Staff posted their report on the development website. I haven’t figured out a way to link directly to the case site, so the way you get to it is go here and enter SP-2008-0564D in the case number box.
The staff report is at the bottom in pdf format. Find a pdf reader here if you don’t have one.
Here is the report intro:
————————————————————-
STAFF REPORT:
This report includes all staff comments received to date concerning your most recent site plan submittal. The comments may include requirements, recommendations, or information. The requirements in this report must be addressed by an updated site plan submittal.
The site plan will be approved when all requirements from each review discipline have been addressed. However, until this happens, your site plan is considered disapproved. Additional comments may be generated as a result of information or design changes provided in your update.
If you have any questions, problems, concerns, or if you require additional information about this report, please do not hesitate to contact your case manager at the phone number listed above or by writing to the City of Austin, Watershed Protection and Development Review Department, P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78704.
UPDATE DEADLINE (LDC 25-5-113):
It is the responsibility of the applicant or his/her agent to update this site plan application. The final update to clear all comments must be submitted by the update deadline, which is May 23, 2009. Otherwise, the application will automatically be denied. If this date falls on a weekend or City of Austin holiday, the next City of Austin workday will be the deadline.”
——————————————————————
The report is full of requests for clarification, some trivial, some slightly more significant, but I imagine are all basically straightforward for an engineering effort such as this. As you read above, the update deadline is May 23, but U.P. can respond earlier and I would expect they will respond earlier.
I’ve seen the site plan submission now – it looks like the dual track will extend from Parmer to 500ish feet from the Duval crossing. What that basically means is that trains heading northbound that would need to idle will probably do so far away from neighborhoods, but trains heading southbound that would need to idle would do so nearby. It does not appear that there is much of a rise of the track in our neighborhood, which had cause some concern.
I’ve got an email and a phone call into the UP public affairs folks, asking if they would come down and talk, I’ll keep you updated on what I hear. Once we get a bit more informed we can set a meeting to talk about what we know, what’s possible and what isn’t. I know there is interest in dialogue, so I’m working to get that to happen.
