Travis County Commissioners Court
November 23, 2004
Item 4
[One moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...now, this could take some time, and there's some discussion of arterial a. Was there some discussion about arterial a?
>> absolutely. That's the subject of the phasing agreement.
>> but the idea is the issues have been worked out.
>> yes, I mean we -- I think the phasing agreement adequately addresses the eventual construction of arterial a. I mean I知 not sure arterial a in and of itself was the major issue here. At least that's what I understand from testimony.
>> anybody else here on 4-a or b? If so and would like to give comments, please come forward at this time.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> my name is mark magathy and I own a business close to this proposed subdivision and arterial. And we purchased our location in 1980 and have been in business now for 20 -- we didn't open until 1982, however we did locate on what was planned to be a major arterial, and at one time it was even planned to be a freeway, sh 130. And the route of the road to arterial a basically, we're very concerned. We haven't had a chance to look at all the repercussions on this, but we will not have as good access to a major thoroughfare as we would in the plans that -- that were -- the road plans that were in effect basically for the '80s and '90s. Also in 1990, '91, we negotiated with waste management to not have -- when they got the expansion that they are now building in, we negotiated with them to not have an entranceway to that facility, one of the few things we got actually, they would not have an entranceway to the new facility off of springdale road. I知 very concerned that arterial a not being springdale road they can put an entranceway right there even though the road basically is not very far from springdale road. Almost the same road. So very concerned about what the impact is going to be on our future ability to develop our property. And like I was saying, we haven't had a chance to look into all the repercussions. Really found out a couple, three weeks ago about the -- about arterial a even being there, to be honest. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> ms. Mcaffee.
>> my name is nell me mcaffee, and we -- melanie, and we sent a letter to the court regarding six different questions that we had and feel like we have not -- they have not been addressed and continue to be concerns. And I don't know if they can be addressed here today. But jut to reiterate what we've already sent the court, what they were, one, we had concerns that why there was --
>> now, that letter was sent to?
>> to everyone on the court. It was from -- from trek english.
>> when was this, melanie?
>> oh, the date?
>> like in the last week?
>> oh, week and a half ago?
>> okay, now, was that -- that letter wasn't about this item, it was about just landfill issues?
>> no, it was about this item.
>> you all are very good about getting this stuff and I don't recall seeing it.
>> see if we can address it now.
>> okay. One question was why the subdivision application was in three parcels, not two, that the discussion that we've had from the landfill and what they tell us their reasons for subdivision don't match up with what they are doing. So it seems like since they are applying for subdivision, that might be a good question. Never received an answer on that. We brought up the issue of the waterline and felt like in the subdivision application, that that is a big project is fixing to happen. And for the county to talk about arterial a and these issues and not more directly address the issue of the waterline seems to be short-sighted. We feel like the answers regarding the problem of the present site and that there is no easement through the present site, we feel like arterial a is probably a dead issue anyway. That once that land is landfilled, it's going to be a boondoggle to think that you are going to put a road through there. So in a way we wonder if we're just being led down the path on the road to expansion because that's a big problem that we feel like the court is not really addressing or giving us adequate answer about unbelievably a huge problem that we sure can't see an answer to. Also in 2013, supposedly the fines were reduced on the premise that the landfill would be closed at that date.
>> I don't know if you made that very clear, but the -- tceq, their argument was they were a minor facility because they were going to be closed by 2013 and the emissions based on that close date were such that they qualified as a minor facility. I believe this is how it went, my recollection. And so if they are true in closing down in 2013, why is the tract 3 going to be proposed for a landfill. [inaudible] in 2013 or are they continuing on?
>> I got 4, but I missed that first one. I have waterline question, present site problems, road through landfill, and 2013 tceq.
>> subdivision, the three versus two. You have that one?
>> no, I don't. That's the first one. Subdivision, three versus two.
>> and then we also brought up the issue of 120 feet not being that we feel like adequate or large enough. So I don't know what discussions there were on the size.
>> as a right-of-way dedication for arterial a.
>> right. And then our biggest one probably, and I guess the final one that I have not said, is that we expressed major concerns about this being implied as endorsement of future expansion of the landfill by granting the subdivision. Now, if as time goes on and there's a new court and a future court that does not have your history, I think new conclusions could be drawn. So we wanted wording that was very specific so that whatever future court is here at whatever date things could happen, that your verbal assurances are put into writing. And we have seen nothing on that either.
>> well, I just called staff, and we did not receive those six questions either. Not in my office. And of course I知 kind of -- those are some very important questions I think that do need answering. And I guess it's almost ties almost into item 5, in my opinion, this expansion, the status of these things and the way they are going as far as the expansion does tie into both of these relationships, and I think you did bring up expansion, which I知 adamantly opposed to.
