[2:08] It is 6:01 and we'll go ahead and welcome everyone to the

[2:13] August regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of

[2:16] Dripping Springs. We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order.

[2:19] Diana, would you call roll and advise if we have a quorum, please?

[2:22] » [clears throat] >> Chair James.

[2:24] » Here.

[2:27] » Commissioner Crosson. >> Here.

[2:29] » Commissioner Foster. >> Here.

[2:31] » Commissioner Shamway. >> Here.

[2:34] » Commissioner Crawford. >> Here.

[2:37] » And Vice Chair Williamson and Commissioner Burgoyne reported absent.

[2:41] » Okay, thank you for that. >> You do have a quorum.

[2:43] » Thank you, Diana. Thank you for that. All right, we'll go ahead and we'll

[2:45] start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Theodore, you want to lead?

[2:52] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[2:57] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[3:03] justice for all. >> Thank you.

[3:07] All right. All right, the first section of our

[3:09] meeting always starts off with presentation of citizens. This is an

[3:12] opportunity for anybody in the audience to address the commission on any topic

[3:16] that they would like to pursue. We do suggest that if you came to talk

[3:20] about a topic that's posted on the agenda, you might want to hold your

[3:23] comments until that item comes up. We'll recognize you at that time. But at this

[3:26] time, if anybody wants to address the commission, we'll welcome your comments.

[3:30] Anybody in the audience like to address us at this time?

[3:33] Seeing and hearing none, we'll close the presentation of citizens.

[3:36] The next segment of our agenda is our consent agenda. We have one item on the

[3:40] consent agenda and that has to do with the minutes

[3:42] » [clears throat] >> of our July regularly scheduled meeting.

[3:45] Minutes have been circulated to the commission. I think everybody's had a

[3:47] chance to take a look at them. I'm seeking a motion with regard to our

[3:51] minutes of the last monthly meeting. >> Motion to approve.

[3:54] » Got a motion to approve from Eugene. I have a second. Got a second from Doug

[3:58] Shumway. Any comments, changes, revisions?

[4:01] Everybody good? Okay, all in favor of the minutes,

[4:04] indicate by saying I. >> I.

[4:06] » Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay.

[4:10] Uh now we're moving on to the business agenda. The first item on our business

[4:13] agenda, this has to do with a recommendation [clears throat]

[4:17] or a consideration of a variance request to allow a reduction in the onsite

[4:21] parking requirements for the Headwaters Commercial East project. Uh is there a

[4:25] presentation by the applicant? >> Yes, sir.

[4:28] » Okay.

[4:36] Do you have the clicker up there? >> What's that?

[4:38] » Clicker? Give me the click click ahead.

[4:41] » Yeah, if you click ahead, that'll get you.

[4:44] Here we go. Uh my name is Daniel Campbell. I'm with the development group

[4:48] that's developing Headwaters East. Um presenting the parking variance. Thank

[4:52] you very very much, commissioners, for your time today.

[4:55] So, this is just a site plan for the project. Just kind of orient everybody.

[4:59] Uh Highway 290 is on the on the south edge of the project. Canyon Wood is is

[5:05] to your uh east. [laughter] >> [clears throat]

[5:08] » And then uh our new driveway um will be on the west. Um we're pre- predominantly

[5:15] um a mix of retail, uh service users, medical, uh

[5:20] restaurants, and entertainment is what we're planning.

[5:27] So, the request comes from uh section 5.6.2,

[5:32] the commercial parking code for Bee Cave [cough] Springs.

[5:36] » [clears throat] >> Um as y'all all know, there's various uh

[5:38] parking requirements based on the use. There's about 58 different ones.

[5:43] The one the only one we're asking for a variance from is the one related to

[5:47] retail or personal services, which is one per 200 square feet. We're

[5:52] asking that that uh be changed to one per 250 square feet. The key thing there

[5:58] that we'd like to kind of mention is there's no change to any other category,

[6:02] including heavy parker using heavy parkers like restaurants, theaters,

[6:07] gyms, those types of things. >> [snorts]

[6:11] » Um and really the the need for uh this variance request really is related to

[6:16] kind of the anchor position of our project, which is um mainly true retail.

[6:23] So, this is people who sell clothes and and shoes and things of that sort, not,

[6:29] you know, service users like an insurance company or

[6:32] H&R Block or a dentist or something like that. It's that true kind of retail, you

[6:37] go in and buy something to put on put on your body or accessorize with.

[6:41] Um and overall on the project, if you look at the project from overall basis,

[6:46] code parking is about 1,614 stalls. What we're showing now is about 1,580.

[6:53] So, it's a difference of about 34 stalls or 2% from uh

[6:58] code.

[7:02] And just to compare it to other Central Texas cities, uh Round Rock is one per

[7:07] 225 again for um

[7:11] our retail category. Cedar Park, Bee Cave, San Marcos are all one per 250,

[7:17] um which is just slightly different than the the Dripping Springs.

[7:25] So, we also pulled some comparable projects that we're familiar with. Some

[7:29] of these we developed, um some of which are being developed in the neighborhood,

[7:32] and so we thought we we'd include those. Balterra Village, which uh

[7:37] which was developed um a little while ago, maybe 10 years ago,

[7:41] the anchor lot ratio, which show you in just a second, is 3.87 per thousand,

[7:46] which compared to what we're asking, we're asking for four per thousand for

[7:49] our anchor lot ratio. The overall ratio there is

[7:53] about 5.5. 1890 Ranch in Cedar Park is a large

[7:57] Target anchored shopping center that's overall parked at 4.5.

[8:02] Uh The Park is another Whole Foods anchored shopping center in Cedar Park

[8:06] that's at 4.7 per thousand. And then The Village, which is the new

[8:10] Target anchored center that's coming in down the street here in Dripping

[8:13] Springs, the anchor lot is at 3.08 per thousand. And the overall ratio is 3.4.

[8:19] Our our overall ratio will be about 5.3 or 5.4

[8:24] to put it in comparison. So again, this is Belterra at the 5.5

[8:30] including kind of everything you see there.

[8:34] The anchor lot, which includes Evo down to Gold's, and also includes two

[8:39] restaurants in the middle is parked at 3.8 per

[8:43] 3.8 per thousand. And again, we're asking for four for a for a similar

[8:47] lineup that doesn't have the heavy parkers like gyms, theaters, and

[8:50] restaurants.

[8:53] Uh this is 1890 Ranch. Again, very very kind of

[8:56] a much bigger project, but but similar idea that that kind of Academy, Ross,

[9:01] Hobby Lobby, Ashley, Mardel section uh is parked closer to that 4 per thousand.

[9:08] And and 1890 Ranch was developed uh in 2006, so about 20 years ago.

[9:13] Park was developed um about 10 years ago, and it's got

[9:18] um again, a a slightly smaller ratio than we're

[9:21] asking for here about about 0.5 per thousand.

[9:27] Uh and this is the the most recent site plan I could find on the developer's

[9:30] website. It's not us for uh the Target anchored anchored center that's coming

[9:34] in down the street uh that's parked three per thousand.

[9:40] So, getting considerations for the variance to meet the criteria of a

[9:43] variance, uh, special circumstances. This is really the first project that

[9:46] I'm aware of in Dripping Springs that has a strong true retail component,

[9:50] meaning again apparel, shoes, the those types of things. And so, those are

[9:55] obviously require different parking ratio than someone like entertainment or

[9:59] gym or restaurants or other use service uses that we see throughout the city

[10:03] currently. And and our our idea is that from a

[10:07] public health stand standpoint, more buildings, more activity will provide a

[10:10] better shopping experience. And it is a minimal departure. It's only

[10:14] 2% different. Um, and I think it it really does share the intent of the code

[10:20] in in section 5.77 that allows for a shared parking. And so, the the code as

[10:25] it's written kind of looks at each use individually, but doesn't stack them all

[10:28] together to kind of see what the overall effect is of having a larger project.

[10:33] Uh, although the intent in the code 5.77 related to shared parking, we think

[10:37] feels like it addresses that somewhat. And that's actually how Belterra was

[10:41] approved for similar, uh, parking ratio, um,

[10:45] uh, 10 years ago or so.

[10:49] Uh, and that's my presentation. Appreciate you again your time very

[10:52] much. I'll be here and available for questions. Thank you.

[10:54] » Sure. We'll have some questions, but thank you for that. Perfect.

[10:57] All right. Okay. Uh, staff report. Tory, are you going to handle that?

[11:01] » Yes, sir. I'm going to go back to my notes.

[11:03] » Okay.

[11:10] » All right. So, I'm I'm going to try not to reiterate too much of what the

[11:13] applicant stated, but just to give a a quick recap of the site. Uh, it's uh,

[11:18] approximately 43 acres. Uh, you know, being the headwaters east

[11:23] commercial tract, it's it is located within the city limits. And this

[11:28] variance request is to reduce, uh, reduce onsite parking, uh, for for

[11:34] retail on on the site. So, just as a reminder, this, uh,

[11:38] property is subject to the, uh, PDD number six, which is the Headwaters PDD.

[11:43] It is also part of the, uh, the Headwaters development agreement that

[11:47] preceded that planned development district. Um, and as well as the city's

[11:52] parking ordinance in this case. And just to, uh, to recap the city's

[11:57] parking requirements, so, uh, for retail specifically, we are

[12:01] looking at that one space per 200 ft, um,

[12:06] which is, uh, equivalent, I know we're we're talking kind of different,

[12:10] uh, different equivalencies here, but, uh,

[12:13] which is equivalent to five per five per thousand on the site.

