20220119-004b: HEB Austin No 33 SP-2020-0400D Variance Packet — original pdf

Backup

ITEM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022 NAME & NUMBER OF PROJECT: HEB Austin No 33 SP-2020-0400D NAME OF APPLICANT OR ORGANIZATION: Joe York Jones & Carter LOCATION: 12115 US-290, Austin, TX 78737 COUNCIL DISTRICT: NA (Extraterritorial jurisdiction) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STAFF: Pamela Abee-Taulli, Environmental Program Coordinator, Development Services Department, 512.974.1879, pamela.abee-taulli@austintexas.gov WATERSHED: Bear Creek Watershed and Barton Creek Watershed, Barton Springs Zone, Drinking Water Protection Zone REQUEST: Variance requests are as follows: 1. Request to vary from LDC 25-8-341 to allow cut to 12 feet. 2. Request to vary from LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill to 21 feet. 3. Request to vary from LDC 25-8-302(A)(2) to allow construction of a parking area on a slope with a gradient of more than 15 percent. 4. Request to vary from LDC 25-8-301 to allow construction of a driveway on a slope with a gradient of more than 15 percent. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends these variances, having determined the findings of fact to have been met. STAFF CONDITION: 1. Applicant will restore illegal fill that currently exists on the site to 2. Applicant will use native plants appropriate for the Hill Country original grade. location for revegetation. 3. The applicant will provide mitigation in the form of payment or on-site plantings for removed trees with a diameter of 19 inches or greater at a rate of 100 percent.  Development Services Department Staff Recommendations Concerning Required Findings Project Name: Ordinance Standard: Watershed Protection Ordinance Variance Request: HEB Austin No 33 Request to vary from LDC 25-8-341 to allow cut in excess of 4 feet (maximum cut 12 feet). Include an explanation with each applicable finding of fact. A. Land Use Commission variance determinations from Chapter 25-8-41 of the City Code: 1. The requirement will deprive the applicant of a privilege available to owners of similarly situated property with approximately contemporaneous development subject to similar code requirements. Yes The site descends from the northern boundary, at an elevation of 1195 feet above sea level, to the south-eastern corner, with an elevation of approximately 1089 feet. The project has a large footprint, comprised of a surface parking lot and grocery store. The size and layout are based on HEB’s standard practice for a suburban store. A development of similar scale, on a similarly situated property, subject to the same code requirements received similar variances. HEB 10, at 7901 US-290, Austin, TX 78736, (SP-2019-0034C), received variances for cut to 7 feet, fill to 14 feet, construction of a building on slopes exceeding 25 percent, and construction of a parking area on slopes exceeding 15 percent. . 2. The variance: a) Is not necessitated by the scale, layout, construction method, or other design decision made by the applicant, unless the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance; Yes The variance is necessitated by the significant amount of grade change characteristic of the Hill Country. Development is concentrated in previously disturbed areas and placed so as to minimize construction on excessive slopes.  The proposed cut between 4 and 12 feet is to level the parking area and minimize the fill required for the store building. Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; The proposed design accommodates both market and Yes safety considerations, while placing the building, parking lot, and drive aisles so as to minimize deviation from regulations for grading and for construction on slopes. Slopes over 15 percent grade comprise a small portion of the sixty-acre site. Additionally, the site has large areas of previous disturbance from unpermitted fill. Both of these factors contribute to making the proposed retail product a reasonable use of the property. Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. Yes Development with the variance does not create a probability of harmful environmental consequences. The majority of the site will remain undeveloped, with impervious cover capped at 25 percent of the net site area, as required by the Save Our Springs ordinance [LDC 25-8, Subchapter A, Article 13] Development is concentrated in previously disturbed areas and placed so as to minimize construction on excessive slopes. The site has two areas of existing, unpermitted fill. The building will be placed on one of these and the other will be restored to original grade, with native vegetation. Also, the applicant proposes to restore stormwater flow to a wetland that was cut off by the illegal fill. Finally, code-compliant erosion and sedimentation controls will be provided both during and after construction activities. All grading will be permanently stabilized in a code-compliant fashion. 3. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. Yes Water quality will be code-compliant and therefore equal to the water quality that would be provided without the variance. Because this site is in the Barton Springs Zone, water quality controls will meet the “non- degradation” standard required by the Save Our Springs ordinance. This means that runoff from the site shall cause no net increase in average annual pollutant load compared to existing conditions. b) c) B. The Land Use Commission may grant a variance from a requirement of Section 25-8-422 (Water Supply Suburban Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-452 (Water Supply Rural Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-482 (Barton Springs Zone Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-368 (Restrictions on Development Impacting Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, and Lake Walter E. Long), or Article 7, Division 1 ( Critical Water Quality Zone Restrictions ), after determining that:: 1. 2. 3. The criteria for granting a variance in Subsection (A) are met; NA The requirement for which a variance is requested prevents a reasonable, economic use of the entire property; NA The variance is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable, economic use of the entire property. NA Staff Determination: Staff recommends these variances, having determined the findings of fact to have been met. Staff recommends the following conditions. 1. Applicant will restore illegal fill that currently exists on the site to original grade. 2. Applicant will use native plants appropriate for the Hill Country location for revegetation. 3. The applicant will provide mitigation in the form of payment or on-site plantings for removed trees with a diameter of 19 inches or greater at a rate of 100 percent. Environmental Reviewer (DSD) _____________________________ (Pamela Abee-Taulli) Date 1/13/2022 Environmental Review Manager (DSD) _____________________________ (Mike McDougal) Date Environmental Officer (WPD) _____________________________ (Liz Johnston) Date 01/13/2022  Development Services Department Staff Recommendations Concerning Required Findings Project Name: Ordinance Standard: Watershed Protection Ordinance Variance Request: HEB Austin No 33 Request to vary from LDC 25-8-301 to allow construction of a driveway on a slope with a gradient of more than 15 percent. Include an explanation with each applicable finding of fact. A. Land Use Commission variance determinations from Chapter 25-8-41 of the City Code: 1. The requirement will deprive the applicant of a privilege available to owners of similarly situated property with approximately contemporaneous development subject to similar code requirements. Yes The site descends from the northern boundary, at an elevation of 1195 feet above sea level, to the south-eastern corner, with an elevation of approximately 1089 feet. The project has a large footprint, comprised of a surface parking lot and grocery store. The size and layout are based on HEB’s standard practice for a suburban store. A development of similar scale, on a similarly situated property, subject to the same code requirements received similar variances. HEB 10, at 7901 US-290, Austin, TX 78736, (SP- 2019-0034C), received 4 variances – for cut to 7 feet, fill to 14 feet, construction of a building on slopes exceeding 25 percent, and construction of a parking area on slopes exceeding 15 percent. 2. The variance: a) Is not necessitated by the scale, layout, construction method, or other design decision made by the applicant, unless the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance; Yes The variance is necessitated by the significant amount of grade change characteristic of the Hill Country. Development is concentrated in previously disturbed areas and placed so as to minimize construction on excessive slopes.  The site proposes three access driveways, and all three cross slopes exceeding 15 percent grade. The driveway locations are dictated by state requirements for queuing distance from intersections and cannot be located so as to avoid crossing the slopes. Driveway locations were determined, in conjunction with Hays County for accessibility of larger vehicles that will be needed for operations. Also, the driveways were placed to allow for adequate queuing along Nutty Brown Road to accommodate the new traffic signals at the driveway and the intersection with SH 290. Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; The proposed design accommodates both market and Yes safety considerations, while placing the building, parking lot, and drive aisles so as to minimize deviation from regulations for grading and for construction on slopes. The site proposes three access driveways, and all three cross slopes exceeding 15 percent grade. The driveway locations are dictated by requirements for queuing distance from intersections and cannot be located so as to avoid crossing the slopes. Two of the driveways are necessary to provide primary access from the two major roadways bordering the site and are therefore code compliant. The third driveway, accessing the loading dock at the back of the store, provides truck access that is separate from the customer access provided by the other two driveways. This third driveway cannot meet the standard of “necessary to provide primary access” required by LDC 25-8- 301. However, the dedicated delivery driveway does satisfy the Transportation Criteria Manual guideline that freight loading facilities should be designed and located to minimize intermixing of truck traffic with other vehicular and pedestrian traffic on site. [TCM 9.3.0, #2] This one additional driveway is therefore the minimum deviation from code to allow safe use of the property. Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. Yes Development with the variance does not create a probability of harmful environmental consequences. The majority of the site will remain undeveloped, with impervious cover capped at 25 percent of the net site area, as required by the Save Our Springs ordinance [LDC 25-8, Subchapter A, Article 13] b) c)  Development is concentrated in previously disturbed areas and placed so as to minimize construction on excessive slopes. The site has two areas of existing, unpermitted fill. The building will be placed on one of these and the other will be restored to original grade, with native vegetation. Also, the applicant proposes to restore stormwater flow to a wetland that was cut off by the illegal fill. Finally, code-compliant erosion and sedimentation controls will be provided both during and after construction activities. All grading will be permanently stabilized in a code-compliant fashion. 3. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. Yes Water quality will be code-compliant and therefore equal to the water quality that would be provided without the variance. Because this site is in the Barton Springs Zone, water quality controls will meet the “non- degradation” standard required by the Save Our Springs ordinance. This means that runoff from the site shall cause no net increase in average annual pollutant load compared to existing conditions. The Land Use Commission may grant a variance from a requirement of Section 25-8-422 (Water Supply Suburban Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-452 (Water Supply Rural Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-482 (Barton Springs Zone Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-368 (Restrictions on Development Impacting Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, and Lake Walter E. Long), or Article 7, Division 1 ( Critical Water Quality Zone Restrictions ), after determining that:: B. The criteria for granting a variance in Subsection (A) are met; NA The requirement for which a variance is requested prevents a reasonable, economic use of the entire property; NA 1. 2. 3. The variance is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable, economic use of the entire property. NA Staff Determination: Staff recommends these variances, having determined the findings of fact to have been met. Staff recommends the following conditions. 1. Applicant will restore illegal fill that currently exists on the site to original grade. 2. Applicant will use native plants appropriate for the Hill Country location for revegetation. 3. The applicant will provide mitigation in the form of payment or on-site plantings for removed trees with a diameter of 19 inches or greater at a rate of 100 percent. Environmental Reviewer (DSD) _____________________________ (Pamela Abee-Taulli) Date 1/13/2022 Environmental Review Manager (DSD) _____________________________ (Mike McDougal) Date Environmental Officer (WPD) _____________________________ (Liz Johnston) Date 01/13/2022 Development Services Department Staff Recommendations Concerning Required Findings Project Name: Ordinance Standard: Watershed Protection Ordinance Variance Request: HEB Austin No 33 Request to vary from LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill to 21 feet. Include an explanation with each applicable finding of fact. A. Land Use Commission variance determinations from Chapter 25-8-41 of the City Code: 1. The requirement will deprive the applicant of a privilege available to owners of similarly situated property with approximately contemporaneous development subject to similar code requirements. Yes The site descends from the northern boundary, at an elevation of 1195 feet above sea level, to the south-eastern corner, with an elevation of approximately 1089 feet. The project has a large footprint, comprised of a surface parking lot and grocery store. The size and layout are based on HEB’s standard practice for a suburban store. A development of similar scale, on a similarly situated property, subject to the same code requirements received similar variances. HEB 10, at 7901 US-290, Austin, TX 78736, (SP-2019-0034C), received variances for cut to 7 feet, fill to 14 feet, construction of a building on slopes exceeding 25 percent, and construction of a parking area on slopes exceeding 15 percent. 2. The variance: a) Is not necessitated by the scale, layout, construction method, or other design decision made by the applicant, unless the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance; Yes The variance is necessitated by the significant amount of grade change characteristic of the Hill Country. Development is concentrated in previously disturbed areas and placed so as to minimize construction on excessive slopes. The proposed fill between 4 and 21 feet is to level the building and minimize the cut required for the parking lot. b) Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; The proposed design accommodates both market and Yes safety considerations, while placing the building, parking lot, and drive aisles so as to minimize deviation from regulations for grading and for construction on slopes. Slopes over 15 percent grade comprise a small portion of the sixty-acre site. Additionally, the site has large areas of previous disturbance from unpermitted fill. Both of these factors contribute to making the proposed retail product a reasonable use of the property. c) Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. Yes Development with the variance does not create a probability of harmful environmental consequences. The majority of the site will remain undeveloped, with impervious cover capped at 25 percent of the net site area, as required by the Save Our Springs ordinance [LDC 25-8, Subchapter A, Article 13] Development is concentrated in previously disturbed areas and placed so as to minimize construction on excessive slopes. The site has two areas of existing, unpermitted fill. The building will be placed on one of these and the other will be restored to original grade, with native vegetation. Also, the applicant proposes to restore stormwater flow to a wetland that was cut off by the illegal fill. Finally, code-compliant erosion and sedimentation controls will be provided both during and after construction activities. All grading will be permanently stabilized in a code-compliant fashion. 3. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. Yes Water quality will be code-compliant and therefore equal to the water quality that would be provided without the variance. Because this site is in the Barton Springs Zone, water quality controls will meet the “non- degradation” standard required by the Save Our Springs ordinance. This means that runoff from the site shall cause no net increase in average annual pollutant load compared to existing conditions. B. The Land Use Commission may grant a variance from a requirement of Section 25-8-422 (Water Supply Suburban Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-452 (Water Supply Rural Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-482 (Barton Springs Zone Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-368 (Restrictions on Development Impacting Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, and Lake Walter E. Long), or Article 7, Division 1 ( Critical Water Quality Zone Restrictions ), after determining that:: 1. 2. 3. The criteria for granting a variance in Subsection (A) are met; NA The requirement for which a variance is requested prevents a reasonable, economic use of the entire property; NA The variance is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable, economic use of the entire property. NA Staff Determination: Staff recommends these variances, having determined the findings of fact to have been met. Staff recommends the following conditions. 1. Applicant will restore illegal fill that currently exists on the site to original grade. 2. Applicant will use native plants appropriate for the Hill Country location for revegetation. 3. The applicant will provide mitigation in the form of payment or on-site plantings for removed trees with a diameter of 19 inches or greater at a rate of 100 percent. Environmental Reviewer (DSD) _____________________________ (Pamela Abee-Taulli) Date 1/13/2022 Environmental Review Manager (DSD) _____________________________ (Mike McDougal) Date Environmental Officer (WPD) _____________________________ (Liz Johnston) Date 01/13/2022 Development Services Department Staff Recommendations Concerning Required Findings Project Name: Ordinance Standard: Watershed Protection Ordinance Variance Request: HEB Austin No 33 Request to vary from LDC 25-8-302(A)(2) to allow construction of a parking area on a slope with a gradient of more than 15 percent Include an explanation with each applicable finding of fact. A. Land Use Commission variance determinations from Chapter 25-8-41 of the City Code: 1. The requirement will deprive the applicant of a privilege available to owners of similarly situated property with approximately contemporaneous development subject to similar code requirements. Yes The site descends from the northern boundary, at an elevation of 1195 feet above sea level, to the south-eastern corner, with an elevation of approximately 1089 feet. The project has a large footprint, comprised of a surface parking lot and grocery store. The size and layout are based on HEB’s standard practice for a suburban store. A development of similar scale, on a similarly situated property, subject to the same code requirements received similar variances. HEB 10, at 7901 US-290, Austin, TX 78736, (SP-2019-0034C), received 4 variances for cut to 7 feet, fill to 14 feet, construction of a building on slopes exceeding 25 percent, and construction of a parking area on slopes exceeding 15 percent. 2. The variance: a) Is not necessitated by the scale, layout, construction method, or other design decision made by the applicant, unless the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance; Yes The variance is necessitated by the significant amount of grade change characteristic of the Hill Country. Development is concentrated in previously disturbed areas and placed so as to minimize construction on excessive slopes. The parking lot is located and shaped to minimally impact steep slopes. Because of the widely spaced nature of the Hill Country slopes, it is difficult to design a large parking lot that avoids all slopes over 15 percent grade. The parking lot is pulled back from slopes at its periphery. The only slopes over 15 percent are in or near the center of the lot. b) Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; The proposed design accommodates both market and Yes safety considerations, while placing the building, parking lot, and drive aisles so as to minimize deviation from regulations for grading and for construction on slopes. The parking lot is located and shaped to minimally impact steep slopes. Because of the widely spaced nature of the Hill Country slopes, it is difficult to design a large parking lot that avoids all slopes over 15 percent grade. The parking lot is pulled back from slopes at its periphery. The only slopes over 15 percent are in or near the center of the lot. c) Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. Yes Development with the variance does not create a probability of harmful environmental consequences. The majority of the site will remain undeveloped, with impervious cover capped at 25 percent of the net site area, as required by the Save Our Springs ordinance [LDC 25-8, Subchapter A, Article 13] Development is concentrated in previously disturbed areas and placed so as to minimize construction on excessive slopes. The site has two areas of existing, unpermitted fill. The building will be placed on one of these and the other will be restored to original grade, with native vegetation. Also, the applicant proposes to restore stormwater flow to a wetland that was cut off by the illegal fill. Finally, code-compliant erosion and sedimentation controls will be provided both during and after construction activities. All grading will be permanently stabilized in a code-compliant fashion. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the 3. water quality achievable without the variance. Yes Water quality will be code-compliant and therefore equal to the water quality that would be provided without the variance. Because this site is in the Barton Springs Zone, water quality controls will meet the “non- degradation” standard required by the Save Our Springs ordinance. This means that runoff from the site shall cause no net increase in average annual pollutant load compared to existing conditions. B. The Land Use Commission may grant a variance from a requirement of Section 25-8-422 (Water Supply Suburban Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-452 (Water Supply Rural Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-482 (Barton Springs Zone Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-368 (Restrictions on Development Impacting Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, and Lake Walter E. Long), or Article 7, Division 1 ( Critical Water Quality Zone Restrictions ), after determining that:: 1. 2. 