Travis County Commssioners Court
January 13, 2004
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.
Item 13
The next item is 13. Review and consider amendments to the capital area metropolitan planning organization, campo, long-range transportation plan, and take appropriate action.
>> as you may know -- I have been working with the Texas turnpike authority and the lone star infrastructure group on their design of state highway 130 as it crosses through Travis County. About a year ago I sent them a letter outlining where county roads which are in the campo master plan intersect state highway 130. In some cases what I was seeing in the schematic did not exactly jibe with the long-range transportation plan. So I put them on notice on various intersections that they need to do amend their design plans to fit the long-range plans of Travis County. And campo. In that process, it was actually a give and take process. They came back and showed me that in some cases it was not possible for them to design the road as shown and with the intersecting arterials as shown in the master plan of campo. Good reason. Physical constraints, flood plain, various reasons, including how the toll road will operate and function. In other words, they have to have rooms for toll booths, entry rafrpls and whatnot to put in a intersecting arterial, where campo would have had it would contradict the operation of the toll road. So they asked me, in those cases, would you go back to campo and recommend an amendment to the master plan so that their plans for state highway spoke as revised -- state highway 130 as revised and the campo plan would be together, would be coordinated. So what I'm asking the court to do today is recommend to campo a series of changes that would bring us in line with each other. The master plan of campo in line with 130, 130 in line with the campo plan. That way everybody is sure that what is moving forward on 130 is not going to cause problems us us for them or them for us. So with that, I would like to step through the series of proposed amendments that we would recommend to campo. The first amendment has to do with gattis school road. Gattis school road connects with state highway 130 and is a full-fledged interchange with 130. Unfortunately the location of that interchange is not the same as what's shown in the master plan. The master plan shows pren lane as being the intersection. Williamson county approved a subdivision plat within the jurisdiction of Williamson county that would have the arterial connect at the extension of gattis school road. That arterial for all practical purposes is built, it's on the ground. And t.t.a. Designed 130 to the Williamson county subdivided roadway. What that means for us, though, is a correction in the master plan to show now that the connection that gattis school and not at preen lane. The next one is pecan street. Now, pecan street on 130 was originally just a two-lane runway. We told state highway 130 folks you need to make sure that's an arterial underpass, and they have revised their plans to do that. But in the process, we also showed that we could not get a six-lane divided arterial all the way into the city of Pflugerville. So we have revised our design plans for pecan street, which is a c.i.p. Project, to show six lanes from state highway 130 to a point near the city limits of Pflugerville where it would choke down to a four-lane divided. And four-lane divided arterial is then consistent with the plans within the city of Pflugerville for its extension on over to i-35. So that cleans up that one. On cameron road --
>> is that supposed to be exhibit b?
>> that is -- yes. As I'm going through there, these should be in the same order that you have them in your packet. Each amendment is a separate item.
>> so pecan street is actually Pflugerville [indiscernible].
>> that's correct. It goes by two different names. The third alignment changes wells branch parkway. Now, wells branch parkway does not technically require a change for state highway 130 design. They currently show on their schematics that there is no interchange in the interim phase. And the final phase, they show there's an interchange at cameron road. It's not going to be built in this phase, and we said that interchange at cameron will not work for Travis County because we cannot get the arterial to you at that point. Because of physical constraints on our side on how wells branch parkway lines up and approaches 130, we have to bring it into 130 about two to 400 dread feet south of where they are showing on the master plan. We've talked about this with t.t.a. And l.s.i. They said that's not a problem for them. Their plans can accommodate the proposed change that Travis County is recommending. We would, however, like campo's plans to show the correct alignment for wells branch parkway so that in the future if we get any subdivision plats in this area, we will reserve the corridor properly when that land is subdivided. You might also keep in the back of your mind that another thing happened on the way to the plan, we might say. Not only did we get state highway 130, the record decision approved after the master plan as way proofed, but also state law has changed since then. The state law now says that any subdivision within any e.t.j. That campo master plan prevails, if there is any conflict between the regional plan and a local municipality plan. So we have to keep in mind now the campo plan drives the subdivision process within the e.t.j. And so we want to make sure that for that purpose that we also show these roadways in their correct alignment. So as my staff reviews subdivisions within e.t.j., They are going to pull out the campo plan and they are going to ask for right-of-way and extractions of subdivisions the way the plan shows. So another reason we're dock this is to make sure we have the campo plan correct for platting purposes. And this is a important one in that regard.
