Travis County Commssioners Court
December 17, 2002
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.
Items 19 & 20
19. Approve a preliminary plan in precinct three: medway ranch section two
- (preliminary plan - 52 lots 173.204 acres - pecan drive - sewage service
to be provided by onsite facility - city of Austin etj). We may as well call
up the next item that involves section 3. It is item 20, to approve preliminary
plan in precinct 3, metway way 20. Approve a preliminary plan in precinct
three: medway ranch section three - (preliminary plan - 65 lots 127.18 acres
- pecan drive - sewage service to be provided by onsite facility - city of
Austin etj). Yes?
>> good morning, ann [inaudible], t.r.c. T.n.r. Both of these
developments are off of pecan drive, which is off of mer vin road off of 620.
At this point these are both preliminary plans. They have not been submitted
for final plat. In section 2 there's 41 single family lots with 11 transfer
lots and in section 3 there's 56 single family lots proposed, one greenbelt
lot and 8 transfer lots. This -- these -- both of these preliminaries meet
our standards. There has been some neighborhood opposition with regards to
the geometry of pecan drive and -- and the intersection of murfin road and
620 and the possibility of these lands being bought to be preserved land.
>> I have a question. Has it met with the city of Austin
standards up to this point in terms of going through the boards and commissions,
is that why it's landed on our lap now.
>> both of these have been approved by the city of Austin.
Also there is a question on section 3, whether there's possible easement rights.
If there are easement rights, it's not determined at this time, they would
be prescript active rights, if it is determined they would need to be incorporate
into any final plat in the future. At this point, this was what we have been
asked to move forward with. If you would like your comments please come forward.
>> when we say that the wording is -- is the land might be
acquired for preserved land, how active is that?
>> that would be a question probably better suited for john
kuhl. Ied in it's in a process with them. But I -- I have to go through the
development process with -- with -- no matter where it is with his group.
>> the passive acquisition or actively pursuing acquisition.
>> well, it's in this --
>> it's active.
>> thank you, john.
>> no.
>> hi, my name is linda jones, I'm an interested party and
an adjacent property owner to the medway ranch boundary line. A couple of
years ago, I came before you on the colemeyer road issue and spoke to you,
at that time I requested that you look at the big picture of the preserve
area and the medway ranch area, which I thank you so much for doing, all of
you were a part of that except for our new commissioner, it's nice to meet
you. I thank you also for your continued efforts with the b.c.p. And to help
acquire this land, which we feel is better served as a preserved rather than
a development. In some of my research with trying toed in about the b.c.p.
And the gold gold, I came across a yoat that says every golden cheeked warbler
in the world comes from a nest in central Texas, those nests are in b.c.p.
Some of them are on medway ranch and the adjacent property. I also recognize
in Texas the rights of all landowners, including the developers rights to
develop their personal land. In that, my own private land use rights. Over90
acres of medway ranch draibs through my -- drains through my land. So I have
gone through the city of Austin, and I come before the county just to let
you know that I have very serious concerns about the drainage that comes through
my property and I am on good terms in the people in the drainage with the
city of Austin, working with this. In developers warranty deed, the easements
that -- that my property, that I have the right to, the easement is identified
as item 9. And it's an easement that was granted to the man whose family I
bought the land from. The easement at that time in 1980 did not have metes
and bounds reported with it, but the easement is parted of their actual deed.
The roadway that has been used as an easement does not follow a straight direct
line because medway ranch is multi terrained. It crosses through creeks and
rim rocks, so a certain type of roadway was created. Since 1991, my family
and I have used this roadway to access a part of our property that cannot
be accessed by our driveway. So we have it back and I'm working with an make
and my lawyer is -- with ana and my lawyer is actually in contact with the
developer's lawyer on this issue. One of our biggest concerns is road safety.
