Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 36
Now, we indicated our intention to call up item 36 earlier in the afternoon.
we'll call it up right now.
there is an open court part as well as an executive session part, although this is posted for executive session.
we will have the open court discussion first.
36, consider and take appropriate action on the following regarding estancia hill country subdivision in precinct 3.
a, appeal for waiver request from title 30-3-21, reservation of right-of-way that was administratively denied and appeal for variance to title 30-3-25, dedication of right-of-way that was not acted on.
b, request for variance to title 30, sex 30-2-34, original tract requirement.
c, request for variance to title 30, section 30-2-151, street alignment.
and d, request for variance to title 30, section 30-2-152, dead end street.
>> thank you, judge.
steve manila from t.n.r.
the estancia subdivision is a fairly large subdivision between i-35 and old san antonio road, south Austin.
just south of onion creek and in the vicinity of puryer road.
we've been negotiating with the developer and engineer for about a year and a half.
there are several issues, you can tell by the items listed here in the agenda request that we've been attempting to work through with them.
and we recently received a proposal from them that we would like to discuss with you and the county attorneys in executive session.
the major session that we have been struggling with were the dead raition of right-of-way and right-of-way reserve.
and we believe that their proposal has some merit and we would like to take that into executive session.
>> should I take from your pause that you want to take that into executive session right now?
>> unless you need more detail about the actual layout of the development.
and you all have been briefed on this particular subdivision I believe several times.
>> all right.
let me ask this question.
we have several requests for variances here.
the proposal deals with one of them, right?
or does it deal with more than one?
>> I believe it deals with more than one.
it affects more than one.
>> okay.
should we hear from the applicant first?
>> sure.
>> so we'll know exactly what the issues are?
>> that would be a good idea.
>> judge, we have a power point.
I don't know if you are able to follow that.
we've got it manually or we can do it on the computer.
>> why don't you give it to us manually and put them on computer too.
that way for those of us inclined to look up and down like myself, no matter how I look I'll see a copy of it.
is that okay?
>> yes, sir.
since the power point will have some images that are going to be hard to see.
>> you still have a reputation for being clear and brief, right?
>> free and clear, judge.
good average, judge and Commissioners, jeff howard, here today representing the owners of the estancia hill country property.
and I will try to be brief, judge.
the issues are somewhat complicated.
can you pull that back just a little?
the issues are particularly on state highway 45 are complicated so I want to make sure I give a author re discussion on that.
first of all the property is approximately 600 acres located at south i-35 and puryer road just inside Travis County.
to the north-south park meadows, south dude backup for next Tuesday.
bound odd the west by old san antonio road.
the proposal is for -- it's a mixed use project with a mixture of residential, commercial, retail, civic uses, numerous corporate campus opportunities, it's a real substantial major economic development tax base impact.
we're located in the desired development zone obviously along ih-35.
substantial frontage along ih-35.
we've also worked with Austin water utility to bring utilities to the area.
we've got a s.e.r.
and we've donated a site for a water tower and those utility improvements are underway.
as mr. Manila stated, we've been in process for over 18 months.
during that time early on we worked with the adjacent neighborhood which is the onion creek estates neighborhood.
I think we've got the preliminary plan on a board.
we can answer questions about that as they arise.
the action items, there are four action items. One is really a resolution of state highway 45, how we deal with that.
we've got two pending appeals on that issue.
the second is the balance of the tract waiver.
the third is street alignment variance for a couple of streets that connect to our property.
and the fourth is a dead end street variance.
so on the state highway 45, first of all let me be clear we're not opposed to state highway 45.
that's something I think that's for the policy makers to decide.
however, in discussions with staff, we've been asked to reserve a 400-foot strip across our 180-acre piece of property.
and when you reserve right-of-way, you are basically indefinitely holding it off from development.
and there's no -- there's no compensation provided for that.
so our concerns are, one is certainty.
the road is not certain when or when it will be built.
it is only in the campo plan right now for future study.
and we're also concerned about being asked to bear such a heavy burden.
