Travis County Commissioners Court
September 28, 2004
Item 41
Item number 41 is to consider and take appropriate action on request -- a
request for exception to frontage standards and a plat for recording in precinct
3, resubdivision of lot 10, big creek ranch subdivision phase i, revise plat
five lots, 13.34-acres, outback trail, service to be provided by on site wastewater
facility. Outside all municipal etj.
>> [inaudible]
>> ... Regarding access to a county maintained roadway. There
have been several meetings that have taken place sponsored by the Commissioner
and county staff between the applicant and the neighborhood. I知 sad to say
that there has not been any consensus on a settlement on this regard. The
applicant has asked that we put this back on the court agenda for decision.
So we are at this point where we still have an outstanding variance request
to connect the recent subdivision to a county maintained road. That requirement
would be difficult to attain by the owner, because of the length of the roadway,
it would be financially expensive to upgrade the roadway from where these
lots are back to a county-maintained road. As an alternative to that, and
i've suggested this to the applicant, that the applicant put up prorata share
for upgrading the roadway to 1949 standard. You know that we have subdivisions
like this that were done before the county had subdivision regulations. They
are not up to county standards because they're old subdivisions. They precede
our standards. But we do have a program that we call substandard road program
where we allow people who live in these subdivisions to upgrade their road
system to meet a 1949 modified standard, basically the road gets put into
a paved to a lesser standard that is currently in our subdivision regulations,
but after it's brought up to that standard the county would accept it and
maintain it. That would fulfill I think what our standard is based on. What
we're typically concerned about is that it will an all weather road to these
lots so that when we accept subdivisions we can tell future home buyers that
they're going to get mail service, school buses come pick up their kids, they're
not going to have any problem with e.m.s. And fire units getting to their
houses and all that, so we have that figured in there in part as a public
safety issue. So if the road were upgraded, it somewhat meets the spirit intent
of our subdivision regulations. The cost of that, the prorata share to upgrade
that roadway is about a 300 -- about a $325,000 cost to upgrade the entire
roadway. It serves about 19 lots total within that stretch of roadway. We
asked the applicant if she would be willing to put up her prorata share of
that to contribute toward the upgrade of the roadway to the 1949 standards;
thereby not exactly fulfilling the letter of the subdivision regulations but
at least going toward the intent of that. So that is one alternative that
I propose to the court today, that it still requires a variance because it
technically does not meet the county standards. If you want to go a step beyond
that, require the applicant to come up with the money, the proportionate share
of the money that it would take to upgrade the roadway that served her five
lots, now, with the other property owners along the roadway were not willing
to contribute their prorata share, you still would not have enough money,
you would not have a paved roadway. You would have to wait until all the property
owners along the roadway were agreeable to paying their fair share. But in
this case, at least, the applicant who wanted to resubdivide had fulfilled
what we expressed in our intent to be an all purpose roadway. That is as close
as I can come to splitting the baby on this issue. It's a difficult situation.
We're talking about taking a lot, dividing it into five lots. That act in
and of itself is probably not onerous unless you look at it in the context
of the entire subdivision and that potentially happening with all the same
lots in the subdivision. Then you have a situation where you're likely to
have many constituents coming to the county wanting us to pave the subdivision
streets because of the amount of traffic. And so this gets somewhat to that
point. I知 not representing that this is the desire of the community at large.
And I知 only trying to weigh all the pros and cons of this thing and perhaps
get to the middle of the road decision what the court can vote on.
>> can you tell us how much progress toward a compromise
has been made since we were in court last time?
>> we do not have a compromise.
>> can you tell us how much progress toward a compromise
has been made since we were in court last time? Any?
>> no.
>> do you think we're in pretty much the same position?
>> I believe we are.
>> yes, sir?
>> joe, I understand that the applicant has asked to have
an additional two weeks to look at this. Is that -- has that been asked of
you? I know the applicant and her representative is here. I mean, can that
-- can that...
>> I知 not aware of that.
>> you're not aware of that?
>> do you represent the applicant?
>> yeah.
>> why don't you introduce yourself?
