It is 6:01 and we'll go ahead and welcome everyone to the
August regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of
Dripping Springs. We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order.
Diana, would you call roll and advise if we have a quorum, please?
» [clears throat] >> Chair James.
» Here.
» Commissioner Crosson. >> Here.
» Commissioner Foster. >> Here.
» Commissioner Shamway. >> Here.
» Commissioner Crawford. >> Here.
» And Vice Chair Williamson and Commissioner Burgoyne reported absent.
» Okay, thank you for that. >> You do have a quorum.
» Thank you, Diana. Thank you for that. All right, we'll go ahead and we'll
start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Theodore, you want to lead?
» I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Thank you.
All right. All right, the first section of our
meeting always starts off with presentation of citizens. This is an
opportunity for anybody in the audience to address the commission on any topic
that they would like to pursue. We do suggest that if you came to talk
about a topic that's posted on the agenda, you might want to hold your
comments until that item comes up. We'll recognize you at that time. But at this
time, if anybody wants to address the commission, we'll welcome your comments.
Anybody in the audience like to address us at this time?
Seeing and hearing none, we'll close the presentation of citizens.
The next segment of our agenda is our consent agenda. We have one item on the
consent agenda and that has to do with the minutes
» [clears throat] >> of our July regularly scheduled meeting.
Minutes have been circulated to the commission. I think everybody's had a
chance to take a look at them. I'm seeking a motion with regard to our
minutes of the last monthly meeting. >> Motion to approve.
» Got a motion to approve from Eugene. I have a second. Got a second from Doug
Shumway. Any comments, changes, revisions?
Everybody good? Okay, all in favor of the minutes,
indicate by saying I. >> I.
» Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay.
Uh now we're moving on to the business agenda. The first item on our business
agenda, this has to do with a recommendation [clears throat]
or a consideration of a variance request to allow a reduction in the onsite
parking requirements for the Headwaters Commercial East project. Uh is there a
presentation by the applicant? >> Yes, sir.
» Okay.
Do you have the clicker up there? >> What's that?
» Clicker? Give me the click click ahead.
» Yeah, if you click ahead, that'll get you.
Here we go. Uh my name is Daniel Campbell. I'm with the development group
that's developing Headwaters East. Um presenting the parking variance. Thank
you very very much, commissioners, for your time today.
So, this is just a site plan for the project. Just kind of orient everybody.
Uh Highway 290 is on the on the south edge of the project. Canyon Wood is is
to your uh east. [laughter] >> [clears throat]
» And then uh our new driveway um will be on the west. Um we're pre- predominantly
um a mix of retail, uh service users, medical, uh
restaurants, and entertainment is what we're planning.
So, the request comes from uh section 5.6.2,
the commercial parking code for Bee Cave [cough] Springs.
» [clears throat] >> Um as y'all all know, there's various uh
parking requirements based on the use. There's about 58 different ones.
The one the only one we're asking for a variance from is the one related to
retail or personal services, which is one per 200 square feet. We're
asking that that uh be changed to one per 250 square feet. The key thing there
that we'd like to kind of mention is there's no change to any other category,
including heavy parker using heavy parkers like restaurants, theaters,
gyms, those types of things. >> [snorts]
» Um and really the the need for uh this variance request really is related to
kind of the anchor position of our project, which is um mainly true retail.
So, this is people who sell clothes and and shoes and things of that sort, not,
you know, service users like an insurance company or
H&R Block or a dentist or something like that. It's that true kind of retail, you
go in and buy something to put on put on your body or accessorize with.
Um and overall on the project, if you look at the project from overall basis,
code parking is about 1,614 stalls. What we're showing now is about 1,580.
So, it's a difference of about 34 stalls or 2% from uh
code.
And just to compare it to other Central Texas cities, uh Round Rock is one per
225 again for um
our retail category. Cedar Park, Bee Cave, San Marcos are all one per 250,
um which is just slightly different than the the Dripping Springs.
So, we also pulled some comparable projects that we're familiar with. Some
of these we developed, um some of which are being developed in the neighborhood,
and so we thought we we'd include those. Balterra Village, which uh
which was developed um a little while ago, maybe 10 years ago,
the anchor lot ratio, which show you in just a second, is 3.87 per thousand,
which compared to what we're asking, we're asking for four per thousand for
our anchor lot ratio. The overall ratio there is
about 5.5. 1890 Ranch in Cedar Park is a large
Target anchored shopping center that's overall parked at 4.5.
Uh The Park is another Whole Foods anchored shopping center in Cedar Park
that's at 4.7 per thousand. And then The Village, which is the new
Target anchored center that's coming in down the street here in Dripping
Springs, the anchor lot is at 3.08 per thousand. And the overall ratio is 3.4.
Our our overall ratio will be about 5.3 or 5.4
to put it in comparison. So again, this is Belterra at the 5.5
including kind of everything you see there.
The anchor lot, which includes Evo down to Gold's, and also includes two
restaurants in the middle is parked at 3.8 per
3.8 per thousand. And again, we're asking for four for a for a similar
lineup that doesn't have the heavy parkers like gyms, theaters, and
restaurants.
Uh this is 1890 Ranch. Again, very very kind of
a much bigger project, but but similar idea that that kind of Academy, Ross,
Hobby Lobby, Ashley, Mardel section uh is parked closer to that 4 per thousand.
And and 1890 Ranch was developed uh in 2006, so about 20 years ago.
Park was developed um about 10 years ago, and it's got
um again, a a slightly smaller ratio than we're
asking for here about about 0.5 per thousand.
Uh and this is the the most recent site plan I could find on the developer's
website. It's not us for uh the Target anchored anchored center that's coming
in down the street uh that's parked three per thousand.
So, getting considerations for the variance to meet the criteria of a
variance, uh, special circumstances. This is really the first project that
I'm aware of in Dripping Springs that has a strong true retail component,
meaning again apparel, shoes, the those types of things. And so, those are
obviously require different parking ratio than someone like entertainment or
gym or restaurants or other use service uses that we see throughout the city
currently. And and our our idea is that from a
public health stand standpoint, more buildings, more activity will provide a
better shopping experience. And it is a minimal departure. It's only
2% different. Um, and I think it it really does share the intent of the code
in in section 5.77 that allows for a shared parking. And so, the the code as
it's written kind of looks at each use individually, but doesn't stack them all
together to kind of see what the overall effect is of having a larger project.
Uh, although the intent in the code 5.77 related to shared parking, we think
feels like it addresses that somewhat. And that's actually how Belterra was
approved for similar, uh, parking ratio, um,
uh, 10 years ago or so.
Uh, and that's my presentation. Appreciate you again your time very
much. I'll be here and available for questions. Thank you.
» Sure. We'll have some questions, but thank you for that. Perfect.
All right. Okay. Uh, staff report. Tory, are you going to handle that?
» Yes, sir. I'm going to go back to my notes.
» Okay.
» All right. So, I'm I'm going to try not to reiterate too much of what the
applicant stated, but just to give a a quick recap of the site. Uh, it's uh,
approximately 43 acres. Uh, you know, being the headwaters east
commercial tract, it's it is located within the city limits. And this
variance request is to reduce, uh, reduce onsite parking, uh, for for
retail on on the site. So, just as a reminder, this, uh,
property is subject to the, uh, PDD number six, which is the Headwaters PDD.
