[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.