all 400 feet as reserve right-of-way against a major piece of our property.
so we've had three potential alternatives that we would ask you to consider.
to resolve state highway 45.
one is grant the appeals in which case if it pleases the court, we wouldn't have to show state highway 45 on our preliminary plan.
there would be no future dedication shown.
that's one option.
second option that you have and we've proposed this is to effectively have the reservation be for a short period of time, three years.
that gives the county time and txdot and campo time to work through their issues.
and then the third alternatives would be to go ahead and deny our appeals but to specify our alignment and extend the right-of-way based on proposal that mr. Manila referenced.
let me kind of go through those alternatives quickly.
on granting the appeals, the justification that we think exists for you to not require reservation is there's a couple.
first, the county can only require reservation if it's designated in the campo 2535 plan.
designation we feel when you look at the code is more than just being named or listed.
for example, your code requires that the extent and location of right-of-way has to be identified in the transportation plan.
that's 30-1-21 b.
second, the code requires that the alignment be established in the transportation plan and that's 30-3-24 b.
that hasn't been -- that hasn't happened.
it's only been list understand the campo 2035 plan for environment will and preliminary engineering.
it has not been identified as a project.
it also has not been identified as a, quote, new highway in the campo regional system map.
and I've attached in the power point the two regional system maps and you can see if you look at the bottom on the left -- on the left-hand side map 3.4, there's a dotted line for a new highway for state highway 45 between mopac and 1626.
it does not continue to i-35.
if you look on the right, map 3.5, you will see where the existing hits i-35.
if it's not designated in the plan, you can't require reservation.
or dedication.
in addition, the code requires the county to release the reservation requirement if it cannot acquire the right-of-way.
and the county's position that is listen it can acquire all 400 feet by way of exaction.
it's required to release the reservation requirement.
now, the code says -- so the issue is can the county compel dedication.
the code says that the county can only require dedication if it's needed to, quote, accommodate the estimated traffic generated by the project.
we don't need state highway 45.
it's not necessary to accommodate our traffic.
our traffic, the existing roadways have sufficient capacity and we've done intersection analysis through a t.i.a.
which identifies certain intersection improvements and we've aagreed to pay our prorata share of those intersection improvements.
we don't need state highway 45.
since dedication isn't required to meet our needs, reservation should be released.
>> entirely?
>> yes, ma'am.
we don't need the road.
the code says you can only require dedication -- mr. Nuckols may jump in or during executive session, but if dedication -- you can only require dedication to the extent needed to address traffic generated by the project.
>> correct, but you are asserting that all of it is unjustifiable, but considering what looks to be your site plan, you are going to be a significant traffic generator that would most likely just from eyeballing it looks like there's going to be significant need for public road network interior to your development.
so really is your argument all of it or just that it's too much?
>> well, we would argue it's all of it.
we don't need state highway 45 --
>> I'm not saying that.
I'm saying some road.
>> we do need internal roadways, yes, ma'am, and we do suggest -- we've done traffic impact analysis and identified where the intersection improvements are going to be needed and we have --
>> but you are asserting you would not need a through road of any species in that rough alignment.
>> that's correct.
we can connect to ih-35 and we can connect to puryer road.
>> so you would have no internal bisect tore.
>> we have internal roads within our subdivision but they wouldn't go someplace else.
we could do it that way.
>> so your internal roads need would not include this segment of 45 southwest.
>> we -- that's how we have proposed it and that's been the discussion for probably a year.
is whether or not state highway 45 should be reserved.
our position is since we don't need it, we're not required to dedicate it.
and if we can't be required to dedicate it, you should release it.
>> > we're not talking about 45 southwest here, we're talking about 45 south.
that is not on the campo plan.
it is only by some determined to be a part of that because hays county added that the week before the plan was voted on and it did not go through the public process.
but we are not talking about 45 southwest.
we're talking about 45 south.
>> that's a good clarification.
>> just the part that connects to 35.
>> yes, sir.
