Travis County Commissioners Court
July 24, 2007
Item 14
Number 14 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following. A, variance from section 82.2022 l 2 b, standards for construction of streets and drainage in subdivisions in Travis County, b, preliminary plan in precinct three, rgk ranch preliminary plan, 1508 total lots, and c phasing agreement between rgk and Travis County, including provisions regarding a portion reimerspeacock road, and improvements to highway 71.
>> hi, Travis County pn r. The variance regarding block length.
>> sorry, regarding ?
>> block length.
>> okay.
>> would you lay this out? We have had some issues brought to us by residents and neighbors, I guess some by the applicant let's try to address that if we can. Some residents have come down we'll give them opportunity to make . Anybody here for the amply can't?
>> okay.
>> this preliminary plan is for 1508 lots. And it is in western Travis County add adjacent to sweetwater. This prelim came in before the extension on prelim and hardship agreement was granted for that, the applicant stipulated several provisions they were willing to do. We reviewed the hardship request and worked with our environmental people in transportation natural resources before we, you know, granted the waiver for hardship. Some of the, one of the things with this prelim, there's a proposed phasing agreement to go long with this that is a standard document whenever there is a prelim that won't be final platted all in one piece, or at least that is often the standard in those situations. One of the main things about that preliminary plan has to do with access, western access to the tract through reimers-peacock road the phasing agreement lace out everyone's rights and responsibilities if they are the first ones to develop that road right now that road has been there's been a bond election engineering has been done on that road, but right now we do not have, it would take another bond election to move forward with that road in the meanwhile the developer has access rights and it lays out their ability to use that and generally what the location of it would be. Another thing about the phasing agreement would be that their responsibility for dedicating right-of-way should we have a bond election to wuld the--build the road so rhymers pea cock is one of the main come pony ents of the phasing agreement. Another thing that the phasing agreement does is speak to improvements required on 71 should the development happen.
>> specifically what improvements should be made on 71, or I guess residents that access after the development is constructed.
>> I believe it's a center turn lane and improved shoulders.
>> okay. You believe that based on? I mean--
>> based on previously reading it.
>> is that part of the deal or what is this.
>> yes, that is part of the deal as you recall, when we had sweetwater development came in, there were the same issues, basically, the creation of a turning lane. It got the turn traffic out of the main lanes. That would be similar to what is being required here. For the high-speed traffic on highway, going through, and so you'd want to separate the turning movements away from the main traffic, improve the safety of the intersections of the connections of this --development with sh 71. That doesn't necessarily address the larger improvements that are needed to 71 through the entire stretch of highway from Austin all the way out to the county line, but that is the improvements that could be attributed to this development.
>> okay. So on the construction of the reimers pea cock road, for that to be constructed with public dollars, Travis County would send it back through the bond committee process, go to voters.
>> yes, sir.
>> let me clarify.
>> okay.
>> that has been the tradition, to do it with our bond program, and that happens every five to six years. That is not the only way the county could do this. We could apply for federal funds and make a match as we spoke of earlier this morning on howard lane that would also take an affirmative action of the Commissioners court. You could also use other sources of funding. It may not be the only way, but it is pretty much the way we have done business for the last 20 years, is to seek f it's to be publically funded, is to go through a bond election.
>> what is the plan for construction today?
>> we have basically an engineer with completion of a set of plans that basically set the footprint and design parameters for the roadway. That then is used as it is in this case, a way to set aside right-of-way for the future construction of reimers peacock. Understand this roadway will traverse many different properties. What we want is a coherent plan for how the road will gop over a period of years it could be the public spends no more to gop the roadway but at the same time as these large parcels are platted, they not only dedicate the right-of-way but also put up the funding for the roadway. As a matter of fact, most arterial roadways in Travis County are done that way as oh opposed to building with public funds our role as county government is merely to set the alignment so that as individual property owners come about over a series of years, it all connects up and makes some logical sense. That is what this set of plans will do. It will basically say, this is the way the whole road should look like at the end of the day even though segments of it may be platted in this development, maybe five years from now another section is platted, but all the pieces will fit together. That is one way this road may get developed the other way would be take an affirmative action of the public sector and ask the voters for money to build a roadway or to ask campo for federal funding to build the roadway. Any number of different options that would certainly require an action of the Commissioners court to fund through a public means.
>> joe, since reimers peacock road seems to be such a controversial project take us back just a few minutes to tell us what took place in the southwest dialogue growth process.
