Travis County Commissioners Court
July 17, 2007
Item 1
Number one is a public hearing to receive comments regard agriculture request to authorize the filing of an instrument to vacate approximately 44 square feet of mansfield drive located within the marshall ford vista subdivision. Move that the public hearing be opened.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. My note here says applicant requests postponement. That's postponement of action?
>> to July 31st.
>> so item 19 will be proposed disblicialtion we proposed, but we will have -- will be postponed, but we will have the public hearing at this time. The public hearing is posted and advertised, so we need to have the public hearing.
>> the applicant is the owner of both lots, and the two lots are connected by a point, and he is asking that we vacate about 44 square feet of the right-of-way of mansfield drive to allow the two lots to be fully connected. Whereas this comes to the Commissioners court as a way of amendment to the subdivision, what it will enable the owner to do is expand his commercial development on one of the lots by using some of the transfer development rights from the other lot. And that's the controversy, I guess. You will hear some testimony today from residents of the subdivision that oppose the expansion of the commercial development on 620. This is right close to mans feel dam. There is an existing commercial business there. The owner wishes to expand and this would enable this to occur. So this is why we're having the public hearing. I believe the applicant has asked that the action be postponed so he can visit with the neighborhood residents.
>> does staff have a recommendation?
>> it does meet Travis County standards and because that have we feel obligated to recommend its approval to Commissioners court, but we fully understand that the neighborhood has an issue with regard to the land use in question.
>> okay. Would anyone like to testify during this public hearing? Snreerksz come forward. -- if so, please come forward. We have room for five individuals, so if you're here on item number 1, please come forward at this time, give us your name and we'd be happy to get your comments.
>> your honor --
>> we need you on the microphone also.
>> your honor, my name is pete dwyer. I'm a resident in the adjoining neighborhood. And in the name of expediency I'd ask everybody in the audience here that opposes the application to please go ahead and show their hands because we had quite a few people that came out. I don't know that everybody is necessarily going to speak or need to speak, but we do have quite a bit of opposition. If I may, I sent out an e-mail to the court yesterday evening and in the e-mail raised and also attached several pieces of correspondence. The keystone of which is a letter that I sent to the applicant back in February. And we have raised the issue that the lot 1 in the residential subdivision is clearly deed restricted against any use other than single-family residential use. We have also asked that the burden of proof be put on the applicant that they be asked to use this single-family lot and we feel like the request in front of the court toyed is a little bit out of sync. They're asking for this ayiofiel drive, which woulds lid allow themoshiftnd trort off is the site. They believe that they will put ald and then e comrcial.t subdivision into the real controversy is tt they alsoha anremar bd that's a legal really feel like the appropriate action would be to come back through with a fully unified site plan, putting all the cards on the table, to demonstrate with a tia that -- the controversy is that they want to put a commercial driveway into a residential neighborhood. We think that would require subdivision of this lot, which would then bring them into all current code and compliance issues. And with that being said, we have written correspondence to them, which they have never bothered to actually answer back to us, other than to go ahead and try to proceed forward with the right-of-way vacation steps. We feel like it's a relatively significant project they intend for -- this is right near the bring sing office, very near Lake Travis and lake Austin. We don't think it should be allowed to proceed happenstance. If they're going to do it, do the whole thing, bring in a unified subdivision and have the applicant prove up that they can do some of the thing that they're attempting to do.
>> is the applicant here?
>> I'm here.
>> why don't you have a seat and give us your name. Give us an explanation it so we understand that. Give us your name --
>> I have a question.
>> [inaudible - no mic]. I'm sorry, my name is ted mcconaughey. We're the attorney for the applicant. I had sent the county representative a postponement request --
>> we're going to postpone action, but on the public hearing we spent money for advertising, plus we notify a whole lot of people in the world that they'll have an opportunity to come down and speak on it, so we normally don't postpone the public hearing once we advertise it. We do postpone action. This was posted as action item number 19. We've announced that would be postponed.
>> okay. I wish mr. Scog begins had made that more clear, but nevertheless, I'm happy to speak with you.
>> we just want to know what the plan is, what the request is and why you think it's appropriate.
>> are you pete dwyer?
>> nice to meet you.
