Travis County Commissioners Court
March 20, 2007
Item 2
Due to technical difficulties some caption files may be incomplete.
Preliminary plan in precinct three: the hollow at slaughter creek (small lot) preliminary plan (total number of lots 220 - 40.742 acres, 215 single family lots and 5 landscape, sight distance, drainage, water quality lots - slaughter creek at genoa drive - no fiscal is required from Travis County with this preliminary plan - sewage service to be provided by city of Austin - city of Austin e.t.j.
>> good morning, anna bolin, trrption and natural resources. In this instance the city of Austin Travis County single office. This plat has been approved by z.a.p., zoning and platting at the city of Austin. It was delayed at z.a.p. For a few months while some compromises or agreements were reached between the developer and the adjacent neighborhood. The adjacent neighborhood we have met with them several times. Some of the original concerns had to do with density and drainage and the connection from the subdivision. This still has the connection to billbrook in it. We have reviewed this plateau that it is -- it is consistent with the title 30, which is the code that applies to this. We have reviewed it very carefully with looking towards the drainage concerns and the street concerns and really everything that the title 30 because it was pretty controversial when we first saw it. We have gotten letters from the emergency service providers because -- because the ability to get out from this neighborhood and adjacent neighborhood in the flooding event was a big concern and this is something that we do typically look at during preliminary plans as we want to hear from the esd's that, yes, they can -- they can navigate in a flooding event. So at the end of a long review, we are still confident that this meets all of our codes and criterias. At the last z.a.p. Meeting there was an agreement between centex images, one of the adjacent neighborhoods, to where centex will be giving us a revised preliminary plan that -- that takes care of some of the -- some of the issues that the neighborhoods had. This is -- that's not the plan that's before you today. When we get that plan in, we will review it per code, just like we did with this one and there will be some issues that we have to look at at this time. At that time. But right now we are reviewing and we reviewed and asked for approval for this plan that has the connection to billbrook. The connection to billbrook was something that caused the neighbors a lot of concern. So --
>> the neighbors wanted or did not.
>> did not want it connected.
>> so we are asked to approve this preliminary plan with another on the way?
>> there will be a revised preliminary coming. When that one comes in we will look at it to see if that connection can be taken out. But this one with it in we can recommend.
>> how does the -- I ask. The neighbors would say -- the Texas oaks contingent I say would say that it does not. That it's a hazard. We will look at it from a standpoint. But we will also have to look at excuse me the neighborhood network because there's another neighborhood behind this subdivision off of slaughter creek drive. So we will have to look at all of that, you know, when we get a new proposal we will review that proposal on its merits. But this one we feel meets standards and we are recommending approval.
>> as far as the -- the agreement between -- which neighborhood association entered into the agreement? I'm sorry?
>> I want to say that it's the Texas oaks neighborhood.
>> I have it here. I'm just spacing out. It doesn't -- doesn't touch on the connectivity.
>> it does that -- that agreement does touch on the connectivity. That -- we have looked at that with billbrook taken out when we get a proposal that has that removed.
>> an agreement has not been reached?
>> it has.
>> the agreement is there will not be connection to billbrook.
>> the agreement as I understand it this plan can go forward today with the connection, but that centex will prepare a new preliminary plan with that deleted and staff will review it. Along with staff we will be seeking a new approval of the transportation from the esd involved. Because -- because that would change what they approved now.
>> judge, what they traffic is going to be enormous over the bridge. Is that from slaughter? That's going to be enormous if they are all going to be wanting to get out of there. They would have to go right and turn left somewhere if they want to go west.
>> when we get a new preliminary plan. I'm going to ask for another tia to evaluate all of the intersections in the area. But right now that's not what we are -- what we are taking forward today. We are taking forward today has the connection to billbrook. I need to be sure that everyone is aware that bill brook is the road in the full purpose city of Austin. In this instance the single office, although we are the transportation reviewers for this plat, we are working very closely with our counterparts at the city to deal with the full purpose road billbrook that this plat is adjacent to. When it full purpose they will address the traffic lights and whatever is needed there for the safety of the folks?
