B-07 (SP-2021-0015D - Crossroads Logistics Center).pdf

Zoning and Platting Commission – July 20, 2021

B-07 (SP-2021-0015D - Crossroads Logistics Center).pdf — original pdf

Backup

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF — Page 1 of 53 pages

SITE PLAN REVIEW SHEET ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE REQUEST ONLY ZAP COMMISSION DATE: 20/07/2021 CASE: SP-2021-0015D PROJECT NAME: Crossroads Logistics APPLICANT: Jamison Civil Engineering ADDRESS OF SITE: 8400 E. Parmer Lane, Austin, Texas, 78653 COUNTY: Travis WATERSHED: Gilleland Creek Watershed EXISTING ZONING: N/A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Industrial manufacturing warehouses DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE: The applicant requests the following: AGENT: Michele Rogerson Lynch & Steve Jamison AREA: 47.888 acres JURISDICTION: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction 1. Request to vary from LDC 25-8-341 to allow cut up to 14.3 feet within the Desired Development Zone. Zone. 2. Request to vary from LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill up to 16.5 feet within the Desired Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this variance, having determined that the required findings of fact have been met and recommends the following conditions:  Provide a landscape plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements.  Provide tree replacement / mitigation plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements. Increase wetland CEF setback from 150 feet to 200 feet.   Provide structural containment of the cut & fill with retaining walls. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION: 07/07/2021: The Environmental Board voted (#7) in favor favor, (#0) against, (#0) absentia ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STAFF: Hank Marley CASE MANAGER: Robert Anderson PHONE: 512-974-2067 PHONE: 512-974-3026 1 of 53B-7(cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:2)(cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:0)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:0)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:0)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:18)(cid:0)(cid:16)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:0)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:0)(cid:30)(cid:31)(cid:0) ! (cid:2)(cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:14)(cid:24)$79@(cid:24)@(cid:0)(cid:20):(cid:25)(cid:0)=-/A)&*(cid:0)B&->0&(cid:0)(cid:0) (cid:14)"(cid:20)#(cid:24)$(cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:0)%&’((&’)*((cid:0)+’,-(.-/((cid:0)%01.0&(cid:31)(cid:0)234 ! (cid:2)4!!(cid:2)56(cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:9)7(cid:23)879(cid:0)(cid:20):(cid:25)(cid:0);0<-1(cid:0)=)>?0&,(cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:0)(cid:0) (cid:0) CD(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:31)(cid:0).A0(cid:0)E1<-&’1>01.)(cid:28)(cid:0)%’>>-((-’1(cid:0)&0/’,1-F0((cid:0).A0(cid:0))GG(cid:28)-/)1.(cid:0)-((cid:0)&0H(cid:27)0(.-1,(cid:0))(cid:0)<)&-)1/0(cid:0)I&’>(cid:0)+6%(cid:0) 54 J4KL(cid:2)(cid:0).’(cid:0))(cid:28)(cid:28)’M(cid:0)/(cid:27).(cid:0)(cid:27)G(cid:0).’(cid:0)(cid:2)LNK(cid:0)I00.(cid:0)M-.A-1(cid:0).A0(cid:0)60(-&0*(cid:0)60<0(cid:28)’G>01.(cid:0)O’10N(cid:0) (cid:0) CD(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:31)(cid:0).A0(cid:0)E1<-&’1>01.)(cid:28)(cid:0)%’>>-((-’1(cid:0)&0/’,1-F0((cid:0).A0(cid:0))GG(cid:28)-/)1.(cid:0)-((cid:0)&0H(cid:27)0(.-1,(cid:0))(cid:0)<)&-)1/0(cid:0)I&’>(cid:0)+6%(cid:0) 54 J4KL (cid:0).’(cid:0))(cid:28)(cid:28)’M(cid:0)I-(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:0)(cid:27)G(cid:0).’(cid:0)(cid:2)PN5(cid:0)I00.(cid:0)M-.A-1(cid:0).A0(cid:0)60(-&0*(cid:0)60<0(cid:28)’G>01.(cid:0)O’10N(cid:0) (cid:0) CD(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:14)Q(cid:0).A0(cid:0)E1<-&’1>01.)(cid:28)(cid:0)%’>>-((-’1(cid:0)&0/’,1-F0((cid:0).A).(cid:0)(.)II(cid:0)&0/’>>01*((cid:0).A-((cid:0)<)&-)1/0(cid:0)RM-.A(cid:0) /’1*-.-’1(S(cid:0)A)<-1,(cid:0)*0.0&>-10*(cid:0).A0(cid:0)&0H(cid:27)-&0*(cid:0)T-1*-1,((cid:0)’I(cid:0)T)/.(cid:0)A)<0(cid:0)?001(cid:0)>0.N(cid:0) (cid:10)D(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:3)U(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:3)Q(cid:0).A0(cid:0)E1<-&’1>01.)(cid:28)(cid:0)%’>>-((-’1(cid:0)&0/’>>01*((cid:0).A0(cid:0)<)&-)1/0(cid:0)&0H(cid:27)0(.(cid:0)M-.A(cid:0).A0(cid:0)I’(cid:28)(cid:28)’M-1,(cid:0)2.)II(cid:0) %’1*-.-’1(cid:25)(cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:2)S(cid:0) 3&’<-*0(cid:0))(cid:0)(cid:28))1*(/)G0(cid:0)G(cid:28))1(cid:0)-1(cid:0))//’&*)1/0(cid:0)M-.A(cid:0)%-.(cid:29)(cid:0)F’1-1,(cid:0)V(cid:27)&-(*-/.-’1)(cid:28)(cid:0)&0H(cid:27)-&0>01.(N(cid:0) S(cid:0) KS(cid:0) W1/&0)(0(cid:0).A0(cid:0)M0.(cid:28))1*(cid:0)%ET(cid:0)(0.?)/X(cid:0)I&’>(cid:0)(cid:2)5!(cid:0)I00.(cid:0).’(cid:0) !!(cid:0)I00.N(cid:0) LS(cid:0) 3&’<-*0(cid:0)(.&(cid:27)/.(cid:27)&)(cid:28)(cid:0)/’1.)-1>01.(cid:0)’I(cid:0).A0(cid:0)/(cid:27).(cid:0)M-.A(cid:0)&0.)-1-1,(cid:0)M)(cid:28)(cid:28)(N(cid:0) (cid:0) 3&’<-*0(cid:0).&00(cid:0)&0G(cid:28))/0>01.(cid:0))1*(cid:0)>-.-,).-’1(cid:0)G(cid:28))1(cid:0)-1(cid:0))//’&*)1/0(cid:0)M-.A(cid:0)%-.(cid:29)(cid:0)F’1-1,(cid:0)V(cid:27)&-(*-/.-’1)(cid:28)(cid:0)&0H(cid:27)-&0>01.