Welcome to Ultraground. We track denials for you.

Planning & Design Review Rejection August 22, 2022 - Conceptual SP July 28, 2021

District: 10 | Northwest Austin

After multiple rejections from city departments in 2022-2023, the project's initial concept site plan highlighted significant gaps between existing entitlements and current development standards. The former 3M campus redevelopment at 10804 Ranch Road 2222 represents a complex case study in Austin's evolving approach to large-scale mixed-use development in environmentally sensitive areas.

The property operates under a 1984 Planned Development Agreement that was specifically crafted for 3M's research and development operations. This 38-year-old agreement has become a central point of regulatory conflict. While the PDA provides certain baseline rights, it was never intended to accommodate the proposed density of 1,400 residential units, 1.5 million square feet of office space, and 77,000 square feet of retail across the 156-acre site.

The first phase, proposing 315-320 multifamily units across 9.988 acres, encountered multiple regulatory challenges. The site plan (2022-086929 SP) and its application (linked here) were rejected by several key departments including ATD Engineering, Environmental Review, and Site Plan Review. The primary concerns centered on three critical areas: traffic impact analysis, environmental protection standards, and compatibility with current development codes.

The traffic analysis proved particularly problematic. The development team's reliance on the 1984 PDA to avoid a comprehensive traffic impact study faced significant pushback, especially given unofficial estimates of 26,000 daily trips. The site's location at RM 2222 and River Place Boulevard, already a congested corridor, amplified these concerns.

Environmental considerations formed another major obstacle. The property sits within both the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and the Bull Creek watershed, classified as Watersupply Suburban. The concept plan's 38.84% impervious cover (168,989 square feet) and 28.17% building coverage (122,569 square feet) triggered heightened scrutiny under current environmental regulations, which are substantially more stringent than those in place when the PDA was established.

The development metrics themselves tell an important story about the project's scope:

The existing infrastructure presents both advantages and challenges. The site includes 1.1 million square feet across nine buildings, a central utility plant, and a quarter-mile of underground tunnels. While this infrastructure could potentially reduce development costs, bringing these 1980s-era systems up to current standards requires significant investment.

The absence of affordable housing components in the application is notable, particularly given Austin's increasing emphasis on mixed-income development. The project was positioned as market-rate multifamily, despite the site's location in a high-income area (78726 ZIP code, with 2020 median household income of $88,750).

The development team assembled includes significant expertise: CBRE Group (leasing), Turner Construction (GC), Page (architect), Design Workshop (landscape), Blum Engineering (MEP), Walter P. Moore (structural), and Garza EMC (civil). The team's vision included substantial amenities - a 58,000-square-foot amenity hub and 75,000-square-foot atrium with outdoor spaces - indicating a high-end positioning for the project.

Community opposition has focused on three main demands: rezoning under current code, comprehensive traffic impact analysis and mitigation, and adherence to modern environmental standards. The petition at www.hillcountrydevelopment.org specifically calls for "accurate multi-use category and current code" requirements.

The property's acquisition history adds another layer of complexity. Karlin acquired the site through foreclosure in June 2021 after the previous owner, World Class Holdings, defaulted in August 2019. This transaction followed 3M's 2019 relocation to Parmer Austin, leaving the campus vacant.

Looking forward, any successful development plan for this site will likely require one of two approaches: either a substantial modification of the existing PDA to incorporate current development standards or a complete rezoning process. The latter would provide clearer parameters but could potentially reduce development rights compared to the existing PDA.

The site's location near Lake Travis and the Balcones Canyonland Preserve, combined with its significant existing infrastructure, continues to make it one of Austin's most noteworthy development opportunities. However, the gap between 1984 development standards and current requirements presents substantial regulatory challenges that will need to be addressed before any major redevelopment can proceed.

Community Sentiment

The community response, which garnered 2,102 verified petition signatures, had systemic concerns about the deal's regulatory approach and infrastructure impacts.

The traffic impact projections of 26,000 daily trips through the 2222 corridor represent a central opposition point, particularly given the site's proximity to two schools. As opposition organizer Linda Bailey notes, "we just got congestion relief from the big 2222/620 project and we're already digging ourselves a new hole." The community emphasizes that current road improvements were designed for existing capacity, not accounting for this scale of development. The developer's reliance on the 1984 PDA would bypass modern traffic study requirements, which Bailey argues would leave critical questions unanswered about "school buses going to nearby schools... commuters going through choke points... travel time increases to the HEB in Four Points area or the increase in traffic accidents possible due to volume increases."

The environmental concerns stem from the site's location at Bull Creek's origin point, designated as an "Environmentally Sensitive Area" in the Austin Comprehensive Plan. Under the 1984 PDA, the development would circumvent current environmental standards. As Bailey explains, the grandfathering would mean "no current code for environmental regulations for trees, drainage, ponds, water quality, and no impervious cover on slopes." The site would also bypass "energy conservation mandates such as green energy or dark skies" and modern Hill Country Roadway ordinances.

The zoning compatibility issues center on fundamental conflicts between the 1984 PDA's restrictions and the current proposal. The original agreement explicitly states that "no residential use shall be permitted" and restricts the property to "industrial use only." As Bailey notes, "Karlin wants to rent not just to one company owner like 3M but to multiple corporations, apartment dwellers, and retailers." The community argues this represents a fundamental shift from the PDA's original intent of a single-user R&D facility to what Bailey describes as "a multiple-use style facility like the Domain."

Survey responses from surrounding neighborhoods emphasize the infrastructure strain, with residents noting the schools are "PACKED already" and expressing concerns about emergency access and evacuation routes. The community's position focuses on the misalignment between 1984 standards and current development requirements in an environmentally sensitive, infrastructure-constrained area. As Bailey concludes, "it's reasonable because it's important that Karlin should be brought to current code and discard the outdated 38-year-old minimal standards."

This opposition reflects sophisticated understanding of development regulations rather than general anti-development sentiment, focusing on specific regulatory and infrastructure gaps between the 1984 PDA and current development standards.

Thank you for being a part of Ultraground.