Travis County Commissioners Court
May 10, 2005
Item 22
[One moment ,please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...joe, it's not really a question, really just a comment. I took a look at the map of where this is located, and you talk about the proverbial perfect storm of another 350 homes on frate barker between manchaca and brodie. Brodie, which is completely overwhelmed, frate, barker, which is not going to be improved, although it's the other section that's not going to be completed over so sh 45. And manchaca road which is also not completed. And then on the south in terms of an access point, you have 1626, which txdot has no plans currently to upgrade what is basically a two-lane roadway. And we need a gigantic sign saying these are the conditions if you buy something in this subdivision. And once again, we have no infrastructure in place and people who have the right are going to put in another 360 homes times eight trips a day, and it's just -- I知 stating the obvious and it just struck me as I was going through that that there's more pressure on four roads that absolutely cannot take any more pressure because there are very few outlets.
>> let me respond to that in a couple of ways. This is a project for the 2005 bond election. We don't have physical on the subdivision from frate barker and the intersection and frate barker and manchaca road. We recognized some months ago that the land on fr. Ase barker would require an upgrade, so we have this section between brodie lane in our cip for the next go around. Whether it makes the cut is yet to be seen. We do need to acknowledge that something has to be done to frate barker at a minimum at that intersection. Txdot does have plans to upgrade the 1626, perhaps not all the way to manchaca road, but I know there are sections of it that we have asked us to purchase right-of-way for. So there is some recognition that the infrastructure in the area is not adequate and needs to be improved, but the second point, I guess, is that we in the county need to find some way to proportionately allocate the cost of infrastructure and improvements, not just based on the boundary and out of boundary road on a subdivision -- I think we truly do need to look at ways to spread the cost of upgrading this as new development comes in. And we will be addressing the court on that further at some other date.
>> and the 1626 piece is really closer to interstate 35. I don't get the impression that the 1626 piece that we're talking about --
>> it's actually this section. It's from the county line to brodie lane.
>> (indiscernible).
>> the other thing is frate barker, is this the same situation that we had last time of finding a way to get in there and then cutting across the the land that the city of Austin had purchased for open space.
>> that piece that stops, that's the other piece, not that piece.
>> the front part from manchaca down to brodie.
>> that's right.
>> but it doesn't go -- it's the back part beyond brodie that goes into the land -- [overlapping speakers].
>> that is pretty much a dead issue at this point.
>> but on the other hand, this is something that's being proposed for the 2005 bond. What I heard --
>> no, no. We're only talking about the section between brodie lane and manchaca road. There's no proposal for anything between brodie and state highway 45. And I think that's the statement that you're referring to in the city's property. We have no plans to improve any other section of frate barker on to the west to 45, do not.
>> my point is there's more pressure, eight trips a day, another 2800 vehicles that they will either have to come out 1626 or they're going to have to come out frate barker, and somehow they've got to go north or south. And can we take one more car on brodie lane? And remember, manchaca scrunches down to two lanes because it's not completely improved. I am stating the obvious and it's frustrating.
>> how long will it take to build out this subdivision?
>> I don't know the answer to that.
>> probably three years?
>> yes.
>> what options do we have today?
>> none.
>> it's purely market driven. They're going to put in as many homes as they think they can sell. We approved their preliminary plan and they're going to come to us for approval of final plats, and if there is a market to develop the -- as there is a market to develop the homes.
>> one thing we could call to their attention is we think they may well be creating serious traffic and wonder if they have taken that into account, even if we legally have no authority to insist that certain things be done, just calling what we see as a potential problem to their attention may well cause them to consider some factors that otherwise they wouldn't consider. Even if we can't legally re-present have, I feel we need to point out what we anticipate to be potential problems.
>> let me weigh in on this a little bit. We do have a dilemma: and in my opinion, part of the dilemma that we find ourselves in, the reason why there are bills going through the legislature over here is because there are things that government do or that government does that really starts dealing with what do you have the right to do with property that you own? Now, we can go and draw circles all over Travis County where we ought to tell people, do you know what, we're going to get in the way of your planning, we're going to get in the way of everything that you want to do because, quite frankly, we don't want any more traffic. Let me tell you what, I get five phone calls a week in precinct 3 over why are you allowing things to be built off of 620 between the dam and 71? Because you just -- the road is so overwhelmed now with traffic. We do have an issue in this community. We refuse to build an infrastructure of roadways in plash that allow -- in particular that allows people to get around, and to get out in front of things. Now, when I first came in the court, joe gieselman and I had a very strong conversation about frate barker. And I will say as the precinct 3 Commissioner I respected what joe had to tell me. I mean, I know what happened with frate barker. It was out there in that area where things were passed by people to get things done, and yet where do we find ourselves in? The same thing that I think that we found ourselves in east of 35 whenever the city was going to go and buy some parkland over Commissioner Gomez and the area that was going to stop slaughter lane from going across over to 183. I mean, as long as we're going to stand in this community and go, well, we're going to get pushed around by regards to no, you're not going to build that road and do you know why? Because we're going to go out and secure as parkland or we're going to go out and build or secure as water quality land. I mean, what's done is done, but do you know what? I can't very well go to somebody that owns a tract of land and that market tells you -- home builders go to where markets tell them that they can build homes. And when you start going out in -- I would consider this extreme south central Austin/Travis County, I mean, you can go out and you can afford the land and you can put up the kind of homes that people in this community can go to live in. We're always talking about affordability, we're always talking about people living in the hinderlands because they go out there, number one, because that's probably an area that they can afford. So I do think that -- this is not to say that we shouldn't say, okay, what are we going to do to enhance the ability for people to get around? Because you're right, this area out here is overwhelmed right now with traffic, but I do think that we need to look long and with regards to what we are going to do, especially in the county areas. Now, unfortunately for us, what we are witnessing is that the city of Austin continues to go out and take in areas that really kind of push us out of those areas, but if the design behind that is to basically stop infrastructure and to really find for the natural development process, I知 not so sure that we shouldn't try to have some sort of major retreat with the city of Austin at some point in time and say, how are we going to cohabitate in Travis County? Because I知 afraid that if we continue to get -- and I do think that the county gets pushed in a box and in a corner in several places. In Travis County anyway. Again, I知 not saying that there's not an issue here from all of our standpoint, but I think there's a larger issue. And the larger issue is how do you continue to watch an area grow -- and we have not done a very good job in this community by let's not build it and they won't come. Let's not build it and we won't grow. That has absolutely worked in reverse for us, and I think today we are the fifth year in a row the fifth most congested city of our size in the united states.
>> I don't want to go there, and I don't want to say that, but I am concerned enough to believe that more attention needs to go into the planning of this sort of development. And is this part of the effort that we have with the city of Austin to have them look at what we're doing in this area? Not necessarily for them to sign off, but the one stop shop, does this go through them?
>> this would certainly have gone through the single office, yes.
>> so it has gone already?
>> yes.
>> I assume we would need to approve the preliminary plan. But it would be a professional courtesy to call to their attention what we see as a potential problem. And when I asked about the time of the buildout is you've got a few years to work with and we need to keep this in mind because at some point we may need to partner with whoever we can, the city, private businesses to try to provide some traffic relieve.
>> what we hear are the frustrations that people have, and they want us to do something, and we find that we really can't. So in order to prevent that sort of thing, can we have those conversations now before this moves forward? And I知 not trying to be an obstacle in people's path and whatever they want to do with their property, but I don't want the after effects to land in my lap and then everybody is frustrated about what we can't do. And a lot of stuff is preventable if you do it on the front end.
>> and i've got half a dozen road where people are like when are you going to upgrade this road? And I知 like what did you think was going to happen when you bought your home? And this was one for all intents and purposes, frate barker stops at manchaca and brodie. Because those folks will never be able to get on sh 45 southwest and get into downtown. And I am going to make a presumption that these folks are going to head into downtown or points north in order to work someplace, whether they work in oak hill, downtown or they're going up to Round Rock or wherever, but they're headed north. So they're either going to have to take manchaca or have to go on brodie. And judge, it may take a couple of years to build out, but where do you think all those dump trucks and construction vehicles are going to be going? Once again, down brodie lane, 1626. And I appreciate that bob day is going to try and fix 1626 here, but I count at least two major crossings of bear creek and that is going to be difficult.
>> you also have to throw in, Commissioner, when you say that that's the only way. I mean, that probably is the most direct way right now. If we can ever get 45 southwest built between --
>> these people will not be able to access it.
>> I知 not talking about going straight across frtae barker, I知 talking about you may have an easier time if you go to 1626 and 1626 over to where 45 is going to come into 1626, if we ever get that darn thing done. They have to -- by the time some of this buildout happens, there may be -- if we can do the things that we ought to do, I think that we're working with txdot as hard as we can, there are going to be some other ways. I知 in agreement that we need to talk about these things and discuss these things, but I am not willing to just sit back and go, okay, well, we -- we're boxed in here and we can't do anything. I do think that it is paramount that we find some way to work with the city of Austin and to identify some alternative routes. And those are the kinds of things that really are going to be need to be on some kind of adjustment five years in the campo plan. But I agree.
>> we don't have to sit back. We can kind of make sure that this happens, that this conversation takes place in the planning.
>> if we were sitting back, it would have gone on consent. And it struck me and I thought my goodness, this is yet another piece of pressure on brodie. And when the city can step up to the plate is that there is a section within the city of Austin on manchaca road, an arterial road that is two lanes. And they need to put that in their bond election and at least we'll get some north-south stuff happening here. But brodie lane cannot take anything else.
>> and we can collaborate on bond issues.
>> we have an item on our agenda today regarding that.
>> frat barker is still in the campo?
>> this section.
>> is this section in the city of Austin transportation plan?
>> I believe it is.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? I guess we really ought to at some point think about a strategy to act on providing relief in this general area here. Is what I知 hearing.
>> yeah.
>> in a broader strategy, it would pay for upgrades of our arterial roadways. It all boils down to money. Upgrading roadways, we have to find a way to pay for it.
>> and in terms of the boundary streets, this subdivision does not have as a boundary street either 1626 or brodie or manchaca, but I would maintain that it is going to have a huge impact on all of these roads, but that's in direct proportionality and how boundary streets work.
>> okay. Any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Daugherty, Sonleitner, yours truly voting in favor.
>> I am going to abstain until I make sure that those conversations and collaborations take place.
>> Commissioner Gomez abstaining.
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, May 11, 2005 8:12 AM