It is also part of the, uh, the Headwaters development agreement that
preceded that planned development district. Um, and as well as the city's
parking ordinance in this case. And just to, uh, to recap the city's
parking requirements, so, uh, for retail specifically, we are
looking at that one space per 200 ft, um,
which is, uh, equivalent, I know we're we're talking kind of different,
uh, different equivalencies here, but, uh,
which is equivalent to five per five per thousand on the site.
So, this, um, this exhibit kind of shows the breakouts
of the different, uh, the different uses within the site. So, the majority of
kind of the the larger lots that you're seeing is is the the retail, that's
where most of the, um, what I'll call the the the big box stores are, as well
as what's, uh, indicated as a grocery and some smaller retail as well.
Um, and just some some general pad sites, too.
Um, and I do want to point out that the
applicant is not requesting a reduction in, uh, parking for, uh, for the
restaurants, um, but just just, uh, primarily the the retail portion of
this. And this information is provided in the
packet, but it does, uh, you we can refer to it if necessary, but
it does show the overall, um, I guess the overall deficit of parking
on the site, and you see that, uh, kind of minus 33, which is the the 2% lower
than than the required. And one thing that I do want to reiterate that the
applicant stated is that they are providing on-street, uh, parallel park
Is it parallel or angle parking? Parallel parking along the the
right-of-way, uh, for the roads going through the
site, which does provide additional parking, but does not count toward uh
on-site parking. So, that um that can help offset and that that's um
sort of the part of the justification that staff is
» spaces would that be, more or less? >> 90
93, thank you. >> Sorry?
» 93. >> Okay.
» And the the key points identified by the applicant
um include the economic and uh employment impact. So, um
that this parking variance is is necessary, essentially, uh
to to provide additional economic activity and sales value on the
property. Um and uh you know, as as the applicant
indicated, too, kind of comparing it to the to the Belterra uh
the Belterra development. Um and also uh noted in the applicant
submittals that the applicant will provide an additional 93 parallel
parking spaces along Dripstone Trail. So, that's that east-west road going
through the property um that will ultimately connect
Headwaters Boulevard to Canyon Wood Drive.
» [snorts] >> Um
and also noting that uh the parking ratios for for similar commercial
developments. So, like I mentioned, the the Belterra development.
And I do have the the criteria uh on the slides if we need to reference them. I I
won't get into them in detail, um but if if you have questions on them,
I'm happy to uh to refer back to them. But, ultimately, staff uh
you know, particularly with the additional on-street parking provided,
staff does recommend approval of the variance request with the following
condition that the applicant shall submit an updated site plan providing
adequate pedestrian connections between adjacent properties within the
development, uh which would be approved by the development review committee. And
the idea with that condition is that, you know, if if there's uh if there's a
lot that you know, doesn't have I'll say in the 100-year parking event a
Black Friday on a full moon. Um, you know, that there's overflow needed and
on an adjacent site, it's it's easy enough for someone to park there and and
walk across the street. And I do also want to mention that this is something
that we are requiring along with um uh
the cut and fill the cut and fill variance that was requested and approved
by the development review committee. Um, because there are going to be some some
cuts and some walls, so providing some pedestrian connections there. So, this
condition is congruent with that that condition of the cut and fill variance.
» Have you discussed that condition with the applicant?
» Um, and I'll I'll Okay, great.
» And you're agreeable to that? Good.
» Um, and in terms of next steps, so this is scheduled for the October 6th Board
of Adjustments meeting. So, tonight we're looking for a recommendation from
the Planning and Zoning Commission. And then following that are going to be the
the administrative site plan review process
to to finalize the details of the the site itself.
And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay, Tory, thank you for that. Thank
you. Appreciate that. Okay, all right. We'll [clears throat] now go ahead and
open up a public hearing for this matter. Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to address this topic at this time?
Going once. Okay, seeing and hearing none, we'll
close the public hearing and we can move forward to consider the
variance request. Commission's probably pleasure.
» Motion to discuss? >> Motion to discuss. Yeah, go ahead. I'll
second that. >> The one thing that I mean I I I like
your overall plan. Um, the one thing that sort of caught my eye
was with regard to the public health aspect of it. You know, I don't disagree
with the benefits of the sidewalks and all that, you know, that's certainly a
good thing. But it just seemed to me that if you're
going to increase the building footprint sizes
and that will encroach into the vehicular space if you can call it that.
My concern is have you allowed enough for fire equipment access? Is that going
to I mean I haven't to me that's much more of a public health issue than
than what's expressed in the in the packet.
» Certainly and and the the fire department will have to
approve our plans. We also do what's called WB-67
truck studies to make sure that large semi's and what
not including fire trucks can get through all this.
And so that's how we do everything from the the the size of our
of our streets [clears throat] to the the radius on the turns. All of
that is to make sure that we can get fire equipment and
and you know larger vehicles through. >> Well, that's been factored in to what
you're showing us tonight. >> Mhm.
» Okay. >> Yep.
» And I do want to point out from staff's perspective fire protection is a
non-starter. That you know they would have to meet those those firm fire codes
regardless. >> And then you're going to comply with
that? >> Yes, sir.
» All right. >> Uh
Tori, I have a question. Can you um I think it was point
one of the staff report you had mentioned that this
development may qualify as land constrained. Can you help me understand?
» Let me let me pull up that staff report. And full disclosure this was a report um
written by our senior planner Sarah Varvarigos and she was not able to
attend today. So let me let me pull up that that section.
So the the land constraint is related to the open space that's required as part
of the PDD. So there's a 60 66 percent of area being preserved as as open space
as part of that which I'll say essentially kind of shrinks
down the developable area of of the development.
» Okay, so that that's just within PDD 6. >> That's within PDD 6 actually.
» That's for the entirety of Headwaters, right?
Like the the >> Well, there I'll say that there's two
kind of open space requirements and they I know that Headwaters the Headwaters
development agreement has a certain percentage of of open space
required. I'm not sure if both are are 66 percent,
but the the PDD itself is is restricted and required to designate open space as
well. >> Yeah, I was asking that question I guess
in the context of in terms of maybe the literal interpretation of land
constrained. I mean it would also be an option to
have smaller square footage
anchor junior anchor and like retail spaces so that they could be in
compliance with the number. That's that's kind of where
my thinking was. >> Yeah,
I I think that's a good point. Uh Theodore
but go ahead if you have other question. >> No, that was it. It's just me musing.
» [clears throat] >> Doug Doug and Doug
Anything? >> Yeah, just a few things. So
the the open space requirement is is part of the
uh just the commercial
» It's part of the planned development district as well as the development
agreement. I can pull those numbers while we're while we're talking about it
if that's helpful. >> It's in PDD 6, right?
» It's It's It's certainly in PDD 6 and there's there's
an open space aspect within the development agreement as well which the
development agreement area primarily is the single family
you know what what has been developed in the open space associated with that.
Um but the the PDD which covers this commercial area as well as the
commercial area on the other side of Headwaters Boulevard has an open space
requirement as well. >> was help me here Tori cuz I've I've
slept a few times since the PDD was done when?
» 2016. >> 16? Okay.
Uh what I remember was 1,100 homes more or less
and uh I forget several hundred acres of open
[clears throat] space that was going to be preserved in perpetuity. Is that Is
that about right? >> I can pull that number up
» what I recall. That's what I recall. Um >> [clears throat]
» uh But I have a couple of questions to hear
while you're while you're looking through that. Um
in in the staff report you point out that that this does [clears throat] not
alter the impervious cover calculation. Is that correct?
