Floodplain variance case fails at Environmental Commission over process concerns

Two proposed drainage variances for a property in the West Bouldin Creek Watershed failed to win a recommendation from the Environmental Commission last week after a prolonged process disagreement between city staff and the applicant.

Commissioners voted to recommend City Council deny the variances after raising concerns about approving variances before staffers have fully vetted a consolidated site plan, and getting in the middle of a disagreement between staff and the applicant.

The property, at 1800½ Evergreen Ave., is almost completely within a 100-year floodplain, which presents development challenges. It’s a mostly undeveloped tract with a naturally aligned drainage creek along the southern boundary of the site with a critical water quality zone, a wetland critical environmental feature along the creek, and a rimrock critical environmental feature across Evergreen Avenue.

The variance application had requested a floodplain modification for development within the critical water quality zone, as well as to reduce the critical environmental feature setback to 50 feet and allow construction within the reduced setback.

Staffers informed commissioners that they did not have enough information from the applicant to recommend the variances. The applicant would have to complete a consolidated site plan in order to meet variance guidelines.

Applicant representative Robert Kleeman said the property owner wants to develop a mixed-use, multifamily development on the property. He denied that the applicant hadn’t produced sufficient information regarding the proposal, noting that the initial application was submitted in 2016 as a subdivision application. Staff told them to complete a site plan, but the applicant inadvertently turned in the wrong type. Staff returned the request and informed them they would need a consolidated site plan.

“We are now on our sixth year of applications and going through this process,” Kleeman said. “It is pretty astounding at this point to hear staff saying there’s no information been provided to them.”

He continued: “I ask for your assistance to have the foresight to see the forest for the trees, and understand that there are other issues here rather than whether or not there’s enough trees planted in the restoration plan or not, but that there are flooding issues and there are housing issues that also have to be addressed. And I think there are sufficient community benefits to justify your recommendation.”

Liz Johnston, deputy environmental officer, acknowledged that staff turnover may have contributed to the confusion. She described the issue as “a bit of a chicken or the egg thing” in that the applicant knew there would be an issue due to the floodplain, so they wanted to apply for a floodplain modification up front. But the initial application was for a subdivision.

“The details necessary for that floodplain modification do not lend themselves to a subdivision review. We need details,” Johnston said.

Then the site plan was submitted, she explained, but there was no project proposed. Staff members need a project with specific parameters in order to determine if the project meets city standards for a variance. “Is it the minimum departure?” Johnston said. “Are you modifying the floodplain to maximize development? Where are the trees that are being preserved, where are the erosion controls, what kind of water quality treatment are you going to provide, etc.”

Johnston said the applicant could submit the consolidated site plan and have a subdivision reviewed concurrently so that once the site plan variances are approved, the subdivision can be platted.

“There is a process to do that,” Johnston said. “It’s just that the applicant did not want to follow that process.”

Ric Thompson of Thompson Land Engineering, who is working for the applicant on the project, explained that the issue is the current floodplain leaves just a “small rectangle” on the property for development. Thompson said the applicant could easily spend $80,000 or more on a site plan and city fees for a project that may ultimately not win a floodplain variance.

Commissioners considered a motion that would have delayed the case for 45 days in order to give staff and the applicant more time to consider the feasibility of a potential project winning a floodplain variance. However, the motion failed. A second motion to recommend City Council deny the requests passed. The case will now move to the Zoning and Platting Commission.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.

Posted In: Environment, District 9