>> southwest dialogue, as you recall, really started with the discussion of the extension of the lcr waterline because it was somewhat acknowledged that once you start extending infrastructure, then it enabled development to occur the purview of the southwest growth dialogue was to talk about all sorts of development issues. What did, and we had any number of different stakeholders that participated in that process. Landowners, we had developers, we had environmental groups, we had neighborhood resident groups. So there was a lot of give and take in that process. And what , and we had, as you recall, joe lesar, help us facilitate that process. What came out of it was a vision, what do we want this area to look like. And how would the county help bring that about, the county and the lcra. Part of the discussion was transportation. I think there was a sentiment that they wanted the roadways to look more hill country and not, you know, wide, you know, multilane highways. That was particularly true of hamilton pool road and reimers peacock. At the end of the day those roads were designated as hill country ar tear yalce, unlike other arterials, that would call for a buffer on both sides of the roadway to preserve the natural character of the roadway. In the case of reimers peacock it was to be a two-lane roadway as opposed to a four lane. So, and also the design parameters, we really didn't have a design standard for hill country arterial so we started looking at how would you design a road to look and feel like a hill country arterial. We came up with a design that somewhat lessened the typical geometric criteria for arterial roadways that would apply in this area and we called it hill country arterial. So some of the horizontal and vertical alignments changed in order that they contour more with the topography of the area. Also, a key factor was having these buffers on either side of the roadway that remained undeveloped.
>> but it was determined that the reimers peacock road was a road going to be built at some period of time.
>> reimers peacock was in the ultimate proposal of the group they also talked about the nature of the land uses and part of the issues was where would commercial nodesbe developed and what would those commercial nodeslook like. One of the nodeswas on state highway 71 at the inspection with the reimers peacock road, that it was acknowledged probably a center of commercial activities in the future. So not only was reimers peacock in the campo transportation plan as an arterial, it came out of the growth dialogue as a hill country arterial. One of the, just very few places because of the topography of the area, not very many places you can put a road out there without going into the tributaries. The placement of reimers peacock right now, which is pretty much a ranch road, is on the ridge line separating a lot of the tributaries. So it's just a natural to fall to any future roadways, probably in the right place just because they put it in the right place to begin with there's not many other alternative alignment that you could take out there without getting into some significant challenges. I think that is how it came about.
>> the design is a four-lane road.
>> the design is a two-lane hill country arterial, is what it is right now.
>> but it is anticipated, looking five years into the future, ten years into the future, what size an arterial is going to be, do we anticipate will be needed?
>> I think the right-of-way is, I'd have to check on this, think the right-of-way is 90 feet. Id --i'd have to check that. 90 feet plus the buffer. We could put four lanes in there.
>> but the applicants' an understanding is a two-lane hill country arterial?
>> judge, I'm here on behalf of the applicant I'm not prepared to answer that question today. We'll have to get back to you on what the engineers anticipated. I'll remind the court that the applicant does have easement rights to build a road in that general vicinity, a private road I believe this is a 60-foot wide easement, as I recall I think that four lanes could fit within that 60-foot ease am. That is not real responding to your question. I'll have to get back to on you that question.
>> okay.
>> there have been questions about how would this development, how does this come pair to interim rules. Staff that is looked and seen therer five stream crosses, one major and one minor one of the minors would not meet the rules due to proximity to add jason role and the two major stream crossings would not meet the interim rules because it's, it's a neighborhood collector that is in the major stream crossings and interim rules would require only an arterial in the, I guess the campo plan, to cross to a major stream crossing. Such a size of road is not warranted for the subdivision. So, in had a --in that way we know they would not meet the interim rules we don't have an environmental assessment. That is another area where it is different. So we don't know how it would have complied with that. And I think possibly, and I'm not totally sure, but I think possibly there may be some, might be some constraints related to the land balancing. But aside from that, with regards to buffers and the other come poniants -- come poniants of the interim rulce, it appears to be pretty close to the interim rules.
>> was there an assessment, you mentioned there is not an environmental assessment. I suppose this is actually a question for mr. Claimen, whether assessments were done pertaining to environmental assessments, ecological, archeological, cultural assessments and how it impacted the preliminary plan that is in front of us.
>> what I'm sure that can I tell you is that some of the studies were done in conjunction with the lcra water quality plan. But beyond, to answer the rest of your question, I'll have to get back to you on that one as to how that affected the design and layout of the preliminary plan.
