Environmental Commission recommends variances for Flats 130 site plan near Decker Lake

Environmental Commission members on April 16 recommended that city staff grant multiple variances for the Flats 130 site plan (SP-2024-0298D), a proposed 396-unit, 10-building multifamily development on Zeckelman Boulevard just downhill of Decker Lake in the Decker Creek watershed.

The recommendation, made during a public hearing at the Permitting and Development Center and read into the record by staff, asked that variances for increased cut (up to 11 feet), increased fill (up to 16 feet), and limited building and parking on steep slopes be granted with environmental conditions attached. City staff and the applicant described the site as in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) with critical water-quality zones and wetlands on the property, and as constrained by floodplain and an inundation zone related to the Decker Lake dam.

Staff and applicant: what was requested and why

David Michael, environmental review specialist with the Development Services Department, summarized the three variance requests and the staff recommendation. He said the application sought a variance from Land Development Code section 25.80.341 to allow cut up to 11 feet, from section 25.80.342 to allow fill up to 16 feet, and from section 25.83.02 to allow up to 600 square feet of building on slopes over 25% and up to 3,000 square feet of parking on slopes over 15%.

Michael told the commission that staff had worked with the applicant to reduce the amount of cut and fill from the original submission and that "the project provides greater environmental protection with increased landscaping" and "the variance will result in water quality that is at least equal to the water quality achievable without the variance." He also listed the staff conditions: use of a 609S upland seed mix on 3:1 slopes, designing a natural draw adjacent to Buildings 3 and 7 as a sunken garden with a trickle channel and pollinator plantings, and meeting full landscape requirements despite the site being in the ETJ so that all parking spaces are within a 50-foot radius of a shade tree.

Ted McConaghy, civil engineering project manager with Doucet|Kleinfelder representing applicant Z Modular, described the project as part of a larger Winding Trails master-planned area and said the site’s constraints — critical environmental features (CEFs), wetlands, the floodplain and an inundation zone downstream of the dam — left a narrow developable area. McConaghy said the team had worked with staff for months and "spent about 6 months going through everything very carefully to make sure that we really made the best site that we could." He noted design elements intended to offset impacts, including 21 EV chargers, concentrated landscape plantings and two enhanced slope-planting areas totaling roughly 47,000 square feet of pollinator seed mix.

Key technical and safety issues discussed

Commissioners and staff discussed several technical topics: the site’s slope map and where cut and fill would occur, stormwater and pond design, the project’s location in an ETJ (so tree-protection rules do not automatically apply), and the presence of an inundation zone related to Decker Lake dam. McConaghy described the inundation analysis done with Travis County and said most occupied buildings were being sited several feet above the inundation elevation required by the county; he also said the project had prepared an emergency action plan for residents.

Mike McDougall, environmental policy program manager in Development Services, told the commission that the driveway crossing the site’s critical water-quality zone qualified for an administrative variance under the code because it was necessary for traffic safety and had additional design requirements (for example, an open-bottom culvert to limit downstream erosion).

Commissioner concerns and applicant responses

Questions from commissioners covered impervious cover, affordable housing set‑asides, tree loss and replacement, feasibility of transplanting existing trees, mass transit access and the proposed parking count and layout. Arthur Walston, a representative of Z Modular, said the project would provide affordable units at 80% of area median income for about 10% of the units and that the development’s unit mix was weighted toward studios, one‑ and two‑bedrooms; he said he would check on three‑bedroom availability. On trees, the applicant said roughly 50–60% of the number of trees removed in the upland development area would be replaced with new shade trees and noted that the project was voluntarily meeting full landscape requirements despite being in the ETJ.

Commission action and amendment

The commission considered a staff-drafted recommendation to grant the variances with staff conditions and three additional Environmental Commission conditions: (1) eliminate building on slopes greater than 25% where feasible, (2) reduce parking area on slopes by 10% and (3) incorporate bird‑friendly design and lighting where feasible. During discussion the applicant said eliminating the small area of building on slopes over 25% was not feasible because of the constrained layout; the commission accepted that explanation and Commissioner Sullivan moved to amend the motion to remove the first condition and to clarify the parking condition as "reduce parking area by 10% on slopes over 15%." Commissioner Breimer seconded the amendment.

The amended motion passed unanimously. The commission recorded an aye vote from Commissioners Sullivan, Changzuk, Qureshi, Flurry, Kruger, Kofer, Lukey, Ganguly, Fierro and Breimer. The recommendation therefore asks staff to approve the requested variances under the Land Development Code with the staff conditions (609S seed mix and revegetation, sunken garden/trickle channel and pollinator plantings next to Buildings 3 and 7, full landscape despite ETJ) plus the commission’s amended conditions (10% reduction in parking area on slopes over 15% and incorporating bird‑friendly design and lighting where feasible).

What happens next

The commission’s action was a recommendation tied to the site-plan variance process and does not itself issue permits. City staff will incorporate the commission’s recommendation and the project will proceed through Development Services and, where applicable, Travis County floodplain review. The applicant and staff emphasized the project remains subject to permit-level conditions, the county’s floodplain and inundation requirements, and ongoing construction and environmental inspections.

Ending

The commission’s vote followed public hearing testimony and technical discussion; the record shows staff and the applicant agreed to many of the revegetation and stabilization measures now included in the recommendation. The file continues through the city and county permitting processes for final determination and permit issuance.