Travis County Commissioners Court
March 14, 2006
Item 12
Number 12, consider and take appropriate action on a proposed policy relating to regulating obstacles in the county right of way. County staff? Where are we?
>> I think there was one last change we wanted to make to this final rule, final order.
>> then I値l pick up the other executive session. And tom is handing it out at this point t intent was to -- for this policy, the objects in the right of way to apply both to the county road system as it has been accepted, as it is accepted but also to roads that are -- we expect to be accepted after the adoption of the policy with subdivision streets that are in the process of being built that we wouldn't want obstacles to be placed in the right of way only to come to court forcep answer and find out we've got the same problem, so we're trying to get upstream of that and say, okay, look, this not only applies to the existing county road system but also those that would be dedicated to the public after the effective date of this order which is today. So that -- that's the main -- main thank we want to make sure that we are not -- problems are being created in the process of new streets being built and then they come to the court and we're unable to accept them because of the obstacles in the right of way.
>> we've received comments after our public hearing on this matter?
>> not to my knowledge.
>> okay. And you are a resident who has come down to give comments on this item.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay, can we get your full name.
>> yes, sir, joseph burkel.
>> okay. Mr. Burkel.
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments concerning these proposed revision, I serve as a director of the river placement utility district as well as secretary of the homeowners association which is of course the property owner's association for the residents of river place, refer place is a development of one thousand homes that is almost entirely outside the city of Austin or any other city in the county of Travis County. The purpose behind the proposed revisions is obvious and understandable, clearly there exists safety concerns which going forward this policy appears to address effectively, the revision also appeared to strike a balance concerning already existing objects that would be in violation of the new policy. These nonconforming projects would be grandfathered under section s. The concerns we have is in sub section two of section f which would require repair or reconstruction of any nonconforming object to be in compliance with the revisions, although the goal of this sub section is laudable, this would work in communities such as river place which have been built with specific developmental requirement, let me give you some examples, our mailbox is masonry which are forbidden by these revisions and also posted within the ten foot limit proposed by the revisions. Should a mailbox be damaged a. Requirement would require us either to have a mailbox rebuilt at the same spot with a dramatically different styling from all the other boxes in river place, or the mailbox would have to be located significantly off the street outside the ten foot boundary, thereby bringing the mailbox out of compliance with postal service delivery requirements. After a period of time we would have a mishmsah of locations which would create -- our street lights are within ten feet of the road, if we had to relocate a pole, we would run the risk of being out of compliance for Austin energy procedures for river place, yet another example, as the director of the mud, we have fire plugs, air release valves and/or infrastructure located within the ten foot limit. Significant engineering and/or state regulatory issues could arises if we have to relocate some of this infrastructure. These examples illustrate the real enforcement problems that could arise in the future as a new court and new county employees try to enforce this provision as written while lacking the familiarity with these issues that the current court and employees would have. If I could, I would suggest to the court that this sub section two be amended to exempt from the conforming requirements those nonconforming objects that are part of a development or neighborhood pattern or part of a utility system in order that the pattern or system may be maintained. Obviously an object that present as clear immediate and serious danger would have to be replaced. I believe that this amendment represents a reasonable and workable solution to the issue raised by this subsection for communities such as ours. Appreciate very much the court for your time. Over the years both the river place mud and the river place homeowners association have appreciated the consideration and responsiveness of this court, Commissioner Daugherty and his staff to our concerns. Thank you.
>> joe, what you're really asking is is that we all -- we all can admit there are a number especially in western Travis County river place, I mean steiner, and find these noncompliant mailboxes because that is really, you know, not to mention that we don't have obviously some fire hydrants and things like this, but --
>> yes, sir, these revisions are passed they would be noncompliant.
>> but -- but you understand why we're trying to get to where we're going. What your complaint is, I think that it, you know, certainly something that I wouldn't mind discussing with staff is that if something happens to your mailbox, the fact that it was already built nice looking, matches your house, all the kind of things that people want to do with their mailboxes, you want to at least be able to build it back to what it was versus coming to put some post or something you can run over, that really is what it is, I mean obviously we can talk about, you know, all the light poles and -- and fire hydrants and things like that, but mailboxes probably are the biggest things that we have that are noncompliant out there.