>> mr. Dwyer and I have had a couple of conversations and exchanged e-mail on the issue. I'm sorry I wasn't here for his whole presentation, but he's basically correct, that we are requesting th right-of-way abandonment so we can combine the two tracts to allow for additional impervious cover on the corner tract there. Mr. Dwyer had expressed a couple of reservations, the main two being the location of a septic drain field on lot 1, and we basically already agreed that that is not necessary. And the other thing has to do with the driveway on to mansfield drive, and that issue is still up in the air. We had requested the postponement as soon as I heard of mr. Dwyer's objection to the abandonment request. I had talked with mr. Dwyer and had requested the postponement so that we could meet with the neighborhood and discuss some of these issues prior to coming before this board so we could see if we could work it out and get the neighborhood support. We still object vusly intend to meet with the neighborhood to discuss these issues, but we have not had a chance yet to meet with them, so we don't have a definitive idea if we're going to change the current plan.
>> okay. So the nature of your project is what?
>> there's an existing -- the area on 620, there is an existing convenience store and gas station facility on lots 1 and 2, travis vista subdivision, which is directly to the east of the proposed right-of-way abandonment.
>> we will give y'all an opportunity to meet after this public hearing and we'll make county facilities available, a little room right through the door there straight ahead.
>> I think we're going to try to meet out closer to the property, but thank you for the offer. There is an existing gas station facility here. This is lots 1 and 2.
>> you need to grab that microphone.
>> this is lots 1 and 2 of -- travis vista subdivision is right there. There's an er m to geroper current said, tn issue with the neighborhood seems to be that they don't want this --
>> [phone ringing]. They don't want the drivewayat n unplatted piece of land that sort of surrounds it. As part of the overall development, we would -- that would be the first step would be to subdivide this tract into a legal lot. That way the owner would have these two lots here, plus this lot and then this would all be done as a site plan. And our initial blush is that we're not sure why we should be denied access on to one of our frontage streets. At the same time we understand that the neighborhood doesn't really appreciate having to share their road with the commercial tract here. It will increase traffic along here and we understand that they have that concern, but that's why we wanted to postpone and meet with them to go through some of those issues.
>> let me ask you this question. There was a statement made earlier by mr. Dwyer when he was giving his presentation and he made a statement that there is a deed restriction on this particular tract of proposed activity that would only allow single-family dwellings on that site. Is this true that there is --
>> there is a deed restriction. This lot 1 mansfield -- this is lot 1, marshall ford. This is within -- this is basically within their neighborhood. It's the first lot within their neighborhood. And that is indeed covered by the deed restriction. And there would not actually be any development there. The only reason in acquiring this tract is because since we're in the water supply rural watershed, only 20% impervious cover is allowed, which basically doesn't allow any type of development on this corner tract here unless we combine it with this tract and use basically the impervious cover rights in the front here. There would not be any actual development on that property, though.
>> that property is vacant today?
>> it's vacant now, yes.
>> we'll be to you in just a minute. Any questions owe what's your name again?
>> ted.
>> and you're with the --
>> we're doing the civil engineering, planning and surveying of the tract and we're also acting as the owner's agent.
>> okay. Any questions? Did you finish?
>> I'm here from travis vista subdivision, which is the subdivision all of these lots are on here. These are technically part of our platted subdivision, travis vista. They are commercial lots, but they are part of our subdivision. Y'all never asked for a meeting with us either. On any of this. We know it's going to be developed. We want to work on them. We have rules and regulations. The lighting from these gas pumps and everything is going to come right into our subdivision, so we want to work with y'all on those issues. Our concern too is after hearing that they want to use lot 1 from their residential subdivision to be part of this, our question is we also have adjacent lots that a year and a half ago they were attempting to take some of these lots to do this part with, and we indicated that they were residential, we had a homeowners association. We would fight that. And now it's over here into their subdivision. So our concerns are kind of the same. If we set a precedent that we let a residential lot become part after commercial development, then what happens to our adjacent residential lots, because it's part of deed restrictions also.
>> okay.
>> now unfortunately, you don't get multiple bites of the apple. And because other residents have come to testify today, we will need your seat after you finish. Unfortunately, as one person finishes and leaves, if you have come to testify, please just come forward, okay?
>> do I not get a chance to respond to comments regarding --
>> I'm hoping that you will get a chance to do is get with the owner and meet with the residents. This turns out to be a lot more complicated than I thought.
>> okay.
>> yes, sir?
>> me?
>> name, please.