» That's correct. >> Okay. Um
and I think Theodore made a good point here. I mean there's another way to skin
this cat and the other way not something you necessarily want to do but you could
reduce the size of the buildings and so forth to fit within the existing
guidelines or rules that are in in the PDD 6. So that's that's an option.
Typically when we get into a variance discussion
we always start off with the criteria and then we ask what's the hardship what
are the circumstances that have changed? What's unusual? What's really driving
this request? And and frankly uh you know, I can understand why you want
a little more space for the anchors and so forth and so on and now you're
getting a better feel for how you want to lay this thing out but I don't see
the hardship uh and so I guess my question is is
is there some unique set of circumstances that we're not aware of
that creates a hardship or certain special circumstances that makes it just
impossible for you to move forward with your development?
» Uh make it impossible? No. To make it um less desirable? Yes. And and I think
what what is is interesting is most cities have gone I've decreased their
amount of required parking because obviously they they want to see you
know, again the impervious cover is going to stay the same. So the amount of
of kind of developed area will stay the same. And so that's a trade-off between
you know, buildings that engage people and parking lots that just tend to be
unused. And so that's why you're you kind of see
the comparable cities really reducing their parking
ratios. And the thing I would say that's unique
to this site that hasn't been really tested in the city of Dripping Springs
is is again a project that has a large amount of soft goods. So So if we had um
uh I mean frank frankly it it would be easier to to kind of reconfigure and to
have, you know, restaurants or something else in there cuz we would have more
parking. But the thing is what we want to be able
to do is provide kind of this congruence of of the soft good retailers and that
aren't there I mean there is nowhere else in the city where you can go buy
really a shirt besides uh what we're going to put on the
ground. And so in my mind that parking category has never really been tested in
the city in this scale. And I think the variance we're talking
about I mean it's 2% it's 30 spaces on 1,580 spaces. No Nobody in the world
would ever notice 30 spaces are gone. We're trying to be, you know,
um >> Careful with that comment.
» Well yeah yeah yeah yeah. >> No you know that's that's a that's a
double-edged sword. If nobody's going to notice it you shouldn't notice it
either, right? >> Sure no and and that's why we would hope
not to not to have to build it. >> if it's insignificant to the public
probably not too significant to you either. So be careful with that comment.
» Yeah so so what we what we think is that it's better to have buildings than it is
just more parking um in our opinion and I think the again
this this category has never been tested before in the city and so it it is a
unique you know, retail is a very broad category. I mean people will call it
dentist retail, but that is a very different use case than someone like uh
uh you know, a a Dillard's, you know, where
someone's going in to pick up a shirt and they're in there for 30 minutes and
they're out. Whereas a dentist, you may be in there for an hour and a half.
And and so there are different use cases and that's why in a lot of these
projects, you're not seeing the parking ratios that are required
in Dripping. And I mean, we you know, we we got frankly very similar variance at
Belterra. Belterra will have a lower parking ratio than than what our anchor
portion will have. And to my knowledge, that that's worked out fine even with
Star Wars coming out and Odyssey and you know, all of those things. And so to me,
it is kind of one of those things where it says, you know, what would we rather
have? Would we rather have places where our community could shop and and enjoy
the air conditioning when it's 106? Or do we want to have more more parking
lots? >> Tory, uh,
I'm not overly moved by the comparisons to other communities, frankly.
But I do want to ask you, when was our parking ordinance created?
» From looking at the ordinance, I think it was created when our zoning ordinance
was adopted, which I believe was in 2005.
» What I'm getting at is is >> [clears throat]
» and this is just an observation. During the COVID years, obviously,
uh, shopping was reduced significantly and that sort of thing.
Uh, and I read articles all the time that
that malls are struggling in the in the future with customers on site. So much
stuff now is being done, you know, over the internet and what have you.
Uh, I guess what I'm what I'm driving at is is
is given what has occurred post COVID,
in your opinion, Tory, would that alter our view of our current parking
ordinance? >> I I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to
COVID, but just trends in general that that started I'll say started before
COVID. You're seeing a lot more online ordering
uh, for for something like a a target, there there could be a
pull up curbside delivery where you're you're taking a space for, you know, 5
minutes as opposed to 30. Um, so, you know, I I can't speak to the
general economic the general economic trends, but
um, you know, to the applicant's the
applicant's point that he made earlier, we are starting to see see cities
I'm certainly not suggesting we eliminate parking parking requirements,
but we are starting to see cities look at them in a little bit closer light and
and potentially reducing them. And one thing I want to note with with this
project is since it's a handful of multiple different properties,
they're having to request the parking variance because we're looking at the
are they meeting parking on this property? Are they meeting Right. And if
you look at it holistically with that on-street parking that would only serve
the people uh, the the patrons of those businesses,
uh, when you look at it, they actually have a surplus of of parking when you
look at it holistically. And I I think I think that's uh, you
know, that that was a key distinction when we were looking at this
um, and and a really a key key justification for approval.
» And this I have a question for the for you, sir. Uh,
when I looked at the table about the junior anchors, the anchor, the
different pads, the groceries, the retail, et cetera.
I'm assuming you used that to calculate as Tory was mentioning the specific
parking requirements for each one of those pieces. My question of you is, and
I don't need to know a whole lot about who's coming in here, but
are those calculations based on firm commitments for tenants?
» So, in some instances, very much so. In some instances, we're making
projections. And a lot of that's also based on parking. If if we we have to
set out if we're going to go do two multi-tenant buildings out front and we
want to have a certain percentage of restaurants, we have to have the parking
for that. And so otherwise we're capped in those buildings. And so what we we do
when we lay these out is say what are the what's the maximum use we think
we're going to need for the from these heavy parkers because that that that is
what our constraint becomes. And so when we go and lay out these buildings, we
want to make sure we've got enough parking and that and all that. And so
we're we're maxing that out and say, "Okay, we think the most we could
restaurants we could do in pad D is 6,000 ft. So let's plan for 6,000 ft."
So so I to answer your question directly, we
have firm commitments for 50 to 70% of the space. The others are really making
an assumption on what is the max amount of restaurants, entertainment, whatever
we can do. >> What's the probability as you firm up
the remaining 30% or whatever it is that you come back to us and say, "Well,
we have a different calculation. We need to adjust the parking spaces."
» Zero. We we won't need it. Because again, the the ones the ones that we
have >> I mean you
you're going to make it work is what I'm hearing you say.
» That's right. The ones that we have firm commitments from the the retailers that
are needing the parking variance. That's right.
» Go ahead, ma'am. You have >> [clears throat]
» Yeah, so have you
have you calculated what square footage decrease would be necessary of the
retail spaces to be within compliance? Um
» It it's a hard calculation to do because it it it involves a lot of geometry
but it would be roughly about 25,000 ft, but it's a wild guess because it didn't
include, you know, weird angles and drive aisles and parking. I mean the
landscaping requirements and all of that stuff. So it's a
it's not an exact science.
» So >> To- Tory, so will will we will they have
to check the box for parking on each of the
colored sites up there? Or are we if we do this, they're
they can move along and if those lines need to move between the
the pink and the yellow because of the use of that pad D,
they can do that or do or we going to is the city going to see each one of
those as they're built and have to approve them?
