 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|---|
The Webb Estates tract was zoned Rural Residential, with an additional condition requested on behalf of CONA neighborhoods, at the 9 August 2007 City Council meeting. This page provides detailed information about the rezoning of the Webb Estates tract for historical and reference purposes. See the Webb Estates Preliminary Plan page for information about current activities.
Zoning determines appropriate land use, and is supposed to be based upon density, lot size, terrain, environmental conditions, location, surrounding uses, and public infrastructure (not how long you've owned the property or which attorney is representing your interests). The following table shows the differences between the Rural Residential (RR) and Single Family-1 (SF-1) district regulations, and the proposed "hybrid" zoning. The standard lot size in the urban core is 5,750 square feet. The RR zoning district is the only residential zoning district that takes into consideration that the public service capacity requires low density.
The City Staff and the Zoning and Platting Commission (ZAP) have recommended 6 conditions that go along with zoning. See the prior section for why these conditions will not ensure development that is equal or better than if the property were zoned RR.
For permitting and inspection of residential construction, the City reviews only for compliance with the zoning regulations. The environmental regulations are not considered, no Net Site Area calculations are done, and therefore what actually gets built is limited only by the zoning parameters based on the assumption of flat lots. The slope of the terrain still would not be considered if the property is zoned RR, but the 25% total impervious cover limit imposed by the RR zoning would still result in less impervious cover over the recharge and critical watershed areas than the 40% impervious cover allowed for SF-1 zoning.
| Rural Residential (RR) | Single Family-1 (SF-1) | Zoning Proposed for Webb Estates (with Conditional Overlays) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mim Lot Size | 1 acre (43,560 sf) | <1/4 acre (10,000 sf) | minimum 1 acre conditional overlay |
| Min Lot Width | 100 feet | 60 feet | 60 feet |
| Min Setbacks | |||
|
40 feet | 25 feet | 25 feet |
|
25 feet | 15 feet | 15 feet |
|
10 feet | 5 feet | 5 feet |
|
20 feet | 10 feet | 10 feet |
| Max Bldg Coverage | 20% | 40% | 40% |
| Max Impervious Cover per Zoning | 25% | 40% | 40% |
| Trip Generation | 1,670 vehicles/day | 6,474 vehicles/day | 2,000 vehicles/day conditional overlay (unenforceable) |
Terrain and Environmental Conditions. The Webb Estates tract contains steep slopes (slope map). It lies entirely within the Drinking Water Protection Zone, and a large portion is directly over the northern Edward's Aquifer Recharge Zone (map). The applicant's Environmental Assessment report identifies 21 Critical Environmental Features (CEFs), such as a cave, wetlands, sinks, seeps, wells, and waterfalls. The tract also contains the Endangered Species golden-cheek warbler songbird and is located adjacent to existing Balcones Canyonland Preserve land. The Webbs have refused to sell any of their land to BCP at any reasonable cost, and are negotiating with Fish and Wildlife to pay some amount (assessed at the rate of $1,500/acre) to mitigate the taking of endangered species..
Surrounding Uses. The adjacent Westminster Glen and Glenlake neighborhoods are zoned RR. The City of Austin does not have zoning authority over Long Canyon neighborhood on the other side, but it is developed to meet or exceed RR regulations. The Balcones Canyonland Preserve lies along one side of Webb Estates. The lots in the adjacent River Place neighborhood are less than 1 acre, but they have wastewater service (not individual, onsite septic systems).
Public Infrastructure: Webb Estates will have access only to City Park Road. City Park Road is 24 feet wide, with two undivided lanes that wind from RM2222 to Emma Long Metropolitan Park. The City of Austin rates this type of roadway as being safe for carrying 1,200 or less vehicles per day. The last available traffic count for City Park Road near RM2222 was 5,037 vehicles in 2005. The narrow, undivided roadway would be extremely costly to upgrade as it winds through steep bluffs and cliffs, waterways, and preserve land.
The area near Webb Estates tract is designated as High and Severe risk for wildfire (wildfire risk map), and it's imperative that all development in the area be low-density so it does not worsen the situation for evacuating residents or receiving assistance from outside services in the event of an emergency. Due to the area topography and distance to a hospital, most medical emergencies are responded to by the costly helicopter-based StarFlight service. There are no services such as fire, ambulance, police, water/wastewater, trash/recycling collection, or animal control provided to this area by the City of Austin.
The Webb Estates subdivision will be served by individual, onsite septic systems (no wastewater service). The Texas Administrative Code requires that homes served by onsite septic systems be on a minimum of 1 acre lots, which coincides with the Rural Residential district designation. The River Place MUD has committed to providing potable water, and it is unclear whether the additional service to Webb Estates will affect the already sub-standard service that Glenlake and Westminster Glen residents currently receive.
Development of the Webb Estates tract is subject to Title 30 of the Austin Land Development Code. Complying with the watershed and other environmental regulations would be more stringent than complying with the Rural Residential zoning district regulations. The two Conditional Overlays that propose compliance with the Bull Creek and Lake Austin Watershed Ordinances are not applied to residential development. For single-family residential development the watershed regulations assume 5,000 square feet of impervious cover for a 1-acre lot. This is the assumption that CONA wanted to formalize with a provision in the Public Restrictive Covenant that impervious cover will be limited to 5,000 square feet per lot. The applicant agreed to this in the 21 June meeting.