>> why don't we get the ants to the questions when we call 5 up. And get the status report.
>> because we need to look at this.
>> okay. Joe?
>> let me work backwards. First of all, the implied endorsement of the landfill. The Commissioners court has authority to say what the use of the land is. We do understand the concern [inaudible] and we're agreeable to making some statement as an addition to the plat note that says this action of the court in no way endorses the use of the subdivision for a landfill. So that it was clear that not only does the court not take a position on the use, it doesn't have the authority to. And so it's not -- if your fear is that somehow just the approval of the subdivision is an enforcement, put that to bed with an additional statement that says that's not the case. So that can be, I think, addressed with a simple note on the plat.
>> all right. Let's think about this language. Waste management and residents. Approval of this subdivision plat by the Commissioners court does not mean approval of a landfill expansion on this site. But treat that as you see fit, mr. Nuckols.
>> I couldn't have said it better myself.
>> I just thought I would throw it out so you can think about it and that captures basically what --
>> that's right.
>> but it does not -- let me follow up on that. But it does not preclude them from expanding by having that language there. So my whole point, since it does not preclude them from expanding, the concern of the residents is expansion. This is why I think we need to look at item 5 on the status reports because I think there is ample opportunity for them to look at future expansion and I think, according to the status report that we have, in my mind it's not appropriate for what they have done as far as looking for another site for expansion purposes, and also other sites where they have come into agreements with regional landfill and another greenfield. So I think a lot needs to be played here that whenever we call up item 5 that is certainly related to item 4 that we need to make some decisions.
>> that's number 7. Question number 6 dealt with the 120 feet of right-of-way.
>> 120 feet is our standard for arterial. This is what we would ask any developer who comes to the process. So I mean it's a standard width of right-of-way. After the road is designed there may be need for additional drainage but at this point we don't have a designed roadway so we typically ask for 120 feet for this type of roadway.
>> when you say that, joe, when we say that's our standard, what fits within 120 feet of right-of-way? Is that six lanes divided and includes sidewalk and/or bike accommodations?
>> usually six lanes with the associated pedestrian-bicycleways.
>> and divided? As opposed to undivided?
>> the only caveat is once you get into the design, it may very well be some topography and drainage that requires additional easements to accommodate those things.
>> if that's the case, do we then have a right to insist on dedication of right-of-way or are they then obligated to purchase the additional right-of-way that we need?
>> that's a good question. I mean in this dedication document it says 120 feet.
>> question number 5 is the 2013 tceq statement. Tceq apparently reduced the fine, right?
>> right.
>> and made reference -- did tceq say reduce the fine -- because if tceq said it and whatever their position is, they have more authority in this area than we do. So I mean --
>> I have no knowledge of that and it did not enter our discussions of the subdivision plat. It goes beyond our purview.
>> I don't know that an action by us would -- would reduce whatever their position is on that issue. So I mean we probably are not the right party to ask about that. And to be honest, I don't recall that language myself. Not that it's not there, I just don't recall.
>> well, judge, I guess on that related issue is, of course as we know, the whole landfill ordinance process, the county and the landfills basically agreed to not progress until we arrived at some sort of a -- at an ordinance. And here we know that they've already said that they are going to be applying for an expansion on tract 3 of this subdivision. And I don't know if there's -- the extent to that agreement which, you know, to my knowledge is only verbal anyway and here in court, but verbal. I don't know if this is breaking with that agreement.
>> the agreement was they would not file an application to expand while the moratorium was in place. A moratorium has expired, but we have their verbal agreement to keep complying with it and they have our kind of verbal promise not to file the ordinance as long as they don't file an expansion too -- an expansion application. That was, like, the deal. At the same time, though, I don't know -- I mean obviously when they filed an application with tceq, we are free to do whatever we choose to. But we did say in six months we'll get a status report on efforts to locate greenfield sites and that's the item [inaudible]. So [inaudible] was question 4.
>> I would like to address both the existing landfill cell and the waterline. These are all pre-existing conditions to the arterial. The design of the roadway will have to take those into consideration. If at some point -- I mean you've got stuff up and down the corridor that the engineer will have to look at in the alignment of the roadway. If at any point one of those turn out to be fatal, meaning that the -- it's such that the power of eminent do main cannot overcome the obstacle, we may have to abandon arterial a as an arterial. At this point we do not see any of those as being fatal.
>> we would not build the road over the landfill.