>> my name is thomas david porter, and I'm a resident in the mansfield drive subdivision. And I was notified by the placement of the billboard on the lot. I had not heard anything from anyone until that point in time. I then through a series of e-mails contacted the developer's representative and was told that this meeting was postponed, and therefore we don't have as complete and universal a turnout for this hearing as we might otherwise have had because we thought that it was going to be held at a later time. And apparently he thought that it was going to be held at a later time as well. And it's only through my contact with the county Commissioners office directly, our county Commissioner in particular, mr. Daugherty, that I found out that there actually was going to be a hearing today. And we still managed to get 100% of the homeowners' signatures on a petition that we're giving to you opposing this vacation, and we don't see any particular need to postpone -- at least I don't see a particular need to postpone the Texas action because it -- to postpone the action because it shouldn't happen period. The vacation of the right-of-way should not occur.
>> the action has been pope. Mr. Porter is your reaction the same as the other residents?
>> no. Not all the objections have been heard.
>> what additional objections do you have?
>> additional objections would be the placement of the proposed convenience store building such that it would direct additional traffic on to mansfield drive as opposed to having it face 620 where the entrance and egress could be directly on to 620. And separate from the egress and entrance for mansfield drive, which is -- additionally mansfield drive is only 28 feet wide. That is not wide enough for a truck and trailer or a truck pulling a boat, which is the usual traffic in this area, to come out of that driveway and execute a left turn such that it's now headed east. There's no way. It would simply block traffic altogether for it to come out of the driveway and stop at the stop sign. And that's an extraordinary hazard because of the velocity of the vehicles on 620 that are attempting to turn right on to mansfield drive. They would be coming directly into somebody else turning left. And it's just -- it's not a workable plan. The only way to make it work at all in my opinion is to have an exit from this developer's property directly on to 620 wide enough to accommodate a right turn, a left turn and an entrance lane. Which is the standard for most of the other service stations. There's a service station on 2222 just right down the street that has it set up that way. If you're exiting you can turn right out or left out, and if you come in, you come in on the right side that have entrance. And it's one extremely wide entrance directly into the commercial property and the commercial property could then -- it would be my hope that they would consider putting the convenience store on the southern end of their property, the property immediately adjacent to mansfield drive so it give them the most parking. That seems to me to be the best. Additionally, we would prefer that configuration because we believe that the driveway would in and of itself have runoff coming on to a street that has no storm sewers or any other protection. Any runoff coming through that driveway would go immediately into Lake Travis. It would not pass go, it would not collect $200. It would go straight down the hill into the lake. And so there would need to be some protection with respect to runoff associated with the driveway. I think that given all of the -- I would also impact our group as well. And I guess the final objection that we have is that our neighborhood is a very long-standing. The deed restrictions haven't been in place for a very long time. They've been enforced and we do not believe that a residential property in our subdivision should be turned into commercial use, which would happen in this vacation.
>> thomas, are you opposed to the road or are you opposed to the added impervious cover? In other words --
>> I'm not opposed to the added impervious cover.
>> so in other words, you all would be fine in this vacation if they didn't have a cut on to mansfield drive. Because it seem like that they need --
>> no, I'm not sure that we would be okay completely there. The vacation in particular is in and of itself an issue because it turns a residential property into a commercial property.
>> but they have restrictions that would not allow them to build anything on that now residential property. I'm just trying to get a feel for are you just against them doing anything or are you really against them coming on to mansfield drive?
>> no. We really like the people who own and manage that convenience store. We'd like to see them prosper and do well. We don't think that this site plan is a good idea for all of the many reasons that we gave. And in particular the vacation of the right-of-way is not necessary.
>> david, let's coordinate on this a little bit.
>> if you acquire this property off of mansfield, your intention is to leave it vacant.
>> the lot on mansfield would always remain vacant under any circumstance. There's two possibilities. Once again, I wish we had had a chance to meet with some of the neighbors to explain.
>> mr. Porter, did you get done?
>> yeah.
>> yes, sir?
>> now, who else wants to testify during this public hearing? All right. Come forward. Now, you'll have an opportunity to meet with the agent, hopefully the owner also, before this matter is brought back to the Commissioners court. Then we will have the pros and cons and the law. And I guess my first question is, if you acquire a land within a neighborhood with a deed restriction for residential use only, and you leave the lot vacant , whether you have violated the restrictive covenant? Yes, sir, right here on the end.
>> can you state your name?
