Travis County Commissioners Court
August 10, 2004
Item 19
19. A. Consider and take appropriate action on proposed alternative alignment of gattis school road through the forest creek estates/huntington trails neighborhood; and. B. Consider and take appropriate action on the request to use alternative fiscal for star ranch section 2, a subdivision in precinct two. (sonleitne these are linked, that's why a and b are the same item.
>> one of the reason that's we had to delay on this joe just returned from the Williamson county Commissioners court because this is one of those joint jurisdictional issues related to gattis school road. A lot has happened since we first brought this forward. I will be quiet and let joe go from here.
>> okay. This mic is working now? This is really for the benefit of the entire court. I know that judge Biscoe and Commissioner Sonleitner have been involved in several public meetings, so there are -- they are probably a little more aware of the irs. But I want to go ahead and -- aware of the issues. I want to make sure everyone understands. This is located -- if I can get some volume here -- this is located in several jurisdictions. We are talking about gattis school road. This is Round Rock, this is f.m. 685 up to hutto. The area we are talking about is this section. As you can see, it's a four-lane divided arterial within Round Rock proper. And then it picks up again as a four lane arterial within the star ranch subdivision. What we have here is state highway 130 that is currently under construction. So the issue became upgrading the two lane rural section of gattis school road to a four lane arterial. In this area, in the subdivision, both Williamson and Travis County accepted subdivision plats that had 80 feet of right-of-way. Now, that technically is sufficient for a four lane arterial. But some of the homes are pretty close to the right-of-way line. They also built the homes and developed on a two-lane roadway. Up until just recently, traffic volumes on that section of road, about 500 cars per day. As soon as the connection was made, to star ranch, it went to 5,000 cars per day. So you can see the potential in this corridor. We expect that as soon as 130 is open for traffic, in 207, we would get traffic volumes of 15 to 20,000 cars per day coming to this area. So we felt to leave this situation to do nothing was not an acceptable alternative. This neighborhood would get the impact of the additional traffic without the road being improved. Now, the neighborhood objected to the upgrade within the neighborhood. Suggesting instead, I think even preferring today, that we reroute the road to the south of the existing neighborhood. T.n.r. Did an alternatives analysis -- of about a half a dozen different alternatives. And to make the long story short, were able to come down to one alternative which we called alternative 3 b. Which seemed to have some buy-in from the neighborhood. I can't say that this is their top priority. But it is one that they are willing to buy off on as the next best thing. What this alternative would have us do is buy out, first of all, this alignment would be just south of the existing line within the neighborhood. What we do is we push the roadway south to create a larger buffer between the remaining homes and the roadway. But what that means is we have to buy three houses and one vacant lot. So the process, there's a house here, a house here, a house here, and a vacant lot here. To get this legitimate to work, we have to -- this alignment to work, we have to buy automatic those homes and push the road south. But in the process it creates a bigger buffer between these homes, remaining homes, and these remaining homes. This the end we have a better aligned roadway. It's more to arterial roadway standards. We also provide for centralized intersection at huntington trail, which is the main route into the neighborhood. We provide a sidewalk and there's -- there's some differences between t.n.r.'s staff opinion and the neighborhood consensus. Let me point those out. First of all, there's a -- there's a barrier wall on the north side and the south side. Noise barrier wall. The neighborhood would want that as a 10-foot fall. T.n.r. Would prefer that it be a six-foot wall. We don't think the 10-foot is needed, for noise attenuation, because of the additional buffer that we are creating by realigning the roadway. The six foot wall is also consistent with the wall that already exists in star ranch to the east of this subdivision. It will be aesthetically pleasing masonry wall. We believe if you put a 10-foot we will out there, it will begin to look like a -- more like a prison wall. And quite frankly it would probably be less desirable. I wanted to point out that we are not in agreement on the height of the wall. Also point out at this morning's meeting of Williamson county Commissioners court they did not want the wall at all they were fearful of the precedent it sets for the local governments to be putting in sound barrier walls. And that was the only objection they had to it.
>> joe, quick question. Are the piece that's we are talking about where there would be a wall in Travis County or Williamson county?
>> both.
>> is the court reporter of it in Travis County? The majority of it in Travis County.