>> we could build a road over the landfill. Understand the landfill cell that we're talking about is permitted, but it is not actually there in reality. It is virgin land right now. Little the permitted cell that is the obstacle.
>> if it were an active landfill cell, meaning where waste is being disposed, has been or -- we would [indiscernible].
>> simply it's a matter of cost, yes. If in the end it were still feasible to [inaudible] to the landfill and moving it somewhere else, we could do that. Those are decisions that have to be made in the entire project weighing whether or not that can be done. It certainly would be in our interest not to have to do that.
>> melanie, can you help me out just a second? I知 having a real hard time understanding the issue related to arterial a and the waterline. Are you opposing arterial a? Are you in opposition to arterial a? Because that -- I mean if you were here for the conversation we had before, that is the hope of everyone that that can actually be the route with a road that is built to handle it to take commercial traffic off of a lot of roads that were never ever intended, including the one by your property so that you would have your road back and we would appropriately have commercial traffic be able to get from 290 up to parmer which seems to be the route everybody wants to make. Am I not understanding?
>> I知 not against the order that things are happening.
>> okay.
>> and I think with so much up in the air and, you know, the verbal negotiations that we're having trying to determine what's going to happen with solid waste issues, I think that this is out of order.
>> okay. Let me ask part 2. What is the issue about the waterline? I知 not understanding. Because this is a massive project -- this is the Pflugerville waterline, correct?
>> yes.
>> if you go out to Pflugerville, you will see a gigantic reservoir that is being built and they are doing massive construction all over Pflugerville to get that line down to the colorado including a large section coming through our county parks, we gave an east an easement through our county parks to do that. I知 not understanding --
>> I think there's lots of things planned and it needs to be looked together as a package. Between the waterline, the mokan and arterial a, there's a lot of activity on the books. For each activity not to talk to each other and come up with the plan that benefits each entity and each -- the three different big things that are happening, they need to have a dialogue. So that it happens --
>> if they are going to be doing ripping up of dirt, it all be done in con skwrubgs, they all know what everybody is doing and there be some kind of coordination related to it.
>> yeah.
>> and what are you caulking about related to mokan (1 I知 not 234ding what you just said there.
>> that's another long term -- you know, if you look at any planning map for --
>> it doesn't exist. Mokan. That route was abandoned in June of 2000 and the alignment was moved off mokan and moved many miles east so there is abandoned right-of-way, but there is no highway project.
>> the long-term rail is where you see it on the map.
>> that land is --
>> she's really thinking about the -- there's been discussions recently of potential mass trance it up that corridor.
>> well, it's owned by the state of Texas and certainly those are discussions that will come, but is that happening in the next three to five years? No. No. It's just abandoned rail right-of-way that is owned by the state of Texas.
>> it's on all those maps though repeatedly. Maybe those folks --
>> I知 just expressing the fact who owns that land. It's abandoned rail right-of-way and there will be discussions beyond public about what should be done with that land. But there certainly is no plan approved by anybody that there's going to be commuter rail or anything else.
>> kind of wondering what to do with it basically.
>> we're also though very concerned by splitting this into three tracts and applying for landfilling on tract 3, they could sell off in the interim tracts 1 and tracts 2 and then not have access to land for a buffer. You know, so before when we were talking about all this expansion, that expansion was basically roughly in where tract 3 is and they Marched up here with all their power point presentations showing greenbelt in tracts 1 and 2. So greenbelt would be maybe as part of this subdivision approval, then it could be required that that is all to be set aside for greenbelt.
>> but if arterial a goes over tract 3, we wouldn't want them to do the landfill, we would want them to move it to one of the other tracts.
>> and I guess then tracts 1 and 2 greenbelt except for where the road goes through.
>> joe, any additional comments on tracts 1, 2 or 3?
>> well, when the thought originally came in, I believe tract 1, the one most adjacent to springdale, was going to be commercial industrial. And one of our comments was we have a flood plain ordinance and you need to set back an easement 500 feet from the fema flood plain as a drainage easement. And that rendered a whole lot of land basically open space lot. So in the course of the development review process, that pretty much made lots 1 and 2 basically useful as open space lots. So that's how that shifted.
>> as an open space lot, I don't know what that --
>> well, they are open space lots now, if I知 not mistaken.
>> you can't build on them.
>> are we all looking at this as exhibit -- [inaudible].
>> if I understood correctly our conversation in the past, open space does not mean dedicated --
>> well, there's a plat of 3 --
>> do you want to sit down? [inaudible].
>> respect to lot 1 and 2. It says no 3 on the final plat, it says no development shall be allowed on lots 1 and 2, open space lot. Open space lot will be maintained by owner.
