Travis County Commissioners Court
March 30, 2010,
Item 18
>> item 19, or was 18, I guess.
>> 189.
>> 18 is to consider and take appropriate action on a preliminary plan in precinct one: eastwood subdivision.
2316 total lots.
>> judge, you already pointed out a resident did come in and we received an e-mail from some residents so it would be good if they were be able to lay out what they want to lay out, and staff, whatever staff needs to do as far as their presentation but we definitely want to recognize them.
>> why don't we hear from staff first.
>> that will be fine, judge.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
anna bolen.
this preliminary plan is in between fm 973 and it is a large preliminary.
it has 2282 single family lots, some commercial lots and some open space and amenity and multifamily lots.
this prelim, several issues were brought up and started to be worked through during the review process, and I would say that one of the most significant issues that was raised was transportation.
especially transportation in the mainer area.
this prelim is the city of Austin's ctj and desired development zone and it is one of several large preliminary plans in that region.
so while this platt or -- while this preliminary was going through the zoning and platting approve process at the city of Austin, the transportation issues were brought up.
since that time, we have worked with -- we've been part of a group that has been working together to help come up with, well what remedies are there for this region.
>> if you would, state what those transportation issues were and the ones you looked at, in other words during today, hear you talk about transportation issues but we really don't know exactly what the transportation issues are and how readdressed them during the follow-up review process.
could you do that?
>> certainly Commissioner.
>> thank you.
>> the big transportation issue is with all of the preliminary plans that we're seeing in this area, traffic, the infrastructure in the mainer area, in the eastern etj, is not adequate to support all of the new rooftops from these primnary plans.
-- preliminary plans, and we realize this.
so one of the things we've been doing is meeting with the developers to various jurisdictions, including is in of mainer and city of Austin and txdot to try to come up with what roadway improvements could be possible to help fix, remedy this situation.
because there is already a problem with inadequate infrastructure in the mainer area.
and we realize that this will only get worse as more development happens, and as this part of the county is adjacent to 130 in the desired development zone, we will see a lot of improvements or a lot of subdivisions proposed in this area.
so we're already kind of behind the eight-ball and the question is what do we do about it, how do we move forward.
so our thoughts were, it is going to take everybody to help come up with a solution to this, and we've had several meetings with key developers in the area, the various jurisdictions, like I said, including city of mainer, city of Austin, Texas dot and Travis County, and the development community to try to figure out, well, what things, what improvements would be, get the most bang for the buck, what could help alleviate the problems that not only we have right now but that will ole get worse as this region continues to bloom.
so I'll speak to that in just a second.
but like I said, this is a large development.
one of the specific -- one of the specific challenges that this project was another prelim that came in during the time that we were in the approval process named "the wolf track." that prelim hasn't come to Commissioner's court yet but the questions came up, well, sub streets from this tract, this prelim that circles the wolf tract, are there an adequate amount of stubs for that.
we worked through that.
i believe that there is five stubs to that tract, one of which is to a road from land that was previously in this preliminary plan to provide the wolf tract prelim second access in and out.
so that being said, I was hopeful initially that I would have a phase two agreement today, a regional phasing agreement, that would speak to a voluntary agreement to get money from the developers if they go through the process.
i have, in working through that, you know, I'm not ready today to bring one forward.
i'm working with the other developers and we're looking for something that works for the various types of development.
an agreement that was proposed for this development isn't necessarily the one that would work the best to capture the transportation from other developments that have more commercial and more retail and things of that nature.
i am in the process of scheduling a meeting.
i should be able to meet with attorneys from some of the developers next week along with attorneys from the city and the county to work on a regional phasing agreement that we can use for all of the various developments in this region as it comes forward.
additionally, once this prelim is approved, the possibility exists that there would also be a second phasing agreement that is more traditional, and deals with immediate -- or boundary improvements that are immediately adjacent to this tract.
for instance, this tract connects to 973 and to blake manner so there might be turn lanes and things of that nature that are required specifically for this prelim.
so it's possible that prelims in this area would have two phasing agreements.
the one that -- the traditional one specific to just their development and one that is more regional.
and I do want to thank all of the jurisdictions and the development community for hanging in there and the homeowner's associations in the area.
i don't want to slight them.
we've gotten a lot of good input on suggestions for what could be possible solutions.
and we're working through that.
we've made lot of progress in the last seven months.
i think it has been seven months since zoning at platting approved this prelim at the city of Austin.
