steiner ranch residents oppose apartments (Austin, Lakeway: neighborhood, elementary schools, income)

[transatlantic]

Are they ever going to turn Quinlan Park Road into a more major thoroughfare - with a bridge over the Lake? The problem with Steiner is getting stuck in Steiner, there really needs to be another way out. That was a real problem during the fires.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by SickOfCalifornia

We like our greenbelts

You say you like your greenbelts and yet you oppose some apartments, but apparently don't mind at all the gazillion houses that have been built and obliterated the Hill Country out there.

That just doesn't make any sense to me. I'm more inclined to believe there are other reasons (and with all the houses it obviously isn't traffic) to not have those apartments. As for the schools, well out of those living in the houses vs those who would live in the apartments I'd imagine it is a safe bet a larger percentage of those in the houses have kids.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by transatlantic

Are they ever going to turn Quinlan Park Road into a more major thoroughfare - with a bridge over the Lake? The problem with Steiner is getting stuck in Steiner, there really needs to be another way out. That was a real problem during the fires.

If I lived in Steiner, my worry with a bridge like that would be that it would increase traffic to 71. Like a short cut to Bee Caves and the Galleria or something. There's only 9-10(?) ways over the river in the Austin area. Add another and your going to get some added traffic into that neighborhood.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Austin97

The "it wasnt in the master plan" argument doesnt hold water. It sounds like most of you are just parroting what you have been told. How many steiner residents actually looked in the master plan in detail WHEN YOU BOUGHT YOUR HOUSE and then MADE SURE THAT TRAFFIC WOULD BE FINE? Riiiight, I dont think so.


In any case here is one link to the master plan which shows those areas RESERVED FOR MIXED USE.

http://www.rviplanning.com/pdfs/news...%20Vision2.pdf

oh yeah and in the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the notice to homebuyers it says
<<Marketing Materials / Development Plan.
A. Any master plans, site plans, brochures, illustrations, information and marketing material
(collectively, the “Conceptual Master Plan”) pertaining to Steiner Ranch and provided to any Purchaser by
Developer (or by any homebuilder, prior developer or other parcel developer within Steiner Ranch [and if
applicable, by virtue of a duly recorded Joinder as described in paragraph 10 hereof, with respect to such other
parcel developer’s property] within the Property) are conceptual in nature, are used for illustrative purposes only,
and that land uses reflected therein are subject to change by Developer at any time and without notice to
Purchaser. Neither Developer nor any homebuilder or other parcel developer (if applicable) within the Steiner
Ranch makes any representation or warranty concerning such land uses to Purchaser. Purchaser will not rely
upon the Conceptual Master Plan in making the decision to purchase any property within Steiner Ranch.>>

This all correct. It's one of the reasons I personally advise against buying in emerging, incomplete areas unless someone can imagine/assume the worst and still be ok with it. It's impossible to know how things will turn out in growth areas. Admittedly, I'm usually referring to "outer ring" areas like Kyle, Hutto, Manor, but Steiner is pretty out there too.

Also, even 8, 10 years ago, traffic was a problem, in my opinion, not only due to the structural bottleneck but the fact that so much growth was yet to occur. It was 100% predictable that 620, 2222, and 183 would only get worse in years ahead. These apartments are a drop in the bucket compared to what 620 will become in the next decade.

I know a lot of people who love Steiner and are perfectly happy with it and who understood and accepted the above when buying. For many, its a fair tradeoff that's worth it. While I understand the emotional reaction of those opposed to the coming of known and predictable apartments in Steiner, I don't think a cogent or rationale argument can be made in opposition of the apartments.

Steve

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

This all correct. It's one of the reasons I personally advise against buying in emerging, incomplete areas unless someone can imagine/assume the worst and still be ok with it. It's impossible to know how things will turn out in growth areas. Admittedly, I'm usually referring to "outer ring" areas like Kyle, Hutto, Manor, but Steiner is pretty out there too.

Also, even 8, 10 years ago, traffic was a problem, in my opinion, not only due to the structural bottleneck but the fact that so much growth was yet to occur. It was 100% predictable that 620, 2222, and 183 would only get worse in years ahead. These apartments are a drop in the bucket compared to what 620 will become in the next decade.

I know a lot of people who love Steiner and are perfectly happy with it and who understood and accepted the above when buying. For many, its a fair tradeoff that's worth it. While I understand the emotional reaction of those opposed to the coming of known and predictable apartments in Steiner, I don't think a cogent or rationale argument can be made in opposition of the apartments.

Steve

When Steiner was first proposed, traffic was a known and major issue and objection to it existing at all, and the concerns of everyone who thought it was not a good idea were ignored.

I don't think putting a bridge over the lake, destroying yet more of the ambiance, pretty much solely for the convenience of Steiner Ranch residents who bought there KNOWING the issues regarding access and traffic, is a feasible or fair solution.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by SickOfCalifornia

Your points have already been answered in this thread. Did you even read it?

Let's review:
The apartments that they are building have rents equal to or in some cases greater than the mortgages of the single family homes.
The 200 single family homes that were built were included into the original master plan, the new apartments were not.
The residents are concerned about traffic, school population, and greenbelt preservation, not socio-economic status of future residents.
The only person who is talking about race and/or class in this discussion is you

Lets review:
1) Buying a home also requires a 20% downpayment. Many people can afford rent but cannot afford the downpayment, taxes insurance and maintenance costs that a house entails

2) The area was marked as mixed use it could be anything including high density retail. Have you actually looked at the master plan or are you going on hearsay? Please post a link to the master plan which actually shows what was planned there.

3) of course they are. Thats why the head of the association said they want to make sure the development "fit and be compatible to the existing community". Thats code for the "kind of people we like".

[Austin97]

Here is additional information about the types of apartments. They will be 1 and 2 BR units. The comparison with monterone shows what the real problem is - they are small (read less expensive) types of apartments.

http://steinerranchna.org/committees/development/

Mixed Use #13

Apartments

298

Development is currently underway. This complex will be distinct from Monterone in that it will be almost exclusively 1 and 2 bedroom units (only about 10% being 3 bedroom units); whereas, Monterone has very large apartments, including up to 4 bedroom units.

[verybadgnome]

Most of this is outside city full jurisdiction, but in the ETJ. I could not find zoning on the city's map viewer for that area. Not sure about ETJs and the limits on land use but if similar to unincorporated areas of counties that would mean basically no restrictions.

And Austin97 is right in (#1) that the market for apartments is high now based on a whole slew of factors. And also on (#3) which they (single family homeowners) have also opposed student housing adjacent to TSU where they could walk and bike to school.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by mm57553

This was NOT on the master plan when the people who live there bought their homes.

We also have issue with the fact that the Austin City Counsel has the authority to approve and not approve these plans and variances in the current zoning. The main problem with this is that we are not in city limits. We do not get to vote for any of these city counsel members. I still can not find anyone who is able to explain why they have anything to do with this development.

I'm not trying to pick a fight - trying to understand. The master plan showed this as "mixed use". What were you told would be put there? Or did you assume it would remain vacant? As far as allowable uses, these plots, like where the Randall's went, as mixed use can be "development and redevelopment that contains a compatible mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses". Again, trying to understand the feeling you were mislead.

As far as Austin's role in land use decisions outside city limits, I am surprised that no one you have talked to is familiar with Austin's extra territorial jurisdiction. You are in it. The idea is that this allows the city's standards be met in areas that are future annexation targets. Austin has abused this in the past, and the legislature has reined it in somewhat. The alternative is that you would be under county jurisdiction. That would mean NO governmental review as Texas doesnt grant land use jurisdiction to counties.

Again, trying to understand.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by scm53

I'm not trying to pick a fight - trying to understand. The master plan showed this as "mixed use". What were you told would be put there? Or did you assume it would remain vacant? As far as allowable uses, these plots, like where the Randall's went, as mixed use can be "development and redevelopment that contains a compatible mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses". Again, trying to understand the feeling you were mislead.

As far as Austin's role in land use decisions outside city limits, I am surprised that no one you have talked to is familiar with Austin's extra territorial jurisdiction. You are in it. The idea is that this allows the city's standards be met in areas that are future annexation targets. Austin has abused this in the past, and the legislature has reined it in somewhat. The alternative is that you would be under county jurisdiction. That would mean NO governmental review as Texas doesnt grant land use jurisdiction to counties.

Again, trying to understand.

You are pretty much correct. People seem to have forgotten that in the early '90s (?) the City of Austin arrogantly attempted to extend it's ETJ all the way up the Lake Travis/Colorado River bed to give it control of the entire lake area.
That belligerent "imperialism" led the state legislature to rightfully pin Austin's ears back a bit, but it didn't stop the city from encroaching into Williamson County. I live several miles north of the Wilco/Travis County line, yet the City of Austin has almost encircled Brushy Creek on the south, west, and north.

Cedar Park reacted too slowly to blunt the creeping Austin encroachment up 183 & Parmer Lane. Same for Round Rock in the I-35 corridor - the Austin City limits butt right up to the intersection of 35 and the 45 tollway on the south side of Round Rock.

Fortunately, right after I moved to BC, the lege allowed us the choice of remaining in the Austin ETJ or joining Round Rock's. IIRC, the vote was about 4-1 to reject Austin's heavy hand.

Round Rock will not annex BC because it doesn't want to assume our MUD debt, which suits us just fine - and as a result we are an unincorporated area in the county. The BC population is over 21,000.