>> we will look at all of that. Right now we are not taking this preliminary plan does have the connection to billbrook. County standards, apparently city of Austin as well, it shows that the neighborhood clearly wants additional standards applied to this development that are specific to their area. I read the agreement, I'm gratified to see that one of the neighborhood organizations reached agreement with centex, because there are specifics about an area that the neighborhood his are actually more -- more at tuned to -- I -- I don't see any reason to hold up this -- this phase of the application process. I'm gratifying continuing to move forward. Separate from the standards that we hold the applicant to.
>> I will move approval here in a second. Although I want to see if there are some folks from the area that -- that want thatn agreement but it's not signed.
>> yes, sir, I don't have the signed copy, but I understand it was signed rightefore the z.a.p. Meeting two weeks ago. I mean, like -- like within minutes of the meeting started.
>> we have an e-mail, a memo from you that addresses different issues, the issues that we should be concerned about addressing those, are those?
>> those issues were raised by the neighborhood groups. It all came down to drainage, billbrook, density, things of that nature. All of those things met our code. We reviewed for drainage, we looked at the drainage upstream and the cause -- the effects that this would have downstream. There was a lot in that memo about the transportation with billbrook, density concerns, concerns for a tree that's on the site. Your memo highlights four issues. Is there still disagreement as to -- as to the other three. By the way, on billbrook there is agreement, but the agreement is not -- is not part of the preliminary plan before us today.
>> that's correct.
>> okay. What about the others, still an issue on density?
>> well, I guess it's -- I would consider it that -- that it is -- it's not something that we can mandate because of our code. I would say that the agreement, the fact that there is agreement this is something that we discussed with the neighbors and answered questions to -- to everyone involved. That that has been worked out. I would also probably characterize it as -- as the neighbors would probably have preferred us to have a different code that could address density. But given that's not the case, I would consider it worked out.
>> drainage water quality.
>> that's been worked out.
>> yes, trees -- a couple of significant trees on this cited they want to preserve. In addition the neighbors wanted -- centex to plant a -- a layer of buffer trees, if you will, in the backs of the yards between this -- this and the railroad. Then, you know, drainage would be the remaining issue.
>> judge, let me say that both sides have -- have a lot at the table. With this project. There is no question that -- that the neighborhoods, in particular Texas oaks, have brought a number of things to our attention during this process. That we do have the classic example here of does it meet code? Yes. Does it necessarily make sense in -- in all instances? Probably not. But I mean you know when you have an applicant that comes in, knows what the rules are, knows that they can comply with the rules, then I think that -- that we have an obligation at least at this stage unless we are going to get in and work with as a court and probably work with the city of Austin and other municipalities, with regards to how we take these kind of issues on, we are going to be faced with -- with these sorts of situations, traffic,, I mean if you go out there, it's really easy to understand the opposition by putting traffic out of this pretty dense, I mean, subdivision out on to this billbrook because of where it has to come out on billbrook. It would be real easy for all of us if we were to say oh, yeah I can see why you have opposition to that. It's also easy to understand if you have this with billbrook, you are going to force all of this traffic out another way and write it to a -- bring it to a location where before it gets on to billbrook from a different direction to also create some issues. I think that everybody from centex through the neighborhoods realized that there are things that we wish were different here. Where we have gotten, let me say this. I really -- I really applaud, you know, the neighbors and their involvement because there have been just gobs of hours, you know, could, you know -- put into this. I'm glad to say that centex, you know, has stayed at the table and they have been, you know, good stewards of trying to work, you know, with -- with this project. The truth of the matter is that this is not the greatest of situations but unfortunately it meets chapter 30. That's not to say that we shouldn't work on it. The neighbors know that we need to work on chapter 30 because this is not unique to this particular area. I mean, we have a number of places in Travis County that this could take place. I am happy to say that they have reached an agreement to say let's let the preliminary go on, knowing that we are going to bring back something to the court to see whether it meets muster with us or not. And -- and if the neighborhood, you know, continues to stay at the table, which I know that they will, make sure that these things are done, I think that we will probably get there at that particular time. But this is not the perfect, you know, deal but I do think that we have gotten as far as we can get, we would move approval of this, working with both of the parties knowing that they are going to be bringing things back to us.