And commissioner daugherty, I'm not sure if you've been out to visit murfin
road and pecan drive. The speed limits vary from 40 down to 20 because it's
so dangerous. I dod in that the county is -- I do understand that pecan drive
should phase 2 be developed -- we also have concern abouts the preservation
of the roadway, because it's very beautiful, very scenic, we do not want it
destroyed as far as the -- at one point it was viewed as a -- as one of the
most beautiful roads and was in a -- in a -- in a video that became public
documents for -- for roads of Texas. At -- at pecan drive in murfin road at
the intersection, there's a single lane cattle guard. We are talking about
adding 140 homes which will have 10 trips per home, it's -- it's adding more
over a thousand cars per day. That will compact this intersection one single
lane where there also is one stop sign. A very dangerous intersection, because
at the intersection of pecan and murfin when you enter it, there's no line
of sight from the right or the left, I would appreciate that being looked
into. I'm not sure what else I should do as far as letting you know about
that. And I recognize that -- that in the phase-in agreement for phase 1 of
medway ranch, that there is a possibility that a -- that a traffic light might
need to be installed at murfin road and 620. Again there's a very dangerous
intersection. Several years ago I spoke with the Lake Travis school district
and the Texas department of transportation. And the -- the Lake Travis independent
school district buses do not turn left on to 620 because they have no line
of sight. There is a written document to prove this. This is a very dangerous
intersection. If we add over 1,000 cars on it daily, currently there are only
about 40 residents who live there. It's a tremendous increase in the number
of cars that will come off of this road. I thank you for listening to my concerns,
again, thank you for looking at the big picture two years ago when here we
are again I'm asking you that continue to keep that in mind. Thank you.
>> I have one question for you. You mentioned that this development
sometimes when you are receiving water, I guess you are saying on your property
now, I guess from runoff from drainage problems, are you suggesting that the
development itself would maybe increase the potential of water and drainage?
>> yes, it will. Every -- all of medway ranch lies at a much
higher elevation than my land, which is right along lake Austin on the sandy
loam level, which is maybe even 50 to 100 feet drop in elevation. All of the
land from phase 1 and a large portion of phase 3, all of that land drains
on to my property and through my property. It has been determined from their
engineers that currently the way my driveway is configured, that if it's built
out completely, that -- that there are -- there's potential for my driveway
to flood. And I have -- I have the city of Austin has -- has asked them to
divert part of that water over to a different tributary, so we are working
with that, it has been documented.
>> I just wondered if there's anybody working on that problem.
I'm sure the design accommodate the hardship that you will be experiencing
it.
>> they are working on it, the developer and the city of
Austin. They have been very, very good to me.
>> thank you.
>> ana, wouldn't that actually be a requirement that they
wouldn't be able to increase the flow that already exists before the development
even occurs? As -- let's just say this goes through a preliminary plan. Isn't
that what happens between now and final platting is that you would have to
be satisfied that the flow does not increase so that ms. Jones' property is
indeed, it's no worse than it is with just the natural flow coming off of
the property.
>> certainly that would be one thing that we would be looking
at with -- with the final plat and construction plans.
>> okay. But that's not something that needs to be done up
front when you are in a preliminary planning phase.
>> nothing further down the process.
>> okay.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> my name is pam murfin, I live on horseshoe bend ranch
which is adjacent to medway, also shares a boundary with reicher ranch and
other portion of the b.c.p. I'm -- aim a member of the -- I'm a member of
the -- my neighborhood group, citizens concerned for a medway preserve, as
is linda and several other people. I'm speaking not only representing myself
but those other people. The nature and purpose of a preserve is to amend or
correct the abuses of civilization. Obviously that is what the balcones canyon
land preserve is intended to do and those who work with it and on it are attempting
to do that. You cannot amend or correct the abuses of civilization by allowing
civilization to plant itself on that land. And that is what we are hoping
that you will help to prevent on the former medway ranch. There are parts
of it that are virtually pristine. Now, we all know that cattle have roamed
all over Texas and done there damage for a few hundred years. But the cattle
have been taken off of that land, much of it has repaired itself. We are part
of the -- the south lake Austin macro site of the balcones canyon land preserve,
I have a map here that I would like to bring forward, I only have one. But
you all can pass it around. It is your map, most of you are probably familiar
with it.
>> thank you. You will see the light green there that is
already preserved land, you will see yellow that is medway and our ranch they
label it as murfin, it's actually known as horseshoe bend or murfin. White
land on houses on one acre lots, that's where linda and other neighbors live.
