But that would probably drag on for a while as well.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=293461

I'm pretty sure it does. Rezonings are usually glossed over in council meetings and passed in bulk but this one could get flagged. It represents everything Leslie Pool is against. I don't fault the city staff for making sure they have their ducks in a row before it goes to council.

Maybe it has taken longer because they needed to figure out what improvements were going to be made by the bond program in order to make their traffic calculations?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

I'm pretty sure it does. Rezonings are usually glossed over in council meetings and passed in bulk but this one could get flagged. It represents everything Leslie Pool is against. I don't fault the city staff for making sure they have their ducks in a row before it goes to council.

Maybe it has taken longer because they needed to figure out what improvements were going to be made by the bond program in order to make their traffic calculations?

I think it's the rail station that's the sticky wicket, basically the entire case of the rezoning (to TOD) rests on that. Since most traffic analysis they do don't include that factor, it doesn't surprise me that it might take longer.

[KevinFromTexas]

Site plan with elevations for Domain 9 office building. The elevations show the roof of the mechanical penthouse at 246 feet 8 inches, the main roof at 225 feet and the top (18th floor) at 206 feet.

The elevations are files 025 and 026.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...rtyrsn=3334489

[Novacek]

Looks like part of NorthBurnet/Gateway (just south of the Domain) is getting upzoned.

http://www.austintexas.gov/departmen...180308-reg.htm

"The proposed code amendment to the North Burnet Gateway Zoning District Regulating Plan will allow
for the creation of a new subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)-Gateway Zone, that applies to the
parcels bounded by Braker Lane, Burnet Road, Union Pacific Railroad, and Gault Lane that are not zoned
major industry- planned development area.
The proposed CMU-Gateway Zone will grant a base entitlement of 140 feet. Development in the
proposed subdistrict will be entitled to seek a FAR of 8:1 and a height of 308 feet with a development
bonus. Additionally, development in this area is exempt from the maximum parking requirements of the
Regulating Plan. The platting requirements for this subdistrict are modified to permit a lot to abut a
dedicated public street or a major internal drive. Development in this area will be exempt from the sign
regulations established in LDC Section 25-10-133, University Overlay Zoning District."


It looks like that area is currently Commercial Mixed Use, with a 3:1 FAR/180 foot max (with bonuses).

[KevinFromTexas]

On Sunday I noticed some of the Domain buildings on the horizon from James Casey Street near the South Austin Medical Center. Domain Tower is only 181 feet, but it was pretty easy to spot. I could also see the cranes for Domain 11. 308 feet in that area would really stand out. That view is 13 miles (as the crow flies) from those buildings. I snapped a pic. I'll have to post it eventually.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Looks like part of NorthBurnet/Gateway (just south of the Domain) is getting upzoned.

http://www.austintexas.gov/departmen...180308-reg.htm

"The proposed code amendment to the North Burnet Gateway Zoning District Regulating Plan will allow
for the creation of a new subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)-Gateway Zone, that applies to the
parcels bounded by Braker Lane, Burnet Road, Union Pacific Railroad, and Gault Lane that are not zoned
major industry- planned development area.
The proposed CMU-Gateway Zone will grant a base entitlement of 140 feet. Development in the
proposed subdistrict will be entitled to seek a FAR of 8:1 and a height of 308 feet with a development
bonus. Additionally, development in this area is exempt from the maximum parking requirements of the
Regulating Plan. The platting requirements for this subdistrict are modified to permit a lot to abut a
dedicated public street or a major internal drive. Development in this area will be exempt from the sign
regulations established in LDC Section 25-10-133, University Overlay Zoning District."


It looks like that area is currently Commercial Mixed Use, with a 3:1 FAR/180 foot max (with bonuses).

Finally the rezoning needed for Broadmoor's complex. Amazon HQ or not, it's a great project.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

Finally the rezoning needed for Broadmoor's complex. Amazon HQ or not, it's a great project.

This isn't Broadmoor. That has still been pushed out. That's TOD zoning (and I think even potentially higher).

This is west of Burnet, north of Braker. There's a section (I think the remaining IBM building) that's not officially Domain, so it's under NBG zoning.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

This isn't Broadmoor. That has still been pushed out. That's TOD zoning (and I think even potentially higher).

This is west of Burnet, north of Braker. There's a section (I think the remaining IBM building) that's not officially Domain, so it's under NBG zoning.

Oh the Union Pacifoc railroad is the border. My mistake.

[KevinFromTexas]

I think the Broadmoor site mentioned 360 feet. I'd love to see that, and maybe even something crack 400 feet if the design warrants it.