AUSTIN | Austin Oaks PUD

[Mopacs]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The tallest suburban buildings we have now are Pinnacle Campus and Tower of the Hills, which are each around 160 feet. 200 feet is taller than anything outside of downtown, UT and West Campus, plus the Catherine just south of the river. Still, 200 feet versus 225 feet is almost not worth mentioning. It's only about the height of two floors. Size-wise, though, it's probably about 50,000 less square feet since office floors typically have 20 to 25,000 square feet each. I would be less concerned with the height, and more concerned about how squatty the buildings become by having larger footprints to make up for the lost vertical space. This means more impervious coverage.

Austin Oaks sits on a very prominent site, along the Balcones Escarpment (which parallels Mopac to the west on that segment). 200+ foot towers would stand out dramatically (relative to the central core of the city).

[Tech House]

If this project proceeds as currently proposed, I would hope it might spur some more ambitious projects just north of the 182/Mopac interchange, on both sides of Mopac. Though that NE quadrant is currently pretty well entrenched in warehouse and other low-rise, low-density uses, so that probably won't change for many years, if ever. But the NW (the original "Triangle") offers a lot of opportunity. Anyone know the likelihood of high-rise development there? Not that I don't appreciate those lovely woods that would be displaced.

[Mopacs]

Originally Posted by Tech House

If this project proceeds as currently proposed, I would hope it might spur some more ambitious projects just north of the 182/Mopac interchange, on both sides of Mopac. Though that NE quadrant is currently pretty well entrenched in warehouse and other low-rise, low-density uses, so that probably won't change for many years, if ever. But the NW (the original "Triangle") offers a lot of opportunity. Anyone know the likelihood of high-rise development there? Not that I don't appreciate those lovely woods that would be displaced.

I believe most of the vacant land belongs to University of Texas (west tract of the Pickle research center). Perhaps the university could eventually sell-off or lease portions of the land? Some nice tall office buildings, hotels and residential high rises would really stand out there as well.

[airwx]

Originally Posted by Mopacs

I believe most of the vacant land belongs to University of Texas (west tract of the Pickle research center). Perhaps the university could eventually sell-off or lease portions of the land? Some nice tall office buildings, hotels and residential high rises would really stand out there as well.

UT leased this land to Hines at the end of last year, but I haven't heard much about it since then.

UT Campus Real Estate Office - RFQ/RFP status

I agree that this would be a good place for dense development. It has good access to MoPac, 183, the 803 RapidBus, and a future Lone Star Rail station. It's also a short bike ride away from the Kramer Redline station.

An article in the Daily Texan last year said:

Jagger said Hines has a general idea of what will be constructed on the land.

“Hines intends to develop a mixed-use master plan primarily consisting of office, multifamily, retail and hospitality uses in addition to significant preservation of natural open space,” Jagger said.

Hegarty said the University hopes to see residential apartments constructed on the land in order to address the needs of UT employees.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by airwx

An article in the Daily Texan last year said.....

Thanks for that great aerial shot. I'm surprised by how much open land still exists on the east side of Mopac, and by UT's under-utilization many of its valuable properties.

That quote in the article sums up UT's attitude and m.o. - "...the University hopes to see residential apartments constructed on the land in order to address the needs of UT employees." It's always about UT and never seems to try for win-win uses of their land. I hate the overuse of the word "bully" in the past few years, but it applies to how UT operates. They muscle their way in to wherever they want to be and then do as they wish, without adequately investigating possibilities for cooperation with host cities and other entities. I presume it was UT that blocked TXDot from continuing the access road through their property along north Mopac. They blocked the city from extending the Town Lake trail along the waterfront at the married student housing complex on Lake Austin Blvd. They're obstructionist bullies.

Edit: in fairness, their lease to Hines may well represent exactly the kind of win-win approach that I said they don't take. But hey, I was ranting so no rules, gloves off.

[airwx]

This item was just postponed indefinitely by the Zoning and Platting Commission, however the commission is requesting an update on the negotiations between the applicant and neighbors on February 17, 2015. Quite a few neighborhood groups and individual neighbors spoke against the indefinite postponement and instead requested a postponement of only 60 days.

