Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 24, 2010,
Item 16
Number 16, consider and take appropriate action on the following variances: a, variance request from the title 30, city of austin/travis county subdivision for section 30-3-19 sidewalks. And this section requires installation of sidewalks for all new subdivisions. And the variance request is to do without sidewalks, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> and the reason is?
>> anna bolin, travis county t.n.r. The reason for this is that the subdivision abuts i-35 and there are no sidewalks at i-35 in this location. And additionally there is no curb and cutter -- additionally there are no well important pedestrian pathways through the subdivision. So we support this variance request.
>> move approval of the variance.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. B is a variance from title 30 for section 30-2-171 a, access to lots and subdivisions. That section requires each lot in a new subdivision abut a dedicated public street. The variance here?
>> the variance is because two lots in this proposed subdivision are designated as detention and water quality lots and they will be provided easements through other lots. So we support this. Variance request.
>> any discussion?
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> any discussion on the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. C is a variance request from title 30, city of austin/travis county subdivision regulations 30-2-158 (b) subdivision access streets and this requires a new subdivision, must have at least two access streets and each of the two access streets must connect to a different external street.
>> yes, sir. The purpose of this variance is so that there would only be one way into the subdivision -- well, one access into the subdivision off of i-35. Both txdot and the adjacent existing subdivision pamela heights are in support of this limited access. Txdot does not want people coming through pamela heights to get on to the 35 ingress easement or ingress ramps. So we support this variance request.
>> discussion? Motion?
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. D is variance request from title 30, city of austin/travis county subdivision regulations for 30-2-151, streets of a new subdivision shall be aligned with existing streets on adjoining property.
>> this -- the rationale for supporting this variance request is very similar from item c. Both txdot and the adjacent subdivision do not want the connectivity through the subdivision in part because this is going to be a commercial subdivision and the residential neighborhood isn't -- doesn't want the traffic through that. But also very importantly txdot dot not want the traffic coming through the subdivision to get on to the on ramp on to 35. So we support this request.
>> discussion?
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Before we get to e, this strikes me as being one of those subdivisions that has a lot more variances requested than any i've seen. But there are special reasons for that.
>> yes, sir. This is -- and this goes perfectly with item e.
>> well, let's read e. E is a variance of section 82.204 (e) (2), section 30-2-38 and section 30-4-31 to prepare a post-development drainage plan, prepare detailed construction plans and post fiscal surety.
>> yes, sir. This subdivision is a commercial subdivision, it's nonresidential. So in some respects it kind of functions similar to a site plan or there will be a site plan associated with that that's going to lay out in detail all of the engineering functions -- or engineering information and fiscal posting. In some regards we kind of -- it was an interesting task to try to figure out how to fit a round hole into a square peg or vice versa. We did both. Since we looked at the different tools that we've employed in the past, and in some respects it reminded us of a condominium subdivision agreement. At the end of the day we want to be sure that before even commercial development starts happening on this site that we get the information and the fiscal and the detailed plans all laid out before the first site plan comes in for approval. So in that regards we did decide that we could do the conservation -- something similar to a condo construction agreement and lay out when we were going to get those things. So at this point they are setting up different commercial lots -- well, when the final plat comes we'll be recommending approval for additional lots she but at this state we don't know what's going to go in and on those lots. So the site plan will answer those questions, and when the site plan eventually comes in, they are going to have to do the engineering for the entire site and they are going to have to post fiscal for the common improvements like the driveways and the detention or any drainage improvements for the whole site at that point once they have the client.
>> okay, but these are variances for the preliminary plan.
>> yes, sir. We're revealing a final plat and a preliminary plan right now. It's in city of austin's e.t.j. So the first step is to take the variances forward. The next step from -- after the variances are discussed in court and approved or disapproved, the plat and the prelim will go to zoning at city of austin and ultimately the prelim and the final plat will come here for approval.
>> but the variances decisions are final today.
>> yes, sir.
>> now for the next subdivision in a comes forth with this number of requests, we will probably claim this was a unique situation.
>> this is a unique situation.
>> we'll have to say that if you have a unique situation too and you meet all of these criteria, then you will be entitled to the same variances.
>> yes, sir.
>> in order for us to be fair.
>> yes, sir. What some of the things that make the situation unique are that it's a commercial subdivision, it's a nonresidential subdivision. That is further unique, ordinarily in the past we would have seen this as just a site plan. But since the owner desires to sell lots to different commercial -- or different commercial entities, they desire to do a subdivision. So in an indication where if it's nonresidential, we would contemplate this variance, provided we had a similar assurance as we have in the modified construction agreement that deals with when we're going to get the engineering, when we're going to get the fiscal. Because what we want to avoid is uncertainty for our constituents, even the commercial ones, and we feel we have that level of agreement with the construction agreement.
>> i believe i followed all of that. All right. Commissioner eckhardt?
>> i move approval of e.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Good job, miss bolin.
>> thank you.
>> taking us in a bold new direction.
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, August 24, 2010, 2010 2:30 PM