[12:18] So, this, um, this exhibit kind of shows the breakouts

[12:23] of the different, uh, the different uses within the site. So, the majority of

[12:28] kind of the the larger lots that you're seeing is is the the retail, that's

[12:32] where most of the, um, what I'll call the the the big box stores are, as well

[12:37] as what's, uh, indicated as a grocery and some smaller retail as well.

[12:41] Um, and just some some general pad sites, too.

[12:44] Um, and I do want to point out that the

[12:46] applicant is not requesting a reduction in, uh, parking for, uh, for the

[12:51] restaurants, um, but just just, uh, primarily the the retail portion of

[12:56] this. And this information is provided in the

[13:00] packet, but it does, uh, you we can refer to it if necessary, but

[13:04] it does show the overall, um, I guess the overall deficit of parking

[13:08] on the site, and you see that, uh, kind of minus 33, which is the the 2% lower

[13:14] than than the required. And one thing that I do want to reiterate that the

[13:17] applicant stated is that they are providing on-street, uh, parallel park

[13:22] Is it parallel or angle parking? Parallel parking along the the

[13:25] right-of-way, uh, for the roads going through the

[13:28] site, which does provide additional parking, but does not count toward uh

[13:33] on-site parking. So, that um that can help offset and that that's um

[13:38] sort of the part of the justification that staff is

[13:40] » spaces would that be, more or less? >> 90

[13:43] 93, thank you. >> Sorry?

[13:45] » 93. >> Okay.

[13:50] » And the the key points identified by the applicant

[13:53] um include the economic and uh employment impact. So, um

[13:59] that this parking variance is is necessary, essentially, uh

[14:04] to to provide additional economic activity and sales value on the

[14:08] property. Um and uh you know, as as the applicant

[14:12] indicated, too, kind of comparing it to the to the Belterra uh

[14:16] the Belterra development. Um and also uh noted in the applicant

[14:21] submittals that the applicant will provide an additional 93 parallel

[14:25] parking spaces along Dripstone Trail. So, that's that east-west road going

[14:29] through the property um that will ultimately connect

[14:31] Headwaters Boulevard to Canyon Wood Drive.

[14:35] » [snorts] >> Um

[14:37] and also noting that uh the parking ratios for for similar commercial

[14:40] developments. So, like I mentioned, the the Belterra development.

[14:44] And I do have the the criteria uh on the slides if we need to reference them. I I

[14:50] won't get into them in detail, um but if if you have questions on them,

[14:54] I'm happy to uh to refer back to them. But, ultimately, staff uh

[14:59] you know, particularly with the additional on-street parking provided,

[15:02] staff does recommend approval of the variance request with the following

[15:07] condition that the applicant shall submit an updated site plan providing

[15:10] adequate pedestrian connections between adjacent properties within the

[15:13] development, uh which would be approved by the development review committee. And

[15:18] the idea with that condition is that, you know, if if there's uh if there's a

[15:22] lot that you know, doesn't have I'll say in the 100-year parking event a

[15:27] Black Friday on a full moon. Um, you know, that there's overflow needed and

[15:32] on an adjacent site, it's it's easy enough for someone to park there and and

[15:36] walk across the street. And I do also want to mention that this is something

[15:39] that we are requiring along with um uh

[15:43] the cut and fill the cut and fill variance that was requested and approved

[15:47] by the development review committee. Um, because there are going to be some some

[15:51] cuts and some walls, so providing some pedestrian connections there. So, this

[15:54] condition is congruent with that that condition of the cut and fill variance.

[15:59] » Have you discussed that condition with the applicant?

[16:01] » Um, and I'll I'll Okay, great.

[16:04] » And you're agreeable to that? Good.

[16:07] » Um, and in terms of next steps, so this is scheduled for the October 6th Board

[16:12] of Adjustments meeting. So, tonight we're looking for a recommendation from

[16:15] the Planning and Zoning Commission. And then following that are going to be the

[16:18] the administrative site plan review process

[16:22] to to finalize the details of the the site itself.

[16:26] And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay, Tory, thank you for that. Thank

[16:29] you. Appreciate that. Okay, all right. We'll [clears throat] now go ahead and

[16:33] open up a public hearing for this matter. Is there anyone in the

[16:37] audience that would like to address this topic at this time?

[16:41] Going once. Okay, seeing and hearing none, we'll

[16:45] close the public hearing and we can move forward to consider the

[16:48] variance request. Commission's probably pleasure.

[16:54] » Motion to discuss? >> Motion to discuss. Yeah, go ahead. I'll

[16:56] second that. >> The one thing that I mean I I I like

[17:00] your overall plan. Um, the one thing that sort of caught my eye

[17:04] was with regard to the public health aspect of it. You know, I don't disagree

[17:08] with the benefits of the sidewalks and all that, you know, that's certainly a

[17:12] good thing. But it just seemed to me that if you're

[17:15] going to increase the building footprint sizes

[17:19] and that will encroach into the vehicular space if you can call it that.

[17:25] My concern is have you allowed enough for fire equipment access? Is that going

[17:31] to I mean I haven't to me that's much more of a public health issue than

[17:36] than what's expressed in the in the packet.

[17:39] » Certainly and and the the fire department will have to

[17:42] approve our plans. We also do what's called WB-67

[17:47] truck studies to make sure that large semi's and what

[17:51] not including fire trucks can get through all this.

[17:54] And so that's how we do everything from the the the size of our

[17:59] of our streets [clears throat] to the the radius on the turns. All of

[18:03] that is to make sure that we can get fire equipment and

[18:07] and you know larger vehicles through. >> Well, that's been factored in to what

[18:11] you're showing us tonight. >> Mhm.

[18:13] » Okay. >> Yep.

[18:15] » And I do want to point out from staff's perspective fire protection is a

[18:18] non-starter. That you know they would have to meet those those firm fire codes

[18:23] regardless. >> And then you're going to comply with

[18:25] that? >> Yes, sir.

[18:26] » All right. >> Uh

[18:28] Tori, I have a question. Can you um I think it was point

[18:33] one of the staff report you had mentioned that this

[18:38] development may qualify as land constrained. Can you help me understand?

[18:41] » Let me let me pull up that staff report. And full disclosure this was a report um

[18:47] written by our senior planner Sarah Varvarigos and she was not able to

[18:51] attend today. So let me let me pull up that that section.

[19:09] So the the land constraint is related to the open space that's required as part

[19:14] of the PDD. So there's a 60 66 percent of area being preserved as as open space

[19:21] as part of that which I'll say essentially kind of shrinks

[19:25] down the developable area of of the development.

[19:29] » Okay, so that that's just within PDD 6. >> That's within PDD 6 actually.

[19:35] » That's for the entirety of Headwaters, right?

[19:39] Like the the >> Well, there I'll say that there's two

[19:41] kind of open space requirements and they I know that Headwaters the Headwaters

[19:46] development agreement has a certain percentage of of open space

[19:50] required. I'm not sure if both are are 66 percent,

[19:54] but the the PDD itself is is restricted and required to designate open space as

[20:00] well. >> Yeah, I was asking that question I guess

[20:03] in the context of in terms of maybe the literal interpretation of land

[20:07] constrained. I mean it would also be an option to

[20:10] have smaller square footage

[20:14] anchor junior anchor and like retail spaces so that they could be in

[20:17] compliance with the number. That's that's kind of where

[20:20] my thinking was. >> Yeah,

[20:21] I I think that's a good point. Uh Theodore

[20:25] but go ahead if you have other question. >> No, that was it. It's just me musing.

[20:29] » [clears throat] >> Doug Doug and Doug

[20:33] Anything? >> Yeah, just a few things. So

[20:36] the the open space requirement is is part of the

[20:40] uh just the commercial

[20:43] » It's part of the planned development district as well as the development

[20:46] agreement. I can pull those numbers while we're while we're talking about it

[20:49] if that's helpful. >> It's in PDD 6, right?

[20:51] » It's It's It's certainly in PDD 6 and there's there's

[20:55] an open space aspect within the development agreement as well which the

[20:59] development agreement area primarily is the single family

[21:03] you know what what has been developed in the open space associated with that.

[21:07] Um but the the PDD which covers this commercial area as well as the

[21:12] commercial area on the other side of Headwaters Boulevard has an open space

[21:16] requirement as well. >> was help me here Tori cuz I've I've

[21:19] slept a few times since the PDD was done when?

[21:23] » 2016. >> 16? Okay.

[21:25] Uh what I remember was 1,100 homes more or less

[21:29] and uh I forget several hundred acres of open

[21:32] [clears throat] space that was going to be preserved in perpetuity. Is that Is

[21:35] that about right? >> I can pull that number up

[21:38] » what I recall. That's what I recall. Um >> [clears throat]

[21:42] » uh But I have a couple of questions to hear

[21:45] while you're while you're looking through that. Um

[21:48] in in the staff report you point out that that this does [clears throat] not

[21:51] alter the impervious cover calculation. Is that correct?

[21:54] » That's correct. >> Okay. Um

[21:57] and I think Theodore made a good point here. I mean there's another way to skin

[21:59] this cat and the other way not something you necessarily want to do but you could

[22:03] reduce the size of the buildings and so forth to fit within the existing

[22:07] guidelines or rules that are in in the PDD 6. So that's that's an option.