>> the majority is in Travis County.
>> I appreciate the advice for Williamson county. But I don't think -- okay. I said my point.
>> how much does the wall cost?
>> the 10-foot wall is about $120 a linear foot. For everything that we have shown here, roughly it's about $290,000.
>> six foot wall would cost how much?
>> six foot wall is about $75 a linear foot. We are probably talking about under -- under 200,000 for that.
>> all right. We also have a sidewalk, and the neighborhood wants sidewalks on both sides. T.n.r. Would recommend a sidewalk on the south side only because of the following reason: we have left the existing gattis school road in place on the north side. That will be behind the wall. This will serve as a pedestrian way. We are basically closing it off to threw traffic. By cul de sacking it and meadow wide drive. This is also something the neighborhood wanted. So in reality it's a long, wide driveway. So we believe that the pedestrians can use that safely without conflict with the two homes that will be using it for access. So we don't think that we need to create yet another sidewalk to provide that purpose. There's also a bus turnout provided as requested by the neighborhood. A landscape median. I think that's -- that's pretty much the major features.
>> joe, one of the questions and conflict was that we actually had driveway that's went out to gattis school road. With this so-called 3 b plan, will there be any more driveway access direct on to gattis school road?
>> no.
>> the through gattis --
>> not the new. There's still driveway access to the old gatd advertise school but not the -- gattis school, but not the new one. That's part of the features that created the much better arterial for the general public. First of all the horizontal and vertical alignment of this road truly meet arterial standards. Second of all, by eliminating the driveway cuts, you don't have the conflicting movements. And you have the signalized intersection. So we think that we will get pretty good traffic flow for the general public along this -- along this section of roadway. Now, with that said, the cost of doing this is about a million higher than it would have been had we left it within the 80 feet of right-of-way that we already have. So it comes at an additional cost. We also suggest that -- that this roadway be done as a larger c.i.p. Project. As you can see, gattis school road from county road 122 to star ranch, this entire section is a two-lane roadway. This is the section to the neighborhood. Ultimately, even if we improve this to a four-lane, you still have a choke point between when you leave the neighborhood and when you pick up a again with the four-lane in Round Rock. So it makes sense to just go ahead and do the whole thing at one time, about half of this distance is in washington. Half the distance is in Travis County. I proposed this morning to the Williamson county Commissioners court that we wrap this all into one c.i.p. Project, that we share the cost of surveying, engineering and construction 50/50 and then each county would be responsible for purchasing its own right-of-way and real estate. Therein the purr den is slightly -- burden is slightly higher on Travis County because we end up having to buy the three homes within the neighborhood. So it's about a million more expensive for Travis County than it is Williamson county. But we propose that we initiate the design on this as soon as possible. Using Williamson county surplus bond money. Go ahead and get the design done. Use whatever fund we have available at this time, we have about half a million dollars in [indiscernible] fund reserved for buying out the homes or getting that process started. What we don't want is to have this thing hanging over the heads of homeowners that somehow it's -- they can't sell their home because they know that they are in the path of this new alignment, but we are not ready to buy them out. We feel that we need to move at least with the design of the right-of-way acquisition to clear out the corridor and then as we have -- either surplus bond moneys available or we set it up for the next bond election for the actual construction.
>> what is a for them? You said that they don't like this, what do they want -- [indiscernible]
>> no. Let me show you the -- given they know something has got to be done, what would be their preference?
>> the ultimate prempltion is for all of this to go away.
>> absolutely it's not going to happen.
>> I want to validate that that really would be their preference, they really got the raw end of the deal here. I want to validate, yeah, they did. I don't want to dismiss what happened here.
>> all right. In general terms, the neighborhood's first preference is that we take the legitimate of the existing neighborhood, route it entirely around and connect it back in with the existing section. Now, the -- item b on your agenda is material to this. This is star ranch section 2. Once that's platted, this alternative is really not feasible anymore. That's why we wanted both agenda items on at the same time. So you know if you approve item 19 b, you are closing out this option of -- that would allow this to be rerouted around the neighborhood.
>> they are first choice.
