Travis County Commissioners Court
April 6, 2010,
Item 8
Eight is to consider and take appropriate action on the Travis County north campus master plan.
we discussed this item during a recent work session and everything was pretty straightforward.
any questions, issues about it?
>> yes, I have several.
>> okay.
and we have everything here except staff.
And 6 is to consider and take appropriate action on the Travis County north campus master plan.
this is the one that we had the work session on last week.
and we do have a couple of questions for y'all, a few.
>> sure.
>> thank you.
>> judge, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> I am jim barn an architect and senior project manager with the Travis County facilities management department.
to my right is kim winn who is an architect and associate with architect facilities management.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> I have had a little more time to look at this further since last Thursday so I just wanted to ask you several questions.
first of all, this is -- the material that you gave us last week is in two parts and the front part and the back part, in some ways are not in synch, so I was just wondering why there is sort of a down cation of the front part and the -- a duplication of the front part and back part?
>> we have done a lot of research to develop data so that future development, future design planning, design, planning developing of the campus will have this data included in here.
we also gave an earlier presentation some months ago -- I think I have forgotten the date of that already --
>> quite some time ago.
>> yes, but what we wanted to do with the front part was kind of do a general summary of what we had done and to present that as -- and also our -- our ideas morphed over time as we thought about this, but we didn't want to remove any of the data from the -- from the book.
>> okay.
so the back part is more reference and the front part is a summary of what you gleaned from the back part?
>> yes, Commissioner.
>> one of the things that has been troubling about this for me, since even before the workshop is when I read through it, it's got an awful lot of assumptions and ifs and thens -- not a lot of thens, just ifs, and I am kind reached the conclusion from my own perspective that this may be a little ahead of the best information available for it.
in other words, I guess my questions that I raise about it are, how -- how flexible is the plan as proposed?
because, for example, we don't know who is going to be going in some of those buildings out there.
without the knowledge of the number of employees, what their -- what their on -- for example -- traffic patterns may b I don't know how we can arrive at things like entrances to a parking lot without a tia.
you have a big combination of a huge number of employees, plus a lot of transient traffic.
probably those don't need to be using the same parking areas and airport is a busy street and I am wondering if it's been taken into consideration where the entrance and exit points are for that.
there is things like, where the back of these buildings, the service access to these -- these buildings in particular, it is something that will have to be dealt with and that's not discussed in here from an access standpoint.
some of the latest leads requirements are not included in the summary section and I am wondering how -- I am raising these questions, not saying that -- that it keeps us from approving this now.
but I just want to be sure that we've got the flexibility in whatever we approve today to deal with these big question marks that are still out there.
the -- there is some discrepancy, actually, in the rooftop plans.
there is -- it shows green rooftops on two different buildings, one of them is the parking garage, so the question is, you don't really need a green rooftop on a parking garage from a standpoint of insulation and that capacity.
is it going to be a functional green area, and if so, how does that relate to height requirements of getting people up there?
the same thing on the building that houses employees, as well.
and I believe there is one diagram in there that shows a whole green rooftop and another one in there a half a green rooftop and how is access going to be to that if you've got to get an elevator up there that is a useful thing.
there is a lot of unanswered questions as it relates to usage, in particularly, also on the traffic as its relates to who is going to be there.
so I just -- I just want to know exactly what it is we are approving today because I don't want to be held to the diagrams here because there are too many unanswered questions that if we are adopting this sort of format, like the access from the street, that when we know who is going to be there and the coming and going patterns are going to be and the traffic analysis and things like that may change significantly.
so what are we approving today?
>> we came to the Commissioner's court to ask permission to start this master plan with the understanding that it was a little early in the process, but master plans are documents that change considerably over time.
we felt it was important, since we were creating this campus there that we get a start on producing a document that begins the process by collecting data, by making some early assumptions, so we understand that the information in here needs to wait on determination of who might go there, how the -- we have not yet done the growth projections and staffing needs assessments for the departments that are already out there, so those are also things that are -- that are unanswered questions about how hose departments might grow into, say, a new building that we may or may not want to construct on the 5335 site.
so this is seen as a living document, as something that will change over time as new data becomes available and certainly at the time that we started doing this, there was no -- there was no hint that we would be looking at some of this spatial requirements that we are looking at now, with some of the things that we are talking about in the downtown campus.
so we saw this as -- as a raw planning document.
the -- the diagrams that showed the building are not really a design or a program building.
they are just an envelope in which a building could be designed, could be built.
so it is really just establishing some basic design and planning parameters for future assessment as we gain more knowledge.
>> so if we are establishing those basic design parameters, are we, for example, if we approve this today, saying that we are approving the design parameter of this kind of square footage and this number of parking places?
because that's another problem I have, is we are about 98% built out of concrete and steel and I hate people to drive into a lot of our public facilities and by the time they get to the interior, they are already in a confrontational mood because all they have seen is concrete and steel.