3. The criteria for granting a variance in Subsection (A) are met; NA The requirement for which a variance is requested prevents a reasonable, economic use of the entire property; NA The variance is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable, economic use of the entire property. NA Staff Determination: Staff recommends these variances, having determined the findings of fact to have been met. Staff recommends the following conditions. 1. Applicant will restore illegal fill that currently exists on the site to original grade. 2. Applicant will use native plants appropriate for the Hill Country location for revegetation. 3. The applicant will provide mitigation in the form of payment or on-site plantings for removed trees with a diameter of 19 inches or greater at a rate of 100 percent. Environmental Reviewer (DSD) _____________________________ (Pamela Abee-Taulli) Date 1/13/2022 Environmental Review Manager (DSD) _____________________________ (Mike McDougal) Date Environmental Officer (WPD) _____________________________ (Liz Johnston) Date 01/13/2022 December 9, 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant Contact Information Name of Applicant Joseph York, P.E. Street Address 4350 Lockhill Selma Rd. Suite 100 City State ZIP Code San Antonio, Texas 78249 Work Phone 210-546-5511 E-Mail Address kfelux@jonescarter.com Variance Case Information Case Name HEB Austin 33 Case Number SP-2020-0400D Address or Location 12021 W US 290, Austin, TX 78737 Environmental Reviewer Name Environmental Resource Management Reviewer Name Applicable Ordinance Pamela Abee-Taulli N/A Watershed Name Bear Creek Watershed Protection Ordinance Watershed Classification ☐Urban ☐ Suburban ☐Water Supply Suburban ☐Water Supply Rural ☑ Barton Springs Zone City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 1 December 9, 2021 Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone ☑ Barton Springs Segment ☐ Northern Edwards Segment ☐ Not in Edwards Aquifer Zones Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone Distance to Nearest Classified Waterway ☑ Yes ☐ No Approx. 19,000 LF Water and Waste Water service to be provided by Wastewater: On-site wastewater treatment plant Water: West Travis County Public Utility Agency Request The variance request is as follows (Cite code references): Request to vary from LDC 25-8-341 to allow cut to 12 feet. Impervious cover Existing square footage: ____22,930____ ____0.53____ ____0.87%___ Proposed _585,011_ __13.43___ __24.66%__ The existing topography of the subject tract consists of natural slopes ranging from 1%-35%. The site contains portions that are in excess of 15% slope. The highest point of the site is located along the northern boundary at an elevation of 1195 feet above sea level. The lowest point of the site is located at the south- eastern corner of the site at an elevation of approximately 1089 feet above sea level. The site is currently comprised of two tracts, a 1.01-acre tract and a 59.60- acre tract. The smaller tract is currently developed but will be demolished upon development, and the larger tract is undeveloped as pasture with brush and trees. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Soil Survey of Travis County, Texas, soils on the property are classified in 97.6% in Hydrologic Soil Group D and 2.4% in Hydrologic Soil Class C. The soils are predominantly Brackett-Rock outcrop comfort complex, with 1-8% slopes, Brackett-Rock outcrop real complex, with 8-30% slopes, and Krum Clay with 3-5% slopes. The site is in the Bear Creek Watershed which is classified as Barton Creek watershed. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 2 acreage: percentage: Provide general description of the property (slope range, elevation range, summary of vegetation / trees, summary of the geology, CWQZ, WQTZ, CEFs, floodplain, heritage trees, any other notable or outstanding characteristics of the property) The site will have more than 4 feet of cut. Please see the letter for the plea for the variance. Also, see the Cut/Fill Exhibit for the areas that have more than 4 feet of cut along with the excessive slope areas. December 9, 2021 Clearly indicate in what way the proposed project does not comply with current Code (include maps and exhibits) FINDINGS OF FACT Project: HEB Austin 33 Ordinance: LDC 25-8-341 A. As required in LDC Section 25-8-41, in order to grant a variance the Land Use Commission must make the following findings of fact: Include an explanation with each applicable finding of fact. Land Use Commission variance determinations from Chapter 25-8-41 of the City Code: 1. 2. The requirement will deprive the applicant of a privilege available to owners of similarly situated property with approximately contemporaneous development subject to similar code requirements. Yes / No The grade change on the site is drastic and development would not be possible without cutting more than four feet. The variance: a) Is not necessitated by the scale, layout, construction method, or other design decision made by the applicant, unless the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance; b) Yes / No The site has cut and fill more than four feet. When designing the site it was considered how to best balance the site based on the grading criteria for the client. Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 3 December 9, 2021 Yes / No The site has excessive slopes and would not be suitable for a reasonable development if not cut more than four feet. Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. Yes / No Retaining walls and 4:1 slopes back to natural ground are being used where possible. All slopes will be restored with native grasses. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. Yes / No Water quality is provided for the site and is designed to the City of Austin ECM. c) B. Additional Land Use Commission variance determinations for a requirement of Section 25-8-422 (Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-452 (Water Quality Transition Zone), Article 7, Division 1 (Critical Water Quality Zone Restrictions), or Section 25-8-368 (Restrictions on Development Impacting Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, and Lake Walter E. Long): The criteria for granting a variance in Subsection (A) are met; Yes / No N/A The requirement for which a variance is requested prevents a reasonable, economic use of the entire property; Yes / No N/A The variance is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable, economic use of the entire property. Yes / No N/A 3. 1. 2. 3. **Variance approval requires all above affirmative findings. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 4 December 9, 2021 A Exhibits for Commission Variance o Aerial photos of the site o Site photos o Aerial photos of the vicinity o Context Map—A map illustrating the subject property in relation to developments in the vicinity to include nearby major streets and waterways o Topographic Map - A topographic map is recommended if a significant grade change on the subject site exists or if there is a significant difference in grade in relation to adjacent properties. o For cut/fill variances, a plan sheet showing areas and depth of cut/fill with topographic elevations. o Site plan showing existing conditions if development exists currently on the property o Proposed Site Plan- full size electronic or at least legible 11x17 showing proposed development, include tree survey if required as part of site or subdivision plan o Environmental Map – A map that shows pertinent features including Floodplain, CWQZ, WQTZ, CEFs, Setbacks, Recharge Zone, etc. o An Environmental Resource Inventory pursuant to ECM 1.3.0 (if required by 25-8-121) o Applicant’s variance request letter City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 5 3100 Alvin Devane Boulevard, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78741-7425 Tel: 512.441.9493 Fax: 512.445.2286 www.jonescarter.com November 2, 2021 Pamela Abee-Tualli, LEED, CPESC COA Development Services Department One Texas Center 505 Barton Springs Road Austin, Texas 78705 Re: Cut Variance (LDC 25-8-341) HEB Austin 33 12021 W US 290, Austin, TX 78737 SP-2020-0400D Dear Ms. Abee-Taulli: On behalf of our client, H-E-B, Jones & Carter, Inc. is requesting an Environmental Commission variance of LDC Section 25-8-341, that there can not be more than four feet of cut. The site has natural topography change of approximately 106 feet. The natural slopes are between 0% to 35% across the site. When designing the grading for the site, the maximum cut was used at the north end of the parking lot, and the Client’s standards for grading were maximized to allow for the steepest grade while providing a sufficient design for pedestrian use. This process reduced the cut on other areas of the site to be below four feet. Others portions of the site with cut greater than four feet are within a water quality pond which is allowed, per the LDC 25-8-341.A.4, and an area with unpermitted fill. This area of unpermitted fill will have cut greater than four feet, but will be restoring the area to is natural conditions before the fill was introduced. We feel that our design methodology complies with the intent of LDC 25-8-341, but due to the nature of the topography and size of the proposed development, we are unable to meet the letter of the rule and keep the cut below four feet. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (210) 546-0057. Sincerely, Joseph York, P.E. Texas Board of Professional Engineers Registration No. F-439 | Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying Registration No. 10046101 December 9, 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant Contact Information Name of Applicant Joseph York, P.E. Street Address 4350 Lockhill Selma Rd. Suite 100 City State ZIP Code San Antonio, Texas 78249 Work Phone 210-546-5511 E-Mail Address kfelux@jonescarter.com Variance Case Information Case Name HEB Austin 33 Case Number SP-2020-0400D Address or Location 12021 W US 290, Austin, TX 78737 Environmental Reviewer Name Environmental Resource Management Reviewer Name Applicable Ordinance Pamela Abee-Taulli N/A Watershed Name Bear Creek Watershed Protection Ordinance Watershed Classification ☐Urban ☐ Suburban ☐Water Supply Suburban ☐Water Supply Rural ☑ Barton Springs Zone City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 1 December 9, 2021 Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone ☑ Barton Springs Segment ☐ Northern Edwards Segment ☐ Not in Edwards Aquifer Zones Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone Distance to Nearest Classified Waterway ☑ Yes ☐ No Approx. 19,000 LF Water and Waste Water service to be provided by Wastewater: On-site wastewater treatment plant Water: West Travis County Public Utility Agency Request The variance request is as follows (Cite code references): Request to vary from LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill to 21 feet. Impervious cover Existing square footage: ____22,930____ ____0.53____ ____0.87%___ Proposed _585,011_ __13.43___ __24.66%__ The existing topography of the subject tract consists of natural slopes ranging from 1%-35%. The site contains portions that are in excess of 15% slope. The highest point of the site is located along the northern boundary at an elevation of 1195 feet above sea level. The lowest point of the site is located at the south- eastern corner of the site at an elevation of approximately 1089 feet above sea level. The site is currently comprised of two tracts, a 1.01-acre tract and a 59.60- acre tract. The smaller tract is currently developed but will be demolished upon development, and the larger tract is undeveloped as pasture with brush and trees. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Soil Survey of Travis County, Texas, soils on the property are classified in 97.6% in Hydrologic Soil Group D and 2.4% in Hydrologic Soil Class C. The soils are predominantly Brackett-Rock outcrop comfort complex, with 1-8% slopes, Brackett-Rock outcrop real complex, with 8-30% slopes, and Krum Clay with 3-5% slopes. The site is in the Bear Creek Watershed which is classified as Barton Creek watershed. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 2 acreage: percentage: Provide general description of the property (slope range, elevation range, summary of vegetation / trees, summary of the geology, CWQZ, WQTZ, CEFs, floodplain, heritage trees, any other notable or outstanding characteristics of the property) December 9, 2021 Clearly indicate in what way the proposed project does not comply with current Code (include maps and exhibits) FINDINGS OF FACT Project: HEB Austin 33 Ordinance: LDC 25-8-342 A. The site will have more than 4 feet of fill. Please see the letter for the plea for the variance. Also, see the Cut/Fill Exhibit for the areas that have more than 4 feet of fill along with the excessive slope areas. The unpermitted fill along Nutty Brown Road has blocked all natural drainage and storm water runoff that has historically drained through the CEF. As part of this development, we will be restoring the historic drainage path by utilizing a concrete culvert to once again allow stormwater runoff to drain through the CEF. Replacing the drainage path with a natural swale would have made the discharge velocity high and erosive. The box culvert allows the outfall velocity to be controlled and dampened with energy dissipaters. As required in LDC Section 25-8-41, in order to grant a variance the Land Use Commission must make the following findings of fact: Include an explanation with each applicable finding of fact. Land Use Commission variance determinations from Chapter 25-8-41 of the City Code: 1. 2. The requirement will deprive the applicant of a privilege available to owners of similarly situated property with approximately contemporaneous development subject to similar code requirements. Yes / No The grade change on the site is excessive and development would not be possible without filling more than four feet. The variance: a) Yes / No Is not necessitated by the scale, layout, construction method, or other design decision made by the applicant, unless the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance; The site has cut and fill more than four feet. When designing the site it was considered how to best balance the site based on the grading criteria for the client. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 3 December 9, 2021 Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; Yes / No The site has excessive slopes and would not be suitable for reasonable development if not filled more than four feet. Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. Yes / No Retaining walls and 4:1 slopes back to natural ground are being used where possible. All slopes will be restored with native grasses. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. Yes / No Water quality is provided for the site and is designed to the City of Austin ECM. b) c) B. Additional Land Use Commission variance determinations for a requirement of Section 25-8-422 (Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-452 (Water Quality Transition Zone), Article 7, Division 1 (Critical Water Quality Zone Restrictions), or Section 25-8-368 (Restrictions on Development Impacting Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, and Lake Walter E. Long): The criteria for granting a variance in Subsection (A) are met; Yes / No N/A The requirement for which a variance is requested prevents a reasonable, economic use of the entire property; Yes / No N/A The variance is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable, economic use of the entire property. Yes / No N/A **Variance approval requires all above affirmative findings. 3. 1. 2. 3. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 4 December 9, 2021 A Exhibits for Commission Variance o Aerial photos of the site o Site photos o Aerial photos of the vicinity o Context Map—A map illustrating the subject property in relation to developments in the vicinity to include nearby major streets and waterways o Topographic Map - A topographic map is recommended if a significant grade change on the subject site exists or if there is a significant difference in grade in relation to adjacent properties. o For cut/fill variances, a plan sheet showing areas and depth of cut/fill with topographic elevations. o Site plan showing existing conditions if development exists currently on the property o Proposed Site Plan- full size electronic or at least legible 11x17 showing proposed development, include tree survey if required as part of site or subdivision plan o Environmental Map – A map that shows pertinent features including Floodplain, CWQZ, WQTZ, CEFs, Setbacks, Recharge Zone, etc. o An Environmental Resource Inventory pursuant to ECM 1.3.0 (if required by 25-8-121) o Applicant’s variance request letter City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 5 3100 Alvin Devane Boulevard, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78741-7425 Tel: 512.441.9493 Fax: 512.445.2286 www.jonescarter.com November 2, 2021 Pamela Abee-Tualli, LEED, CPESC COA Development Services Department One Texas Center 505 Barton Springs Road Austin, Texas 78705 Re: Fill Variance (LDC 25-8-342) HEB Austin 33 12021 W US 290, Austin, TX 78737 SP-2020-0400D Dear Ms. Abee-Taulli: On behalf of our client, H-E-B, Jones & Carter, Inc. is requesting an Environmental Commission variance of LDC Section 25-8-342, there can not be more than 4 feet of fill. The site has natural topography change of approximately 106 feet. The natural slopes are between 0% to 35% across the site. When designing the grading for the site, the maximum cut was used at the north end of the parking lot, and the Client’s standards for grading were maximized to allow for the steepest grade while providing a sufficient design for pedestrian use. The rear of the building was depressed four feet to make up some of the grade change. There is a 3:1 slope in landscaped areas to return the proposed contours to the natural ground as quickly as possible and reduce the fill required. Others portions of the site with fill greater than four feet are within a water quality pond which is allowed, per the LDC 25-8-342.A.4. We feel that our design methodology complies with the intent of LDC 25-8-342, but due to the nature of the topography and size of the proposed development, we are unable to meet the letter of the rule and keep the fill below four feet. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (210) 546-0057. Sincerely, Joseph York, P.E. Texas Board of Professional Engineers Registration No. F-439 | Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying Registration No. 10046101 December 9, 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant Contact Information Name of Applicant Joseph York, P.E. Street Address 4350 Lockhill Selma Rd. Suite 100 City State ZIP Code San Antonio, Texas 78249 Work Phone 210-546-5511 E-Mail Address kfelux@jonescarter.com Variance Case Information Case Name HEB Austin 33 Case Number SP-2020-0400D Address or Location 12021 W US 290, Austin, TX 78737 Environmental Reviewer Name Environmental Resource Management Reviewer Name Applicable Ordinance Pamela Abee-Taulli N/A Watershed Name Bear Creek Watershed Protection Ordinance Watershed Classification ☐Urban ☐ Suburban ☐Water Supply Suburban ☐Water Supply Rural ☑ Barton Springs Zone City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 1 December 9, 2021 Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone ☑ Barton Springs Segment ☐ Northern Edwards Segment ☐ Not in Edwards Aquifer Zones Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone Distance to Nearest Classified Waterway ☑ Yes ☐ No Approx. 19,000 LF Water and Waste Water service to be provided by Wastewater: On-site wastewater treatment plant Water: West Travis County Public Utility Agency Request The variance request is as follows (Cite code references): A variance is requested from LDC 25-8-301 construction of a driveway on slopes over 15%. Impervious cover Existing square footage: ____22,930____ ____0.53____ ____0.87%___ Proposed _585,011_ __13.43___ __24.66%__ The existing topography of the subject tract consists of natural slopes ranging from 1%-35%. The site contains portions that are in excess of 15% slope. The highest point of the site is located along the northern boundary at an elevation of 1195 feet above sea level. The lowest point of the site is located at the south- eastern corner of the site at an elevation of approximately 1089 feet above sea level. The site is currently comprised of two tracts, a 1.01-acre tract and a 59.60- acre tract. The smaller tract is currently developed but will be demolished upon development, and the larger tract is undeveloped as pasture with brush and trees. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Soil Survey of Travis County, Texas, soils on the property are classified in 97.6% in Hydrologic Soil Group D and 2.4% in Hydrologic Soil Class C. The soils are predominantly Brackett-Rock outcrop comfort complex, with 1-8% slopes, Brackett-Rock outcrop real complex, with 8-30% slopes, and Krum Clay with 3-5% slopes. The site is in the Bear Creek Watershed which is classified as Barton Creek Zone watershed. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 2 acreage: percentage: Provide general description of the property (slope range, elevation range, summary of vegetation / trees, summary of the geology, CWQZ, WQTZ, CEFs, floodplain, heritage trees, any other notable or outstanding characteristics of the property) Clearly indicate in what way the proposed project does not comply with current Code (include maps and exhibits) The three proposed driveways are being built across slopes that are greater than 15%. The customer driveway off of US-290 is crossing slopes in excess of 15%, whereas the customer and delivery driveways off of Nutty Brown Rd. are merely crossing a “V” drainage channel and otherwise not being constructed on excessive slopes. Please see the excessive slopes map provided. As required in LDC Section 25-8-41, in order to grant a variance the Land Use Commission must make the following findings of fact: Include an explanation with each applicable finding of fact. Land Use Commission variance determinations from Chapter 25-8-41 of the City Code: The requirement will deprive the applicant of a privilege available to owners of similarly situated property with approximately contemporaneous development subject to similar code requirements. Yes / No HEB off of W Slaughter Ln and Escarpment Boulevard has three driveway accesses. Two are for primary access for customers and one is an additional access for vendor deliveries and trash service. 7-Eleven gas station across the road was provided two points of access and is significantly smaller than the HEB. December 9, 2021 FINDINGS OF FACT Project: HEB Austin 33 Ordinance: LDC 25-8-301 A. 1. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 3 December 9, 2021 2. The variance: a) Yes / No Is not necessitated by the scale, layout, construction method, or other design decision made by the applicant, unless the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance; The excessive slopes are from a natural earthen swale that is having the natural drainage pattern restored and unpermitted fill is being removed. The use of a box culvert brings reduces the risk of erosion that would be made from a natural earthen swale. The natural swale has a higher velocity than the box culvert. Energy Dissipation Calculations Discharge (cfs) Velocity (ft/s) Area (sqft) 9.77 138.35 Velocity after Energy Dissipation 1.77 78 b) c) Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; Yes / No The development is allowed by code to have a primary access off of each public road with sufficient frontage, as well as needs at least two ingress/egress points for proper traffic circulation and fire protection. Additionally, per the Transportation Criteria Manual (Sec. 9.30), freight loading, and trash facilities should be designed/located away from customer vehicular/pedestrian traffic to minimize intermixing and conflicts, and would require a separate access for these uses. Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 4 December 9, 2021 Yes / No The site location was chosen to reduce the impact and area of improvements that are on excessive slopes. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. Yes / No This does not effect water quality. Water quality for the site is provided. B. Additional Land Use Commission variance determinations for a requirement of Section 25-8-422 (Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-452 (Water Quality Transition Zone), Article 7, Division 1 (Critical Water Quality Zone Restrictions), or Section 25-8-368 (Restrictions on Development Impacting Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, and Lake Walter E. Long): The criteria for granting a variance in Subsection (A) are met; Yes / No N/A The requirement for which a variance is requested prevents a reasonable, economic use of the entire property; Yes / No N/A The variance is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable, economic use of the entire property. Yes / No N/A 3. 1. 2. 3. **Variance approval requires all above affirmative findings. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 5 December 9, 2021 A Exhibits for Commission Variance o Aerial photos of the site o Site photos o Aerial photos of the vicinity o Context Map—A map illustrating the subject property in relation to developments in the vicinity to include nearby major streets and waterways o Topographic Map - A topographic map is recommended if a significant grade change on the subject site exists or if there is a significant difference in grade in relation to adjacent properties. o For cut/fill variances, a plan sheet showing areas and depth of cut/fill with topographic elevations. o Site plan showing existing conditions if development exists currently on the property o Proposed Site Plan- full size electronic or at least legible 11x17 showing proposed development, include tree survey if required as part of site or subdivision plan o Environmental Map – A map that shows pertinent features including Floodplain, CWQZ, WQTZ, CEFs, Setbacks, Recharge Zone, etc. o An Environmental Resource Inventory pursuant to ECM 1.3.0 (if required by 25-8-121) o Applicant’s variance request letter City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 6 3100 Alvin Devane Boulevard, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78741-7425 Tel: 512.441.9493 Fax: 512.445.2286 www.jonescarter.com November 2, 2021 Pamela Abee-Tualli, LEED, CPESC COA Development Services Department One Texas Center 505 Barton Springs Road Austin, Texas 78705 Re: Driveway On Slopes Greater Than 15% (LDC 25-8-301) HEB Austin 33 12021 W US 290, Austin, TX 78737 SP-2020-0400D Dear Ms. Abee-Taulli: On behalf of our client, H-E-B, Jones & Carter, Inc. is requesting an Environmental Commission variance of LDC Section 25-8-301, that driveways cannot be constructed on slopes greater than 15%. The location of the driveways that are being built across areas that have slopes greater than 15% were determined by TxDOT and Hays County. Due to street improvements that are taking place on Nutty Brown Road, the driveway locations were set to comply with TxDOT and Hays County queuing spacing requirements for a signaled intersection. The driveway along US-290 has been approved by TxDOT, and the placement of this driveway was determined based on the location of other existing driveways and the spacing from the intersection from Nutty Brown Road. The locations of the driveways also allow for the easiest access for fire trucks, pedestrian vehicles, and operations trucks. Due to the restraints and placement of the driveways we feel that we have minimized the areas being built over slopes greater than 15%. We feel that our design methodology complies with the intent of LDC 25-8-301, but we feel that the driveways were placed in the most optimum locations to have the least amount of area being built over slopes greater than 15%. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (210) 546-0057. Sincerely, Joseph York, P.E. Texas Board of Professional Engineers Registration No. F-439 | Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying Registration No. 10046101 December 9, 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant Contact Information Name of Applicant Joseph York, P.E. Street Address 4350 Lockhill Selma Rd. Suite 100 City State ZIP Code San Antonio, Texas 78249 Work Phone 210-546-5511 E-Mail Address kfelux@jonescarter.com Variance Case Information Case Name HEB Austin 33 Case Number SP-2020-0400D Address or Location 12021 W US 290, Austin, TX 78737 Environmental Reviewer Name Environmental Resource Management Reviewer Name Applicable Ordinance Pamela Abee-Taulli N/A Watershed Name Bear Creek Watershed Protection Ordinance Watershed Classification ☐Urban ☐ Suburban ☐Water Supply Suburban ☐Water Supply Rural ☑ Barton Springs Zone City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 1 December 9, 2021 Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone ☑ Barton Springs Segment ☐ Northern Edwards Segment ☐ Not in Edwards Aquifer Zones Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone Distance to Nearest Classified Waterway ☑ Yes ☐ No Approx. 19,000 LF Water and Waste Water service to be provided by Wastewater: On-site wastewater treatment plant Water: West Travis County Public Utility Agency Request The variance request is as follows (Cite code references): Request to vary from LDC 25-8-302(A)(2) to allow construction of a parking area on a slope with a gradient of more than 15 percent. Impervious cover Existing square footage: ____22,930____ ____0.53____ ____0.87%___ Proposed _585,011_ __13.43___ __24.66%__ The existing topography of the subject tract consists of natural slopes ranging from 1%-35%. The site contains portions that are in excess of 15% slope. The highest point of the site is located along the northern boundary at an elevation of 1195 feet above sea level. The lowest point of the site is located at the south- eastern corner of the site at an elevation of approximately 1089 feet above sea level. The site is currently comprised of two tracts, a 1.01-acre tract and a 59.60- acre tract. The smaller tract is currently developed but will be demolished upon development, and the larger tract is undeveloped as pasture with brush and trees. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Soil Survey of Travis County, Texas, soils on the property are classified in 97.6% in Hydrologic Soil Group D and 2.4% in Hydrologic Soil Class C. The soils are predominantly Brackett-Rock outcrop comfort complex, with 1-8% slopes, Brackett-Rock outcrop real complex, with 8-30% slopes, and Krum Clay with 3-5% slopes. The site is in the Bear Creek Watershed which is classified as Barton Creek watershed. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 2 acreage: percentage: Provide general description of the property (slope range, elevation range, summary of vegetation / trees, summary of the geology, CWQZ, WQTZ, CEFs, floodplain, heritage trees, any other notable or outstanding characteristics of the property) Parking Areas are being built across slopes that are greater than 15%. Please see the excessive slopes map provided. December 9, 2021 Clearly indicate in what way the proposed project does not comply with current Code (include maps and exhibits) FINDINGS OF FACT Project: HEB Austin 33 Ordinance: LDC 25-8-302 A. As required in LDC Section 25-8-41, in order to grant a variance the Land Use Commission must make the following findings of fact: Include an explanation with each applicable finding of fact. Land Use Commission variance determinations from Chapter 25-8-41 of the City Code: 1. 2. The requirement will deprive the applicant of a privilege available to owners of similarly situated property with approximately contemporaneous development subject to similar code requirements. Yes / No Due to the excessive slopes of the site, it was deemed that the current configuration was the best placement of the site. Moving the site will place parking areas over other excessive slopes. The variance: a) Is not necessitated by the scale, layout, construction method, or other design decision made by the applicant, unless the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance; b) Yes / No The site is covered in excessive slopes, the placement of the site was thought to be least impactful. Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; Yes / No Excessive slopes cover most of the site. Any development of the site would most likely involve building on excessive slopes. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 3 December 9, 2021 Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. Yes / No The site location was chosen to reduce the impact and area of improvements that are on excessive slopes. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. Yes / No The variance does not impact water quality facilities onsite, which have been designed in accordance with City code requirements. c) B. Additional Land Use Commission variance determinations for a requirement of Section 25-8-422 (Water Quality Transition Zone), Section 25-8-452 (Water Quality Transition Zone), Article 7, Division 1 (Critical Water Quality Zone Restrictions), or Section 25-8-368 (Restrictions on Development Impacting Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, and Lake Walter E. Long): The criteria for granting a variance in Subsection (A) are met; Yes / No N/A The requirement for which a variance is requested prevents a reasonable, economic use of the entire property; Yes / No N/A The variance is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable, economic use of the entire property. Yes / No N/A 3. 1. 2. 3. **Variance approval requires all above affirmative findings. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 4 December 9, 2021 A Exhibits for Commission Variance o Aerial photos of the site o Site photos o Aerial photos of the vicinity o Context Map—A map illustrating the subject property in relation to developments in the vicinity to include nearby major streets and waterways o Topographic Map - A topographic map is recommended if a significant grade change on the subject site exists or if there is a significant difference in grade in relation to adjacent properties. o For cut/fill variances, a plan sheet showing areas and depth of cut/fill with topographic elevations. o Site plan showing existing conditions if development exists currently on the property o Proposed Site Plan- full size electronic or at least legible 11x17 showing proposed development, include tree survey if required as part of site or subdivision plan o Environmental Map – A map that shows pertinent features including Floodplain, CWQZ, WQTZ, CEFs, Setbacks, Recharge Zone, etc. o An Environmental Resource Inventory pursuant to ECM 1.3.0 (if required by 25-8-121) o Applicant’s variance request letter City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 5 3100 Alvin Devane Boulevard, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78741-7425 Tel: 512.441.9493 Fax: 512.445.2286 www.jonescarter.com November 2, 2021 Pamela Abee-Tualli, LEED, CPESC COA Development Services Department One Texas Center 505 Barton Springs Road Austin, Texas 78705 Re: Parking Areas On Slopes Greater Than 15% (LDC 25-8-302) HEB Austin 33 12021 W US 290, Austin, TX 78737 SP-2020-0400D Dear Ms. Abee-Taulli: On behalf of our client, H-E-B, Jones & Carter, Inc. is requesting an Environmental Commission variance of LDC Section 25-8-302, that parking areas cannot be constructed on slopes greater than 15%. The site placement was determined to minimize where the buildings and driveways would be placed on excessive slopes. The current placement of the proposed development was determined to have the least impact on excessive slopes. Unfortunately, excessive slopes exist throughout most of the site, and moving the site improvements around would result in the parking areas still over excessive slopes. We feel that our design methodology complies with the intent of LDC 25-8-302, but we feel that the parking areas were placed in the most optimum locations to have the least amount of area being built over slopes greater than 15%. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (210) 546-0057. Sincerely, Joseph York, P.E. Texas Board of Professional Engineers Registration No. F-439 | Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying Registration No. 10046101 EXHIBITS OVERALL AERIAL MAP ....................................................................... EXHIBIT 1 SITE PHOTOS ...................................................................................... EXHIBIT 2CONTEXT MAP .................................................................................... EXHIBIT 3EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY & TREE MAP ............................................ EXHIBIT 4CUT & FILL MAP .................................................................................. EXHIBIT 5 SLOPE MAP ......................................................................................... EXHIBIT 6SITE PLAN ........................................................................................... EXHIBIT 7TERRACE WALL PROFILE ................................................................. EXHIBIT 8ENVIRONMENTAL MAP ...................................................................... EXHIBIT 9ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES INVENTORY ................................. EXHIBIT 10 EXHIBIT 1 OVERALL AERIAL VIEW - 1 - N ATE ATER 5.00 ACRES APPROXIM ATIO W STORM IRRIG Reirrigation Field water Retention pond Storm W Drip Field W NT ATER PROPOSED TREATMENT PLA BY OTHERS ASTEW W SITE Reirrigation Field 1 2 0 2 , 9 0 r e b m e c e D : F K i g w d . s t i b h x E y a w e v i r D 0 9 2 y a w h g H S U \ T O D x T \ s e b a r e v i l l i e D \ t n e m e g a n a M j t c e o r P \ n g i s e D 3 3 n i t s u A - B E H 4 0 - 4 0 0 0 - 7 7 9 0 S \ 7 7 9 0 S \ : K Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying Registration No. 10046105 Texas Board of Professional Engineers Registration No. F-439  210.494.5511 4350 Lockhill-Selma Road, Suite 100 Austin * Brenham * Bryan * Dallas * Houston * Rosenberg * San Antonio * The Woodlands  San Antonio, Texas 78249 © 2021 Jones | Carter H-E-B AUSTIN 33 AERIAL MAP  EXHIBIT 2 SITE PHOTOS - 2 - Site Photos EXHIBIT 3 CONTEXT MAP - 3 - 1 2 0 2 , 8 0 y l u J : 1 r a i g w d . s t i b h x E y a w e v i r D 0 9 2 y a w h g H S U \ T O D x T \ s e b a r e v i l l i e D \ t n e m e g a n a M j t c e o r P \ n g i s e D 3 3 n i t s u A - B E H 4 0 - 4 0 0 0 - 7 7 9 0 S \ 7 7 9 0 S \ : K Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying Registration No. 10046105 Texas Board of Professional Engineers Registration No. F-439  210.494.5511 4350 Lockhill-Selma Road, Suite 100 Austin * Brenham * Bryan * Dallas * Houston * Rosenberg * San Antonio * The Woodlands  San Antonio, Texas 78249 © 2021 Jones | Carter H-E-B AUSTIN 33 VICINITY MAP  EXHIBIT 4 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND TREE MAP - 4 - E D C B A 1 2 3 4 5 6 CEDAR VALLEY 290 SITE 290 E6 NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP VICINITY MAP LEGEND D: E VIS D E A E B S A E L P 1 2 0 2 . 2 1 . 2 0 1 0 E U S S I INTERIM REVIEW Not intended for construction, bidding or permit purposes. Engineer: JOSEPH E. YORK V P.E. Serial No.: 124934 Date: OCTOBER 2020 9 3 4 - F i . o N n o i t a r t s g e R s r e e n g n E i i l a n o s s e f o r P f o d r a o B s a x e T 1 1 5 5 . 4 9 4 . 0 1 2  9 4 2 8 7 s a x e T i , o n o t n A n a S  0 0 1 e t i u S , d a o R a m e S l - l l i h k c o L 0 5 3 4 m o c . r e t r a c s e n o j . w w w - 1 2 0 2 © t h g i r y p o C 5' P.U.E VOL .18, PG. 211 P.R.H.C.T. DEED LINE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE RED BRICK FROM EXISTING BUILDING FOR REUSE DURING CONSTRUCTION DEED LINE HILL COUNTRY WATER SUPPLY CORP. 15' R.O.W. EASEMENT B6 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BENCHMARKS: I G N T S X E I N A L P S N O T D N O C I I I 0 8 7 # 3 3 N T S U A B E H 0 9 2 S U W 1 2 0 2 1 7 3 7 8 7 S A X E T , I N T S U A A6 NOT TO SCALE PROJECT INFORMATION D E T A C D N I I S A : E L A C S R E T R A C | S E N O J . L U S N O C 4 0 - 4 0 0 0 - 7 7 9 0 S : . O N . J O R P 1 2 0 2 . 4 1 . 1 0 : E T A D 0 . 1 - C 1 6 F O 6 . O N T E E H S D 0 0 4 0 - 0 2 0 2 - P S A1 SCALE: 1" = 100' EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 EXHIBIT 5 CUT-FILL MAP - 5 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 E D C B A PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BY OTHERS 105,689 S.F. STORMWATER RETENTION POND WW Drip Field (PROPOSED 187,900 sf) WW Drip Field . . W O R . ' 0 6 1 N O I T A V R E S E R E6 NOT TO SCALE KEY MAP N.T.S. KEY MAP LEGEND CUT/FILL LEGEND B6 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND D: E VIS D E A E B S A E L P 1 2 0 2 . 2 1 . 2 0 1 0 E U S S I INTERIM REVIEW Not intended for construction, bidding or permit purposes. Engineer: JOSEPH E. YORK V P.E. Serial No.: 124934 Date: OCTOBER 2020 9 3 4 - F i . o N n o i t a r t s g e R s r e e n g n E i i l a n o s s e f o r P f o d r a o B s a x e T 1 1 5 5 . 4 9 4 . 0 1 2  9 4 2 8 7 s a x e T i , o n o t n A n a S  0 0 1 e t i u S , d a o R a m e S l - l l i h k c o L 0 5 3 4 m o c . r e t r a c s e n o j . w w w - 1 2 0 2 © t h g i r y p o C I D N A G N D A R G L L A R E V O N A L P E G A N A R D I I 0 8 7 # 3 3 N T S U A B E H 0 9 2 S U W 1 2 0 2 1 7 3 7 8 7 S A X E T , I N T S U A D E T A C D N I I S A : E L A C S R E T R A C | S E N O J . L U S N O C 4 0 - 4 0 0 0 - 7 7 9 0 S : . O N . J O R P 1 2 0 2 . 4 1 . 1 0 : E T A D 0 . 5 - C 6 4 F O 9 1 . O N T E E H S D 0 0 4 0 - 0 2 0 2 - P S A1 SCALE: 1" = 80' OVERALL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN GRADING KEYNOTES PROJECT INFORMATION A6 NOT TO SCALE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NOTES: A5 NOT TO SCALE 1 2 3 4 5 6 E D C B A PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BY OTHERS 105,689 S.F. STORMWATER RETENTION POND WW Drip Field (PROPOSED 187,900 sf) WW Drip Field . . W O R . ' 0 6 1 N O I T A V R E S E R E6 NOT TO SCALE KEY MAP N.T.S. KEY MAP LEGEND CUT/FILL LEGEND B6 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND D: E VIS D E A E B S A E L P 1 2 0 2 . 2 1 . 2 0 1 0 E U S S I INTERIM REVIEW Not intended for construction, bidding or permit purposes. Engineer: JOSEPH E. YORK V P.E. Serial No.: 124934 Date: OCTOBER 2020 9 3 4 - F i . o N n o i t a r t s g e R s r e e n g n E i i l a n o s s e f o r P f o d r a o B s a x e T 1 1 5 5 . 4 9 4 . 0 1 2  9 4 2 8 7 s a x e T i , o n o t n A n a S  0 0 1 e t i u S , d a o R a m e S l - l l i h k c o L 0 5 3 4 m o c . r e t r a c s e n o j . w w w - 1 2 0 2 © t h g i r y p o C I D N A G N D A R G L L A R E V O N A L P E G A N A R D I I 0 8 7 # 3 3 N T S U A B E H 0 9 2 S U W 1 2 0 2 1 7 3 7 8 7 S A X E T , I N T S U A D E T A C D N I I S A : E L A C S R E T R A C | S E N O J . L U S N O C 4 0 - 4 0 0 0 - 7 7 9 0 S : . O N . J O R P 1 2 0 2 . 4 1 . 1 0 : E T A D 0 . 5 - C 6 4 F O 9 1 . O N T E E H S D 0 0 4 0 - 0 2 0 2 - P S A1 SCALE: 1" = 80' OVERALL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN GRADING KEYNOTES PROJECT INFORMATION A6 NOT TO SCALE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NOTES: A5 NOT TO SCALE Area of unpermitted fill. Thisarea will be restored to theexisting conditions shown onthis exhibit. This area will berestored will natural grassesthat are native to the area.See the top of this page. The cut in this area wasmaximized to reduce theamount of fill on thebackside of the store.Area of unpermitted fill that will beremoved prior to any construction.Natural drainage patterns will berestored using the box culverts.Terrace walls have included to reduce thefootprint and fill. Per discussion with Pamela,slopes to be seeded with medium tall grassesto help with infiltration.Back of store has beendepressed four feet toreduce fill.EXHIBIT 6 SITE PLAN - 6 - EXHIBIT 6 SLOPE MAP1 2 3 4 5 6 EXISTING CONTOURS ARE BASE ON LIDAR CONTOURS 6 9 7 1095 9 1 0 1 0 10 9 8 11001 0 9 9 E D C B A 1 1 1 5 11 2 0 1 1 2 5 1120 1 1 2 5 1 1 3 0 113 5 STORMWATER RETENTION POND 1140 WW Drip Field (PROPOSED 187,900 sf) 1 1 5 0 WW Drip Field 1 1 4 5 1155 1108 111 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 111 5 1120 1125 1130 PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BY OTHERS 5 3 1 1 1 1 4 0 1145 1 1 5 0 0 116 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 0 5 115 0 6 1 1 1 1 1 0 1170 1175 1115 1120 1125 1 3 5 1 1140 1130 1 4 5 1 1150 1160 1155 1165 105,689 S.F. 0 1 1 8 1 1 8 5 0 7 1 1 5 117 5 7 1 1 1180 1195 . . W O R . ' 0 6 1 N O I T A V R E S E R 1185 1190 0 1 1 9 1 1 9 5 1 1 7 5 1 1 8 5 1190 1 1 8 0 1193 1194 1 1 3 0 1 1 4 0 0 5 1 1 1 1 4 0 1135 1 1 5 0 5 3 1 1 6 1 1 3 1 1 5 0 1 5 5 1 1 6 0 1 1160 9 6 1 1 11 6 5 1 7 0 1 5 7 1 1 1 1 6 5 1 1 7 0 1 1 6 0 A1 SCALE: 1" = 80' OVERALL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN GRADING KEYNOTES PROJECT INFORMATION A6 NOT TO SCALE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NOTES: A5 NOT TO SCALE E6 NOT TO SCALE KEY MAP N.T.S. KEY MAP LEGEND SLOPE LEGEND WITH LIDAR CONTOURS B6 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND D: E VIS D E A E B S A E L P 1 2 0 2 . 2 1 . 2 0 1 0 E U S S I INTERIM REVIEW Not intended for construction, bidding or permit purposes. Engineer: JOSEPH E. YORK V P.E. Serial No.: 124934 Date: OCTOBER 2020 9 3 4 - F i . o N n o i t a r t s g e R s r e e n g n E i i l a n o s s e f o r P f o d r a o B s a x e T 1 1 5 5 . 4 9 4 . 0 1 2  9 4 2 8 7 s a x e T i , o n o t n A n a S  0 0 1 e t i u S , d a o R a m e S l - l l i h k c o L 0 5 3 4 m o c . r e t r a c s e n o j . w w w - 1 2 0 2 © t h g i r y p o C I D N A G N D A R G L L A R E V O N A L P E G A N A R D I I 0 8 7 # 3 3 N T S U A B E H 0 9 2 S U W 1 2 0 2 1 7 3 7 8 7 S A X E T , I N T S U A D E T A C D N I I S A : E L A C S R E T R A C | S E N O J . L U S N O C 4 0 - 4 0 0 0 - 7 7 9 0 S : . O N . J O R P 1 2 0 2 . 4 1 . 1 0 : E T A D 0 . 5 - C 6 4 F O 9 1 . O N T E E H S D 0 0 4 0 - 0 2 0 2 - P S 1 2 3 4 5 6 EXISTING CONTOURS ARE BASE ON LIDAR CONTOURS 6 9 7 1095 9 1 0 1 0 10 9 8 11001 0 9 9 E D C B A 1 1 1 5 11 2 0 1 1 2 5 1120 1 1 2 5 1 1 3 0 113 5 STORMWATER RETENTION POND 1140 WW Drip Field (PROPOSED 187,900 sf) 1 1 5 0 WW Drip Field 1 1 4 5 1155 1108 111 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 111 5 1120 1125 1130 PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BY OTHERS 5 3 1 1 1 1 4 0 1145 1 1 5 0 0 116 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 0 5 115 0 6 1 1 1 1 1 0 1170 1175 1115 1120 1125 1 3 5 1 1140 1130 1 4 5 1 1150 1160 1155 1165 105,689 S.F. 0 1 1 8 1 1 8 5 0 7 1 1 5 117 5 7 1 1 1180 1195 . . W O R . ' 0 6 1 N O I T A V R E S E R 1185 1190 0 1 1 9 1 1 9 5 1 1 7 5 1 1 8 5 1190 1 1 8 0 1193 1194 1 1 3 0 1 1 4 0 0 5 1 1 1 1 4 0 1135 1 1 5 0 5 3 1 1 6 1 1 3 1 1 5 0 1 5 5 1 1 6 0 1 1160 9 6 1 1 11 6 5 1 7 0 1 5 7 1 1 1 1 6 5 1 1 7 0 1 1 6 0 A1 SCALE: 1" = 80' OVERALL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN GRADING KEYNOTES PROJECT INFORMATION A6 NOT TO SCALE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NOTES: A5 NOT TO SCALE E6 NOT TO SCALE KEY MAP N.T.S. KEY MAP LEGEND SLOPE LEGEND WITH LIDAR CONTOURS B6 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND D: E VIS D E A E B S A E L P 1 2 0 2 . 2 1 . 2 0 1 0 E U S S I INTERIM REVIEW Not intended for construction, bidding or permit purposes. Engineer: JOSEPH E. YORK V P.E. Serial No.: 124934 Date: OCTOBER 2020 9 3 4 - F i . o N n o i t a r t s g e R s r e e n g n E i i l a n o s s e f o r P f o d r a o B s a x e T 1 1 5 5 . 4 9 4 . 0 1 2  9 4 2 8 7 s a x e T i , o n o t n A n a S  0 0 1 e t i u S , d a o R a m e S l - l l i h k c o L 0 5 3 4 m o c . r e t r a c s e n o j . w w w - 1 2 0 2 © t h g i r y p o C I D N A G N D A R G L L A R E V O N A L P E G A N A R D I I 0 8 7 # 3 3 N T S U A B E H 0 9 2 S U W 1 2 0 2 1 7 3 7 8 7 S A X E T , I N T S U A D E T A C D N I I S A : E L A C S R E T R A C | S E N O J . L U S N O C 4 0 - 4 0 0 0 - 7 7 9 0 S : . O N . J O R P 1 2 0 2 . 4 1 . 