Travis County Commissioners Court
November 6, 2007
Item 22C
>> 22, consider and take appropriate action on the following requests for variances from title 30, Austin-Travis County subdivision regulations for the canyons at Lake Travis. Preliminary plan. This morning we approved a and b as part of the consent motion. We c is request for variance from section 30-2-158 which requires a new sub subdivision to have at least two access streets. Why is this a good idea or okay?
>> the variances, this particular tract of land has some challenges in that it's got some very old subdivisions kind of bookending and neither one want the traffic from this subdivision to come through there. It's a challenge to get it accessed. We have a requirement that they have two ways in and out of any new subdivision. So the compromise was struck you will have this primary access which is your way in and out, but you will also have an emergency access that goes into the adjoining subdivision. That seemed to settle everyone down. The e.s.d was okay with that and the crash gate will be designed in such a way that it meets the requirements of the hudson bend fire district.
>> my question though was in that particular closed gate
>> [indiscernible], my question is that will people -- is that just for emergency route in and out or for individuals that would reside in there? Would they have access through that or would it just be for e.m.s. -- emergency services purposes only.
>> primary for e.m.s., but if there is a whatever, some event that would require a mass exodus, they could access that gate.
>> all right.
>> it's just not a routine access. There will be a gate in place and the gate can either be crashed if someone needs to get out or the e.s.d. Can open it. So it is primarily for fire, e.m.s., emergency situations.
>> okay. Just kind of wondering about that. I know we had another situation out there where we had another gated-type situation.
>> we have used them periodically, especially in areas where we expect there may be a threat of a wild land fire or something like that like in california.
>> as far as getting out of there.
>> right. That was my concern. But anyway, since you've explained it and laid it out like that, I really don't have any problem with it. I just wanted further explanation of it.
>> I move approval, although I will say I went out -- staff engineers went out with me, we met with the neighborhood. The cloudy ridge neighborhood folks. Cloudy ridge is an ample enough street. Unfortunately where cloudy ridge comes out on to 620 is right at mansfield bridge. And it is -- I mean, you know, putting any more traffic where that would just be normal everyday traffic is really not a good idea at all. And high land drive is barely big enough for a golf cart to use as its main road so that was pretty much off the table. And I think the cloudy ridge folks were amenable. I don't think we've got this thing etched in stone with regards to using that as an emergency exit, but quite frankly they even saw that they could use it as an emergency in the event they needed it as well. Because if you do get a fire up in there, you are looking for a lot of ways to get out of there. And it's not a great situation out there. 620 and especially in this area is just horrible. I mean because of the elevation, the lines of sight and then just by virtue of where cloudy ridge is right there at mansfield dam, across the street from the park. So it's challenging at best. But the developer has been good about this and the neighbors have been great. The highland drive neighbors have been -- this is the best it can possibly be. Staff is on record of not just being in love with it. I really appreciate them coming out and spending the time. But this is the kind of thing you have to do in so many parts of our community that you are looking for solutions and sometimes the solutions aren't great but they are things that have to work that's the reason I move approval.
>> I have one more thing that concerns me about this and I hear what you are saying and I have the utmost confidence t.n.r. Is working the situation the best they can particularly in light of cloudy ridge drive coming out at a very dangerous spot with sight distance issues and highland hills drive being too narrow. And I do get concerned about these -- in this particular instance it's justified, but I do get concerned about these sorts of waivers but it appears that we could have the highway 71 issue all over again eventually on 620 because of the lack of connecting arterial -- you knower arterial roadways between developments. I know you all are on pins and needles on those issues.
>> you are right. It really is a tough situation. Our challenge is is what do you do whenever somebody goes out and buys a tract of land and wants to develop it. I mean unless we just said --
>> what you do is what is being said in the last sentence, the neighbors and developers are looking into the possibility of purchasing adjacent property and building a new access one west of the one on the plan application. It would be a full connection to highway 620.
>> trust me, that's in there, but let me tell what you that is. That is putting a several million dollar bridge across even if they were to do that. And it's just -- it blows it out of the water.
>> and that is the responsibility if you were going to be adding population in the area, I think that it is appropriate to place responsibility with the developer to provide for safe access, safe and adequate access to the major arterials.
>> I wouldn't argue that.
>> we're on this item next. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you for the stimulating conversation.
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, November 7, 2007, 18:30 AM