Austin Oaks, the most controversial zoning case so far this year, was approved by Austin City Council on Thursday by an 8-2-1 vote, clearing the path for the 1 million square-foot planned unit development, or PUD, at the corner of Spicewood Springs and MoPac in District 10. District 10 Council Member Alison Alter and Mayor Pro Tem Kathie Tovo (District 9) voted against the project, while District 7 Council Member Leslie Pool was absent. The vote followed a 7-1-1 green light from council on first reading, and a hotly debated, heavily amended and narrowly approved second reading, 7-4. The third reading featured no shortage of last-minute changes, with 13 amendment sheets presented during the council’s discussion–only half as many as the 26 amendments that funneled across the dais on second reading. After nearly three years of negotiations and debate, the final site plan included the loss of one floor of a now four-story residential building on Parcel 9, bringing the “likely” number of residential units down from 425 to 375, according to Michael Whellan, a representative for developer Spire Realty.

“The PUD process has become a torturous process. ” - District 5 Council Member Ann Kitchen

The site must provide at least two residential buildings at four stories apiece, with a minimum of 250 units, as that is the threshold to providing a park dedication–a central part of the development’s superiority, the standard used to justify the entitlements given to PUD projects. The PUD must provide a minimum of 27 affordable units, or 10.8 percent of the total residential units, whichever number is greater. Other late negotiations included opening up the two restaurant parcels to four additional but secondary uses: financial services, general retail, personal services and pet services; limiting two office buildings at eight and nine stories; and downsizing two of the site’s four parking garages. “I’m proud of what we did here today,” Mayor Steve Adler said. “I think we were able to find the best way forward.” During the project’s epilogue, several council members agreed with District 10 Council Member Alison Alter’s assertion that the PUD process is broken.

“I’m proud of what we did here today, I think we were able to find the best way forward.” - Mayor Steve Adler

“Good land development decisions need not take all of this time,” said Alter, who apologized to the community for the schism between neighbors the process created. “We need a better way for us … and the community to address these challenges.” The zoning case was the central issue in the December runoff election for the District 10 council seat between Alter and incumbent Sheri Gallo. Alter beat her opponent decisively. “The PUD process has become a torturous process,” District 5 Council Member Ann Kitchen said. “The original PUD ordinance was intended to be a way to provide for additional community benefits and you know, it’s just not fulfilling what the original ideal was and I think we need to work on that.” A crucial petition is invalidated From the first reading in December, all the way up to the hours preceding the final vote, a valid petition with owners of more than 27 percent of the surrounding property opposing the development, requiring a nine-vote supermajority from council to approve the case, loomed over the fate of the zoning case, and with a second reading that narrowly passed 7-4, there were questions as to where the two more votes would come from. Then, just after 2 p.m., it was announced and eventually confirmed by Greg Guernsey, director of the city’s Planning and Zoning Department, that two petitioners removed their name, dropping the petition to only 19.83 percent of the surrounding property owners, eliminating the need for a supermajority nine-vote approval. By the time the item was brought up after the council’s dinner break, a third property owner dropped their opposition, bringing the petition down to an irrelevant 15.1 percent. Following the vote, Whellan told Community Impact Newspaper that two of the petitioners dropped their opposition after “some educating” on behalf of the developer, while the third–and largest property owner–dropped opposition after “landscaping accommodations” were made. Whellan said no money was exchanged in gaining support for the project.