(N (cid:0) T’&Z(cid:0)%&00(cid:28)(cid:31)(cid:0)[A’>G(’1(cid:31)(cid:0)B&->0&(cid:31)(cid:0)=)>?0&,(cid:31)(cid:0)B)&&0..(cid:0)B-\(cid:28)0&(cid:31)(cid:0)B&-(.’(cid:28)(cid:31)(cid:0))1*(cid:0)](cid:27)0&&0&’(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:0) ^,)-1(.Z(cid:0)_’10(cid:0) ^?(.)-1Z(cid:0)_’10(cid:0) =0/(cid:27)(0Z(cid:0)_’10(cid:0) ^?(01.Z(cid:0)%’(cid:29)10(cid:0))1*(cid:0)B0*I’&*(cid:0) (cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:0)(cid:18)Y(cid:16)(cid:0) ^GG&’<0*(cid:0)B(cid:29)Z(cid:0)(cid:0) +-1*)(cid:0)](cid:27)0&&0&’(cid:31)(cid:0)E1<-&’1>01.)(cid:28)(cid:0)%’>>-((-’1(cid:0)%A)-&(cid:0) (cid:0) 2 of 53B-7Development Services Department Staff Recommendations Concerning Required Findings Project Name: Cross Roads Logistics; SP-2021-0015D Ordinance Standard: Watershed Protection Ordinance Variance Request: To allow cut up to 14.3 feet within the Desired Development Zone. 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. Less than two miles away the land use commission recently granted a similar grading variance to the Applied Materials Logistics Service Center (SP-2020- 0321C). This site is also an industrial manufacturing center. That site required cut up to 12 feet in order to maintain level finish floor elevations, level loading docks and grades minimal for maneuverability. For the proposed project the situation is nearly identical. Due to the natural topography and the size of the buildings, 14.3 feet of cut is necessary to maintain level finish floor elevations, level truck courts, and truck lanes with grades less than 4%. Therefore, by not allowing this variance would deprive the applicant of a privilege available to owners of similarly situated property. 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 Yes 3 of 53B-7The site offers a reasonable location for large industrial manufacturing warehouses. In order to facilitate this type of development the truck courts / loading dock areas must have grades of less than 4% for maneuverability and must be fairly level so that when the trucks are parked at the loading docks the trailer elevations sit level with the finish floor elevations of the buildings and can be loaded and unloaded with ease. Due to the elevation change and topography on this site, in order to accomplish the above criteria, cut of this extent is necessary. It can be challenging to find property flat enough to prevent the required amount of grading. However, the slopes that necessitate the amount of cut are less than 15%. Another constraint that is worth mentioning is that there is also a 75 foot gas easement that runs along the east side of the site that further limits the developable areas of the site. Moreover, the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance. The project proposes to expand the wetland CEF setback from 150 feet to 200 feet and also plans to provide landscaping and tree replacement/mitigation in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements—something not required within the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction. b) Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; c) Yes Large industrial manufacturing warehouses are a reasonable use for this property as it is located within the Desired Development Zone along a growing manufacturing corridor, in line with sites such as Tesla and Amazon. In order to facilitate this type of development a minimum deviation from code to allow cut up to 14.3 feet is necessary. The proposed cut is the minimum necessary to establish grades of less than 4% to allow for truck maneuverability and to allow for truck courts / loading dock areas to maintain a fairly level surface between the truck trailers and the finish floor elevations of the buildings. Furthermore, retaining walls will be constructed to structurally contain and minimize the amount of cut. Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. Yes The variance does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. The variance is a minimum deviation from code to allow for a reasonable use of the property. The cut will be minimized and structurally contained with retaining walls. Moreover, the project proposes to provide a landscape and tree replacement/mitigation plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements—something that is not required within the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction. 4 of 53B-73. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. Yes The variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. The project proposes two sedimentation filtration water quality ponds and the addition of one rain garden, all of which are designed in accordance with the ECM. Furthermore, the project proposes to expand the wetland CEF setback from the required 150 feet to 200 feet. Moreover, the project proposes to provide a landscape and tree replacement/mitigation plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements—something that is not required within the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction. Staff Determination: Staff determines that the findings of fact have been met. Staff recommends the following condition:     Provide a landscape plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements. Provide tree replacement/mitigation plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements. Increase the wetland CEF setback from 150 feet to 200 feet. Provide structural containment of the cut with retaining walls. Environmental Reviewer (DSD) _____________________________ (Hank Marley) Date ________________ Environmental Review Manager (DSD) _____________________________ (Mike McDougal) June 23, 2021 Deputy Environmental Officer (WPD) ___________________________ (Liz Johnston) Date 06/25/2021 June 23,2021Hank Marley5 of 53B-7Development Services Department Staff Recommendations Concerning Required Findings Project Name: Cross Roads Logistics; SP-2021-0015D Ordinance Standard: Watershed Protection Ordinance Variance Request: To allow fill up to 16.5 feet within the Desired Development Zone. 