Travis County Commssioners Court
August 12, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 7
We have got -- several folk here I see on item no. 7.
>> yes. We do.
>> if t.n.r. Is ready on that, we will call it up. 7 proposed subdivision regulation amendments to chapter 82, Travis County code, to resolve inconsistencies with the city of Austin code as required by hb 1445, and take appropriate action.
>> I have laid out for you all a copy of what's before you today. If you will recall, these amendments were first before you back in February. When -- when we had a set of issues we had agreed with the city of Austin and the stakeholders on, that there were some outstanding issues and the decision was made, let's not adopt these until we have got 100% resolution owe all of the -- on all of the issues. So when we reached that point, we came back and put it on the agenda again back in June. And then went through the required 30 day posting. What is before you today is what was in June with the following exception. The issue of the preliminary plan expirations, there has been some non-substantive language cleanup.
>> do you have a page number.
>> ainly in the definitions. We had to define several terms. The city of Austin near term annexation areas, we basically just tried to put it more in plain english. On the -- on the natural and traditional character provision, which is 82.207 getting the subsection number -- 82.207 a 7. This is the provision that requires to the greatest extent feasible the land -- that the natural and traditional character of the land and the waterway being maintained. We have added the land and the waterway within the 100 year floodplain. Everyone agreed that the intent was to focus on the natural and traditional character of what's in the 100 year floodplain and not outside of it. From the parkland dedication section, which is 82.208, if you will recall the understanding between the city and the county is going to be the -- whichever of us has a park that's closest to the subdivision being platted will receive the parkland dedication or the parkland in lieu of fees. One issue raised by the stakeholders they wanted to make doubly sure that there was not a possibility that they would be exacted by both the city and the county, so the -- we made that absolutely clear, that it's either/or and not both.
>> tom, especially on this park land, but especially on all of this, but on the parkland dedication itself, this -- this basically will go into effect immediately as far as -- as far as [indiscernible] would be at triewbded to the -- attributed to the parkland.
>> if you adopt it today, it will be into effect today, so it will apply for every plat application filed from today on.
>> okay. The subdivision plat, okay. We don't have a choice, basically, to -- to -- does the developer have a choice to actually go with their park [indiscernible] offset the fee for the county maybe --
>> yes.
>> it's really an offset.
>> uh-huh.
>> okay.
>> that would be with new applications and not something that's already in the pipeline?
>> right.
>> just making sure that we all know from this point forwd.
>> all right. Thank you.
>> thanks, thanks tom.
>> we have the authority to make those few changes without -- without a procedural -- without procedural steps?
>> well, the -- the section of the local government code we are operating under requires posting of a newspaper notice, which we have done. It doesn't specifically require "a hearing" but of course it's been -- this parkland dedication policy has been on the agenda, this is now the third time. So the statute doesn't mandate a public hearing. It does mandate a newspaper notice, we did do a newspaper notice. 7.
>> secondary question, this is with -- with the city of Austin of us resolving inconsistencies. We had already -- already figured out our situation with some other municipalities. I'm thinking specifically of the city of Pflugerville. Is the parkland dedication within that or is that something that we now have to go back and talk about because quite frankly I think they would have mutual interests in us talking about a consistent policy or adopting what we have got in relation with the city of Austin because we are all trying to get to the same place, that is regional facilities but in a logical, exacting as development occurs.
>> uh-huh.
>> do we need to go back to [indiscernible]?
>> we should go back, yes. The way we have set it up, we have got our understanding with the city of Austin.
>> correct.
>> so I don't anticipate there's going to be any problem in making this work in the city of Austin e.t.j. In the Pflugerville e.t.j., I'm not sure what their policy on parkland dedication is. But the way this is set up, since they were there first, theirs is going to trump ours. That's the way we have set up the no double dipping provision.
>> uh-huh.
>> so I think it would be good for us to go have that discussion with Pflugerville to say is the kind of setup that we have got with the city of Austin fine for you all because until we have that discussion and have an understanding with the city of Pflugerville, if there's any conflict, their parkland dedication policy is going to trump over ours and if they want the parkland or the park land fees, then they are going to get them and not the county.
