Travis County Commissioners Court
November 18, 2008
Item 25
Item no. 25, a, request to authorize the filing of instruments to reject the dedication and quitclaim deed two portions of right of way, one being a portion of unnamed right of way with the other being a portion of dorado pass, both being within the resubdivision of tracts 5, 6, 8 and 9 of lakehurst subdivision; and and 25 b. Vacate two twenty-foot unspecified easements, both being within the resubdivision of tracts 5, 6, 8 and 9 lakehurst subdivision. We had this matter on the court's agenda previously. Can you just give us a one or two minute overview to remind us of what we did then.
>> sure. Sure. Anna bolin, Travis County t.n.r. As you said, this request to vacate these two portions of right-of-way and these two unnamed or unspecified easements has been heard at Commissioners court on March 25th, 2008. And there was some discussion from neighbors that came to that public hearing and there's been a lot of concern about -- about how this vacation item ties into a street and drainage plan that the applicant is working on. Neighbors are tying these two things together because -- because, you know, this vacation, the vacations would need to happen prior to the -- to the plans getting approved in the future. But what's at court is strictly the vacations, we're not approving any street and drainage plans at this point. There has been -- there has been a -- there was a meeting on September 4th, between neighborhoods and the -- and the engineer for the project and the facilitator for the developer. And several issues were raised during the -- during those meetings which we pretty much heard before. The main thing, the main concern raised was wanting to have two points of drainage discharge from the subdivision as opposed to one. And the drainage discharge, all of these points that are raised are more in tune with the -- with the site plan for the streets and drainage, not for the vacation. But anyways, there was discussion about, you know, wanting the two points of discharge and the applicants, you know, talked to lcra and it's my understanding that lcra is not supportive of the two points of discharge. So --
>> do we know why?
>> because of the water -- they believe that their water quality would be enhanced better by having just the one point of discharge.
>> okay.
>> that's pretty much where we are today.
>> the issue before the court really is whether or not to grant the request to vacate?
>> yes, sir.
>> but residents have raised concerns about the impact of this project.
>> I would characterize it as residents are concerned that by granting this it's one step -- it's one of the elements that are needed before -- before we could have approved the street and drainage construction plans in the future.
>> okay. So -- so typically what we -- would we address the concerns regarding the development when the preliminary plan comes to the court?
>> well, this -- this is an old final plat. This final plat was approved in 1941. So this is a grandfathered final plat. One of the things that is -- that is a result of the applicant getting an easement, working to get an easement from lcra is lcra was able to make it a condition of granting an easement that they do water quality on the site. Generally speaking, t.n.r., we would view that as a positive, since it's a grandfather plat it's not subject to minimum rules. So when -- keep in mind this is speaking to the street and drainage construction plans, which is not the item on today. But we do view that as a positive that because of the lcra easement, there will be the opportunity to get some water quality along with this -- with this subdivision.
>> okay. There are residents here to oppose this request? Why don't you come forward and -- and give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments. Is there a recommendation from county staff?
>> staff recommends the vacation because it meets our standards.
>> okay. Yes, sir?