1 0 : E T A D 0 . 5 - C 6 4 F O 9 1 . O N T E E H S D 0 0 4 0 - 0 2 0 2 - P S The driveway locations were coordinated withHays County and TxDOT. There are streetimprovements being made to accommodatethe site. The driveway was closer to US 290but was moved to the current location tocomply with TxDOT and Hays Countyqueuing spacing requirements. The site placement was determined to minimize wherethere would be buildings or driveways on excessiveslopes. Unfortunately, the site has grade change withexcessive slopes and relocating the site plan would morethan likely mean placing the improvements on anotherarea of excessive slopes. Driveway locations weredetermined for accessibility of larger trucks/ vehicles thatwill be needed for operations. These placements allow foreasier ingress/egress of larger vehicles to the site.Driveway location has been approved byTxDOT. The placement of this drivewaywas determined based on the location ofother existing driveways and spacingfrom the intersection from Nutty Brownroad.SignalizedintersectionTwo driveway access points are required for fireingress/egress. The third driveway to the back of the storeis for operation trucks only. This is to keep customersusing at the front of the store safe and keep these biggertrucks out of the areas were pedestrians are walking orcrossing the parking lot.Excessive slopes in this area are created from adrainage channel. Due to the unpermitted fill, thenatural drainage pattern was disrupted, but will berestored with a box culvert. The parking areawas adjusted to notbe on excessiveslopes.EXHIBIT 6 SITE PLAN - 6 - EXHIBIT 7SITE PLAN1 2 3 4 5 6 REIRRIGATION FIELD REIRRIGATION FIELD STORMWATER RETENTION POND REIRRIGATION FIELD 102,859 S.F. LOT 1 BLOCK A SILVER SPUR RANCHETTES SECTION 1 VOL. 18 PG. 212 O.P.R.H.C.T. E D C B A CEDAR VALLEY 290 SITE 290 E6 NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP VICINITY MAP LEGEND KEY MAP N.T.S. B6 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BENCHMARKS: D: E VIS D E A E B S A E L P 1 2 0 2 . 2 1 . 2 0 1 0 E U S S I INTERIM REVIEW Not intended for construction, bidding or permit purposes. Engineer: JOSEPH E. YORK V P.E. Serial No.: 124934 Date: OCTOBER 2020 9 3 4 - F i . o N n o i t a r t s g e R s r e e n g n E i i l a n o s s e f o r P f o d r a o B s a x e T 1 1 5 5 . 4 9 4 . 0 1 2  9 4 2 8 7 s a x e T i , o n o t n A n a S  0 0 1 e t i u S , d a o R a m e S l - l l i h k c o L 0 5 3 4 m o c . r e t r a c s e n o j . w w w - 1 2 0 2 © t h g i r y p o C I N A L P E T S L L A R E V O I 0 8 7 # 3 3 N T S U A B E H 0 9 2 S U W 1 2 0 2 1 7 3 7 8 7 S A X E T , I N T S U A D E T A C D N I I S A : E L A C S R E T R A C | S E N O J . L U S N O C 4 0 - 4 0 0 0 - 7 7 9 0 S : . O N . J O R P 1 2 0 2 . 4 1 . 1 0 : E T A D 3 . 2 - C 1 6 F O 5 1 . O N T E E H S D 0 0 4 0 - 0 2 0 2 - P S Land Use Summary Impervious Cover HEB Area 43.22 Ac Net Site Area 2,328,282 s.f. 54.45 Ac Fuel Station Area 1.01 Ac WW Treatment Plant 0.19 Ac WW Drip Field 4.32 Ac Undeveloped Area 11.86 Ac Total Site Area 60.60 Ac Proposed 553,212 s.f. Allowable 581,962 s.f. Excess 28,750 s.f. 13.43 Ac 13.56 Ac 0.13 Ac 24.66% Percent Impervious Landscape Requirements A. Total Site Area Disturbed 553,212 s.f. 60.60 Ac B. Turf or Landscaped Area 581,962 s.f. B/A 28,750 s.f. 0.52 Ac 0.85% TRAFFIC & SIDEWALK SUMMARY TABLE PARKING STORAGE STANDARDS REGULAR HANDICAP SPACE (ADA) (STORE) HANDICAP SPACE (ADA) (FUEL STATION) SIDEWALKS C5 NOT TO SCALE SITE SUMMARY . . W O R . ' 0 6 1 N O I T A V R E S E R · · A1 SCALE: 1" = 60' OVERALL SITE PLAN A5 NOT TO SCALE KEYNOTES A6 A6 NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 EXHIBIT 7 ENVIRONMENTAL MAP - 7 - EXHIBIT 8 TERRACE WALL PROFILE0 10 20 30 60 90 SCALE: 1" = 30' "A" PROPOSED WALL PROPOSED WALL "A" SECTION A - A PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED WALL 4:1 SLOPE MAX. FINISHED GROUND PROPOSED FILL PROPOSED WALL 4:1 SLOPE MAX. 1 2 0 2 , 2 1 r e b m e v o N : S K g w d . t i b h x E i l l a W i r a e R \ s t i b h x E \ D A C \ e s a h P n g i s e D 2 \ n g i s e D 3 3 n i t s u A - B E H 4 0 - 4 0 0 0 - 7 7 9 0 S \ 7 7 9 0 S \ : K Texas Board of Professional Engineers Registration No. F-439 4350 Lockhill-Selma Road, Suite 100  San Antonio, Texas 78249  210.494.5511 JOB NUMBER S0977-0004-04 © 2021 Jones | Carter 0 5 10 20 30 SCALE: 1" = 10' AUSTIN 33 REAR WALL EXHIBIT 11/12/2021 EXHIBIT 7 ENVIRONMENTAL MAP - 7 - EXHIBIT 9 ENVIRONMENTAL MAPLegend Lot Line FEMA Floodplain 100 Year (Detailed-AE) 100 year (Shallow-AO) 100 Year (Approx-A) X Protected by Levee 500 Year Creek Buffers/Waterway Setbacks Critical Water Quality Zone Water Quality Transition Zone Wetland CEF Setback > 15% Slope 15 - 60% Slope 60% Slope or Higher 0.2 0 0.08 0.2 Miles NAD_1983_StatePlane_Texas_Central_FIPS_4203_Feet Date Printed: This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey. This product has been produced by the City of Austin for the sole purpose of geographic reference. No warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness. 1: 4,800 Notes EXHIBIT 8 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY - 8 - EXHIBIT 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES INVENTORYAttached EA acceptable, ERI format waived. ERM REVIEW PURVIEW STILL REQUIRED DURING REVIEW PROCESSAndrew Clamannattached EA contains the infox(see below)X 30 October 2014 Environmental Resource Inventory Endangered Species Habitat Assessment City of Austin Land Development Code (Section 25-8-121) Compliance Report RE: INTRODUCTION 60-Acre Nutty Brown Road Tract, Austin, SH 290 @ Nutty Brown Road, Hays County, Texas HJN 140014 EA 1.0 This report provides the results of an environmental resource inventory conducted by Horizon Environmental Services, Inc. (Horizon) on an approximately 60-acre tract of land located southeast of the intersection of State Highway (SH) 290 and Nutty Brown Road (Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). Horizon conducted the field reconnaissance on 27 January 2014. Horizon spent a minimum of 2 person-hours in the field evaluating the site and surrounding area, and completed the assessment process by conducting a review of existing literature. 2.0 2.1 is currently utilized as a restaurant/amphitheater and dirt parking areas known as the Nutty Brown Cafe. The northeastern portion of the subject site is currently utilized as a mobile Recreational vehicle (RV) park. No current land use was observed on the southern portion of the subject site. The Photographs of the subject site are provided in Appendix B. The following land uses border the subject site: The northwestern portion of ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING the subject site LAND USE North: SH 290, Oak Branch Drive, vacant land Commercial, multi-family residential, single-family residential, roadways Kit Carson Drive and a high-density single-family residential (SFR) community with associated roadways Rural SFR home site and vacant woodland Nutty Brown Road, and vacant woodland South: East: West: 140014_report2 CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 1507 South IH 35  Austin, Texas 78741  512.328.2430  Fax 512.328.1804  www.horizon-esi.com Certified WBE/HUB/DBE/SBE Environmental Resource Inventory Report and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment HJN 140014 EA 30 October 2014 Page 2 VEGETATION 2.2 The subject site is situated within the Live Oak-Ashe Juniper Parks vegetational area of Texas (Gould, 1975). Vegetation observed on the subject site includes Ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei), plateau live oak (Quercus fusiformis), cedar elm (Ulmus crassfolia), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), Texas prickly pear (Opuntia engelmannii), johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense), black willow (Salix nigra), honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), chinaberry (Melia Azedarach) and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium). Very limited wetland vegetation was observed on the subject site within the banks of a creek located on the northeast boundary which includes black willow (Salix nigra) and common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris). 2.3 This site is within the Contributing Zone of the Edwards Aquifer (COA, 1998; TCEQ, 2014). Topographically, the site ranges from approximately 1080 to 1280 feet above mean sea level (USGS, 1986). Drainage on the subject site occurs primarily by overland sheet flow in a northwest-to-southeast direction into an on-site tributary of Bear Creek. None of the subject site lies within the 100-year floodplain (FEMA, 2005; 2008). A review of the National Wetland Inventory maps showed no potential wetland areas on the subject site (USFWS, 1993). 2.4 Soils mapped within the subject site include the following: TOPOGRAPHY AND SURFACE WATER SOILS TABLE 1 – SOILS SOIL NAME SOIL TYPE SOIL DEPTH (FEET) UNDERLYING MATERIAL PERMEABILITY AVAILABLE WATER CAPACITY SHRINK- SWELL CAPACITY gravelly clay loam 1.4 moderately slow very low low weakly cemented limestone interbedded with thin layers of indurated limestone weakly cemented limestone interbedded with thin strata of shaly clay gravelly clay loam 1.2 moderately slow very low low clay 4.5 clay moderately slow medium high Brackett-Rock outcrop-Comfort complex, undulating (BtD) Brackett-Rock outcrop-Real complex, steep (BtG) Krum clay, 3 to 5 % slopes (KrC) Source: NRCS, 2014 140014_report2 Environmental Resource Inventory Report and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment HJN 140014 EA 30 October 2014 Page 3 GEOLOGY EDWARDS AQUIFER ZONE 2.5 The subject site is found within the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone (COA, 1998 and TCEQ, 2014). The Contributing Zone of the Edwards Aquifer includes all watersheds that feed runoff into rivers and streams that flow over the Recharge Zone (TCEQ, 1999). TCEQ rules regulate activities in the portions of the Contributing Zone that are within the counties already regulated by the Edwards Aquifer Rules. These areas are generally north and west of the Recharge Zone (TCEQ, 1996). 2.6 A review of existing literature shows the site is underlain by the upper Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)) (UT-BEG, 1981). The upper member of the Glen Rose Limestone is relatively impermeable and described as the lower confining unit of the Edwards Aquifer. It has a maximum thickness of about 350 to 500 feet. Stair-step topography is characteristic of the upper member of the Glen Rose Limestone. The Upper Glen Rose Limestone is described as yellowish-tan, thinly bedded limestone and marl (Garner and Young, 1976). The upper member of the Glen Rose Limestone is relatively more thinly bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower member of the Glen Rose Limestone. The top of the upper member of the Glen Rose Limestone is red-stained, lumpy, irregular, and bored, with oysters cemented onto the surface (Rose, 1972). 2.7 A review of the records of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) revealed no documented water wells on the subject site and within 150 feet from the subject site (TWDB, 2014). No evidence of water wells was observed on the subject site during Horizon’s site reconnaissance. The results of this assessment do not preclude the existence of additional undocumented/abandoned wells. If a water well or casing is encountered during construction, work should be halted near the feature until the TCEQ is contacted. 