Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission conditionally backs subdivision variance for property near Northwest Liberty Hill
Summary
Planning staff recommended and commissioners discussed a variance to UDC sections requiring a street and utilities extension into the ETJ; staff recommended conditional approval with a temporary turnaround and to avoid extending city utilities into an area served by Georgetown.
Liberty Hill — Planning staff presented a subdivision-variance request for property near Northwest Liberty Hill that would relieve the applicant from extending a street section and city utilities into the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The commission discussed access, utility service territories and recommended conditional approval tied to constructing a temporary turnaround.
Staff said the property includes two parcels, one inside the city limits and one outside in the ETJ, and has an associated minor plat that had been conditionally approved pending the variance outcome. The variance seeks relief from UDC Sections 5 3 7(a) (street-section extension) and 5 3 8 (utility extension) that would otherwise require extending street frontage and city utilities along the western frontage of the new parcel into land the property owner does not own.
Staff described an agreement between the developer, the city and Emergency Services District No. 4 to construct a temporary turnaround at the north end of Whittlesea Way using a construction and access easement and to review the turnaround in the site‑development process to meet current UDC and fire-code standards. Staff also noted that extending city water into the ETJ would create a dead-end water main and maintenance obligation in an area where the property is expected to be served by Georgetown's water CCN; staff said wastewater and water mains exist near State Highway 209 and that a utility evaluation was in review.
Staff found the request consistent with four criteria for variance approval: it would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare; the conditions creating the need were not the applicant's actions; the request would not substantially conflict with the comprehensive plan or code purposes; and the conditions are not generally applicable to other properties. Staff recommended conditional approval, requiring construction of a temporary turnaround at the site-development stage.
Commissioners asked for confirmation that the temporary turnaround was already contemplated in the plan and for assurances that the turnaround would meet apparatus-turnaround standards; staff replied that the plan provided for it and that it would be reviewed in site development. Commissioners expressed no objection and seconded a motion that the matter be approved as conditioned; no roll-call vote tally appears in the provided record.
Clarifying details from the record: the request is tied to a minor plat, the developer and staff discussed feasible service by existing lines near Highway 209, and the staff recommendation conditions approval on a turnaround constructed to city and fire standards.
Ending: Staff will include the variance recommendation and its condition in the packet forwarded as appropriate; final approvals will follow the city's site-development review and any council or plat-approval steps required by process.