[22:12] Typically when we get into a variance discussion

[22:15] we always start off with the criteria and then we ask what's the hardship what

[22:19] are the circumstances that have changed? What's unusual? What's really driving

[22:23] this request? And and frankly uh you know, I can understand why you want

[22:29] a little more space for the anchors and so forth and so on and now you're

[22:33] getting a better feel for how you want to lay this thing out but I don't see

[22:36] the hardship uh and so I guess my question is is

[22:41] is there some unique set of circumstances that we're not aware of

[22:45] that creates a hardship or certain special circumstances that makes it just

[22:49] impossible for you to move forward with your development?

[22:52] » Uh make it impossible? No. To make it um less desirable? Yes. And and I think

[22:58] what what is is interesting is most cities have gone I've decreased their

[23:03] amount of required parking because obviously they they want to see you

[23:07] know, again the impervious cover is going to stay the same. So the amount of

[23:11] of kind of developed area will stay the same. And so that's a trade-off between

[23:15] you know, buildings that engage people and parking lots that just tend to be

[23:19] unused. And so that's why you're you kind of see

[23:22] the comparable cities really reducing their parking

[23:25] ratios. And the thing I would say that's unique

[23:29] to this site that hasn't been really tested in the city of Dripping Springs

[23:32] is is again a project that has a large amount of soft goods. So So if we had um

[23:40] uh I mean frank frankly it it would be easier to to kind of reconfigure and to

[23:44] have, you know, restaurants or something else in there cuz we would have more

[23:47] parking. But the thing is what we want to be able

[23:50] to do is provide kind of this congruence of of the soft good retailers and that

[23:55] aren't there I mean there is nowhere else in the city where you can go buy

[23:58] really a shirt besides uh what we're going to put on the

[24:01] ground. And so in my mind that parking category has never really been tested in

[24:05] the city in this scale. And I think the variance we're talking

[24:08] about I mean it's 2% it's 30 spaces on 1,580 spaces. No Nobody in the world

[24:14] would ever notice 30 spaces are gone. We're trying to be, you know,

[24:18] um >> Careful with that comment.

[24:20] » Well yeah yeah yeah yeah. >> No you know that's that's a that's a

[24:22] double-edged sword. If nobody's going to notice it you shouldn't notice it

[24:24] either, right? >> Sure no and and that's why we would hope

[24:26] not to not to have to build it. >> if it's insignificant to the public

[24:30] probably not too significant to you either. So be careful with that comment.

[24:33] » Yeah so so what we what we think is that it's better to have buildings than it is

[24:37] just more parking um in our opinion and I think the again

[24:41] this this category has never been tested before in the city and so it it is a

[24:46] unique you know, retail is a very broad category. I mean people will call it

[24:50] dentist retail, but that is a very different use case than someone like uh

[24:55] uh you know, a a Dillard's, you know, where

[24:58] someone's going in to pick up a shirt and they're in there for 30 minutes and

[25:01] they're out. Whereas a dentist, you may be in there for an hour and a half.

[25:05] And and so there are different use cases and that's why in a lot of these

[25:08] projects, you're not seeing the parking ratios that are required

[25:11] in Dripping. And I mean, we you know, we we got frankly very similar variance at

[25:16] Belterra. Belterra will have a lower parking ratio than than what our anchor

[25:21] portion will have. And to my knowledge, that that's worked out fine even with

[25:25] Star Wars coming out and Odyssey and you know, all of those things. And so to me,

[25:29] it is kind of one of those things where it says, you know, what would we rather

[25:32] have? Would we rather have places where our community could shop and and enjoy

[25:37] the air conditioning when it's 106? Or do we want to have more more parking

[25:41] lots? >> Tory, uh,

[25:45] I'm not overly moved by the comparisons to other communities, frankly.

[25:49] But I do want to ask you, when was our parking ordinance created?

[25:55] » From looking at the ordinance, I think it was created when our zoning ordinance

[25:58] was adopted, which I believe was in 2005.

[26:01] » What I'm getting at is is >> [clears throat]

[26:05] » and this is just an observation. During the COVID years, obviously,

[26:11] uh, shopping was reduced significantly and that sort of thing.

[26:16] Uh, and I read articles all the time that

[26:19] that malls are struggling in the in the future with customers on site. So much

[26:24] stuff now is being done, you know, over the internet and what have you.

[26:28] Uh, I guess what I'm what I'm driving at is is

[26:31] is given what has occurred post COVID,

[26:35] in your opinion, Tory, would that alter our view of our current parking

[26:39] ordinance? >> I I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to

[26:42] COVID, but just trends in general that that started I'll say started before

[26:47] COVID. You're seeing a lot more online ordering

[26:51] uh, for for something like a a target, there there could be a

[26:56] pull up curbside delivery where you're you're taking a space for, you know, 5

[27:01] minutes as opposed to 30. Um, so, you know, I I can't speak to the

[27:06] general economic the general economic trends, but

[27:10] um, you know, to the applicant's the

[27:13] applicant's point that he made earlier, we are starting to see see cities

[27:17] I'm certainly not suggesting we eliminate parking parking requirements,

[27:20] but we are starting to see cities look at them in a little bit closer light and

[27:25] and potentially reducing them. And one thing I want to note with with this

[27:28] project is since it's a handful of multiple different properties,

[27:35] they're having to request the parking variance because we're looking at the

[27:39] are they meeting parking on this property? Are they meeting Right. And if

[27:42] you look at it holistically with that on-street parking that would only serve

[27:47] the people uh, the the patrons of those businesses,

[27:52] uh, when you look at it, they actually have a surplus of of parking when you

[27:55] look at it holistically. And I I think I think that's uh, you

[27:58] know, that that was a key distinction when we were looking at this

[28:02] um, and and a really a key key justification for approval.

[28:06] » And this I have a question for the for you, sir. Uh,

[28:10] when I looked at the table about the junior anchors, the anchor, the

[28:15] different pads, the groceries, the retail, et cetera.

[28:19] I'm assuming you used that to calculate as Tory was mentioning the specific

[28:24] parking requirements for each one of those pieces. My question of you is, and

[28:28] I don't need to know a whole lot about who's coming in here, but

[28:32] are those calculations based on firm commitments for tenants?

[28:37] » So, in some instances, very much so. In some instances, we're making

[28:41] projections. And a lot of that's also based on parking. If if we we have to

[28:46] set out if we're going to go do two multi-tenant buildings out front and we

[28:50] want to have a certain percentage of restaurants, we have to have the parking

[28:54] for that. And so otherwise we're capped in those buildings. And so what we we do

[28:59] when we lay these out is say what are the what's the maximum use we think

[29:02] we're going to need for the from these heavy parkers because that that that is

[29:07] what our constraint becomes. And so when we go and lay out these buildings, we

[29:11] want to make sure we've got enough parking and that and all that. And so

[29:13] we're we're maxing that out and say, "Okay, we think the most we could

[29:16] restaurants we could do in pad D is 6,000 ft. So let's plan for 6,000 ft."

[29:22] So so I to answer your question directly, we

[29:25] have firm commitments for 50 to 70% of the space. The others are really making

[29:31] an assumption on what is the max amount of restaurants, entertainment, whatever

[29:36] we can do. >> What's the probability as you firm up

[29:38] the remaining 30% or whatever it is that you come back to us and say, "Well,

[29:42] we have a different calculation. We need to adjust the parking spaces."

[29:46] » Zero. We we won't need it. Because again, the the ones the ones that we

[29:50] have >> I mean you

[29:51] you're going to make it work is what I'm hearing you say.

[29:54] » That's right. The ones that we have firm commitments from the the retailers that

[29:58] are needing the parking variance. That's right.

[30:05] » Go ahead, ma'am. You have >> [clears throat]

[30:07] » Yeah, so have you

[30:10] have you calculated what square footage decrease would be necessary of the

[30:13] retail spaces to be within compliance? Um

[30:18] » It it's a hard calculation to do because it it it involves a lot of geometry

[30:24] but it would be roughly about 25,000 ft, but it's a wild guess because it didn't

[30:29] include, you know, weird angles and drive aisles and parking. I mean the

[30:34] landscaping requirements and all of that stuff. So it's a

[30:37] it's not an exact science.

[30:41] » So >> To- Tory, so will will we will they have

[30:46] to check the box for parking on each of the

[30:50] colored sites up there? Or are we if we do this, they're

[30:56] they can move along and if those lines need to move between the

[31:01] the pink and the yellow because of the use of that pad D,

[31:06] they can do that or do or we going to is the city going to see each one of

[31:10] those as they're built and have to approve them?

[31:15] » Only if they're requesting a variance outside of what's granted tonight, which

[31:20] from from talking to the applicant and their team,

[31:23] they they don't they have no intention of doing because they're designing their

[31:27] site to meet those parking requirements. >> Okay. And does does our parking

[31:30] ordinance it sounds my I think I know this answer if it was '05, but is there

[31:37] any shared parking credits that they get against these

[31:42] numbers? >> There is an option for it's it's a

[31:44] parking variance. So, there's a variance a parking variance process.

[31:50] It goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Adjustments

[31:54] uh where they can share share spaces between different sites. But since we're

[31:59] talking in this case about kind of a third variable, not just the site and an

[32:03] adjacent site, we're talking about on-street parking as well that by code

[32:07] doesn't meet the parking requirement, um that necessitates sort of this

[32:11] broader parking variance request. >> And the just to reinforce, I I looked at

[32:18] that section cuz we we did that at Volterra.

