Travis County Commissioners Court
December 15, 2009,
Item 21
>> anna, are you next door?
i think I promised I would take 21.
should be pretty straightforward.
21, consider and take appropriate action regarding whisper valley variance requests.
we've announced 21.
>> anna bolin, Travis County t.n.r.
we've had this item at Commissioners court on November 17th and at that time there were three variances that we were recommending approval of.
one was for -- in relation to a primary collector.
there are two parts to it.
one is to include bike lanes on a curb and gutter section and one is to include bike lanes on a noncurb and gutter section.
the second variance is for a neighborhood arterial and it's very similar.
one is to include bike lanes on to this type of road both in curb and gutter and noncurb and gutter.
the third variance is in relation to who is the parkland provider -- or who would be the parkland provider for whisper valley.
under title 30, since Travis County has the closest adjacent park, ordinarily it would be us, but based on the p.u.d.
agreement the applicant has with the city of Austin, we are -- they are -- we are recommending their variance to allow the city of Austin to be the parkland provider.
and since that time, we've worked with the applicant.
there were several outstanding variance requests that we were not in support of.
but since that time, we have met with the applicant and we're now able to recommend some additional variance requests.
the first one is for a local one-way street segment that the developer would use in limited areas of his development.
the variance would be to have 32 feet of right-of-way and 21 feet of pavement for a one-way street section with parking on one side.
we're now able to recommend this variance based on the following conditions: the parking lane may be on either side of the roadway, the maximum roadway length will not exceed 300 feet, there are two points of access required so these types of roadways will not be used in a dead-end street situation.
at the time of preliminary plan, they will have to demonstrate certain things for us to -- for us to approve a preliminary plan with this -- this piece in it.
one is they are going to have to demonstrate that there's adequate off-street parking to serve the lots that are on this -- on these sections.
and also, at time of preliminary plan, they will have to get sign off from esd number 12, the emergency service district that would provide emergency services for this subdivision and from the fire marshal's office.
and in addition, they will have a deed restriction which would allow the homeowners association to enforce the no parking policy -- or no parking regulation on this road way.
so that's one variance that previously was outstanding that we are now able to recommend.
the second variance that was outstanding is the use of alleys.
if you may remember, initially this came in and the developer wanted the alley to be publicly maintained.
we suggested they use a joint use easement and that led to discussion about frontage -- lots having frontage.
and where we ended up is staff can support the variance to have 15 feet of pavement as opposed to 20 feet to alley, and staff can support the joint -- the flags on the lots going from 15 feet to 10 feet.
these flags can be either in the open space area with the open space easement over the top of them or they can be in the -- in the back in the alleyway.
all of the lots would be restricted to use the alleys.
so given that the following conditions are met, staff can support these variance requests.
all of the lots will have access to a public electrically maintained roadway to the flag lots with a minimum of 10 feet may only be utilized with lots utilized alleys fronting on to a common area space.
all lots on the common area space will connect to the public street through the common open space.
alleys will be part of a joint use easement.
buildings adjacent to the alleys are limited to three feet -- to having three stories.
the alleys are not intended for fire protection access.
the lots will be designed to meet the fire code requirements for interior side yards when less than five feet.
access hose, lanes and fire hydrant locations.
at time of preliminary plan, there be -- the applicant will have to get signoff from esdn 12 and the fire marshal's office to ensure safety of this component and the applicant will have to demonstrate at time of preliminary plan that there is adequate parking for the people that live in this section of the development.
the remaining variance that we discussed a little bit on the 17th had to do with the braker lane extension.
and the applicant is requesting -- well, the braker lane extension is part of a public-private partnership that -- that's why steve is here, and the applicant is asking for a variance so that -- because of the intersection with 973, the variance is so that storm water can overtop the street connections at the proposed braker lane to the existing 973 with the 100-year flood plain at more than six inches.
this connection wells be located in the two -- in the two-year flood plain.
i'll let steve speak to why we're recommending that variance.
>> okay.
thank you.
braker lane, which is the spine roads for this development, is a 2005 bond project, public-private, as stated by anna.
where it connects to fm 973 is on a portion of 973 that's beneath the flood plain.
the entire frontage of the developer's property is in flood plain as is 973.
and what we looked at, and I got to believe that at the time we did the bond project in 2005, txdot was looking at improving fm 973 at various locations along its route between 71 and 290.
and a lot of that -- of effort went away when they lost funding.
so they were on a track to make improvements to 973.
they are now off track awaiting funding.
and in conversations with txdot, it looks like it could be 15 to 20 years before they elevate the road up out of the flood plain.
and when they do that, they typically would do that to a 50-year storm event, not a 100-year as our standards require.