>> judge and Commissioners, my name is jim whitliff, I知
here on behalf of the applicant. It would be our desire, we learned of this
proposal from ms. Bowle. In this morning, we've discussed it and it's something
that we would be interested in. I would also like to add that we would, as
part of that, during the two weeks, we would modify the plat. There's been
a lot of discussion about deed restrictions and we would modify the plat.
It would no longer be a five lot plat, it would be a four lot plat and I believe
it would be in compliance with the letter of law of the deed restrictions
in all accounts. There would be two water front lots and two interior lots
and it would comply with the strictest interpretation of the deed restriction.
It would require the property owner to post $56,500 and some change and that's
-- that's a big commitment, but we've agreed to that. What we need to do would
be to modify the plat. I have not been here before you before on this issue.
I was hired to try and assist and to work out a solution. I will tell you
that the folks i've talked to, every issue that was brought up, we've come
up with solutions. I met with the county attorney, I met with ms. Bowlen and
I met with Commissioner Daugherty, and our goal is to create a plat that you're
comfortable approving, not something we slip in the side door on anybody,
we want to be neighbors out there, we want to be in conformance with the rules.
>> there is another way to get to where we need to be. I
have to tell you, I think it is patently unfair to all of these folks that
have been working and who have taken time from their very busy day for something
that has been posted on the agenda for 1:45 and it's not a little bit of a
distance from that area to get to downtown Travis County. It's a little bit
of a distance and we have folks here, I see babies in hands. I知 guessing
one or two of you might have taken off time from work. That is unfair, and
for us to walk in here and find out, well, maybe there's something else out.
I'll tell you where I would like to go and this is this: what we're told is
there's a recommendation, it's no, and all of a sudden thought let's try something
else. Well, that is okay. I would like to have a motion that basically says
that we reject the variance that is put before us today. That does not preclude
the applicant from going back to work to see if there's something else that
you can come up with and resubmit it when you get it fixed, worked out, whatever.
But it is not fair to these folks here to have to come back in another two
weeks, well, maybe it's not going to be two weeks, it will be three weeks,
it's not fair to anyone here and it's certainly not fair to staff to once
again have to put your issue before everything else that is pending over at
tnr because it's not quite ready to go. We have rules, if it's not ready to
go, go get it ready to go and then bring it back. And that's where I知 at.
Because we have never -- i've been here ten years and it was because of what
happened in precinct 2 subdivisions out at the lake, in terms of things that
happened long before standards, and anna actually showed me what the standards
were from 1949 and they're shocking. It fits on one page what the standards
were back in 1949, but it's because of bad things that happened in a precinct
2 subdivision that we got these rules which make sense about you have to connect
to accepted county road and no one in anybody bringing up roads to county
standards have we said, well, promise it-to-do it, do your little piece and
we'll go ahead and take it in, it's close enough for government work. No,
even rob roy subdivision had to go out and fix all of its roads and when they
met the punch list, the county said, yep, you now meet all the county standards,
now we will accept them, a good deal of work went on in Austin colony and
we didn't say, oh, it's close enough for government work. It doesn't work
that way. To me it's like -- it's not like the city of Austin where if you
get rejected you can't come back for a full year. This doesn't prevent you
all from going back to work. But I don't think you're going to get anywhere
in two weeks and it's not fair for you all to jump to the head of the line
of every other project that is pending in tnr and i've got one or two or four
of them, has does everyone else on this dais, it's not fair to ask these folks
to come back, it's not fair to the county attorney's office and not fair to
tnr and not fair to anybody else here. I知 ready 0 reject this, go back to
work and bring something else back. It isn't ready. What joe has just laid
out there is still discretionary, it's a variance, I知 not going there. I知
not going there because of the bad stuff that happened in precinct 2. There
are reasons that we have these standards. It's being put up the prorata share
of something that is never ever going to happen. It isn't. [ applause ]
>> I stop on applause.
>> I would move the rejection of item number 41 and this
does not preclude the applicant from continuing to work with tnr and to refile
at whatever point they feel like they've got something else to bring back
to us.
