Travis County Commissioners Court
July 11, 2006
Item 26
26 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following items related to site plan variance request for architectural granite and marble company. 26-a, variances from chapter 82, standards for construction of streets and drainage in subdivisions in Travis County. A-1, section 82.109-c-3-e, requirement that development in a waterway buffer zone is prohibited except to certain uses and in certain circumstances. And 26-a-2, section 82.109-c-3-b, requirement establishes the buffers for each classification of waterway. And a-3, section 82.109-d, requirement that stipulates all cut and fill land balancing shall be limited to a maximum of eight feet. These requirements are set forth in the Travis County interim rules and the request is that we grant these specific variances.
>> yes, sir.
>> morning, carol joseph with tnr. With me is anna bolin, our program director of development services and our engineer, theresa kalkins. Anna will walk you through the applicant's request. And the applicant is also here and hopefully it shouldn't take too long.
>> morning. The architectural granite and marble company is looking to buy this site, and before they buy this site they're looking to be sure that they get these variances so they can develop their property. This site is somewhat unique in that it's a 19.34-acre site. Just to orient you, it's in western Travis County across from sweetwater ranch on 71 or right off of 71. It has two -- setbacks from two major waterways that cross it and one intermediate waterway. And also on this site is a hillside, so it has a lot of things going on. Approximately 71% of this -- of the 19.34 acres is in a buffer zone of some sort. So that is one of the reasons why the applicant is coming forward with these variance requests. The first variance request is for the requirement that there's certain things that can and can't be done in the buffer zones. One of the things that the applicant wants to do is pave -- there's an existing gravel driveway to get from 71 to his site, and he wants to pave that to access his property. Another thing that he wants to be able to do is cross an intermediate waterway with his driveway. Internal to his site plan. I'm going to go through the variances really quickly and we'll talk about them. The next section of the interim rules that the applicant is looking for a variance to is establishing the buffers for the classification of waterways. In addition to the uses listed above, there are two buildings that will encroach into the buffers, and what the applicant is proposing to do instead of follow our interim rules buffer zone criteria, follow the lcra nps buffer requirements. And those are 25 feet from the 100 year floodplain. Also, the third variance he's looking for is a cut and fill land balancing variance. Our interim rules say that the maximum that they can go is to eight feet. Given that the hillside is on the one side and we've asked him to get as much as he could out of the buffers, as he's creeping up into the hill, he thinks he might need to go to 10. So that's the reason for the third one. So we've been meeting with this applicant, and the applicant has also been meeting with lcra and he's also been meeting with the travis settlement homeowners association to see where everyone is on this and get the best water quality that's appropriate for the area. One of the things that he's going to -- he's proposing to do with this site, the permanent water quality best management practice that he's proposing to employ is a vegetative buffer strip. He's also proposing to use rainwater harvesting with cisterns, use pore rouse concrete, use native landscaping and preserve as much as the natural area on the remainder of the site as possible. When he met with -- and the applicant can speak to this himself. When they met with the travis settlement property owners association, one of their major concerns is transportation. What they're proposing to do is move their gates back as far as possible so that when the shipments come to them they will not be on 71, they will be on site and the internal circulation of their site was designed so that they can navigate around the buildings and not be on 71. And I especially appreciate that during working with us, you know, they need to be able to navigate around the buildings. At the same time, we didn't want the parking in the buffers and we wewanted them to get as much as they could out of the buffer zones, and they did work to do that as best as they could. The other two things that the travis settlement property owners association let it be known that they were concerned with was water quality monitoring monitoring. And the applicant is agreeing to do some voluntary water monitor -- water quality --
>> water quality monitoring.
>> that's easy for y'all to say. Thank you. [ laughter ] and they are also looking to train their employees on how to do that as well. And the third thing that I understand to have been something that was a concern was, well, what kind of impervious cover would be on the site in the future? Well, if the site is ever further developed, anyone in the future would have to apply by whatever regs are in place at the time. But one thing that I would like to say is that given that the applicant -- during the course of time we've been working with them it's taken 20,000 square feet out of the buffer zones, and to further compensate by -- for encroaching into the buffers, we asked them to employ an additional bmp. We're asking them to use a level spreader at the edge of their driveways to further enhance the vegetative strips. We're preparing to recommend these three variances.
>> anna, across the street, sweetwater, it's huge related to what they're going to have to do related to mitigation related to endangered species. Have these folks had their consult with u.s. Fish and wildlife about whether there are any issues? Any issues related to that on their patch?
>> they certainly will before they get a permit issued. Right now they're not even to the point where we have a permit in. They're at the point where they're trying to figure out if it's possible to get something designed.
>> that was my friendly reminder to say hi, you are going to have to consult with u.s. Fish and wildlife.
>> oh. And I do want to remind everyone that this is an existing business. It's already in Bee Caves. They're looking to relocate further down the road. They're already on 71. They're looking to move further down 71.
>> has the applicant had an opportunity to meet with the residents.
>> yes, sir. And in fact, there's been -- I want to say yesterday or Friday an e-mail -- I believe it was from travis settlement that was e-mailed to all of y'all, but the applicant can speak to that.
>> this is the applicant's opportunity. If you would give us your full name, please.
>> my name is david smith. I'm the consulting engineer. I represent the seller on the tract. --
>> my name is jack l.b.j.ernek, I'm with architectural granite and marble, one of the principals in the country.