» Only if they're requesting a variance outside of what's granted tonight, which
from from talking to the applicant and their team,
they they don't they have no intention of doing because they're designing their
site to meet those parking requirements. >> Okay. And does does our parking
ordinance it sounds my I think I know this answer if it was '05, but is there
any shared parking credits that they get against these
numbers? >> There is an option for it's it's a
parking variance. So, there's a variance a parking variance process.
It goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Adjustments
uh where they can share share spaces between different sites. But since we're
talking in this case about kind of a third variable, not just the site and an
adjacent site, we're talking about on-street parking as well that by code
doesn't meet the parking requirement, um that necessitates sort of this
broader parking variance request. >> And the just to reinforce, I I looked at
that section cuz we we did that at Volterra.
Um but the the way the code is written it is basically at a discretion. And and
so it it's at a discretion whether the city approves a shared parking
calculation or not. >> But just to pick up on Doug's comment,
uh thinking about the parking requirement for each of the individual
units. Uh
you still we still are going to put a cap on the overall calculation, correct?
» That's correct. >> I mean, that's what we're doing tonight.
» Right. >> Is the cap on every parking space on
that plan? Um
so a couple of questions. I I'm also on
transportation committee, so I'm kind of curious. Is the East-West street like a
public street and all these connectors to 290?
» Yes, sir. They're just dedicated public >> Mhm. streets.
» Mhm. >> Um
and um
I know on one of these graphics there was a traffic light. I I'm just thinking
how people are actually going to get in and out of this site. Are they going to
go down to Canyon Land or whatever this Canyon Wood
» Canyon Wood. Yeah, so there's an existing signal at
Canyon Wood. And then moving west, we have a right-in, right-out that'll have
a deceleration lane. Yeah. And then the next drive down will be another lighted
intersection, fully lighted intersection. And so
» Signalized intersection. >> Signalized intersection.
» got you. Okay. >> That's right.
» And that's been approved through our uh through the transportation committee.
» So Text Dot's approved that knows all that. Okay, cool. Um
And And does that become a uh underpass or an overpass in the
future 290? >> Uh we don't know. We have talked to So
as you can see kind of where the the hashed or or dotted line is versus where
the colors start, and we we did that significant setback for a future Text
Dot right-of-way taking. So we've taken we've taken any expansion
needs they have. >> Still know if that'll be
um a crossing there, right?
» That's right. I mean, I I think the latest they've talked about is doing
something like what they've done down the street where they go they dig under,
and so they have those at grade, but I you know, that's TexDOT
10 years from now kind of thing. >> yep, yep, yep, yep. Two more questions
on my part. Um Um
Tory, have notices been sent out? How do we post notification of this?
» Yes, sir. So we sent we sent notice to every property owner within verified
» to be >> two or 300 ft Um as well as uh
posting in the newspaper and signage as well.
» I find it I find it unusual that the Headwaters residents are not out.
» Well, and and if I can [laughter] if I can speak to that. So I saw in here, I
don't know exactly where it was, um but somewhere in the agenda packet it
said that there were no notices sent out. Were there any notices that were
sent out or >> Let me
» Because those folks on >> That's Iron Willow that's above the
retail area. I would have thought they would have been within 300 ft.
» All property owners within 300 ft radius were were notified of the variance
request. >> Okay, okay, good. Um
» [clears throat] >> and and frankly, parking is not the kind
of thing that gets residents too excited.
Uh it's I think as you as you go through the site development, I think you're
going to find a lot of interest in looking at this. If I'm looking at
this right, that's 290. So in the northern section as it abuts the
residential lots, there could be some excitement generated over that. So
that's that's something that will come with site development. Uh but I won't
worry about that right now. Um
The the parking on the street, has that all been cleared? Are we all okay with
that? I mean >> That that was part of the cross-sections
approved in the planned development district uh when the PDD was adopted. So
» that bridge has been crossed. >> Right.
» Okay. >> All right.
» Okay. Um >> possible question here. What
What feasibility is there for putting some of these
extra parking spaces underneath? You know,
raise a portion of one or two of these buildings and create under building
parking in that kind of a scenario to >> Sure, we we've looked at that from from
time to time. It it is cost-prohibitive and tenants don't really like it cuz it
can make creates a convenience factor for customers.
Um but you know, some point in the future
uh may maybe I I think that's um
is certainly I I think also frankly with where we're going with cars,
um there could be a much more of a shared parking
or or shared car usage. Just I mean, my Tesla drove me here and I
didn't drive. Uh and the cyber cabs and all that are coming
really really soon and um and so I I think there could be a a
frankly a bigger discussion of there's probably going to be significant
individual people in 5 years. Significantly. But that's again, that's
just my my personal uh hypothesis anyway.
» [laughter] >> Make sure you have these striped for
trucks. Out here, I mean, your point is well taken.
» very much regular size parking spaces. >> Yeah. They are very much regular size
parking spaces. People love their vehicles and their trucks, right?
» Yeah. >> I I have a question for Tory. Um
What is the intent of the
parking requirements? What is the intent of that rule? The five per it it's five
parking spots per thousand. >> It's five per
code, it's two Or is it one one
» One per 200. >> One per 200.
» Okay, got you. >> It was translated to five.
» Got you. >> Um
in general, the the intent is to provide adequate parking um to make sure that
there's not overflow parking. Um in terms of where that actual calculation
was justified and came from, I can't I can't really speak to that. Um you know,
from looking at our code and different aspects of it, it looks like it was
probably borrowed from other codes in the area and
I can't think of a time since that zoning ordinance was updated that we
have since updated the parking ordinance at least the numbers. We've done some
things like the Mercer Street District and had some allowances there, but um
» I'd like to interject. Um at least from the developer's standpoint, 20 years ago
Target as an example required five per thousand and they did so to plan for
Black Friday. That that that's really it.
And and so um
in my opinion with these I mean so Target when we did 8290 Ranch
in 2006 required five per thousand for their for a parking lot. They went down
the street here and did three per thousand.
So that they cut it almost in half like by 40%.
And and a lot of it is because they never needed five per thousand. They did
a five per thousand for one day a year and now I mean when's the last time
somebody got up at midnight on Thanksgiving night to go
to go Black Friday shopping. And and so that that's a vestige in my opinion from
20 years ago for and back then 20 years ago is one day a year. And so now that's
why again all the big retailers are just requiring less parking because they are
using the internet a lot and what they've really figured out and what
you've seen is you know, a lot of these retailers
haven't expanded anywhere in Austin in 15 years.
And really a lot of that was figuring out how the internet was going to affect
their business. And now what they realize is that yes,
they need stores close to customers because convenience is key, but there's
a lot of people who are still going to go buy a pair of shoes online and then
go pick it up on the way to pick up their kid from school.
Or or take it back and you know, if it's the wrong size for the kids, right? And
that's and that's why parking ratios have gone down. And so again, that's
just my my perspective.
» Jody, you know, uh
I'm a little allergic to the on-street parking.
And and the reason I say that is based on our experience with Big Sky and a
couple of others that we've seen in the very dense developments. Uh
Texas Heritage Village, Big Sky. There's a lot of street parking and we
had a lot of issues around being sure that we maintained those areas and back
to your point about emergency access and so on, that we maintained the proper
rights for egress. Uh
in this instance, one of my concerns with the on-street
parking in in Big Sky, for example, is children's safety.
