Travis County Commissioners Court
August 8, 2006
Item 30
30. Consider and take appropriate action on request to bob daigh, Texas department of transportation regional director, for a ramp off sh 45 southeast to a county road. And --
>> this is a request, judge, for a letter from Travis County to be signed to -- for this ramp. Off of s.h. 45 southeast.
>> it's really to realign the ramp in a way that would be more advantageous to property owners. The state indicated it would do the redesign and cover the funding for construction?
>> yeah. And that's -- that's generally correct. There's a couple of things, I don't know if you have a map, I sent one over, but it might not be as good. I have a better version if you all would like that. It's color and larger.
>> john, could you introduce yourself for all of your fans.
>> sorry. That's it. I'm john langMoore, with me are karl and bet see urban -- betsy urban who are the land land owners, there's a couple of things that the ramp would do if it was added. The first is to avoid a -- a current access to the property that creates a pretty dangerous intersection where old turnerville road comes down a 12% grade and intersects or I'm sorry intersects with 13 -- 1327. And there's already been two deaths there this year. So they are proposing that the only access to this property be by exiting on old turnersville road, descending that steep grade and then turning on to 1327. What we have proposed and what txdot has thus far said they, you know, view as a good design and better access to the property is an exit ramp just west of where they are currently proposing an old turnersville road. There's that, there's the safety aspect which will be dramatically improved, but also as you mentioned, judge, the improved access to the property and it will really create improved access to -- to really all four corners of that property and we have spoken with -- with potential tenants to the property. The desires to do a dense mixed use type of development much more consistent with what I think central Texas is looking to do. The tenants have said with the proposed access, before the ramp, that they absolutely cannot, it's not sufficient access to the property for them to do that type of development. So what that would render is that we would just be able to do single family housing. With the ramp, they have no problem. You know, they are in -- in the final stages of negotiations with tenants that would create a dense mixed use type of development. Another important aspect of this is obviously the incremental tax, property tax act coug to the benefit of the accruing to the benefit of the county. We have had capital market research do some studies on that and in essence what they have come up with, developed as single family homes, at buildout it would be worth about 266 million. If you did the mixed use as a result of the ramp it would be worth 370 million, about $104 million difference and that would equate to $567,000 of incremental property taxes each year to the county. 10.8 million between now and 2024. Then in -- additionally they are planning on 400 hotel rooms, which the county benefits from the hotel tax as well. So --
>> benefit from a hotel motel bed tax.
>> do you not? I thought you did.
>> I have been trying to get that for the longest to get counties where we get some of that hotel motel tax money and haven't been successful.
>> okay. Well then I apologize.
>> so don't put that out.
>> I have been told this morning that you all did in fact.
>> then tell them that.
>> -- we do not receive hotel motel bed tax.
>> without either with or without, it's still a significant property tax increase for the county and then obviously a big improvement in safety for the travelling public. Because the traffic would significantly increase on that old turnersville road at that dangerous intersection over what it is today, there's already been two deaths at that intersection this year. Our request is just that there's a letter that we discuss with Commissioner Gomez and obviously you are free to amend that as you see fit. But basically it just requests txdot to consider the ramp because it's important to the county. And so that's the nature of it. He said bob day said it would be useful for him to have that kind of affirmation from the county. Then of course what it would do, sorry, one other thing that I should point out, is that the ramp would connect to a county road that we would build at our expense. That would run back into the development and probably hook up with brad shaw lane and also curve back over to the access road of 35. That is not on the map.
>> walk me through -- let me understand what if a change is not made, what will be the scenario for the driving public that is using this section of 45 southeast?
>> what they will do is as they are headed west on 45 southeast, they will exit on north turnersville road, which there's no proposed improvements to that road today. Obviously the traffic is going to increase fairly significantly. They will exit on north turnersville road, head down that steep grade, and then at that kind of strange intersection because 1327 sort of does that 45-degree curve right there and then bradshaw lane hits it there. They would come down that road, stop, turn left on 1327, and go down into, you know, all of the property there. So our proposal is, unfortunately, it wouldn't be red on your copy unless you saw the one judge Biscoe has. I can leave one with you, there would be an exit ramp just west of north turnersville road. They would take the ramp and then hit 1327. Then the county road that we would build would extend just past that. So basically everybody would pour out on to north turnnersville road and descend down that steep grade. And understandably every potential retail tenant has said that, you know, that's absolutely inadequate access for us to do any -- to consider any development there.