>>
>> [indisernible] who is here on questions.
>> are you with centex?
>> why don't we hold you until last.
>> okay. There are four chairs available.
>> I think that you speak for --
>> please have a seat. Give us your full name.
>> my name is patricia michael. I'm president of the Texas oaks neighborhood association 750 homes. I also represent four neighborhoods who are
>> [indiscernible] of this project in what we call our island. We all exist in an island that's bored e.r.ed by swlawrt creek, mary morrisey park and a railroad track and a tributary of slaughter creek to the north. We have one bridge that crosses from that island, that's on billbrook place, we have two low water crossing, one on david Moore road, one on slaughter creek drive which this project is on. Now, this project is north of that low water crossings on slaughter creek drive. Altogether I represent 19 businesses and about 900 homes. I have a letter here also from the Austin neighborhood association proclamation in support first.
>> they are supportive of the agreement.
>> yes.
>> on March 6th, 2007, the Texas oaks south neighborhood association entered into a written agreement with centex homes, inc., regarding certain aspects of centex's application for an approval of a subdivision called the hollow at slaughter creek located in the Travis County r -- in Travis County within the city of Austin's e.t.j. Adjacent to Texas oaks south, a neighborhood within the city limits. In exchange for the agreement to cease it's vigorous opposition to centex's current preliminary site plan, centex agreed to submit a revised site plan that would eliminate the new curb cut into billbrook place, eliminating this proposed new intersection without centex also being required to change other aspects of the current site plan will require the city of Austin's contingency contingency to grant certain variances. Because the Austin neighborhoods council believes that the interests of neighborhood and the city of Austin as a whole are well served when neighborhood groups enter into agreements with developers, the council hereby passes a resolution supporting the agreement between tonsa and centex. The council also here by resolves to join tonsa and centex in asking the city of Austin zoning and platting commission to likewise support in agreement and grant any variances necessary to implement the agreement between tonsa and centex. The council also hereby revolves to join with tonsa, that's the Texas oaks south neighborhood acronym and make changes contained in the agreement that may be necessary for approval of a revised site plan that would eliminate the curb cut into billbrook for any new street to be constructed within the hollow subdivision by sin by centex. Basically, what this boil down is to is we are all dealing with the title 30. Some of which has some gray interpretation as to how much power staff has to grant variances. Variances that normally would need to come to you all and to z.a.p. What we are also dealing with is the members of z.a.p. Feel like at this moment there isn't anything that they can do about it. And so it's sort of let the neighborhood out there -- left the neighborhood out there dangling. We stayed aggressive with it and we couldn't do anything about density. We tried to do something about the effects of living within 300 feet of a railroad track that has 30 trains a day with the 70 miles an hour speed limit. 60 miles an hour speed limit with two sidings. It's called the bergstrom siding. Very busy railroad track. Centex has agreed to plant trees along that area because they can at least mitigate the air quality from the effects of diesel engines sitting there dieseling for hours because there's no limit to how long an engine can sit there because this is a low hollow place creates quite a bit of gas. Exhaust fumes from those engines at times. We also could ask for two particular trees to be saved. Then we were told constantly by staff and by centex that the drainage plan issues that we have raised will be addressed and are never addressed at a preliminary site plan level. So those have been addressed by telling us that they will be addressed significantly later. So we are counting on that because we have some -- some very significant water issues and we have photographs of that in the area. Then we are really counting on this billbrook place curb cut being eliminated. We -- our first agreement with centex had it that this curb cut would be eliminated with this preliminary site plan, the next morning centex came back with -- with what we'll do is you let us go through z.a.p. And let us go through the county, within 10 days we will present a new plan, eliminating that curb cut, we will aggressively work toward eliminating the curb cut. So I guess the whole neighborhood is just really counting on the good will of centex, z.a.p. And new Commissioners. There have been 13 accidents at the blind curve where the street is going to interject into billbrook. Already. And to bring the street in at that point on that blind curve would be very, very dangerous and we think that we will eventually cause loss of life. So please, you know, consider that plan seriously when it comes up and -- and the neighborhood has our blessings on this preliminary plan.