>> they are first choice, that's correct. Now, they understand -- understand, we have been straightforward with them about the possibility, the cost of this, the difficulty of doing this because of the pending plat before both Williamson, Travis County and the city of --
>> hutto.
>> hutto. Now, hutto has already approved the plats. There is some legal issues associated with not approving the plat as it has been submitted. Which is consistent with the preliminary plan, which we approved. So there are other issues associated with rejecting the -- the star ranch section 2. But I did want to proceed with that approval, we have this all being on the court agenda at the same time. I?m sure what the neighborhood is looking for is a commitment to do 3 b. So I mean they are comfortable I think with us proceeding with 3 b, but they don't want to be caught with this gets approved, someone reneg on 3 b and they are out -- without anything.
>> but it costs us a million bucks to do that.
>> more.
>> a million dollars more than upgrading the roadway within the existing limit. Let me run the numbers here. All right. Upgrading gattis school road through the neighborhood will cost Travis County $2.1 million, approximately. If Williamson county agrees to share as proposed, their cost of that would be $1 million. So the upgrade to the neighborhood, this alternative 3 b, costs $3.1 million. To upgrade the remainder of gattis school road, we are talking about $1.02 million dollar for Travis County, and $2.2 million for -- $1.2 million for Travis County, 1.2 million for Williamson county. That other section costs $2.4 million. Combined to upgrid the entire, both -- upgrade the entire, both sections, $3.3 million for Travis County, $2.2 million for Williamson county.
>> but -- but initially even if we had expanded the existing two lanes to four, the total cost to Travis County would have been around $2.2 million, right?
>> that's correct.
>> so we go from 2.2 million to 3.3 million?
>> that's right.
>> and this alternative we are looking at, costs less than other alternatives that were farther south of this one?
>> this alternative, as I recall, here it is right here, roughly between 4.5 and $4.8 million.
>> > that's just for that segment and does not include the other choke piece to the west.
>> that's right.
>> look at the current two lanes, visualize expanding it to four, you really would compound problems.
>> oh, I have driven it. It's horrible.
>> you just shift the problem to somebody else's neighborhood. It's from one neighborhood to another. They are just --
>> it's a bad deal. What I and m passing out now are a before and after look at what this would look like. It will give you some visualization of what's there today what there's going to be after we upgrade it to four lane.
>> > again, we already have some fiscal associated with this. We had some build greater Austin dollars. I can't remember if that's [indiscernible] or quarter cent. But it's capital metro dollars. A little bit of -- stop it joe owe they are helpful. And we've had some -- some fiscal that's been posted with other subdivisions that are occurring to the west of us. So this will give everybody a good sense of right-of-way requirements, et cetera. I guess I?m going to say at this point because we would be responsible for right-of-way, there are three parcels of the gattis school road situation that we are going to have to deal with that are owned by mr. Timmerman which is star ranch. I am wondering what kind of commitment that we can get if we move along with this plan that we can get that right-of-way donated that we need off of those other three lots. Because quite frankly, I need some commitments as opposed to while -- i'll look at it. Star ranch, if we approve that subdivision, we basically are saying we are going to go with 3 b. I would like to see a little bit of give related to star ranch in terms of those three lots about getting that right-of-way donated if we can get that, because I think that's my vote is contingent upon the donate that is of that right-of-way.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> yes, sir, please.
>> first of all, my name is tim timerman, I have not seen the plan, this is the first that I have seen it today as far as the exact alignment that you are talking about coming in. Do you know how much right-of-way we are talking about? The only thing that I would be concerned with is that those three lots remain legal lots. As long as they are legal lots that I can still build on. I don't think there's going to be any big right-of-way requirements. I don't think that's going to be an issue.
>> these are the three lots.
>> the ones that are right as you come in from the west.
>> that's right.
>> okay.
>> yeah. Basically -- it's a strip along the front of those.
>> okay.
>> do you know what the dimensions of those strips are?
>> probably not a great bit, no.
>> I -- I certainly don't think that is going to be a problem. The only thing that I would ask is that they remain legal lots. Just looking at it I don't think it's going to be an issue, but I would like to know what the dimensions of that taking are.
>> john, do you have dimensions?
>> john, come to a mic, sorry.