>> joe, quick question, clarification. Related to where wells branch intersects on the west, does this account for that realignment related to killingsworth of how we're going to shift the roadway just a little bit to the north in terms of where it intersects with the Pflugerville piece of wells branch parkway coming across and hitting at -- I guess that would be immanuel.
>> at which point?
>> immanuel. With killingsworth, the way we were not going have wells branch come down there --
>> yes, it does.
>> so it's got the proper shifted everything a little to the north it's totally consistent with that. This is the next phase of wells branch beyond that point to the east toefr state highway 130.
>> just wanted to make sure that was taken care of.
>> and this realignment came about as we were looking at cameron road, which is amendment number 4. As you know, we have an active have a c.i.p. Project in cooperation with txdot to realign cameron road at a new bridge. As we were looking at that corridor and realigning cameron road, we realize where wells branch crossed cameron road, we had a sight distance problem. So that game reason for the realignment number 3, which is wells branch. In that process of looking at cameron road, though, we also have a realignment of cameron road itself to intersect in a different location. We're okay with state highway 130, but we do have a slightly different alignment than what's shown in the campo plan. That's more for planning purse than it is for state highway 130. They actually amended their plan to make sure that the underpass of 130 was wide enough to accommodate the future arterial. So that was one thing that they took care of in their redesign of 130 is to make sure they had enough room to accommodate cameron.
>> joe, one other little one in between here, between amendments 2 and 3, there is talk now about whether f.e.n.i.g. Lane will continue south, actually where it is and cut down across pecan and hitting the new wells branch park way. Does that need to be put in there because I don't think we've ever had it in and you talk about expectations, I think there are expectations there would at least be a four-lane major or minor arterial, north-south arterial on fenig.
>> there's a two-step process for amending the plan. Mike, the director of campo, asked to us limit our amendments to the time to project related amendments. In other words, where we had an active project, c.i.p. Project, state highway 130, or an active subdivision coming in, to make shows the urgent amendments to the campo plan. That's basically what I'm proposing today. There are other amendments like the one that Commissioner Sonleitner mentioned that need to be done in the campo plan that will be step 2 at a later date.
>> do we know how later? As 130 gets closed, there's a lot of subdivision activity occurring in the Pflugerville area that needs to get coordinated.
>> there is a movement to update the master plan in its entirety, and that will be the amendment process that we use on that. I don't know the timetable for that.
>> and that timetable is -- [inaudible]. By the summer we should be submitting the draft, all the dif@erent amendments. So the deadline has moved from time to time because of the thing with the air quality, not needing to do the air quality analysis, but there would be other opportunities. There will be opportunities to do amendments, as a matter of fact, not just the update, in the summer. Or July. At the short end --
>> that's something we need to keep an eye on because it may be moving sooner rather than not.
>> all right. The next one is amendment number 5. This is the greg lane or howard lane realignment. Again, this is just a slight realignment change to what's shown in the campo plan. We've talked about this on any number of occasions. This is the one that the city has it within harris branch subdivision. We're talking about extractions through that and who is building the road. We've also talked with the t.t.a. About moving howard lane interchange south. They have done that. We've talked with mr. Stone and others and that landowner area about an agreement for ex trek shuns for right-of-way. This is the howard lane amendment right here. So that will make sure that the campo plan reflects what's actually going on with regard to extractions and also the change in the design plan of 130 to accommodate the county's request. We had a little bit of a snafu on number 6 with t.n.r. The county plan shows greg manor road intersecting with state highway 1306789 that's the county plan. And whether we went in and asked t.t.a. To amend the ska matic of state highway 130 to delete the connection with greg manor and move that intersection south and become howard lane, we thought it would require an amendment to the campo plan. It does not require an amendment to the campo plan. It does require, I guess, an amendment to whatever plan we had, Travis County, that showed at one time greg manor. So for today's business, just ignore amendment number 6. Because it was -- we do not need it for campo. Number 7 is old kimbrough road. This is one related to subdivision activity up over blake marion roads. We showed -- manor road. The campo line showed alignment of kayla lane through difficult terrain. When this came in, we realized it was not practical or possible to route the new alignment. What we have is an alternate alignment that uses parsons road. The only issue here is the parsons cemetery, which we are fully aware of that we need to avoid in the alignment of this arterial. This alignment would take it to the outside of that cemetery, thus avoiding any take of the cemetery in the future as this arterial is built. So we want -- alternate alignments might have had us going right through the cemetery and that's not a good idea. The -- alignment number -- amendment number 8 is parmer lane within wild horse ranch. This is, again, an alignment change that reflects the current m.u.d. Agreement that the city has with the subdivision within wild horse ranch. And it is required not only for that purpose but also because of the alignment of miller road with state highway 130. The campo plan originally showed an interchange of [indiscernible] road, with state highway 130. That is physically not possible to do because of a confluence of the arterial state highway 130. And all of that is right in the middle of the 100-year flood plain of gill kwrapb creek. When you look at all of that, this is not going to happen. So moon road will t into the intersection of highway 130. The actual interchange will occur south at the intersection of 969 -- excuse me, 973 and state highway 130. That is where it's physically possible. But on the north side -- excuse me, on the east side of state highway 130 will again pick up the arterial, but it will be outside the flood plain of gilleland creek. What that means is we have a dog leg on the arterial network. From the west, [indiscernible] road will tie into the frontage road. The interchange of the arterial system will happen at 973 and state highway 130, and then will pick up another arterial to the north that goes east and west to the east on 973. We need an arterial in that area, but they are going to be off set as they approach state highway 130. It's a very, very complicated area because of the flood plain of gilleland creek. And because of that we're going to have to just do the best we can to accommodate mobility this this area. We do have connection to 130 with 973. It just means that all the east-west activity will either have to tie to a frontage road of 130 or to 973, and then from 973 to state highway 130. So that's what's taking place on amendment number 8.