>> or if you bypass that, it appears to be coming into a pretty major intersection tie-in of 45 into interstate 35 and that also, too, doesn't really create good things happening on a frontage road. It just looks very complicated in terms of if you are trying to get back to try to hit that proposed road or something like that.
>> you are talking about under the current txdot design. That's exactly right. And what this would also do, it would be a big advantage for the other four corners and allow them to do something, you know, other than single family housing at those intersections and obviously this is a critical intersection for the county and for the city of Austin. The incremental sales tax, although it doesn't accrue to the county's benefit, it does to your partners. The incremental sales tax is dramatic. By having the improved access there. So it certainly benefits the region in a significant way.
>> if I might clarify that a little. I'm karl urban one of the property owners. Going westbound you have flyovers that take you to 35 north or south, go up two miles, onion creek parkway to the north. Circle, come back two miles. Or you go two miles south to main street, the old loop 4 in buda, come back two miles. And what this ramp does at this point is open up four corners that are basically the gateway in Travis County, you are on a bluff, overlooking downtown, you can see the frost building and it's a corner that's going to come under pressure to be developed in the future. And it's good to plan for these things.
>> 1347 is the road that goes down to the tds land phil. For those who -- landfill for those who are not going to want the free -- want the free alternative, it is challenging going down 1327. I know this intersection of turnnersville at bradshaw, it is not together. So, joe, I read your memo that basically says what's our stake in this. Et cetera. But it seems like giving some kind of advice or input I don't think we inherit problems, but if we don't weigh in on this or nothing get changed, it is seriously going to fall back on us by default because of county roads that tie into this road.
>> right now we do not have any county roads tying into this. Both of these are state highways, both the farm-to-market road and the --
>> bradshaw.
>> well, there is the dilemma here. We do not have any development plans for this tract. We do not know, we cannot tell the court at this point if this is the appropriate location for a road to tie into either farm-to-market road 1327 or for that matter the ramp coming off of 45. What bob day wants is f.m. , the reason is the applicant is here asking the county as opposed to going directly to txdot. Txdot wants some assurance from county that this county road will be there. So it's kind of getting the -- the cart before the horse. I can't tell the court that's a good place to put a county road. And I have absolutely no fiscal, no way to assure txdot that the road will be there. So when I receive an application for a development permit on this tract, any decision on the court's part today and any further design work by the state, pretty much premed dates where things have to go. Premeditates, where things have to go. It's not our normal course of business. It's certainly not our normal course of business to advocate for or against development when it comes forward. We basically try to stay focused on the road design standards if they work, we are all for it. And that's really what -- what I need to communicate to the court is -- I told john, I said I would happily write a letter to txdot saying if this road were built to county standards and received our review, then the court would accept it for ongoing maintenance. But that is not sufficient for txdot. They want some assurance that the road will be there. They are fixing to spend several hundred thousand dollars or more to design and build this ramp. They want some assurance that they are not wasting their money. That kind of says okay then if we go there, then we are somewhat telling the state that this road is going to be exactly where it's shown on this map. It will all tie together. Yet we don't even have an application for any development plan on this tract. It's a little awkward for us agreeing to this. All of this may be absolutely true and at the end of the day we may say hey that's absolutely the best place for it, it's difficult to say that at this point in time.
>> that's why it's difficult to send a letter under my signature only. Simply because it was in precinct 4. I thought it was best to bring it to the court so we can look at all of the aspects of it. But I did -- I did ask them to talk to joe because I was not aware of any plans that we had for turnnersville and bradshaw and that area. Not Travis County, perhaps some other maybe hays county, but not Travis County.