[32:21] Um but the the way the code is written it is basically at a discretion. And and

[32:26] so it it's at a discretion whether the city approves a shared parking

[32:30] calculation or not. >> But just to pick up on Doug's comment,

[32:35] uh thinking about the parking requirement for each of the individual

[32:38] units. Uh

[32:40] you still we still are going to put a cap on the overall calculation, correct?

[32:45] » That's correct. >> I mean, that's what we're doing tonight.

[32:48] » Right. >> Is the cap on every parking space on

[32:51] that plan? Um

[32:54] so a couple of questions. I I'm also on

[32:57] transportation committee, so I'm kind of curious. Is the East-West street like a

[33:02] public street and all these connectors to 290?

[33:05] » Yes, sir. They're just dedicated public >> Mhm. streets.

[33:07] » Mhm. >> Um

[33:10] and um

[33:13] I know on one of these graphics there was a traffic light. I I'm just thinking

[33:17] how people are actually going to get in and out of this site. Are they going to

[33:21] go down to Canyon Land or whatever this Canyon Wood

[33:24] » Canyon Wood. Yeah, so there's an existing signal at

[33:27] Canyon Wood. And then moving west, we have a right-in, right-out that'll have

[33:32] a deceleration lane. Yeah. And then the next drive down will be another lighted

[33:37] intersection, fully lighted intersection. And so

[33:39] » Signalized intersection. >> Signalized intersection.

[33:41] » got you. Okay. >> That's right.

[33:42] » And that's been approved through our uh through the transportation committee.

[33:46] » So Text Dot's approved that knows all that. Okay, cool. Um

[33:54] And And does that become a uh underpass or an overpass in the

[33:59] future 290? >> Uh we don't know. We have talked to So

[34:03] as you can see kind of where the the hashed or or dotted line is versus where

[34:09] the colors start, and we we did that significant setback for a future Text

[34:13] Dot right-of-way taking. So we've taken we've taken any expansion

[34:18] needs they have. >> Still know if that'll be

[34:20] um a crossing there, right?

[34:23] » That's right. I mean, I I think the latest they've talked about is doing

[34:26] something like what they've done down the street where they go they dig under,

[34:29] and so they have those at grade, but I you know, that's TexDOT

[34:33] 10 years from now kind of thing. >> yep, yep, yep, yep. Two more questions

[34:36] on my part. Um Um

[34:40] Tory, have notices been sent out? How do we post notification of this?

[34:43] » Yes, sir. So we sent we sent notice to every property owner within verified

[34:48] » to be >> two or 300 ft Um as well as uh

[34:53] posting in the newspaper and signage as well.

[34:55] » I find it I find it unusual that the Headwaters residents are not out.

[35:00] » Well, and and if I can [laughter] if I can speak to that. So I saw in here, I

[35:05] don't know exactly where it was, um but somewhere in the agenda packet it

[35:09] said that there were no notices sent out. Were there any notices that were

[35:13] sent out or >> Let me

[35:16] » Because those folks on >> That's Iron Willow that's above the

[35:20] retail area. I would have thought they would have been within 300 ft.

[35:25] » All property owners within 300 ft radius were were notified of the variance

[35:28] request. >> Okay, okay, good. Um

[35:31] » [clears throat] >> and and frankly, parking is not the kind

[35:34] of thing that gets residents too excited.

[35:36] Uh it's I think as you as you go through the site development, I think you're

[35:40] going to find a lot of interest in looking at this. If I'm looking at

[35:44] this right, that's 290. So in the northern section as it abuts the

[35:47] residential lots, there could be some excitement generated over that. So

[35:50] that's that's something that will come with site development. Uh but I won't

[35:54] worry about that right now. Um

[35:57] The the parking on the street, has that all been cleared? Are we all okay with

[36:01] that? I mean >> That that was part of the cross-sections

[36:04] approved in the planned development district uh when the PDD was adopted. So

[36:08] » that bridge has been crossed. >> Right.

[36:10] » Okay. >> All right.

[36:11] » Okay. >> All right.

[36:13] » Okay. Um >> possible question here. What

[36:20] What feasibility is there for putting some of these

[36:24] extra parking spaces underneath? You know,

[36:28] raise a portion of one or two of these buildings and create under building

[36:32] parking in that kind of a scenario to >> Sure, we we've looked at that from from

[36:36] time to time. It it is cost-prohibitive and tenants don't really like it cuz it

[36:41] can make creates a convenience factor for customers.

[36:44] Um but you know, some point in the future

[36:47] uh may maybe I I think that's um

[36:51] is certainly I I think also frankly with where we're going with cars,

[36:55] um there could be a much more of a shared parking

[36:58] or or shared car usage. Just I mean, my Tesla drove me here and I

[37:03] didn't drive. Uh and the cyber cabs and all that are coming

[37:08] really really soon and um and so I I think there could be a a

[37:11] frankly a bigger discussion of there's probably going to be significant

[37:14] individual people in 5 years. Significantly. But that's again, that's

[37:19] just my my personal uh hypothesis anyway.

[37:26] » [laughter] >> Make sure you have these striped for

[37:28] trucks. Out here, I mean, your point is well taken.

[37:32] » very much regular size parking spaces. >> Yeah. They are very much regular size

[37:35] parking spaces. People love their vehicles and their trucks, right?

[37:37] » Yeah. >> I I have a question for Tory. Um

[37:42] What is the intent of the

[37:48] parking requirements? What is the intent of that rule? The five per it it's five

[37:52] parking spots per thousand. >> It's five per

[37:56] code, it's two Or is it one one

[37:59] » One per 200. >> One per 200.

[38:01] » Okay, got you. >> It was translated to five.

[38:04] » Got you. >> Um

[38:05] in general, the the intent is to provide adequate parking um to make sure that

[38:09] there's not overflow parking. Um in terms of where that actual calculation

[38:14] was justified and came from, I can't I can't really speak to that. Um you know,

[38:18] from looking at our code and different aspects of it, it looks like it was

[38:21] probably borrowed from other codes in the area and

[38:26] I can't think of a time since that zoning ordinance was updated that we

[38:29] have since updated the parking ordinance at least the numbers. We've done some

[38:33] things like the Mercer Street District and had some allowances there, but um

[38:39] » I'd like to interject. Um at least from the developer's standpoint, 20 years ago

[38:45] Target as an example required five per thousand and they did so to plan for

[38:50] Black Friday. That that that's really it.

[38:52] And and so um

[38:55] in my opinion with these I mean so Target when we did 8290 Ranch

[38:59] in 2006 required five per thousand for their for a parking lot. They went down

[39:03] the street here and did three per thousand.

[39:06] So that they cut it almost in half like by 40%.

[39:10] And and a lot of it is because they never needed five per thousand. They did

[39:13] a five per thousand for one day a year and now I mean when's the last time

[39:17] somebody got up at midnight on Thanksgiving night to go

[39:20] to go Black Friday shopping. And and so that that's a vestige in my opinion from

[39:24] 20 years ago for and back then 20 years ago is one day a year. And so now that's

[39:30] why again all the big retailers are just requiring less parking because they are

[39:34] using the internet a lot and what they've really figured out and what

[39:37] you've seen is you know, a lot of these retailers

[39:39] haven't expanded anywhere in Austin in 15 years.

[39:44] And really a lot of that was figuring out how the internet was going to affect

[39:47] their business. And now what they realize is that yes,

[39:50] they need stores close to customers because convenience is key, but there's

[39:54] a lot of people who are still going to go buy a pair of shoes online and then

[39:58] go pick it up on the way to pick up their kid from school.

[40:01] Or or take it back and you know, if it's the wrong size for the kids, right? And

[40:04] that's and that's why parking ratios have gone down. And so again, that's

[40:08] just my my perspective.

[40:10] » Jody, you know, uh

[40:14] I'm a little allergic to the on-street parking.

[40:17] And and the reason I say that is based on our experience with Big Sky and a

[40:21] couple of others that we've seen in the very dense developments. Uh

[40:25] Texas Heritage Village, Big Sky. There's a lot of street parking and we

[40:29] had a lot of issues around being sure that we maintained those areas and back

[40:33] to your point about emergency access and so on, that we maintained the proper

[40:37] rights for egress. Uh

[40:40] in this instance, one of my concerns with the on-street

[40:43] parking in in Big Sky, for example, is children's safety.

[40:47] Playing in the street, playing in the front yard, and that sort of thing. We

[40:49] don't have residential lots here. So, there's a part of me that says that

[40:54] concern is not as not as concerning in this development as

[40:59] it would be in a residential area. Is the street parking something you're

[41:04] you're concerned about or you okay with it in this particular instance?