>> good morning. My name is
>> [indiscernible] mike richards and I live in lakehurst subdivision, a resident that's down river or downhill of the
>> [indiscernible] brothers development, which is called the vistas at Lake Travis. I have worked with Gerald Daugherty and anna and other members of Travis County and the lcra and toll brothers as well for nearly two years now to try to address the issues that this development has created for our neighborhood downhill. In fact we met with Gerald yesterday to speak of this particular issue in front of the court. We were previously told that this issue would not be brought back to the court until the neighborhood's concerns were addressed. So we were somewhat blind sided that this -- we got one day's notice that this item was going to be back on the agenda. What I would like to do is ask the court today to postpone hearing this item on the agenda to allow us adequate time to prepare not what I would call opposition because our intent is not to oppose the toll brothers development. But we would like to prepare a recommendation to the court that would handle the storm water drainage and road safety issues that we're seeing out there in our neighborhood. These are very, very important issues to us. The court, as anna mentioned, heard this back in March and one of the action items was to work with the neighborhood and resolve the issues. There has been some work done. But the bottom line is those issues are -- are still unresolved. We adamantly feel that -- that these vacation items are just one small part of a much larger issue in our neighborhood. That is handling the storm water drainage off of their development and the overall safety and destruction so the roads -- to the roads that that development has caused. People have moved in full-time residents of this new development, and there is no approved drainage plan in place. To handle the storm water coming off of that development. We have worked with -- with Gerald probably for a year now. To try to address -- to both parties satisfaction the issues with storm water off of this development. And we have been making progress on that. The bottom line is that it is still unresolved and this is a very -- very important issue to the neighborhood and it's one that we feel will not be resolved in this calendar year, so we would like to get Karen huber, who will be our new representative, and that is no disrespect to Gerald, I greatly appreciate the support that he's given us. But I believe this is an issue that we would like the opportunity to work with Karen, our new representative, to come to a solution that -- that addresses both the neighborhood's needs and toll brothers needs as the developer of the property. Additionally, we have the holidays approaching so realistically we have a couple of weeks worth of real time to work on a recommendation for the court. We would ask that -- that this hearing be postponed until the first part of January to allow us time to consult with an independent engineer and come up with an unbiased recommendation on how to handle the storm water that comes off of that development.
>> if we do not deal with the -- with the street and drainage issues today, when does the county have an opportunity to -- to address those issues?
>> judge, I would say that what we're dealing with today is the vacation of two pieces of right-of-way and two pieces of unnamed or undefined easements. And my view, the way that I think t.n.r. Has traditionally viewed these types of things, a lot of what we're hearing from the neighborhood are things that we're looking at in the street and drainage plans. And that's not the item on the agenda today.
>> when would we be able to --
>> I'm sorry. Same question.
>> Commissioner eckhardt and I would like to know when we would be able to address those issues?
>> well, we have seen some proposals from the applicant, we have been part of a lot of the discussions between the neighborhood and the developer. I don't have a final set of plans yet. I believe lcra and Lakeway are also going to have to give approval on that. So -- so I'm -- to answer your question, we will have to have a -- a set of plans turned back into us and at that point, you know, we can discuss it with the neighbors again.
>> mr. Richter, why is it that you and your engineer will not be able to look at the plans -- I assume when we get the plans they're a matter of public record, right.
>> yes, sir.
>> we can make the plans available, have your engineer look at them. Whatever input that you want to provide to court provide it. How does that sound?
>> that sounds great. I guess the main point that I would like to make is to keep giving approval so one more piece of the puzzle for them to continue development doesn't make sense to us. We don't have an overall plan to address the issues. So why do we continue to keep approving pieces to let them continue to build homes when we don't have a plan. We want to have a plan, we want to work together. We're not opposing them. We want to work together to develop an overall plan and not just continue to approve pieces of a plan and not have the big picture established.
>> we did in March what we typically do. If the -- if the -- when the sides are before us, if we are left with the impression take they really have not sat down and tried to work through points of disagreement, we urge them to do so. But there is no way for us to guarantee that an acceptable compromise will be reached. See what I'm saying? So what we like is discussions outside of this courtroom. In this case it's been several months, eight or nine. So I don't know that we thought you all would work out all of the issues, but we thought you should have an opportunity to do so. If you are looking at a request to vacate and Travis County policies have been complied with, I'm left with the impression that we have a duty and responsibility to do that. To grant it. But -- but if there are street and drainage issues before we give final approval, we would see the plan, have an opportunity to ask questions, have county engineers take a look at that and it seems to me that if you have engineers that you would like to look at it for -- for the residents, then when you look at that specific plan is when you can provide meaningful input to us.