>> okay. Along with the transportation concerns, I think that there is another concern in the community regarding, and it's a concern of mine, I'll confess, I have a ax to grind here, regarding the sameness of the project over time. It appears on its face that the project looks lovely. My concern is that over time since we are, and I appreciate the honesty with which this preliminary has been put forward, the idea that this wouldn't be built out immediately, this is something for down the road, and that the applicants are attempting to lock in land value for certainty for the future I respect that. And what I'm trying to do is lock in our ability to respond in the future. So, one issue that's been out there, and it's a concern of mine, is the sameness of the project over time. I believe 260 acres, 263 acres were add since the original application. The 263 acres were included in the application that was accepted and processed in June of 2005. Those were in addition to what was submitted in March, on March 14 of 2005. That is correct.
>> and that, I believe, is somewhere between 18 and 19 percent increase over the originally proposed acreage.
>> I wouldn't know what percentages that would be on the increase. The acquisition was to some extent to square out the property and to provide a second access point to 71.
>> and also in your letter of June 17, 2005, I believe seven points were made in regard to, seven arguments were made in support of hardship. What I'm after here is a way to memorialize essentially an agreement between the applicant and the county as to what sameness is for the future so we don't get in a bind I understand what the intentions are of the applicant today, but of course while you all are looking important certainty for the future, I too am looking for certainty in the future in regard to the sameness of the project, since that is a fact question, if we could just nail it down with a little more certainty through plat notes.
>> right. And I received through the account attorney's office some proposed notes that I believe came from your office. And that is why we'd like to ask for a two-week postponement because we need to visit with our client, go over the language, have an opportunity to visit with you. I believe you received some e-mail correspondence from mr. Howel today regarding that.
>> yes.
>> I don't think that we are all that far apart I think we have to look at some of the language in there is different than what was in the hardship letter. So we have to consult with our client we think in two weeks, we have a chance to visit and get back with you and see if we can work out language mutually acceptable to both sides.
>> that would be wonderful that is why there is norb else here today we are really anticipating that we would have some time to work with the Commissioner on the plat notes that she is asking for.
>> I'm sure residents would want to see those.
>> some of the ideas are circulated.
>> have you landed on the total acreage for the project?
>> I think that acreage has been the same for more than two years it's what was in the application that was filed, I should say accepted in June of 2005. That has not changed.
>> the answer is yes.
>> in the June 17th letter, it reflects that the March 14, twibe2005, acreage was 1 234. I don't believe that letter references the addition. I could be wrong did.
>> it does on the top of the third page.
>> on top of the third page thank you applicant proposes to anamend the plan by adding the probably 263 plans to the west.
>> we think that will get you to a total, though.
>> yes, judge. I was trying to be clear that that number is not changed since June of 2005.
>> the letter.
>> right.
>> the current acreage is 1,595.8.
>> and to be clear, it's the March 14, 2005, preliminary that was the application, whereas this 263 acres comes in after that as part of the request for hardship. Is that an accurate statement of the time line?
>> I think that it's accurate, what you say is accurate. I think that the context of the hardship agreement reflects a negotiation with the county to compromise on some issues. And that was the hardship letter and additional acreage reflects part of that compromise that is reflected in both my letter and mr. Geiselman's granting a few weeks later.
>> this is in regard whether that would be subject to exception of preliminary plan applications correct? I think that is--
>> you're asking very precise questions I want to make sure I understand.
>> sure.
>> right, this letter that I wrote on June 17, 2005, pertains to the application that was filed March 14, 2005.
>> and that application was for 1,334 acres.
>> that is correct.
>> two things will be done for the residents, accessing 71 from the rgk subdivision, center turn lane, improvement to 71 basically to expand the shoulder.
>> correct.
>> what the staff described.
>> correct.
>> your an understanding--
>> that has been agreed to by the applicant.
>> I guess we may as well find out the situation on the two-lane hill country arterial, two versus four.
>> I should have an answer to that pretty soon.
>> okay. One set of engineers did the design work, not two sets, right?
>> that's right.
>> okay.
>> the engineer under the contract for the county.
>> okay. You need two weeks to answer to respond to the various points? That we proposed as plat notes.
>> yes, judge.