[41:07] » It's it's not something I'm concerned about and and just to clarify, I I know

[41:11] you didn't mention the the fire aspect of things, but I was thinking maybe

[41:15] that's where you were going with the Big Sky and and the fire department is

[41:18] looking at this. >> of it. It was both. It was It was the

[41:20] emergency access and kids safety. >> The the design of this road and sort of

[41:24] the geometry of it, it doesn't lend itself to to high speed. So, it it's

[41:30] um you know, it it's something that customers need to be mindful of whenever

[41:34] they they park and get out of their cars, make sure that there's there's not

[41:37] someone coming behind them, but um you know, that this is an area, you know,

[41:42] where like you said, kids playing in the street, people are going to be parking,

[41:45] getting out of their vehicles, and then walking uh

[41:48] walk walking to the businesses. >> At the risk of going on a tangent with

[41:53] the How is the How is that street that runs east to west? How is it not

[41:58] conducive to speeding? Are there going to be like speed cushions or any kind of

[42:01] traffic on it? >> it it it's narrowed down to the point

[42:04] that fire will allow it to be narrowed down and sort of naturally having those

[42:08] those cars parked along the street sort of naturally reduces uh a driver's

[42:14] speed. Um also, it's not it's not a straight

[42:16] line all the way across. It has kind of a

[42:19] a curve into it. And the the applicant may have some more details about the

[42:23] design of the road, but that's that's what we were looking at um just kind of

[42:27] in the initial assessment when I was looking at

[42:30] » something you're looking at more closely during the site development review, but

[42:32] that's a good question. >> And I can I can um give my two

[42:36] very cheap cents. Uh so So >> So you're

[42:41] you're exactly right. And and what the way we designed that street is we're

[42:44] paying the sidewalk fee in lieu to not have a sidewalk on 290 cuz I think it's

[42:48] it's crazy that people want to be there. But what we did is we did two sidewalks,

[42:52] one on either side of what's called Dripstone Trail because that's where we

[42:55] want people interacting. And so there's the road, there's there's landscaping,

[43:00] then there's a sidewalk, and then there's landscaping, and then the

[43:03] parking lot to really divide that space up between pedestrians and

[43:07] and um and and uh cars. And on-street parking, it's not going to

[43:13] be the most convenient. What we typically see that being is, you know, a

[43:18] a lot of times um employees will want to park as close to the front like at a

[43:22] restaurant. If you have a wait staff, and they want to pick park as close to

[43:25] the restaurant as possible. What problem is obviously they have 20 waiters or

[43:29] waitresses, then then those are taking 20 spaces from customers. And so what we

[43:34] can do, if you can train them to park on something like that, then it does create

[43:37] a slowing down effect cuz you do have cars there, but then it also frees up

[43:40] the the main parking spaces for for customers.

[43:46] » Last question >> No, go go ahead.

[43:49] » No, my last question is is now that you're going into what I would

[43:54] consider more detailed planning for your tenants,

[43:57] um what's the likelihood that you're going

[43:59] to be coming back to us with further requests for changes or variances?

[44:04] » So, I mean, we're pretty far down the road on design now.

[44:07] um and so we don't foresee any additional variances. We do have a

[44:11] landscape variance going in to do rainwater collection versus potable

[44:15] irrigation, but that's the only other variance we have in front of the city at

[44:19] this moment. >> don't want to be piecemealed every time

[44:21] we turn around. >> Right. Absolutely. I I can't 100%

[44:24] promise, but we've gotten pretty deep on the plans, and so I would expect that

[44:27] something to pop up between >> Okay.

[44:29] » now and where we are now. >> All right, we're going to hold you to

[44:31] that. >> [laughter]

[44:32] » Thanks, ma'am. >> When when would this be built?

[44:36] » So, you know, a lot of it depends on uh you know, very similar to Belterra, be

[44:41] done in phases, but we're hoping to start as early as

[44:44] the beginning of next year, and the the time time frame to build

[44:48] would be anywhere from 12 to 18 months for the first phase. So, but but all the

[44:51] public improvements, roads, streets, sidewalks, landscaping, all that goes in

[44:56] with the traffic signals, diesel lanes, all that goes in with the first phase.

[45:01] » And and this is an Endeavor project? Are you Are you Endeavor or I see Endeavor's

[45:05] name on this. >> Yeah. So, so my company's called

[45:08] Marathon Equity, and we're 50/50 partners with Endeavor on this project.

[45:13] » And and the um you guys control the property to the

[45:17] west, so that We do not. You do not. So, you don't know when that continuation of

[45:22] that road >> So, under our TIA, um that road has to

[45:26] be connected as it's developed out going west. So, there is a requirement for

[45:31] that road to be developed, but we don't own that parcel, so it's

[45:33] » You don't own that, so. >> That's right. All right, yeah.

[45:36] » That's right. That's where it's >> That is where it's That's right.

[45:39] » I don't I don't think they have a timeline on that that I've heard.

[45:42] » I have a question about the gym. So, you mentioned a couple times that

[45:46] gyms cause problems for parking, but we've got a gym right there.

[45:52] » We don't have Oh, oh. Yeah, that's not part of our project. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[45:56] » I just I know a lot about that gym because my kids that a lot of money on

[46:01] volleyball. >> [laughter]

[46:02] » And and so I experienced those facilities and that facility I I think

[46:07] that the interplay with your project is going to be really interesting because

[46:12] they anticipate having tournaments every weekend until the end of time. Those

[46:17] tournaments bring two or three vehicles per family

[46:20] » Yeah. >> to that and and I see them even during

[46:23] the week, right? My kids go to a facility two or three days a week

[46:28] and those facilities are packed with parkers.

[46:31] » Mhm. >> Everybody waiting in their cars. If

[46:33] there was shopping nearby, I would imagine there would be a lot of that

[46:36] believe which is fantastic for the development. But that interplay like

[46:40] probably shouldn't be ignored because I know the gym has adequate parking.

[46:44] But I think about everything else that it it could bleed out and I think the

[46:48] impact is like Gold's right at Belterra that gets insane.

[46:52] » Mhm. >> it gets really packed in the morning and

[46:55] then at night they could use a lot more parking in there when the Odyssey comes

[46:59] out and people want to be at the gym, >> Right. Right.

[47:01] » So, anyway, I just wanted to bring that up because I don't think we can ignore

[47:04] that there's a giant gym right next door to the project.

[47:07] » Yeah. And is that your old property? >> It is not, no.

[47:12] » Do you have some kind of a shared parking arrangement

[47:16] » [laughter] [clears throat]

[47:17] » Yeah, well, all be parked together and and frankly, you know, part of the

[47:21] benefit of being in a project like this is that, you know, somebody parks at a

[47:25] restaurant and walks over to the gym. Like no one's going to get towed. I mean

[47:28] that that's part of the benefit of having a bunch of different types of

[47:31] businesses. That's what creates the environment.

[47:33] And so even though it's not our project, no one will know, oh wait, that that

[47:38] part was done by Endeavor, that part wasn't.

[47:40] We're doing all the site work and all that

[47:43] to make it seamless. Signage will be seamless, all of that.

[47:47] » I think it's fantastic. I just wanted to make sure, Tory, that cuz I I actually

[47:51] think the net gain of 60 stalls because your street parking is great. And I

[47:56] think it's going to be probably highly utilized, Um but just from the city's

[48:01] perspective, Tory, like that was all kind of thought

[48:04] through. >> It it was like for the sports club

[48:07] itself, I'll say we haven't gone through the

[48:10] detailed site plan review of that, but even before that project and I don't

[48:15] want to go off too much on another project, but before that project went

[48:19] through the variance process, we we we worked with them closely to

[48:23] look at the parking requirements to make sure they were meeting those, getting

[48:27] getting into the details of what was actually going on inside of the building

[48:30] to to formalize those calculations. >> I think I think Doug makes an excellent

[48:34] point. It's it's taking a look at this not only in the context of their

[48:38] project, but as we all know what we went through, we all know what we went

[48:42] through with the with the gym. And my recollection was as we thought at the

[48:47] time that it was adequately parked. I know you're still

[48:50] you're doing your review and that sort of thing.

[48:52] But I think the point is is that at least in as you look at this in more

[48:55] detail from a site development point of view and the gym,

[48:59] I think you need to be mindful of the bleed over effect.

[49:01] » of the gym's pitch was we have this great development going in next door

[49:04] with all the same >> Right. Right. They were counting on

[49:06] that. Right. And so, you know, you're counting on it and if they're counting

[49:10] on it, well, you know, it might uh >> Definitely some interplay there.

[49:13] Recently and people were parked for miles outside the school.

[49:18] » And I I will clarify and say as well if if that particular site is not meeting

[49:22] the parking parking requirement, they'll have to go through the the same process

[49:26] that the Daniel Campbell and his team are

[49:28] going through now.

[49:33] » Okay. What else? Anybody else? Anything else?

[49:37] We've discussed it. >> have any more questions.

[49:39] » Okay. We've discussed it and so now I will ask for a motion with regard to the

[49:43] request for the variance to allow a reduction in the onsite parking

[49:46] requirements for the Headwaters commercial lease project.

[49:49] » I'll move to approve as per staff recommendation.

[49:51] » Got a motion from Doug Shumway to move to proceed with the recommendation by

[49:55] staff. Do I have a second? >> Second.

[49:58] » Got a second from It's a Where did Diana go?

[50:03] » [laughter] >> Okay.

[50:05] » Let's remember that. Help me, Tory.

[50:07] » We got >> She deserted us here.

[50:09] » Doug Doug and Doug. >> I got the Doug and Doug. We got a motion

[50:12] and a second, okay? And so with that, let's go ahead and call for a vote. All

[50:16] in favor say aye. >> Aye.

[50:18] » Any opposed? >> Opposed.

[50:20] » One opposed. Okay, one opposed. Four to one. Okay, sounds good.