>> joe, let me ask this question. You know, originally when we start looking at -- at some of the I guess perspective toll road studies on toll roads when we first started looking at that from an [indiscernible] perspective, I think we look add at s.h. 45 south east I think that we kind of wanted that to be in Travis County as far as having some say on that particular road just as 183 a was up in Williamson county. Which is a new, new road. This of course is also a new road, tying into one point into s.h. 130. For whatever reason the state took it over, took control of s.h. 45 southeast, so at that time Travis County did not get an opportunity to look at this as Williamson county. On a new road. From that perspective and then looking at what the campo plan has on. New toll roads in Williamson, Travis County. On new roads now, s.h. 45 southeast being one of those, was anything indicated in the campo plan on new toll roads that was -- that would suggest what we are doing here today? If it is then it is, if it's not it's not.
>> I don't think today's discussion or what -- are what the applicant is proposing is inconsistent with the plans of campo or with the -- with the states plan, I think it really is an additional ramp to -- to 45 southeast. I don't think it materially affects the functionality of 1425 or the toll road. I think this is really more of a local access to a particular tract that fronts on both the farm-to-market road and 45 southeast.
>> > I guess looking at that perspective, looking at 1327 as it goes from 35 all the way back into 183, also looking at this here, I guess my question is this particular road or ramp as a suggestion would not interfere at all with txdot already having it on the books, what are they suggesting that it would be something that they could go forward with as far as looking at it? I'm trying to get a feel of what txdot is saying here.
>> yes. I think they are willing to go forward in design and build this with the assurance that the road that -- with that -- that the road will be there in the future.
>> would it be an expense to Travis County.
>> it will be a county road and it is truly a design issue. I don't want to -- to present to the court that I necessarily disagree with what they are trying to accomplish here. I just don't have all of the facts together. I would like to see all of what's occurring on this tract, how that multi-land uses are generating traffic, how that traffic is getting on to the system, all of the issues that we have -- that we would normally look at when we receive a development application. I would like to be able to go through that exercise before I recommend to the court that this is a good place to put a ramp and a road connecting with that ramp.
>> so you need to run all of the traps I guess --
>> typically what we do.
>> that's what you normally do.
>> > this would be a matter of just a matter of course. We do not have a bias one way or another toward what happens on any particular land use. We do want to make sure what is done is approved with the standards of the court.
>> I get it.
>> how much time do you need to do the fact finding.
>> actually, I need a proposal, an application to show me what's going to happen on that tract. I have no idea where that maybe, it may be that they are close to having one or haven't even started it. I don't know.
>> what schedule is txdot on.
>> thank you, that was a point that I was going to make this that txdot because of 45 southeast is obviously critical because of its tie to state highway 130. Basically it feeds 130 on this southern end. It was set back in terms of its timing because of the lawsuit which has just recently been cleared so that they are very anxious to move forward quickly. So decisions are being made that will be difficult or impossible to reverse today. What I would just add is that -- and obviously we are more than happy to sit down with joe and his department and give him all of the information that he needs. The proposed letter, however, it does not commit the county to anything. You are not -- you would have any point along to say hold on, we just want to make sure that because txdot is -- is you know very anxious to move forward that they don't do so without a ramp being in the plans. So those are -- those are the main things that I would add, then just finally, joe and I only slightly jokingly talked about this. I would hope that -- that the county would have a position with respect to -- to the land uses that occurs there. Both in terms of future tax revenues, just the form of development that occurs in Travis County and central Texas. I think we are -- it's pretty clear that we are at a point that at some of these key intersections, the preference in central Texas is to have a denser mixed use development as opposed to, you know, more sprawling single family homes by having that dense mixed use development, you can meet more of your needs without having to get in your car and travel long distances and obviously, though, that's something that the court just has to -- to take their own position on. But I would hope that -- that you know that you would view this as a more beneficial form of development and it will not happen without the ramp.
>> I guess I'm still haven't gotten it. I'm looking for an answer to as far as fact finding. How long will it take for joe to do the fact finding come back to the court as far as it is going to be a county road. I guess what you are saying, I hear what you are saying also, but I'm trying to bring to some type of closure as far as when it's going to come back and how much time is needed to -- to go forward and I understand that you mentioned a couple of taxing implications, number one you mentioned the hotel motel bed tax, also sales tax. The county doesn't get -- get either one of those taxes.
>> increased property value.
>> you mentioned sales tax earlier, also, I'm trying to see what time we need for joe to do whatever he need to make him comfortable, which would make me comfortable as far as fact finding is concerned.
