Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 7, 2010,
Item 12
Item number 12 is to consider and take appropriate action on the Lake Travis park master plan.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe and Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> wendy with tnr.
we came to the court in the beginning of may to present our draft, Lake Travis master plan, and ask your permission to go out to the public for public review.
we did that and what I want to talk to you about today is the results of that process.
and first, just go briefly over what the Lake Travis master plan is intended to accomplish.
and that is, we prepared a very high altitude bird's eye view of the nine Lake Travis parks, and it's providing a framework for future improvements.
it lays out conceptually the type of improvements we want to do at the parks and then it's providing a framework for the site master planning of each individual park.
at that time we go in with more specific survey and topographic data and spend more time on the ground to do a more detailed site plan.
we again come to the court with a draft, take it out to the public and come back with the summary of what we heard and our responses and ask the court to adopt it.
so it's really a two-step process that we'll be going through on -- before we actually get to improving -- going into the design and construction document and construction phase.
so nine parks.
we have seven lcra properties.
seven lcra properties, mansfield dam, hippie hollow, bob wents, which also includes property owned by Travis County.
cypress creek, sandy creek, arkansas bend, pearson, which is property owned by Travis County, and then pace bend park.
so following the master plan review meetings, we held three, one in lago vista, one at the west service center and one downtown.
the lago vista meeting had the largest crowd.
there were 70 some people there.
and the other two had small attendance.
seven at west service center.
four downtown.
in addition to the public meetings, we had 30-some e-mails come in from people who were concerned about tom use park.
so I'll talk about that in a little bit more detail in a minute.
so we sent out -- we prepared a summary.
we drafted responses.
we sent that to the lcra, got their approval of the master plan and how we were dealing with public input.
once we had a date certain set for this agenda item, we distributed those -- that summary and our responses to people that came to the meetings and had submitted e-mails.
and what I want to talk to you about -- well, in summary, the master plan was well received overall.
we had particularly -- we have particularly strong support in lago vista for arkansas bend park improvements.
there are two sore spots, however.
one is that parque zaragoza bend, people living near arkansas bend have many concerns about the impact on their neighborhood of increased vegetation at this park.
and the other one was the proposed sale of tom hughes park for the purpose of generating revenue to buy other parkland on the lake.
so regarding tom hughes park, they made a compelling case.
we eliminated that recommendation from the master plan.
as of yesterday a small -- a reference to the sale of the park as an opportunity that came out of a brainstorming session was struck from the plan and that was distributed to the stakeholder participants in the process.
the other thing is on arkansas bend park, the neighbors came back with some issue.
they still had issues following up what we had responded to previously.
so we had a teleconference with a few people from the neighborhood yesterday.
that was summarized and we crafted responses again and it was distributed to all the people that participated in the process and given to the court.
so I can briefly go over that.
let's see.
I think we have three or four issues that have to be addressed.
first was their concern about fencing, having a vegetative buffer, having a minimum buffer set and posting of no trespassing signs.
what we are recommending first of all is that we would improve the fencing along the park boundary, over what is there now.
we would decide in the site master planning process what that type -- the type of fencing and we would have a line item in the project budget.
so that it would be happening.
vegetative buffer, at this point we're committing to -- we're interested as they are in having a buffer between the park and the neighborhood.
so at this point we want to commit to having a buffer that will provide a visual behaviorier between outside and the park facilities and park uses.
however in the site master planning process, again when it's more detailed, we'll sit a minimum buffer and it very well may be 100 feet; however, we want to reserve that right or condition to when it's a more detailed site planning process.
>> is there a buffer there now?
>> there is heavy vegetation in that area.
so actually, it would be very easy to -- we'll already have a buffer there.
it's not like we have to plant things.
so it's a matter of preserving.
we would like to determine in the master planning process.
we're not going to be crowding things up there because we want to bring -- people want to be by the water.
it's conceivable that a road could intrude into that 100-foot buffer and we just need it to meander through that part of the park.
>> in your listing these were issues raised by the residents?