>> do we -- have we had a chance to analyze the four lot
proposal? Joe?
>> no.
>> turned it in?
>> what do we think? Do we think what we described...
>> that's probably a legal issue more than it is a technical.
The four lot or the five lot better meets the variance, better meets the deed
restrictions, excuse me. I have not analyzed that issue.
>> okay.
>> joe?
>> I don't -- I don't think this deal is going to get worked
out.
>> I don't either.
>> I mean we know that it's not going to get worked out.
Mercedes knows it's not going to get worked out. Jim, you know it's not going
to get worked out. It's unfortunate that this community is willing to -- I
mean I will tell you, I am constantly amazed at the fights that this community
is willing to take on. I do think that a overall community ought to be able
to weigh in heavily on what needs to happen, what doesn't need to happen.
It's obvious that even if mercedes puts up $56,000 for this road, I mean,
it has been glaringly clear to me that the majority of the people, even if
you go out there and you put a six-lane divided highway, I mean what this
issue is is that it opens the door for so many people to do what most people
out there don't want done. Now, I mean, but I知 going to tell you right now,
I feel sorry for somebody that has gone out there and thought that they could
do something. I've heard everything all over the board with people that didn't
know what the bylaws were, that did know what the bylaws were and obviously
the people that don't want it, y'all know there's confusion out there with
some people. Some people are very clear that they didn't think that this was
the right thing to do, or that people were going to be able to do this. If
I thought that people would go in two weeks come back and say, you know what,
the road deal makes tall sense in the world to us, but there's a bigger deal
here and the bigger deal is that people don't want the flood gate being opened
with changing this or giving this variance because if we give this variance
it really does open the gate for everybody to do it. I thought if there was
an honest ability to go out and work with it, we've all driven places we didn't
want to drive, we thought we were get going to get some place, we got there
because we found out we couldn't. Because there was a fair procession, and
not to say this isn't a fair process that we've gone through, but it's kind
of gut wrenching, y'all. I mean to put people in a spot where you've got to
tell somebody who has put a lot of money into something, you know what, we
don't want you to do it, but that's what you're saying, the overwhelming majority
of the people are saying that, some people aren't -- and I will say this:
some people aren't saying it very nicely, which is not something that makes
me feel very good because I知 going to tell you, I am the recipient of people
not saying things nicely to me and all of this up here are subject to that.
It's a wonder that we have anybody that runs for office. I mean the way that
some people talk to elected officials and talk to their neighbors. I wish
that that weren't the case, but I realize that you can't take emotion out
of things when people get, you know, exercise. I think it's the only right
thing to do today and Commissioner Sonleitner is right, there's the ability
to go back and to refile. No one says that you can't do that. I mean at some
point in time if this thing needs to be looked at again, then I will look
at it again, but I really don't see any use in carrying it for two more weeks.
I mean as far as I知 concerned, I mean I can read the tea leaves, it's real
obvious where people are. We haven't budged and we've been working on it for
three months. So I知 sorry that it's turned out to be this way. I think we
ought to vote and I think we ought to send the message and move forward on
this project. I知 ready to vote.
>> so for the record, joe, the reason that the application
does not meet county standards is what?
>> does not connect to a county or publicly maintained roadway.
>> okay.
>> that is section 82.202 (d).
>> (d).
>> 82.202 d. That actually is 4 different alternatives. Three
of which involve the public road, one of which involves private streets so
it's not strictly that they don't connect to a public street and then there's
also a lot frontage requirement, but basically it's they don't comply with
82.202 (d) of the code and should the Commissioner's court vote to reject,
the law does require you to notify the applicant of the basis for the rejection
so if you do vote, include as part of your motion that the basis is failure
to meet the access and the lot front annual requirements of 82.202 (d).
>> and that is part of my motion.
>> that's what you second? Anymore discussion? Now, we --
some of you have come down to give comments but I think you see the direction
in which we're moving here so... Before you comment 'til after this vote.
Anymore discussion? All in favor. That motion passes unanimously. Thank y'all
very much.
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.
Last Modified: Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:23 AM