>> okay. Several residents have come down today. Let's give them an opportunity to chat. What I did yesterday, too, I did get from several residents e-mails regarding accidents on highway 71. And we informally chatted about bob day a couple of times before yesterday, and we raised this issue in a more formal context, I would say, in a campo work session that we had. And so, in the little e-mail that I sent out, I tried to summarize the information that mr. Day provided, and had a --that is not squarely covered by this agenda except for 71, john, and issues that we have been dealing with. So what I can do, rather than read that, I'd be happy to send that to whoever has not received it and would like to. Maybe this time is better spent giving residents an opportunity to come give --comments if you like also. You heard the suggestion to two weeks to respond to proposed plat notes. That means unfortunately this will be back on the agenda in two weeks, which is August 7. We are more than happy to hear you now. If you prefer August 7, it will not disappoint us, but it will require to you come back again to give those comments.
>> my name is Karen huber, I live in precinct 3 in western Travis County. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk and I thank those of you with whom I have had dialogue and cases --communications in the last several weeks. Can you hear me okay? I have a little bit of a frog in my heart it is really with sadness that I am here today it was just a little over a year ago that I was here on the same issue with the sweetwater project, which was approved . My husband and I had gone to great lengths at that time to research the accident history on highway 71. It is a very, very, very, dangerous highway, and I think that is recognized by most. At that time we did research through the esd 8 accident report records because the dps was two years behind in providing accident report statistics to tex dot. The esd 8 only serviced from b creek west, so we did not even have data at that time terror the entire highway. But even with the limited data that we pulled off those records, between 2004 and 2005, it showed double the traffic count and 133 percent increase in accidents just with the unofficial data on a small section of road. That data, we are citizens, we don't get paid to do this. The current statistics don't seem to be available. But we all know that accidents are continuing to increase. The highway safety situations are not new. They have been covered in the paper for years out there. A little over a year ago, I wasn't able to pull it up on the website but there was a front page article talking about the deadliest roads in the central Texas or greater Austin area. Highway 71 had the most deaths on it. This issue is not just your issue. It is not just a precinct 3 issue. It has multinterests in solving the problem. The problem is no one is taking the initiative to do it. The traffic counts that we look out there now are exploding and it's thought just because of growth in western Travis County. It's marble falls, horse shoe bay, and there is no alternative route to town. I'd like to pause for a minute from what I had planned to say and clarify or at least from my perspective, clarify the growth dialogue from my recollections of how that trans fired I was a voting member on that panel there was much discussion about the reimers peacock road and a loft di sense about --dissension about it for a number of reasons the primary one, I don't believe anybody doubted that at some point in the distant future it was an important connector road, it was an important road that should be out there in the future. The problems that the dialogue group discussed and talked about at length was the timing of it. And it ended up on our plans because we agreed that at some point in the future it made sense. I think if this was taken back to the dialogue panel, it would be a very interesting discussion as it relates to the safety issues and the timing of when this road should be built. It not only opens the way for additional subdivisions to be developed by access, but it is a diverter of traffic and owns up those areas from highway 12 to development just because of access and because of the lcra waterline which would connect across this road I can't say that the vote would succeed but I dare say it would be very close if we voted whether or not, if the panel was reconvened and we ed --shoted whether or not there was a short-term road because of the impact it would have on highway 71. But that aside, nobody seals to be doing the math on these projects. I mean, aid like to --i'd like to see the making done. We have the rgk ranch, it's talking about 1479 rooftops. I'm told the county use az multiply--uses a multiplier of 7 for the number of trips. If that is the case, that's 10,000 trips a day. Half that is still 5,000 trips a day. Sweetwater with those multiples is 11,000, almost 12,000 per day. West cyprus hills, I don't have the build outnumbers. These are projects, if you just take the projects that are already approved, they are going to put rooftops out there. You are looking at awesome numbers. We have issues here we have short-term fixes and long-term fixes. And the short-term fixes, I applaud you, judge Biscoe and the other of you working with tex dot to deal with some of the limited improvements and changes that can be made to help reduce the danger on this curvy, steep, windy highway. The long-term fixes are going to have to carry a lot more volume of traffic. The short-term fixes are not going to address that. The most recent accident, you know, this is, the county currently requires these subdivisions to make limited road improvements. Their required to do turn lanes, center turn lanes, and making improvements that were just talked about rgk ranch. I'm here to tell you, those don't solve the danger of the travel on highway 71. Mfact--in fact, the two most recent accidents on highway 71 occurred, three death in one and life threatenening injuries in the others, there may have been subsequent deaths, I