>> east of what we have been --
>> east of 1626.
yes, sir.
continuing on, so the county's position is that it can require the full dedication because that full dedication is, quote, roughly proportional to our project's impact.
and the county relies on a supreme court case, can look at the entire roadway system.
our position is the county bears the burden of establishing what the rough proportionalty is.
what looks like a roadway impact fee model in determining what that impact is and determining what our exaction case should be.
my reading of that flower mound case, that fee was rejected as being too abstract and the county has to make a more meaningful determination.
our determination is the county has not met that.
>> how abstract is it that there would be no connecting road to whatever is on the east side of i-35?
>> I'm not sure I understand the question, Commissioner.
>> that estancia would act as a barricade and all traffic traveling west on whatever is east of i-35, has to go around estancia.
>> well, bear in mind that when we develop our subdivision, we are required to provide roads that will serve our internal subdivision and we're required to put roads in that are shown on the roadway plan.
if there's not an arterial through estancia on the roadway plan, we do not have to show that.
we're not under obligation to connect i-35 to points east.
>> we come across this all the time.
a subdivision will go in and put down and 15 years later we have to build arterial a, for instance, or cameron road or some other arterial to create grid that was not created by development.
>> I suspect those roads are in your roadway plan.
so cameron road and arterial a are probably in your roadway plan and any developer that's developing is required to account for roads that are in the roadway plan.
puryer road from I've west is not in the road plans.
>> walk me through what interior roads you have so far that will conduct traffic not through -- through estancia?
>> on the end there.
it will snap right off.
>> if you could start with the actual ingress and egress points into the development itself.
>> sure.
so north is this way.
south is that way obviously.
and this is where existing state highway 45 intersects with i-35.
we have I think two proposed roadway connections to i-35 here and here.
these are proposed future connections.
we've had those reviewed by txdot.
don nylon at txdot and they've been approved.
>> what's to the west of estancia?
>> this is an existing single-family subdivision here.
>> will you connect to that at all?
>> no, we will not.
that's one of our variances.
none of our roads will actually line up and go through and I think the only places that they could would be at twin creeks road -- I don't believe the neighborhood wanted us to connect to any of this.
>> mystic and shoshonee and the neighborhood is actually been very strongly opposed to us connecting to those roads.
>> from a planning perspective, I hear what you are saying and this is often the case that subdivisions don't want to connect to our subdivisions, but from a planning perspective, doesn't that perpetuate this business of a hermetically sealed neighborhood with no road grid so people are reliant more and more so on your subdivision and the subdivision next to you and the subdivision next to you because they don't connect will be reliant on a small handful of roads the county will have to maintain and will be increasingly burdened over time because there is no connection between these subdivisions.
no grid network.
>> the pavement in those two roadways aren't actually built.
the right-of-way on one of them was vacated a while back.
the other two, the right-of-way is there but the pavement itself is not there.
so essentially you would be connecting a right-of-way to a right-of-way that has no pavement.
many of the neighborhoods are using the area for volleyball courts, sand boxes, you know, that sort of use right now.
>> so we'll just push off that issue for another day, I suppose, because again, I can't stress this enough, this is our brodie lane problem all over again.
bottlenecks on to one road.
>> I hear that concern load and clear.
and what makes this different is there's only one -- and they are small neighborhood streets.
to extend an arterial to this property or collector and be able to take that traffic, provide activity --
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> what about the subdivision to your west there?
>> to the west over here?
>> no, that corner right there.
>> this -- in order to connect to our development would I think take either twin creeks or one of these connections here to old san antonio road and then they could access from old san antonio road.
>> so by development the access doesn't improve to i-35 at all.
>> I don't know that it -- well, --
>> it actually does to some extent.
we are expanding right-of-way along old san antonio road for a future expansion of the roadway.
in addition we're testing additional fiscal for the improvement of that roadway at a later date when access is needed along that area.
>> because there are some points -- this is where on old san antonio road it scopes down and becomes even narrower despite the fact that the traffic volume is increasing?
>> at the bridge.
we will have obviously -- puryear road will be widened.
I think we'll have two additional connections to i-35 as well.
