Travis County Commissioners Court
February 14, 2006
Item 29
29. Consider and take appropriate action on a preliminary plan in precinct one: pioneer at walnut creek subdivision (short form plat - 2 lots - 73.05 acres - sprinkle cutoff road - no fiscal required - water and sewage service to be provided by the city of Austin - city of Austin 2-mile e.t.j. ]
>> judge, he just -- this absolutely meets all requirement, I’m going to be voting for this. I want to put in the record that this is yet one more site that will have a business and multi-family, so homes within x distance of two existing landfills that we have no closure date certain for those landfills. I just want to make sure this is like out there and it's known. The other thing that concerns me is that sprinkle cutoff leads down, if you don't take other roadways, into the walnut place neighborhood, and so if -- if the traffic is going to be headed south, we are going to cause more problems for the walnut place neighborhood. That is a residential streets if folks are wanting to get to 290. If folks are trying to get to braker lane, samsung boulevard we are for the going to have issues. But the potential of a business that we don't know what business that is and more multi-family that if these folks especially the multi-family if they are heading into Austin to go to work, we have the potential of more impact slamming walnut place neighborhood and I’m saying this stuff up front that we just -- just continue to have things that are going on out there. That are causing issues down the road. Literally. But you meet all standards, so I have no issues with that. But I just want to say this for the record in the same way that I say it on anything around freight barker road, we are creating more of a nightmare and with things that are out there and being platted, moving forward we don't have solutions on some of these things yet. We don't have arterial a. We do not have the landfill resolved in terms of date certain closure.
>> multi-family uses and apartment complexes and with how many units? 250.
>> times three people to an amount. You do the math.
>> any legal or policy reason why we would not approve this?
>> no legal reasons.
>> I would move approval, judge. It's not about the appropriateness --
>> I don't have legal --
>> I can't tell you where there are any legal reasons. The county attorney's office hasn't reviewed this project. Policy reasons, whether it comply was the regulations I will defer to joe. With you -- but the county attorney's office hasn't looked at it.
>> I’m not trying to hold this up. It does meet standards. I am respectful of that. They are moving through the process. They have cleared the city of Austin bigger than we are. I don't want to hold this up, just put this in the record that here we are, it continues and the potential of 650 more people who are irritated that there is a -- there are two landfills down the block and who could have issues after the fact. In terms of what's there.
>> [multiple voices]
>> each person will generate or even household will generate certain pound of waste.
>> eight trips per day coming out of there is the usual that they do. That could be going south into walnut place. [inaudible - no mic] plans on occasions --
>> when t.n.r. Raises a legal question, they will ask me for my input and they do a good job of identifying what the legal issues are. So -- so -- I mean it not common for the --
>> [multiple voices]
>> we believe when we put this on the court agenda that it does meet the standards adopted by the court.
>> is there a motion?
>> I will move it. But it's Commissioner Davis' --
>> no. I would like to that's what I am saying, there are legal questions with this particular subdivision.
>> I don't have any legal questions to the county attorney, no.
>> with that I would like to move approval for this particular project. Let me ask this particular question. What is the projected traffic scenario for this particular subdivision? Do we have any questions, any analysis on that? How many units?
>> usually about 250 units and we are estimating 8 to 10 trips per unit. So you are talking about a thousand, more than that.
>> 2500, 3,000.
>> 2500 trips.
>> plus whatever the commercial is. [multiple voices]
>> we are suggesting, is that suggested that there would be an impact on some of these roads that -- I guess growth is going to bring impact regardless of where you are. In the county. But how will that impact this particular area?
>> I think Commissioner Sonleitner was kind of expressing that issue. If you do not have additional roads built, there's no place else to go but down springdale road.
>> uh-huh.
>> and the accumulation of traffic from surrounding developments will ultimately have an impact.
>> well, downtown have sufficient capacity in that corridor to serve the growing need.
>> I would like to ask that legal review this and come -- bring this back to the Commissioners court. I would like to see some legal -- is if -- if there is any legal things that I think we need to look at. I’m look at the generation of traffic, other things that I think you need to go through with a fine toothed comb. I don't know what the city of Austin has done on this.