>> right. I would say that -- that from the point of our last meeting, I think in March is what you said, six months has probably gone by with no contact or activity from their side. And just recently in the last few months, we have had some constructive discussion and proposals going back and forth, but I don't want the court to have the impression that we are holding this up for months on end because that's absolutely not the case. We would love nothing more than to get this resolved. We've -- we have lived in this neighborhood before toll brothers came and we're going to live there after they leave. We're going to be living with the consequences if this isn't dealt with properly. That's why we're so concerned to get a plan to address these issues not just approve another piece to have them build some more homes.
>> mike, are you the only one here today from the neighborhood?
>> I'm here.
>> and mike, do you feel like that you speak for the neighborhood?
>> I do. I have been acting somewhat as the spokesperson for our neighborhood. We have been holding meetings. I have been sending out e-mails to try to keep our folks inform. Again, we would like nothing more than to work together to get this resolved. But the first six months we've had really no contact from their side.
>> well, let me say -- and I may not -- I may not challenge that. I mean I won't challenge that because you're -- you are the only one that really knows that. But it is my opinion that people have worked pretty hard to make something work here. Where we are is what they have done is not acceptable to you. That's where we have gotten. The last couple of weeks, you and I both know, mike, it's really broken down in the last couple of weeks when mike and I spoke and understandably, mike and the neighbors really have felt like, you know, we're just not getting to where we feel like that this thing needs to be taken. And that's -- that's understandable. I mean you have two different places. You have a very expensive process on one hand, which may not make any difference, I mean, shouldn't make any difference to the neighborhood. I mean because it's like let's do the right thing. That being said, toll brothers knew that getting to the table and with my insistence to trying to get the neighbors to a point where you all can live with what is going to be done. The thing that's added pressure to this thing is the involvement from lcra, lcra's insistence that they don't agree with -- with the -- with the two points versus the one point, effectively they have to sign-off on this drainage issue. I think that we could move forward. I mean, a lot easier to where you all might get the resolution that you all would like if we thought that lcra was still open for that. It doesn't sound like to me that I would like is the case. I do think that you need to have the -- the opportunity to -- put your best foot forward. If you can't do that, will -- can you do this. The frustration here, though, mike, I mean you know it as well as the toll brothers. There's been a lot of work put into this deal. It's not like people don't want to get to the table. It's my understanding that toll brothers has spent considerable dollars on trying to get, trying to look at some of the things that you all want. At the end of the day, I don't know whether that -- whether that's going to get resolution or not. I do think that it is a legitimate question. We have dealt with this question, judge, in -- we haven't dealt with this question, judge, in the six years that I have been here. As the county, why do we allow certain things to get done, knowing that that's moving towards something happening where -- where at the end of the day it's really going to be upsetting to people versus from the get-go trying to find a position to where -- where you can get something resolved. Truth of the matter is, is that from what I understand, anna jump in here, toll brothers could move forward on this project if they elected to move forward on the project without -- I mean, coming to us and asking for basically anything. Could they not?
>> what I would say is the reason why we have permitted the houses to be built was because they were on legally recorded lots. One of the challenges was -- we have with grandfathered plats is just that. It's -- we've been given the opinion that -- that if it's a legal lot, we permitted it. Now, in this case, I mean, well, we always had the challenge of well, what to do with the infrastructure that wasn't built. And in this case toll brothers is looking to -- to, you know, vacate some of the pieces that they don't think that they are going to need and work on street and drainage plans. We don't have the street and drainage plans finalized yet. But -- but before they can build those they are going to have to be finalized. So with -- since -- with grandfathered plats we have, you know, the situation come up.