>> this is john [indiscernible]
>> they do this great job of visualizing for the neighborhood. [multiple voices]
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> joe, grab a mic.
>> john shulte, I?m deputy project manager on this project. The parcels are the three parcels here.
>> let tim be able to see those.
>> you can probably can see this better. Okay. Primarily, what happens is the -- it just -- it's a slight strip take of approximately 20 to 30-foot in width here. That reduces in width as we proceed along the internal alignment traversing to the east. Significantly less this parcel, a little more, a little more. What you are looking at here is the final alignment and I do believe that they will still perform to the Travis County standards for building lots. Conform.
>> [inaudible - no mic] with respect to the access management middle mill we have reconfigured -- reconfigureed. This particular lady was interested in -- in mobility and safety. This driveway has been reconfigured to bring her out to meadow wild to take that -- to take that out. Also, some of the other driveways that were in question have been reconfigured, also. To answer your question, Karen, I see no problem with that.
>> okay. I don't think it will be significant -- we will be happy to donate that.
>> certainly -- that would be something that I would like to get into the public record. That would be great. That is helpful. That's extraordinarily helpful since we are going to have to get right-of-way.
>> Williamson county this morning approved the alignment, 3 b, they endorsed the alignment. This alignment. They did discuss the financial participation. And would like to begin negotiations on an interlocal agreement. Of course they did not make any commitments at this morning's meeting. The only other thing that I have to report about that meeting is their concern about the noise barrier walls and their participation in those.
>> you didn't get a commitment from them? They just -- they didn't want to discuss it? Further? [multiple voices] kind of leaning towards --
>> like us, they have to find a funding source for it. So they weren't willing --
>> to write checks.
>> at this morning's meeting to commitment, legally commit to anything. They want to find out how much we are talking about, what their share would be. They are going to have to go been and find out where they would get the money to do it.
>> do we need to go back to the residents about the wall? To have further discussions?
>> first of all, I would like to thank dale harrington, here in the audience, if dale could come up. He has been very instrumental in bringing the neighborhood together. Acting as a conduit for us to talk back and forth to see if we can get to some consensus. Can let him speak about the walls, I can't speak for the neighborhood.
>> thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I?m dale harrington if anybody didn't get that. I guess that i've been the de facto leader now, elected president of the neighborhood in this cause because, as you guys adequately stated it's a raw deal for us. We sat down a number of weeks ago with -- with joe gieselman and neil cables, we all agreed on one thing, doing nothing is not the right solution. We started from there. The neighborhood would like to see this go away, which is absolutely true. We know that it's not. We see the result of it today. So we are trying to work with you guys. You know, this is not a perfect situation for anybody. But I think after talking to the neighborhood, going around this isn't feasible with Williamson county. And mr. Timerman which I know goes through his property. 3 b is better than nothing. Sex foot versus 10-foot walls. I'll glad to take that back to the neighborhood if you would like. Run that past them. Basically I tried to compile a list of what they desired. The driveway on the north side, probably was acceptable. I was thrown in, I guess, but -- but six foot walls versus 10, we take that back. I don't have an answer, I?m not going to tell you, I understand the concerns about the asthetics, the height, I kind of see what you are saying, how the neighbors feel, I don't know. Anything else that you would like me to take back, I would be glad to since I have contact information for most of the neighborhood I can a accumulate responses and basically float it, see what they think of it if you would like me to do so.
>> dale, I have two things.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... On his offer that related to the right-of-way that is necessary along gattis school road for the three lots he owns. That we take that donation and i'd roll in item b as well in terms of the star ranch request. And I think the end result of this is that this then triggers joe to prepare an appropriate amendment to take to campo in September that would be endorsed by travis and Williamson county to take forward on that campo amendment. So that's the end result.
>> second.
>> joe and mr. Harrington will get back with the residents about the wall.
>> yes, sir, absolutely.
>> I guess we ought to further negotiate that with Williamson county too based on feedback from the residents.
>> yeah.
>> discussion? It was a lot of hard work, a lot of meetings, we appreciate staff's efforts. We probably looked at nine, ten options at one point or another, and the residents out there were incredibly cooperative also and understanding. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 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:
Friday, October 28, 2005 9:11 AM