Tag Archives: OakCreekVillage

About the redevelopment in the SouthEastern end of our the Neighborhood

Oak Creek Village – Zoning Case Summary

*This blog contains information that has appeared in earlier blog posts on this website.  

In January 2013, myself and Chad Kimbell, BCNA Zoning Chair, met with the attorney  (John Donisi) and the affordable housing consultant (Sarah Andre) representing the owner of Oak Creek Village, Rene Campos.   John and Sarah presented the preliminary plans to redevelop 2324 Wilson Street.  The property had housed 170 Section 8 affordable housing units since the early 1970s and, under their existing zoning, they could build up to (approximately) 325 units.  We were told Mr. Campos wanted to develop the site into a mixed income property, with 173 affordable housing units and 470 market rate units, for a total of 580 units.   Chad and I stated, during this meeting, that the proposed increase in density, more than 3 times the current density, was unacceptable to BCNA and we would not support their zoning application.

As the days and months ticked away, Oak Creek Village did not reduce their proposed density yet the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) wanted to hear from BCNA in regard to a potential $18 million tax credit for Mr. Campos.   TDHCA gives out tax credit incentives for developers to build affordable housing properties and, in our case, BCNA was asked if the plans for Oak Creek Village “met the needs of the community.”

BCNA held several public meetings and we determined that redeveloping the affordable housing units at Oak Creek Village met the needs of current Oak Creek Village tenants and aligned with Bouldin Creek’s Neighborhood Plan.   However, BCNA remained concerned about the increase in density, as well as the height of the buildings, vehicle access and pedestrian safety and we communicated these concerns to Mr. Campos’ team, along with other development requests to consider.

On June 28, 2013, Mr. Campos and BCNA reached an agreement that reduced the total unit density of the property and included other negotiated terms.   Below is a summary of the negotiated terms and how the term is legally binding.   Even though BCNA accepted these terms, we did not ‘Support’ the zoning application for Oak Creek Village.   Instead, BCNA Steering Committee voted to remain “Not Opposed” to their zoning application.

Private Restrictive Covenant between BCNA and 2007 Travis Heights LLP (Rene Campos):

  1. 173 Affordable Housing units are guaranteed to remain in place for 35 years 
  2. $30,000 of funding to be utilized by BCNA for traffic calming or sidewalk improvements within reasonable proximity of the 2324 Wilson Street
  3. 1500 square feet of Community Room space will be made available for use by BCNA for 35 years
  4. Property will comply with the outdoor and exterior lighting standards the City of Westlake Hills
  5. Parking and vehicular access to Wilson Street is limited to a single driveway serving a 36-space surface parking lot.
  6. BCNA shall be a stakeholder and included in discussions regarding on-site security security
  7. BCNA shall be a stakeholder and included in discussions regarding on-site property management, youth programming and senior programming, consistent with the terms executed between the Oak Creek Village Tenants Association and Rene Campos.

City of Austin Conditional Overlay for 2324 Wilson Street:

  1. Maximum number of units, 486
  2. Maximum building height, 60′
  3. Vehicular access to the property’s internal driveways will be from Oltorf and S. 1st Streets

Once the Private Restrictive Covenant is recorded with Travis County, BCNA will post the original to the website.


Proposed Terms and Info on Planning Commission for 2324 Wilson Street

Good evening neighbors,


The zoning application for 2324 Wilson Street to upzone to MF-6 is currently scheduled to be heard at Planning Commission tomorrow evening (meeting begins at 6pm).   However, the status of this case is ‘pending’ because City staff have not completed their end.   There is a small chance that this case will be postponed by City staff if they don’t get their analyses in and if that happens, a BCNA officer will send out a notification of the change.


For now, Kevin, Chad and I are planning to go to Planning Commission tomorrow evening.   We have sent the Developer (used to be called Eureka Holdings but now its 2007 Travis Heights LLP) the proposed terms below and we are meeting with them tomorrow in the late afternoon.    Currently our negotiations are on-going and hence, BCNA cannot take a position until negotiating terms are voted on by the BCNA Steering Committee, and then finalized in the appropriate legal documents.