>> so your understanding is that -- is that certain promises have been made and the neighborhood sort of withdraws opposition if the promises are kept.
>> that's correct.
>> elimination of the new curb cut, that's the same as connection to billbrook.
>> yes, sir.
>> yeah. We --
>> along the track, saving two trees, the city of Austin to grant variances, that's the city of Austin's call, so I guess the agreement is that they will seek variances from the city of Austin.
>> that's correct. I know this is a pretty whimpy agreement, but it's basically what we could get.
>> way worse than that --
>> [laughter] that I hear.
>> and drainage issues will be addressed.
>> thank you.
>> so the question I will have for the centex representative basically is that -- whether that is the centex commitment and understanding.
>> before they speak, can I say one thing about the drainage?
>> you certainly may.
>> we did get the type of drainage material that we normally get with preliminary plans with this. I don't want it to be characterized that we just blindly said yeah we will whether or not at the drainage later. We looked at the material that we got now. It meets the code. Patricia is right, a lot of the specific questions as they go through the process, we will get more detailed information that -- that that should -- should fully answer all of the -- all of the questions, you know, as we get through those stages. But I don't want it to be perceived that at preliminary plans that we don't review drainage. We don't are you view it to the extent that the questions -- we can't answer some of those questions to the extent at this point that we will be able to answer at the final plan and preliminary stage when we have the information that typically goes with those.
>> your name, please.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, my name is jeff howard, here today on behalf of centex homes. Real briefly I will answer your questions, but briefly we have been in process since July of '06, been in contact with the neighborhood since August. We have been working very diligently, very hard on making sure this project meets your rigorous drainage and traffic safety requirements and also in addressing the neighborhood concerns. The project does meet all code requirements and ordinarily when that happens one expects that there's a legal entitlement, a legal right to have that approved but the neighborhood raised important issues, we 7 wanted to take the time and effort to make sure we addressed those as best we could: so as a result of the neighborhood issues, both staff, your staff, and the applicant double and triple checked to make sure that this meets your traffic safety, your drainage requirements and all of your subdivision regulations and it has. We nevertheless did reach an agreement with the neighborhood and those -- the five items in that agreement. One was the billbrook place agreement, two was the detention pond --
>> on the billbrook issue, you plan to eliminate the new curb cut.
>> that's correct. I want to say we don't view that as a whimpy agreement. That was a major concession on our part because that billbrook connection we think is better for our customers and our residents and eliminating that connection is not going to be as good for the folks who are going to be living in our neighborhood. So that was a major concession. We are willing to do that. So that was -- we are going to do exactly what patricia mentioned. We are going to aggressively pursue that. Detention pond path. That is not dependent on this agreement, we will do that now.
>> I'm sorry. Detention pond.
>> yes, sir. We agreed to -- to provide some amenities improving the path and in our detention pond area and --
>>
>> [indiscernible] park.
>> more of a park like amenities, we agreed to do that. That is not contingent on a subsequent revision, we will do that. The -- our efforts to preserve the trees, both trees that were identified by the neighborhood, that's not contingent on a revision, we will do that today.
>> okay.