>> they have approved it.
>> I would request at this time that -- that our county attorney look at the full picture of this -- of this and bring it back to the court.
>> is there even a legal question?
>> is there a legal question?
>> I don't know.
>> there's not a legal question.
>> there's a policy question. But there's not a legal question.
>> all that I’m saying is I can't tell you whether there's a legal question. Nobody has asked me if there are legal issues. Nobody has suggested there is. They haven't let me look at this, so -- all I’m saying is I can't tell you.
>> I would rather him look at it to see if it actually is because that would be -- that would be my -- to let tom --
>> I think t.n.r. Does a good job, Commissioner, of identifying when there is a legal ir. But I can't tell you because I haven't looked at it.
>> okay. Well I would rather defer to that second point. So I would rather you look at it.
>> are you wanting a one week courtesy, Commissioner.
>> two weeks.
>> I will be happy to look at it over lunch.
>> you can look at it over lunch.
>> we can come back this afternoon.
>> all right. That would be fine. Let's do that.
>> we will be back at 2:30, try to get it done today. 2:30. A little bit later than the other. We will take up some of the other business, give tom additional time. He's known to use his full hour for lunch. So it will give him a little time after lunch to take a look at it.
>> move recess until 1:30, all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. With Commissioner Gomez temporarily away.
are we ready for that item we -- and -- involving the one or two questions that we had this morning.
>> yes.
>> that is item no. 9. 9. Consider and take appropriate action on request to approve the schematic design for the 5501 airport blvd. Building, phase 2.
>> okay. Good afternoon, roger el khoury, facilities management department. We went back and looked at the -- from the engineering perspective, yes we could do it. We could put a small restroom in the front. We drafted the location. It's -- it's in the front next to the lobby area. And the cost is to include all of the fixtures and the -- and the -- and the water, bring the water in and the sewer line and all, it's about $24,000. So -- so that's how much it costs to put together restaurant -- restroom in the front.
>> once you go into a slab --
>> no. [multiple voices] we look from an engineering perspective, perspective, we going to go ahead and put a system that will have a -- will have a -- a pumps to take it -- to the wall all the way down to the sewer line. So we don't have to cut through the slab. So this is cheaper and we do it all the time. It's a -- yeah. [indiscernible] system. It works.
>> we believe this in the long haul we will get that much value from this improvement?
>> I think so. The -- the concern that yes, they have to travel 150 feet from the front to the -- to the back, it's about 150 feet, we count it three times. It's -- to have one restroom in the front you know for -- for visitors, you know, and that would be fine. But the majority of the people that are going to use the restroom are the guys in the class, that we concentrated the -- the restroom around the classes.
>> ms. Coleburn didn't have any issues with this?
>> yoption, I’m not sure if she does. Today she says she's welcome to have a restroom in the front.
>> judge that will -- [multiple voices]
>> > the usage of the restroom, front one, the proposed, will be the majority of the -- the uses will be -- will be by whom.
>> for the public sitting in the lobby area you know going to the classroom, or -- or the -- or the -- the employee to have their own restroom down to -- down the hall, that should be all right.
>> it's going to be unisex, roger?
>> yes, a.d.a. Compatible, all of that should be all right.
>> judge, I think we will also bypass some security issues related to offices that while somebody might very well lock down their office while they leave, if they are just darting around the corner to go to the bathroom or to a file room or the copy room, they wouldn't be expected to lock down their offices when they are going to be out just for a minute. This just he is proactive in not having a lot of problems. For the comfort of our clients and our workers, it's a good investment.
>> I think the -- the cost would be part of the budget we have. Let's say included in the issues are no problem.
>> judge, I would move approval of the scream matic designs with the change that has been identified by roger related to adding the unisex bathroom at the front and that he will manage it within his existing budget and contingency allowances.
>> yes, sir.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> now, let's move approval of the item. So -- so we would not approve this scream matic design this morning, did we? For -- for 5501 airport boulevard with the change that we just approved.
>> I will make that motion.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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:
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:17 AM