>> even though it seems counter intuitive, to -- to allow these things to happen, only to find out maybe at the end that this is for the going to meet qualifications at the end of the -- at the end of it, it is sort of the saving grace that you get through. I mean, you know, if an applicant, you know, wants to risk doing these things and spending money and getting to a certain spot, only to find out whatever it comes time -- whenever it comes time to do drainage and streets and all of that, guess what, that's not going to work? Somebody has -- is, you know -- has, you know, rolled the dice, so to speak, with the anticipation of being able to get something done so I mean maybe that's the justification by what happens in this thing that somebody can spend a whole lot of time, effort and money and guess what? That doesn't apply. I mean,, you know, without question mike, I mean,, you know, I think that you all still have the strength of -- at the end of the day, this drainage plan is going to have to get worked on. Going to have to pass muster with us. And I would think that -- that ultimately it's going have some say-so, y'all's say-so in it as well. The real -- the real question and this is what makes this difficult with -- with what you're asking. I'm not saying what you're asking is not reasonable. But given the fact that we have gone six months, we have actually gotten to a spot now where kent -- I mean there's an impasse. You are not happy, they're not willing to do, you know, what y'all want done. And yet they feel like that they are within the legal realms of asking, which is the reason this thing got put on here, as you and I spoke yesterday, I found out as soon as you all did that this thing was going to move forward, although you and I did think it was going to move forward starting from two weeks ago. Whenever we spoke about you know what we don't have any choice, the neighbors need to move forward with being as aggressive as we can towards the Commissioners court. We need to get before you. And that was sort of the intent.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] going to.
>> ... It's a deal that ought to take care of the drainage.
>> just two further points. One, you know, we believe that if this were to be approved, this vacating these various easements that essentially is a green light for the bulldozers and the excavators to show up tomorrow morning and start pushing more dirt that drains into the lake. Secondly, we're asking for an opportunity, we've waited on toll brothers for nearly two years on that. We're asking for an opportunity to delay it just a matter of weeks to allow us the chance to work with our new representative and our engineer to come to the court and say, okay, here's what's an independent engineer has said would work reasonably to control this situation and let you hear that. We didn't create the storm water drainage. We've lived there before it was created, we're going to live there after. All we're asking for is the opportunity, more than one day's notice to say here is the plan, here's what we think would work, could the court support us on this or not.
>> so who has the final say so on two points of discharge or one?
>> lcra because it's water quality related, lcra approval. City of Lakeway, if this is in their e.t.j. They are going to need to give their blessing as well. But the two points of discharge at the end of the day, I believe that's lcra's approval.
>> so is that the primary outstanding issue or --
>> the lcra has not approved any drainage plan whether it be one point or two points for toll brothers. There is no drainage plan approved by the county or lcra.
>> not a plan but they have said one point of discharge not two?
>> that's my understanding is lcra is saying when the drainage plans are submitted, there needs to be one point.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> what's Travis County's position?
>> we would be looking to lcra on the water quality aspect. If it were just drainage, it could probably be engineered for one or two points. But ultimately since it's water quality, we're going to need to have lcra's blessing on that.
>> yes, sir.
>> judge, Commissioners, given this discussion has gotten to the lcra, we have a letter here from the reviewer at the lcra that has five points that basically all say that what we used to call option 2, which was the second drainageway, was unacceptable to them.
>> who are you and who do you represent?
>> mr. Howell representing the toll brothers on this abandonment of right-of-way issue.
>> yes, sir.
>> two quick questions. Is there an issue -- it seems that you may have -- and I'm not sure if you did, but you seemed to imply there was a construction drainage issue. Is there a construction drainage issue?
>> yes.
>> separate from the --
>> thankfully and unthankfully we haven't had any rain of significance lately, but the last big rain event I've sent probably 20 photos to Gerald and and that others that showed all the debris gets washed on folks' front yard and driveway and front porch in one case. So yes, we feel there is issues with the current situation.
>> so do we have any records on that or enforcement track record on that as far as the construction drainage issues?