Playing in the street, playing in the front yard, and that sort of thing. We
don't have residential lots here. So, there's a part of me that says that
concern is not as not as concerning in this development as
it would be in a residential area. Is the street parking something you're
you're concerned about or you okay with it in this particular instance?
» It's it's not something I'm concerned about and and just to clarify, I I know
you didn't mention the the fire aspect of things, but I was thinking maybe
that's where you were going with the Big Sky and and the fire department is
looking at this. >> of it. It was both. It was It was the
emergency access and kids safety. >> The the design of this road and sort of
the geometry of it, it doesn't lend itself to to high speed. So, it it's
um you know, it it's something that customers need to be mindful of whenever
they they park and get out of their cars, make sure that there's there's not
someone coming behind them, but um you know, that this is an area, you know,
where like you said, kids playing in the street, people are going to be parking,
getting out of their vehicles, and then walking uh
walk walking to the businesses. >> At the risk of going on a tangent with
the How is the How is that street that runs east to west? How is it not
conducive to speeding? Are there going to be like speed cushions or any kind of
traffic on it? >> it it it's narrowed down to the point
that fire will allow it to be narrowed down and sort of naturally having those
those cars parked along the street sort of naturally reduces uh a driver's
speed. Um also, it's not it's not a straight
line all the way across. It has kind of a
a curve into it. And the the applicant may have some more details about the
design of the road, but that's that's what we were looking at um just kind of
in the initial assessment when I was looking at
» something you're looking at more closely during the site development review, but
that's a good question. >> And I can I can um give my two
very cheap cents. Uh so So >> So you're
you're exactly right. And and what the way we designed that street is we're
paying the sidewalk fee in lieu to not have a sidewalk on 290 cuz I think it's
it's crazy that people want to be there. But what we did is we did two sidewalks,
one on either side of what's called Dripstone Trail because that's where we
want people interacting. And so there's the road, there's there's landscaping,
then there's a sidewalk, and then there's landscaping, and then the
parking lot to really divide that space up between pedestrians and
and um and and uh cars. And on-street parking, it's not going to
be the most convenient. What we typically see that being is, you know, a
a lot of times um employees will want to park as close to the front like at a
restaurant. If you have a wait staff, and they want to pick park as close to
the restaurant as possible. What problem is obviously they have 20 waiters or
waitresses, then then those are taking 20 spaces from customers. And so what we
can do, if you can train them to park on something like that, then it does create
a slowing down effect cuz you do have cars there, but then it also frees up
the the main parking spaces for for customers.
» Last question >> No, go go ahead.
» No, my last question is is now that you're going into what I would
consider more detailed planning for your tenants,
um what's the likelihood that you're going
to be coming back to us with further requests for changes or variances?
» So, I mean, we're pretty far down the road on design now.
um and so we don't foresee any additional variances. We do have a
landscape variance going in to do rainwater collection versus potable
irrigation, but that's the only other variance we have in front of the city at
this moment. >> don't want to be piecemealed every time
we turn around. >> Right. Absolutely. I I can't 100%
promise, but we've gotten pretty deep on the plans, and so I would expect that
something to pop up between >> Okay.
» now and where we are now. >> All right, we're going to hold you to
that. >> [laughter]
» Thanks, ma'am. >> When when would this be built?
» So, you know, a lot of it depends on uh you know, very similar to Belterra, be
done in phases, but we're hoping to start as early as
the beginning of next year, and the the time time frame to build
would be anywhere from 12 to 18 months for the first phase. So, but but all the
public improvements, roads, streets, sidewalks, landscaping, all that goes in
with the traffic signals, diesel lanes, all that goes in with the first phase.
» And and this is an Endeavor project? Are you Are you Endeavor or I see Endeavor's
name on this. >> Yeah. So, so my company's called
Marathon Equity, and we're 50/50 partners with Endeavor on this project.
» And and the um you guys control the property to the
west, so that We do not. You do not. So, you don't know when that continuation of
that road >> So, under our TIA, um that road has to
be connected as it's developed out going west. So, there is a requirement for
that road to be developed, but we don't own that parcel, so it's
» You don't own that, so. >> That's right. All right, yeah.
» That's right. That's where it's >> That is where it's That's right.
» I don't I don't think they have a timeline on that that I've heard.
» I have a question about the gym. So, you mentioned a couple times that
gyms cause problems for parking, but we've got a gym right there.
» We don't have Oh, oh. Yeah, that's not part of our project. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
» I just I know a lot about that gym because my kids that a lot of money on
volleyball. >> [laughter]
» And and so I experienced those facilities and that facility I I think
that the interplay with your project is going to be really interesting because
they anticipate having tournaments every weekend until the end of time. Those
tournaments bring two or three vehicles per family
» Yeah. >> to that and and I see them even during
the week, right? My kids go to a facility two or three days a week
and those facilities are packed with parkers.
» Mhm. >> Everybody waiting in their cars. If
there was shopping nearby, I would imagine there would be a lot of that
believe which is fantastic for the development. But that interplay like
probably shouldn't be ignored because I know the gym has adequate parking.
But I think about everything else that it it could bleed out and I think the
impact is like Gold's right at Belterra that gets insane.
» Mhm. >> it gets really packed in the morning and
then at night they could use a lot more parking in there when the Odyssey comes
out and people want to be at the gym, >> Right. Right.
» So, anyway, I just wanted to bring that up because I don't think we can ignore
that there's a giant gym right next door to the project.
» Yeah. And is that your old property? >> It is not, no.
» Do you have some kind of a shared parking arrangement
» [laughter] [clears throat]
» Yeah, well, all be parked together and and frankly, you know, part of the
benefit of being in a project like this is that, you know, somebody parks at a
restaurant and walks over to the gym. Like no one's going to get towed. I mean
that that's part of the benefit of having a bunch of different types of
businesses. That's what creates the environment.
And so even though it's not our project, no one will know, oh wait, that that
part was done by Endeavor, that part wasn't.
We're doing all the site work and all that
to make it seamless. Signage will be seamless, all of that.
» I think it's fantastic. I just wanted to make sure, Tory, that cuz I I actually
think the net gain of 60 stalls because your street parking is great. And I
think it's going to be probably highly utilized, Um but just from the city's
perspective, Tory, like that was all kind of thought
through. >> It it was like for the sports club
itself, I'll say we haven't gone through the
detailed site plan review of that, but even before that project and I don't
want to go off too much on another project, but before that project went
through the variance process, we we we worked with them closely to
look at the parking requirements to make sure they were meeting those, getting
getting into the details of what was actually going on inside of the building
to to formalize those calculations. >> I think I think Doug makes an excellent
point. It's it's taking a look at this not only in the context of their
project, but as we all know what we went through, we all know what we went
through with the with the gym. And my recollection was as we thought at the
time that it was adequately parked. I know you're still
you're doing your review and that sort of thing.
But I think the point is is that at least in as you look at this in more
detail from a site development point of view and the gym,
I think you need to be mindful of the bleed over effect.
» of the gym's pitch was we have this great development going in next door
with all the same >> Right. Right. They were counting on
that. Right. And so, you know, you're counting on it and if they're counting
on it, well, you know, it might uh >> Definitely some interplay there.
Recently and people were parked for miles outside the school.
» And I I will clarify and say as well if if that particular site is not meeting
the parking parking requirement, they'll have to go through the the same process
that the Daniel Campbell and his team are
going through now.
» Okay. What else? Anybody else? Anything else?