>> I'm sorry, adrian opus. What david was talking about, we did some measurements -- by the way, this is drawn to scale. I don't think the overall thing is drawn to scale, but the vehicles and so on and so forts. There's not enough room -- the yellow by the way, those are vehicles. The blue is a trailer. A typical vehicle like a suburban, which is 20 feet long -- by the way, my boat is not that big. By moat on a trailer is 28 feet. There's no way you can pull on to mansfield drive with this type of vehicle, and this is a longer vehicle, which is typical and not block the right hand right-hand lane. We have school buses coming out in and -- coming in and out everyday. And there's one other issue and this is a Travis County issue that should be dealt with. Mansfield e right now is one of the most dangerous streets or corners in the whole county. Let me tell you why. In the last five years we've had five major accidents. And I know one of them was my daughter who tried to turn on to mansfield drive and got rear-ended. And by the way, there is a solution. What we can do is we could make mansfield drive a safe environment to exit and enter. If travis would just straighten this road out so we don't have people come around the corner -- and by the way, 65 or 70 miles per hour, then mansfield drive would be useful to everybody. But with its present traffic it is a very dangerous street. As I commented, we have a gentleman here whose suburban was totaled pulling on to mansfield drive. My daughter was rear-ended at 55 miles per hour. Could have been killed. $7,600 of damage. I pull -- and by the way, the reason it happened is she was rear-ended because there was another accident exactly at mansfield drive and the other party was looking at this other accident, rubber necking and whacked her at 50 miles per hour.
>> so that other road is 620?
>> 620. Very dangerous. What I want to do is leave this -- can I pass these around? This is the view as a vehicle you --
>> [inaudible - no mic]. Basically my feeling is this, is is Travis County willing to risk the legal consequences of allowing more traffic on that street as it is? It can't handle the neighborhood, much less another few hundred cars a day. It's just not possible. I think I've given my two cents' worth.
>> my name is ryan downton. I also live on mansfield drive. I want to talk specifically about their plan for the right-of-way vacation and their stated intention today to combine lot 1 of mansfield drive, a residentially restricted lot, to an illegal remainder from the old hughes park subdivision. They can't do that right now because they aren't contiguous properties. That's the reason they want the right-of-way vacation f that right-of-way vacation is granted, they've now said they intend to try to combine lot 1, a residential lot, with an unsubdivided lot with the intention to use that combined lot at least in part for commercial purposes. They say they intend to leave lot 1 vacant, but if their plan is to combine lot 1 with the old hughes park lot, they will only have a single lot. They won't be able to say we'll use half of it for commercial and half for residential. It will be one lot and I believe that entire lot would then become subject to the lot 1, the more stringent restriction that was already in place. So I don't think what they're saying they want to do is possible. I'd like to talk more with the county attorney's office about it. And it's not -- I'm an attorney, but this isn't my specialty, so I'm not positive of that. But at first blush it appears the more restrictive covenant would apply. And this entire new combined lot would be subject to a residential restriction.
>> but if they can leave the two lots separate -- and leave the other one vacant like he says, do you still object?
>> yes, although on a different reason f they leave the two lots separate, if that is their intention, there is no need to vacant the right-of-way. The only need to vacate the right-of-way is to vacate the lots. So if they leave them separate they don't need to combine them. Secondly, this lot, even leaving it vacant, if they're going to use it for commercial use, for runoff -- they say they're not going to use it for septic now, but last I heard they were still intending to use for commercial runoff. That's a commercial use prohibited by the restrictions. Even if they're not going to do that with it, if they're going to transfer impervious cover restrictions to that lot, I'm not sure it's reasonable either because I think it's taking a commercial need and transferring it to that residential lot. So I have a problem of their use of this lot for anything other than a single-family residence. If they want to build on their existing property, I have no problem with them improving their service station, creating a nicer service station, or expanding their service station. My problem is when they're infringing on a residential area with a commercial use. You've heard many times this street's the biggest problem, but even setting that aside, anything they do that takes this residential lot and transfers commercial purpose, that's a very bad precedent for the remainder of this area bordering 620 that other developers will try to use in the future and could have lasting impact on a labored naibd -- on a neighborhood that's been exclusively residential for many years.
>> I'm also a resident of mansfield drive subdivision. And what I'd like to address is just simply the plan that they have presented to you and the developer said that txdot will not allow two driveways on to 620. Well, today there are two driveways on 620 because today all these properties used by this gas station for their business. In this plan that they're presenting, they're cutting off a piece of that and it is no longer part of that for some unknown future use, whatever, which now limits the driveways that can come in and out. So as the gentleman said, txdot will not allow two driveways. Txdot will allow only one driveway here and one here. He has never addressed the issue that I believe txdot would allow, if one driveway you have on the shell station on 2222 -- and by the way, the son of the owner, mr. Patel's son, and I had conversation about that, and his input to me was that that's what they were going to ask txdot to do, one large driveway so they would not have to come on to our street. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes. That is why I'm objecting.