>> out there on this issue I believe that mailboxes would be the primary issue over the last 1, 2, 3 years, the highest number of damages to what would be nonconforming objects would have been mailboxes. Almost all of these have occurred not from any type of forward motion collision but have occurred because of either residents -- resident vehicles or trucks or commercial vehicles coming into the development have backed into these mailboxes. As long as I have been a resident of river place, I知 unaware of any time in which we've had a forward collision into a mailbox, not to say that couldn't happen, most of these mailboxes are located not on primary roads or arterial roads but located on residential streets, what we would like to be in the position to avoid is, as I mentioned, being forced to develop a mishmash of styles and locations that end up serving nobody any benefit and difficulties in enforcement or difficulties in service from the postal service, all of our mail cops on direct deliver I from a vehicle, we're in a position where the vehicle operator has to stop and get out and walk to a mailbox, the postal service very quickly is going to come to a point where they're not going to sign off on that.
>> would you be supportive if I came to the homeowners and now -- I don't know that all of river place is completely built out, seems like every time I come out there's another little road cut and something else being built, but what I知 most concerned with is that, where I would come to you all and before you know it, the creep happens with these things, even though people aren't supposed to start them, they go, well, you know, drive down river place and -- and all the streets, all of them have that, so I just assume that you could do that. No, you know, how you get yourself unelected pretty quickly is to go down through there and say everybody take care of these things, getting them out of there or putting some of these flimsy posts up that aren't attractive, you know, by any means but would you be supportive if we were to go and put in place -- I would like to have the -- the homeowners' group support me in going from this point forward, I値l work with you on what you're asking. If somebody gets knocked into, you have the thing to begin with, can we have the opportunity to put up what was there to begin with, because I think that is some gray matter that we can discuss, but would you be supportive of standing by me if I were to come and say, okay, this next section got start and all of a sudden one popped up, two popped up, before you know it, then there are 19 and then everybody just thinks, well, then you do have that hodge-podge looking deal where somebody is trying to comply. What do you think your association would do, would they support me and go into that group and say no? Hey, from such and such date, whether that is March the 16th, you know, 2006 or whatever the date is, I knew, I went and spoke at the Commissioner's court, we knew what they were after which is we somehow got to stop it, we've got to stop the proliferation of it, I know you can't speak for the board without running that by them, but I -- I would sure like for you to go back, joe, and talk to your group the next time they get together because I知 going to need some help from this point forward, I mean I know all you can help me with is your area, but with all the growth that is going on in western Travis County, we're going to try to get a handle on this thing as much as we can because we do have some areas out in Barton Creek where I live that you can't get in the gated -- I mean the new truck, fire trucks can't get in the gated communities even when they have the gate codes and everything, so we have got some real challenges on our hands and I know you know what we're talking about.
>> exactly, sir from, the perspective of the river place homeowners association I think outside of safety concerns which we all acknowledge is the purpose of this proposal and those do have to be the number one approach, but beyond that, and putting the number one goal of safety aside, our primary concern is consistency, if we have a section which is already built out, which is already in the process of being built and we have some of these types of mailboxes installed, we would like to preserve the right for us to maintain that style? The future irregardless of what the requirements of the nonconforming ordinance may be, again putting aside a clear obvious and apparent safety hazard, for any new developments or new sections to be carved out from this point forward, that would be subject to this particular provision, that in our view and again obviously I can't speak for the board, but I知 pretty comfortable with stating that I believe that the view of our board out in river place would be that we would not have a problem in allowing a uniform approach to a new development that is different from the approaches that we've had before, as long as everybody is aware of it up front going into it, we don't have a problem with that.
>> I知 certainly willing to work with you and work with staff on -- on -- on this thing.
>> I was thinking of a couple of different thoughts, even the possibility of a license agreement with the homeowners association that is certainly provided for in the rules adopted so there may be some way to actually negotiate a middle of the road here that we're not out there trying to permit everything, but we're also on the understanding of what mailbox wouldn't be permitted and what circumstances --
>> you can see, joe, what we're trying -- given that joe said -- nobody said anything, you know, since last week or week before last when we brought this thing up, now that you've brought this to our attention, let's work with you and make sure that you're in contact with my office or whatever we need to sit down and work with it. I mean it's a big -- it's a big deal to me, I致e got to try to work with you on it.
>> absolutely, I知 more than happy to work with you on it.
>> thanks.
>> thanks.
>> what do we do today?
>> I suggest we pass today, let me digest these comments and we'll put it back on.
>> good.
>> okay.
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:
Tuesday, March 15, 2006 10:38 AM