City CouncilThursday, May 7, 2026 · 10:00 AM · Austin City Hall

Context: The July 23, 2026 notice lists the owner/applicant as 1717 Lakeshore, LP and Morrison-Moore Properties, Ltd., while the April 23, May 7 and May 28, 2026 notices list Grayco SS Land 2011, LP and Morrison-Moore Properties, Ltd., with staff contact Jonathan Tomko, AICP, 512-974-1057.

Recommended: Request from Austin Planning staff the draft ordinance text showing exactly how Ordinance No. 20091217-126 is being amended to fold in the three new tracts, plus the list of Planning Commission modifications behind the phrase 'as modified.' Ask whether the applicant substitution recorded between the May 28 and July 23 notices required any refiled applicant authorization or updated ownership affidavit — without that document you cannot assess whether the notice chain supports the pending first reading.

Context: The April 23, May 7, May 28 and July 23, 2026 Council items all describe the same request to rezone from East Riverside Corridor (Corridor Mixed Use subdistrict) to planned unit development-neighborhood plan and to amend Ordinance No. 20091217-126, with possible fee waivers and regulation modifications.

Recommended: Pull the proposed planned unit development ordinance and the Planning Commission's 'as modified' recommendation for 1705 and 1717 South Lakeshore Boulevard and 1712 East Riverside Drive, and line up its height, setback and site-development terms against the East Riverside Corridor Mixed Use subdistrict baseline the sites sit in today. The staff notice states the ordinance may include fee exemptions or waivers, alternative funding methods and modifications of City regulations — those are the entitlements worth pricing, and they are still being negotiated because only first reading has been noticed.

Context: The applicant is listed as Grayco SS Land 2011, LP on the April 23, May 7 and May 28, 2026 notices but as 1717 Lakeshore, LP on the July 23, 2026 notice, across four postings of the same first-reading item.

Recommended: Ask Austin Planning and agent Michael J. Whellan of Armbrust & Brown why the owner/applicant on this South Lakeshore Boulevard rezoning switched entities partway through, and request the deed or assignment plus any updated agent authorization. Then ask why the item has been noticed four times since April without a first-reading approval — staff and the Planning Commission both recommended granting it, so the holdup is not a staff-commission split.

Context: Each of the four 2026 Council notices seeks to rezone those three addresses out of the East Riverside Corridor Mixed Use subdistrict into a planned unit development-neighborhood plan district, with city staff contact Jonathan Tomko, AICP, 512-974-1057.

Recommended: Call city planner Jonathan Tomko at 512-974-1057 and ask for the specific Planning Commission modifications and the proposed development program for 1705 and 1717 South Lakeshore Boulevard and 1712 East Riverside Drive, which sit in the Lady Bird Lake Watershed. Approval would replace the corridor zoning that applies today with project-specific planned unit development rules, so height, setbacks and site standards along this stretch of lakefront would be governed by the negotiated ordinance rather than the corridor code.

Context: The May 7, 2026 Council item approves a resolution initiating Title 25 amendments and directing the City Manager to report back, with no adopted ordinance text or effective date in the record.

Recommended: Pull the adopted resolution text and the staff drafting schedule before telling any client that three-unit use is now permitted on their site — this action initiates amendments and directs staff to report back, it does not amend Title 25. Ask specifically whether the resolution identifies which regulating plans are covered and whether it sets a return date to Council, since an initiation with no stated deadline leaves permit applications governed by existing HOME Phase 1 and 2 rules indefinitely.

Context: The May 7, 2026 resolution initiates Title 25 amendments to allow two-unit and three-unit residential in all zoning districts and regulating plans where single family and multifamily are permitted, and to modify site development regulations for those uses.

Recommended: Build a parcel list of sites in commercial, mixed-use and regulating-plan (form-based code) areas that already permit multifamily but not two- or three-unit residential — those are the parcels this amendment would newly open. Hold off on final unit counts and site plans until the draft ordinance text lands, because the same resolution also directs changes to setbacks, impervious cover and other site development standards for two- and three-unit uses, so today's HOME Phase 1 and 2 standards are a moving target.

Context: The May 7, 2026 resolution directs the City Manager to take steps to improve feasibility of small-scale residential development and report back to Council, without specifying scope or timing.

Recommended: Request the backup material and the City Manager's report-back on "improving the feasibility of small-scale residential development" — the resolution names no deadline, no metrics and no list of the barriers it is meant to fix. The obvious question the record does not answer: if HOME Phases 1 and 2 already legalized these units, why is a third round needed, and did staff find that permitting cost, utility connection fees, lot standards or financing — not zoning — is what has kept duplexes and triplexes from being built?

Context: The May 7, 2026 resolution would allow two-unit and three-unit residential uses in all zoning districts and regulating plans where single family and multifamily are permitted, and modifies site development regulations for those uses.

Recommended: Look up your parcel's zoning district and any neighborhood regulating plan that covers it; if that district allows single family or multifamily today, two- and three-unit buildings would become allowed there under this amendment — including on commercial and mixed-use frontages that have never had houses on them. Weigh in while staff is still drafting the setback, height and impervious cover standards, because once the ordinance returns to Council those numbers are largely set.

Context: The agenda item for C14-2025-0094 was posted in identical 'conduct a public hearing and approve an ordinance' form on both May 7 and May 21, 2026, with no disposition reflected in the record.

Recommended: Obtain the Council minutes and action record for both the May 7 and May 21, 2026 settings to determine whether the public hearing was opened and closed, postponed, or never reached — and whether re-notice was required for the second setting. If the hearing status is ambiguous in the record, raise it with the case manager before the ordinance is read rather than after adoption.