don't know, but those two accidents in the last six weeks occurred on the stretch of road where the centers turn lane has been improved, has been built for the entrance to sweetwater. The most significant thing out of those two accidents that I would just like to point out, is that the second one was a four-car accident that happened at nonpeak traffic times. There's no reason there should and four-car accident unless there are too many cars too close together. And that speaks to the volume of traffic going down that highway. It happened on a Saturday I think around one o'clock. Lake traffic is already at the lake and they are not coming homing in later in the afternoon. That is not even the busy day of the week with all the truck traffic, construction traffic that goes up and down that highway. So there is a serious traffic proper out there--problem out there. Now, I think that it is time I'll address this in a minute the other thing about the rgk project that I would like to bring up is that it is worse case I have seen yet of the rush to grandfather. And I say that because, and I don't mean to be signaling rgk out, and I have a lot of respect, I would like to add for the family they have been wonderful civic leaders in the greater Austin area and I only hope they are not tote all inform by their counsel and consultant as to the impact the this project will have. But the problem with grandfathering is that the original intent of the law was to protect developers who were midstream and had launched into their projects with finances committed, to protect changes in the law that would negatively impact their project and the financial commitment that they had already made. That law has been stretched and stretched and stretched in its interpretation to the point where I was out in burnett county last week and heard that attorneys are talking to ranches, trying to get them to submit preliminary plans to protect themselves from future regulations. It's bell well rumored on this rgk ranch project that the family doesn't intend to gop right away. They just want to quote protect their interests for future generations in the event they wrant to sell or develop this. To me, that is a blatant contradict shun to the the intent of the law. And we can't just keep improving subdivisions baw it's precedent to do so and continue to put irresponsibly more and more vehicles on the road until there is a plan to deal with the health, safety and we will being issues of your constituents and these constituents it's not just your problem. I have work the legislature the last three sessions and I'm told by the oh poniants, what we don't have is cotland use or developer impact fees. Many states charge developer impact fees which would help fund the improvements on these roads. It seems like push is coming to shove with safety. The rumbling is not just the thunder in the last few weeks. They are the citizens. Not just in precinct three, people in west lake , the people in counties further out that it services the rumblings are there and we immediate to look at how to change the process of what we are doing so we have a cord freighted effort and address the most pressing efforts like the health and safety of people traveling on highway 71. What I'm saying, I'm saying the legislature, I have heard oh oh poniants, say the county doesn't use the tools they have. I am am not expert but I know there are several tools that I think could be look at further. If s b 73 provided the county with the authority under health, safety and welfare of the constituents to put the interim water quality in place, then perhaps 873 under the same clause provides the the county to put some improvement on this subdivision until the only mainly high that services this area is developed. I challenge the interpretation of the grandfathering clause under the same issue. We cannot continue to grandfather these subdivisions who are only doing it to get around future regulations. Frankly, we have government designed to make laws and regulations for the best interest of the public at large. My own personal opinion is that the way this grandfathering law is being interpreted, that it is not being dealt with from a standpoint of the general public at large. Regulations are coming, I hope. Legislature hasn't seen if fit to give county land use authority. But if there is authority out there, we need to look for it. And the regulations are designed to benefit the greater public. People who are not already launched in subdivisions should not be allowed to grandfather when knowingly are going to be circumventing regulations in the best interests of the public. I think the grandfathering interpretation needs to be challenged. And let's talk about the three ways that laws are made we have legislative law, we have precedent, common law,en we have judicial law. Okay. Our precedent is driving us forward right now in a way like a high-speed train. It's not helping us. The legislature is not helping us. Okay, so maybe it's time for the judicial side to kick in. I quite frankly, if you, someone needs to make the first move forward in changing the direction this stuff is going. And if you as our leadership in Travis County can make some decisions that push the legal interpretations of the laws that make sense, and if as all the developers do, threaten lawsuits, if you don't do it as usual, if that happens, I tell you , I would rather have taxpayer money support lawsuits that will help clarify and make the law and interpretation in the best interest of the public than have more money going for increase autoor and health insurance because of the dangers that exist on the highways that we driver it's that simple. So don't be intimidated by lawsuits. Do something. They are a way to make the law. That is what it comes down to. I really think this subdivision should not be approved on grounds of health, safety and well being of your constituents. I think subsequent subdivisions should be looked at in the same way until we address a serious, serious critical issue in the traffic problem.