>> okay. Mr. Dwyer, second and final opportunity today.
>> thank you, your honor. I did want to address this concept that's beginning to develop as to whether lot 1 not being developed would be a desirable thing. I live next to that and I think that ultimately that lot should have the opportunity to have a home built on it because right now it just grows weeds and snakes and that would not be -- generally people think, okay, if you leave it undeveloped that's a desirable thing. That would not be a desirable thing and I know they own it, but ultimately, economically, I think they would probably be able to sell it for a profit and have a home built on there and not have it a weed strip. Thank you.
>> you get a final opportunity also.
>> we obviously intend to meet with the neighbors to discuss all these issues. I think it would have been helpful had we met with them prior to the public hearing. That I've already said. I think --
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> now, now.
>> it was my -- I'm sorry?
>> the room across the hallway is available. There is a conference room on the fifth floor that's available right now also. While this tunnel is still hot -- while this item is still hot it, may help to sit in a room and discuss this.
>> I'm sure we'll go discuss it in five minutes.
>> sometimes the presence of the Commissioners court has a chilling effect on compromise.
>> and I'm perfectly -- I can discuss with them as much as I can. I can't make the final decision today because I'm not the owner of the property obviously. But I think we're maybe getting ahead of ourselves a little bit in that there's kind of one of two ways we can go really. If we get the right-of-way vacation that means we can combine the corner tract and lot 1 mansfield into a unified site development, which allows full impervious cover transfer. If we don't get the right-of-way vacation, that means we have to transfer the impervious cover under the watershed regulations, which would only allow us about 6,000 square foot for every acre. And that's done all the time, that residential subdivisions grant their impervious cover rights to commercial properties that line the major arterials. So it's kind of like it's -- at this point we're kind of boiled down to how much impervious cover meefz on to the corner tract. I think we're kind of a little ahead of ourselves to be discussing all the specifics of the site plan. That being said, obviously it's all very relevant and I'm going to work with the neighborhood on the comprehensive issues regarding the site plan. Obviously the driveway on to mansfield is the critical issue. I think if we can resolve that -- and I personally think that a large driveway on to 620 without a driveway on to mansfield would be the preferable solution. Now, I need to convince the owner of that. I think they feel that if they own the corner tract, they have the right to access the adjoining frontage, but I think it is a favored condition for the neighborhood and if it gains us neighborhood support, so much the better. At your suggestion,ic if it's okay if we want to go meet in the other room right now and discuss these issues and I can take them back to the owners and discuss them with them. And I will try and convince them to move the driveway to one large driveway on 620.
>> thank you. Something new and different.
>> we will not have this item back on until it's ready. Either as a result of an agreement or as a result of the failure to agree, where the comirtionz court has to -- where the Commissioners court has to decide one way or the other. We have been surprised in the past at how residents and applicants can get together and reach agreements that are satisfactory to all. That is what we wish in this case. If we cannot achieve that, though, at the appropriate time it will come back to us. And if there's not agreement, we need a list of the pros and cons. There will be another opportunity to give brief remarks before the court acts on this item. So we think we're looking at not a week, but two weeks. Okay.
>> judge, and if I would ask ted, if you make sure you go to my office on the fifth floor, make sure you have all the information on how to get ahold of you. I do know how to get ahold of pete. I'll work with you guys on this thing.
>> can I -- I think a month would be more appropriate? I don't know if two weeks will be quite enough time? Can --
>> since nothing is getting done, does it make any difference to y'all? It's not like there's -- take the time to try to work it out. So if a month is needed, it doesn't matter to us. Why don't y'all get together right now, y'all determine whether or not it's going to take you a month or a couple of weeks and somebody let me know. We'll post it for -- just post it for later. And I'll let the court know.
>> that's fine. 620 is a state highway, so whatever agreement you reach as to this property off of 620, txdot needs to be brought in.
>> that's right. We do need to meet with txdot to discuss this prior to coming back before this body.
>> and obviously I'm more than willing to work with txdot and with y'all. Work it out and let me know.
>> thank you.
>> move the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> 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:
Wednesday, July 18, 2007, 18:30 AM