>> same with the buffer trees along the tracks, we will do that today. Then of course we will continue to deliver the drainage plan and make sure that the drainage works the way that it's supposed to for your code regulations, that tipped cooperation is not -- continued cooperation is not dependent on the revision, the only thing dependent is the billbrook place. We did that for a couple of reasons. First of all this does not meet your code requirement without it. We cannot have this preliminary plan be approved without the billbrook place connection. In order to eliminate the billbrook place connection, we are going to need to get some variances and given the amount of time involved today, given the fact that this meets code requirement, given the uncertainty in those variances, we felt like the best thing to do with be to get this plan approved as having met code requirement. Within 10 days we will submit that revised preliminary and let that go for the process, let staff have a chance to evaluate that, consult with emergency services providers to consult with the other neighborhoods that may be impacted by that elimination and bring that forward to both the city and the county and let them -- let you all evaluate those variances and if it's meritorious grant those variances, we will certainly eliminate billbrook.
>> at this point there are five provisions, the first is contingent upon the future activity. The other four conscious inserted into the plan without any problem.
>> that's correct.
>> say just worst case scenario none of the five things are done or what recourse does the neighborhood association have?
>> well, I think we committed in the agreement that we would -- we would vacate the preliminary plan if we didn't and that I would imagine that's enforceable by specific provision or actually damage is by any agreement that you would have under contract law.
>> are we legally able to withhold funds if the -- if
>> [indiscernible]
>> that would merit an executive session discussion judge.
>> on elimination of the new curb cut, that seems to be the biggest items.
>> yes.
>> from our perspective unless it creates some public safety risk, Travis County would probably -- staff would recommend approval of the variance. If it's requested.
>> possibly -- we are really going to have to see what they present and we are going to have to look at the traffic in the area. We will have to talk with the esd. You will have two sets of transportation reviewers, the single office reviewers, in this case us, but also the city of Austin transportation reviewers because billbrook is a city of Austin road. But it will be very thoroughly looked at and we will seek advice from the es d's.
>> on that one do we believe that the associations know that centex's ability to achieve elimination of the new curb cut depends on the agreement of Travis County and the city of Austin? And from my own view, I guess if it doesn't pose any greater public safety risk, trying to get it done. What staff is saying is that the proof is really in the pudding, we would have to see the specifics in order to make the call.
>> your honor, the neighborhood did its own traffic study, centex was required by z.a.p. To do a -- do a traffic study. And our traffic study was significantly different than centex's in the numbers of of cars. Staff is aware that they have been given the information. I have seen, how die put this? I have -- how do I put this?
>> do the residents know that the city and Travis County have to agree to elimination of the new curb cut?
>> that's correct.
>> there would be facts that we would look at in order to make that determination.
>> we do know that. And we have faith in the city and the staff's ability to create variances.
>> I feel a whole lot better now.
>> thank you.
>> judge, there's one other thing we talked about which really got me much more comfortable with this. I know that patricia and I have talked about this a great deal I know that our staff, talk to centex about it. Obviously this -- this exit, I mean, this curb cut would really be a necessary curb cut in the event that there was some sort of a disaster or, you know, flooding or whatever, so what I see this thing being is a closed road, it being there, but in the event that emergency vehicles have to get in or for some reason people have to get out of it, even the neighborhood doesn't mind the fact that if there is an emergency and somebody has got to go out of that, with some sort of an evacuation or whatever, but that's -- the little that I have talked to esd out there, there are examples of that, you know, throughout the county that you have that, they are comfortable with that. But there is no question that patricia is -- if you knew exactly where this thing had to come out on to bill brook place, it really is not a good spot for us, which I think is going to weigh pretty heavily with the county, you are right and your neighborhood is right, where this traffic has to come out is the worst spot it could be. It's forced to that because you have a creek on one side and a church and property owners somewhere else. It has got to be here. To make it even worse, not only is there a curb, but it's almost across the street from -- from a number of duplexes. The duplex parking is not in their driveway, each duplex has about 8 cars, they are on the street. So you have really just got a real mess as to where this thick has to come out. I think that it's going to make a lot more sense, which is the reason why I'm comfortable thinking that the variance will be something that our staff will go okay, I mean it makes a lot more sense to omit the curb cut than it does to leave it.