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 Less than two miles away the land use commission recently granted a similar grading variance to the Applied Materials Logistics Service Center (SP-2020- 0321C). This site is also an industrial manufacturing center. That site required grading up to 12 feet in order to maintain level finish floor elevations, level loading docks and grades minimal for maneuverability. For the proposed project the situation is nearly identical. Due to the natural topography and the size of the buildings, 16.5 feet of fill is necessary to maintain level finish floor elevations, level truck courts, and truck lanes with grades less than 4%. Therefore, by not allowing this variance would deprive the applicant of a privilege available to owners of similarly situated property. 2. The variance: a) Yes 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; 6 of 53B-7The site offers a reasonable location for large industrial manufacturing warehouses. In order to facilitate this type of development the truck courts / loading dock areas must have grades of less than 4% for maneuverability and must be fairly level so that when the trucks are parked at the loading docks the trailer elevations sit level with the finish floor elevations of the buildings and can be loaded and unloaded with ease. Due to the elevation change and topography on this site, in order to accomplish the above criteria, fill of this extent is necessary. It can be challenging to find property flat enough to prevent the required amount of grading. However, the slopes that necessitate the amount of fill are less than 15%. Another constraint that is worth mentioning is that there is also a 75 foot gas easement that runs along the east side of the site that further limits the developable areas of the site. Moreover, the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance. The project proposes to expand the wetland CEF setback from 150 feet to 200 feet and also plans to provide landscaping and tree replacement/mitigation in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements—something not required within the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction. b) Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; Large industrial manufacturing warehouses are a reasonable use for this property as it is located within the Desired Development Zone along a growing manufacturing corridor, in line with sites such as Tesla and Amazon. In order to facilitate this type of development a minimum deviation from code to allow cut up to 16.5 feet of fill is necessary. The proposed fill is the minimum necessary to establish grades of less than 4% to allow for truck maneuverability and to allow for truck courts / loading dock areas to maintain a fairly level surface between the truck trailers and the finish floor elevations of the buildings. Furthermore, retaining walls will be constructed to structurally contain and minimize the amount of fill. c) Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. Yes Yes The variance does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. The variance is a minimum deviation from code to allow for a reasonable use of the property. The fill will be minimized and structurally contained with retaining walls. Moreover, the project proposes to provide a landscape and tree replacement/mitigation plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements—something that is not required within the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction. 7 of 53B-73. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. Yes The variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. The project proposes two sedimentation filtration water quality ponds and the addition of one rain garden, all of which are designed in accordance with the ECM. Furthermore, the project proposes to expand the wetland CEF setback from the required 150 feet to 200 feet. Moreover, the project proposes to provide a landscape and tree replacement/mitigation plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements—something that is not required within the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction. Staff Determination: Staff determines that the findings of fact have been met. Staff recommends the following condition:     Provide a landscape plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements. Provide tree replacement/mitigation plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements. Increase the wetland CEF setback from 150 feet to 200 feet. Provide structural containment of the fill with retaining walls. Environmental Reviewer (DSD) _____________________________ (Hank Marley) Date ________________ Environmental Review Manager (DSD) _____________________________ (Mike McDougal) June 23, 2021 Deputy Environmental Officer (WPD) ____________________________ (Liz Johnston) Date 06/25/2021 June 23, 2021Hank Marley8 of 53B-7ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM June 18, 2021 May 17, 2021 Denise Lucas, Director Development Services Department City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 RE: Variance Request Letter Crossroads Logistics Center 8400-9400 Parmer Lane SP-2021-0015D LDC 30-5-341 Cut Requirements Dear Ms. Lucas: On behalf of the owner, we are requesting a variance for cut in excess of four (4) feet for the proposed development of the Crossroads Logistics Center site development permit (SP-2021- 0015D) located at 8400-9400 Parmer Lane. The subject project is located in the 2 mile Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The property is currently undeveloped and is located near Parmer Lane and SH 130. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 1 9 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 The applicant plans to develop three (3) office/warehouse buildings totaling 483,840 square feet, which includes two water quality and detention ponds, one rain garden and all associated grading, paving, water, wastewater and drainage improvements. The applicant proposes to place new improvements on the property in a manner to minimize adverse impacts to the natural character of the property. The site is in the Gilleland Creek Watershed, which is a Suburban Watershed. The subject tract is not located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 2 10 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 With regard to the proposed variance, we respectfully suggest the following conditions be considered: 1. Structural containment (retaining walls) 2. Restoration and revegetation 3. Increased setback to 200’ minimum for the existing CEF/Wetland feature. 4. Preservation of trees and/or natural areas not already required to be preserved in the ETJ 5. Apply Landscaping Ordinance for ETJ 6. Increase tree inches on site/mitigation The project requires leniency from the following code section: Division 5. ‐ Cut, Fill, and Spoil. § 30-5‐341 ‐ CUT REQUIREMENTS. (A) Cut on a tract of land may not exceed four feet of depth, except: (1) in an urban watershed; (2) in a roadway right‐of‐way; (3) under a foundation with sides perpendicular to the ground, or with pier and beam construction; (4) for construction of a water quality control or detention facility and appurtenances for conveyance such as swales, drainage ditches, and diversion berms, if: the cut is the minimum necessary for the appropriate functioning of the design and location of the facility within the site minimize the (a) amount of cut over four feet; (b) the facility; and (c) 15 percent or within 100 feet of a classified waterway; the cut is not located on a slope with a gradient of more than (5) for utility construction or a wastewater drain field; or (6) in a state‐permitted sanitary landfill located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction, if: (a) the cut is derived from the landfill operation; (b) the cut is not placed in a critical water quality zone or a 100‐year floodplain; the landfill operation has an erosion and restoration plan (c) approved by the single office; and (d) all other applicable City Code and County Code provisions are met. (B) A cut area must be restored and stabilized. (C) Cut for a roadway must be contained within the roadway clearing width described in Section 30‐5‐ 322 (Clearing For A Roadway). City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 3 11 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 The Land Development Code allows Land Use Commission Variances per the following: It is the applicant's burden to establish that the findings described in this Division 3. ‐ Variances. § 30‐5‐41 ‐ LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCES (A) Section have been met. Except as provided in Subsections (B) and (C), the land use commission may grant a variance from a requirement of this subchapter after determining that: (1) to owners of other similarly situated property with approximately contemporaneous development subject to similar code requirements; (2) the requirement will deprive the applicant of a privilege available is not necessitated by the scale, layout, construction method, the variance: (a) or other design decision made by the applicant, unless the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance; (b) necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; and (c) environmental consequences; and development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least is the minimum deviation from the code requirement does not create a significant probability of harmful (3) equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. The findings of fact concerning the need for the variance are outlined below. We respectfully seek your consideration and support of this variance request. If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at (737) 484-0880. Stephen R. Jamison, P.E. Jamison Civil Engineering LLC (TBPE Firm #F-17756) City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 4 06/18/202112 of 53B-7Stephen R. Jamison P.E., Jamison