Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Caprock Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves alley and street-connection variances for Caprock Landing preliminary plan
Summary
The commission granted two variances for Caprock Landing — waiving alley requirements and the requirement to connect streets to adjacent dedicated streets — citing fragmented ownership of adjacent platted lots, a large pipeline easement, and airport overlay constraints; staff said utilities and cart service will provide necessary access and services.
The Amarillo Planning and Zoning Commission approved two variances tied to the Caprock Landing preliminary plan, allowing the proposed single-family subdivision to be developed without alleys and without connecting its street system to adjacent dedicated streets.
Brady, planning staff, said the 22.28-acre site straddles Randall and Potter counties and is proposed for 130 lots zoned Residential District 3. Brady told commissioners the alley waiver and the street-connection variance (code sections cited by staff) were requested because adjacent Bel Air platted lots are now split among roughly 161 different owners and are unlikely to be reassembled. Brady said a 99-foot pipeline easement and portions of airport overlay boundaries further constrain conventional street tie-ins and that utilities and cart service could be provided in front of lots via rights-of-way.
During public and commissioner questioning, Brady confirmed that the plotted Bel Air lots have legal access in the form of public rights-of-way even though those access ways are not constructed, that the city does not require a traffic-impact analysis under the relevant ordinance, and that a drainage report and engineering review will be required during later infrastructure submittal. A member of the public asked whether the lack of constructed access created city liability; Brady said staff would need to research that and that administrative review would address open items if the variances move forward.
Commissioners moved to approve both variance requests together. The motion, moved by Landon (motion recorded as by Landon in the meeting notes), was seconded and approved unanimously.
Staff said that if the variances are approved the preliminary plan can be administratively approved once outstanding review comments are satisfied; the commission considered only the variances, not final development approval.