>> I discussed this with the emergency providers already. And -- and basically all of the -- all the city and the county fire people and emergency people are required to look at is turn around and the width of streets and that's all that they can comment on. We never comment on safety. If they commented on safety it would be a number of other issues to look at here. We also found out that the traffic regulation still, the sight distance, what we are really talking about here your honor is a set of four blind curves in succession. All of them about 400 feet apart. So it can meet the site distance requirement of 400 feet, just by coming to another blind curve. And there's also differences in the levels. And the fact that the subdivision has one exit and entrance on genoa street and one exit and entrance on slaughter creek drive and the traffic from the subdivision to the south which has a density of one house per acre usually, has about 150 houses of traffic to deal with. The traffic on billbrook coming by from the south where this -- from our neighborhoods are about 750 houses. The fact that slaughter creek driver was designed to go under the overpass on slaughter lane, in fact the road was stubbed out there, now that little piece of stub out was made private property and there's another developer going to put 160 condominiums in across slaughter lane to the north. And we are not having that road go on through. So that's what's creating this horrible traffic situation. The fact that all of these houses only have that entrance and exit on slaughter.
>> the point that I'm trying to make, though, at the time that the variances are before us is when we will review and evaluate all of the fact.
>> okay. I trust that you will do that well.
>> all right. It looks like mr. Howard is saying that centex will go ahead and make the other changes or --
>> yes, sir, that's not contingent on the revision.
>> it looks like on the variance if it's -- if the variance doesn't occur it's because the city or county both don't allow it, so it won't be centex's fault.
>> that's correct.
>> I just wish that we had gotten this in on the preliminary plan, which was our agreement the night that we met with them, the next morning their attorney came back with the switch.
>> we have it on record today. To the extent that evidence is necessary, we will have this recording.
>> thank you, I appreciate that. I do trust that centex will make those other changes because it will certainly make their project more sellable. Thank you.
>> before you go, but you still have issues about the drain.
>> our issues about the drainage, it is legal to submit a preliminary site plan drainage plan even in a delicate area like the end of the slaughter creek watershed, without having survie said the property. So there -- survey the property. There has not been a survey of the property. This was all done by tables. We find the measurable amounts of the water this that area are significantly larger than the tables say for amounts of rainfall. And we have photographs to prove that with the January 13th rain of this year.
>> you had a question among the many that you had submitted regarding whether any detention ponds within a five mail radius had taken on more water than had originally been projected.
>> that's correct. Because we have photographs of those ponds full. We also have a photograph of the -- where this particular creek before it reaches the centex property where it crosses manchaca road, manchaca, that water was almost going over the road there at manchaca. And we know that the water was at least four and a half feet high at the low water crossing on slaughter creek drive. On that January 13th rain which was less -- significantly less than 100 year rainfall event. It was probably something between a 10 and a 25 year rainfall event and -- the levels that we have shown on the property on the edge of the property we didn't trespass on the property but we photographed the telephone pole and places that the water went on this property was at levels that would normally -- what's shown by the lines on the map to be the 100 year event levels for rainfall on the property. So that's why we are bringing up the issues.
>> that would be looked at with more precision as we get further in; is that --
>> yes, I think they will even survey.
>> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be terrible facetious, just a little.
>> do we or anyone else, the city of Austin or any other state or federal agency ever go back to look at detention ponds to see how much water they are taking on in comparison to what the projections were?
>> I believe that we would if there was a problem. I know that the design of the detention pond will be very thoroughly looked at, there will be, you know, more information available with the -- with the final plats and then with the construction plans. And before we take a -- a final plat to Commissioners court for approval, we have already been reviewing the construction plans and they are either just waiting for -- for the plat to be approved or -- or there may be a few minor details to be worked out before we can sign-off on them. But before we bring a final plat here we have looked at construction plans and we are sure that -- that it can be built and that it will meet code.
>> and to you ms. Michael, what's the condition of the creek at this point?