>> these were issues raised by the residents that they felt we hadn't adequately addressed in the previous round of discussions.
and we talked to them yesterday.
let's see.
so we had -- they're concerned about when the lake water level drops, there is an unfenced area.
and what we have done in other parks and what we've proposed here and they seem to find acceptable is that we place large rocks.
>> typically the parks are wide open.
>> not this one?
>> there are three --
>> I'm about to ask my question.
some are wide open, some are not.
>> yes.
>> but I don't recall seeing a no trespassing sign at any of them?
do we have them?
>> the park rangener the audience is shaking his head yes.
would you like more information?
>> as to why, yeah.
>> it's usually the adjacent prone whoar doesn't want park users coming on to their property.
so they will post a sign.
we post signs that say park own bown dries.
>> okay.
>> the signs don't say no trespassing on the park, it's no trespassing on private property.
>> yes, yes.
>> okay.
so we were both right?
>> yes, we were.
that's always a nice outcome.
and that's where we hope we end up on this particular process.
criminal activity.
there has been criminal activity at arkansas bend park.
it is underutilized and it has happened.
so there is concern that as more people use the park, there's going to be an increase in criminal activity.
we, however, maintain and this is the general thinking on this is as you have more legitimate use and you have greater park staff presence.
in this case we're proposing a ranger residence and having a camp post living at the campground.
you see a drop in criminal activity.
>> what kind of criminal activity are we really referring to?
it really is there, but what type or what category?
>> I would have to actually go back and look at the incident reports to see what's in there, but parks -- illicit drug use.
it's kind of a remote location, so it's a place people can go and get away currently and avoid, you know, public scrutiny.
I think as you develop the park and get like wendy said more legitimate use there, that kind of activity kind of goes to different locations, more remote locations.
>> another issue relative to crime is there was a request made for street lighting.
in our initial response we maintained that the county or stated that the county doesn't have a program or fund for installing and maintaining street lights.
however, in further discussion, there was a request made and actually there are also -- there's a differing opinions on this.
there are also people in the neighborhood who do not want street lights and want to maintain dark skies.
I did receive an e-mail from someone li'ing on lakeview drive, parallel to the park, stating clearly this morning that -- received it this morning, that he does not want street lights and he's claiming that his neighbors don't.
but also what we said is let's wait and see what happens when there's more people at the park, see if there is an increase in crime and then address the issue at that time.
and thank you, Commissioner Huber, for proposing that.
so that's how we want to deal with the street lighting issue.
>> let's see.
okay.
lastly, and perhaps the stickiest point, is neighbors are objecting to -- we are placing -- we have placed the improved camp sites on this northern peninsula which is adjacent to some private property.
and they have submitted a site plan that is showing only a portion of that property being used for improved campgrounds and another portion being put on a south peninsula.
and we have our reasons for why we want it on the north peninsula, and they have their reasons.
and they have good reasons.
so what we are recommending is that this be resolved in the site planning -- site master planning phase.
and at that point like we said previously, we would have more detailed information topography, we would be able to involve an engineer in an assessment of the cost effectiveness of these different layouts relative to septic.
and they brought good issues to the table and we will seriously consider them.
so that I believe addresses the last concerns that were brought up to our attention.
there may be some people in the audience that would like to speak.
>> Commissioner Huber?
>> I did want to say on the arkansas bend project, because I participated in that phone call yesterday and have monitored the public hearings and posture of the people out there.
I think the majority of the concerns that have been brought up right now will be better dealt with when we get into the specific site planning.
I think it's good that those issues have been raised and we've made note of them and we're looking into them, but we're looking at the more global plan right now.
and I think the majority of those I have -- that have communicated with me are in support of it.
>> any other comments from staff regarding tom hughes park?
>> tom hughes park, I think that we addressed the concerns, which is not to consider selling it.
now, this is not -- this is kind of a moot point at this time, but there's no sale of any parkland without state mandated public hearings.
if you would like to give any comments concerning the master plan, please come forward.
give us your name, we'd be happy to get your comments.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> either one of those four chairs there.
get real comfortable.
and three more can come forward at this time.