It is important that we follow our by-laws and convene a Steering Committee meeting to discuss and vote on the terms before we finalize any legal documents.     That means that even if all goes well tomorrow afternoon with the Developer, BCNA will not be ready to communicate our position on the zoning case until after the SC convenes.   We believe BCNA will be ready to articulate our full position by June 5th, after the SC convenes and after we’ve had some time to write up our position.


We are also not sure when the case will go to City Council and assume it could be June 6th.  We also assume all three readings won’t be done on June 6th so that means additional Council meetings will be necessary before Council can vote on the zoning.   This means we will likely be able to discuss the zoning case, along with feedback from the Developer on the proposed terms, at our GA meeting on Tuesday, June 11th.    If you are interested in participating on June 11th and have not registered to be a voting BCNA member for 2013, please email Ronnie Dittmar before Friday  at   rdittmar@gmail.com 


The table below as well as the text from this email will be posted on the website shortly … so if you know someone who is not on the Yahoo group list but wants the info, please direct them to the website.


If you are interested as a Bouldin resident to give testimony to Planning Commission on your thoughts, opinions, concerns or support of this zoning case, we encourage you to register to speak at either Planning Commission tomorrow night (be there before 6pm to register) OR send an email to Lee Heckman, the zoning case manager, before 12pm noon  Lee.Heckman@austintexas.gov .


You can do the same, in terms of email or speaking (or both) to City Council, but its probably best to wait until the zoning case has a firm spot on an upcoming City Council Agenda.   Again, once we know about when this case is scheduled to go to Council, you’ll be seeing a notice pop up on the Yahoo Group.


Thanks to everyone who has been engaged in the neighborhood and City public process.  We have not all agreed but we have adhered to a civil and civic process where we have held substantive discussions and debates over the last six plus months.   I am very proud to be President of an organization with active, intellectual, respectful, and articulate members, and the fact that we are neighbors makes the experience exceptional.


Zoning Standards
Line Standard Current MF-3 Zoning Initial Proposed Standard Proposed NegotiatedTerm
1 Unit Density 325 580 486
2 Maximum Height 40 feet 60 feet 60 feet
3 Maximum Building Coverage 55% 60% 60%
4 Maximum Impervious Cover 65% 70% 70%
5 Minimum Front Yard Setbacks 25 feet 15 feet 25 feet
6 Minimum Interior Side Yard Setbacks 5 feet 15 feet/ 5 feet 15 feet/ 5 feet
7 Minimum Rear Yard Setbacks 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
8 Compatibility Compliance required Compliance required Compliance required
9 Floor-to-Area Ratio 0.75:1 Unlimited Unlimited
Increase in Entitlements
Line Item Current   Proposed   Proposed Term
10 Affordable Housing Units 170 173 173
11 Affordable Housing time period Expires November 2013 35 years from date of  certificate of occupancy 40 years from date of certificate of occupancy
12 Primary Vehicular Access Wilson Street Oltorf St. and/or S. 1st Streets Oltorf St. and/or S. 1st Streets
13 Leasing Office Parking Lot Access Wilson Street Wilson Street Durwood Lane
14 On-Site Parking Current parking is not screened from view Screened from view;  No off-site parking allowed; No Variance to reduce parking Screened from viewNo off-site parking allowed

No Variance to reduce parking

15 Relocation Plan for existing tenants None Plan that meets Federal and City requirementsPlan filed with COA as condition of release of site plan Plan that meets Federal and City requirementsPlan filed with COA as condition of release of site plan
Traffic Calming & Pedestrian/Cyclist Safety
Line Item Proposed Term
16 Local Area Traffic Management Fund traffic calming devices including but not limited to Wilson St, Fletcher St., Live Oak St., Forest Ave, Euclid Ave. in the amount of $150,000.  Limit total traffic to Wilson Street driveways to 200 trips per day.
17 Sidewalks Build Wilson St.sidewalk between Oltorf and Live Oak – 200 ft.Provide $120,000 to fund filling existing gaps on nearby streets:

Wilson St. – 200 ft.