>> the -- it's just like it has always been. There's a -- there's -- there is significant problems on slaughter creek drive, there is a low water crossing there. Because there is some filling done on both sides of that creek, on the west, which is where the creek flows from across this property, it has channeled the creek more tightly through that low water crossing, so we think that we are getting higher levels at that low water crossing because of that. But that's also across the street from the same corner from the centex property. So we know that filling has caused some -- some of the reasons also there's been significant construction done along manchaca road on the other side of the railroad track. And if you look at the drainage, there's about an -- a little over a thousand acres of drainage we are talking about. The totally built out conditions do not count for any commercial property in that whole area along manchaca at the caution of manchaca and slaughter. It has lots of impervious cover. And both of those ponds in the new projects in the county along manchaca that affect this particular drainage were full at that last rain. And when we looked at the 2006 water maps, which will be approved this year, the -- some of those buildings that were approved for construction are going to be under water by -- according to those maps. But when I talked to those developers, they said no of course they are not going to be under water. I said why did you fill? They said of course we filled. So we know there's been a lot of filling happen that has changed the water in this area. We are just a mile or so from onion creek. We don't want to be the next onion creek. The people in the city of san leanna and us and the people in the city of manchaca are very concerned about this. And so that's why we are doing our own citizen monitoring. Now we have requested to have sticks put at the low water crossing on slaughter creek drive. And on david Moore road which has not been done or approved yet. We also requested that slaughter creek driving under the overspas and come out on slaughter, people could turn right on to slaughter it would be another way out of the neighborhoods if there was an accident there on billbrook which happens fairly frequently right at that corner. The private developers across the way is doing a private commercial development, it looks like -- it's called private commercial and there are no public streets and they are not connecting. So there a stubbed out road there that's highly significant for public safety. That is being ignored. This is the story of us on the edge. On our development. Four streets in our neighborhood that are stubbed out that go to nowhere. On a plat plan that looked like it was something fairly significant. This plat is --
>> we can't require them to connect.
>> correct, that's right.
>> this plat is actually pretty safe, if people come out on genoa and come out as far down on slaughter creek drive as they can, there's quite a bit of room for traffic to back up there. There's only one -- it's a long straight away on that part of billbrook and a straight away down genoa, so people can actually see each other and probably will be much safer than this s curve one over on -- where it's proposed right now on the preliminary plan. In your opinion would it be beneficial, do you see a public benefit in us being able to require development to be connective.
>> absolutely.
>> do you think it would be beneficial for us to be able to regulate density?
>> absolutely.
>> the percentage of a lot that could be occupied.
>> totally.
>> the size of yards and other spaces.
>> absolutely.
>> and the setbacks.
>> the setbacks, the height number and stories and size of the building in the area.
>> yeah.
>> I'm a designer, I know, I look at the location, the land tells me what can be there. In this case there's only a little over 30 acres of actually buildable land. And it also has to do with, has to do with the quality of lifestyle for the people there. In this area of slaughter.
>> do you think it would be beneficial to regulate the location of buildings, use of land for commercial, industrial, other purposes.
>> yes.
>> I am all for you.
>> legislature any time soon
>> [laughter]
>> I got my hands full with the neighborhood. I really admire what you all have to deal with. Thank you very much.
>> we admire ence of one, how muh the emergency services folks addressed low water crossings, that really is a danger. Who is going to address that.
>> we will continue to look at that during the review and discuss the situation with the esd's. One of the things that we do ask them is more than can you just get in and turn around. But especially in this case, we did ask them all of those types of questions. About -- can this area be evacuate. That was a specific question that we asked.
>> I really would like to hear from them on that because that is a great concern. It's just recently been in the news about -- it always is. Any time that there's a flood event. So -- so I really want --
>> let's get michaels involved, a second motion by Commissioner Daugherty. More discussion?
>> the neighborhood
>> [indiscernible] would like to reserve that answer for executive session.
