Travis County Commissioners Court
October 30, 2007
Item 21
>> number 21 is to consider and take take appropriate action on a restrictive covenant for maintenance of the proposed floodplain modifications for the proposed interport development and state highway 130. Stoi.
>> basically this has to do with a preliminary plat which the court approved early in 2001. A part of the preliminary plat was to do some floodplain modifications. The area the interport proper, which is the preliminary plat, has been fully annexed into the city of Austin. Since then sh 130 has started coming through and these floodplain modifications are fairly major. Because of the off site improvements that interport is going to have to do for the floodplain modification and for sh 130, we need a floodplain maintenance agreement because when we do the letter of map provision stage with phenyl ma to change the maps to reflect the as built conditions they will require that the county ensure maintenance on its part of the process. That what it's about. Staff is recommending approval of this.
>> so on -- do we do this?
>> interport maintains the area. This is just an agreement that ensures that they will. Basically what you're trying to do is make sure that they mow the area so that the channel retains the capability to move the storm water when have you a flood. If you get trees growing up or tall grasses, it actually lessens the capacity of the channel. What this agreement will do is say you need to mow it twice a year to this level and keep the capability of the channel to flowing. This is a fairly significant change in the channel of onion creek over there in del valle.
>> one that we think that fema will be glad to see and require later on if it's not there is what I'm here.
>> yes.
>> no fiscal impact on us? We're just entering into the agreement.
>> right.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> I will second it with this statement. This is a fill that we think that fema will require anyway?
>> on modifications it's as built and have you to threalz the modifications are already built on the north side of 71. This is southside which are part of the improvements that are on the northside. If they're built they will require maintenance. And fema is going to look to us to ensure that the maintenance is done. That's what the maintenance agreement is basically look to go do is to ensure that the developer maintains it and not the county.
>> and it's not the county that was asking that this fill occur. The fill is occurring in order to reclaim property that would otherwise be floodplain so that it can be dwond.
>> that is correct. In addition, it is facilitating the development of 130.
>> so it's of benefit to -- strictly speaking as far as entities go, it's a benefit to txdot and to the developer who is doing this project.
>> more correctly, the developer preceding 130. It's to the benefit of the developer and as it turned out, when state highway 130 came along, they had a different alternative, but because the developer already had this preexisting condition, they decided to go with that instead. But that's how it brings lsi into the deal.
>> so rather than go with the initial plan of txdot, it would not have been as attractive to them.
>> it would have taken up a good piece of the interport development. They would have paid a premium to acquire it for the graij easement.
>> so it's mutually beneficial.
>> and both of the alternatives would require maintenance agreements.
>> and the effects it will have on southeast metro park in regards to the erosion issues? Can we really know how it will effect it?
>> as best as we can know scientifically, there are specific measures in the agreement designed to keep the erose sieve velocities of the waters the same as they are today.
>> so it's a do no harm?
>> yes.
>> it's so a separate issue. At some point we will have to deal with the erosion issues, but that's a separate issue. The city and the county will have to lock arms and face the erosion issues there.
>> yes. We don't vt authority under our permitting clauses, which is what this maintenance contract is to require lsi or interport to fix our erosion problems.
>> just to not do it any harm.
>> not.
>> not to exacerbate it. Okay.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, October 31, 2007, 18:30 AM