>> I believe that we did send an inspector out after we saw the pictures from mr. Richter and we appreciate those. I would say that this would be construction off of home building, which still, you know, they need to take appropriate measures to be sure that we don't have those type of incidents. As far as, you know, the statement about being afraid that bulldozers would come out tomorrow for streets and drainage, we're not going to have building prior to a permit being issued and the permit is not ready to be issued at this point.
>> so street and drainage plans would have to be committed before any building could occur.
>> before any building of occur.
>> and let me ask you regarding the infrastructure, the vacation -- the proposed vacating, is that -- does abandonment of that right-of-way go to drainage or go to the increase of lot size?
>> it's my -- keep in mind we do in the have a set of street and drainage infrastructure plans that we're ready to approve, but it's my recollection that at least part of that is probably where there will be water quality and drainage features. But I don't have a set of plans in front of me of seeing different alternatives as this has been discussed over the past few months. It's my recollection that a lot of the alternatives I've seen do have -- will have that component in this area.
>> okay.
>> it goes back to the properties. It will be dedicated to the property owners on either side of the abandoned or vacated right-of-way.
>> if the current situation is such that there are significant drainage issues and quasi flooding after heavy rains, why wouldn't it be in our interest to expedite the development, have drainage issues dealt with?
>> because we don't have a plan. It goes back to the same issue, we don't have a plan. They wanted to just approve a portion but don't have a plan.
>> but the pictures you sent weren't based on the plan, they were based on present conditions.
>> yes.
>> what I guess I'm saying, typically when we have a request to vacate, our first question is does the county have a use for the easements. And if not, do the utility companies. And I guess anybody else with an interest, we check with them. If all the answers come back no, maybe our outlook is just a lot more positive. But when we think of drainage and flood control, et cetera, we expect there to be a plan certified by engineers that we get our engineers to look at too, I think, and what we're offering is in this case if you have an engineer, I don't know why we can't expedite delivery of these plans to you and the neighborhood association or the neighbors, let you all take a look at it with your engineer and whatever input you can provide, let you provide it. Which is something we normally don't do because it's normally not requested. But I certainly have no problem with it.
>> when we get a -- when we get the set of plans in, we have no problem letting anyone look at them that wants to. All they have to do is make a request.
>> mr. Howell, does the vacation of the easement increase the flexibility for the developer in regard to drainage?
>> it allows them to put some of the drainageway in the abandoned right-of-way. This is an illustration, the dark area is the toll brothers project. The colored bars are basically the easements that will be vacated, and in this case a dedicated right-of-way from that 1941 flat. As you can see, that will all go to those lot owners on either side, but it does allow them to direct the drainage
>> [inaudible].
>> as you know, the lcra typically requires the water quality elements to be built in the beginning so that during construction at that point it will catch some of that runoff.
>> is this in service of that or not?
>> is this what?
>> in service of that or not?
>> the drainage that we're talking about, the drainage improvements that mike would like to delay, obviously, you know, would be to satisfy the lcra's storm water requirements. Those plans will be turned in in about three weeks. So, you know, everybody will have a chance to look at them, see what they look like. The lcra won't issue the final easement until they've approved the plans.
>> how much clearing has already been done, if any?
>> none for the drainage improvements.
>> but there has been for the houses?
>> absolutely. The whole parcel has basically been cleared.
>> that's part of the -- sara, that's part of the real issue with the neighbors. I mean, you go out there and houses are being built, I mean it looks like everything is getting done. I mean and that's, you know, to the average everyday set of eyes, I mean that does present an issue for people that live out there saying well, why is this happening and we don't have the ability to really get our arms around this thing, and then, of course, when you have a little bit of a rain and like the pictures mike showed, I mean those are the things that make it -- or get obviously justifiably so the neighbors, you know, bothered by, well, why are you -- I mean you are effectively letting this thing go on. We do get caught in this. I mean we've gotten caught in this a number of times that I can recall. And, you know, one, we've got a real big case going on with the grandfathered issue to where it is something that we've got to be, you know, pretty vigilant over, I mean making sure that we have every opportunity in the world to take care of issues before they become real, you know, problem matters.
