Travis County Commissioners Court
December 19, 2006
Item 33
33. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: 1. A plat for recording in precinct three, bridges at bear creek, phase 1, section 1 - final plat (long form plat - 56 total lots; 54 residential lots, 2 landscape, open and drainage lots - 20.96 acres; brodie lane - fiscal has been posted with Travis County - sewage service to be provided by city of Austin - city of Austin tooeng. E.t.j.
>> good morning.
>> good morning, ana bolin, Travis County t.n.r. These final plats are out of the March bridge preliminary plan approved I believe last fall. They meet our requirements and staff recommends their approval.
>> okay. One resident has some issues on this. If you can come fort. Give us your full name on the record and we will be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is stephanie miller. I live at the wroaddy and
>> [indiscernible] intersection with the big long fence where I use my constitutional right of free speech. Commissioner Daugherty might be aware of that one. Anyway, I came to speak on these two agenda items, 33 and 34. Essentially to give you a little history. As you well know, the neighbors, I live right in that very congested neighborhood in the mid to late 90s brodie was punched through to the end down where the marbridge ranch currently sits. In 1997, I believe, there was a fast track bond for the completion of s.h. 45. I purchased my home in 1998 with that understanding that the court would follow through and that would happen. And then the measurements of the cars that were running through there in 2002 were about 22,000 cars travelling north-south at the intersection of brodie and slaughter. And last fall September 2005 Commissioner Daugherty agreed to put forth a proposal to close broadzy at that south intersection if 75% of the affected neighborhoods spoke and at least 75% of those people spoke in favor of closing the road. And in the spring of this year, 2006, 75% of the people did respond and over 80% of the people responded in favor of closing at that intersection or south brodie. So during the Commissioners court on the July 25th vote on brodie closure, the actual agenda item listed was the first item foreclosure was rejected, but there were some -- some additional items that were added to help alleviate the problems. And of that, the -- the current cross walk has been added, the -- I'm not sure about the timing and I know that there's a light that could potentially be coming in at freight barker. There are a few things to note from that hearing. Commissioners court had mentioned that this was the most contensois issue. The Commissioner said this was not the time to bring it for her. She also said foreboding words, you have no idea what's going to hit you. It's going to get bad. At that hearing bob fulbright the president of marbridge foundation spoke in favor of keeping the road open. I have been watching the court agendas on a weekly basis, I also query the text for brodie, 1626, s.h. 45 to see what's been going on. Interestingly enough the agenda hit on the 14th that they were going to build about 167 new homes with this plat at the bridges of bear creek. So a neighbor of mine forwarded me an article that the marbridge ranch sold it. What I'm here to talk and ask you today is 167 new homes, I did a back of the envelope calculation and said well roughly two cars per home, two trips a day, that's 1200 trips up and down brodie a day.
>> eight trips a day.
>> yeah. Mr. Gieselman over here just said estimate 10. So that's 1600 extra trips a day on a road that we have already all agreed is a very congested road and it's bad, it's going to be really bad if we continue to add these problems. The problems are the platting. If we continue to add plats, we continue to add cars. And I'm not seeing anything done as far as I can see to help alleviate this congestion. In fact this only adds to the -- to the problem that we currently have. Commissioner Daugherty this is your most contentious issue, I'm going to ask that the court not agree to this platting. I ask that you please reject 33 and 34 in their entirety.
>> thank you.
>> let's explain why something like this gets staff recommendation. I mean, it would be easy to say, do -- this is the most difficult thing that we have stephanie. We have a set of rules. If you comply with the rules, then you get your -- your plats permitted. We would all like to have the ability and the discretionary ability to say you know what? We are just not going to do that because everybody knows, you are right, that road is overwhelmed at this stage. We all know that, you all know that. I think most people that live -- the people in northern hays county know that. But the rules aren't set up so what you do is stop -- first of all, I think that we would probably be taken to court. If we deny something that -- that -- that -- that complies with our written rules. Does it make sense to us practically? I think 90% of the people that signed the petition to close brodie would tell you we know that's not the smartest thing to do. But we don't have -- I mean, what's our alternative? We all know what the alternative is in southwest Travis County. It's called 45 southwest. The county committed -- to buy the road, the bonds passed, the road is effectively 90% done with regards to design. Yet we are still in the cross hairs of u.s. Fish and wildlife. There is nothing that I spend more time in my office with other than 45 southwest. I mean, I'm -- I've got people on speed dial, I mean, over 45 southwest. I can't move it any faster than it's being moved but I understand that there are people that don't want these things, you know, that -- that platting has got to somehow stop. What -- what criteria do we use as to -- as to how we determine whether or not something is going to be okayed or is not going to be okayed?
>> well, this plat, ana bowlin Travis County t.n.r., this is the joint code that Travis County and the single and the city of Austin have and it meets the requirements for platting under the joint code. I wish that we could look more at the -- at the adjoining transportation network but as you all -- as you all know, counties are very limited with their abilities with what we have the authority to do. We -- we can make people make improvements adjacent to the tract, fairly easily. When we go further from that, it -- it's a much harder thing for us -- for us to do. So -- so we did look at this plat. When we -- especially when we looked at the preliminary plan to be sure that it met requirements. And then the preliminary plan was the first in the sequence and so now the final plat we continue to review this for title 30 requirements with -- with trrption and drainage -- transportation and drainage in the city's side of the single office looked at the environmental aspects of it. All through it it was title 30.