[LoneStarMike]

New North Austin mixed-use plan dangles transportation incentives, but will residents buy it?
Jan Buchholz
Austin Business Journal
May 11, 2015

Owners of a large commercial site near MoPac Expressway and Spicewood Springs Road hope a new plan for redevelopment will appeal to neighbors, who have opposed a zoning change.

Spire Realty Group LP, based in Dallas, has downsized the density of the original plan for Austin Oaks and tossed in about $10 million for transportation mitigation and along with other contributions for community amenities.

[SNIP]

But Drenner is convinced the latest plan — that cuts the height of the tallest buildings by half and decreases the amount of apartments by more than half — will earn the respect of neighborhood residents. He emphasized that PUD is possible only by substantially enhancing the development beyond what the current zoning supports.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Austin Business Journal
New North Austin mixed-use plan dangles transportation incentives, but will residents buy it?
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...n-dangles.html

[wwmiv]

I'm actually happy with the height reduction changes and the traffic mitigation plan is ... nice.

[KevinFromTexas]

That's kind of a lot of parking garages.

[wwmiv]

Yeah, it is.

[The ATX]

The parking garages were the first thing I noticed too. Most likely they are separate from the office buildings to shorten the building heights to please the NIMBY gods. We have garages of:

10-levels
8-levels
7-levels
5-Levels
Unknown levels for residential building

Awesome.

[KevinFromTexas]

Seriously. That's 4,400 spaces in 4 garages and then an unknown number in a 5th one. I don't think density is the problem here. It's car-based developments like this one. They're basically developing a huge vertical parking lot with a little bit of other uses sprinkled in.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Seriously. That's 4,400 spaces in 4 garages and then an unknown number in a 5th one. I don't think density is the problem here. It's car-based developments like this one. They're basically developing a huge vertical parking lot with a little bit of other uses sprinkled in.

I don't understand NIMBY's fear of height. Taller buildings (or what they have now stacked on the garages) could have meant more green space or retail.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Actually, despite all the parking garages the parking ratio is only slightly above standard for suburban buildings, if my bad eyes are reading that blurry site plan correctly.

909,320 square feet of office space
66,844 square feet of retail space
4,482 parking spaces
(I'm skipping the apartments because the parking spaces are not listed but also they will be designated specifically for the residents)

Traditionally, suburban office buildings must have 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space to be competitive. Office tenants want at least that much, and tech and call center tenants want 5 or 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet because they squeeze more bodies into less square footage when they lease space. At the above numbers, if you combine the office & retail, that 4,482 parking space total equals 4.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet. However if some or all of those blurry 6's on the retail buildings are actually blurry 8's or 9's then the total retal square footage goes up and that parking ratio goes down to 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet or slightly under. To be fair, retail parking ratios are counted differently than office, but that's too much math for a Monday afternoon.

That's going to be one ugly stroll down Executive Center Drive with all those tall parking garages exposed out in the open like that. Hopefully they'll grow some vines up the side or put some planters on them or something.

[AusTxDevelopment]

PolitiFact Texas
Austin yard signs suggest office tower project could drive up traffic 500 percent
http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...r-project-cou/

[loonytoony]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

PolitiFact Texas
Austin yard signs suggest office tower project could drive up traffic 500 percent
http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...r-project-cou/

Maybe I'm immature, but wouldn't it be a hoot to make a similar looking "NIMBY!" sign and put them up next to these ones.

[mars-man]

I live in the area and these sadly predictable NIMBYs are driving me nuts. Disingenuous, alarmist signs like the one above keep sprouting overnight like turd blossoms, though they never last long. The idiotic knee-jerk NO PUD! signs in every other yard are not exactly conducive to the spirit of neighborly compromise and dialogue, either.

I've been tempted to make my own sign. Let me know what you think.

DON'T PULL MY PUD!

[hookem]

PUDs are pretty much dead with the new city council.

I expect a scaled-down project with traditional zoning (plus some variances) is coming.

[airwx]

I don't think PUDs are completely dead with this council. CM Pool was supportive of the proposed PUD at the briefing about the Grove at Shoal Creek yesterday morning and it is in her district. I do think this PUD will be a bit tougher sell. They had an open house yesterday evening and another one coming up on Monday evening. More on that here: This article has more on the new proposal: http://communityimpact.com/residents...-pud-proposal/

They've also posted the back up for the Zoning and Platting Commission meeting on Monday for this project: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=233094