>> [indiscernible]?
>> we have, and we also have spoken with the city of Austin. The alignment number 9 also deals with wild horse ranch and the same developer. The master plan shows that parmer lane goes due east across gilleland creek and ties in with blake manor road. Again, you are going across a fairly wide section of gilleland creek. You would also have to go right through a platted subdivision east of gilleland creek which is part of the wild horse ranch develop. But that is now fully platted. There is no -- there was no reservation for the arterial. So, quite frankly, that route is pretty much blocked from any extension of parmer lane. But the m.u.d. Agreement within davenport ranch does show extension of parmer lane tying in with 130.
>> wild horse ranch.
>> excuse me, parmer lane extension south of 290 tying in with 130. And this would bring the campo plan in line with the davenport -- with the wild horse ranch development plan and the schematics of state highway 130. Number 10 is a brand-new arterial.
>> joe, can I go back to 9 for a quick second? I think a lot of the confusion occurs in the campo plan because things change names 49d different times. You don't realize that's the road you are really talking about. And in terms of like cameron road or wise lane. Who would initiated -- I'm looking at amendment 9 related to that out degrees parcel on braker lane. Braker lane at that point is so disconnected to the braker lane everybody knows and loves that it might with extraordinarily confusing in numbing, e.m.s.-wise, et cetera, that if that is continued to be called breaker, but it doesn't really connect to breaker. It's just something to think about in the future because that's where we've had a lot of problems the people think, oh, it's not my road and you find out it was really called the extension of cameron road and it was buried someplace else within the campo plan eye understand. That's probable a good example where you could give it a brand-new name because it's so off set from the original. We'll keep that in mind.
>> thank you.
>> the amendment number 10 is a new alignment in southeast Travis County. Where we were getting a bunch of subdivision activity. And realizing as we were looking at the master plan, there's very little north-south or tear ial roadway in our master plan for future growth in that area. And so as these subdivisions came in, staff was asking us, look, we really do need to have a north-south arterial. So we have come up with alignment called 4 daughters roadway. And that was recommended by the developer from whom most of this right-of-way will be acquired. The name is his name. Which is unique. I don't think we have a 4 daughters roadway in Travis County. At any rate, this is a new alignment that would go from state highway 71 all the way south by way of connecting pointed.
>> 812.
>> 812. All right. State highway or farm to market road 812. And with that in the master plan, and we have the legal capability to make sure that that corridor is reserved as subdivided in this area. And finally, arterial -- amendment number 11 --
>> on number 10 have we officially changed the name of that road?
>> this is a new road so. The road 4 daughters is new with the arterial. We have -- this would be a new addition to the campo plan. So there's no other right-of-way in there by that name.
>> there's not a name change we have to go through?
>> no.
>> just give it one?
>> yes. And we're giving it this name because there's no road there right now. This is a road on new location. There's no existing roadway. And we're going to give it for the first time ever the name of 4 daughters.
>> "we" who?
>> well, --
>> staff has the authority just to go out and name a road?
>> no, we have been asked by the subdivider of this property, since it's going through his land to, use that as a name, and quite frankly, as long as it doesn't conflict with another name, we don't really have an opinion.
>> when we approved the subdivision, we approve the name change or name assignment.
>> yes.
>> it will help [indiscernible]. You missed that one, joe.