>> well, if we were to get a large rain event, would we have a discharge? Because of the current state of the
>> [inaudible]?
>> uh-huh.
>> probably.
>> we have -- we have seen that occur before and we are currently in a lawsuit over that in a separate circumstance. It is concerning.
>> we're not at all trying to delay the storm water drainage plan. That's what we're trying to get a plan. What we're trying to delay is the green light to just go ahead and start building more homes because now we've cleared more area where they can put more septic fields. I don't want to delay the drainage at all. I wish the drainage was done before they started building.
>> I share your concern. I share your concern on a very deep level regarding the drainage and the water quality and the impact on water quality due to the development. Although I still don't see how this item, the vacating of these particular easements, will change the status quo to such an extent that it puts you in a -- a -- a less advantageous position than you are in now. I think that in terms of just the vacation of easement, at worst it increases their flexibility for a drainage plan that you might not like. But that drainage plan still has to come before us for substantive review. Am I correct about that?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> and has to come before Lakeway and the lcra.
>> yes. Absolutely. If I might just add, grandfathered plats are a challenge. One of the things that, like I said before, one of the things that I find advantageous with the lcra easement situation is now we are in a situation where we can get water quality applied to this project. Otherwise we probably would not have been able to do that.
>> and it would be the highland lakes requirement of lcra, which are slightly better than ours, correct?
>> it would be the highland lakes ordinance, yes, ma'am.
>> legal question for the future, whether the Commissioners court has the authority to put a time limit on grandfathering. For the future. Because -- so this has been -- this goes back to what date?
>> the plat was approved in 1941.
>> there is grandfathering and there is grandfathering.
>> [laughter]
>> this might be great grandfathering.
>> and in regard to a grandfathered plat, some lot has to be built for it to continue in effect, doesn't it?
>> it's a fairly complicated area of law.
>> but I do think we ought to take a look at it and we've not looked at it in years, years, I take it. Okay. Well --
>> judge, I guess what I would ask of anna is by taking this action, is this first things first?
>> it's a step -- mr. Richter is absolutely right, it's something they would need if -- depending on what's in the engineering plans that they are going to do, it's something that would need to be done, you know, now or then. It does give the -- I would say it gives the applicant some certainty that, yes, this is land that we could use and incorporate into the drainage plans. However, I would say this item is not approving street and drainage construction plans.
>> but it's a action that's first and then will come these other things.
>> it's something probably necessary to approve this request to give them more flexibility to design their street and drainage plans. If it wasn't approved today, it would need to be approved before we approve the construction plans.
>> whether we do it now or later, it's still an action that has to come first.
>> yes.
>> or it could happen simultaneous. I mean, if you just waited and said let's get the construction, all of those plans and say okay, then you bring -- put on the agenda, okay, here's all of the stuff we want to do. We want to revisit this. Right on the heels of that 27 is this and 28 is that.
>> construction plans are typically not approved by Commissioners court.
>> okay.
>> unless the Commissioners court wants that. Seems to me this time we need to especially make sure the neighbors have a chance to look at that.
>> absolutely.
>> but have you to have the plans before you do the infrastructure development.
>> that's correct.
>> because we would expect the development to be consistent with the approved plans.
>> absolutely. What's been built have been homes on grandfathered lots. The infrastructure cannot be built until after we issue a permit and we will not issue a permit until after plans are submitted and we've reviewed them and everyone else who needs to review them reviews them and everyone signs off on them. That has not happened.
>> seems we should give you the right to get your engineer and have him or her available and when we get the plan, we send it over to you and you take a look at it. And if you have input that you would like to provide or your engineer, then give it to us. I thought it would be two or three months you would be back to us and we would move on to the next level. We don't need these easements, they are critical to the project. The question --
>> may be critical to the project.