Fletcher St. – 430 ft.

Forest Ave. – 500 ft.


Responsible Growth and Environmental Protection
Line Item Proposed Term
21 Water Quality 50% of water quality requirements provided by using green infrastructure (i.e. Rain gardens) as defined in Section 1.6.7 of COA Environmental Criteria Manual.  No variances to City of Austin code for stormwater detention
22 Lighting Management “Westlake standards” for limiting light pollution
23 Energy Efficiency Austin Energy Green Building Two Star
24 Landscaping Use of native plants and xeriscape and street trees on Wilson Street (Subchapter E design)
25 Pest Management Integrated Pest Management
26 Utility Capacity Upgrades Developer agrees to pay costs of any needed onsite or offsite infrastructure or utility capacity upgrades including water, wastewater, electrical without waivers or any city cost participation or rebates
27 Property Cohesiveness Promote a cohesive development feel between the affordable and market rate phases by limiting fencing between phases and having the same architectural standards for both phases
Parkland and Public Open Spaces
Line Item Proposed Term
28 Parkland Meet all City of Austin parkland dedication ordinance requirements including fee-in-lieu of $650 per unit, totaling approximately $316,000
29 Public Open Spaces Provide onsite public open spaces with no waivers to open space requirements
Safety and Security for Community
Line Item Proposed Term
30 Austin Police Department (APD) Property management should work with APD to ensure best practices for community policing, including enforcement of tow-away zones and prevention of illegal activity
Services, Safety and Security In Support of Oak Creek Village Residents
Line Item Proposed by Oak Creek Village Tenants Association (OCVTA)
31 Community Room(s) Provide on-site indoor common meeting areas and space  to be used for social, educational and community programs
32 Safety and Security Security service with personnel on the property should be conducted no less than 5 days a week, specifically on Wednesday to Sunday, and no less than 25 hours a week, specifically starting from 8:00pm to 3:00am
33 On-Site Property Management Provide on an ongoing basis will provide security personnel or contract with security service providers.  In the event security personnel or contract providers are terminated, no more than one week lapses between service providers and no more than 3 lapses in a year


Current Proposed Zoning Terms (Legalese) for 2324 Wilson Street

In an effort to keep all apprised who are not on the BCNA Yahoo Group email list, I will try to copy and paste questions with answers that occur through the Yahoo email list in regard to the zoning application for 2324 Wilson Street, Oak Creek Village Apartments.

The terms below will be reviewed and discussed in a public forum on Monday evening, May 20th at St. Ignatius Church Annex.

Re: BCNA SPECIAL MEETING — Monday, May 20th, 7pm

Thu May 16, 2013 5:48 am (PDT) . Posted by:

“Troy Madres” troy_madres

I know this has may have been discussed in an earlier thread, but can someone tell me what zoning standards are being sought for the property by Eureka?

Sent from my iPad

Thu May 16, 2013 7:23 am (PDT) . Posted by:

“Chad Kimbell” chad.kimbell

The following items have been proposed by Eureka.  I hope anyone with an interest please come to the meeting on Monday.

They have requested MF-6-CO-NP (Multi-Family- 6 Conditional Overlay Neighborhood Plan) zoning with the following conditions:

A.        Maximum
Height shall be 60 feet.
B.        Minimum
Front Yard Setbacks shall be 15 feet.
C.        Minimum
Street Side Yard Setbacks shall be 15 feet.
D.        Minimum
Interior Side Yard Setbacks shall be 5 feet.
E.        Minimum
Rear Yard Setbacks shall be 10 feet.
F.        Maximum
Building Coverage shall be 60%.
G.       Maximum
Impervious Cover shall be 70%.
H.       The
maximum number of residential units on the Property shall be 486.