>> (applause)
>> I'd like to add one other thing. This is not related, except that we elect our elected officials to represent us as your constituents. We don't get paid to come down here. We have had so many issues in western Travis County, I cannot tell you the number of e-mails I just had. And people don't even know me that much I don't have a name in the public like some of the other do. But people have found out that I am unhappy about this and that I'm pushing for this. But most of the people, most of your constituents work. They can't put off, they can't come down today and then come again for two weeks, in two weeks to make another showing. So what happens, and it even looks like strategy to me, it keeps getting put off by the proposers, keeps gettinging put off and put off to the point where no opposition shows up. I feel like you as our elected officials should represent our interests, not just meet create when those who aren't paid and those who are paid to be here. We send our letters, we send our faxes and our e-mails. And I'm not negatively pointing finger because a lot of you are really very responsive and I appreciate that. But I just challenge you to understand why it is so hard for us in western Travis County in precinct three to keep showing up for the issues because they keep getting approved and people say what's the use in coming down, they are just going to approve it anyway we are at a critical strange here. I hope will you take some leadership and make some decisions starting with this project that will protect the health and safety and well being of your constituents.
>> thank you. You know, we have similar concerns in eastern Travis County also on certain deals that come up. And I understand exactly where you are coming from. It's very important for me to protect the health and public safety and things of that nature. And I did not support the sweetwater.
>> thank you.
>> I want you to know that. Very important. There's something coming up later discussing the safety and well being of the resident on today's agenda in eastern Travis County. I hear what you are saying. Thank you very much.
>> thank you. Anybody else? Please come forward. We have two more chairs. If you would like to give testimony during this discussion, it's important to come forward. Yes, sir. Your name.
>> your honor, my name is jesus, I live on barb wire road that feeds into 71. It happens to be the only road, access road, that does not have a deceleration lane in that particular neighborhood. Ro drive and several others have adequate deceleration lanes so that traffic that intends to turn on to barb wire road has an opportunity to slow down and get out of the way of the traffic behind it. That traffic behind it has recently been routed from a two-lane to a one-lane path just exactly in the area where people have to slow down to zero practically to make the turn into barb wire road. Now, with the good offices of mr. Dougherty, we met with the tex dot people to at least allow a wider turn into barb wire road so that the school buses that turn into it do not block the entire lane of the traffic behind them. That project was completed after three months. It is a minor, a very minor improvement and by no means a deceleration lane. But I'm asking you to travel that part of 71 and ask yours, is this really safe. This is one of the most unsafe areas there. We have had two fatalities, and we hear the ambulances practically every week I don't know how many accidents happen there in that area. By the way, a few hundred feet, no,rb not even a hundred feet from there, I believe. Yeah, a couple hundred feet, is reimers road entrance. If you, if we are saying we are having problems there now with barb wire road entrance, that is, that problem is amplified multifold when and if that reimers road access is also provided. What we need is a plan and a reasonable schedule to improve 71. And text -- tex dot appears to be reluctant to deal with that particular area in that particular part of the county. I had the impression meeting with the tex dot people that was way down on their priority list, and I really recented that resented that. I believe this is a priority. Rardis will--regardless what is going on, the traffic is increasing exponential. We have no recourse in that area for the continued increase of accidents, fatalities, and hazardous situations I'm concerned about the school buses particular because there are a lot of them . We are waiting for an accident to happen here. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is laura brody. I'd like to thank you for allowing us to speak again. I've been here several times with the sweetwater issue and am still working on that with Commissioner dougherty and some others. I have a lot of concerns about rgk and also concerns about how it all came to be grandfathers or asked to be grandfathered through the southwest dialogue. I was part of that group there was a lot of concern about reimers peacock and some of the individuals in the group, one of them here today, mr. Climben who rents the family, seemed to use the information that we were discussing in the dialogue inappropriately, in my opinion, to further their business concerns. I just, it's not illegal, but I think it's unethical and highly inprep to have--inappropriate to have brought that plat out at the last minute, the day before the interim rules come, here comes another 1500 home plant. Robert claimen het us know I'm going to start working for the family so I thought I would tell you that, after he has already worked a deal and rick wheeler was part of the group and he was the engineer that came up with the original plan now it is a different plan. Mr. Howel is the one working on it. I think they are different and they need to be considered looking at the grandfathering I have neighbors and frence who can't be here. I have mall kids they have then and responsibilities and taxpayers and I am down here again to ask you, the traffic issue, that is a no-brainer. That is a huge problem I hope you will address with tex dot. The grand fa sherg issue is something that needs to be looked at. It's not going to be fixed unless it gets confronted with this issue. I thank you for your time and cerb I know you have many issues, and you are saying, Commissioner Davis, on all sides of city. This grandfathering and development issue needs to be looked at this time around not let another large neighborhood go in without all the ducks being in a row. And they are not.