The draft Ordinance for rezoning the Webb Estates that we received from Staff on 19 July proposed 7 conditions. Below is a summary of each and why they would be unnecessary if the property were zoned RR and why they will be insufficient for ensuring that the Webb Estates tract is developed appropriately for the conditions of the property and the area.
Negotiation Details
21 June: Representatives from Webb Estates, 2222CONA neighborhoods, and City Staff met at City Hall prior to the 4pm meeting to discuss whether we could support the SF-1 zoning with additional restrictions or terms that would be legally binding in a Public Restrictive Covenant. At this meeting the applicant agreed to the following terms. The Webb Estates attorney was to prepare a draft of the terms within 1 week.
5 July: First draft of Restrictive Covenant was received from Webb Estates attorney. They addressed some of the agreed terms in the email transmitting the draft, but the RC is very incomplete.
12 July: CONA provided comments on the first draft of the Restrictive Covenant.
24 July: CONA met with Webb Estates attorneys to discuss the draft RC and comments. They proposed using a different methodology for calculating impervious cover allowed on each lot.
26 July: The Webb Estates attorneys provided a 2nd draft RC and a table showing the IC per lot that would be allowed according to the proposed methodology. The engineer who developed this table would not meet or return phone calls to discuss the methodology.
3 August: CONA responded to the 2nd draft RC with these comments.
7 August: We received a third draft RC and CONA met with Webb Estates attorneys in attempt to finalize an agreement. The main issue remaining is the amount of IC to be allowed, and Mr. Joseph stated in this meeting that if they were willing to comply with the watershed regulations, they wouldn't need more than RR zoning. We could not agree to circumvent the watershed regulations with the IC allowed by the SF-1 zoning and he abruptly ended the negotiations..
8 August: The applicant submitted a letter from the Rumaners in Westminster Glen requesting that their name be removed from the petition. The Rumaners struck a private deal with the Webb Estates. The defection by the Rudamers represented 2.24% of the eligible boundary, which invalidated the petition to 19.85%.
We had a productive afternoon at City Hall meeting with policy aides and council members. At 6:30pm today the CONA project lead received a call from Dowe Gullatt of Clark, Thomas, Winters (attorneys for Webb Estates) that they will be changing their rezoning request to RR, with one additional condition to provide a 15 foot vegetated buffer between the northern roadway and the adjacent China Garden homeowners in River Place. (Roadways are not subject to the 20 foot rear yard setback of the RR regulations, and this buffer will help improve safety and compatibility for the adjacent residents). We need to see this reflected in an ordinance by noon tomorrow, but we are cautiously optimistic that will happen. We will update the 2222cona.org site as soon as we have confirmation that the RR request is official and that the condition addresses the roadway issue. Please continue to be available to attend the City Council meeting, but check this web site before you go downtown...
9 August: The WGHOA President proved that she had authority to sign for the WGHOA lot at the entrance, which allowed that petition to be counted and reinstated the Valid Petition status at 20.3%. The attorneys representing 2222CONA and the Webb Estates negotiated the language of the additional roadway setback condition, and at approximately 3:45pm on Thursday both parties agreed to put the case on the consent agenda (no discussion) with the agreeable Rural Residential zoning and additional condition.
Actions We Took:
Super majority Vote Is Required: Thanks to an almost 100% participation of Westminster Glen residents in signing the petition, we have a Valid Petition! The City continues to refuse to recognize all the property owners in River Place who signed the petition, but all residents can have a voice in the public hearing!!!.With the Valid Petition there must be a super majority (6-1) vote of the council on 3rd reading of the Ordinance to approve the rezoning request.
Development Process Status:
Rezoning case heard by ZAP on 15 May (4-3 vote with additional CO of max 76 houses).
Rezoning case heard by City Council on 9 August 2007, passing 7-0 on the consent agenda. Here's the Final Zoning Ordinance .
Preliminary Plan: see the current Webb Estates project page to follow progress of the Preliminary Plan.
| Document (opens in separate window) |
Description/Comment | Original Source |
|---|---|---|
| notice of rezoning | notice is sent to adjacent property owners and registered neighborhood contacts | City of Austin |
| Petition for Rezoning to RR | property owners within 300 feet of the subject boundary are eligible to sign | residents in Westminster Glen |
| Slope map of tract | ||
| Topographic map of tract | overlay is not to precise scale | Google Earth/CofA GIS |
| Watershed Boundaries for tract | the tract contributes to both the Lake Austin and the Bull Creek watersheds (both are Drinking Water Protection Zone watersheds) | CofA GIS |
| River Place MUD Water Commitment City Council Approval of RPMUD Service Map for RPMUD Service Application |
RPMUD originally requested to annex Webb Estates and provide water and wastewater service. CofA denied this due to difficulties of providing other services to Webb Estates with no access from River Place when CofA takes over the RPMUD. So they refiled a request for only water service on an Out of District basis, which was approved. A contractual agreement between Webb Estates and RPMUD regarding the financial and construction details has not yet been executed. | Austin Energy City Council Transcript |
| Staff Report for 26 July City Council hearing Staff Report for 9 August City Council hearing |
City Council Agenda backup | |
| draft Public Restrictive Covenant | the terms that were verbally agreed to on 21 June were not accurately reflected in the Public Restrictive Covenant | City Attorney |
| several iterations of the rezoning ordinance | City Attorney Office of the City Clerk |