>> vacation of the easements critical to the process or no?
>> they are important for us to know what we're designing and where it's going to be located, et cetera. The sooner we know, the better.
>> is that particular easement relevant to both the one point drainage and the other two point drainage proposal?
>> the two point drainage proposal is a little more complex in that you are basically having to redirect some of the flow into mr. Richter's property. And so it would change some of the elements and the way the road was built and how the storm sewer discharged, et cetera, to do the -- to do the dual drainage. And frankly, we've discounted that at this point from the lcra's rejection of that as an option.
>> okay.
>> so have the residents pretty much come to agree with the one point discharge or still hoping for two point?
>> having an opportunity to look at it and review it, we're open to certainly working with the lcra. Our objective is to get the best drainage plan possible to deal with what's coming off this development. And if the best plan is a one drainage solution, that's what we're for. But common sense has told us all along that if you converge everything into one spot it's going to do more damage than if you spit it up into two. That's why we're saying we would like the opportunity to get an independent engineer that's unbiased and take a look at this and say from an engineering standpoint, here's what we feel in conjunction with the lcra is the best drainage solution. And if it is the one drainage outlet, great, as long as it's the best to protect our property and to protect the lake.
>> but hasn't lcra basically already said that, mike? See, that's the point -- we are back to a spot where lcra has fired that shot. I mean, their attitude --
>> I don't believe they have. I just talked to frank morgan and they've assured me they don't have a drainage plan they've approved.
>> if their engineer can get with lcra and work it out, we're in agreement, right. It's just that water quality is lcra's call and not ours, but I assume we could influence that if we felt strongly one way or the other, or could we?
>> the drainage portion of it possibly. The water quality portion of it, you know, I don't know that we can influence them. We certainly are listening to what they have to say and in a dialogue with them, but the water quality component of it is pretty much their domain.
>> don't undermine your clout out at lcra.
>> yes, sir.
>> I don't think anybody has to worry about -- and I agree with you, I think that the new Commissioner needs to probably weigh in on this more because you are not going to get this deal done, especially with the engineering plans and all kind of stuff. Now, I may not be, you know, as inclined to push this particular item here to January, but -- but I don't -- I mean, mike, you know, I mean I've understood all along -- and I think that both parties, toll brothers and you all the neighbors, my whole intent is get out here, get people to a spot to where they feel like that they are being listened to and that they are -- they are being dealt with. You know, it's unfortunate, maybe it's unfortunate that whether we do anything today or not, I mean the houses are being built, you know, the things that really agitates people but that quite frankly is something that they can do. Now, and I do understand that they would like some certainty, you know, with this vacation saying, okay, this allows us to say you want us to have a plan, well, our plan is best going to be served if we know that there's some of these things that we can get signed off on knowing because they are going to be using these vacations for the transference of, you know, of the water and the drainage, right? Isn't that basically what's being asked? So I don't --
>> judge, I mean you are the judge, what do you -- what are you the most comfortable with as far as --
>> [laughter] you are here in January, you are here now.
>> county policies have been complied with in terms of the vacation.
>> yes, sir.
>> what I would do is grant is vacation as requested and commit to make the plan available to mr. Richter and residents immediately after receipt from Travis County and provide input from their engineer. That's what I think we should do.
>> would it make any difference we had a week. That's why I told you I can just by asking --
>> won't make any difference --
>> what.
>> would it make a difference if we approve this until we have a plan?
>> I don't think that's going to happen, mike, but I understand what you are asking and why you are asking.
>> I think back in March we said you all work it out and if you can't, we'll make a decision. We always do. We try to avoid the tough call by asking the sides to get together. And today is just part of this project, but infrastructure development should not, cannot legally take place until we have approved the plan. And it seems to me that your meaningful input can be made in response to a specific plan that you have pretty much at the same time the county gets it.
>> there's three entities that have to approving the plains, Lakeway, lcra and Travis County.