so even when they do make that -- that improvement in the future, it would still not be compliant with our current subdivision standards.
to help mitigate the concern, and the concern is, okay, if we connect to 973 at this legislation, you start build -- this location, people could get stuck in there with when the road goes under water.
and what we had agreed to do with the developer is knowing that in the future this probably will go away, but it's well into the future, if they will complete a second passageway into their subdivision connecting to a location on 973 that will be open during a 25-year event, then they can continue on with their development.
added to that was if they do go that route for a second way in that meets a 25-year requirement, they will continue construction of braker lane all the way to taylor lane which is not subject to the inundation problem.
that will give a back door for the subdivision.
that was one option in trying to find another location to make a secondary access.
and I don't know how how successful they will be at that.
the other option is immediately build two lanes between fm # 73 and terrell lane.
just be done wit.
you'll have it when the 973 intersection closes down.
they wanted that flexibility and I agreed that wasn't unreasonable so we would recommend approval of the variance.
>> okay, so we expect them to build the road to taylor.
>> they have two choices.
one is find a second access that ties the 973 at a location that stays open during a 25-year event and within three years complete the connection over to taylor.
or if they don't want to mess with that, immediately build the connection between 973 and taylor.
>> okay.
so -- go ahead.
>> on the second location that would comport with the 25-year event, is that location and the first location, are they both subject to the same flood flow?
in other words, is it likely or the possibility exists in a 25-year event both locations would be under water?
>> yes.
yes.
it is likely.
>> but the developer has no -- the applicant has no problem, in other words, they want to look at some alternatives.
>> they do, Commissioner.
i'm skeptical that they will be able to find another location to make that 25-year.
>> but taylor lane appears to be the -- a good entry point also as far as access.
>> right.
>> and so -- but right now they are looking for the flexibility.
>> they do want the flexibility.
it doesn't do them any good to have whoever they sell property to in there to be stuck, so -- but they do have an issue with -- you know, their economic model.
and they have to revise that because they had not planned on doing this when they first started into this process of getting this project completed.
so they would like to have the ability to find a second connection, knowing that within three years after that connection is made they have to go ahead and finish up at least a two-lane connection over to terrell lane or if they can't find that, they will immediately build a two-lane road between 973 and taylor and they have their back door way right away.
>> what is staff's recommend nation on the preliminary plan?
>> on the preliminary plan?
i'm sorry, right now we're just recommending these variances.
there's not a prelim that has been submitted yet.
at the time of prelim for them to actually be able to use some of these variances, they are going to have to demonstrate certain things with regards to parking and provide written concurrence from the esd and the fire marshal's office.
but staff supports these variances.
there was one additional variance discussed on the 17th that's been withdrawn by the applicant and that was for angled parking in certain commercial areas.
>> so when we see the preliminary plan, these variances should be in there.
>> right.
if you grant these variances, they will be able to use them possibly in the design of their preliminary plans.
>> anybody else here on this item who would like to give comments?
yes, sir.
number 21.
>> I'm john williams, president of the park springs neighborhood association.
i don't want to take a lot of your time now.
on the 17th you heard from the vice president of our association, jermaine swenson, but I do want to express our thanks both to ms.
bolin, mr.
geiselman, mr.
manua, your staff, and to steve metcalf and mr.
gilleland and the developers who have kept us informed about this development.
as you know, they are applying for a p.u.d.
zoning for this, and as was generally agreed on the 17th, the possibility of having some really superior development in eastern Travis County as opposed to the kind of dumping grounds that we've had so frequently is a positive development and we certainly can support it.
but we have very real concerns about the infrastructure, particularly the roadway infrastructure.
973 and taylor lane, you have another item on your agenda this morning that involves the intersection of taylor lane and 969 and lots of truck traffic.
i'm delighted to say that the developers of whisper valley along with some other developers in the area are meeting with campo.
there's a meeting scheduled on January 11th, and I expect that those developers plus the city of Austin, the city of manor, my association working through campo, I'm hopeful we can have a cooperative effort to build the infrastructure that is so desperately needed to support this good development.
but I wanted to report to you that we can with that understanding, we certainly can support this development.
>> thank you.
and again, I really want to thank the park springs neighborhood association for being so alert on so many things.
and again as you stated, that this is a high-scale development.
something similar to folks very familiar with the airport, old robert mueller airport development, it's something similar to that where you have a lot of good upscale things, and we need that over in the community, as you stated earlier.
you know, other than other things that's been continually dumped on.
that's a very true statement.
and this is upscale development so we're going to do what we can to make sure that the concerns you have brought up are addressed, and, of course, with the recommend variances, it seems like a win-win situation.
so I wanted to just let you know that.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> no, thank you for being here.
>> discussion of the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you 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:
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:30 PM