>> may ski a couple of questions?
-- I ask a couple of questions?
i will defer to you.
>> okay.
a little something for the residents, but as far as the phasing agreement is concerned, that was different things that were brought, especially looking at the wolf tract and part of the concern from the wolf tract, which is adjacent to that, 200-some-odd acres of development possibilities there, was the excess as far as having an opportunity to have -- it won't be land locks, stuff like that adjacent to the tract, have the owners of the wolf tract agreed to the situation as far as the stub, especially egress, ingress and egress, in and out, for the stubs and stuff with that particular tract of property?
are they basically in agreement with some of the things at this point?
>> Commissioner, I believe that they have.
>> all right.
go ahead.
>> there are, since this started and the review process when that came up initially, more stubs were added in the subdivision, but I would say the most significant thing that happened was, I believe the 30-foot strip was conveyed from the owners of eastwood to the wolf tract so they could have another main road in and out to the wolf tract.
>> it was a 20-foot strip for direct access so that they would have a full 60-foot right of way direct access to blake manor road.
after we comment to Commissioners, or to city planning commission, we actually entered into a contract, we actually sold them that property so they now have the access that they needed.
>> okay.
>> my name is terry, for the record.
>> thank you.
>> representing eastwood.
>> you are the representative for eastwood.
>> yes.
>> the applicant?
>> yes, sir.
>> I guess another point is that the traffic impact analysis that was done as far as vehicles, because that seemed to be a pretty big subject matter is for the impact of vehicle traffic, increase in traffic flow in that area tell me exactly how that is going to be addressed.
even with the stubs and the infrastructure and a whole bunch of other things that will be necessary to alleviate the impact of the traffic, how are you -- what are you recommending to deal with that?
because there was a concern under the transportation aspect of this for vehicular impact with this many rooftops coming in and you have some commercial also, and thank goodness you've got some open space, I see that in here also for drainage open space, which is good.
but I need to go a little deeper as far as what some of the concerns of the community have brought to the attention is, is the point of looking at the vehicular impact in the area.
because all of the infrastructure is not readily available to maybe alleviate some of this long-range stuff but can you tell me what we can look at short-term as far as addressing some of those concerns.
can you do that for me, please?
>> Commissioner, if I could start and letter re --
>> you all help each other, doesn't matter.
>> like I said, there will likely be two phasing agreements for this.
one has to do with the immediate boundary street improvements that would be required on blake manor and 973, and that is a interest decisional type of phasing in agreement that the court should be used to seeing that would deal with the things that are specifically needed just for this subdivision, sunshine as turn laned and what not.
that being said, and those improvements come basically --
>> final plan.
>> the final platt but also we can quantify those with a transportation impact analysis at tia, but one of the shortcomings from just looking at a tia, that is a great mechanism for telling you what is happening at an intersection if it is failing, but that is only part of the problem.
the other part of the problem is the roadway capacity to get to the intersection to either get through the intersection or fail.
and that's more, that's going to be addressed in the regional phasing agreement that we're working on.
both of those things are important, but the regional phasing agreement, that is a new thing and that is a very exciting thing and I'm very grateful that the development community is realizing that, you know, we need this too and they know that they need to be a part of the solution as do the other jurisdictions.
so both of those pieces were things that we are working on.
we probably see the regional phasing agreement here next because the phasing agreement that's more specific just to this subdivision or any of the subdivisions out here that will go, you know, with the final platt.
but we're working on both pieces of that.
and now, terry, do you want to add to that?
>> we've, for a long time, realized that the conventional phasing agreement that addresses boundary streets and turn -- intersection issues, isn't going to be enough.
you've got five major projects that have announced in this area.
there are 15, 20 year plans.
we've got time but we need to be planning.
and I've seen, you know, for one of the first times in my career where all of the development interests have come together.
we've had, I think, four meetings among the five major projects along with campo, and I think we've embraced this idea of a regional phasing agreement.
which isn't required in the subdivision code but it's necessary.
we need to work together to prioritize the off-site improvements that will be necessary to convey traffic generated from these subdivisions to where people want to go, to places of work and retail, and we have identified among the development groups what the highest priority road improvements might be.
the neighborhood association has participated in those meetings.
we've offered a regional phasing agreement, it is being circulated right now it will probably take some more time to work out all the kinks in it, but we're excited to be part of that.
>> I'm glad you, terry, I'm really glad at the bottom of that last statement you said the neighborhood has been involved.
i'm really glad to hear that, because of course, the neighborhoods do not want to be left out of a process, especially when development impacts them or the traffic.
which is good.
one more question is this: looking at the nuts and bolts of this preliminary plan, it appears that there has been agreement of course of these particular tracts of development in and around this particular preliminary plan, it appears that there had been some work -- I'm going back to the wolf tract for the example, that will has been some agreement that has been made thus far, which is good.
my point, though, is that I want to make sure that this particular process is left open, as much as possible, and the next question is when could we expect the first phase of this regional agreement, per se, since we do have -- there is no doubt about it, this is a development zone in the state of Austin, there is a lot of things we have to deal with, not only the roads, we've got to consider the water, the ccns that are out there, having adequate water and all of these things are being met now and I'm trying to move around the circle as much as possible to ensure that and we come back with a phasing agreement as far as especially with the regional, even though it is not a part of code, you're correct, it is not, it is something we will need in this particular area because of the ssh-30 situation but also being in the city ddz and under title of 30, before sharing it with the city of Austin so I think all things are all mixed together.
my question to anna is, when can we peck expect to see a form ofs original approach the first phase.
>> I've heard back from everybody except one person and I will hunt them down and get their commitment for their time and if they can't, I will find someone else in their organization who can.
but I've heard back from everyone else.
i sent out an e-mail with three or four times and everyone is pretty open and making themselves available to do this.
and what we're going to do is we're going to start with the agreement that he proposed to us, and you know, it just needs some modifications to that so it can fit the other types of development in the region.
because depending on the land use that is being proposed that has a different affect on the transportation and I want to capture a fair share for everybody, depending on what they're proposing to do.
for further answer your question, I would expect in the next two months we should be back.
>> within two months?
>> that's my expectation.
>> okay.
and you have some questions but I want to make sure we hear from the residents on this concern.
mr.
williams, a whole bunch of folks sent us an e-mail and they have some specifics in there we need to draw some attention to, so Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> mr.
williams, please, go ahead.
>> I will take that opportunity.
>> thank you.
>> to jump in.
>> thank you.
>> my name is john williams, the park springs neighborhood association president.
i will not take up all your time by reading the statement that I sent you by e-mail and you all have a hard copy also, but I do want to direct your attention to the three bullets.
my first point, eastwood is one piece of a much larger development.
mr.
irian who has been very helpful through this whole process, as have your county staff, mentioned five projects.
my attachment lists the three that are currently going through the development process.
eastwood and the wolf tract have been mentioned.
as miss bolan has told you, eastwood alone is a large development, talking 600 and 60-some acres of the wolf tract is much smaller, only 200-some acres but directly south of the eastwood development is whisper valley and you folks know something about that.
it was on your agenda a month or so ago for some waivers.
when you put all these, just these three, and there are more, as he mentioned, but just these three together amount to almost 3,000 acres more than 10,000 residential units, and nearly twomillion square feet of retail and commercial space.
each of these three opens on to only one of three -- one or two of three roads.
fm-973, blake manor road, or to the east and this applies only to whisper valley, taylor lane.
each of those roads is only two lanes with virtually no shoulders.
i think figures speak for themselves about the need for improvements and infrastructure.
as the back-up material that mr.
dieselman and mr.
malilla and miss bolan sent you indicated when the eastwood prosoc sal first went to the Austin planning and -- proposal first went to the Austin planning and zoning commission, e-wood was very concerned about traffic and the map I've attached to your material, I tried to use a publicly available map.
this is from campos 2035 map available on its website, and then I sort of blew up the segment that we have here.
if you look where downtown mainer is, the current 973 goes up to downtown mainer.
as a result of this cooperative process, a that eastwood and the county have helped promote, what we are trying to accomplish is a kind of u, which will by-pass downtown mainer.
what is called the wild more connector is the east-west dotted blue line.
the future palmer lane extension comes down on the western edge of that.
and the proposed 973 realignment goes to the northeast of that.
the result from a long range point of view is that the traffic heading north on 973 would not have to go through the downtown mainer intersection, which currently has a four-way stop sign.
if we simply added turning lanes, typical tia would say, oh, well solve that problem by adding turning lanes, that would destroy downtown mainer in terms of any pedestrian accessibility?
that is not acceptable to us in the neighborhood?
so anyway, I want to simply say thank you to mr.
lloyd, mr.
irian, to all the members of your county staff for their willingness to help, but I'm going to continue to stay the course and say we want results, not just promises.
thank you.
>> a good point.
thank you for this input.
>> anna, have you had an opportunity to review what mr.
williams presented to the court this morning?
>> I had not had a chance to read his e-mail before court but we did talk Friday afternoon for, I think it was afternoon for --
>> a long period.
>> for quite a period of time, so I think that what is in his e-mail is very similar to what we had discussed and I also want to thank mr.
williams and the neighborhood for being in there.
they're the neighborhood, they live out there, obviously their opinions about the different possibility solutions, those are the most valuable information we can have and I appreciate that mr.
williams and his neighborhood continues to stay in there and continues to help us through this.
>> we have another item coming up on the agenda, cost sharing effort for some possible bond situations as far as with the city of Austin, Travis County.
have steve had a chance to look that the particular document, especially with what mr.
williams has brought up here to the court today in this particular document as far as the infrastructure situation that he did describe?
steve manilla.
>> yes, sir, Commissioner, yes, I have.
i looked over mr.
william's e-mail.
it's in line with what we're proposing to do in that area.
and this agenda item coming up, the types of roadways that we would recommend to the court to approve for potential partnerships with the city and developers are the same roadways he is speaking of that would help keep traffic out of manor to drive around it.
>> right, and that's the point I wanted to bring up, mr.
williams, there is another item coming up on the agenda, hopefully, infrastructure costs, major infrastructure needs cost a lot of money.
traditionally, what we've done as far as infrastructure situations, sometimes, a lot of times we end up going to a voter approval for such projects since the amount is so tremendous and of course if the voters nod their heads and say yes, we agree with you, yes, we would like to go in debt for these particular bond issuance as far as road concerns, this is some things we do.
but you also brought up another point, and steve, if you can address this point to mr.
williams, that point is dealing with the blake manor situation, he did bring it up and of course we are looking at to do something on blake manor now, we're looking at that currently.
steve, you could you basically tell us what we are looking at as far as dealing with blake manor that may help us a little bit as far as going toward that end?
>> sure, Commissioner.
the folks out in that area are very well aware of the problems that we have with getting good performance out of the pavement on just about any road in that part of the county.
blake manor in particular has suffered some pretty severe cracking and heating and that sort of thing.
we are working on a project using some of your 84 bond money to reconstruct as much of blake manor as we can, probably mile 23456 to two miles, to beef up the pavement so it doesn't fall apart it as has historically done.
we're looking at some innovative ways to get better performance out of that pavement structure.
and a trick to it is getting it done under traffic.
so we do have a project right now we're working on.
we expect we can go out for bids in August and it will probably take six to nine months to complete.
in addition to that, we are also having the payment engineers council that you all approved in our local -- a few weeks ago.
that is the folks who know about, that is a group of the folks who know about pavement structure and performance so we're pretty closely tied to them in taking advice from them, as well.
>> okay.
>> any questions for mr.
williams.
>> I have a question.
>> you have a question for mr.
williams?
>> not for mr.
williams.
>> then let me ask him my question.
did interpret your testimonyny to be there are several residential and commercial developments planned.
they will have enormous traffic impact so traffic will work with the other powers that be to plan a transportation remedy.
but are uh-oh posed to the preliminary plans before us today.
>> I'm not asking you to vote no on this preliminary plan.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I have a couple of questions for star staff.
is there any disadvantage to voting this item today with regard to our leverage in getting the necessary phasing agreement?
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] on.
>> .
>> .
>> my concern is that, well, let me ask .
>> my concern is that we are repeating the brody experience since we have this tremendous amount of growth expecting to occur that will be essentially very large bottles with skinny little necks that all go out..
.
>> .
so how are we avoiding the brody experience?
>> I would say that the prelim is only the first step in the process.
certainly this project and all projects that have prehims thatter approved will have to come back for financial plat before they can get permits and start building stiletile2..
we are wanting to work with the .
the community is working with us.
right now I know that the first step for the community is to get the preliminary plans approved.
i know that there's started to be interest.
the economy is not great but started to be better than in a lot of places.
i'd like to start working to get a regional fix.
>> in the spirit of that I'm inclined to vote in favor of this today on staff word that it will not impede our leverage in making that happen.
>> I don't know that we can say that in that fashion, Commissioner.
this is on value tore --voluntary effort on the part of the developers.
>> I want to encourage that but at the same time I don't want to lose what tinny shred of leverage that we have.
in recognition, your letter itself states it plainly.
>> yeah, Commissioner, we recognize the reality of the situation.
that is why we have not pushed for nine months since planning commission approval at the city of Austin.
we want to get a regional phasing agreement.
we think it's going to be absolutely essential to identify and prioritize road improvements both county and state road improvements.
these are 15-20 year projects.
it's not like we're going to be dumping that traffic on those roads tomorrow.
but from the practical standpoint of real estate development, until you have preliminary plan approval, and we're kind of betwixand between city of Austin saying yes and you not having acted yet.
it's hard to go to lenders and con convenience them you --convince them you have a project before you have preliminary plan approval.
so we are trying to convince them this is a project and we can justify continuing the planning effort on it.
we need preliminary plan approval.
>> you need for the capital--
>> right.
>> one thing I would ask, it was bril quantity --brilliant for you to blow up the 2035 map.
this is where the community needs to come together on this.
one thing that is not included is a proposed green line along 290 east which would also have a tremendous impact on the transportation options of the tens of thousands, 40,000 residents that are going to be living out here.
wha!
>> mr.
preist.
>> thank you, judge, commission, morris priest speaking on my own barf.
i didant with a to mention three projects in this transportation scenario that aren't even in the 2030 plan and also wanted to mention that I would hope that there would be notes on the plat note about the availability of water, which think is going to be scarce for this area as well.
i think that we need to look at the fact that the centers approach that campo is now taking, the whole scenario with the developers and the transportation department, are inconsist ent with with the center's approach due to what we freave rousely heard of what it would do to manor.
this 973, as Commissioner Gomez mentioned last time when we talked about the pass through financing, the financing of these roads, first of all, we're not assured that any of this will be built by Texas dot.
i have talked to people at tex dot.
and the issues with the actual individual areas that we're talking about such as whisper valley, I know initially they did change one area where they had commercial parking where it was going to be parking much like we see on south congress where people back out of some of these businesses and they have changed that, I believe.
but there's also some questions on each area, such as parking.
whisper valley was streets and alleys to connect the houses it appears.
not only the problem with the transportation infrastructure needs, funding challenges that are not going to be there.
i think procedury lane --brody lane is a very poor example.
now we're talking about an area that doesn't presently have a brody lane.
we're talking about too many subdivisions, too many transportation issues, too many conflicted in how campo and tex dot and other agencies work with on infrastructure needs.
i would hope that you would remember that you have a moral obligation as well as a statutory obligation when voting on such matters.
and I would hope that you wouldn't--
>> thank you.
you brought up a good point.
especially on the water issue aspect.
during this whole scenario of looking at future development and growth, one of the things I wanted to make sure happened is that we had adequate water to support not only the commercial but also rooftop but also the residential roof top.
and what has happened since then is that we have gone through a process a little while back in which we did support a resolution to bring in blue water out of burlingson all the way into Travis County to bring additional capacity of water to feed into water supply corporation, for example, manville, for one.