[50:25] All right. Thank you for that discussion and

[50:28] presentation answering our questions. Appreciate your time and we'll see how

[50:32] this thing unfolds. All right, let's move forward now. Let's

[50:36] see Tory, you're going to kind of give us a

[50:39] an update on the plan. >> I will give you an update on the plan

[50:41] and tonight I'm primarily going to be going over the the survey results that

[50:45] we got from our our the survey that we put out over the

[50:49] summer. Um and just kind of fill you in on next steps and then take

[50:53] any feedback that that we may have from from the

[50:57] commission. So let me get back to my notes

[51:00] off of the last case, just one second. All right, so

[51:05] as a reminder the >> It's colorful, I'll say that.

[51:08] » It is it is colorful. Well, there's there's a lot of designations that that

[51:12] need to be shown on these maps and you know, I think we picked every color

[51:16] we could find just to to cover everything. Um so as a reminder so

[51:21] this is for the draft 2024 comprehensive plan,

[51:24] a process that we started, you know, back in

[51:27] way back in '22 actually with with first working with the consultants. Um

[51:33] and we went through various iterations and ultimately

[51:37] ended up taking the last package from the consultant, taking

[51:41] this in-house and kind of doing this last last step in-house where we can and

[51:46] you know, it the document and you know, do the survey and and analyze

[51:50] that. Um Let me go back to our the actual image

[51:56] of the uh survey itself. So,

[51:59] um we did do uh it was primarily an online

[52:02] survey with an opportunity to come by our office, send emails in. We also took

[52:06] some uh I'll I'll say some

[52:09] I don't want to say limited comments, but we did we did pull comments that we

[52:12] saw on on Facebook as well and kind of looked at those and see how those worked

[52:16] with the trends that we saw. Um but the the public comment period ran uh May May

[52:22] through July. Uh and included uh a couple of different

[52:27] aspects. There was an interactive map aspect of it where applicants could you

[52:31] know, actually look at the future not applicants, I'm sorry, residents uh

[52:36] interested persons could look at the interactive map and uh you know, if

[52:39] there was something that jumped out of them, actually pinpointing an area on

[52:43] that map, leaving a comment. Um and and we did get a quite a few

[52:48] responses uh through that through that method. Um and let me look let me just

[52:53] look at that real quick. So, on the uh

[52:58] on the actual location map itself, we received uh

[53:01] responses from 44 uh 44 individuals and it was a a similar

[53:05] number for the actual plan itself. Um I think right uh right above 40. So, they

[53:11] could interact with the map, leave comments there, also look at the uh look

[53:15] at the plan itself and actually uh actually make comments on the plan

[53:20] itself. And we did did have some targeted questions as well.

[53:25] Including uh just kind of getting some demographic

[53:28] information, um you know, really being if they live in the city

[53:33] limits, uh which

[53:36] hopefully they know if they do or don't, but it's often times they they don't

[53:39] actually know if they live in the city limits. Uh if they live in the ETJ, or

[53:43] uh if it's an other or they prefer not to answer. Um and the uh

[53:49] the chart to the right, too, we looked specifically at the

[53:55] the plan elements. So, there are five plan elements uh tied into the plan.

[53:59] There's protect uh protecting community character, uh connectivity and corridor

[54:04] enhancement, economic development, infrastructure, or economic development,

[54:08] infrastructure, and and housing. housing.

[54:10] Um and the the top two were were pretty

[54:13] close uh between protecting community character and uh connectivity and and

[54:19] corridor enhancement. And I know that we had uh quite a bit of discussion with

[54:23] our um sort of our our comprehensive plan committee and our our our group

[54:27] about uh you know, the the last round where we

[54:31] organized these and really having a focus primarily on on infrastructure.

[54:34] So, it's it's interesting to see these notes uh from the general public.

[54:38] Um and the the bottom chart, it's really just to kind

[54:42] of get a gauge if uh you know, residents find that these

[54:46] these place types on that future land use map

[54:49] were clear uh tying the actual designations

[54:53] um the rural reserves and the the the employment centers and and and all the

[54:58] designations on there. And uh you know, just asking if those were clear. So, we

[55:02] we got uh I was hoping that we'd get more uh or I'll say fewer

[55:07] uh not clear uh indications, but uh 29 29

[55:12] participants indicated that it it was it was clear and evident uh and 14 um

[55:18] indicated that that those place types were not clear. And then we got so so

[55:22] some other comments and uh I'll say other comments and uh a few

[55:27] that that preferred not to answer. So, here's just a quick overview of of

[55:32] the comments that we received on um on the interactive map itself.

[55:40] And we we went through this data, too, and try to categorize them best we can.

[55:43] A lot of them were related to

[55:47] uh they were related to transportation, uh

[55:51] but the the top aspect was uh centered on sort of the land use and and

[55:56] community character, which it is uh

[56:01] which is appropriate for this type of this type of map. Uh and we we did get

[56:05] uh one or two related to uh housing, I think particularly affordable

[56:10] housing, as well as infrastructure and sort of uh

[56:14] uh necessary facilities. So, following up from the survey event, I I'll I'll

[56:18] open it up to any comments or questions that you'll have at this point, but we

[56:22] are we will be coordinating with our our comp comp plan committee, which on the

[56:26] planning and zoning commission includes uh Commissioner uh Foster and

[56:30] Commissioner Williamson. And we'll be kind of going through these

[56:33] in a little bit more detail, going through the the minor changes that we

[56:36] made through the the plan and the map before we take it back to the planning

[56:39] and zoning commission for a a more deep dive into the plan. Um

[56:45] Yeah, two two ti- I I absolutely, yes, sir, two two times. Um and I'll say that

[56:50] includes my presentation for tonight, but I'll I'll open it up for any uh any

[56:54] comments or questions or direction from the commission.

[57:00] » Anyway, hey Tori, um the two green colors

[57:06] one is a rural preserve and one is a rural reserve, I think it says.

[57:13] Um

[57:17] Help me understand the colors on the map, and then there's a then there's the

[57:21] light green, which is just means it's not anything or it's

[57:26] » And and the I I think the light green, I'll say what you're seeing around the

[57:29] the perimeter, uh kind of the furthest extent of the map. Those are This is

[57:33] overlaid on an aerial an aerial that was likely taken after it

[57:37] rained a little bit. So the lighter green kind of on the the

[57:42] extent that you're seeing outside of those shapes is is just the

[57:46] the ground. It's it's the the vegetation from the aerial.

[57:50] But the the rural the rural preserve, that's an area really designated for

[57:56] » [music] >> actual preservation of land. So kind of

[57:58] open space. There's some areas that are parklands.

[58:02] » But it's not it's not parkland, right? It's That's not

[58:06] It's not like city or county park. >> Right. Right. And and you know on on in

[58:13] turn um I'll say kind of the the lighter green

[58:17] color, that's an area where it's a lot of the the residential areas meet that

[58:22] designation where a minimum of 50% of that area is designated as as open

[58:26] space. So the Headwaters development for instance, the Headwaters residential

[58:30] area uh meets that criteria because it it it

[58:35] they they have uh and I did look at those

[58:38] numbers. It's 60% 66% of the Headwaters residential development agreement area

[58:44] that is limited to uh uh

[58:47] to open space. >> So the way you mapped it then like for

[58:51] Headwaters because other ones look like they're not

[58:54] done that way. The the lots the hou the lots where the homes are built

[59:03] are are just lumped into the total Headwaters

[59:08] development and then colored light green because it's 60% open space.

[59:14] » it's part of the overall development, yes sir. And you're you are right. There

[59:18] there were some areas that that we we didn't make those updates to and I think

[59:22] for consistency sake and it may make sense.

[59:25] But whenever we you know when when we're we originally got this this setup from

[59:29] the consultant, it was showing it kind of on a parcel by parcel basis. You'd

[59:33] see that yellow where the single family designation uh for each individual house

[59:38] and then all of the open space designated. And then we we were looking

[59:41] at developments that weren't fully built out or developments that weren't

[59:44] entitled [music] and had a hadn't started yet. And we didn't really have

[59:47] that granular granular level of of that that site. And quite frankly, this type

[59:53] of map, it's it's not really meant to be looked at on that level. Uh it's it's

[59:58] more general broad areas. This is, you know, this is the general area where we

[1:00:03] want to see this type of use or this type of of growth or limited growth.

[1:00:07] » So the areas that are shown where they are differentiated should be changed?

[1:00:12] Like the >> I I think for consistency's sake, um

[1:00:17] I if you don't make that suggestion, I

[1:00:19] think I will. Um, just just to make

[1:00:23] like like the the Belterra development. And and I I know we had talked about

[1:00:27] that internally a little bit and there may have been a reason we didn't change

[1:00:30] that that specific one. It could be that that particular development didn't meet

[1:00:35] the the 50% threshold

[1:00:39] to be considered that that uh reserve or preserve. I'm I'm really I'm

[1:00:44] getting the two mixed up in my head. Um >> I mean, what's interesting to me is and

[1:00:49] this is probably more of a council

[1:00:53] um political thing. Um

[1:00:56] it it seems like as as hard as it is to delineate the lots versus the

[1:01:03] open space, for example, in Calaterra or somewhere. Um

[1:01:09] it it feels like it it's a nice thing to look at on a map for Dripping Springs to

[1:01:16] to to set a a precedent and a tone that this is the type of residential

[1:01:22] development that we encourage versus just coloring it all out because once

[1:01:27] you color it all out, it's just like light green or whatever and

[1:01:32] I I know it it's hard to get the granularity, but it

[1:01:37] it seems to me like it just makes it less

[1:01:41] um self-evident about what we're trying to do here and we like the 60% green

[1:01:47] space. Um but anyway, so

[1:01:51] so I was going to make a recommendation to go the other way, but the more I

[1:01:55] think about it, it's almost like you should you should go to the more

[1:01:58] detailed so that people who look at this map

[1:02:02] can can understand what what we really like around here and

[1:02:08] what we've approved for subdivisions that already built or being

[1:02:12] built. Or and and you know, the the intent and

[1:02:16] and I'll say quite frankly the truth is is not to take this map and say this

[1:02:21] this property, this ranch, these 100 acres

[1:02:25] the intent is not to say these are undevelopable or or hardly developable.

