Travis County Commissioners Court
August 22, 2006
Item 20
20. Consider and take appropriate action on a preliminary plan in precinct three: ashbrook preliminary plan (206 lots - 33.938 acres - fm 1626 - no fiscal is required for a preliminary plan - sewage service to be provided by city of Austin - city of Austin 2-mile etj).
>> my question just for the record, if you look on the map, you have the dead ending of a very major roadway, south first intoorks 1626 -- south first into 1626, which would be potentially on the eastern boundary if south first were to extend further south. Is it going to do that? If not there's no right-of-way or is that unfortunately or fortunately the way that it is in the campo plan?
>> ana bolin, Travis County t.n.r. We look to the campo plan when we reviewed this plat. This was a single office plat. And where the campo plan affected this plat or sorry preliminary plan was along 1626, there will be 20 feet of additional right-of-way dedicated but south first does not extend where I believe it's con roy is now. So -- so I hope that answer your question.
>> it does. It's just one of those wherer you are going to have a smaller road, conroy extending down from south first and who knows what's going to be the development that will occur at 1626 and interstate 35, but if there's some thought as to upgrading that road at some point in the future, it's going to be hemmed in. But that's the way it is in the campo plan, so my question is answered. I second your --
>> well, wait. Can I add something? Mary around mold was here early -- arnold was here earlier, she had to leave, she asked us to read some comments into the record, if that's all right with y'all. She wanted me to be sure to make sure that you all knew this was a small lot subdivision, at this point -- I'm sorry, 1626 is only a two-lane road. There's a likelihood of much more traffic on the existing subdivision at conroy lane. And that people will access 1626 at the stoplight. She asked me to remind y'all that conroy lane serves a commercial business, several commercial businesses, they have heavy truck traffic entering and exiting there and she wants you to be aware that owe over the traffic issues at 1626 until there are four lanes there, which -- that's all that -- that mary asked me to read into the record.
>> did you ask her if -- if she would be supportive of upgrading all of these roads in southwest Travis County? So that we might be able to accommodate some of this?
>> no.
>> okay. Move approval.
>> second. Discussion? I guess --
>> mary is --
>> maybe we can ask her.
>> mary?
>> yes.
>> > they just read your comments to us. My question was did she ask you if -- hearing your concerns, about -- about conroy and 1626 being a two-lane road, are you supportive of us upgrading a number of the roads in southwest Travis County that just basically accommodate the road needs that we need out there?
>> I'm just speaking for friends who have property adjacent to this particular subdivision, so it's just that particular area that I have looked into. In recent months. So I can't speak to anything but 1626 and this particular area. And I did go out and visit during the day, and did experience the traffic on 1626.
>> I think that you bring up a great point mary, because you're right, so are the folks out there. I mean, which is the reason that -- that I am so desperately trying to do some things with some roads in southwest Travis County that -- that I don't always have the greatest amount of cooperation with, I think that you know what I'm talking about there. I, too, share some of the issues that these people have expressed. And unfortunately we have these kind of issues all over the place. Unless we just put up a sign that says we are either going to change our rules about -- about how we accept and how we pass off our pass on plates, we have -- plats, we have to try to stay out in front as much as we can with building needed roads in certain areas especially --
>> I'm not familiar with how the travis -- how the Commissioners court interacts with the highway department. On farm-to-market roads, I just don't know if -- if everything is controlled by txdot or what opportunities the county has to work with txdot and the -- and the surrounding area there, to discuss a little bit more about -- about the timing of the improvements, the funding of the improvements, and what do you do in the meantime.
>> yeah, we -- I think we work, you know, pretty closely with txdot, mary. Obviously the issue, you know, funding is the major thing that txdot looks at, says okay well what about the right-of-way. Because that's always the first thing that txdot says how are you all going to take care of that. Obviously, I mean, I'm very interesting in looking at the extension of -- of 1626 from 35 all the way over to where hays county comes in, which is about a six or seven mile tract. There are some real challenges in there because we do have some creeks and -- it is, generally boils down to dollars, right-of-way dollars, especially when we do these kind of things, we build ours into a little bit of a box. We pass these plats all of a sudden right-of-way acquisition becomes just so expensive to take on. Meanwhile we are sticking lots of houses lots of cars on the road --
>> what we have been told is that the right-of-way is there and could accommodate the four lanes and then of course right across to the north you have got the riddle tract, developing out within the city of Austin. Strike to put those two things together of just the general area out there, and new developments on the county side, the city side -- it doesn't seem that there is adequate mechanism to address those issues at the preliminary plat stage. And then of course you get the grandfathering and -- and I would hope that there would be ways in which the -- the developments on both side of 1626 could participate financially in roadway improvements that would help. Either with the four lanes or with -- with traffic lights or something.
>> your bottom line is that this development would add traffic, the roads that -- that already have a whole lot of traffic on.
>> yes. And mr. Conroy's concern in particular is that conroy lane serves businesses that have a lot of truck traffic. But because 1626 is just two lanes, there's that stoplight there at conroy lane and south first, his theory would be that the traffic from the subdivision is going to come and get on conroy lane and go to that traffic light. Because to go out just to 1626 at the other exit, you take your life in your hands because there's no control of the traffic, what's just something that he felt ought to be pointed out is you are going to have the -- the traffic going in ways that maybe not imagined, if you had four lanes.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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 22, 2006 7:33 PM