Travis County Commissioners Court
February 19, 2008
Item 23
23. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: b, a revised preliminary -- a, a revised preliminary plan in precinct three: west cypress hills, phase 1 (420 total lots); b, a preliminary plan in precinct three: west cypress hills, phase 2 (261 total lots); c. A preliminary plan in precinct three: west cypress hills, phase 3 (932 total lots); d. A request for a variance to chapter 82, section 82.202(i), block length not to exceed 1500 feet in length for west cypress hills, phase 2, preliminary plan; and e. A request for a variance to chapter 82, section 82.202(e)(2), dual access, a new subdivision must have at least two access streets and connect to a different external street for west cypress hills, phase 2, preliminary plan. So there are two variances, one in d, one in e. Staff will lay out the reasons for those as well as the recommendation. And then we will discuss a, b and c.
>> okay. First off, let me just say that -- that this project, a lot of work has gone into it, it's a long time in coming. Just a little bit of back history. Phase one preliminary plan was approved prior to the interim rules. Technically phase 2 and 3 could have elected to not go by the interim rules. But they are going by the interim rules. They voluntarily agreed to that. It is purpose behind the variances, these two variances are pretty common and requested variances in areas where there's a lot of topography. The block length not exceeding 1500 feet, it wouldn't be as desirable to force someone to meet the requirement, in some of the locations. So what we would recommend, we are recommending in this instance is a variance to not have the block length exceed or to have the block length exceed 1500 feet because of topography. Part of that has to do with the safety issues. Involving streets and some of it has to do with environmental, not wanting to have a lot of cut and fill unnecessarily, so safety in the environmental impact would be the reasons why staff is recommending this. The same with -- with section 2. -- there's
>> [indiscernible] for this section to connect to. In the future they will at least another way in and out, but right now with this preliminary plan they just have the one. Also based on topography. It's a boulevard section. So -- so we're -- we're -- safety-wise we feel better about that. But just based on the topography that's why we are for the variances.
>> so granting the variances makes more sense than blind compliance with the policy.
>> yes, sir. We have seen -- we have taken these two variances on different occasions, that -- if you have one, you often have the other. Especially in cases where there's topography, sometimes floodplain, that's when we -- when we start meeting the variances or -- start needing the variances, not we but the constituent needs the variances but we would recommend them.
>> the second one really is a dual access one.
>> uh-huh.
>> ultimately as -- they are stubbing to adjacent land areas that aren't developed yet. And as those start to develop, then some of this will take care of itself.
>> there is a set aside of a significant amount of right-of-way.
>> uh-huh.
>> explain that to us.
>> with which section, I知 sorry.
>> looking at the last sentence on page 3.
>> okay. I don't have it in front of me. The proposed boulevard is 100 feet of right-of-way and can accommodate several lanes for emergency purposes. That's in the future.
>> right. Like I said, for us to be supportive of a variance, it's a little bit easier if we do have a large boulevard section so if there is an emergency everyone is not trying to be on the same lanes at the same time. Given that this is a collector, a large collector, it was reviewed reviewwith the emergency servics district, which is the standard procedure, so yes it's large.
>> anybody here in opposition to the requested two variances.
>> judge --
>> okay. For those that really might be a little misled by the names on this west cypress hill, this is -- this is the lick creek deal. We all know what kind of notoriety that project got. I can only say that -- that -- that we know how active a residential area at this part of the county has. The fact that we have no one here is a testament as to how hard this applicant the applicant and the new engineer that's come to to this project, how far they've come. Because otherwise we would know when people were in opposition to this. I can just say that I wish that I could clone, you know, the whole team that did this thing, they did an outstanding job. They have met with everybody out there. This was after the lick creek disaster. This is still that subdivision, I mean, where they still have a lot of land to develop. But every indicator as is evident by what we've got today, which is -- which is support from -- from staff and them basically having worked out all of these issues with the residents of coming down, you know, this is a -- this is a -- almost history. I mean the fact that you can do something this -- this has been this controversial in western Travis County and to have it come through, I知 -- I知 glad to make the recommendation, I appreciate staff working with -- with hank and with -- with allen and -- and well I mean if we could -- if we do everything like this in western Travis County, it would sure make all of our lives a lot easier, so I really appreciate the team, allan, topfer and hank smith putting this thing together and working with staff. These are the kind of things we like to see. We get staff recommendation and we don't have people down really bothered and with an area that was front page news for, you know, known for picketing the whole subdivision and not to say that there aren't still issues that crop up west. But I知 glad to make the recommendation of 23 a through e.
>> okay.
>> second that. This says according to the applicant, that the developer has negotiated a settlement agreement with the guardians of lick creek that adds most of the area residents concerns. Is that a written agreement or -- sort of verbal understanding, or what?
>> yes, I知 with faulkner engineers, that is a written agreement. We worked out with them. I can go through the details if you would like. But -- but mirroring on what Gerald said. Actually last year we ran through a fairly substantial development project and we put just under 80 lots on the ground. We built an amenity center, swimming pool, hike and bike trails throughout the entire area. Had pretty significant rainfall events there was really no issues associated with the downstream development during that entire process, we have worked very hard to ensure that is the case.
>> okay.
>> it the guard whys of lick creek.
>> guardians of lick creek.
>> right.
>> back up also says it is anticipated several residents will attend the Commissioners court meeting. I can conversations with some of them. For the most part conversations were very quick. They asked me if sections, if phases two and three, those two preliminary plans met the interim rules. When I said yes, that was pretty much the end of the conversation.
>> we've been meeting with the guardians of lick creek, with the hill country alliance in the last weeks, go over exactly what we were submitting, variance requesting. Letting them all know that the hearing is next Tuesday, we want you to be aware that's coming up.
>> any other questions from the court? Comments? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly voting in favor, Commissioner Davis abstaining, thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> .
>> license and support services.
>> second.
>> discussion? Thank you for your presentation, purchasing agent. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. That was easy, wasn't it, cyd?
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 20, 2008 8:09 PM