They have also proposed a public restrictive covenant which states:

a) Primary
vehicular access to the Property and Project must be to Oltorf Street and/or
South First Streets.  No vehicular access
from Wilson Street shall connect to any internal circulation driveway or
roadway within the Property that allows ingress or egress to either Oltorf
Street or South First Street;

b) All required
parking shall be provided on-site.  Parking shall be underground, below grade, or screened from view from
neighboring properties, except where indicated on the attached Exhibit
___.  No Off-Site Parking, as referenced
in §25-6-501 of the City of Austin Code, shall be allowed;

c) A relocation
plan for existing tenants, meeting all Federal and City requirements, shall be
filed with the City of Austin as a condition of release of site plan.

And they have proposed a private restrictive covenant to agree to the following:

1.1              Affordable Housing Required.  If the Property is redeveloped in any manner
utilizing zoning entitlements exceeding that of multifamily residence medium
density (MF-3) (the “Project”), or any regulations available under a zoning
category less restrictive than multifamily residence medium density (MF-3), the
Project shall incorporate a 170 unit affordable component on-site at the same
affordability levels and unit mix (bedroom type) as that existing on-site as of
January 1, 2013.  An additional three (3)
affordable units, one bedroom in size, shall also be provided, with rents of no
greater than 60% of Median Family Income for the area as determined by the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.    All
affordable housing shall be guaranteed to remain in place by binding legal
instruments for a minimum period of 35 years.

1.2       Traffic Calming/Sidewalk Infrastructure.  If the Property is redeveloped in any manner utilizing
zoning entitlements exceeding that of multifamily residence medium density
(MF-3) (the “Project”), or any regulations available under a zoning category
less restrictive than multifamily residence medium density (MF-3), the Owner
shall provide $______ of funding one time to be utilized by the Bouldin Creek
Neighborhood Association (“BCNA”) for traffic calming or sidewalk improvements
within reasonable proximity to the Property, to be determined at the sole
discretion of BCNA.  Funding shall be
provided prior to the release of a Site Development Permit for the Project.

1.3       Use of Community Rooms.   If the Property is redeveloped in any manner
utilizing zoning entitlements exceeding that of multifamily residence medium density
(MF-3) (the “Project”), or any regulations available under a zoning category
less restrictive than multifamily residence medium density (MF-3), the Owner
shall make available the use of any community room within the Project for BCNA
or other area non-profit organizations.

Chad Kimbell
Zoning Chair

Steering Committee to Vote on Oak Creek Village Proposal

Yesterday, about 40 Bouldin Creek residents attended a forum held at St. Ignatius Church where they voiced their support, concern and questions regarding the proposed development of 2324 Wilson Street (Oak Creek Village Apartments).  Eureka Holdings, the property owner of Oak Creek Village since 2007, was represented by Austin-based Sarah Andre (affordable housing consultant), John Donisi (attorney for pending zoning application), and the architect (can’t remember his name — sorry).   Eureka Holdings is based in Dallas and Jimmy Arnold, the current property manager and Mark Rogers, Eureka’s project consultant, made the 200 mile trek to Austin.

Austin City Council Members Laura Morrison and Kathie Tovo were present, as was Mayor Pro Tem Sheryl Cole’s policy aide Greg Anderson, to hear the viewpoint of Bouldin residents as Council will be deciding the property’s up-zone application sometime in the next few months.

The intent of the forum was to garner resident’s feedback regarding the proposed development to rebuild 173 Section 8 afffordable housing units plus an additional 408 market-rate units.  There was immense support to rebuild the Section 8 units; however, a majority of the attendees were adamant in their opposition to the proposed total density of 581 units.  The BCNA Steering Committee will be voting this week on whether to support Eureka Holdings’ proposal, as requested by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA).  Eureka has to submit their TDHCA application for $2 million dollars in annual tax credits by March 1st and that is our deadline as well.   The letter will state our position on whether we believe the proposed project “meets the community’s needs.”

