Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 20
Except for item 20, and 20, consider and take appropriate action on a sidewalk variance as section 4.2.5 sidewalk on omissions, transportation manual, which requires all new subdivisions to install sidewalks on galeana trace cove in precinct 3.
>> good afternoon.
anna bolin, Travis County electronic.
this is associated with a replat of a lot which is not on the agenda today, but essentially there's an existing subdivision and the owner of one of the lots wants to split into three lots.
these lots will be at the end of galeana trace cul-de-sac, and when that development was created there weren't any other sidewalks in the area in that subdivision.
so if this plat puts in sidewalks, there will be like 175 feet of sidewalks at the end of a cul-de-sac which feeds on to river hills road and it's already developed around it.
now, one of the things when we evaluate the variance requests are pedestrian generators.
currently we looked to see if there are pedestrian generators within half a mile of the area asking for the variance.
this is about 3,000 feet from the end of the eanes school tract and which would be a pedestrian generator, but currently, you know, we're recommending this because it is within -- or it's further away than half a mile from the school tract and it's -- like I said she it's on a cul-de-sac that does not have any sidewalks around it.
>> this is there is no other sidewalk on this street.
>> that's correct.
>> so this would be an isolated segment if constructed.
>> yes, sir.
>> so what's there now?
just the street and shoulder?
>> just the street.
and I believe it is curb and gutter, but there aren't sidewalks on the cul-de-sac around this lot.
>> okay.
Commissioner?
>> one of the things that's come to my attention just really this past year is that we seem to give variances for these sidewalk situations but at the same time we're going back and installing sidewalks where there were none before.
I think the reason we require sidewalks in the subdivision, I understand what miss bolin is talking about when it comes to generators, but also some of the complaints I have had just in the last six months out in western Travis County are there's no place for my kids to ride their bicycles and there's -- you know, we don't know when or if the school will be built on river hills, but to not put in sidewalks when we have the opportunity to put them in, frequently we have to come back later and go wait a minute, the kids can't ride their bikes down the road because we just resurfaced it with chip seal and the gravel is making it dangerous for the kids to ride their bicycle.
so I just -- other than -- and one of the questions I did have about this is what the grade may be.
if it's a fairly steep grade, that would preclude use of sidewalks by the disabled or perhaps bicycles, but given the fact there may be an elementary school nearby, just the fact there's no connectivity now makes me question whether or not there te is a variance.
>> the grade of galeana cove is not very -- it's not great.
I haven't done a lot of research on the street.
the lot we're subdividing has about a 15% grade back into the lot.
so anyone living in the homes that will be there will have a 15% grade uphill to get to galeana cove.
there are six existing lots that are developed in the neighborhood across the street from the property we're sub dwighting.
all six lots have been developed with single-family homes so there's no requirement or generator at which point they would be required to provide sidewalks.
there are two other lots we are resubdividing.
those lots also will not have any generator at which time they will be required to provide sidewalk.
even if we provided sidewalk on our lot it would be the county or potentially the city if it were to be if you would into city of Austin full purpose, it would be the responsibility to put sidewalks on all the other lots except ours.
we are one of ten lots to public driveway and I think it's 120 feet of right-of-way.
I could be mistaken.
so given the current condition of the road no other sidewalks and walls that were constructed when the roadway was put in in limited areas where the sidewalk was to go in, in doesn't necessarily, in our opinion, make a sidewalks that goes no place.
given there will be no generators for future development to require sidewalks.
it wasn't in our best interests.
it didn't make sense to put in sidewalks that wasn't benefiting anyone at the moment and wouldn't connect to anything.
if there was a lot next door that would be developed in the future that would be required to provide a sidewalk, I could see some benefit.
>> given the fact there aren't sidewalks on the other existing homes on the street that's already developed, if there was a generator like the school to come into a site and we had to go back, I mean there was a demand for sidewalks, whose responsibility would it be financially?
>> it would be the county's.
we've already accepted this street for maintenance.