another one is going to feed into that 52 mile pipeline of bringing word from burling son county is the southwest water supply corporation which used to be hunter bend.
so they are in close proximity to a lot of the rooftops and commercial activities that are currently being brought.
so you brought up a good point about water.
i'm glad you did.
but here is another question .
i need to ask legal this question.
this preliminary plan is before us today.
the neighborhood is not necessarily opposing, however they have great concerns which we have looked at as far as providing the next infrastructure.
i just mentioned --the infrastructure.
i just mentioned water but we are talking about roads.
the applicant is agreement volunteer-wise to look at a regional agreement, per se.
is there any way that we can approve this particular preliminary plan and also include what they are voluntarily, since it's not a part of the code, to include a regional phasing agreement within this preliminary plan that the applicant would, where they see that.
is that legally, is that something we can legally do since it's outside of the code even though they want to do it?
>> like we have been talking about this morning, Commissioner the county has limited authority to to require the regional phasing agreement.
but there is nothing inappropriate for approving the preliminary plan since it's a completely voluntary agreement for the regional agreement.
>> okay.
i don't think he is going to go back on his word.
but I was kind of, you know, since you all volunteered to let that go, I wanted to be a part of the record today that you did volunteer for that regional approach.
because that kind of gives it maybe a binding situation to your word as far as being a part of this regional phasing agreement process.
because it is a big deal.
we have to look that the for what it is.
and since you have said that you have no opposition to it, I thought that it would be maybe proper that I could include it in the motion.
but if I cannot include it in the motion, then I won't do it.
>> I have at least four legal questions to ask in executive question when we do there.
>> all right.
>> we will go there this afternoon.
>> okay.
>> there's no way to reach it this morning.
>> okay.
>> but I think it sort of does make sense, though, to try to memorielize some agreement in written form.
15 years down the road we need to make sure that everybody lived up to their agreement.
>> right.
>> the other thing is lessons learned.
i think you brought up a real good point, Commissioner, on the fact that if we can avoid another brody lane situation, I think we need to do that.
>> yeah.
>> and then the fact that it's in Austin ctg, doesn't that bring out water wastewater extended by the city of Austin.
>> we have a request.
water is going to be provided by manville.
>> I see.
>> we have a will cert letter from manville.
but Commissioner Gomez, I'd like to comment on one other thing you said.
i think the record will show that mr.
lloyd and the eastwood development has been in the forefront of promoting this regional approach.
we drafted a phasing agreement last summer, and we have been pushing it for nine months.
i think the reason we don't have one right now, we're all trying to get all these other developers buying into this approach.
>> absolutely, sure.
>> and we have had four or five meeting with campo that we have had the development community and the neighborhood coming together on agreement on road priorities.
>> sure.
>> we're really making progress.
>> absolutely.
>> as Commissioner Eckhardt said we need some bonafides to continue moving forward.
>> I understand.
it is kind of a new approach.
and good thing that we can do those things voluntarily.
but I think sooner or later, we need to kind of memorialize how we god there and to make sure that there aren't any, no forgetfulness occurs.
but then the other thing, I'm glad manner --manor is included because I can see where this might totally overwhelm manor.
and we don't want any kind of growth, especially if it's planned, to ever do that to a small community like that.
so I'm glad that you are included manor as a small community to be part of this whole regional approach.
but I like the way it sounds.
>> yeah.
>> I really do.
>> anybody else here on this item?
>> I'd like to make a comment.
>> okay.
final comments.
>> all of these things are certainly important for consideration right now.
i think it's appropriate just to raise the issue or the concern about water availability out there as it relates to not only this project but the rest of them.
manville water supply, as I understand, is in the alluvial aquifer, shall yo --shallow wells.
we are looking at txi and others marking down the area of this riveren a the colorado river.
i think all developers out there ought to be aware that those water supplies are not certain.
we have no idea of the impact that is going to be on those water supplies with the kind of roads we have out there.
the fact that a lot of these supply wells right now are in the alluvial aquifer.
>> any other comments relevant to this item?.
then we will take this item into executive session this afternoon and whatever action we will tak.
>> thank you for your participate tages.
>> --parnation.
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:
Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:56 PM