>> because the very unusual situation that we have is that the northeast metro park, which is the large regional park in the area, half of that park is in Pflugerville. And half of that park is in the city of Austin. -- the city of Austin's e.t.j. It's quite an interesting location, we can have that discussion later. I want to make sure that we don't forget it. One change is on the connectivity provision. This deals with when a new subdivision goes in next to an existing subdivision, do the streets have to hook up? We agreed back in February, basically, to -- to incorporate the city's connectivity language into the county code. The city's provision on whether these streets have to connect or not makes reference to the city of Austin comprehensive plan. And the stakeholders raised the issue of is the county agreeing to be bound by the city of Austin comprehensive plan. We looked at the provision whether connectivity is required by the city comprehensive plan is one of many several different factors that have to be balanced out in deciding whether there's connectivity or not. We are taking the position that we are not bound by the city of Austin comprehensive plan. It has to be considered. We can look at it, if we like what it says, we can follow it. But we are not bound by it. It's a discretionary decision, weighing a number of factors, no one factor controls over the others. Then the last issue, I want to talk about was the issue of sidewalks and americans with disabilities act compliance. This is another issue that the stakeholders raised, were not recommending a change on it, the issue is this. During the -- during the discussions between the city and the county and the stakeholders, leading up to the time it was on the agenda, one of the issues was the sidewalks and them having to meet the handicapped accessibility standards. What happened when that couldn't be done, it was very difficult for that to be done, it was a variance -- was a variance available for that. The main issue to us appeared to be whether there had to be sidewalk goes on one side of the street or both sides of the streets. We tailored the variance language to deal with that issue. Because our feeling was that the -- that was the issue that was presenting the bulk of the problems and -- and this language allows a variance for -- to allow sidewalks on one side of the street, if it's necessary to meet americans with disabilities act requirements. The stakeholders felt the real issue was having a variance or allowing a variance for anything that raised an americans with disabilities act issue. So that -- I think they were focused not only on the sidewalks on the one side of the street issue, but on any number of other a.d.a. Compliance standards. The -- the interlocal agreement, the amendment to the interlocal agreement you signed with the city of Austin, basically just says there will be a variance to allow sidewalks on one side of the street. And when I raise this issue with the city of Austin, they felt it was important to stick with what was in the interlocal. So -- so what is in this code amendment today just allows a variance for sidewalks on only one side of the street because that's what we agreed to in the interlocal with the city of Austin. Now, we had some discussions with -- with various stakeholders, hank smith is here to speak for him. If they want to speak, I would characterize the discussion as they felt the variance should be broader, but there does appear to be consensus among most people that -- that handling these sidewalks on one side of the street issue will resolve the bulk of the problems. If you go forward on that basis only, we probably want to monitor whether you come back and say expand that variance.
>> do the shareholders have an opportunity to review this document for today?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. Yes, sir?
>> my name is [indiscernible], one of the stakeholders involved in this issue. I would like to thank you -- this was on the agenda last week, we examine requested another week, we got a lot done this week. We've had a lot of e-mails going back and forth a lot of issues have been resolved. The biggest issue that we have right now is with the sidewalks. We're okay with the way it's written right now, we understand the rule, going through the complete rewrite process between the city and the county. What we don't want to get into is a position whereas a development goes through the process, we are told that we have to put a sidewalk on one side of the street, when the terrain or other things are beyond our control, we are going to put that sidewalk in violation of the a.d.a. Regulations. And therefore we bill a roadway, it gets built, doesn't comply with a.d.a. Regulations, in the county they won't accept that roadway for maintenance. There's a lot of roadways all around the counties, as you are aware of, that have been built according to the approved plans and specifications but the county has not accepted those for maintenance. We are trying to avoid that issue down the road. Having the variance to not have sidewalks on both sides of the street is going to take care of 98% of the problems. There's still going to be a few minor issues that could come up, putting a sidewalk on one side of the street could be a problem. I think we can address that when we go through the additional rewrite of the rules and look at that issue separately. I think that gets rid of a majority of the problems in the process right now.
>> you feel that 98% of the problems will be taken care of with the sidewalks?
>> yes, sir.
>> one side is supposed to --
>> correct -- the problem that typically happens is when you try to cross a street, when you go into someone sidewalk, one side of the street, to the sidewalk on the other side of the street, that crongs is very difficult to -- crossing is very difficult to maintain here in the hill country with a 10% slope.
>> right.
>> so this gets rid of that issue.
>> that issue.
>> right. So you are generally in agreement with the -- with the proposed changes?
>> yes, sir.
>> procedurally, where would we be if we approve this today, tom? There's additional work that needs to be done, right?
>> not really. These are -- these are ready to go into effect today. If you -- if you choose to adopt them today. You could act on them today, have some sort of delayed effective date. I think -- I think there's certainly additional work to be done to comply with the law. Now that house bill 1204 sort of took this the next step and said not only do you need to have -- have city regulations and county regulation that's don't conflict, you really generally need a joint code. What we are working on now is the joint code which we need to have done by January first.
>> all right.
>> so this is sort of a stopgap measure.
>> yeah.
>> basically, this says what's going to be in the joint code.
>> uh-huh.
>> if we approve this today, we have until January 1 to get the joint code?
>> right.
>> we still have the transportation issues sort of -- sort of out there?
>> the main transportation issue was -- was resolved by the legislature in house bill 1204 which was the metropolitan transportation plan. That took care of the balk of it. Bulk of it. So basically the plan overrides, the local government has a conflicting plan.
>> in the agreement with the city that if -- on transportation issues, we would first try to reach agreement. Rather than setting out in the code specifics. In failing to reach an agreement, I guess 1204 comes into play.
>> I think 1204 comes into play regardless. 1204 says the campo plan is what guides you. I think our agreement with the city is -- is -- is we'll try to reach an agreement with them in the city and county will go to campo with suggested amendments to the campo plan. The city -- the is it representatives -- -- okay. With the city.
>> so what else do we need to do today before acting on this?
>> so the motion is appropriate.
>> second.
>> I move approval. Seconded by Commissioner Gomez? My more discussion? Thank you very much, very appreciate you all's help, all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. For your hard work on this matter, it took some time.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:52 AM