Champions Track 3
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•343 views
Linda Bailey gave this presentation to the Lost Creek Civic Organization on her experiences with zoning change proposed for Champions 3, property near the intersection of Loop 360 and 2222
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (16)
Similar to Champions Track 3
Similar to Champions Track 3 (20)
More from Paul Schumann
More from Paul Schumann (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Champions Track 3
- 2. Description Zoning: GO-CO Zoning Case: C14-2015-0160 C14-2015-0057 C14-05-0157 Zoning Ordinance (Mostly after 2000): 000309-78 99-0225-70(b) 20161110-043 Zoning Overlays: HILL COUNTRY ROADWAYS LOOP 360/RM 2222/HIGH INTENSITY 1 HILL COUNTRY ROADWAYS RM 2222/LOW INTENSITY 3 HILL COUNTRY ROADWAYS RM 2222/MODERATE INTENSITY 3 SCENIC ROADWAYS LOOP 360 SCENIC ROADWAYS • RM 2222The Marshall Ranch Development • Zoning: • SF-2 • Zoning Case: • Zoning Ordinance • (Mostly after 2000): 20081218-032 • Zoning Overlays: • BARTON SPRINGS ZONE • HILL COUNTRY ROADWAYS • LOOP 360/MODERATE INTENSITY • 1 • SCENIC ROADWAYS • LOOP 360
- 3. Intensity – Learned a New Language
- 4. CUT/FILL VARIANCEEXHIBIT NOTES: 1. EXTENT OF TERRACE WALLS MAY VARY TO ACCOMMODATE STRUCTURAL WALL DESIGN. TOE/TOP OF WALL MAY EXTEND BEYOND LIMITS SHOWN HEREON. 2. EXHIBIT INDICATES PRELIMINARY FINISHED GRADE OF SURFACE AND BUILDING COMPONENTS, INCLUDING UNDERGROUND GARAGE STRUCTURE. 3. STORMWATER QUALITY TREATMENT FACILITIES WILL BE REQUIRED BUT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT. PARTICIPATION IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS ANTICIPATED - NO ONSITE DETENTION PONDS ARE SHOWN. 4. THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN DEVELOPED UTILIZING CURRENTLY AVAILABLE SITE INFORMATION AND UNDER ASSUMPTION THAT THE REQUESTED ZONING CHANGE, VARIANCES, AND DENSITY BONUSES ARE GRANTED BY LAND USE COMMISSION. SITE DESIGN IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO UNKNOWN SITE CONDITIONS OR DEVIATION(S) FROM THE ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. 5. LIMITED TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY CONDUCTED BY CHAPARRAL PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING, INC. ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2015. 6. CONTOURS OUTSIDE OF THE LIMITS OF SURVEY ARE BASED ON PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CITY OF AUSTIN G.I.S. DATA. 7. CONTOURS SHOWN ARE 5 FOOT CONTOURS. CUT VARIANCE TABLE CUT RANGE (FT) AREA (ACRE) % OF DISTURBED AREA % OF OVERALL SITE AREA COLOR -32 -28 0.000 0.0 0.0 -28 -24 0.005 0.1 0.0 -24 -20 0.060 0.6 0.1 -20 -12 0.400 4.2 0.9 -12 -4 0.800 8.5 1.8 FILL VARIANCE TABLE FILL RANGE (FT) AREA (ACRES) % OF DISTURBED AREA % OF OVERALL SITE AREA COLOR 24 20 0.000 0.0 0.0 20 12 0.460 4.9 1.0 12 4 1.835 19.4 4.0 NON-VARIANCE CATEGORY CATEGORY AREA (ACRES) % OF DISTURBED AREA % OF OVERALL SITE AREA ± 4 FT 2.500 26.5 5.5 BUILDING COVERAGE 3.380 35.8 7.4 TOTALS 9.440 67.8 14.1 STRACT3 AUSTIN NTY,TEXAS 00 100' 200' GRAPHIC SCALE 100' Hidden Driveway Blind Curves Primary Driveway
- 5. Players • Jim Duncan expert • Brad Rockwell lawyer • Shepherd Mtn, valid petition • 7 neighborhoods for (~100 people engaged), 1 against • Richard Suttle – lobbyist represent Champions
- 6. Timing • File Application • TIA Scoping • Started ZAP May 2016 • City Council Three Readings • three readings – final vote Nov 10, 2016 • citizens communication • Election issue wanted the vote before Nov 20 • Final Vote Nov 10, 2016
- 7. Outcomes • Vote 7 to 4 against, valid petition - invalidated by 5’ • For – Gallo, Pool, Kitchens and Houston • Against Caesar, Renteria, and Garza for Affordable Housing • Against Adler, Zimmerman, Tovo, Troxclair for Developer • Applicant bolted and Champions found new buyer
- 8. What We Learned • The more expensive the lawyer, the more variances the applicant wants • Organize around Safety • Finding info on city site is difficult, three places to get good zoning info • Council member should know the facts and lead discussion on dias • Valid petition invalid with large land area • Endangered species violated and no penalty • The applicant can disappear or be a decoy • Local News media
- 9. What We Did About it • Voted to oust Sheri Gallo • Four worked together • 78% for Alter • Sent a message to the Mayor • Notice to lawsuit • Stick together now with upcoming zoning cases