Civil Engineering, LLC June 18, 2021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant Contact Information Name of Applicant Street Address 13812 Research Blvd. #B-2 City State ZIP Code Austin, Texas 78750 Work Phone E-Mail Address Case Name Case Number Variance Case Information 737-484-0880 steve@jamisoneng.com Crossroads Logistics Center SP-2021-0015D Address or Location 8400-9400 Parmer Lane Environmental Reviewer Name Environmental Resource Management Reviewer Name Applicable Ordinance Hank Marley Current Code Watershed Name Gilleland Creek Watershed Classification Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone ☐Urban ☐ Suburban ☐Water Supply Suburban ☐Water Supply Rural ☐ Barton Springs Zone ☐ Barton Springs Segment ☐ Northern Edwards Segment ☐ Not in Edwards Aquifer Zones Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone Distance to Nearest Classified Waterway ☐ Yes ☐ No +/- 590 feet to Gilleland Creek (Major) +/- 200 feet to Gilleland Creek Trib (Major) City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 5 13 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 Water and Waste Water service to be provided by Austin Water Utility Request The variance request is as follows (Cite code references: LDC 30-5-341 Cut Requirements (14.3 feet) Impervious cover Square Footage: 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) Existing 4,680 sf 0.107 ac. 0.22% Proposed 1,230,116 sf 28.24 ac. 58.97% The property has slopes that vary from 0% to 15%. The slope breakdown is as follows: 0-15% Slopes ---> 47.888 acres 15-25% Slopes ---> 0 acres 25-35% Slopes ---> 0 acres Over 35% Slopes ---> 0 acres The elevation ranges from a low point of 529.0’ to a high point of 571.0’. The majority of the ground vegetation is typical hill country grasses/prairie/farmland in good condition due to a sparce tree cover. The majority of the existing soils consists of clays rang from Ferris-Heiden Complex, Heiden Clay and Houston Black Clay, (all Class D Hydologic Group) The site has no WQTZ, CEFs, floodplain, heritage trees, or any other notable or outstanding characteristics of the property. The plan complies with all current codes. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 6 14 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 FINDINGS OF FACT As required in LDC Section 30-5-41, in order to grant a variance, the Land Use Commission must make the following findings of fact. Included below is an explanation alongside each applicable finding of fact. Ordinance: A. 1. 2. Land Use Commission variance determinations from Chapter 30-5-41 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 This area is a manufacturing corridor with two nearby projects that are similar in nature having been granted similar variances: Applied Materials Logistics Service Center (SP-2020-0321C) and Samsung (LI-PDA Ordinance 20201210- 071). 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; Existing site conditions necessitate additional cut for providing the required level fire lane and loading dock areas that require less than 4% grades. A 75 foot gas easement and floodplain provide constraints that must be worked around. Additionally, we are increasing setbacks to a CEF and preserving natural areas. Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; The site is being graded from the front entrance to cause for the least amount of variance needed as possible. Retaining walls will be constructed to contain cut and reduce additional cut areas. Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. No harmful environmental consequences result from the variance. Additionally, conditions are proposed to further protect the environment including increasing a CEF setback to 175’ minimum, preserving natural areas, planting additional trees/landscaping, and revegetation of the site. Yes b) Yes c) Yes City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 7 15 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 3. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. Yes The development is compliant with current code and will meet all water quality regulations. **Variance approval requires all above affirmative findings. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 8 16 of 53B-7June 18, 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 9 17 of 53B-7ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM June 18, 2021 May 17, 2021 Denise Lucas, Director Development Services Department City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 RE: Variance Request Letter Crossroads Logistics Center 8400-9400 Parmer Lane SP-2021-0015D LDC 30-5-341 Fill Requirements Dear Ms. Lucas: On behalf of the owner, we are requesting a variance for fill in excess of four (4) feet for the proposed development of the Crossroads Logistics Center site development permit (SP-2021- 0015D) located at 8400-9400 Parmer Lane. The subject project is located in the 2 mile Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The property is currently undeveloped and is located near Parmer Lane and SH 130. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 1 18 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 The applicant plans to develop three (3) office/warehouse buildings totaling 483,840 square feet, which includes two water quality and detention ponds, one rain garden and all associated grading, paving, water, wastewater and drainage improvements. The applicant proposes to place new improvements on the property in a manner to minimize adverse impacts to the natural character of the property. The site is in the Gilleland Creek Watershed, which is a Suburban Watershed. The subject tract is not located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 2 19 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 With regard to the proposed variance, we respectfully suggest the following conditions be considered: 1. Structural containment (retaining walls) 2. Restoration and revegetation 3. Increased setback to 200’ minimum for the existing CEF/Wetland feature. 4. Preservation of trees and/or natural areas not already required to be preserved in the ETJ 5. Apply Landscaping Ordinance for ETJ 6. Increase tree inches on site/mitigation The project requires leniency from the following code section: Division 5. ‐ Cut, Fill, and Spoil. § 30-5‐342 ‐ FILL REQUIREMENTS. (A) Fill on a tract of land may not exceed four feet of depth, except: (1) in an urban watershed; (2) in a roadway right‐of‐way; (3) under a foundation with sides perpendicular to the ground, or with pier and beam construction; (4) for construction of a water quality control or detention facility and appurtenances for conveyance such as swales, drainage ditches, and diversion berms, if: the fill is the minimum necessary for the appropriate functioning of the design and location of the facility within the site minimize the (a) amount of fill over four feet; (b) the facility; and (c) 15 percent or within 100 feet of a classified waterway; the fill is not located on a slope with a gradient of more than (5) for utility construction or a wastewater drain field; or (6) in a state‐permitted sanitary landfill located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction, if: (a) the fill is derived from the landfill operation; (b) the fill is not placed in a critical water quality zone or a 100‐year floodplain; the landfill operation has an erosion and restoration plan (c) approved by the single office; and (d) all other applicable City Code and County Code provisions are met. Fill for a roadway must be contained within the roadway clearing width (B) A fill area must be restored and stabilized. (C) described in Section 30‐5‐ 322 (Clearing For A Roadway). City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 3 20 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 The Land Development Code allows Land Use Commission Variances per the following: It is the applicant's burden to establish that the findings described in this Division 3. ‐ Variances. § 30‐5‐41 ‐ LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCES (A) Section have been met. Except as provided in Subsections (B) and (C), the land use commission may grant a variance from a requirement of this subchapter after determining that: (1) to owners of other similarly situated property with approximately contemporaneous development subject to similar code requirements; (2) the requirement will deprive the applicant of a privilege available the variance: is not necessitated by the scale, layout, construction method, (a) or other design decision made by the applicant, unless the design decision provides greater overall environmental protection than is achievable without the variance; (b) necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; and (c) environmental consequences; and development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least is the minimum deviation from the code requirement does not create a significant probability of harmful (3) equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. The findings of fact concerning the need for the variance are outlined below. We respectfully seek your consideration and support of this variance request. If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at (737) 484-0880. Stephen R. Jamison, P.E. Jamison Civil Engineering LLC (TBPE Firm #F-17756) City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 4 06/18/202121 of 53B-7Stephen R. Jamison P.E., Jamison Civil Engineering, LLC June 18, 2021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant Contact Information Name of Applicant Street Address 13812 Research Blvd. #B-2 City State ZIP Code Austin, Texas 78750 Work Phone E-Mail Address Case Name Case Number Variance Case Information 737-484-0880 steve@jamisoneng.com Crossroads Logistics Center SP-2021-0015D Address or Location 8400-9400 Parmer Lane Environmental Reviewer Name Environmental Resource Management Reviewer Name Applicable Ordinance Hank Marley Current Code Watershed Name Gilleland Creek Watershed Classification Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone ☐Urban ☐ Suburban ☐Water Supply Suburban ☐Water Supply Rural ☐ Barton Springs Zone ☐ Barton Springs Segment ☐ Northern Edwards Segment ☐ Not in Edwards Aquifer Zones Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone Distance to Nearest Classified Waterway ☐ Yes ☐ No +/- 590 feet to Gilleland Creek (Major) +/- 200 feet to Gilleland Creek Trib (Major) City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 5 22 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 Request Impervious cover Square Footage: 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) Water and Waste Water service to be