We've discussed it. >> have any more questions.
» Okay. We've discussed it and so now I will ask for a motion with regard to the
request for the variance to allow a reduction in the onsite parking
requirements for the Headwaters commercial lease project.
» I'll move to approve as per staff recommendation.
» Got a motion from Doug Shumway to move to proceed with the recommendation by
staff. Do I have a second? >> Second.
» Got a second from It's a Where did Diana go?
» [laughter] >> Okay.
» Let's remember that. Help me, Tory.
» We got >> She deserted us here.
» Doug Doug and Doug. >> I got the Doug and Doug. We got a motion
and a second, okay? And so with that, let's go ahead and call for a vote. All
in favor say aye. >> Aye.
» Any opposed? >> Opposed.
» One opposed. Okay, one opposed. Four to one. Okay, sounds good.
All right. Thank you for that discussion and
presentation answering our questions. Appreciate your time and we'll see how
this thing unfolds. All right, let's move forward now. Let's
see Tory, you're going to kind of give us a
an update on the plan. >> I will give you an update on the plan
and tonight I'm primarily going to be going over the the survey results that
we got from our our the survey that we put out over the
summer. Um and just kind of fill you in on next steps and then take
any feedback that that we may have from from the
commission. So let me get back to my notes
off of the last case, just one second. All right, so
as a reminder the >> It's colorful, I'll say that.
» It is it is colorful. Well, there's there's a lot of designations that that
need to be shown on these maps and you know, I think we picked every color
we could find just to to cover everything. Um so as a reminder so
this is for the draft 2024 comprehensive plan,
a process that we started, you know, back in
way back in '22 actually with with first working with the consultants. Um
and we went through various iterations and ultimately
ended up taking the last package from the consultant, taking
this in-house and kind of doing this last last step in-house where we can and
you know, it the document and you know, do the survey and and analyze
that. Um Let me go back to our the actual image
of the uh survey itself. So,
um we did do uh it was primarily an online
survey with an opportunity to come by our office, send emails in. We also took
some uh I'll I'll say some
I don't want to say limited comments, but we did we did pull comments that we
saw on on Facebook as well and kind of looked at those and see how those worked
with the trends that we saw. Um but the the public comment period ran uh May May
through July. Uh and included uh a couple of different
aspects. There was an interactive map aspect of it where applicants could you
know, actually look at the future not applicants, I'm sorry, residents uh
interested persons could look at the interactive map and uh you know, if
there was something that jumped out of them, actually pinpointing an area on
that map, leaving a comment. Um and and we did get a quite a few
responses uh through that through that method. Um and let me look let me just
look at that real quick. So, on the uh
on the actual location map itself, we received uh
responses from 44 uh 44 individuals and it was a a similar
number for the actual plan itself. Um I think right uh right above 40. So, they
could interact with the map, leave comments there, also look at the uh look
at the plan itself and actually uh actually make comments on the plan
itself. And we did did have some targeted questions as well.
Including uh just kind of getting some demographic
information, um you know, really being if they live in the city
limits, uh which
hopefully they know if they do or don't, but it's often times they they don't
actually know if they live in the city limits. Uh if they live in the ETJ, or
uh if it's an other or they prefer not to answer. Um and the uh
the chart to the right, too, we looked specifically at the
the plan elements. So, there are five plan elements uh tied into the plan.
There's protect uh protecting community character, uh connectivity and corridor
enhancement, economic development, infrastructure, or economic development,
infrastructure, and and housing. housing.
Um and the the top two were were pretty
close uh between protecting community character and uh connectivity and and
corridor enhancement. And I know that we had uh quite a bit of discussion with
our um sort of our our comprehensive plan committee and our our our group
about uh you know, the the last round where we
organized these and really having a focus primarily on on infrastructure.
So, it's it's interesting to see these notes uh from the general public.
Um and the the bottom chart, it's really just to kind
of get a gauge if uh you know, residents find that these
these place types on that future land use map
were clear uh tying the actual designations
um the rural reserves and the the the employment centers and and and all the
designations on there. And uh you know, just asking if those were clear. So, we
we got uh I was hoping that we'd get more uh or I'll say fewer
uh not clear uh indications, but uh 29 29
participants indicated that it it was it was clear and evident uh and 14 um
indicated that that those place types were not clear. And then we got so so
some other comments and uh I'll say other comments and uh a few
that that preferred not to answer. So, here's just a quick overview of of
the comments that we received on um on the interactive map itself.
And we we went through this data, too, and try to categorize them best we can.
A lot of them were related to
uh they were related to transportation, uh
but the the top aspect was uh centered on sort of the land use and and
community character, which it is uh
which is appropriate for this type of this type of map. Uh and we we did get
uh one or two related to uh housing, I think particularly affordable
housing, as well as infrastructure and sort of uh
uh necessary facilities. So, following up from the survey event, I I'll I'll
open it up to any comments or questions that you'll have at this point, but we
are we will be coordinating with our our comp comp plan committee, which on the
planning and zoning commission includes uh Commissioner uh Foster and
Commissioner Williamson. And we'll be kind of going through these
in a little bit more detail, going through the the minor changes that we
made through the the plan and the map before we take it back to the planning
and zoning commission for a a more deep dive into the plan. Um
Yeah, two two ti- I I absolutely, yes, sir, two two times. Um and I'll say that
includes my presentation for tonight, but I'll I'll open it up for any uh any
comments or questions or direction from the commission.
» Anyway, hey Tori, um the two green colors
one is a rural preserve and one is a rural reserve, I think it says.
Um
Help me understand the colors on the map, and then there's a then there's the
light green, which is just means it's not anything or it's
» And and the I I think the light green, I'll say what you're seeing around the
the perimeter, uh kind of the furthest extent of the map. Those are This is
overlaid on an aerial an aerial that was likely taken after it
rained a little bit. So the lighter green kind of on the the
extent that you're seeing outside of those shapes is is just the
the ground. It's it's the the vegetation from the aerial.
But the the rural the rural preserve, that's an area really designated for
» [music] >> actual preservation of land. So kind of
open space. There's some areas that are parklands.
» But it's not it's not parkland, right? It's That's not
It's not like city or county park. >> Right. Right. And and you know on on in
turn um I'll say kind of the the lighter green
color, that's an area where it's a lot of the the residential areas meet that
designation where a minimum of 50% of that area is designated as as open
space. So the Headwaters development for instance, the Headwaters residential
area uh meets that criteria because it it it
they they have uh and I did look at those
numbers. It's 60% 66% of the Headwaters residential development agreement area
that is limited to uh uh
to open space. >> So the way you mapped it then like for
Headwaters because other ones look like they're not
done that way. The the lots the hou the lots where the homes are built
are are just lumped into the total Headwaters
development and then colored light green because it's 60% open space.
» it's part of the overall development, yes sir. And you're you are right. There
there were some areas that that we we didn't make those updates to and I think
for consistency sake and it may make sense.
But whenever we you know when when we're we originally got this this setup from
the consultant, it was showing it kind of on a parcel by parcel basis. You'd
see that yellow where the single family designation uh for each individual house
and then all of the open space designated. And then we we were looking
at developments that weren't fully built out or developments that weren't
entitled [music] and had a hadn't started yet. And we didn't really have
that granular granular level of of that that site. And quite frankly, this type
of map, it's it's not really meant to be looked at on that level. Uh it's it's
more general broad areas. This is, you know, this is the general area where we
want to see this type of use or this type of of growth or limited growth.
