PC March 23, 2021 Questions and Answers.pdf — original pdf

Backup

Questions and Answers Planning Commission Meeting March 23, 2021 Questions Shaw / Response (blue) Staff/ Applicant Response (green) Item B3- C814-2020-0104 - Springdale Green PUD • For the Tier 1 Requirements 2.3.2.A and 2.3.2.B, Applicant proposes Alternative Equivalent Compliance. Please explain where this is allowed within the land code and provide examples. Alternative Equivalent Compliance is an allowance within Subchapter E (section 1.5) that allows for unique design considerations when strict compliance is not attainable. Specifically, “To encourage creative and original design, and to accommodate projects where the particular site conditions or the proposed use prevent strict compliance with this Subchapter, alternative equivalent compliance allows development to occur in a manner that meets the intent of this Subchapter, yet through an alternative design that does not strictly adhere to the Subchapter's standards. The procedure is not a general waiver of regulations. Alternative equivalent compliance shall not be used when the desired departure from the standards of this Subchapter could be achieved using the minor modification process in Section 1.4.” AEC is site and design specific – a specific AEC request is done by an applicant during the site plan review explaining exactly which section of Subchapter E (design standards) cannot be met, why it cannot be met (based on the site, use, or combination), and exactly what alternatives the applicant is proposing for the site instead. Examples may include less building pulled up to the sidewalk than strictly required, with the alternative being a more robust supplemental zone offering pedestrian amenities beyond which the code requires. Another example could be about open space: the code limits only 50% of the open space above the ground floor. An alternative might be 80% is above the ground floor, but they are providing twice as much open space square footage as is minimally required. • Every AEC request is evaluated on an individual basis. It is not guaranteed that AEC is granted, but in most cases, the design professionals are able to work with staff and eventually come up with an AEC plan that works for the site, where strict compliance cannot be met. The current site plan includes Alternative Equivalent Compliance with Subchapter E, including the following: Project proposes street tree plantings along Springdale Road (an Urban Roadway) that are not required under Subchapter E;  Project proposes silva cell root systems for the street trees that provide at least 800 cubic feet of soil/room per tree for the roots to grow; Project proposes to fully construct a separated bike lane along the Springdale Road frontage to the satisfaction of the Austin Transportation Department; All overhead and underground utilities will be relocated to accommodate the street trees and silva cells. Did Applicant agree to Environmental Officer’s Office conditions and Environmental Commission conditions identified in Exhibit I? Yes, the applicant has agreed to EV Commission/Staff recommendation. Attached is the Environmental Commission Recommendation. B6 - 221 Lessin Lane • Did the variance have to be approved by the Environmental Commission? If so, what was their decision? There were no Environmental variances required for the proposed site plan, therefore the application did not need to be approved by the Environmental Commission. • Will the vicinity of the ponds next to the creek, increase the risk of flooding? As part of the floodplain review, the engineer of record will need to demonstrate no adverse impact to adjacent properties. This will require demonstration of no rise in the 100-yr water surface elevation and no net decrease in floodplain volume per LDC 25-7-61 and LDC 25-7-92. This will be confirmed prior to approval of the floodplain review. Please note that as of the last update to the site plan, no development in the floodplain (including grading) is proposed. Additionally, no rise in the water surface elevation of the floodplain was shown in the review of the hydraulic models of the floodplain. The ponds are outside of the 100-year floodplains and would therefore not increase the flooding risk. As required by the land development code, the detention pond will be designed such that there is no increase in runoff from the site due to the increase in impervious cover.  ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20210203 003b Subject: Springdale Green Planned Unit Development (PUD), C814-2020-0104 Motion by: Kevin Ramberg Seconded by: Katie Coyne Date: February 3, 2021 RATIONALE: code modifications: WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the applicant is requesting rezoning to PUD-NP; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the proposed PUD would require two environmental 1. from 25-8-261(B)(3)(C) is modified to allow a trail wider than 12 feet as shown on the Creek Plan; and 2. from 25-8-261 is modified to allow temporary construction staging within the CWQZ buffer per the Construction Laydown and Staging Limits exhibit; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission also recognizes that Staff recommends the rezoning to PUD-NP (with conditions). THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends the requested rezoning to PUD-NP with the following Staff Conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Street yard trees will be a minimum of 2 caliper inches. Street yard landscape area shall be increased to a minimum of 30% of street yard area. Code required tree mitigation will be increased by 50%. A minimum of 15 trees will utilize silva cell technology and provide 1000 cubic feet of soil volume, which can be shared between a maximum of two trees. Adjacent landscape areas can also count towards the requirement. 15 acres of creek and floodplain will be restored per exhibits. 100% Green Stormwater Infrastructure for water quality. (a) Modify watershed boundaries and neighboring property pond to redirect flow of storm water away from the single-family homes located on Saucedo Street (b) If solution in (a) is not feasible due to impasse with neighbor, PUD will donate $400,000 towards a stormwater infrastructure solution that will benefit the houses on Saucedo Street. Cap impervious cover at 50% gross site area. Provide 19.82 acres of Open Space. Remove existing impervious cover not associated with Boggy Creek armoring from the critical water quality zone and restore with native vegetation. Capture rainwater and condensate to reduce landscape potable water usage by 50%. 12. Meet 3-Star green building rating for all buildings on-site. 13. Staff recommends that the following land uses be prohibited on the property: Automotive rental, Automotive repair services, Automotive sales, Automotive washing (of any type), Drop-off recycling collection, Equipment repair services, Equipment sales, Exterminating services, Funeral services, Kennels, Community garden, and Service station. and the following Environmental Commission Conditions: 1. 2. Staff work with the applicant to meet LEED and Sustainable Site Certification for the project. Street yard trees will be a minimum of 3 caliper inches (in lieu of the staff recommendation of 2 caliper inches) For: Creel, Thompson, Ramberg, Guerrero, Bedford, Coyne, Gordon, and Barrett Bixler Against: None Abstain: None Recuse: None Absent: Maceo VOTE 8-0 Approved By: Linda Guerrero, Environmental Commission Chair 1