>> I believe when the interim rules were discussed, this type of situation was pointed out that there were -- there would at times be unique tracts that involve variances. Approximately 70% of the tract is in buffer zones. There's about 10 acres of flat land on the 20-acre tract. When the buffers are all applied, it gets chopped down to an acre and a half in the center and a half acre on the north end. So most of the tract goes away with the buffers. We feel that architectural granite and marble has come up with a reasonable proposal. We've tried to do our best to deal with the neighborhood association. We've contacted the hill country conservancy. We've made as many modifications as we can. We didn't come in with a bogus site plan that add hada lot of things that we can cut out and change. We've been straightforward and up front with everyone on this. We work with the staff. They've been very helpful in trying to modify the plan to get as close as we can and still have a usable tract of land for the proposed user.
>> what's our standard for determining whether to grant a variance? For these particular requirements?
>> between working with the applicant and trying to make sure of reasonableness, our engineers review their engineer's work and our standard is as it comes in we make decisions based on whether it makes sense to us that we approve the variance. It meets -- it's what we say would meet all the safety and regulations that we think.
>> I'm looking for something a little bit more objective.
>> we also look to the spirit of what the variance would set out -- what the original code was set out to achieve. And if we can achieve the same effect with other measures. And that's why it was important, even though we don't have a formal site plan yet that the applicant meet with lcra, figure out, you know, okay, so how are you going to achieve this water quality net result that the original code was seeking to effect? And you know, the porous pavement and some of the other things that they're going to do, the vegetative filter strip get there to a point, but it's not just that, but it's like well, if you're not going to meet this, what are you going to meet? It's a combination of things.
>> how do we capture the commitments? Their promises to meet certain things, water quality monitoring, how do we capture the commitment to do that?
>> judge, that's required by the lcra under their ordinance.
>> judge, those would be conditions you put on the permit. And let me try to answer your first question, judge.
>> please do.
>> the standard in your regulations for a variance is protect the public interest and comply with sound engineering principles and practices.
>> that's the one approved by the Commissioners court.
>> right.
>> that's a lot more objective.
>> judge, let me add a couple of things. This probably could be the poster child for exactly what could happen to us in western Travis County with regards to what we did with interim because you've got a piece of land here that you effectively can deem it valueless if you don't have the ability to get in and get some variances with a tract of land because you take a 19.24-acre tract of land and you net it down to, as david said, two acres. And it is -- I do think that we all have to be mindful of what western Travis County, certainly in the spirit of what people want, and that is water quality is -- I know it's a dirty phrase for some folks because it can really be used as a whip or a club, but given that we've got some abilities to deal with best management practices, and I do think that the applicant has put forth a real honest attempt. And even though I remember the first meeting, that wasn't exactly what a few people in the room wanted to hear about needing to sit down with folks. I mean, the truth of the matter is that is how we move the ball forward in western Travis County especially. It's sitting down with people, laying awe what you're doing, and I still find most people at the end of the day to be reasonable. So you do have to find a way to allow things to be done, and that's the reason that we have the variance opportunities from the court. I do know that there are some people that want to weigh in on this thing next week, and the judge has asked that we have another week, but I do think that this is clearly the best example that we are going to have come by us that would demonstrate that variances are absolutely the necessary and the right thing to do in order to move this thing forward. I don't know what will transpire in the next week, but obviously david, y'all will have those comments, get those comments as we are getting them. I personally didn't get any in my office, but I think the judge --
>> I got a phone call this morning.
>> a phone call this morning. Can you guys go a week, let's see what they are, let's talk with them, bring it back on next week? Because that's really quite frankly what we need to do. We need to move this thing forward. We have got to allow some variances for you to be able to put a business on this thing. So I'm fine with that.
>> now, if the party that called me had their issues addressed, I guess, and don't plan to come next week, hopefully I'll know by Monday or you will, and we'll be able to let you know and just put it on accident. If they're coming, then we'll have a discussion. But the first variance, though, would be to improve the driveway from gravel to pavement. So driveway is already there, but it a gravel driveway. And they'd want to pave it for convenience and --
>> yes, sir. For the trucks they've got coming in with the kind of weight they've got, they've got to have that.
>> and the second one is what now?
>> well, the first driveway -- the first variance also includes -- there's also a waterway buffer that includes -- internal to the site that includes a driveway. So it's not just the driveway is getting on to the site, just to be clear, it's more than that. The second variance is just that there will be things in the buffers in general.
>> so the first one is to the access to property, and then on the property from gravel to pavement.
>> and on the property that there will be driveways in the buffers.
>> that's the second one.
>> that's also the first one. The second one is that there's also going to be some buildings that encroach into those buffers.
>> that's where you really need the variance on the setback capabilities.
>> and just so you know, those buildings are going to use rainwater harvesting.
>> and what's the third one?
>> the third one is for the cut and fill for land balancing, our regs stipulate that it be limited to eight feet. They may need to go to 10 feet given the constraints of the site.
>> all right. But even after granting these variances, the standard that tom read a few minutes ago will be met?
>> yes, sir. And they are preparing -- they're going to comply with the rest of the interim rules. These are the only things that they're asking for variances from.
>> anything else today?
>> if y'all have any questions --
>> I would ask if you hear anything further, let me know because to my knowledge I haven't heard anything.
>> it's like you said, we just got the phone call this morning, so I'm -- you and I talk five times a week, so we would have heard something. Quite frankly, I think it's a tribute to what you guys, david, and I really appreciate y'all getting out and working with the people because that really is the way to do it. Sometimes people don't want to go and discuss these things because sometimes the squirm factor is a little more than what people are comfortable with, but at the end of the day, that's what you really -- that's what we really have to do in western Travis County because we just have too many challenging areas out there where that's what exactly is necessary for us to do, so I appreciate that. Let's bring it back and see if we can't get it done next week.
>> unfortunately a one-week postponement is very, very usual, but we hope to get it done next week. Thank you. Thank you, staff.
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:
Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:47 AM