>> no, you see, our point in doing this was to assess the maximum allowable buildout.
it is not a recommendation to do that.
it is just saying that here is the envelope within which the building could be built.
the building could be significantly smaller.
there could be a significantly greater amount of green.
the green roofs -- one of the reasons of putting green roof on a parking garage is to mediate urban heat island effect.
you are right, there would be no insulation value that a parking garage would need but it would prevent some radiate heat gain and conduction through the concrete but it also provides a green amenity for people to access from the elevator within the parking garage, but those are concepts.
they are not -- they are not designed.
they haven't been programmed.
and so our attention was to really just see what is the maximum envelope that the city and other regulatory authorities would allow a building to be put into, and we felt that was a critical element in defining that so that we know what the maximum is.
we can always back away from that.
we may choose to faze this whole thing.
there is not going to be an immediate need and as we pointed out in the presentation, the replacement of 5105 or 5055 building could be 50, 75 years away since they have essentially been made new buildings with the remodeling we have done.
so this is trying to establish maximum parameters and envelope in which it -- it tells us the maximum we could do if we really wanted to.
none of this really implies, either, that we enter the site from those locations.
it's sort of is a best guess on how things might work now and once programming -- once we establish which departments are going there, that will begin to dictate the needs that those departments might have in terms of service, in terms of numbers of employees, number of automobiles, number of visitors.
and so all of that will be keyed back up as that data becomes available and will be brought back to the Commissioners with schematic designs, with programming.
so there is a lot of work to be done, but this is a start.
this document was seen as a start to that process and can be amended over time, as new data -- new firm data becomes available.
>> and not only that.
>> sorry, Commissioner.
>> I was going to say -- because I am --
>> I understand.
>> I want to be careful who -- at least from my perspective, what I am committing to here, so what I was going to ask, given -- would an appropriate motion, given what you said, would we accept this document as an informational document for purposes of moving forward with additional planning and evaluations?
>> that could be the way --
>> the maximum -- with maximum flexibility?
>> well, I guess my concern, though, is that I want to make sure that the public understands that this particular effort has been something that we have been working on for a while, not only through the court but working with the neighborhoods out there, ridgetop neighborhoods group, the bunch there, we wanted to be sure it was user friendly and the neighborhood participants had direct participation in this process.
in fact, I recall a few meetings I have gone to, I know the judge an I attended -- and I attended one meeting at the same time with some of these same regards as same regards asfar as looking as whole concept, making sure all of the regulatory authorities that were involved with such with the city of Austin were involved in this process and to make sure we had everything on the table preparing, preparing for this -- for this particular document that we are looking at today.
and of course the neighborhoods -- even the via resolution that was passed by this court -- we even supported a resolution that was brought forth by the neighborhood.
so it has been an ongoing process and of course in any master plan, as you look at it, there are things we look at, oh, wait, da-da-da, however, with the hike and bike trail there, you look at the buildings, the use of the buildings that we are looking at, the tax office, clerk and -- county clerk, the sheriff, and all of these other things, the other two sites that we are referring to, chair king, all of those, they got involved in this thing early on in the neighborhood, along with this court, which wanted to make sure that all of the I's got the attention and all of the t's got the attention to be crossed and so this is not something that's not neighborhood friendly, per se.
it is.
and of course I wanted to make sure it happened with of course the neighborhoods being out there, they wanted to make sure this happened, per se, so I am not chastising anybody this morning.
i I may sound like it but I am really not.
but I wanted to says this something that has really gone in depth to the point that we wanted to make sure the level of involvement that's in this process, we have some up with some documents, such as this particular master plan and of course if you notice, there is no money attached to this stuff, no money assessment at all because we are still looking at the things that would be cost effective and also efficient and effective for the friendly use e not only for Travis County, but the friendly use for the neighborhoods that our campus is located, so it's a lot -- it's a lot of involvement in this process and I respect all of your questions and everything else and anybody else that asks questions, but I am just saying the level of involvement that this court has been involved with for some time on this particular process, any other comments -- whatever comments come out, I will move approval of this with the intention of moving forward with the document.
>> let me clarify what I was saying because I am not suggesting we go backwards or revisit things we have already done, I would amendment everything we have done with the neighborhoods is recognizing incorporated as we move forward.
i am just questioning some of the specific layouts and diagrams as they relate to functionality and cost and things like that that we don't know yet.
>> right.
>> because we don't have the knowledge of who is going to be in some of those buildings.
>> uh-huh.
i understand.
i am not knocking what you are saying.
don't think I am knock what you are saying.
>> I am not.
