Travis County Commissioners Court
February 13, 2007
Item 10
10. Consider and take appropriate action on the following requests: a, variance from the requirement that each lot in a subdivision shall abut a dedicated public street, title 30-2-171(a), access to lots for a subdivision in precinct three, commander's point - final plat (not recommended by transportation and natural resources staff); and -- this is not recommended by tnr. B. Variance from the requirement that an applicant include all land of the original tract in an application for plat approval, title 30-2-34(b)(d)(2) for a subdivision in precinct three: commander's point - final plat (not recommended by transportation and natural resources staff)
>> good morning, Travis County, t.n.r. Ana bolin. Is in case the city of Austin single office. This item was on I believe two weeks ago and the plat is not on at this point. But there were two variances that would be required for this plat to -- to go forward. Or at least two variances granted by this board. The first one is -- is under title 30 all lots have to abut a dedicated public road. And this one does not. So -- so we are not recommending approval. And the second one for -- for a landmark -- land locked parcel, are not platting the whole original tract, there's a portion of this tract that -- that is on the same easement as this -- this lot in question that would be in the subdivision and since it doesn't have a -- have a dedicated road, it's land locked so we are for the recommending that, either. We are not recommending that, either.
>> let's go back to a, what's the purpose of a?
>> what's the purpose of the regulation?
>> in a.
>> to -- to enable orderly development. Title 30 has the requirement that all lots abut a publicly dedicated road. Title -- or chapter 82 is different. I don't want to confuse the issue there. But -- but we picked up this long standing city of Austin code. We picked that up, put it in title 30 when we came with up with our consolidated codes. I would say the purpose is because, you know, I think the governmental entities people have -- have an expectation when they subdivide that they are on a dedicated street or private street that meets standards. I imagine that's why this rule was created similar to why our provision in chapter 82, which is different was created. That is very consistent with what we try to do. The confusing thing about this judge is, I mean, whenever I make the motion it will be for the approval of t.n.r.'s non-approval of it, I mean, and the applicant that is exactly what the applicant is asking for. So it's kind of a something opposite, very opposite of what we are generally being asked for when you see variances. Somebody coming in wanting the variance. In this case, you know, we are having someone come in and say, I mean, this is exactly what we need, we need for the county to turn this down.
>> > the rope that it's just the variances, not the plat as well, we are not discussing the plateaued. When something goes through the single office going to end up at zoning and platting before it comes here for approval, any variances need to be sorted out by the appropriate board and since we are the subdivision and transportation review, we are the appropriate board for this. That's why it's just variances, no plat involved.
>> anybody here on 10 a who would like to speak at this time. Please come forward, if you would give us your name we would be happy to get your comments. While you are coming up, request for a discounted fee. We granted the discounts, we expect to be the paid the same amount that we have been paid historically, $275.
>> correct.
>> February --
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> no problem. We have known that you were coming, we would have waited. Goodness and associates representing the applicant, as mr. Daugherty stated, the applicant is aware of the county's position, understands the county's position and although we may not be -- requesting denial, we understand that -- that the county in order to be consistent is most likely going to deny our request. At that point we will go back and try to resolve the issues that we're facing with regard to these variances. It's a big issue, going to be hard to overcome, however we understand the county is going to be consistent in the way they enforce the code.
>> I move that we accept the non-variance, if you will, of both a and b on 10.
>> to deny the request for both variances?
>> that's right.
>> discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
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, February 14, 2007 8:07 AM