Travis County Commissioners Court
December 13, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 14
>> number 14, consider and take appropriate action on the gray rock ridge preliminary plan, 386 single-family lots, six open space/water quality pond lots, in precinct 3.
>> good morning, anna bolin, Travis County t.n.r., and steve manila.
this preliminary plan is located kind of at the end of mopac.
it connects to a plat that is fully inside the city of Austin city limits.
and it is for 393 lots, 386 of which would be single-family.
the road is approximately like a little over 1500 feet long and during the course of the review of this, staff approved a couple of administrative waivers as per title 30, and one of them has to do with not having access to two external streets.
now, this was reviewed and was approved through the zoning and platting board at the city of Austin prior to any wildfires that we have since had in the area.
we still feel that it meets our requirements and are recommending approval.
that being said, we too are very concerned and sensitive about the wildfire risks and the current provisions in the code which needs to be revisited and both in title 30 and in chapter 82.
and we are going to be doing that work, but in the meantime we recommend approval of this item because it meets our requirements.
>> questions, comments?
>> I have consulted legal on this and have been told by our legal counsel that this project has met, as ms. Bolin said, all of our code requirements and our process, and that legally we should approve this.
and it is not based on the safety of access.
it's based upon the fact that they have complied with the existing code.
if, it gives me great angt to approve this project because it has a single point of entry on the north side and the wildfires -- the codes were written before we had experience with these wildfires, but the wildfires have demonstrated that it is entirely possible that if a wildfire was to start along mopac, there would not be an exit way out of this subdivision.
and I cannot tell you how -- how problematic I have in making a motion at the appropriate time to approve this subdivision.
if we do not approve this subdivision we would probably be sued I'm told because it met the requirements at the time.
I have a question for staff regarding the updating of the code because we are having some discussion about that.
I do not know how long that will take.
I would be interested in knowing that, and I would also be interested in knowing if in the interim before we get those codes updated, if we have the authority at the Commissioners court level to deny variances based upon the provisions in the code at this time because this is a very serious problem.
>> certainly.
as far as the length of time goes, it is something that we are going to start working on, you know, when we get back from the holidays.
and it's going to be one of the ones that we're really pressing to get done.
and we will also take that provision and incorporate that into chapter 82 so that it's -- it's throughout the county.
the second part of the question is a legal question and I defer to our attorneys on that, but one thing I did want to add is, you know, since this came up and we've talked to the applicant and, you know, made sure our concerns were known, I do believe that they are -- that they've worked with one of the adjacent neighbors to get some form of emergency -- like ingress or egress in case of an emergency situation.
now, they would need to get something in writing from him and it would need to be coordinated with the emergency service provider.
>> but we can't legally require that.
>> right.
>> I believe we did talk to the fire marshal about this too.
they did take a look at that.
there are some things that the developers can do to mitigate the potential for real bad incidents.
it's not going to
>> [inaudible] but they have taken some steps to do that.
>> I would add that it's been reviewed by the fire marshal, Austin fire department, and I believe the first responder is manchaca fire department, and they've all reviewed it and there were some changes that were made.
there's -- instead of just a regular collector, it's now a divided two-lane -- well, four-lane divided collector boulevard section, but that being said, Commissioner Huber is correct, it would be all getting out on to mopac.
>> and if that access is blocked by fire, it would be problematic.
>> these concerns are so legitimate, particularly in light of the fact that this development, what we've seen in terms of the emergency service response is that if you are at the edge of the county, you are likely to be in a -- in a place of confusion as to who responds.
just the idea that the fire marshal and a.p.d.
and manchaca needed to review this, and all from their perspective, and it's practically on the hays county line, so it's probable even hays county responders would be called in in the case of a fire.
so it speaks to not only our need internally to revisit our requirements under the joint office, but also our need to continue to work with the emergency service personnel in order to keep us from having such a fractured way of looking at these issues because this area could be responded to by a.f.d., esd 5, esd 3 or a hays county emergency service responder.
>> I'd also like to ask since we're talking about the code issues that you look at some short-term interim provision that might be legally available to keep us from having to approve something else like this before we get the full codes in place.
revised, I mean.
>> we'll visit with tom on that.
the developer's representative is here if you have questions of them, I believe.
>> is there something that could be done on a voluntary basis to meet these concerns?
it seems like we would want to ask for those before approval or as a condition of approval.
>> well, I believe that during the review process there were things that they ended up putting in the -- in the prelim to try to address the concerns raised by the emergency service providers such as the divided boulevard section and, like, fire hydrants, and then also as we -- as we progress, we've talked to them about getting some form of emergency access way through adjacent property to a road other than mopac.
>> we talked about egress and inincrease, they have to be there -- and ingress to make sure their safety addressed.
>> I have a one so if one of you could come forward.
thank you.
>> name, please.
>> blake mcgee.
>> thank you.
I know this has been a project that's been a long, long time in the making and that you have more or less inherited some of the conditions that you are working with out there.
I know that in our discussion earlier that -- and our conversations that you said this would be a fire-wise community, I believe.
>> yes, that's correct.
>> a question that I had and I don't recall if we discussed it is whether or not in the process developing this read, set go program could be established and shared with the -- with the potential home buyers.
that is an emergency evacuation plan.
>> yes, and in fact this property is part of a circle c master plan and we're going to be part of the circle c homeowners association and they have also adopted standards dealing with clearing and fire safety.
so we're more than happy to comply.
>> the ready, set go knob the event there was a fire, the people in this immediate area would know what their options were for safety purposes.
and how to evacuate.
>> yes.
we're happy to --
>> you would be willing to develop that and -- to do that?
>> absolutely.
>> any other questions, comments?
>> he reluctantly move approval, just because of the safety issues.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you for your patience.
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.