>> thank you.
>> I got tired and took a sabbatical. But I'm very interested in this project. I am really tired of seeing deaths on highway 71, starting with my best friend who died a couple years ago at our intersection. I questions, why are we funding roads that very been rejected by the voters in bond issues. And why are we making a gift of roads to developers. Why is it not their responsibility to protect the safety of the people in their subdivision and the people who are impacted by their building? Also, this reimers road is going to cross five streams, two major and three minor. What does the impact of that? I'm from the creek association. I'm sure you probably recognize me from that. You know, we have a lot of water right now. The water needs to be protected. Remember that we have droughts. This particular occasion is maybe temporary, maybe is the way things are going to be from now on. But nontheless, the quality of the environment and the quality of the safety, the general well being of the citizens needs to be protected. I don't want my money going to pay for things I voted down. I want it to improve things, you know. So I'm hoping that you will be considering these things. And I'd like to firmly applaud and second the things that my other neighbors have presented here. Thank you for hearing us.
>> thank you.
>> thank you so much for coming.
>> anybody else?
>> I need to leave for an appointment at twelve. I will watch the tape later to make sure that I get everybody's comments. I'm really interested and look forward to the e-mail regarding the conversation with tex dot because we do need to have as much information available to us as possible. Thank you.
>> my name is cecil perkins. I live at 15728 hamilton pool road my mother was born in a log cabin 100 yards from where I live now. Her maiden name was hecing ton. Steve was a tax collector for 40 years am I'm probably one of the oldest residents now up there on hamp ton pool road we held on to that land with blood, sweat and tears for years. And when I say blood sweat and tears, I'll tell that you I have a brother older than I am, when he was 26 months old, a mule kick hip in the face and crushed his skull. His brains were sticking out and they grabbed him and they ran over to hamilton pool road to try to get someone to too him to town. There was no vehicle on the place. In those days we would set on the road and maybe see would or three people come down that road all day long. But there was a car coming down there, and they waved him down and it happened that there was a registered nurse in the car. And she had been up to mr. Reimers house and she stopped and she saved this boy's life. Too little traffic on hamilton pool road 40 years later this same boy had a son that's at Lake Travis high school killed 300 yards from where the nurse had picked him up. Too much traffic on hamilton pool road. I wonder if all these people speaking to you this morning understand that the traffic that comes from wimberly and henly and across that way comes down hamilton pool road there is an apex there, a triangle. Reimers road I walked when I was a kid five or six years old they promised us a road across there 70 years ago. And it's never been done. And now 70 years later, we got the traffic still coming down there and we're looking for a way to divert some of it off. I'm not here to talk about subdivisions, although I want you to know that I strongly believe in property rights. We held on to that land forever and ever and my mother lost 90 acres of that land at $10 an acre that she borrowed on it, land that now is worth four million because she couldn't pay the taxes and anything to support it and you couldn't make a living on it no way you fixed it now then I believe in property rights. Have you a right to sell your property--you have a right to sell your property and do with it as you want to as long as it doesn't impact or hurt the people around it. I understand what they are talking about this traffic on 71. I live right there close enough to hear the sirens every day. But I can tell you, if you go check, you will find there are more sirens going down hamilton pool road than it do 71. We have as many people killed on there as that and I feel extremely sorry forefor those I met with Commissioner dougherty about a week ago and talked about a light at southwest parkway and 71. My god, that's been finished for I don't I know how long. You know what they tell me, probably not going to get a light there for another five years. So the chances of this man getting one at barb wire road or at reimers road, I don't know how they are going to get a light there because they said there's no money. Said they didn't fund any money for it so if they are not going to put one at southwest parkway and 71 down there where daily they have wrecks, I don't know how you are going to get one up there. I'm not trying to speak and say approve ap these subdivisions and put more traffic on et road but I'm saying that barb wireroad should come through there and be billed and some of the traffic diverted off hamilton road that is what I want to say. Thank you for listening.