3.0 The City of Austin definition of a critical environmental feature (CEF) includes caves, sinkholes, springs, wetlands, bluffs, canyon rimrock, water wells within the Edwards Aquifer, and significant recharge features located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Two potential CEF as defined by the City of Austin was found on or within 150 feet from the subject property. The first CEF (S-1) is a wetland pond which is mapped on the west central portion of the Property. It is Horizon’s opinion that this stock pond temporarily impounds water for limited amounts of time that has allowed sparse, low quality wetland vegetation such as spikerush and black willow to establish. A 50’ buffer established along the pond edge and would adequately CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES WATER WELLS 140014_report2 Environmental Resource Inventory Report and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment HJN 140014 EA 30 October 2014 Page 4 protect this CEF feature. All features are mapped in Figure 3 (Appendix A) and photographs are provided in Appendix B. The 2nd CEF (S-2) is described as a wetland CEF and an associated biological resource buffer which was mapped on the northeast boundary of the subject site as identified on the City of Austin Development Web Map (COA, 2014). This wetland CEF is more accurately described as the headwaters of an ephemeral creek that lies at the base of a large stockpile of imported fill material (photos attached). A 50’ buffer established along the centerline of the creek and extending to the southeast off the subject site would adequately protect this CEF feature. All features are mapped in Figure 3 (Appendix A) and photographs are provided in Appendix B. 4.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT ASSESSMENT Literature and agency file searches were conducted to identify the potential occurrence of any federally listed endangered species in the vicinity of the subject site. The following federally listed species may be found in Hays County: Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis), Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum), black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), Comal Springs drypoid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola), golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), Peck’s cave amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia georgei), San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana), Texas blind salamander (Typhlomolge rathbuni), Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana) (USFWS, 2014). Additionally, the USFWS lists the following migratory bird species as potentially occurring in many or all Texas counties: whooping crane (Grus americana), Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis), interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos), and piping plover (Charadrius melodus). The subject site is not underlain by a geologic formation that is known to form caves or voids that may provide habitat for terrestrial karst invertebrates. The subject site is mapped as Zone 4 (areas that do not contain potential endangered cave species habitat) by Veni and Associates (1991). Examination of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Natural Diversity Database indicated no documented occurrence(s) of listed species on or within a 0.5-mile radius of the subject site (TPWD, 2014). Golden-cheeked warbler habitat in central Texas typically consists of mature Ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei) and broad-leaved oak woodlands, with a high percentage of canopy coverage within and adjacent to incised canyons of central Texas. It is Horizon’s opinion that the subject site does not exhibit habitat characteristics for the golden-cheeked warbler. 140014_report2 Environmental Resource Inventory Report and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment HJN 140014 EA 30 October 2014 Page 5 Black-capped vireos typically nest in distinctive and dense scrubby mottes (to about 6 feet high) interspersed in open grassland within central Texas. Common vegetation within these mottes includes shin oak (Quercus sinuate var. breviloba), plateau live oak (Quercus fusiformis), evergreen sumac (Rhus virens), Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana), agarita (Berberis trifoliolata), and Ashe juniper. It is Horizon’s opinion that the subject site does not exhibit habitat characteristics for the black-capped vireos. It is Horizon’s opinion that the subject site does not provide potentially suitable habitat for any of the federally listed endangered species that occur in Hays County. Additionally, it is Horizon’s opinion that any occurrence of the federally listed migratory bird species on the subject site would be temporary in nature, and that development of the site would not adversely impact the species. For Horizon Environmental Services, Inc. Shannon Dorsey Principal 30 October 2014 Date 140014_report2 Environmental Resource Inventory Report and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment HJN 140014 EA 30 October 2014 Page 6 4.0 (COA) City of Austin. Austin Watershed Regulation Areas. Austin, Texas: City of Austin, REFERENCES Department of Planning and Development. 30 January 1998. ______. City of Austin GIS. Development Web Map <http://www.austintexas.gov/ GIS/developmentwebmap/Viewer.aspx>. Accessed 23 January 2014. (ESRI) Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Street Map North America Data Layer. ESRI, Redlands, California. 2009. (FEMA) Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel No. 48209C0128F, Hays County, Texas. 2 September 2005. ______. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel No. 48453C0555H, Travis County, Texas. 26 September 2008. Garner, L.E., and K.P. Young. Environmental Geology of the Austin Area: An Aid to Urban Planning. Report of Investigations 86. The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology. 1976. Gould, F.W. Texas Plants – A Checklist and Ecological Summary. College Station: Texas A&M University. 1975. (NRCS) US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey, <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>. Accessed 23 January 2014. (TCEQ) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Boundary Maps. 1996. (TCEQ) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Complying with the Edwards Aquifer Rules: Administrative Guidance, revised August 1999. (TCEQ) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Edwards Aquifer Protection Program. Edwards Aquifer Viewer, <http://gis.tceq.state.tx.us/website/iredwards1/viewer.htm>. Accessed 23 January 2014. (TPWD) Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. T/E and Rare Species Elemental Occurrences, Natural Diversity Database. Wildlife Division, Habitat Assessment Program, Austin, Texas. 7 February 2014. (TWDB) Texas Water Development Board. Water Information Integration and Dissemination System. TWDB Groundwater Database (ArcIMS), <http://wiid.twdb.state.tx.us/ims/ wwm_drl/viewer.htm?DISCL=1&>. Accessed 23 January 2014. (USDA) US Department of Agriculture. Aerial photography, Signal Hill NW, Texas, digital ortho quarter quad. National Agriculture Imagery Program, Farm Service Agency, Aerial Photography Field Office. 2012. 140014_report2 Environmental Resource Inventory Report and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment HJN 140014 EA 30 October 2014 Page 7 (USFWS) US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory Map, Signal Hill, Texas. 1993. (USFWS) US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Southwest Region Ecological Services Office. Endangered Species, Lists of Species by County for Texas, Hays County, <http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/ lists/default.cfm>. Accessed 23 January 2014. (USGS) US Geological Survey. 7.5-minute series topographic maps, Signal Hill, Texas, quadrangle. 1986. (UT-BEG) University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, Proctor, C.V., Jr., T.E. Brown, J.H. McGowen, N.B. Waechter, and V.E. Barnes. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, Francis Luther Whitney Memorial Edition. 1974; revised 1981. Veni, George, and Associates. Endangered Cave Species Karst Zone Map, Signal Hill quadrangle. George Veni and Associates. Austin, Texas. 1991. 140014_report2  APPENDIX A FIGURES 140014_report2 4 1 0 2 - 3 2 - 1 | C E C i | d x m . c v 1 0 A 4 1 0 0 4 1 \ s c h p a r G i \ t c a r T n w o r B y t t u N e r c a - 0 6 - 4 1 0 0 4 1 \ 4 1 0 2 . j o r P \ : Q SUBJECT SITE MAP SOURCE: ESRI, DATA & MAPS DVD, 2009. I 0 1 2 Miles Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, NRCAN, METI, iPC, TomTom FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP 60-ACRE NUTTY BROWN TRACT SH 290 AT NUTTY BROWN ROAD AUSTIN, HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS 0 9 H 2 S 4 1 0 2 - 3 2 - 1 | C E C | d x m . 2 1 0 2 _ r e a 2 0 A 4 1 0 0 4 1 \ s c h p a r G i \ t c a r T n w o r B y t t u N e r c a - 0 6 - 4 1 0 0 4 1 \ 4 1 0 2 . j o r P \ : Q N u t t y B r o w n R d Kit Carson Dr MAP SOURCE: USDA, 2012. I 0 250 500 Feet FIGURE 2 2012 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 60-ACRE NUTTY BROWN TRACT SH 290 AT NUTTY BROWN ROAD AUSTIN, HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS 0 9 H 2 S 4 1 0 2 - 0 3 - 0 1 | S L G | d x m . r e f f u b _ w 2 F E C 4 0 A 4 1 0 0 4 1 \ s c h p a r G i \ t c a r T n w o r B y t t u N e r c a - 0 6 - 4 1 0 0 4 1 \ 4 1 0 2 . j o r P \ : Q N u t t y B r o Legend Subject Site PondCEF w n R d 50 foot Pond CEF Buffer Wetland 50 foot CEF Buffer MAP SOURCE: USDA, 2012. Kit Carson Dr I 0 150 300 Feet FIGURE 3 CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE MAP 60-ACRE NUTTY BROWN TRACT SH 290 AT NUTTY BROWN ROAD AUSTIN, HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS  APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 140014_report2 Photo 1: CEF S-1 Stock Pond Photo 2: CEF S-1 Stock Pond Wetland Vegetation Photo 3: CEF S-2 Head of Stream at Edge of Fill Material  APPENDIX C CEF WORKSHEET 140014_report2 1 2 3 4 9 City of Austin Site Review Critical Environmental Feature Worksheet Project Name: Project Address: Date: Environmental Assessment Date: 60-acre Nutty Brown Tract SH 290 at Nutty Brown Rd 2/10/2014 1/27/2014 5 6 7 8 Primary Contact Name: Phone Number: Prepared By: CEFS Located? {yes,no} : YES Shannon Dorsey 512-328-2430 C. Carrell {Wetland,Rimrock,Recharge Feature,Seep,Spring} (eg S-1) FEATURE TYPE FEATURE ID Wetland Wetland S-1 S-2 FEATURE LONGITUDE (WGS 1984 in Meters) FEATURE LATITUDE (WGS 1984 in Meters) WETLAND DIMENSIONS (ft) RIMROCK DIMENSIONS (ft) coordinate notation notation X Y Length Avg Height -97.97157 DD -97.96822 DD coordinate 30.205928 30.20757 DD DD 56 30 70 30 City of Austin Use Only WPDRD CASE NUMBER: Wetland Rimrock Recharge Feature Spring Seep For rimrock, locate the midpoint of the segment that describes the feature. For wetlands, locate the approximate centroid of the feature and the estimated area. For a spring or seep, locate the source of groundwater that feeds a pool or stream. DMS DD YES NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 E D C B A 4.82 AC. 3.26 AC. REIRRIGATION FIELD STORMWATER RETENTION POND 102,859 S.F. LOT 1 BLOCK A SILVER SPUR RANCHETTES SECTION 1 VOL. 18 PG. 212 O.P.R.H.C.T. F.F.E.=1176.28 1.59 AC. 0.47 AC. . . W O R . ' 0 6 1 N O I T A V R E S E R A1 SCALE: 1" = 80' OVERALL TREE EXHIBIT 1 2 3 4 5 6 CEDAR VALLEY 290 SITE 290 E6 NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP VICINITY MAP LEGEND D: E VIS D E A E B S A E L P INTERIM REVIEW Not intended for construction, bidding or permit purposes. Engineer: JOSEPH E. YORK V P.E. Serial No.: 124934 Date: OCTOBER 2020 9 3 4 - F i . o N n o i t a r t s g e R s r e e n g n E i i l a n o s s e f o r P f o d r a o B s a x e T 1 1 5 5 . 4 9 4 . 0 1 2  9 4 2 8 7 s a x e T i , o n o t n A n a S  0 0 1 e t i u S , d a o R a m e S l - l l i h k c o L 0 5 3 4 m o c . r e t r a c s e n o j . w w w - 1 2 0 2 © t h g i r y p o C I I T B H X E E E R T I 0 8 7 # 3 3 N T S U A B E H 0 9 2 S U W 1 2 0 2 1 7 3 7 8 7 S A X E T , I N T S U A TREE LARGER THAN 18" TREE LARGER THAN 24" B6 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BENCHMARKS: A6 A6 NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION R E T R A C | S E N O J . L U S N O C 4 0 - 4 0 0 0 - 7 7 9 0 S : . O N . J O R P D E T A C D N I I S A : E L A C S 1 2 0 2 . 4 1 . 1 0 : E T A D 1 . O N T E E H S D 0 0 4 0 - 0 2 0 2 - P S ' 0 1 2 © 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS All the trees in theCyan coloredareas areproposed to beundisturbed.