Travis County Commissioners Court
March 10, 2009,
Item 14
>> first business 14 is to consider and take appropriate action on a preliminary plan in precinct three, creeks edge preliminary plan, 33 total lots.
morning.
>> good morning, anna bolin, Travis County tnr.
as the judge said, this preliminary plan exists of 13 lots and -- consists of 13 lots and there had been a question raised about the intersection of cota lane and hamilton pool road and what type of review we did of that.
just so you know, our engineers did review the geometry looking for sight distance at that intersection and they found that there was 700 feet, which was -- site distance, which was appropriate for this type of intersection.
there was also a question comparing this intersection with cava and hamilton pool road, which was down hamilton pool road from cottle and why was there a right turn lane at kwaba as opposed at cottle.
the geometry is different at the two intersections and at kwaba where there is a right turn lane there are curves before the intersection, which is the reason for safety that it was required to have a right turn lane.
so give enthe sight distance at kwaba there was not a problem with this preliminary plan.
>> anna, in considering the safety issues of an intersection like this, does tnr -- do they take into account the number of vehicles that are coming out of the -- and how do they determine?
what is the criteria for that?
>> we do look at the number of vehicles, but we also look at the geometry of the road.
the curves, the amount of sight distance.
and that's all factored in when the subdivisions are recommended for approval.
or each just during the review process, if we feel there's an issue, we raise it during the review process.
>> because we're looking at perhaps 300 vehicle trips per day now additional out of cottle.
i don't know what's already coming out of there, on to a two-lane road that already has significantly heavy traffic.
i understand that there have been some accident out there as well.
i can understand the neighborhood's concern about the intersection.
>> certainly.
and the amount of traffic is one of the components that is looked at whenever we review preliminary plans or final plats or any kind of development review.
>> do we have any benchmark guidelines related to volume of traffic?
like when the sight distance is adequate?
>> the sight distance has that -- to really study that we look at the amount of sight distance.
there are sight distances there are required for various types of roads depending on the size of the road, there are different sight distances that are required.
there's also a difference in sight distances for driveways and roads.
we reviewed this with regards to what kind of roads were being intersected and the appropriate sight distance was to exceed 750 feet.
and this preliminary plan does that.
>> thank you.
>> we got inquiries from residents?
>> I believe the Commissioners office did.
>> tnr did not.
>> no.
not to my knowledge.
>> this was -- is in the e.t.j.
and it went through the city for most part of it, so we didn't -- any notices came through the city.
>> this is in the city of Austin single office plat, however Travis County tnr wants the tnr part of the single office reviews the drainage and the transportation.
and the case managers, if the city is the case manager, they generally do let us know what kind of constituent comments they're getting because that's important to their elected officials and they know it is to ours as well.
>> anna, I have a question.
hypothetically, in the single office review in the e.t.j., in a division plat in the e.t.j., if the transportation infrastructure was inadequate to support this, if this was the straw breaking the camel's back, would we have any authority to deny the plat?
>> that's hard to answer hypothetically depending on what the nature of the problem was.
i would be hopeful that we could do something to somewhat remedy the situation, but, you know, it would depend on so many things, like if the problem was immediately adjacent to the plat as opposed to the transportation network in the area.
so it would be hard because we don't have the authorities really beyond what's immediately adjacent to the property and even then we have to look at rough proportionality.
so there are not as many tools there that could be helpful in that situation.
but we certainly would look at it and try to do the best that we could.
>> when the city and the county jointly review an application like this one, we make sure the distance, the number of cars, etcetera, is looked at by somebody.
do we do it ourselves?
>> yes, sir.
yes, judge.
the transportation and the drainage element of roads -- of plats that are in both sides of the county, we are the reviewer of those elements because ultimately we would have maintenance and liability for those streets, were they public streets.
so in this area and in the part of the county where we're the case manager, either way Travis County employees are the ones that review the street and drainage components because of our line of -- our county line of responsibilities.
>> so we review it, but we may not have any authority to deny it if we feel like the traffic situation is inadequate?
is that following up on what hypothetical through Commissioner Eckhardt mentioned awhile ago?
>> we would do the best that we could with the legal authorities that we have.
that's not to say that at times it might not be help tofl have additional tools in the tool box, but if there's a problem, we do try to address it.
>> we have a right to insist on a road or intersection design that cures any safety issue that we find, right?
>> absolutely.
>> that's not --
>> absolutely.
>> I think we ought to have the authority to require a fix.
>> absolutely.
the question, though, is how far is the problem away from the subdivision?
it's easiest, and we do this routinely if there's a problem with an intersection that's at the subdivision, that's our easiest scenario.
we can definitely go there and we do go there.
and I would say also if something is on a txdot road, they also have to get approval from txdot detailing in that approval is also detailed what type of improvements might be necessary to a txdot road.
and you know when there are txdot improvements required because when we take the application to court, we also bring an advanced funding agreement and an indemnification agreement.
so there are several entities that look at this.
>> let me be sure I'm understanding you exactly.
when you say it's the adjacent -- the subdivision is adjacent to where the potential problem might be, it's easier to deal with.
are you suggesting that on a subdivision of this type where it's being built off the end of an existing road that we have less capacity to deal with that -- the concerns of that intersection?
>> I would say that we still review that and we still would make comments on that.
to me it's more of a slam dunk if the intersection with the road is actually adjacent to the subdivision.
it gets a little harder if it's not, but we still review that.
and if there was a safety concern, we would still raise it and we would try to figure out a way to address that.
>> I just wanted a point of clarification.
on-site sewage disposal means septic?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> there was a motion?
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
thanks for the reminder that it's basketball season.
slam dunk.
>> thank you.
>> [ laughter ]
>> 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:
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 2:17 PM