>> my name is susie fowler and I live on highway 71 in spicewood I've been here with the guardians of the creek, west cyprus hills, sweetwater and now this issue I am primarily speaking to the traffic safety problem although I would like to say that I am a self-employed person and that is why I can come down to these meetings. I have many many many friends who live in our area who can never come because they can't take six hours out of their day for a possibility to speak for three or four minutes. I have 30 acres and I could develop my land if I want to. I don't choose to. I like to keep it as part of the hill country. But I will say that I live my life around the tralvesafety issues. I have rund fund racers for the groups out there to address our safety issues and I do them on Sunday from three to five because I feel it is the only time that it's safe in my neighborhood to pull in or out of highway 71. I would never never do an evening event because I don't think it's safe. When people visit me I tell them to please watch their rearview mirror more than anything else because I have had several friends who have nearly died by being hit there the back you cannot tell when people are stopped on highway 71. If you can have the blinker on and people will run over you. A year ago in October, we run a group, an arts festival in spicewood called the roundup and the next morning we were out taking our signs down, so we weren't in violation of tex dot rules because we had signs and banners on the highway. At about nine o'clock on a Monday morning, not traffic time where we are, there was a huge double trailer graphel trucks that narrowly mised a board member while the other sticks of us were standing on the highway. The only way that he didn't die is that we were all screaming at him to pull ahead. And he was missed by less than two inches from a double gravel truck which would have killed him in front of his wife and five of his very best friends all I can say is, I've lived in Travis County since 1971. I've lived in Lakeway since 81 and in spicewood since '95 and I pray that you do something before I hear any more people die that I know. Thank you very much.
>> thank you. Last opportunity. Two more chairs. Pause for tape change
>> thank you.Judge Biscoe, commission, I'm bill bond with cypress springs alliance we're particularly concerned about this development as we were with sweetwater because of the sensitivity of bee creek to solution, erosion, and basically destruction from the sort of high density subdivisions, sweetwater and now rgk. This is a very small watershed. It's largely undeveloped at this point. The creek is extreme high quality water with very diverse biology. There's a neighborhood swimming hole shortly before it gets into lake trav ix. Certainly with this scale of develop the, that scale of creek will be largely ruined we saw what happened with lake creek because of the steepness of the terrain out there, it's basically unvoidable when you combine that with the kind of heavy down pours that we get in this part of the world. The only kind of development that is appropriate on the sort of terrain that we see on this rgk rank is very low density, essentially rural subdivisions from a water quality perspective you have heard plenty about why that is also appropriate for the traffic safety reasons.
>> > what would be the relation that you are suggesting when you say low density? >> > I think it would be on the scale of, you know, one house per ten acres . That would require more details analysis of just looking exactly at where the developable areas are . This plan looks like relatively low density, one house per acre. But if you look at the plat layout the lots are very small crammed on a few areas where it's potentially buildable if you bull doze an enormous amount. To get that kind of density you have to build structures that will move the creek downstream. I want make two points quickly and one observation about the growth dialogue. First, have you two strong legal reasons to deny this preliminary plan. First are the variances. For block length. This isn't just a minor variance either. And I would ask you to bring the maps forward for the next meeting there is a map in the file, a large map that has shaded all of the blocks that are asking for variances. And it's almost the entire road network. That's a bit of a exaggeration but not much. That vary ians is allowing them --variance is allowing them the pack in a huge amount of development that otherwise would not be feasible. With the additional development, the additional literally thousands of car trips per day onto 71 that go with the additional hundreds of houses that would not be feasible without that variance. So you have every legal right to deny that variance based on the discretion that the law gives you. Secondly, with the change in this development plan, you can very clearly make a finding that it's not the same project that was filed in March, of 2005, the additional 263 acres, some change in the layouts of the lots, and some lack of specificity and some changes also in the commercial portion of the development that's not well defined. So to the extent you're going to try to negotiate some compromise, you should understand that you have enormous amounts of leverage that that process. On the growth dialogue, I didn't participate directly but my an understanding was that reimers peacock was going to be studied further before it was understood what it would be or if it would be. But to the extent that it was going to be a road, it was going to be a hill country road and as mr. Geiselman pointed out, with buffer zones around the roadway the phasing agreement in front of you and the maps I have seen provide no such buffer. It's only calling for them to dedicate 80 feet of right-of-way where they have land on both sides or 40 feet where they have land on one side. That is just enough to build a road. That is not providing the kind of scenic buffer zones along the way seems to me this is the time to say, where is our buffer zones. Slorks the part of reimers peacock that actually abutts this plat, you have lots packed in right up to the very edge. So there's no buffer there either. Both the part of the road that would be outside this preliminary plan as well as the part that abuts right on the edge of it, we're not seeing any buffer zones. So I hope you will look at that. I will leave my other comments to further written comments. >> > thank you. Anybody else? We appreciate you coming down.
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 25, 2007, 18:30 AM