I think it would be improved access to i-35.
>> that's pretty thin.
>> ma'am, can you identify yourself for the record?
>> I apologize.
kelly bell with barry and partners, the engineer for the developer.
>> any other questions right now?
>> not right now.
>> we will need you to slide that chart to the side there so we can see you when you begin speaking, mr. Howard?
legal, you've been noting some of these questions?
okay.
>> okay.
finally on the issue of whether the right-of-way should be reserved or not, we have asked for a variance from the dedication requirement.
again, the county can acquire it through dedication.
it should release the rfertion and we think that the dedication requirement should -- should alternatively be -- a variance should be provided because of undue hardship.
right now 45 is only planned for study.
it will not be built for many years, if ever.
and we think it's unreasonably burdensome for the owner to set aside and reserve indefinitely right-of-way for road that may never be built.
if the court agrees with that and grants a dedication variance, we think the release should also be appropriate.
so that was alternative one, grant the appeal and not show anything on the preliminary plan for state highway 45.
we've also, as I mentioned, we have a three-year alternative.
we'll hold off for three years doing any development over there to give the county, campo, txdot time to figure out what it's doing, if anything, with that section of state highway 45.
and we would include that in a traffic facing agreement.
that's another alternative.
and the third alternative is the one that I think mr. Manila she had he wanted to visit with you all about and that is that we would have an alternate design.
right now state highway 45 does not have an alignment.
there were conceptionally two alternate proposals for extending state highway 45 west.
and txdot had mentioned that one was preferred, but I don't think campo has adopted any one of those alignments.
and if you look at those two alternatives that campo -- that txdot had put forward, neither one of those alternatives actually match up with the way state highway 45 was actually constructed to the east.
so they don't really line up.
there is no alignment.
we have looked at through our engineers and highway designers a proposal that would meet all of the applicable highway design requirements and get -- show the reserve right-of-way, but lessen the burden on us, provide us some certainty as to design.
and so our proposal would be to show that 400-foot reservation on the preliminary plan on a location baited on preliminary design and we would show 150 feet of that we'll actually dedicate -- we'll dedicate 150 feet of it on the northern portion also based on a specific design.
so let me show you this is the specific design.
I think kelly will show you on the big boards what they are.
so unlike the txdot proposals that don't connect up with the way 45 is actually constructed to the east, this proposal would match up with what's actually constructed.
it would create an s curve that would bring the highway across the property, but also move it off the property in a safe, reasonable, well designed way so that the burden gets shared.
the burden of 45 gets shared.
and we think that this is a way to come up with the design that meets the criteria and resolves the issue.
ms. Bell with bury and partners has talked with dan nighland and I think shown this design and they think the design is a good design.
so we would propose that as a third alternative for you to consider allowing us to go forward with this modified design.
and then what we would do in the interim is we would build a commercial collector along that northern 150 feet to be dedicated and that would be a two-way collector in the interim.
and if and when 45 is ever constructed that could be converted to a frontage road.
so it makes good planning sense.
we're not building a road that then gets torn up for a freeway potentially to come through, but we're building a road that can be reused as a frontage road.
so that would be the proposal.
now, what we would like for doing that is we would like some commitment as to the entrance and exit ramps, frontage roads and turnaround -- in other words, by saying you like this design you would be saying you would like those things as well.
so the location and design of our extension of puryear parkway is an interim road.
the location and number of our access points, we've proposed some curb cuts on that interim road that meet the txdot highway spacing requirements.
then we would like the commitment that the proposal satisfies future transportation transactions based on rough proportionality.
any questions -- that's the state highway 45 portion of the proposal, judge.
I can briefly move on to the other items, but I'll entertain any questions.
>> so the agreement is the interim road and it would be a two-lane road?
>> yes, sir.
two lane, commercial collector.
>> I think don nighland and I talked about possibly a 36-foot wide pavement section, which would essentially allow a lane in either direction and a turn lane in the middle or perhaps go to 48-foot section, two shoulders, two lanes each direction.
>> nighland is with txdot?