provided by Austin Water Utility The variance request is as follows (Cite code references: LDC 30-5-342 Fill Requirements (16.5 feet) Existing 4,680 sf 0.107 ac. 0.22% Proposed 1,230,116 sf 28.24 ac. 58.97% The property has slopes that vary from 0% to 15%. The slope breakdown is as follows: 0-15% Slopes ---> 47.888 acres 15-25% Slopes ---> 0 acres 25-35% Slopes ---> 0 acres Over 35% Slopes ---> 0 acres The elevation ranges from a low point of 529.0’ to a high point of 571.0’. The majority of the ground vegetation is typical hill country grasses/prairie/farmland in good condition due to a sparce tree cover. The majority of the existing soils consists of clays rang from Ferris-Heiden Complex, Heiden Clay and Houston Black Clay, (all Class D Hydologic Group) The site has no WQTZ, CEFs, floodplain, heritage trees, or any other notable or outstanding characteristics of the property. The plan complies with all current codes. Clearly indicate in what way the proposed project does not comply with current Code (include maps and exhibits) City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 6 23 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 FINDINGS OF FACT As required in LDC Section 30-5-41, in order to grant a variance, the Land Use Commission must make the following findings of fact. Included below is an explanation alongside each applicable finding of fact. Ordinance: A. 1. 2. Land Use Commission variance determinations from Chapter 30-5-41 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 This area is a manufacturing corridor with two nearby projects that are similar in nature having been granted similar variances: Applied Materials Logistics Service Center (SP-2020-0321C) and Samsung (LI-PDA Ordinance 20201210- 071). 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; Existing site conditions necessitate additional fill for providing the required level fire lane and loading dock areas that require less than 4% grades. A 75 foot gas easement and floodplain provide constraints that must be worked around. Additionally, we are increasing setbacks to a CEF and preserving natural areas. Is the minimum deviation from the code requirement necessary to allow a reasonable use of the property; The site is being graded from the front entrance to cause for the least amount of variance needed as possible. Retaining walls will be constructed to contain fill and reduce additional fill areas. Does not create a significant probability of harmful environmental consequences. No harmful environmental consequences result from the variance. Additionally, conditions are proposed to further protect the environment including increasing a CEF setback to 175’ minimum, preserving natural areas, planting additional trees/landscaping, and revegetation of site. Yes b) Yes c) Yes City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 7 24 of 53B-7June 18, 2021 3. Development with the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance. Yes The development is compliant with current code and will meet all water quality regulations. **Variance approval requires all above affirmative findings. City of Austin | Environmental Commission Variance Application Guide 8 25 of 53B-7June 18, 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 9 26 of 53B-7CROSSROADS LOGISTICS CENTER © 2021 Google © 2021 Google ➤➤ N N 2000 ft 27 of 53B-7November 12, 2020 ECS Southwest, LLP 1 - North-facing view of eastern portion of Subject Property 2 - South-facing view of eastern portion of Subject Property ECS Project #: 2013 28 of 53B-7November 12, 2020 ECS Southwest, LLP 3 - North-facing view of western poriton of Subject Property 4 - South-facing view of western portion of Subject Property ECS Project #: 2013 29 of 53B-7November 12, 2020 ECS Southwest, LLP 5 - View of concrete pad located on western portion of subject proerty 6 - View of wetland CEF located greater than 150 feet form northern property boundary ECS Project #: 2013 30 of 53B-731 of 53B-732 of 53B-7*THIS SHEET IS FOR CUT AND FILL EXHIBIT PURPOSES ONLY. SEE OTHER SHEETS FOR ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITY LINE LOCATIONS. MAXIMUM CUT = 14.3 FEET MAXIMUM FILL = 16.5 FEET T D D FIRE RISER ROOM BUILDING 3 360' x 504' APPROX. 181,440 SF FFE = 553.0' T FIRE RISER ROOM BUILDING 2 360' x 504' APPROX. 181,440 SF FFE = 553.0' D D D D D D D D FIRE RISER ROOM BUILDING 1 240' x 504' APPROX. 120,960 SF FFE = 553.0' T AUSTIN 2-MILE ETJ CITY OF AUSTIN AUSTIN 2-MILE ETJ CITY OF AUSTIN CAUTION!!! CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE ANY/ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY SITE WORK, (BOTH HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY). THE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES TO ANY EXISTING UTILITIES OR FOR ANY CONFLICTS THAT MAY ARISE DUE TO ANY UTILITIES NOT PROPERLY LOCATED. SHEET of 26 84 SP-2021-0015D E C J ) 6 5 7 7 1 - F # . G E R M R F E P I . X T ( 2 - B # . D V L B H C R A E S E R 2 1 8 3 1 0 5 7 8 7 S A X E T , I N T S U A 0 8 8 0 - 4 8 4 ) 7 3 7 ( : I E C F F O . M O C G N E N O S M A J @ O F N I I I C L L G N I R E E N G N E L I V I C N O S I M A J I I T B H X E L L F & T U C I E N A L R E M R A P . E 0 0 4 8 3 5 6 8 7 S A X E T , I N T S U A I I R E T N E C S C T S G O L S D A O R S S O R C \ \ G W D . L L I F T U C \ 1 E S A H P S N A L P G W D R E T N E C S C T S G O L S D A O R S S O R C I I \ - I P H \ : H 33 of 53B-7SITE PLAN NOTES: SITE PLAN RELEASE NOTES: SITE WALL NOTES: T D D FIRE RISER ROOM BUILDING 3 360' x 504' APPROX. 