>> are those administrative approvals or do they have to go to the city council of Lakeway and to the Commissioners court here?
>> traditionally construction plans for street and drainage infrastructure do not come to Commissioners court, traditionally. I don't know what the condition is in Lakeway.
>> my suggestion would be at this time this one would come to Commissioners court.
>> certainly.
>> we will give residents an opportunity to provide input not only to staff but also to the court before we take action on the plan.
>> okay. And what I'm saying is that we will treat this, whether we like it or not it's kind of been unique since it's on the court's agenda the first time so we may as well continue that. My motion would be approve the request to vacate these two easements, direct staff to make the plan regarding street and drainage and other infrastructure for the project available to mr. Richter and other residents immediately after receipt by the county. And that the plan be brought to the Commissioners court for review and appropriate action prior to final approval.
>> and you also are looking to vacate the two pieces of right-of-way, not just the easements? All of a and b?
>> right.
>> okay.
>> that's the motion. Is there a second?
>> I'm either going to vote for it today or next week. All I'm going to get is a week on this vacation, mike. So you can save yourself, you know, having to come down next week and having the vote most likely go this this thing is going to take place today or next week. But I told you and I meant it when I said I think you all need some time, but I also knew what was going to happen two weeks ago when the line got drawn in the sand, we're over, we can't work with them, they are not giving us the information, that's obviously what triggered this.
>> that motion dies for lack of a second.
>> I'll second that.
>> that motion is revived with a second.
>> Commissioner Daugherty, are you saying that this is -- now my interest is piqued. Is this -- is there some sort of we can't work with them?
>> sara, when mike and I spoke two weeks ago, mike's frustration level, and I think he carried with it the neighborhood, that we just are not getting anywhere. We can't seem to get to a spot to where we feel like that we are going to be satisfied. So what we want to do is we want to bring it to the court and say here is our gripe. I mean, you know, we can't get it done with toll brothers. And I said as soon as you let that be known that you are through trying to work this thing, it is my opinion that toll brothers will say, then you are right, it's over. I mean, if we're not going to work, I mean you all are frustrated with us, year frustrated with you, it ain't going anywhere. And that's the reason that I think that toll brothers probably said, okay, we've got our stuff, let's go, let's get this thing voted up or down. But mike and I knew that. I mean, you know, that there are was going to be the result. Of what happened. And that's where we are today. I mean it's kind of like they've had it up to here, you all have had it up to here.
>> I agree, but it was the other way around. We were told we weren't invited to attend any more of the planning meetings with the lcra, that toll brothers didn't want us involved. It wasn't us that said we are not dealing with you. We were told we weren't invited anymore so therefore I came to you.
>> for whatever reason, mike, you know the reason you were told that and that was because they weren't getting anywhere with you and that was -- that's where the thing was.
>> but mr. Richter, are you coming back down next Tuesday?
>> what is next Tuesday?
>> that's what I'm saying. I don't know that -- one week wouldn't benefit anybody.
>> that's the reason I said to mike what I said. Whether we vote today to pass this issue or I get, you know, just by asked as a Commissioner one week, but next week you come down here, you make the drive, you sit here and we probably will have the same vote, I mean given the fact that I think that the majority probably are going to feel like this vacation is something that -- that we're going to move forward on and you've got to get to the table.
>> one week isn't -- my request is to put this into January and get an opportunity to work with Karen. One week isn't going to do that for us.
>> and the drainage plan is unlikely to come to us until next year.
>> yeah.
>> am I correct about that is this.
>> I believe mr. Howell said it would be two or three weeks before it was even submitted to us and probably -- I'm guessing they would submit it to Lakeway and lcra all at the same time. So sound like the applicant is saying it's two or three weeks off before we even get the plan.
>> mr. Richter should get it within a day or two after our receipt. Okay?
>> absolutely.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. How we looking on time?
>> 30 more minutes.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:38 PM