I would also suggest that if this subdivision were going no now, the original developer, it would be a requirement of the subdivision and actually with our current subdivision -- or sidewalk policy, as a permit was pulled for each lot, they would be required to post -- or post fiscal and then build the sidewalks and give us proof that they meet a.d.a.
regulations before we would return the money.
now if this were copping in, we would be, you notice, taking care of the sidewalks if this were an older subdivision.
>> if it were a new subdivision, the fiscal requirement would be triggered.
>> yes, sir.
the developer would be responsible for posting fiscal for sidewalks on arterials, if any, and the individual building the lot, the builders would post fiscal for each sidewalk on a lot if they came in and that would be returned to them as they gave us proof of a.d.a.
compliance.
as per our -- as per the policy that the court adopted.
>> so because this is -- I mean I'm thinking that there are subdivisions in Pflugerville, for instance,en now there's tons of traffic generators and they still have no sidewalks even though they've been incorporated into Pflugerville and Pflugerville is stuck with having confront that cost with what we knew ultimately would happen.
additionally, looking at tarrytown, tarrytown still doesn't have sidewalks because tarrytown used to be out in the boonies.
think about it, tarrytown used object out in the boonies.
no sidewalks there.
no sidewalks there and that would be on the city of Austin's dime in what is a very wealthy community.
do we need to revisit our no traffic generator requirements as far as looking at reasonable projections about where traffic generators are going to go, for instance, having a tighter collaboration with school districts about what their needs are going to be in the not too distant future so we could at least look at known future traffic generators when we look at these?
>> certainly, and we would do that in collaboration with the city of Austin because this is a title 30 matter, and it also ties to the transportation criteria manual.
and I will tell you that chapter 82, we also look to the body of work in the various city of Austin criteria manuals, so certainly we could look at that and then try to have that modified as appropriate, you know, go through the process, the code modification process that the city is appropriate and then also have that reflect elsewhere in the county where it would be not title 30 but chapter 82.
>> but this application meets the county's standards today, which is why staff recommends approval is this.
>> yes, sir, it meets the requirements of title 30 and as that relates to the transportation manual, that's why it's recommended, yes, sir.
>> this is just off Bee Caves road, right?
>> this is off river hills road on galeana address cove.
I believe I'm pronouncing that right.
>> yes, it is.
galeana trace cove and it's a little off Bee Caves near cornbacker creek area.
>> which is I'm thinking there's a storage facility in place right there on the corner at cuernavaca and a shopping center there.
if one didn't want to get in their car to drive the half mile to cuernavaca and bee cave, there would be no sidewalks to walk on, correct?
>> that's correct.
and another thing to keep in mind is that the lot we are subdividing will have a public access drive that goes downhill about 15 percent.
someone leaving their home at the bottom of the hill would have to walk up their private drive at 15% for a couple hundred feet to get to galeana trace cove to use the sidewalk.
there won't be sidewalk there especially considering the grade restraints.
>> you consider only a -- the roadway section of the private driveway would be rural.
it would not be curb and gutter.
>> even though it's half a mile from the intersection of cuernavaca and bee cave you would consider that rural?
>> just based on the roadway section.
>> but would you the human being consider a house that's half a mile from cuernavaca and bee cave to be rural?
>> no, probably not.
>> and would you -- would you without sidewalks even think about walking the half a mile anywhere there without sidewalks?
>> no, I would not.
but my point to the development and what we're proposing to do is at some point when sidewalk is desired in this area, the county or the city will need to come in and put a couple thousand feet of sidewalk.
>> but when they want a sidewalk, the public will pay for it.
>> well, if we think --
>> but if this developer putting in 100 feet of sidewalk that goes right now --
>> if wildfire information they we need to revisit our policy, I think we ought to.
it may be time to do I how long has this policy been in place?
>> this part of the transportation criteria manual, I would -- I would imagine at least five years or longer.
I don't know the exact date, but I'll certainly talk with my counter parts at the city of Austin and have a relook at this.
>> we typically wouldn't apply it retroactively anyway.
>> no.
>> any other questions, comments?
move approval of this item.
seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
any discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
shows Commissioner Commissioner Gomez and Davis voting in favor.
those opposed Commissioner Huber and Eckhardt.
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.