>> so the city did all of its passing when everybody knows that getting through the city process is like nobody wants to go through. This is -- this is a simple matter of -- of what is practical to do, that we would all -- I think that most people would say good god you are going to add another 15 or 1600 trips. That doesn't make any sense to me, either. But I do think, maybe I ought to ask tom this, I mean, is this something -- tom is our attorney up here. Is this something that in your opinion that we would have to deal with legally if we turned down this agenda item or these two agenda items?
>> Commissioner, I'm not familiar enough with --
>> [inaudible - no mic] I would have to look at it, go over it with ana first.
>> well I think that it's unfortunate, because I will tell you, it's not just brodie lane in this community. I mean we are -- this community is growing leaps and bounds and there are places all over east Austin, I mean, southeast Austin, northeast, northwest, that we would -- you know, you eventually would say you know what? We got more traffic than we can deal with our road system right now. And we all know that. Now, I don't know, do you do a moratorium on Austin? That might go in front -- might move in front of the brodie lane controversy for me if we all of a sudden say you know what? We are not -- we are not okaying any more plats. If it's on a road that is overwhelmed at this stage and I think that there are a number of those kind of places, I think that we would find -- I think that we would find ours in court. Now, maybe we can do some more research with that. But I will tell you, stephanie, this is not something that -- that the precinct 3 office looked at and says well I don't care. I mean, because I do care. Unfortunately, the way that we have really got to fight this thing is that we have got to continue to try to stay out front and build our comprehensive road system that -- that I think that most people in this community know that we are so, so far behind in. And all I can commit to you is that I will continue to work and keep on the top of my page 45 southwest because -- because we all know that that is the true answer to -- to brodie lane.
>> I have a question. Today is really a rubber stamp based on the recommendation of this planning office?
>> can I just say that --
>> I'm sorry?
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> Commissioner Daugherty is not a rub -- the Commissioners court is not a rubber stamp in any way, shape or form. They listen to our recommendation but they vote.
>> so there is the option to go against what you are recommending.
>> they can speak to themselves.
>> I appreciate the fact that you -- you did ask for this to be pulled off the consent. I had already asked for it to be pulled off consent. I have consistently not voted for any preliminary plans or plats off of brodie lane or frate barker for exactly the kinds of reasons that you say.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> at certain moments I was unable to make an affirmative finding because promises made in relation to traffic relief I didn't feel were complete. Now, on sweetwater we wound up getting them there, but it wasn't just a promise. That there was very specific actions and improvements and contracts with the state of Texas that I felt comfortable to move on with that one. I'm here on this one, I will not be voting for either 33 or 34 and I'm going to aye it in the positive of language that I'm unable to make an affirmative finding, but that's consistent and Gerald knows this from me, I have not voted for any of the ones off of brodie and frate barker because it is a disaster in the works. And I'm not going there.
>> do we need to take time to talk with legal counsel? It would be this afternoon.
>> I'm certainly willing to ask legal this.
>> or after January. Do we have time? Do we have two weeks?
>> whatever you want.
>> do we want to postpone this to January the second?
>> no 60 days on this one?
>> if we're not going to take action today, there's no reason to discuss it. Our problem is we have a full agenda. It surprises me, but if we really want to take a look at doing something substantial, contrary to staff recommendation and what our policies seem to say, we need to chat with legal counsel, that kicks it to January 2nd. So unless we are probabilitied from -- prohibit frd postponing it two weeks, we are in a postponement posture.
>>
>> [ inaudible ].
>> we'll have to look into that.
>> do you need to let us know this snafn.
>> yes.
>> mr. Smith?
>> I would like -- toipt give you a little bus of background. My name is hank smitz, an engineer for this project, also a resident of shady hollow. I drive brodie lane everyday. I have sin 1984. I'm very familiar with the issues out here. I'm probably one of the ones who drive it and my kids drive it, so I meet the 10 cars a day going each way. There's something else to be considered on this one. This is property being sold by the mar bridge foundation. That foundation has been out there, a drentz of that area for -- a resident of that area for over 50 years. They do an excellent job of caring for adults and children with mental handy caps and the sale of this land is going to fund their program and enable them to continue moving forward. I am not sure what it two week delay will do to that, but it's not a developer asking for this, this is sale of a land from a nonprofit organization to help the nonprofit organization continue to operate for the years to come. And there's been a lot of thing that have been based off of the approval of the preliminary plat. There's been a lot of action going forward to have those sales go forth and a lot of financial aspects and financial burdens that will be based back on the marbridge foundation if this does not move forward.
>> let me ask you this question based on what you're saying. Is those financial situations, would that interfere with any of the closing strategies that may be in place contingent on what we do here today or do not do here today? Is there some contingencies that could place harm in disclosing obligations of the subject matter?
>> I don't think it's an easy answer to give you. There's a lot of steps that have taken place already, a lot more that have to be taken already and it's being taken in phases. There are residents that are living in areas that are being developed as this and need to be moved over to the other side of the mar bridge property that faces on 1626. We have site plans coming through that will hopefully be approved in January to move those resident over to that tract of land and once they are moved, then this will continue to move forward as well. So there's a lot of stair steps, and this will probably the third step of 12 steps that go through and any impact here will have impact on what has already transpired as well as the scheduled moving forward.
>> let's do this, between now and 3:30 or 4:00 this afternoon, let look at the 60 day requirement, see about it, try to figure out adverse impact from the owner's perspective, we can let them know what the recommendation from the court will be. It seems to me that we need to take two weeks, unless we count the (indiscernible) legally. And during that two-week period, tom will become a lot more familiar with what these facts are. Then we'll get the legal opinion and taib it from there. -- and take from there. How's that?
>> thank you.
>> so we will this afternoon report back basically. That's on 33 and 34. Any problem with that?
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, December 19, 2006 8:51 PM