Context: Case C14-2025-0094 seeks rezoning from family residence (SF-3) to multifamily residence highest density-conditional overlay (MF-6-CO) in the Shoal Creek Watershed, with staff and the Zoning and Platting Commission both recommending the conditional overlay version.

Recommended: Request the conditional overlay conditions attached to the multifamily residence highest density recommendation from staff contact Cynthia Hadri (512-974-7620) before you model unit counts — the overlay is what caps trips, height, or uses, and the site sits in the Shoal Creek Watershed with its own impervious cover constraints. Underwriting to raw highest-density multifamily entitlements without the overlay text and watershed limits will overstate yield.

Context: Identical agenda language for C14-2025-0094 appeared on May 7 and May 21, 2026, listing Austin Independent School District as owner/applicant and David Hartman of Dubois Bryant & Campbell as agent, with staff and Zoning and Platting Commission recommending approval both times.

Recommended: The same Austin Independent School District rezoning was noticed for a public hearing on two consecutive Council agendas with no resolution; ask the Planning Department and the applicant's agent what the district intends to do with the site — sell surplus land, build housing, or something else — and why the item has not been disposed of despite unanimous staff and commission support.

Context: The requested change for C14-2025-0094 is from family residence (SF-3) to multifamily residence highest density-conditional overlay (MF-6-CO), and the item has already been set for a public hearing twice, on May 7 and May 21, 2026.

Recommended: The two lots at 2117 West 49th Street and 4709 Rosedale Avenue would shift from single-family zoning to the city's highest-density apartment category, so the conditional overlay conditions are the only document that limits building height, traffic, or permitted uses on your block — ask Cynthia Hadri in Austin Planning (512-974-7620) for that condition list before the item returns to Council.

Context: The matter is still listed as active with one appearance and 'Next step: Unknown' after the May 7, 2026 public hearing on C14-97-0141.04, and no vote tally appears in the record.

Recommended: Request the executed ordinance number and the May 7 hearing minutes for the Parmer North amendment before advising any client to rely on the new conditions; the record shows a single council appearance with no recorded vote and no ordinance number. Ask the city clerk whether the public hearing was closed and the action final, or whether the item was postponed, because title and financing opinions drafted on an assumed approval are exposed if it was not.

Context: The May 7, 2026 council item rezones from limited industrial-planned development area to the identical district 'to change conditions of zoning,' so the substantive changes exist only in the ordinance exhibit, with staff contact Sherri Sirwaitis listed.

Recommended: Contact case manager Sherri Sirwaitis (512-974-3057) for the amended planned development area exhibit and ordinance, since the base district stayed limited industrial and only the underlying conditions changed — permitted uses, impervious cover in the Harris Branch Watershed, height, or setbacks. Without that exhibit you cannot tell what is now buildable on the East Parmer Lane, Parmer Ridge Drive, McCallen Pass and Harris Ridge Boulevard tracts, and site plan assumptions drawn from the old conditions may be void.

Context: Case C14-97-0141.04 is the fourth amendment to a 1997 case, applicant Karlin McCallen Pass, LLC with agent Richard T. Suttle of Armbrust & Brown, and both staff and the Zoning and Platting Commission recommended approval with no stated conditions.

Recommended: Request from the planning department the ordinance exhibits for all four amendments to the 1997 Parmer North planned development area and ask staff to specify which conditions this one altered. The agenda language rezones the property from limited industrial-planned development area to the same designation, so the public record describes a change without disclosing its content across sixteen listed addresses.

Context: The matter is listed as active with one appearance and "Next step: Unknown" after the May 7, 2026 public hearing on the ordinance amending Title 25 for 810 West 10th Street.

Recommended: The record shows a single Council appearance and no recorded disposition, so request the May 7 Council action record and the signed ordinance amending City Code Title 25 for this property to determine whether the item passed, was postponed, or awaits further readings. Advise clients on landmark restrictions only after you have the adopted ordinance text and its effective date, since the applicable preservation conditions live in that document rather than in the agenda caption.

Context: The May 7, 2026 item rezones 810 West 10th Street from GO-ETOD-DBETOD to GO-H-ETOD-DBETOD, adding the historic landmark (H) designation on top of the density bonus district, with staff contact Kalan Contreras, 512-974-2727.

Recommended: The landmark overlay is being layered onto zoning that already carries equitable transit-oriented development density bonus entitlements, so confirm with city staff in writing how much of the bonus floor area and height can still be built once preservation review applies to the existing house. Get that answer before you price a redevelopment or addition on the site, because designation makes demolition and exterior change decisions discretionary rather than by-right.

Context: The May 7, 2026 item lists Applicant: Historic Landmark Commission (owner-supported) and Owner: Mayer-Howse House, LP, with staff, commission, and Planning Commission all recommending approval and no disposition recorded.

Recommended: The Historic Landmark Commission is listed as the applicant on an owner-supported designation for a limited partnership's property, which is an unusual filing posture worth explaining — request the commission's initiation file and the owner's letter of support to see whether designation was negotiated alongside the site's density bonus entitlements. Also ask the city why the file remains open with no recorded outcome months after the hearing.

Context: The May 7, 2026 rezoning adds historic landmark (H) designation to 810 West 10th Street in the Shoal Creek Watershed while retaining the GO-ETOD-DBETOD density bonus zoning.

Recommended: If designation takes effect, visible exterior alterations or demolition at the Mayer-Howse House would go before the Historic Landmark Commission rather than being approved over the counter, so sign up for that commission's agendas to catch any application for this address. The underlying office and transit-oriented density bonus zoning stays in place, so a larger project on the site is still possible and would surface through those preservation reviews.