>> I withdrew the question. Whatever authority we have, we will still have by the time that the final plat gets back, hopefully we won't need to use it. If so we will get the legal opinion and take action then.
>> okay.
>> two small things, your honor, and members of the commission. One of them is that we have a -- a certified engineer, in fact one of the top hydrologists in the state who centex has agreed and staff have agreed to allow our engineer to review the plans before they go on this thg about safety, I did talk to the volunteer fire department who signed the letter from centex and the only things they did talk about -- the only thing they could talk about was turn around and the width of the streets. For actually being able to get into the property to fight a fire when you are dealing with about six foot of -- between the buildings at the base and the top of the buildings are closer than that, and then there's probably an air conditioner unit, a couple of bicycles, there, which are on the sides of most houses where there's very little property, very little storage. And they said they could -- off the record the -- the person at the city of Austin and I discussed it because I have been trained in the australian disaster relief school and I teach disaster relief as a -- among my livings. And it's a perfect setup for a fire storm to have buildings this close together and to the have the streets be major currents for air, particularly this one is north and south, so they just drive the -- they would drive a fire literally. Straight down the streets. And they said that they are not -- they are not allowed to comment on how -- as long as they can get in 150 feet into the property, something like that, and they can -- and, you know, it's like our people who we rely on for safety, there's no evacuation plan for our neighborhood. With its island effect. There's no plan for anywhere in the area. And the safety people's hands are tied on these plans on whether they can say it would really be safe for a person to live there as far as fires go or in emergency.
>> the question was if any of these conditions and changes do not take place under these con current preliminary plans, then what what legitimacy do you have for look at that under the preliminary plan scenario. Of course I'm concerned about that answer, so I truly would like to have an answer to this question in executive session, tom. The neighborhood would have every right and ability to enforce that agreement. , you know, the plan when it comes forward in the next 10 days will then be in your hands as well as the city's hands for you all to review, approve, pass variances and participate in at that point in time.
>> legally tom, as far as the preliminary plan, is that just in case they do not go through -- that's an agreement between them and the neighborhood, but I'm talking about the preliminary plan. That's our basis of operation is the preliminary plan, what you and the neighborhood is doing is not separate, but it does -- as far as the preliminary plan, that's the point that I need to know. What takes precedence over all of this stuff? Right now I think that it's the preliminary plan, but I need to get a legal opinion on that.
>> the decisi regulations. The agreement between the neighborhood and centex is basically irrelevant to that issue. One of the requirements for approval of the preliminary plan don't include that there's an agreement between the home builder and the neighbor. So it is two totally separate issues.
>> okay. Well, I guess it's a legal answer.
>> > our question went what can we do before final plat approval, which is different.
>> the good thing about this is if the promises are kept between now and when we see the request for final plat approval, we have -- we would make the call at that point. But separate and apart from -- from the four premises are the one -- is the one concerning the grant of the variances, which really -- really that answer depends on the city of Austin action and Travis County, which is -- which is which remains to be seen. There will be fact that we need to review and make the call on, so -- so I can wait until then, but on the others seems to me that before final plat approval we should see that either they have been done or a substantial progress toward
>> [indiscernible] that's why I feel pretty good about that.
>> I guess the comment that I was referring to, trying to get to as far as the resolution on that. So -- that's basically where I was trying to posture that particular -- if the agreement is not followed through, we don't approve the final plat and we will get legal opinion about whether we can do that on that day. If we have a hammer, that's it.
>> yes.
>> just -- just to be clear, a vote in favor of this today is just to advance it to the next stage for coming back with a preliminary. I mean a final preliminary plan that will continue all of the promises made to the neighborhood and will address the sensitive issues that are in anna's memo, right? So this is just advance to the next step so you can make all of those improvements, promises, come back for final approval.
>> that's correct. The revised preliminary plan will remove billbrook. The other four items we will address independent ses will be honored.
>> so we will have another opportunity to look at all of the issues.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> 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:
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:00 AM