White paper not land. Schram ranch, according to rose farmer this morning,
she told me that it is already 3/5ths gone, some part of it set aside, but
it's mostly red. It's no longer to have the majority of that land in the mark
cro site. What -- macro site. What I am telling you is that there is not enough
land to satisfy the needs for the mark cro site in the -- macro site in the
balcones canyonland preserves. We would like to call into question the archaeological
and bird surveys done on medway ranch. We do not believe they are valid. They
are proposing an above ground distribution of sewage if and when their subdivision
is completed. That certainly will be a disaster. It drains directly into lake
Austin, which is the city of Austin's water. So -- so the sewage system that
they are proposing is not adequate. To reiterate very, very briefly, what
linda said. Those of us who live out there and are very familiar with the
land believe that the highest and best use of this land would be to put it
in the preserve. It would be stewardship at a very high level. In there are
any of you who have not actually walked on the land, please give any one of
us a call, we would be glad to set up an appointment and show you what we
can show you from the roadways that we are allowed to travel on. Thank you.
>> I have got a question that's probably from ms. Crocker.
Hey, sarah. Can you give us an indication of let us assume that this preliminary
plan gets approved today. We have already gone through your staff with the
city. What's the time line for this property, when theoretically in a perfect
world would you be coming back to Travis County and this court related to
final platting if indeed the preliminary plan moves forward.
>> sure. Good afternoon, commissioners, my name is sarah
crocker, I'm here on behalf of the applicant. To answer your question, commissioner
Sonleitner, at this juncture there are talks going on as you know, my client
has a willing seller letter which enabled the county to go after the federal
money to purchase this property. And there are discussions and negotiations
going on right now for that to occur. We have no plans today to file any final
plats. There has been some interest in a couple of the lots, but they are
pretty much outside of -- of the area that's being looked at right now to
be acquired. So what we are trying to do right now is if the county purchases
this property, we have been willing to participate in that all along. That
would be perfectly fine with us. If the county doesn't then of course the
property would be developed. But there are no imminent plans at this point
to come in with any large final plat at this point.
>> I guess that's my point. I have been on this property
many times, I do appreciate all of the input that we have gotten from linda
and pam and many, many others outs there. In fact we have that [inaudible]
commissioner Moore and councilmember wynn, if Karen had her wish list this
would be the number one property on our acquisition list. [one moment please
for change in captioners]
>> ... For the land, and there is a question, quite frankly,
about whether that is actually going to be a higher value than as the habitat
because we've actually seen some come in that the highest and best use is
as habitat and some the highest and best use is single-family lots. It's a
matter of what we're going to have to pay and the feds are going to have to
pay for that property. It seems we have time here and this is not going to
mean if we do our ministerial duties because we've met all requirements, it
may impact the final price of this property, but we've still got time for
the acquisition to occur, it's going to perhaps impact what the appraised
value comes back on this property, they've got their entitlements and it may
change the negotiated price of the property. Have I overstated what -- is
that going on?
>> I'm not familiar with the appraisal process you all go
through and I'm not sure how you arrive at any of that. That's totally out
of my purview. It's my understanding when this whole process was initiated
and mr. Cocera, it is a very long process, we don't know if you are going
to get the federal grant money or anything else. Basically the issue when
this whole thing started going forward was that we would put up the willing
seller letter, we would go forward and participate with the process. But in
the interim time period, we would also go forward to get our entitlements
locked in. As far as -- so that if the county does not purchase the property
and we are aware that it has been number one on your wish list for a while,
but if you don't purchase the property, if that doesn't occur, then my client
would be able to go ahead and develop as planned.
>> is your client in consultation with u.s. Fish related
to mitigation that would be necessary in order to develop this property?
>> absolutely. They've been in negotiations with fish because
we couldn't go forward really with final plats or anything else until we get
all of that set up. There has been discussions on mitigation and how much
land would have to be set aside from that. So if you didn't purchase the property
and we get to the preliminary plat stage, by the time we go to final plat,
there will have to be -- that land will have to be set aside with fish in
order for us to get a 10-a permit in order to develop. This isn't -- approval
of the preliminary plan today is the closure on the first step for us to be
able to develop the property. It's a long way. It's taken a year and a half
to get these preliminary plans to this point, and I would imagine that, as
you know what you have to go through for construction plans, drainage, engineering,
posting, fizz cal, all of the other additional issues required for final plat,
that would not be anything that happens in a speedy fashion. It usually takes
about eight months to a year to be able to get construction plans approved
before any final plat of this magnitude.