>> that means it's dedicated. It will not be built on. Aside from possibly the road.
>> that's the prohibition that's on the final plat. It's a restriction on the use of the property.
>> yes.
>> if one came in with a -- and the lawyer can address this as well, but if one came in with some sort of application for a development permit on that property, then this plat note would come into bear and they would go no, this is an open space lot, no development on it. You would have to amend this final plat. John joseph, waste management.
>> to the extent we have leverage, the plat note covers this. So you would -- to deviate from that, we would have to amend the plat note which means you have to come back to the county and we would have to approve I guess whatever question --
>> the public hearing process. The same process we're going through now would be the process you went through for -- to remove the plat note.
>> not being familiar with this type of thing, I don't know if there's another level that is more binding than that.
>> it being in the deed records of Travis County [inaudible]. They have to do deed search.
>> as I reiterated earlier, that does not preclude them from expand their operations at the landfill even on, like, in lot 3.
>> on lots 1 and 2 there's no development allowed -- [multiple voices]
>> there can't be any development at all on those two lots by this plat note.
>> but the whole underlying -- the underlying detail information in this thing, the underlying crux of the whole matter is that expansion. And that's just about what the bottom line is is expansion of the landfill.
>> no, the bottom line of this final plat is simply final plat. We gain no land use designation by -- by making -- by this final plat at all. And in addition to the plat note that you wanted, then of course takes care of the issue of a subsequent Commissioners court taking the issue up of a landfill expansion later on.
>> that does not preclude you from expanding, though.
>> no, sir, it does not.
>> exactly. Well, that's my point.
>> but the expansion has to file an application by tceq, et cetera. This is not that, but --
>> that's a completely separate process that you have to go through.
>> but if the question is will this facilitate an application that may be filed with tceq later on, the answer is probably yes. The answer is probably yes. To facilitate expansion at some point in the future, yes. [multiple voices]
>> I don't know whether a final plat is necessary for that process or not.
>> but I guess tom and I guess [indiscernible], as the issue has come up before on all occasion, on all the subdivision, on all the plats, short form or whatever, the court in the preliminary sat status of the situation do not have to approve a plat. Legally we aren't bound to approve it.
>> I disagree with that. It meets all of the subdivision regulations you are obliged to approve it.
>> this is not a preliminary plat, it's a final plat. No option.
>> so now that I know that is definitely -- I misunderstood in the previous meeting about the green space. But that then highlights the question that melanie raised a moment ago which is if lots 1 and 2 are all dedicated green space, why have two lots? Maybe, john, you can answer -- I mean --
>> the property started off at two distinct tracts, the wilder tract and the property that was on the west and north side of the creek nearest to the right-of-way was owned by waste management. The -- the way that drainage areas go through, it kind of set itself up well for those two separate lots on the west side of the eastern-most drainageway. It also has a house on it that was occupied by wilder, by one of the owners of the property. We thought since that property was segregated physically from the remainder of the tract that we would leave the existing waste management tract as its own tract and then separate out the portion of it where the house was and east of the drainage -- or west of the drainageway to make those two lots. So they could be dealt with differently from the bulk of the wilder tract which is on the east and I guess south side of that drainageway. It just [inaudible]. It could be there would be one lot on that side.
>> so the lean between lots 1 and 2 is where the existing line was.
>> pretty much, I believe. Yes, sir.
>> pretty much.
>> but nevertheless, those two lots remain -- I think at one point in time we had intended these to designate a portion of that property the property that was owned by waste management as commercial and industrial. And then through negotiations with the staff we left both of those lots open space.
>> well, that's kind of concerting because we always talked for the last two, three years we talked about that lot you are referring to as commercial industrial as being the buffer between us and you.
>> if there was ever any agreement with y'all --
>> I know there was no agreement.
>> -- there would have been an open space, but that was rejected at every turn by y'all.
>> now, [inaudible]. Number 5 is receive status reports from waste management, incorporated and browning-ferris industries on efforts to acquire greenfield sites for new landfills.
[4 was taken back up after the discussion on item 5]
number 4, the one thing that I did was adding to the plat note the following
language. Approval of this subdivision plat by the Commissioners court does
not mean approval of a landfill expansion on this site. Any problem with that
from waste management? That is to capture basically what the residents were
asking about and what we have discussed previously. It looks good to me. The
expansion application when filed has to be filed with the state and that kind
of starts another process basically.
>> judge, would you mind saying it one more time, please?
>> approval of the subdivision plat by the Commissioners
court does not mean -- I could have state represent approval, but I have mean
approval of a land still expansion on this site.
>> thank you. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
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:
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:03 PM