2324 Wilson street is located within the Lavender Zone of the Bouldin Creek neighborhood and the meeting could not have happened without the extraordinary efforts of Suzie Harriman, BCNA’s new Lavender Zone representative.   Suzie coordinated the meeting with St. Ignatius Church and lead the endeavor to distribute over 400 flyers to Lavender Zone residents.  She also went door-to-door, with Paula Kothman (our Yellow Zone rep) at the Oak Creek Village complex delivering flyers and encouraging residents to come to the meeting.

The specifics of the proposal are outlined in these documents, given to us last week by John Donisi:

Eureka Oak Creek Term Sheet (2) Revised




Kevin Lewis, BCNA VP of Neighborhood Issues, pulled together a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).  Sarah Andre answered the FAQs and it is posted as a separate blog post on this web-site.  Below is the document, in case you would like to download it:

Oak Creek Village FAQs for Circulation 02.12.13

The BCNA Steering Committee will be voting on whether to support Eureka Holdings’ application by this Thursday, February 28th.   If you would like voice your feedback on this project, please send an email to Cyndi Collen, BCNA President — prez@bouldincreek.org   OR   Kevin Lewis, BCNA VP Neighborhood Affairs — klewis@wholeearthprovision.com.


FAQs for Oak Creek Village Proposed Development (2324 Wilson Street)

 Oak Creek Village FAQs

v. 1.2


I.  General Questions

  1. How many people currently live in the 170 units? 

As of December 31, 2012, the property was 98% occupied (2 vacant units out of 170 units). According to Management staff, approximately 638 adults live at Oak Creek Village. 


  1. How have residents been informed of the project?

All residents received a letter about the proposed changes.  A neighborhood meeting to answer general questions will be held on February 13 at 6 pm. Residents have access to two on-site managers and a hotline operated by Southwest Housing Compliance Corporation (a subsidiary of the Austin Housing Authority) for questions.


  1. What community benefits is the developer willing to commit to?  

Since Oak Creek has been affordable for so long, the applicant is free to redevelop it as an entirely market rate property of 328 units. However, we are interested in keeping the affordable units open.  While maintaining our goals of affordability, and keeping the existing neighborhood in mind, it would be better to redevelop in the way we are asking because it would

1) Shift the nature of the development by making it mixed-income

2) Increase the standard of living for those living in affordable housing

3) Make sure that the neighborhood grows responsibly


We’re concerned about the impact that increased traffic might have, so we are proposing to create driveway entrances on Oltorf/Durwood and/or South 1st Street, to keep traffic on main thoroughfares and out of the neighborhood.


4. What process would ensure that current residents of the affordable units to return to the new affordable units post-construction?

We will be following both federal and state rules that charge us with helping residents find temporary homes and most of the new costs they might incur. This includes utility deposits/hookups, moving costs, and any increase in rent due to their temporary relocation. While we want to return residents to their homes as soon as possible, we’re expecting to relocate residents for up to 12 months.


5. How many residents might be realistically projected to successfully return?

The relocation efforts I (Sarah Andre, project consultant) have been involved in have resulted in the vast majority of residents remaining at the project, often more than 90%. However, between people changing their minds, natural turn over, and a longer time away from the original property, some residents will choose to remain in their new homes. All residents in good standing (timely rent payments and behavior, i.e. no criminal history) will be given a priority to return to the property. Any vacant units remaining after all current residents have moved in will be rented to income-qualified tenants on a first-come, first-served basis.


6. What enforcement is done by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs?

TDHCA monitors projects throughout the construction period and annually for a period of 35 years. The owner will be required to submit reports on construction, relocation and lease-up and will undergo physical inspections of both the site and the tenant files. If an owner is found to be out of compliance and does not remedy issues in a timely manner they risk losing the tax credits (and therefore cash) and being banned from the tax credit program.