» So the areas that are shown where they are differentiated should be changed?
Like the >> I I think for consistency's sake, um
I if you don't make that suggestion, I
think I will. Um, just just to make
like like the the Belterra development. And and I I know we had talked about
that internally a little bit and there may have been a reason we didn't change
that that specific one. It could be that that particular development didn't meet
the the 50% threshold
to be considered that that uh reserve or preserve. I'm I'm really I'm
getting the two mixed up in my head. Um >> I mean, what's interesting to me is and
this is probably more of a council
um political thing. Um
it it seems like as as hard as it is to delineate the lots versus the
open space, for example, in Calaterra or somewhere. Um
it it feels like it it's a nice thing to look at on a map for Dripping Springs to
to to set a a precedent and a tone that this is the type of residential
development that we encourage versus just coloring it all out because once
you color it all out, it's just like light green or whatever and
I I know it it's hard to get the granularity, but it
it seems to me like it just makes it less
um self-evident about what we're trying to do here and we like the 60% green
space. Um but anyway, so
so I was going to make a recommendation to go the other way, but the more I
think about it, it's almost like you should you should go to the more
detailed so that people who look at this map
can can understand what what we really like around here and
what we've approved for subdivisions that already built or being
built. Or and and you know, the the intent and
and I'll say quite frankly the truth is is not to take this map and say this
this property, this ranch, these 100 acres
the intent is not to say these are undevelopable or or hardly developable.
Aside from you know, some designated over spaces, some open spaces, some
conservation easements. It's really if it if it develops,
you know, in in the case of those uh
rural reserves, we're looking we're looking at you know, a minimum 50% open
space designation with that. So that it it develops
less densely, less intensely and provide some
some of that open space which is really key from the comments that we heard when
we initially kind of opened up this process was
providing areas for for recreation and and for open
space and and just kind of community character in general.
» So So I have maybe kind of a a broad question just to understand the intent
uh of the future land use map. So, let's say for example, Headwaters hadn't been
completely developed and you are you you were coloring things based on
um the whole of the development instead of getting like granular per lot. And
so, you've made Headwaters um a rural reserve, so that's a minimum
50%, right? So, if it's not completely developed, which it's actually not, they
still have like that Iron Willow area, but if if with the future land use map,
that's the designation it's given as rural reserve, then is there a a tool or
an ability to does the development have to stay within
that? >> I'll say within certain confines. So,
um you know, immediately following the
adoption of the comp plan, it's going to be sort of an implementation uh code
update that that takes takes this map and translates them and
it's actually already translated in the comp plan, but um you know, to the point
where you you cannot request a zoning category that is outside of what this
this comprehensive plan area allows. And if you do want to do that, that that
would trigger a uh >> variance
» Well, that would trigger an amendment to this map. So, there's going to be sort
of a future land use map amendment process.
Um so, when we see things like zoning amendments come through,
um it it I don't want to say it it won't be uncommon, but it
you're likely to see a handful that come through concurrently with a future land
use map amendment that planning zoning >> They're at odds with
» Right, right. And and it would provide I'll say for the sake of Headwaters with
it being a development agreement, um you know, it would provide the
direction for you know, what what precisely goes into that development
agreement or at least what the baseline is and then you kind of exceed from
there. >> Okay, well, that that helps kind of
contextualize why there might be an advantage of doing it at the development
level because then if you're in the early stages of it, you can kind of set
that. >> Right.
» Thank you. >> But but it's not a zoning map.
» It's not a zoning map. >> But
» It doesn't change what uses you can or can't do on your property today,
but it provides guidance and in some cases some
some boundaries for what zoning amendments or zoning changes you can
change. But if there's a property in the ETJ on this map
and they're not requesting annexation, they're not requesting a development
agreement, they'll develop under those ETJ standards as is.
But if they are looking to do something more substantive, larger,
requesting any variances, that's where this map comes into play.
» I Sorry, go ahead.
» Tory, let me let me just drill into it just a
hair deeper here. Please. Having sat up here as long as I have over the years,
there are a handful of areas in our community
that always give us a challenge when someone comes in for rezoning.
And I want to be sure that that the approach you're taking in the comp plan
addresses that. Specifically some of the some of the areas that and
I'm [clears throat] getting into future land uses here. Some of the areas that
always give us a challenge and council as well.
Things like
Creek Road in the city limits, the historic districts,
Ranch Road 12 to the north a bit, maybe to the south a bit.
And and what we have found in the past is and you and you know this, we've had
piecemeal requests for a zoning change or you know, whatever it is.
Are we are we going to be able to see in this plan
that there is guidance that helps us navigate those situations? Take for
example the discussion we had at P&Z last month with regard to the the Hayes
Sawmill District. You know, it raises a question
when you have a property that comes forward for a rezoning. And the question
then becomes, "Okay, fine. We can understand what is requested for that
property." But the bigger question is, "How does it affect the district in
totality, right? Where is the district going?" The same thing is true with
Fitzhugh. We've basically said to Fitzhugh, Old Fitzhugh that is,
"It's going to be a bit of an eclectic neighborhood." Mixed, you know, but the
intent is to improve the aesthetics, improve the character and so forth and
so on. And so my question is, when you're thinking about in the North 40,
whenever we have something around the North 40, that always ends up being a
bit of a challenge. So the question I'm asking is
is is the way you're going about this comp
plan, are we going to have guidance? Are we going to have a compass heading
for future proposals in historic districts, the North 40, Ranch Road 12,
Creek Road in the city limits and so on? Uh
How how How is that being addressed in the comp plan?
» Or and I'll say the comp plan it I don't want to say it fully addresses
what you're asking about, but it does address those those areas to a certain
extent. And what what it does is is provide guidance of
this zoning designation or or this type of use is appropriate. Uh maybe in this
area along along the major arterial. So for the instance of North 40, [music] it
could be a zoning amendment along Ranch Road 12. Um where where it provides
provides direction there. I think what you're describing is more
it's kind of more akin to small area plans that a lot a lot of larger cities
do where they they have their comp plan for the overall area and then they get
down to the neighborhood scale. And that's not something that we've that
we've discussed. That's not something that that we've really had direction on.
Um but it it's a it it does serve it does serve a
valuable tool particularly if you are seeing a lot of requests within within
one certain area. And I'll say for the area like uh
not so much Old Fitzhugh, but uh in the Hayes Street neighborhood, you know, I
mentioned a lot of these larger developments we're trying not to get to
the granular scale. That was one area we in fact have an inset map for our future
land use map that that shows it more so on a parcel-by-parcel basis because we
do have so many different things going on in that area. And one was to kind of
reflect reality as it is today. Um you know, if there's uh you know, a
uh commercial zoning or a commercial use there,
um you know, not to take it back to you know, a single-family use for instance.
Um but to to be able to to look at it kind of more holistically. And one thing
that doesn't necessarily um tie in with the zoning perspective, but from the
historic preservation perspective, I do want to mention that we are in the
process now of uh updating our our historic preservation guidelines. Again,
that's more uh uh it's more aesthetics. It's it's more the
the look and feel of the neighborhood as opposed to what's going on inside of the
building. Um
but as part of that, we are also exploring uh updates to our future uh
not our future land use map, our land use chart
uh to try to make the historic overlay and some of those
uses match better kind of the intent of of that area.