>> thanks, sarah.
>> I was going to say, ms. Jones, this is my 15th day. I
don't have my staff complete yet, but once I do, I will be out there to visit
you all, look forward to seeing it, walking on it, and I did go by murfin
the other day about 60 miles an hour. I was on 620. [laughter] I look forward
to getting out there and seeing you all. Thank you.
>> if I could just to wrap up very quickly, this plat did
go through a very strenuous drainage review because of the drainage issues.
There was an application filed with the city of Austin for a waiver for detention,
and that waiver was granted conditionally those notes are on the plat and
what it basically states is irregardless of any development that occurs on
phase 1, which is the final plat that's already been approved, and for phase
2, because of the drainage to the lakes, that the diversion that ms. Judge
was referencing must be approved and functionally complete before certain
portions of that can be developed. The city of Austin rules and regulations
do state that you cannot increase the runoff in a concentrated flow on to
another piece of property, you cannot increase that level beyond what it is
in the undeveloped state. So the first part of that engineering process has
been looked at, reviewed and approved, and those conditions for the diversion
of the drainage that would potentially come on to mrs. Jones' property have
already been placed on the phase 2 preliminary plat. So in answer to that
particular question, that issue has been addressed and that condition is established
on the phase 2 preliminary. Much more work would have to be completed and
done with the construction plans, but that issue has been addressed. I just
wanted to state that for the record. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> move approval.
>> i'll second, but I do want to explain a little when you
are ready for that. Are you ready for the motion, judge?
>> move approval.
>> and I will second. So there is no misunderstanding there,
this is Karen's number one choice in terms of the b.c.p. And i've gone to
d.c. Four times to advocate not only on behalf of this property but all others.
Have I to respect the fact there are ministerial duties on this commissioners
court when somebody meets all standards we don't have the leeway and discretion
to say no because then you create all sorts of problems. It is still going
to be my intent to work as quickly and as hard as possible to see that medway
gets into the b.c.p. Lineup related to our preserves because it is absolutely
critical, as pam so ablely represented, this is very critical to that macrosite.
I don't see this action today as doing anything that will endanger that process,
and if anything, I think it might actually add a little bit more pressure
about why we need to be moving ahead because they are getting their entitlements,
but they are entitled to get their entitlements, and that's a long discussion
with had with mr. Kocera and that was my goal and intent was to got us there
so all of this goes away because I have walked that property and I have been
on those streets and it would be best for everyone involved that this becomes
a part of the b.c.p. Preserves. This vote should not be interpreted as anything
other than strengthening my resolve to get this in the preserve because time
is of the essence.
>> thank you. I would like to say another thing. Thank you
for your explanation, Karen, and I hope that all of you all know that were
willing to work hard also or to continue to work hard to see that this becomes
a part of the preserve. Mr. Daugherty, you are new. Now you know, so if there
is something you all feel we should or can do, please give us a call.
>> and pam has been part of those letters we have taken to
d.c. So I want to acknowledge her letters and many others.
>> from the applicant's perspective, what would be your estimate
of a drop-dead date on the county acquisition?
>> in terms of what, judge? I'm sorry. As far as final plats
or --
>> before the developer decides it's time to move on, is
there like an informal, undeclared debt line for county acquisition?
>> not that I'm aware of. But again, i've not been involved
in those discussions. I know that they are ongoing now, that they've been
going forward. We would like to get the matter resolved as quickly as we can
so we can go forward with either marketing the property, doing whatever it
is we need to sort of finish up. We also have two other plats that are in
for review right now. So we're not through with the entitlement process on
this entire piece of property. We now have three phases completed. We have
4 a. And b. That are turned in. So we would appreciate getting it wrapped
up as soon as you would.
>> so is your best guess at this time at least a year?
>> I wouldn't want to make that guess. I think your staff
could probably answer that question better as far as where the talks are.
Because I'm not involved in that process at all.
>> judge, good question. I mean, it's really better answered
by carol kocera and his board of investors.
>> let me just withdraw my question.
>> I'm sorry. We will do the things we're able.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That
passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM