Travis County Commissioners Court
October 4, 2005
Item 2
Number 2 is a public hearing to receive comments on the following items in precinct 2. A, partial vacation of a recorded subdivision, star ranch section 1, lots 37 to 41, block e, lots 51 through 65, block f, and lots 10 through 20, block g as recorded in document 200-30-0014 of Travis County records, and 2-b, star ranch phase 2 revised preliminary plan, a revision of hills of forest creek phase 1, 197 acres, 80.74 acres, gattis school road. Sewage service to be provided by Williamson county water, sewer and irrigation, and drainage district number 3, city of hutto e.t.j.
>> move the public hearing be open.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> what is driving this request is the acquisition by the state for state highway 130. [inaudible] already accepted preliminary plan. Because of the acquisition of right-of-way of some of the lots in the original preliminary plan, it's now the applicant is required to go back and restructure his subdivision and reconfigure the lots. Because there is concern about -- from some of the residents who have bought lots within the subdivision about the replat, I would like the applicant to kind of step through the process of what is moving, what are the moving parts because you will have people likely to testify on this issue and I want to make sure the court is aware of what is occurring. If I could ask [inaudible] to kind of step through the replat.
>> good morning. If you grab that mike on the end, that will snap right off the hook.
>> judge, Commissioners, my name is paul lineham here representing tim timerman in a partial vacation of star ranch phase 1 plan. This is the site that has been developed. This is tphoubl that was supposed to go all the way through and be developed. There is a preliminary plan that was done, but was platted all the way out to -- it's farm to market 685 and these lots are platted and all these lots are around the perimeter of single-family homes that came in around [inaudible] in this direction. Because the county -- I mean because the state came and took 23 acres, the area that was noted for retail out here was pushed over because we don't want to put single-family lots out next to the proposed highway. This is the highway location, then the frontage roads that will be built. This is gattis school road coming through. And we wanted to cut off some of the traffic. This road was coming up through here, so we went ahead and extended mayfield so there will be access through the entire area without having to get on the toll road. [one moment please] we have widened the right-of-way per the request of the county. We have taken this to the city of hutto and the preliminary plan was approved on may 2, as you are seeing right here. And the partial vacation has gone through the planning commission and the city council of hutto and been approved unanimously. So also the Travis County [inaudible] runs -- this is the north edge of Travis County road. So not only do we have to vacate in Travis County, but we're also vacating in Williamson county. And we're on the agenda in Williamson county on October 11th. So [inaudible] what we're trying to do here. But the only other solution is really to come in here and make single-family all along the back side and put single-family up against state highway 130, and nobody felt like that was a good solution. Really the best solution we could come up with is come in here and [inaudible]. We just can't guarantee that to the neighborhood and the neighborhood is here just to express their concerns that when they bought out here there were two rows of housing here and it's only one row of housing buffer now and that's really because of the condemnation requirements for state highway 130. So we're responding to the state highway. Condemnation would we have done this in the beginning, no because we thought at one time this was going to be over in Round Rock and this area right in here is platted as single-family all the way up to state highway -- I mean to financial to market 685. So we're just responding to highway condemnation.
>> walk me through on what has been called [inaudible].
>> yes.
>> are those commercial lots on the east side only going to take access from murfield or will they take access from what will be future frontage roads when you were showing us that other map there?
>> right now we'll have to [inaudible] access off that frontage road, but right now we're taking access off prim lane.
>> walk me through traffic-wise because murfield is going to be a punch-through from gattis school road down to prim and prim is going to hit 130 and go only one way south. How are we not going to be re-creating some of the same concerns we had on gattis school road of having some single-family driveways going out on to a roadway that is a cut-through road and will have commercial on the east side?
>> these lots already existing so we aren't trying to vacate them. We could have vacated all those lots and made it retail. And we would have had retail against single-family and we didn't think that was [inaudible]. What we have done is we've tried to work -- we've had meetings with town home developers in the area to see if we might come in and make an enclave and kind of do a unified development, but we didn't want to vacate all those lots that were already platted in order to do that. So we're really in a situation where there were some driveway cuts on there. The county and the city of hutto to make sure those driveways are spaced correctly and [inaudible], but there will be single-family development from gattis school road down to [inaudible]. But we felt like that was a much better solution than having -- we could have come in here and punched out mayfield and brought it down ridgeway, but that would have been bringing retail into the neighborhood. We've tried to keep the integrity of the single-family development that was already there still there by not allowing murfield to go [inaudible]. As far as future planning goes, we are looking at -- all the way up to [inaudible]. [audio difficulties].
>> but we have done detailed analysis from this intersection so people want to turn left here, there are turn lanes to turn left on 130 will be back up underneath the highway. And [inaudible] there could be actually a median right here so people can turn in and out of this without having to go through that traffic light. Then there's another area here if you don't put a traffic light there to have stacking lanes and left turn lanes. So it can be well controlled in the interchange and there's enough room to do it.
>> is anybody posting fiscal -- again, this is Williamson county, but we're kind of looking out because this has been kind of a situation. Is anybody posting fiscal for the potential of a traffic signal at that intersection?
>> not at this time.
>> because those things are like 100,000 a pop and granted this is Williamson county, not travis, but -- [multiple voices]
>> yes, I was just right now trying to -- the final plat so -- but we have looked and done some traffic studying eugs and probably anticipate somewhere in the future there will be a [inaudible] out there which will help control that traffic.
>> and what kind of right-of-way do we have on murfield?
>> it goes down to some of the lower areas so it transitions.
>> great, thank you.
>> can you tell me, what's the distance as far as the residents that you are trying to protect, I guess, from sh 130? Because this is probably going to be a challenge I guess all the way up to sh 130 highway system to ensure that does not encroachment I guess as far as single-family residence being right above -- right away sent to the highway -- adjacent to the highway. Could you show me the actual distance as far as what you have laid out there as far as the proximity to sh 130 as far as the residents are concerned?
>> residents are probably 120 deep lots. We have another row of lots that have another 115, 120 feet and then we have 60 feet of right-of-way and then we have approximately 200 to -- it varies. I mean it varies probably down to 150 feet at the closest point where we have retail butting up to the frontage road on state highway 130, but we're just responding to the way the highway was laid out. So it is a squeeze right in this area and what we've done here because [inaudible] so that something could be developed on that site without -- and also kind of act as a buffer to the neighborhood. So we do feel like retail develop will develop along who corridor and act as a buffer from the highway for the residences. And then we didn't want traffic coming from the retail development into the neighborhood so that's why we killed the roadway at this location.
>> another question, paul n terms of the orientation of what's going to be on those commercial lots, are they going to be facing what would be the frontage road on sh 130 or are they going to be facing into murfield?
>> it will [inaudible].
>> I mean the back side of -- [multiple voices]
>> we talked to the neighborhood about that and it's really an architectural problem. And I’ve dealt with this on many shopping centers along i-35 and parmer. Where we have to give the building a front and a rear view. And so you don't just -- it's not all retail development where you just turn your entry doors back to the neighborhoods. The idea will be to come in and design a building that has four sides that looks good from any direction.
>> because if you do orient it to murfield because that's just the way it's going to be, you are in effect making that a frontage road.
>> no, that's not our intent. I’m sorry. We understand that. We laid out the lots and a number of conceptual plans on how this can look. All my orientation of the conceptual plans have been towards murfield, but at the same time you don't want the back of buildings looking at the front [inaudible] 130 corridor, you want to leave a good scene for those -- for marketing purposes. So [inaudible] for example a bank situation. The bank can look good from all angles if -- all four angles if you can landscape it and make it look right. So I do think there are solutions and architectural solutions and site plan solutions to those retail problems.
>> we just want to highly encourage to you have continued open dialogue with the neighborhood and listen to what they are --
>> and we're going to do that and we have and we will continue to do so.
>> thank you.
>> any other questions?
>> keeping an open dialogue, would anyone like to give testimony during this public hearing? Please come forward. If you would give us your full name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is gary cooper and I live at 15 on 4 Augusta bend, lot 26 on the diagram you see ahead of you. And I probably am the closest to the state highway 130 of anybody who has got an existing home. I think that the vacation, obviously you're not going to have a problem making a vacation because this is probably the appropriate thing to do. My concern, I want to be sure to express my concern about my house, my values and my property that is protected as they go through and do whatever gets done as it gets developed. Obviously in the short run, this has a negative impact on my home. I mean almost regardless of what happens, it has a negative impact. Long term it could have a positive impact. I’m not going to think this may not work out well. I think the vacation saying g into the subdivision is great. I think that's a great first step and I think that paul and mr. Timmerman have been reassuring about what they are going to do and not going to do there. But again my concern I’m going to be right up next to whatever goes in. I mean that is going to be my backyard. And all I want to do is be sure every step along the way I’ve expressed my concerns, I’ve done the best I can do to protect my interests just like everybody needs to do to protect their own interests. The more buffer that's there whether it's in terms of walls, trees, green space, obviously the better I’m going to like it. I think green space is just a great thing. Obviously they've got land to sell and they need to sell it and make a few dollars off it, I don't have in objection to that as long as it's done in a manner that does not take away from the property values of my property and my neighbors. A lot of my neighbors couldn't make it. They have the same concerns I have. So all I wanted to do was express those concerns, be sure my concerns are expressed everywhere along the process and I know as the final plat gets done, that's the real place for me to express my concerns. But again, have you to start early and state them often. So if anybody has any questions for me, I’ll be glad to address any questions for me, but I can't imagine there would be.
>> how far are you from sh 130?
>> approximately, probably about 450 feet. I’m probably as close -- using paul's map, I tried to do it in my head as he was going through, I’m as close as you can get to sh 130. Like I say, when I bought the house there were going to be two rows of houses and that was enough buffer for me, I was satisfied with that. Things change. I understand things change. All I want to do is protect me self as best ago possible.
>> and the lots are a little deeper that are going to be connecting to you, 14 down to 19 and 20. Those are a little deeper than what's up at the upper end but I understand your concern. Do you have a fence?
>> it's a wooden privacy fence. They did a great job with the -- a great job with the rock wall and if you provide a five-foot easement put that walkway a foot high back behind me and I feel much better about all that. But I know the time to address that is not now, the time to address that will be at final platting. Thanks for your time. I appreciate it.
>> would anyone else like to give testimony during this public hearing?
>> move the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Item number 28 on today's agenda.
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 5, 2005 8:54 AM