Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoot
One does not ask for a specific SF...they ask for the proper FAR to allow for the desired SF. In this case, if they are truly asking for a FAR of 12-1, then the max SF on this property is just under 710,000 SF.
|
If you look at that one line that says 1,472,000 SF of office space, and subtract the 706,560 SF they asked for on the other page, and then subtract the 58,880 SF of retail, you're left with 706,560. Looks to me like they added the office SF twice and added in the retail and put that amount on one of the lines of that one page that's supposed to just show the office SF.
I guess technically, they could ask for a FAR of 24-1; the maximum in that area is 25-1 according to page 2 of
this map
Quote:
I would not be surprised if the city is inundated with "final" CURE requests before the bullish#t density bonus program kicks in.
Hell, if I owned a developable piece of property downtown, I'd be going through the same process...get the highest density possible for my piece of land.
Over the coming months it is going to be interesting to see how the values of properties fluctuate with the implementation of the required density bonus plan. Due to the possible increased cost in developing a piece of CBD real estate, the values may decrease unless already zoned CURE or some other grandfathered higher level of density.
|
I think it depends on the type of project being proposed. If it's a non-residential development like an office, a hotel or retail, I'm not even sure if the developer has to pay very much (if any) in public benefits for extra SF.
This is the study that the firm hired by the City to craft the Downtown Density Bonus program and regarding non-residential developments, it says:
Quote:
Non- Residential Uses:
HR&A’s economic analysis of the development and ownership of
non-residential uses in Downtown found that the development of additional floor area beyond the as-of-right zoning for non-residential buildings does not provide adequate incremental returns at this time to allow for a fee-in-lieu payment to be paid by a developer to the City. As a result, HR&A recommends that the fee be set at $0 per square foot of bonused floor area on non-residential development in all Downtown districts.
|
And:
Quote:
Commercial and hotel development does not support a fee-in-lieu.
At this time, commercial development does not produce sufficiently high incremental returns on additional building area that could be gained through
a density bonus to justify charging a public benefit fee. Office product does not command sufficiently higher rents for additional density to produce significant incremental value, and hotel programs are not easily amenable to scaling, which would be required to take advantage of bonused areas.
Furthermore, density bonuses that result in a more expensive construction type (i.e., shifting from mid-rise to high-rise) typically do not yield additional returns high enough to justify their usage. In some cases, however, additional density makes a project feasible where it was not feasible under
base zoning. This is particularly the case for commercial (office and hotel) developments outside of the Core and Waterfront districts, which depend on a sufficient density to support the construction of parking. However, the
increased density does not improve project returns to a level sufficient enough to support a fee-in-lieu payment. By providing a bonus without an accompanying public benefit in these cases, the City is incentivizing the commercial development as a goal in and of itself.
|
The way it's worded, it makes it sound like developers of non-residential projects don't have to provide
any public benefits other than complying with the City's Urban Design Guidelines, making streetscape improvements consistent with Great Streets standards, and achieving a minimum two-star rating under the Austin Energy Green Building program.
Prev
Colorado Tower
Linear Mode