II.  Proposed Zoning Changes

1. Why are you interested in changing the zoning to MF-6 with a Conditional Overlay?  

We’ve included extensive details of the zoning change in individual questions below, but in general, the MF-6 zoning lets us build the building that we think makes the most sense. The conditional overlay means that we aren’t interested in building anything excessive. We’re asking for a zoning change from MF-3 to MF-6 for a few reasons.


We’re looking to go from 40 feet tall to 60 feet tall in a few places in the development. These increases would be kept away from Wilson Street and kept down-slope from the neighborhood.  The rezoning to MF-6 would permit 90 feet, but we’re not interested in building that high and we’re asking for a Conditional Overlay to keep us to 60 feet. Other parts of MF-6 that we’re not interested in are the changes to impervious cover or set back entitlements.


Additionally, compatibility requirements limit heights along both the northern end of the site and in the southeast corner of the site. We’re not asking for a variance on these requirements.


If the zoning changes to MF-6, the City would be working towards the Imagine Austin plan by preserving existing affordable housing and directing density to an appropriate site.  The proposed change is also consistent with BCNA objectives as articulated in Neighborhood Plan.


2. Under the proposed MF-6 zoning: 

  1. What is the maximum number of dwelling units we would be permitted to build?


  1. How many units would be affordable/subsidized?


  1. How many units would be market rate?


  1. What is the anticipated mix of unit sizes (i.e. # of bedrooms & avg sq ft)?

The affordable portion of the site will retain the existing unit mix – 170 units configured as shown on the chart below.

Phase I – Affordable Unit Mix


Unit Type Square Feet Number of Units Projected Monthly Rent
1 bedroom 719 48 $705
2 bedroom 1,037 58 $788-$803
3 bedroom 1,382 48 $853-$917
4 bedroom 1,503 16 $937-$1,007



The Market Rate phase of the development would be mostly one- and two- bedroom units, with a few three-bedroom units. We’re still working on blueprints, but unless the site limits the sizes, they will most likely be the same as the affordable units.


  1. How many people do they anticipate residing on site at max occupancy?

We’re still working on the plans for the property. We typically estimate an average of 2 residents per unit, which would mean 820 residents on the market portion of the site and 340 on the affordable for a total of 1,160. Tax credit properties usually estimate 1.5 people per bedroom. This would result in 558 at the affordable site and then a varying amount at the market rate units. Again, we’re working on the market rate plans but we’ve included a few potential scenarios here.

Market Rate Units – Scenario 1


Unit Type Number of Units Average number of Occupants Per Bedroom Total Possible Residents
1 bedroom 185 1 185
2 bedroom 184 2 368
3 bedroom 41 3 123



With an average of 2 persons per unit, we would have 810 occupants. With an average of 1.5 persons per bedroom we would have 1,014.


Market Rate Units – Scenario 2


Unit Type Number of Units Average number of Occupants Per Bedroom Total Possible Residents
1 bedroom 200 1 200
2 bedroom 189 2 378
3 bedroom 21 3 63



Under this scenario, with an average of 2 persons per unit, we would have 810 occupants. With an average of 1.5 persons per bedroom we would have 962 occupants.


3. What is the increase in density they’re proposing?

There are few ways that we consider what density looks like in housing: units/acre, the floor to area ratio (FAR), and impervious cover.

  • As-built, the current units/acre is 19.2, but the current zoning allows about 36 units per acre and we’re looking to increase that to 65.6.
  • The Floor to Area Ratio – the ratio of indoor air-conditioned space to the site’s total square footage – is currently .408, it could be .75 under MF-3 (current zoning), and we’re working on what the FAR would look like for our proposal, but our focus is on the unit mix and our site plan.
  • Currently 62% of the development is impervious cover. A rezoning to MF-6 would permit 80% impervious cover, but we’re adding a Conditional Overlay so that we’re only asking for 70%.