>> amendment number 11, slaughter lane, again is an amendment in the campo plan to show the connection of slaughter lane with state highway 130 as they have designed it. When campo does master planning, they do it in a fairly satellite scale. And they are just making sure that there's an arterial out there somewhere. And when they shoot it, they shoot it on a -- basically an alignment they thought would be adequate. Which state highway -- when state highway 130 is designed, engineers are down on their hands and knees looking at topography, cemeteries, flood plain, they are physically locating the connecting streets where they can be built. That's what this is all about. We're taking the campo plan in a satellite view and we're putting it in now at an engineering view on where it can actuallying plugged in. So this will make the campo plan consistent with the state highway schematics on 1306789 those are the plan amendments we are proposing to campo. Keep in mind that there will be other amendments proposed by other municipalities and counties. Campo will collect all of these together. The campo staff will evaluate these and make their own independent recommendation to the campo board. There will be a public hearing where all these amendments will be considered, and then the campo plan will be amended. Our position in the past has been we are a participant with the regional entities in that master plan. Whatever the outcome of that adoption is, that is what we implement both in the subdivision and in our c.i.p. Projects.
>> joe, thank you for a good presentation. Let me ask you a couple of questions. Number one, -- number one, when will this go before the campo board for consideration, these particular 11 amendments? And number two is would the -- with the emergence of -- even ablgtment of the transportation bill which actually looks at the campo plan itself and i've kind of embraced it as far as one of the plans that they devise regional road projects, when will all of this basically come together? And especially if you've got other entities and of course l.s.i., Who is actually looking at the s.h. 130 significance of a lot of these things that we've talk about here this morning as far as amendments. When will all of this come together as far as come to some kind of conclusion, even though other entities may not have submitted any amendments at this time and that you are not aware of. So as far as Travis County is concerned, what are we looking at?
>> we are told that the original deadline for submittals was the end of December. That deadline was extended by campo for several weeks. So we are --
>> thank you, joe.
>> we understand that we have to have our amendments in to campo this week. And I'm presuming that all the other entities will have to do likewise. I expected this -- all the combined amendments will probably be presented to the campo board in February. They will probably have a need to post a public hearing at a subsequent meeting. So final action probably will come in March or April, is my guess. I don't know if what you are referring to is the -- the other amendments with regard to toll facilities. And I know there's been some discussion of -- by the district engineer of bringing back amendments to the campo plan to designate toll facilities. I don't know if that corresponds with this amendment or not.
>> okay. Then -- being able to speak for lone star, inc., L.s.i., Who is actually looking at the s.h. Spoke project. Will they have an opportunity to defend what we are suggesting in that s.h. 130 has triggered a lot of this here -- the amendments here? That we're looking at this morning. Will they be able to participate -- I know you did mention public hearings. I'm kind of concerned their role in this process.
>> state highway 130, we have been working with l.s.i. And t.t.a. Both on their schematic plans and also on this campo amendment process. So they are fully aware of what we are taking forward to campo. I am sure they will be represented at the public hearing to show how these amendments affect state highway 130. They are pretty far along in their design process. So what we wanted to make sure is that the -- what they actually put out for construction was not inconsistent with the campo plan. And I think what this does is make sure that that doesn't happen.
>> right. And finally, a chance to participate in one of the public hearings that lone star I guess -- was conducting at the del valle high school, it was a layout especially -- some of these amendments here of the interchange, howard lane extension that tied in to 130 as opposed that was going to be blake manor as far as 130 is concerned. I guess they are really looking into those particular proposals at this time, and I see that [indiscernible] one of these, but I feel that's basically what's going on, to continue to go in that direction as far as that interchange.
>> l.s.i. And t.t.a. Have made any number of design changes to accommodate Travis County and the future arterial system in the campo plan. We had fairly healthy discussions on pecan street, elroy road, howard lane, and they have accommodated us. I'm comfortable now that everywhere where we have a planned c.i.p. Project, and even perhaps not even where we have a c.i.p. Project, but expectations that in the near future we will have a connection to 130. I'm comfortable now that state highway spoke will accommodate that future construction of those arterials as they connect with state highway 130. Both the bridges are being designed wide enough to accommodate the arterials. The under passes are doing likewise. And some cases l.s.i. And t.t.a. Will be acquiring additional right-of-way to make sure that the arterial roadway connection can be accommodated. So I think they've gone well -- they have been very accommodating in coordinating their plans with us.
>> okay. That was my final question. Thank you, joe.
>> move approval of the recommended changes for the reason given.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:18 AM