>> good morning, Commissioners and judge co-.
my name is gary, I'm a long time resident of Travis County.
and I'm particularly found of tom hughes park.
it's very close to Austin and an absolute gem in many ways and I enjoy it almost weekly during this time.
there are many other supporters of tom hughes park and friends who couldn'ting here this morning because of their work schedules.
so they're also appreciative of the changes that have occurred.
we're very happy that the notion of selling the park has been pulled off the table and the input process has worked very well.
so kudos to everyone involved in that process.
there were some edits that were mentioned that occurred as recently as yesterday in the draft master plan.
I reviewed that.
it looks like page 11 still has a reference to selling tom hughes park, so we would request that that -- someone take a closer look at that.
that's probably an editing oversight, but we would appreciate that.
and so thanks again.
it's a gem of a park.
it's right in the center of the population area of Travis County.
and we're very delighted that we continue to have it available for all of the taxpayers and citizens of Travis County.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is doug casey, I'm a resident of la go vista and I'm here to speak on behalf of arkansas bend park and the improvements being considered.
I'm on the economic alliance for the city of lago vista.
we feel that improving arkansas bend park will have far reaching implications for the city of lago vista, especially with regards to economic development.
as it stands right now there are several waterfront parks, but they're all poa controlled, which means you have to be a resident of the city of lago vista to use those parks.
effectively we only have one park in the area that has been developed, jones brothers park.
arkansas bend doesn't have much in the way of facilities.
so with improvements to the park, several things will probably happen.
obviously we will go ahead and improve public access to Lake Travis.
and that's going to support a tourism initiative that we are working with on the city.
we've developed that that would be a business model that would be very successful, but we need public access to the lake and we need that with improved facilities.
the program is non-functional after the lake drops to a certain level, and the facilities as they stand right now just consists of picnic tables and rough area.
real improvements need maid to the park to facilitate camping, to facilitate picnic areas and family activities as well as hike and bike will all be a valuable part of an overall tourism model for the city.
this will include businesses to be created such as hotels, restaurants, coffee shops, as well as other facilities like a farmer's market, butchers, bakers, that type of thing.
these are all targeted businesses that we're trying to attract.
the other thing that improvements to arkansas bend will create is historical tourism.
there is a book recently published, and I'll drop off a copy of this for your consideration, but it was done by a local volunteer group, the north shore heritage and cultural society.
they have found many buildings that have historical significance that are falling into one form or fashion of decay and is considered that maybe at the park we could create a small historical village.
it preserves some of the history we have on the north shore.
this will also -- by doing this, this will go ahead and bolster the society as well as the economic climate as well as the chamber of commerce.
and then finally, it will give a boost to the cultural aspects of lago vista.
when we have tourism and more people coming to the city and able to stay and able to have different things to do, it will promote local artists and artisans to establish businesses within the business district, and will create business creation such as galleries, studios, classrooms and this will tie in with the tourism initiative.
so we feel like these improvements at arkansas bend, while serving people who want to go ahead and visit the lake, will also have large impacts to the north shore, both Jonestown and lago vista will prosper.
that's all I have to say.
>> thank you.
>> very good comments.
I should also add that I had communication from bill angelo, the city manager at lago vista, giving the city's strong support of this, as you have indicated.
>> anybody else on the master plan?
yes, sir.
by the way, there are two chairs available and then two microphones.
>> my name is pete sibley.
I'm also like gary a long time resident of Travis County and Austin specifically.
I've been going out to Lake Travis for at least 30 years, if not more so.
and I'm very familiar with the various parks on the lake.
my favorite park is tom hughes.
I'm a swimmer.
I like to swim laps there.
it has some very unique attributes for swimmers.
and I -- my friends and I like to take advantage of that.
it also has a wonderful view of the sunset, very much like the view from the oasis cafe.
I'm happy that Travis County parks has decided not to pursue a sale of what I consider the gem or the crown jewel of the parks, at least on the main body, that's for sure.
at least for swimmers.
it's just a wonderful park.
I am concerned about some of the language in the master plan that remains.
on page 11, as gary alluded to, and I will quote, although there is no proposal to sell tom hughes park at this time, it may be considered in the future.
it seems like every decade or so, or at least the past -- this is the second time this has come up.
for whatever reason the parks department comes up with a proposal to -- to for whatever reasons sell tom hughes.
and I know they have the reasons, but I would very much like to see this language taken out of the master plan of a future sale.