>> what I am saying is the level of involvement -- I want to make sure everybody understands the level of involvement in this process has been a deep, deep, deep con going deep ongoig for a long time hand this is the end result -- not end result but this is the result of where we are at this point to move forward to this particular situation for those three addressed locations in this particular concept.
>> mr.
priest -- mr.
priest.
>> yes, I just wanted to echo the comments that Commissioner Huber made.
when we look at this stretch of road that's going up to airport, it's koenig, when you pass the railroad track where is the red line goes through, there is this church called sky view baptist church and they had -- when Karen was on this Commissioner's court, they made the improvements right there on that part of keonig and people had a lot of input.
a lot of input was given by the community and some people wanted a median.
some people wanted a chicken like what they call it on anderson lane.
some people wanted sidewalks that had grass between the sidewalks and the curbs but when they came there and built the road, sky view baptist church had two entrances like it was a circular -- not a circular drive but two exits, one entrance, one exit, there wasn't a curve down the middle-of-the-road and they had this big parking lot.
and then they had this other big piece of property that was just black dirt, just grass dirt, nothing there, no parking lot, not even gravel.
that's where they put the entrance for sky view baptist church when they re-did the koenig road, so a church here, big parking lot and then this piece of land here and that's where they put the entrance for the church and people had to drive through mud.
the reason I am bringing that up is it's kind of -- I know this pertains to just that master plan there on airport, chair king and where the offices are now, but I think with the city's -- with chris riley and other people putting input in with the city, with the airport improvements, I think those two things have to go together when you look at transportation, whether it's another stop on the red line or whether you -- where you are going to have your entrance and I -- I applaud the work that's been done and all of the things that Commissioner Huber and Commissioner Davis brought up and the fine folks on our county staff but I do think that's something that we really have to look at, is where these entrances are going to be on this property and -- and I know that it's a separate issue and I know that other people are involved in that process, but I do think that -- that -- that that is something that I would hope wouldn't be overlooked.
the only other thing I had to say as far as the actual three phases of the project that I have seen presented here in court, I am not much of a public private partnership, other than I like the cafeteria type venture, like some state offices to for the public and county views but I am not much on having much commercial retail there, but I did want to say that that is something that I think has to be done and ironed out now, despite what -- how evolving this master plan is or how adaptable the city is over the years, but I do think that such a fundamental thing, how big the entrances are going to be, where they are going to be and then in that aspect it is part of the master plan and I don't see how the city -- I don't see how the county can say that they have that determined at this time.
>> well, that's -- thank you, mr.
priest, for bringing those points up.
last night there was a meeting held in the same vicinity dealing with the same neighborhood groups with the city of Austin representatives.
of course Travis County was in attendance of that meeting last night on this carter type thing that you mr.
bringing out.
it is a city deal.
now, of course, I have not received a summary of which I requested of that particular meeting by staff -- I am getting that summarized now, so I will have a hand on what the city's aspect of all of this -- because it is a big picture.
that's why I brought up other regulatory authority persons, support as the city of Austin, and this is the same aspect and one of the same levels that the neighborhoods have pulled down, as far as trying to get some leverage, as far as what they want in this area, dealing with not only Travis County but of course you've got to remember this particular piece of property is within this city limits of Austin, so that being as it is, there has been attempt for whatever the city is trying to do to also look at the north corridor situation that may impact us one way or other because the city has strings they can pull or whatever they need to do as far as getting their particular aspect.
but, still, still, working through the neighborhoods, of which I think is very critical in this point, so I see your point and I haven't received that summary yet.
but I am waiting on.
the meeting was just held last night.
>> yes, I was actually e-mailing you when this -- when this item popped up, so we participated in this county's physical fitness program, coming down the four flights of stairs over here.
>> right, right.
>> [laughter]
>> you must have been with the Commissioner.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> ducktailing on what Commissioner Huber said, I am -- i, too, am trying to word smith a motion that may satisfy all of our needs as well as some of our concerns, and would it be acceptable to you, Commissioner Huber, if it was approve determination of the maximum envelope in the preliminary design options and direct fm to develop an implementation program for the short-term goals of the master plan including involvement of relevant assistant outside of fm?
>> I don't know that that's how we want to do...
i recognize Commissioner Davis for a motion since he is Commissioner of the precinct.
>> good point.
>> thank you, thank you Commissioner.
>> good point.
>> thank you judge for that recognition, I really appreciate that.
again, I stated earlier how long we have been dealing with this stuff.
i do not want to forego any of the things that have been brought up here today and to make sure that the things that the neighborhoods have brought up, even in the meeting with the city of Austin last night on this particular deal, I want to -- I want to make sure that those things are in compass.
let me ask the question to staff.
all neighborhoods -- not all but a lot of the thing that is the neighborhoods asked in this master plan, are they basically there, as far as the requests that they made?