181,440 SF FFE = 553.0' P O N D 1 A F I L T R A T O N I 1 A P O N D I S E D M E N T A T O N I DETENTION POND 1A N O P A R K N G I V A N V A N N O P A R K N G I V A N V A N N O P A R K N G I V A N V A N N O P A R K N G I V A N N A V I G N K R A P O N I G N K R A P O N N A V N A V I G N K R A P O N N A V T FIRE RISER ROOM BUILDING 2 360' x 504' APPROX. 181,440 SF FFE = 553.0' D D D D D D D D FIRE RISER ROOM BUILDING 1 240' x 504' APPROX. 120,960 SF FFE = 553.0' VAN NO PARKING VAN VAN T RAIN GARDEN 1 AUSTIN 2-MILE ETJ CITY OF AUSTIN SEDIMENTATION POND 2A DETENTION POND 2A FILTRATION POND 2A AUSTIN 2-MILE ETJ CITY OF AUSTIN CAUTION!!! CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE ANY/ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY SITE WORK, (BOTH HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY). THE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES TO ANY EXISTING UTILITIES OR FOR ANY CONFLICTS THAT MAY ARISE DUE TO ANY UTILITIES NOT PROPERLY LOCATED. SHEET of 10 84 SP-2021-0015D E C J ) 6 5 7 7 1 - F # . G E R M R F E P I . X T ( 2 - B # . D V L B H C R A E S E R 2 1 8 3 1 0 5 7 8 7 S A X E T , I N T S U A 0 8 8 0 - 4 8 4 ) 7 3 7 ( : I E C F F O . M O C G N E N O S M A J @ O F N I I I C L L G N I R E E N G N E L I V I C N O S I M A J I N A L P E T S L L A R E V O E N A L R E M R A P . E 0 0 4 8 3 5 6 8 7 S A X E T , I N T S U A I I R E T N E C S C T S G O L S D A O R S S O R C I . \ \ \ G W D E T S \ 1 E S A H P S N A L P G W D R E T N E C S C T S G O L S D A O R S S O R C I I - I P H \ : H 34 of 53B-735 of 53B-736 of 53B-737 of 53B-738 of 53B-739 of 53B-740 of 53B-741 of 53B-742 of 53B-7CROSSROADS LOGISTICS CENTER 8400 E PARMER LANE SP-2021-0015D Hank Marley Environmental Review Specialist Senior Development Services Department 1 43 of 53B-7PROPERTY DATA • Gilleland Creek Watershed Crossroads Logistics Center • Suburban Watershed Classification • Desired Development Zone • City of Austin Extra Territorial Jurisdiction • Not located over Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone • Wetland CEF adjacent to site NTS North 2 44 of 53B-7EXISTING CONDITIONS North 3 45 of 53B-7TOPOGRAPHY • The site mostly slopes from north to south. However, the northern portions of the site contain the most elevation drop from west to east. All slopes are less than 15%. High Point NTS North 4 46 of 53B-7VARIANCE REQUEST • To allow cut in excess of four feet and up to 14.3 feet within the Desired Development Zone. (LDC 25-8-341) • To allow fill in excess of four feet and up to 16.5 feet within the Desired Development Zone. (LDC 25-8-342) 5 47 of 53B-7PROPOSED SITE PLAN & GRADING NTS North 6 48 of 53B-7BACKGROUND • • This site offers a reasonable location for large industrial manufacturing warehouses as it is located in the Desired Development Zone along a growing manufacturing corridor, in line with sites such as Tesla and Amazon. In order to facilitate this type of development the truck courts / loading dock areas must have grades of less than 4% for maneuverability and must be fairly level so that when the trucks are parked at the loading docks the trailer elevations sit level with the finish floor elevations of the buildings and can be loaded and unloaded with ease. 7 49 of 53B-7BACKGROUND (CONTINUED) • • • Due to the topography of the site and the size of the proposed buildings (each approximately 4 acres in size), in order to accomplish the operational criteria, cut up to 14.3 feet and fill up to 16.5 feet are necessary. It can be challenging to find property flat enough to prevent the required amount of grading. Therefore, staff is requiring retaining walls to structurally contain the cut and fill and minimize the amount of grading. The project proposes environmental protections such as expanding the wetland CEF setback from 150 feet to 200 feet. It also proposes to provide landscaping and tree replacement & mitigation in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements – something not required by code within the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction. 8 50 of 53B-7SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT • Wetland CEF setback expanded from 150 feet to 200 feet • Retaining walls to structurally contain cut and fill and minimize the amount of grading 200’ CEF setback Retaining Walls NTS North 9 51 of 53B-7Street yard trees, parking lot trees, screening, mitigation inches, etc. SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT • Landscaping and tree replacement / mitigation in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements • Total mitigation inches planted on site is a 194 • Total non-mitigation inches planted on site is 602.5 NTS North 0 1 52 of 53B-7VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that the required findings of fact have been met and recommends the following conditions: • Provide a landscape plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements. • Provide tree replacement & mitigation plan in accordance with City zoning jurisdictional requirements. • Increase the wetland CEF setback from 150 feet to 200 feet. • Provide structural containment of the cut & fill with retaining walls. 1 1 53 of 53B-7