>> let me just ask him straight out because I sense that there are for development plans at this point.
>> okay, there are. We have absolutely we can -- there's the whole thing is basically been planned.
>> have those plans been submitted to the city.
>> absolutely not.
>> do you understand that this 1325 is within the corporate limits of the city?
>> absolutely, yes.
>> annexation through --
>> so neither the city nor the county have received an application with those plans attached?
>> part of the issue I guess is, you know, the chicken and egg. You know, without the ramp it dramatically alters what you are able to do.
>> I do suggest that if they are that close, that it would -- it would be a matter of a meeting between the state and the county and perhaps the city on those plans and we might be able to come to some resolution very quickly. What you are asking the state to do is proceed on to design, put in concrete terms a fairly significant investment. What the -- with the prospects that neither the county or city agreed to the road --
>> I completely appreciate that. It's just that there is an element that time is certainly of the essence. I mean, bob day is -- is wanting possession and use of the property so he can begin today. The tie to 130 makes that, that's not lost on anybody how anxious txdot is to proceed with that. So -- so I -- I'm not -- again, the letter is simply, you know, a statement of it wouldn't -- it wouldn't set anything in concrete that if the county didn't approve the road, it wouldn't be approved. But it would at least let txdot proceed with -- with planning for a ramp and we could continue to work for -- I'm just afraid if it doesn't -- if it doesn't happen soon, that they will move forward and take the path of least resistance on a road that they are under a lot of pressure to build. So --
>> this is not stymied by the litigation.
>> no, not any longer.
>> it was cleared up about a week ago. That's why they were set back several months in terms of the construction and that's why he's now so anxious to move forward and absolutely has to finalize his plans. Again, he wants the right of use and possession on our property, which is, you know, let us take it now and start construction and we will just worry about the price for it in the future. Which we are prepared to accommodate subject to all of this and --
>> I think one of the things that you might consider if you look forward on this is -- I think joe will probably have to address it, I know Margaret will, that the exit right now as they currently envision is to serve that corner. It's going to be very costly to make it safe and make it work. That will have to be dealt with in the future if the -- if the volume of cars goes not only to our corner, but the other three corners on that intersection, that road is going to have to take some major changes. 12% grade I think what's the maximum, four? That you allow?
>> [indiscernible]
>> higher than that? It's a pretty interesting corner if any of you have time to go to turnersville road, go northbound, drop into that corner. I ran cattle on the west and east side of that intersection and I replaced or fix a fence a month on one of my two corners, the other guys are fixing fences all of the time. It has inherent problems if you are going straight. You bail out 30,000 cars to go to the four corners on the intersection, it's going to be a bit of a Tuesday sell for the county to get that straight in the future so --
>> this reminds me of the discussion that almost took the exactly on what happened on 45 north in Williamson county. Along 620, same kind of thing. Overlay of 45 north, needing to make sure that txdot bass comiewng indicating well with the property owners that case, I think it was a home depot in terms of just how is local traffic going to move around I think we can say we need to get the proper people in the room at the same time, that includes mr. Day sounds like, joe, sounds like sandra creighton over at the city, get everybody asap into a room. I think that you could get -- proper plans and -- see how this is going to work. It is difficult without seeing the development plans. Since they haven't been submitted. So I'm saying that I think this could probably get the right people in the right room. As we did on 45 north.
>> next week? Or two weeks?
>> certainly.
>> one week or two?
>> I would go for two weeks. I will try to set it up within this week. I just don't know what the availability of all of those other parties are. If it was my staff, I would say a week.
>> tell bob day that Commissioner Sonleitner requests --
>> [laughter]
>> two week delay of whatever he has in mind, the Commissioners court backs her up. [laughter]
>> I appreciate that on all of y'all's behalf and I would just --
>> [multiple voices]
>> obviously we are at the complete disposal of this process. It's very important to us, so -- so, you know, joe we are -- we will make ourselves available the shortest order. Thank you for your consideration of this. I appreciate it.
>> thank you all.
>> two weeks from today. That's the 22nd?
>> thank you.
>> we will have back on then. Thank you all.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> August 22nd.
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, August 8, 2006 8:14 PM