- 11. Environmental Impact – What’s Better Current vs Proposed Raw Land Topography Acres 13.2 13.4 10.38 8.4 45.38 Slope % 0-15% 15-25% 25-35% Over 35% Total Acres Current GO LAWO Limited Acres 8.58 2.01 0.52 0 11.11 Proposed Rezoning MF-4 acres 2.20 2.32 0.90 0.07 5.49 Delta Current to Proposed 0.44 -1.25 -0.48 -0.07 -1.36 Current GO HCRO Limited Acres 2.64 1.07 0.42 0.00 4.13
- 12. Trip Limit – What’s Better Current vs Proposed Current Trip Limit 567 Proposed Trip Limit 2100
Editor's Notes
- Where is it? Located at intersection of CPR and FM 2222, 45 acres of raw land. 7 neighborhoods exist along CPR with recent building. Ends at Emma Long park – essentially a very long cul de sac. 200’ drop from top to bottom Creek parallel to CPR Know safety dangerGolden cheeked warbler, Entrance on LOS rated streets Grandfathered from fees Most effected Concern of home price drop, right to valid petition
- http://www.austintexas.gov/gis/ZoningProfile/ Most effected Concern of home price drop, right to valid petition Grandfathered LAWS Subject to HCRO
- Point out entrance/exit, West and east buildable space, gorge, slope Entrance on LOS rated streets Most affected due to home price Grandfathered 1986 LAWS Subject to HCRO Golden cheeked warbler, The applicant wanted 300000 gross sq ft to build apartments, office and retail, MU/CO, double TIA 2100 trips, Applicant grandfathered from fees Current laws 30,000 sq, GO/CO with trip limit. They wanted 10 times the allowable space and had to violate HCRO to do it. We started organizing and profiled our neighbors as not opposed to growth, educated and intelligent but uneducated about city code of any kind not tree huggers or very concerned about the environment, not knowledgeable about land use and/or rezoning. but VERY CONCERNED about Safety and concern that rules should be followed. SHOW PROPERTY LINE AND valid petition area
- Staff can ask for mulitlple postponements, neighbor one Took 7 months
- Vote 7 to 3 against, Lost because of valid petition Normally, the Council follows the lead of the council member who’s district the case is in, but it takes a and Garza and Pio vote for “affordable housing, persuasive argument on Sheri’s Gallos’ part and she did not attempt to influence - in fact it wasn’t even obvious this case was in her district, because she was mute most of the time. Caesar Those voting for us, Gallo, Houston and Kitchens News media Applicant bolted and Champions found new buyer Conservation Easement in the EAST – perpetual tax break. What is said is not biding, only what goes in the ordinance ance is binding say, set up conservation area – huge tax write off Tree cut down <8”, not keep natural Final MF/CO 300,000 ten times TIA 2100 trips
- LAWO allowable IC of 11.11 acres 3) BUT HCRO limits IC to 4.13 It Takes 6 votes!
- We turned this into an election issue and got over 150 names on a letter Well, I’m sure much of it was luck and good timing. Four of us worked together. We just focused on our precinct. It voted 54% republican November 8th and 47% for Gallo. By December 13th it voted 21% for Gallo and 78% for Alter. Those that voted during the Holidays voted for Alter. Tough time to get votes. Overall City 65% for Alison. Sent a message to the Mayor In Summary, We argued on the merits of the zoning case and did not have an Advocacy plan Wish we had a panel discussion and info like Paul Schumman has prepared
- 1) Describe, slope % and Tract 3 topography characteristics, 2) show LAWO allowable IC of 11.11 acres 3) BUT HCRO limits IC to 4.13, less than 4) the proposed by 1.3 acres. 2) BUT 6.66 if use KH Slope Map based on Chaparral survey Sept 29, 2015, and 7.14 if based on K-H Chaparral survey Sept 29, 2015 and 6.49 is based on Jan 2008 GIS Slope data The proposed rezoning does not utilizing the buildable flatter area, overusing the environmentally sensitive slope area. 5) Conclusion: As you would expect in any professionally run service organization, the City has no defined standard, checklist or procedure to evaluate environmental impact. It appears arbitrary and Ms Hart this one of the reasons why the neighborhoods do not trust the results of the proposed rezoning. Our conclusion is the proposed rezoning should not be approved. Bad precedence for Hill Country to grant these variances HCRO Mod Intensity FAR 0.2 0.08 0.04 0.00 Guernsey said” xxxx Numbers verified because they match Jim Duncan’s calculations