submitted by Steven Zettner
Developers, neighborhood activists and City officials all proposed changes to the Commercial Design Standards and VMU ordinance at a review meeting held March 28 at City Hall.
Council Member Brewster McCracken moderated the meeting, the first of several which will attempt to refine the ordinance one year after it went into effect. Any changes proposed to City Council will require full consensus from all meeting participants. The next meeting is scheduled for April 11 and is open to the public.
Feedback ranged widely.
McCracken himself proposed loosening the VMU affordability requirements to achieve other goals not covered in the original ordinance. Retail space leased to local small businesses and non-profits could be counted towards VMU’s requirement that 10% of a project must be leased or sold to residents with below-average income. The 10% threshold would be measured in square footage, rather than residential units. McCracken said many neighborhoods opted to set the definition of “low income resident” at 60% of median income, which made VMU development unprofitable. He proposed offering different incentives to neighborhoods that loosened the affordability level, for instance added park space or additional space for local small businesses.
McCracken also floated the idea of creating a “neighborhood negotiating toolkit” that would give neighborhoods some standardized options to customize a VMU development.
Dan Heinzen, a representative of the Heritage Neighborhood Association near UT, expressed concern about the negative impacts of VMU located on small commercial lots that back up to single family homes. “Our neighborhood is surrounded by transit corridors on three sides, and the interface between VMU and our residents could be very disruptive,” Heinzen said. These concerns are shared by other neighborhoods, including Allandale and Crestview.
Steven Zettner, an Allandale resident who has been actively involved in the VMU process, proposed adding pedestrian and bicycle connectivity requirements for VMU properties defined as being in “town centers.” The current ordinance actually removes connectivity requirements for VMU that apply to straight commercial developments.
One architect expressed concern with how neighborhoods were removing VMU from properties along a corridor. “This undermines the whole vision of continuous mixed use that we originally agreed upon.”
Brett Denton, developer of the 5350 Burnet VMU property, expressed concern that the current street tree requirements were too restrictive and would block the view of retail from the street. He suggested allowing developers to “move” street trees to other locations on the property, or plant them in off-site locations. He also asked that Austin Energy allow a mix of power transformer levels that reflect the mix of uses.
George Adams, a City planner instrumental in creating the VMU ordinance, raised concerns about how affordability is monitored, how VMU is implemented in historic districts, and how “redevelopment” is defined. The Design Standards do not apply to projects defined as “redevelopment,” and many developers have used this as a loop hole to avoid following the new rules.
Adams also raised the possibility of finding new options for handling overhead utilities that interfere with street trees.
One participant raised implementation problems that limited use of solar panels. Rules governing sites over 5 acres were deemed complex and developers asked that they be made more flexible.
Comments