4. What is the increase in maximum height allowance they want? What would that look like to the adjacent properties?

We’re asking for a zoning change from MF-3 to MF-6 for a few reasons. We’re looking to go from 40 feet tall to 60 feet tall in a few places in the development. These increases would be kept away from Wilson Street and kept down slope from the neighborhood.  The rezoning of MF-6 would permit 90 feet, but we’re not interested in building that high and we’re asking for a Conditional Overlay to keep us to 60 feet  Additionally, compatibility requirements limit heights along both the northern end of the site and in the southeast corner of the site. We’re not asking for a variance on these requirements.


5. Would any variances to standard city requirements be requested relating to impervious cover, setbacks to adjacent properties, parking, or any other features? If so, what variances, how many, and what impacts would that have?

We are not interested in any variances. To utilize the increase in entitlements from MF-3 development standards, all required parking shall be provided on-site, and no variance shall be sought or granted for reduction in required parking.  Parking shall be screened from view from neighboring properties and/or underground, except where indicated on the site plan.  No off-site parking shall be allowed.  In addition, we’re interested in working with tenants and BCNA to actively discourage on-street parking along Wilson and other neighborhood streets.


6. What is an example of another existing multi-family building in Austin with a similar density, height and size for comparison?

Similar developments include M-Station, an affordable apartment complex built at the MLK Station next to the rail road tracks, Wildflower Terrace, a 4-story development in Mueller, which is also a property with an affordable/market mix. There are a few “urban-infill” projects along South Congress and South Lamar, although they are more dense than what is proposed for Oak Creek.




III.  Vehicle Trips and Traffic Flow

  1. What are the projected effects to vehicle trips/traffic flow? How many trips per day are generated by the current units?

We have started a Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed site and there will be traffic counts for Wilson Street available in approximately two weeks.


  1. How many parking spaces onsite do they have now?

There are 330 parking spaces on site.


  1. What will the new development look like with a MF-6 zoning? 
  1. How many vehicles associated with the current homes are estimated to park on streets in the neighborhood?

A traffic count is underway and we will have this information in about two weeks. However, we look forward to working with you on a way to maintain the current neighborhood.


  1. How many parking spaces do they plan to have?

There will be 285 spaces on the affordable portion of the site, with more parking as needed for the market rate units.


  1. Where do they plan driveways?

We’re planning driveways on Oltorf or South First Street. In the ideal, the Wilson driveway would remain at the southernmost part of the site for access to the development’s leasing office and the northern access to Wilson would be for emergency access only.  If the project remains as-is or becomes a 328-unit market-rate development with no zoning change, the driveways will stay where they currently are.


  1. What would be the advertised addresses?

The address would remain 2324 Wilson Street.


  1. Could they limit most vehicle access to Durwood/Oltorf and/or South 1st Street?

Yes. Limiting vehicles to Durwood/Oltorf and/or South 1st Street is possible, if a complete redevelopment takes place.


  1. What max number of trips-per-day limit would developer commit to for access via Wilson Street?

Until a Traffic Impact Analysis is complete, including traffic counts, we do not know what our options for limiting traffic on Wilson is. We need an engineer’s analysis of the ability to enter and exit off of Oltorf/Durwood and/or South 1st Street before committing to changing the access.




IV.  Environmental Protection

1. How would storm water runoff and retention, and water quality be engineered? How would the development interact with the creek area?

We are in the feasibility phase of the engineering work, but we anticipate using a detention pond to filter runoff before it enters the City’s system. In the proposed scenario, less rain water would run off into the creek than currently does.


2. What would be the obligations under the city’s Park Land Development program, or fee-in-lieu for parks facilities?

The applicant would be subject to the City’s parkland dedication fee-in-lieu requirements, which would assess a fee of $650 per residential unit, or approximately $266,000.00.


3. What infrastructure costs in terms of water/sewer/electrical capacity would be generated by the increased development? How would the developer propose to bear these costs so they are not imposed on existing city residents?

We are in the process of obtaining an engineering feasibility report and cost estimates that will tell us if there are off site costs such as utility work. Typically the developer, not the city, pays for any required upgrades.