» I think that's where I'm going is is I just feel a need having seen this occur
many times over the years uh to be able to point to a document
that says, "This is the vision. This is the vision for Hayes. This is
the vision for Old Fitzhugh. This is the vision for Creek Road. This is the
vision Pick one." Yeah. So that when we come up with
when we're faced with a rezoning request or development request, whatever, we
have something to point to and say that what we're considering here is is
with what we feel is appropriate for this area. We haven't had that very well
defined in the past. And I know you can't define it back to the granularity
question. You can't define it down to that level.
But every time a rezoning question comes up, the first thing we always ask is,
you know, how does that fit the comp plan?
And I want to be sure that that that we have
going through this exercise, some guidance that helps us make those
decisions. Okay.
Anybody else?
Okay. All right. Anything else? Is there
anything you need from us? >> Um
» right now. >> I not not from the commission right now.
This this conversation's been really helpful. And as I mentioned, our team's
going to be reaching out to the comp plan committee to kind of getting into
this a little bit more detail. And in the meantime, we're going to be giving
an update at city council next week as well.
» When when would you expect the first real review with P&Z to occur?
» I'm I'm I'm I'm shooting for next next planning and zoning commission meeting.
» Okay. Okay. >> And
» And depending on the input that we get from the comp plan committee and the
discussions there, but that's what we've got on our schedule right now.
» All right. Any other questions at all on the comp plan?
Okay, I'm moving on to item four, the the planning department summary, if you
will, Tony or Tory. >> Um
Yes, sir. So, just a couple of updates on some of the ongoing projects. Uh I'll
say the Ranch at Caliterra. So, I don't think the commission's heard much from
that uh probably in the past past few months. Uh
but this is the area just west of Caliterra, part of their development
agreement, and will kind of function as as part of that as well. And actually,
Diane, I'm going to back up to look at this map to to help me orient this
discussion. Um and
they're they're they're completing their road infrastructure and their wastewater
infrastructure right now. And we expect probably by next meeting that plat to be
recorded and and potentially Home Start into go vertical
there as well. Um and I'll say
theoretically that that could open the road up from Caliterra to Mount Gaynor.
But with a the home construction going on there,
it's it's unclear if if that's going to be open to the general general public
quite yet. But that that is kind of a tucked away development that
uh that
we're going to see see movement on with vertical structures soon. Um for the
Penn tract through the Southern Land developer
um we're there's a lots of different aspects
going on with that right now including the transportation impact or
the traffic impact analysis. They did a presentation last month.
Um the developer did a presentation last month and they got they got some
feedback. They're working with our transportation consultant to
revisit some assumptions and look at some of the details of what they're
providing. We're also working to finalize their wastewater utility
agreement. And for that development Dripping
Springs Water Supply Corp is is is the the water provider from [music] from
what we've seen and they'll what we we don't have a firm commitment
from from the water supply corp on that yet. But we made clear that
that's something that will need before planning and zoning commission
recommendation. So >> Yeah, you mentioned in the morning call
today that there's planned meetings between Southern Development and Water
Supply to kind of iron that out.
» I know they've been on a handful of board meetings
already and they're they're I I know they're looking at the
I'll say their assumption. It's more than their assumptions. They're their
restrictions written into the development agreement in terms of how
many homes they can build a year. There's sort of a slow release process
written in there really for transportation purposes. But that helps
with the assumptions for water supply corp as well.
And you know, it's a similar situation to wastewater. They can't connect to our
system today. So, it's going to take an expansion
potentially two before they can actually connect. So, them doing on-site
facilities and and kind of that slow release process or slow release concept
for home construction uh
I don't want to say it takes the ease off of the utility constraints, but it
helps to it helps to better plan for them.
» Anything else? >> Well, if if we weren't already talking
Headwaters, I would let you know that we're we're
reviewing permits for that right now, Headwaters commercial.
And as the applicant stated, they're I think aiming to start construction early
early next year. So, um
So, that that's moving forward. We've got a handful of permits in there
between the different properties. And I I
believe we just received a site development permit for the
for the sports complex, too. Like I mentioned, we haven't done a deep dive
into that. Sports the sports club, the DS Sports Club. Um So, that that's going
to be all kind of coming through and being reviewed concurrently.
» Is Madeline Estates dead dead? >> Uh I have not received a formal
withdrawal. Um but from
uh I also haven't heard much of anything
from from the applicants. >> ATX has gone quiet.
» That's right. We we haven't uh I know our our staff has reached out to
him a handful of times. Um and and we we haven't seen an updated submittal. As
far as I know, we haven't gotten a a firm
update. So, as a reminder, that that's gone through a few different names.
I think the Ranch Courts is kind of its formal name. So, that's the area right
right south of Village Grove Parkway and including uh our former mayor Uncle
Bob's property. So, down down on 290 as well. Or
» Yes, sir. >> What about the water treatment plant
expansion? Where are we on all of that? >> So,
just in case you're not up to speed, we got through the lawsuit, so favorable
decision there back in I think Feb- February.
Um we uh I'll say since 2019 when we originally kind of got that permit and
started designing it, costs have gone up significantly. So, we had to do one we
had to do some redesign to meet some updated current standards for our plant.
Um and and with with that and just I'll say it in- inflation or construction
costs, costs have gone up. Uh but we did secure funding through the Texas Water
Development Board. Um so, the the funding aspect of it is
taken care of and um >> But the
current >> For Right. Right.
That's right. I I don't recall the set um
the set start date. I can follow up with you guys on that. Uh but we are
expecting uh I it it's
still going to be probably two plus years before
that plant is operational and online. >> So, if Groves got houses going up, I
guess they're going to operate on a T lap in the meantime.
» Right. So, they I I can't think of a named development
that isn't doing some sort of a temporary facility.
Uh I'll say a named development under construction. Uh there are one or two
that are waiting for for capacity. Um and just kind of as a reminder if you
know, we have several developments that we have wastewater agreements with.
Uh and once that once that plant is built, they've already got We We have
committed to them that they can connect. Um
and and in fact, we're going in for for a permit for our our next expansion
um to to expand again after the one that hasn't been built yet. That's
that's that's how much we're we're keeping up with with development.
» So, Tori, as it relates to wastewater, you know, I live out towards um
um Driftwood. Um so, the construction, are we actively now
selling or pushing effluent treated effluent to the golf course at this
point? All that pipe looks like it's been
laid. >> I think there's a section that hasn't
been completed, if I'm not mistaken. Um So, I
I'm nearly confident that's not going to Driftwood yet.
» But, we are moving it to Caliterra. >> We are moving it to Caliterra, and um
» Heritage? >> Uh not not Heritage. Heritage
participated in extending our effluent line to the sports uh the sports fields.
So, that that was the way they were able to free up LUEs so they could they could
construct more. >> Right, so it was it was
so sort of directly involved in that, and you know, that's a benefit for us in
the the the sports clubs as well, the uh uh
DSYS A, for instance, where they they've got the greenest fields uh around, just
just as green as our our drip fields by the wastewater plant.
» And and do we does the city own that easement that they created to
get those lines all the way out to the golf course?
» Yes. >> So, they paid for it, but we own it.
» Okay. >> Interesting.
» Anything else while here? >> Okay, I need one more motion.
» Move to adjourn. >> I have a motion to adjourn. Do I have a
second? >> Second.
» I second. All in favor? >> Aye.
» Aye. >> We are done.
» We are done.