I don't think it belongs in there.
if they have decided right now, they've taken input from the citizens that they have decided that the park is not going to be sold, why are we putting it in the master plan that we are still considering the sale of the park?
I just don't understand that.
it may be a coincidence.
it may not be, but the previous paragraph right above where they talk about selling the park in the future, they also say that they are thinking about acquiring land adjacent to bob wentz park, and it just occurs to me that somewhere that the county parks people are still thinking we're going to sell tom hughes and we're going to take the money from that park and we're going to go over and buy the adjacent land that may or may not be available next to bop wentz.
to me that's not a fair trade.
it's just not a fair trade.
we should not be giving up one park to acquire another park.
we've got an expanding population in Travis County, a rapidly expanding population in Travis County, and in western Travis County.
we need more parks, not less.
my idea on this is if we want to acquire more parkland, let's do it through a bond election, let's keep what we have, and also add to the park system out there.
the other thing I wanted to explore, and it's not mentioned in the master plan, but tom hughes is closed for about half of the year.
basically right now it's open during the warm season.
the plan for this year, as of October 31st, the park will be closed until the end of April.
I just don't get it.
we've got a beautiful park.
the closest park to Austin and we're closing it for half of the year.
the fall is the best time -- in my opinion is the best time to be at Lake Travis, especially if you're a swimmer.
the water is still relatively warm.
we don't usually even get a cold front until October 31st, I mean a real cold front.
I have swam in that lake year-round.
the water in October and November and probably halfway into December, the water is still warmer -- in average years the water is still warmer than it is at barton springs.
and yet they're closing the park.
and I -- maybe I'm out of line for even bringing this up, but I just think something's not right here.
anyway, I welcome -- I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you.
and I would very much encourage that the -- before you consider approving the master plan as is, let's give consideration to taking the language out about a future proposed sale.
of tom hughes.
>> thank you.
do we have mr. Sibley's contact information?
>> I believe we do.
>> let's make sure we do.
why don't we let him know what factors we consider to close the park.
he made reference to the fact that we closed that park during several months, I guess.
let's let him know in writing what exacters we consider before making that decision.
we may not be as arbitrary as we seem.
hopefully.
>> hopefully.
that would be wonderful.
thank you, sir.
>> thank you.
yes?
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners.
my name is carol lee and I live in the jurisdictional soup bowl near lake Austin and Lake Travis in precinct 3.
and I just wanted to come down here today to express my appreciation to the Travis County natural resources staff and the Commissioners and their staff who were involved in rethinking the sale of tom hughes park.
that was a magical spot for me throughout my clj years and -- college years and younger early adult years and I see the growth we have going on around Lake Travis and all throughout precinct three and I also know from working with the city of Austin parks and recreation department that there is a real shortage of parkland in northwest Austin.
and it does provide a close-in location and I just hope that -- I know there's no bad ideas during brainstorming sessions, but I really appreciate the -- I've read through all the comments and the response from staff and I really appreciate that they gave genuine consideration to the public feedback.
and I hope the county will not entertain any other silly notion to get rid of parkland on lake Austin or Lake Travis because it really provides a critical public access to those natural resources.
thank you.
thank you for taking that out of the this current master plan.
>> thank you, ms. Lee.
so what is staff's response to the language on page 11?
>> I think that was an interim position and not the final position and I understand their concern and I think we can strike that reference there.
>> that whole bullet point.
>> that whole bullet point, yes.
>> [ applause ]
>> anybody else?
last opportunity.
park master plan.
any closing words, ma'am?
>> no, I think we've covered everything.
thank you.
>> so we've -- you asked the court today to approve the master plan.
>> yes, we have.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
that's with the changes made that we promised today.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all very much for coming down.
okay.
thank you very much.
should we get this back to you?
>> no, sir.
>> Commissioner Huber has a whole lot of leisure reading time.
we'll give her the first opportunity.
thank you very much.
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, September 14, 2010, 2010 7:56 PM