>> yes, they are.
>> yes.
>> which is a big, big deal for their community, because, see, they will have to be -- bear the brunt of whatever they that we do, it will impact that neighborhood.
may motion is to approve this particular master plan and any adjustments we can make in the future because it is a document that can be modified.
nothing final but it's a document that can be modified as time goes forward.
i would like to approve this particular master plan as it is.
>> second.
>> second by Commissioner Gomez.
there may be friendly amendments based on what I heard so far.
Commissioner Eckhardt.
discussion?
>> is it contemplated by -- I want to make sure it is on the record that what we are approving -- this is the christmas tree of maximum -- this is the max build with every christmas ornament hanging on it?
i just want to manage expectations here, because if we -- if we are -- if in approving this we are saying we are going to build this much and we are going to approve every single up of these design options, that -- is it staff's opinion that that is not feasible?
or that that is not what the object of this exercise is?
because I -- I view this master plan document as the christmas tree.
this is, if you could have everything in the world without consideration of whether they are opposing elements or -- or not, that's what this document is, max build, every design option currently on the table?
>> pretty much that's the case.
the -- we felt our duty was to establish the maximum build-out potential, without recommending that we do that, because that recommendation needs to wait on -- as Commissioner Huber said, it needs to wait on the establishment of who needs to go here, who can go here, where -- where it makes sense to -- to move people to, and so, and, also, the establishment of -- or the measurement of the growth potential in staffing projections for the departments that are out there because ultimately they are going to need to expand what is into -- what is in this envelope.
>> so from -- I just want to get it on the record that from staff's perspective, this plan -- let me phrase this correctly.
-- that this man does -- that thisplan does not yet t presents options but it doesn't make any of the hard decisions necessary between options?
that will come later?
>> that's correct.
>> I just want to manage expectations, so folks think the approval today thinks that everything in this document is a go.
>> no, no.
>> that this document predates the hard decisions about which options.
>> right.
>> we go with?
>> there are many decisions that yet to happen and much studying but we wanted to establish a starting point and framework that we could modify over time.
>> universe of options, as it were?
>> pretty much.
we also wanted to show our vision of how this site could be developed in the most sustainable, most neighborhood friendly fashion that we could do it and that's why we showed the beginning of that pedestrian mall concept.
now, that could also change over time, as things happen, because designing of things is a very fluid process and it depends on pretty intensive meetings.
we will have many more meets with the neighborhood groups, with the county staff out there, with the Commissioner's court and other concerned parties before any of this really gets nailed down and so this is really a starting point.
this is to provide code information, regulatory information and -- and a starting place to really, really start doing this.
last night I did attend the north field neighborhood association.
councilman reilly spoke for almost an hour and a long q and a session, there were also about 50 people also from the ridgetop association and he was talking about the development of their boulevard corridor from i-35 to lamar boulevard which includes our site and there was a whole -- and I believe that the recommendations that we put in this report for the development guidelines and for the six goals that are -- that we put in this are very consistent with what we heard from the neighbors, what amounts to good, sustainable design and -- and is what councilman riley is attempting the achieve on airport boulevard as well.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> you just answer one of them when you said something about the mall may not be engraved in stone.
i mean, I could -- I support and -- hardly support the fact that this has been through a neighborhood process.
my assumption in voting for this today is to recognize this this -- that this is the outside parameters of what meets the neighborhoods' needs, because as I look at it, there may be additional things that would even work better for the neighborhood, like the placement of the building, for example, on the lots, because right now if they are right up against the neighborhood, those neighborhoods are going to be in the shadows from 2:00 o'clock on and they may or may not want that and I am comfortable in voting on this as an informational broadest parameters document if we know that we've got flexibility in adjusting it to improve on it and also on the goal -- I was looking for them real quickly -- I don't see a goal in there that talks about maximum effectiveness but fiscal responsibility and I think it would be good to have goal like that in there.
anyway I want to make sure we are not voting on something today to make sure we don't get 6 months or a year down the road and say we voted to do that last wreck where indeed which may want to tweak it because it may be better.
>> master design is a design concept.
>> it is a development concept.
we haven't done any design at all.
it is showing --
>> notwithstanding whatever perspective you have, it's not your desire to take from the Commissioner's court ultimate authority to have the time say so on this project?
>> we would rather not, no.
>> [laughter]
>> in that case, I support this motion.
>> all those in favor?
this passes by unanimous vote.
thank you very much.
>> thank y'all.
>> thank you.
>> I appreciate it.
>> and we have delayed long enough for you to arrive.
i told them I suggested 9:45 and that was at 9:30.
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, April 6, 2010 12:53 PM