[1:02:31] Aside from you know, some designated over spaces, some open spaces, some

[1:02:35] conservation easements. It's really if it if it develops,

[1:02:40] you know, in in the case of those uh

[1:02:43] rural reserves, we're looking we're looking at you know, a minimum 50% open

[1:02:48] space designation with that. So that it it develops

[1:02:53] less densely, less intensely and provide some

[1:02:56] some of that open space which is really key from the comments that we heard when

[1:03:00] we initially kind of opened up this process was

[1:03:05] providing areas for for recreation and and for open

[1:03:08] space and and just kind of community character in general.

[1:03:12] » So So I have maybe kind of a a broad question just to understand the intent

[1:03:18] uh of the future land use map. So, let's say for example, Headwaters hadn't been

[1:03:23] completely developed and you are you you were coloring things based on

[1:03:29] um the whole of the development instead of getting like granular per lot. And

[1:03:32] so, you've made Headwaters um a rural reserve, so that's a minimum

[1:03:37] 50%, right? So, if it's not completely developed, which it's actually not, they

[1:03:42] still have like that Iron Willow area, but if if with the future land use map,

[1:03:46] that's the designation it's given as rural reserve, then is there a a tool or

[1:03:51] an ability to does the development have to stay within

[1:03:56] that? >> I'll say within certain confines. So,

[1:04:01] um you know, immediately following the

[1:04:03] adoption of the comp plan, it's going to be sort of an implementation uh code

[1:04:06] update that that takes takes this map and translates them and

[1:04:10] it's actually already translated in the comp plan, but um you know, to the point

[1:04:15] where you you cannot request a zoning category that is outside of what this

[1:04:20] this comprehensive plan area allows. And if you do want to do that, that that

[1:04:25] would trigger a uh >> variance

[1:04:28] » Well, that would trigger an amendment to this map. So, there's going to be sort

[1:04:30] of a future land use map amendment process.

[1:04:34] Um so, when we see things like zoning amendments come through,

[1:04:38] um it it I don't want to say it it won't be uncommon, but it

[1:04:42] you're likely to see a handful that come through concurrently with a future land

[1:04:47] use map amendment that planning zoning >> They're at odds with

[1:04:51] » Right, right. And and it would provide I'll say for the sake of Headwaters with

[1:04:54] it being a development agreement, um you know, it would provide the

[1:04:58] direction for you know, what what precisely goes into that development

[1:05:02] agreement or at least what the baseline is and then you kind of exceed from

[1:05:05] there. >> Okay, well, that that helps kind of

[1:05:07] contextualize why there might be an advantage of doing it at the development

[1:05:11] level because then if you're in the early stages of it, you can kind of set

[1:05:14] that. >> Right.

[1:05:16] » Thank you. >> But but it's not a zoning map.

[1:05:20] » It's not a zoning map. >> But

[1:05:21] » It doesn't change what uses you can or can't do on your property today,

[1:05:26] but it provides guidance and in some cases some

[1:05:30] some boundaries for what zoning amendments or zoning changes you can

[1:05:34] change. But if there's a property in the ETJ on this map

[1:05:38] and they're not requesting annexation, they're not requesting a development

[1:05:41] agreement, they'll develop under those ETJ standards as is.

[1:05:45] But if they are looking to do something more substantive, larger,

[1:05:49] requesting any variances, that's where this map comes into play.

[1:05:54] » I Sorry, go ahead.

[1:05:55] » Tory, let me let me just drill into it just a

[1:05:58] hair deeper here. Please. Having sat up here as long as I have over the years,

[1:06:03] there are a handful of areas in our community

[1:06:06] that always give us a challenge when someone comes in for rezoning.

[1:06:10] And I want to be sure that that the approach you're taking in the comp plan

[1:06:14] addresses that. Specifically some of the some of the areas that and

[1:06:19] I'm [clears throat] getting into future land uses here. Some of the areas that

[1:06:22] always give us a challenge and council as well.

[1:06:26] Things like

[1:06:29] Creek Road in the city limits, the historic districts,

[1:06:34] Ranch Road 12 to the north a bit, maybe to the south a bit.

[1:06:41] And and what we have found in the past is and you and you know this, we've had

[1:06:45] piecemeal requests for a zoning change or you know, whatever it is.

[1:06:49] Are we are we going to be able to see in this plan

[1:06:54] that there is guidance that helps us navigate those situations? Take for

[1:06:58] example the discussion we had at P&Z last month with regard to the the Hayes

[1:07:04] Sawmill District. You know, it raises a question

[1:07:08] when you have a property that comes forward for a rezoning. And the question

[1:07:12] then becomes, "Okay, fine. We can understand what is requested for that

[1:07:15] property." But the bigger question is, "How does it affect the district in

[1:07:18] totality, right? Where is the district going?" The same thing is true with

[1:07:22] Fitzhugh. We've basically said to Fitzhugh, Old Fitzhugh that is,

[1:07:26] "It's going to be a bit of an eclectic neighborhood." Mixed, you know, but the

[1:07:32] intent is to improve the aesthetics, improve the character and so forth and

[1:07:36] so on. And so my question is, when you're thinking about in the North 40,

[1:07:40] whenever we have something around the North 40, that always ends up being a

[1:07:43] bit of a challenge. So the question I'm asking is

[1:07:46] is is the way you're going about this comp

[1:07:50] plan, are we going to have guidance? Are we going to have a compass heading

[1:07:55] for future proposals in historic districts, the North 40, Ranch Road 12,

[1:08:01] Creek Road in the city limits and so on? Uh

[1:08:05] How how How is that being addressed in the comp plan?

[1:08:08] » Or and I'll say the comp plan it I don't want to say it fully addresses

[1:08:13] what you're asking about, but it does address those those areas to a certain

[1:08:16] extent. And what what it does is is provide guidance of

[1:08:21] this zoning designation or or this type of use is appropriate. Uh maybe in this

[1:08:27] area along along the major arterial. So for the instance of North 40, [music] it

[1:08:32] could be a zoning amendment along Ranch Road 12. Um where where it provides

[1:08:37] provides direction there. I think what you're describing is more

[1:08:40] it's kind of more akin to small area plans that a lot a lot of larger cities

[1:08:44] do where they they have their comp plan for the overall area and then they get

[1:08:48] down to the neighborhood scale. And that's not something that we've that

[1:08:51] we've discussed. That's not something that that we've really had direction on.

[1:08:55] Um but it it's a it it does serve it does serve a

[1:09:00] valuable tool particularly if you are seeing a lot of requests within within

[1:09:04] one certain area. And I'll say for the area like uh

[1:09:09] not so much Old Fitzhugh, but uh in the Hayes Street neighborhood, you know, I

[1:09:13] mentioned a lot of these larger developments we're trying not to get to

[1:09:16] the granular scale. That was one area we in fact have an inset map for our future

[1:09:20] land use map that that shows it more so on a parcel-by-parcel basis because we

[1:09:26] do have so many different things going on in that area. And one was to kind of

[1:09:30] reflect reality as it is today. Um you know, if there's uh you know, a

[1:09:36] uh commercial zoning or a commercial use there,

[1:09:40] um you know, not to take it back to you know, a single-family use for instance.

[1:09:45] Um but to to be able to to look at it kind of more holistically. And one thing

[1:09:51] that doesn't necessarily um tie in with the zoning perspective, but from the

[1:09:55] historic preservation perspective, I do want to mention that we are in the

[1:09:59] process now of uh updating our our historic preservation guidelines. Again,

[1:10:03] that's more uh uh it's more aesthetics. It's it's more the

[1:10:08] the look and feel of the neighborhood as opposed to what's going on inside of the

[1:10:12] building. Um

[1:10:14] but as part of that, we are also exploring uh updates to our future uh

[1:10:18] not our future land use map, our land use chart

[1:10:21] uh to try to make the historic overlay and some of those

[1:10:24] uses match better kind of the intent of of that area.

[1:10:28] » I think that's where I'm going is is I just feel a need having seen this occur

[1:10:32] many times over the years uh to be able to point to a document

[1:10:36] that says, "This is the vision. This is the vision for Hayes. This is

[1:10:40] the vision for Old Fitzhugh. This is the vision for Creek Road. This is the

[1:10:43] vision Pick one." Yeah. So that when we come up with

[1:10:48] when we're faced with a rezoning request or development request, whatever, we

[1:10:52] have something to point to and say that what we're considering here is is

[1:10:55] with what we feel is appropriate for this area. We haven't had that very well

[1:11:00] defined in the past. And I know you can't define it back to the granularity

[1:11:03] question. You can't define it down to that level.

