Rare undeveloped land overlooking Lake Austin hits market (Shepherd, Barton Creek: for sale, home)

[austin-steve]

What do you think will happen and will the developer face insurmountable regulatory hurdles?

Here are some excerpts from the article:

"One of the last large undeveloped tracts on Shepherd Mountain overlooking Lake Austin is being marketed nationwide — the first time the property has been for sale in 26 years. ...

... A preliminary plat is in place for 70 residential lots, marketing materials say. The site is near “high-end residential neighborhoods and and home to executive decision makers, upper level managers, and allows easy access to major Austin thoroughfares,” it states....

...Most of the land is in the Lake Austin watershed, with a small portion in the Coldwater Creek watershed, according to the offering....

... The property is for sale at a time when the Austin metro and the Central Texas region overall faces a shortage of lots and high demand for housing due to job and population growth."

Full Story:
Rare undeveloped land overlooking Lake Austin hits market | www.statesman.com

[scm53]

If the city is going to be consistent - vice hypocritical - they should impose the SOS impervious cover limits on this property. 20% of the net site area, no transfers.

Because - unlike the Barton Creek watershed - this run off actually goes in our drinking water.

[centralaustinite]

I think there is a chance that the whole thing goes to a single, high wealth individual. Or maybe divided into 3 parcels to very high wealth individuals with most of it kept in a wild state. Any sort of conventional residential development doesn't make sense.

[Trainwreck20]

Any sort of conventional residential development doesn't make sense.

Out of curiosity, why not?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

I think there is a chance that the whole thing goes to a single, high wealth individual. Or maybe divided into 3 parcels to very high wealth individuals with most of it kept in a wild state. Any sort of conventional residential development doesn't make sense.

What?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by scm53

If the city is going to be consistent - vice hypocritical - they should impose the SOS impervious cover limits on this property. 20% of the net site area, no transfers.

Because - unlike the Barton Creek watershed - this run off actually goes in our drinking water.

It's not in the Barton Creek watershed so. . .SOS doesn't apply. But it's 145 acres with only 70 lots - so that's extremely, hyper low density at 1 unit/2acres

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Komeht

It's not in the Barton Creek watershed so. . .SOS doesn't apply. But it's 145 acres with only 70 lots - so that's extremely, hyper low density at 1 unit/2acres

Why do we have stricter IC limits in areas that don't contribute to our water supply, than in areas that do?

[Trainwreck20]

Areas that drain to the lake do not contribute to the aquifer, so the impervious cover does not really affect aquifer recharge quality/quantity.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Areas that drain to the lake do not contribute to the aquifer, so the impervious cover does not really affect aquifer recharge quality/quantity.

But again, why care more about an aquifer that none of our drinking water comes from, than we do about runoff that goes directly into our drinking water supply?

[Trainwreck20]

But again, why care more about an aquifer that none of our drinking water comes from, than we do about runoff that goes directly into our drinking water supply?

A lot of reasons, actually, a few might be:
- Drinking water is treated before we drink it anyway - SOS is not really about drinking water quality but more ecosystem damage.
- Some people do get drinking water from the aquifer, even if it is not the COA.
- Contamination of lake water is immediately evident with a simple test, and aquifer, not so much.
- The Lakes were once rivers - we have already destroyed that ecosystem (and created a new one).