[1:11:05] But every time a rezoning question comes up, the first thing we always ask is,

[1:11:09] you know, how does that fit the comp plan?

[1:11:11] And I want to be sure that that that we have

[1:11:14] going through this exercise, some guidance that helps us make those

[1:11:18] decisions. Okay.

[1:11:22] Anybody else?

[1:11:25] Okay. All right. Anything else? Is there

[1:11:27] anything you need from us? >> Um

[1:11:30] » right now. >> I not not from the commission right now.

[1:11:33] This this conversation's been really helpful. And as I mentioned, our team's

[1:11:36] going to be reaching out to the comp plan committee to kind of getting into

[1:11:39] this a little bit more detail. And in the meantime, we're going to be giving

[1:11:42] an update at city council next week as well.

[1:11:45] » When when would you expect the first real review with P&Z to occur?

[1:11:49] » I'm I'm I'm I'm shooting for next next planning and zoning commission meeting.

[1:11:53] » Okay. Okay. >> And

[1:11:55] » And depending on the input that we get from the comp plan committee and the

[1:11:58] discussions there, but that's what we've got on our schedule right now.

[1:12:02] » All right. Any other questions at all on the comp plan?

[1:12:05] Okay, I'm moving on to item four, the the planning department summary, if you

[1:12:10] will, Tony or Tory. >> Um

[1:12:14] Yes, sir. So, just a couple of updates on some of the ongoing projects. Uh I'll

[1:12:18] say the Ranch at Caliterra. So, I don't think the commission's heard much from

[1:12:22] that uh probably in the past past few months. Uh

[1:12:27] but this is the area just west of Caliterra, part of their development

[1:12:31] agreement, and will kind of function as as part of that as well. And actually,

[1:12:35] Diane, I'm going to back up to look at this map to to help me orient this

[1:12:39] discussion. Um and

[1:12:43] they're they're they're completing their road infrastructure and their wastewater

[1:12:46] infrastructure right now. And we expect probably by next meeting that plat to be

[1:12:50] recorded and and potentially Home Start into go vertical

[1:12:54] there as well. Um and I'll say

[1:12:58] theoretically that that could open the road up from Caliterra to Mount Gaynor.

[1:13:02] But with a the home construction going on there,

[1:13:05] it's it's unclear if if that's going to be open to the general general public

[1:13:09] quite yet. But that that is kind of a tucked away development that

[1:13:14] uh that

[1:13:16] we're going to see see movement on with vertical structures soon. Um for the

[1:13:20] Penn tract through the Southern Land developer

[1:13:24] um we're there's a lots of different aspects

[1:13:27] going on with that right now including the transportation impact or

[1:13:31] the traffic impact analysis. They did a presentation last month.

[1:13:36] Um the developer did a presentation last month and they got they got some

[1:13:40] feedback. They're working with our transportation consultant to

[1:13:43] revisit some assumptions and look at some of the details of what they're

[1:13:46] providing. We're also working to finalize their wastewater utility

[1:13:50] agreement. And for that development Dripping

[1:13:53] Springs Water Supply Corp is is is the the water provider from [music] from

[1:13:59] what we've seen and they'll what we we don't have a firm commitment

[1:14:03] from from the water supply corp on that yet. But we made clear that

[1:14:07] that's something that will need before planning and zoning commission

[1:14:10] recommendation. So >> Yeah, you mentioned in the morning call

[1:14:13] today that there's planned meetings between Southern Development and Water

[1:14:16] Supply to kind of iron that out.

[1:14:19] » I know they've been on a handful of board meetings

[1:14:23] already and they're they're I I know they're looking at the

[1:14:27] I'll say their assumption. It's more than their assumptions. They're their

[1:14:30] restrictions written into the development agreement in terms of how

[1:14:33] many homes they can build a year. There's sort of a slow release process

[1:14:37] written in there really for transportation purposes. But that helps

[1:14:41] with the assumptions for water supply corp as well.

[1:14:45] And you know, it's a similar situation to wastewater. They can't connect to our

[1:14:48] system today. So, it's going to take an expansion

[1:14:52] potentially two before they can actually connect. So, them doing on-site

[1:14:56] facilities and and kind of that slow release process or slow release concept

[1:15:01] for home construction uh

[1:15:03] I don't want to say it takes the ease off of the utility constraints, but it

[1:15:08] helps to it helps to better plan for them.

[1:15:14] » Anything else? >> Well, if if we weren't already talking

[1:15:17] Headwaters, I would let you know that we're we're

[1:15:20] reviewing permits for that right now, Headwaters commercial.

[1:15:24] And as the applicant stated, they're I think aiming to start construction early

[1:15:30] early next year. So, um

[1:15:32] So, that that's moving forward. We've got a handful of permits in there

[1:15:35] between the different properties. And I I

[1:15:39] believe we just received a site development permit for the

[1:15:43] for the sports complex, too. Like I mentioned, we haven't done a deep dive

[1:15:46] into that. Sports the sports club, the DS Sports Club. Um So, that that's going

[1:15:52] to be all kind of coming through and being reviewed concurrently.

[1:15:55] » Is Madeline Estates dead dead? >> Uh I have not received a formal

[1:15:59] withdrawal. Um but from

[1:16:03] uh I also haven't heard much of anything

[1:16:06] from from the applicants. >> ATX has gone quiet.

[1:16:10] » That's right. We we haven't uh I know our our staff has reached out to

[1:16:15] him a handful of times. Um and and we we haven't seen an updated submittal. As

[1:16:20] far as I know, we haven't gotten a a firm

[1:16:22] update. So, as a reminder, that that's gone through a few different names.

[1:16:27] I think the Ranch Courts is kind of its formal name. So, that's the area right

[1:16:32] right south of Village Grove Parkway and including uh our former mayor Uncle

[1:16:38] Bob's property. So, down down on 290 as well. Or

[1:16:42] » Yes, sir. >> What about the water treatment plant

[1:16:45] expansion? Where are we on all of that? >> So,

[1:16:48] just in case you're not up to speed, we got through the lawsuit, so favorable

[1:16:52] decision there back in I think Feb- February.

[1:16:58] Um we uh I'll say since 2019 when we originally kind of got that permit and

[1:17:04] started designing it, costs have gone up significantly. So, we had to do one we

[1:17:09] had to do some redesign to meet some updated current standards for our plant.

[1:17:13] Um and and with with that and just I'll say it in- inflation or construction

[1:17:18] costs, costs have gone up. Uh but we did secure funding through the Texas Water

[1:17:22] Development Board. Um so, the the funding aspect of it is

[1:17:26] taken care of and um >> But the

[1:17:28] current >> For Right. Right.

[1:17:31] That's right. I I don't recall the set um

[1:17:36] the set start date. I can follow up with you guys on that. Uh but we are

[1:17:40] expecting uh I it it's

[1:17:43] still going to be probably two plus years before

[1:17:46] that plant is operational and online. >> So, if Groves got houses going up, I

[1:17:51] guess they're going to operate on a T lap in the meantime.

[1:17:54] » Right. So, they I I can't think of a named development

[1:17:57] that isn't doing some sort of a temporary facility.

[1:18:00] Uh I'll say a named development under construction. Uh there are one or two

[1:18:04] that are waiting for for capacity. Um and just kind of as a reminder if you

[1:18:10] know, we have several developments that we have wastewater agreements with.

[1:18:14] Uh and once that once that plant is built, they've already got We We have

[1:18:18] committed to them that they can connect. Um

[1:18:21] and and in fact, we're going in for for a permit for our our next expansion

[1:18:26] um to to expand again after the one that hasn't been built yet. That's

[1:18:31] that's that's how much we're we're keeping up with with development.

[1:18:37] » So, Tori, as it relates to wastewater, you know, I live out towards um

[1:18:44] um Driftwood. Um so, the construction, are we actively now

[1:18:51] selling or pushing effluent treated effluent to the golf course at this

[1:18:56] point? All that pipe looks like it's been

[1:18:58] laid. >> I think there's a section that hasn't

[1:19:00] been completed, if I'm not mistaken. Um So, I

[1:19:06] I'm nearly confident that's not going to Driftwood yet.

[1:19:10] » But, we are moving it to Caliterra. >> We are moving it to Caliterra, and um

[1:19:14] » Heritage? >> Uh not not Heritage. Heritage

[1:19:18] participated in extending our effluent line to the sports uh the sports fields.

[1:19:23] So, that that was the way they were able to free up LUEs so they could they could

[1:19:27] construct more. >> Right, so it was it was

[1:19:33] so sort of directly involved in that, and you know, that's a benefit for us in

[1:19:38] the the the sports clubs as well, the uh uh

[1:19:41] DSYS A, for instance, where they they've got the greenest fields uh around, just

[1:19:47] just as green as our our drip fields by the wastewater plant.

[1:19:50] » And and do we does the city own that easement that they created to

[1:19:56] get those lines all the way out to the golf course?

[1:19:58] » Yes. >> So, they paid for it, but we own it.

[1:20:02] » Okay. >> Interesting.

[1:20:07] » Anything else while here? >> Okay, I need one more motion.

[1:20:11] » Move to adjourn. >> I have a motion to adjourn. Do I have a

[1:20:13] second? >> Second.

[1:20:14] » I second. All in favor? >> Aye.

[1:20:16] » Aye. >> We are done.

[1:20:18] » We are done.

Planning & Zoning Commission

Transcript