>> that's correct.
>> so if in the future 45 south were built, then if it's built real close to that road, that road would be converted into two lanes and two new lanes would be added, so 45 south would be a four lane road?
>> yeah, depending on the pavement width that kelly was talking about, you could convert it to three lane or four lane or keep it at two lanes with shoulders.
but that would be the idea that this road would then convert to frontage.
>> and whatever was in the alignment of the actual highway, txdot would have to purchase from you at the value of the improvements that you got to build because you didn't dedicate it, right?
>> the 250 feet leftover.
the 150 feet collector I think only requires I think 70 feet of right-of-way?
but we would dedicate full 150 feet.
the other 250 feet would have to be acquired at the time of -- whenever, through condemnation, but it would be reserved so we wouldn't be putting improvements there.
we wouldn't be putting buildings and corporate campuses and that kind of thing there.
>> so you would be willing to do the reservation for that?
>> we would.
>> but you would -- build the green road and dedicate 150 feet?
>> yes, sir.
this would be -- this would serve our development.
>> that would be part of the construction project.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
any questions, y'all, concerning the three options?
so those deal with the one request for variance or several?
so I can follow this.
>> judge, that deals with the two appeals.
that's a.
yes, sir.
>> okay.
item 36-b is the balance of the tract waiver.
and real quickly, the county has raised the issue based on our deed with the heat family.
when we bought the land, the family reserved a small well site.
kelly, are you pointing it out?
and that well site provides water to the east for the heep family.
they also received an access easement and a utility line easement as part of that.
so the county's position is that reservation means that we've had a subdivision and we've got to include them in our subdivision or get a waiver of the balance of the tract.
maybe just for the record I'd say we disagree.
we don't think that -- we think that reservation of that well site is exempt under the local government code and that we're still the original tract, but alternatively we're asking for a waiver of the balance of the tract because of undue hardship.
there's no need to subdivide the well site.
it's not going to be a separate lot.
we could administratively waive the balance of the tract if we were to extend a 50-foot road to the well site, but we don't think it's necessary and it's got an access easement.
so we're asking that the balance of the tract waiver also be granted.
and then the last two, item c and d on your item, number 36, judge, is a street alignment variance and that is the mystic and shawnee connections from the neighborhood.
we're asking a variance that we don't have to connect to those streets for the reasons we discussed.
and that's supported by the neighborhood and supported by staff.
and then we've also asked for a dead-end street length requirement just because there's no connecting street between old san antonio road and the back of our property.
there's no street to connect to.
and so we would ask for a dead-end street variance on that.
we've had that reviewed by the fire marshal.
the fire marshal has approved that and that's also supported by staff.
under the alternative proposal number three, that dead end street would potentially become the frontage road for 45.
>> so there's agreement on c and d?
>> yes.
>> and it's on the agenda just so the court will know you've been working hard?
or are we supposed to approve it?
>> I think the court has to vote and approve it.
>> yes.
>> but the recommendation will be to approve c and d.
okay.
good progress, good progress.
>> judge, one other thing that has to be done --
>> that concludes my remarks.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> I think this is true of any proposal and that is the dedication of right-of-way for the old san antonio bridge project.
you know, it's one that's made our short list so far.
and their property abuts that structure.
if we need right-of-way from them to help replace that structure, they've offered to donate that to the cause, so to speak.
>> and that's part of this deal?
>> we would make it part of a phasing agreement that we anticipate will be coming out of this.
>> judge, it wasn't part of our original proposal, but county staff had asked for that and we agreed to it.
>> okay.
questions?
additional questions?
am I hearing that we should go into executive session now?
discuss this?
anybody else wishing to give open court comments?
if so, please come forward.
give us your name weanld be happy to get your comments.
>> good afternoon, judge and Commissioners.
>> afternoon.
>> my name is rene gilbert with murphy engineering.
and I represent the property just west adjacent to this he is stance I can't development.
it is commonly known as the boone-heap tract.
I know that this has been in process for quite awhile.
I have talked a little bit with with the engineers probably 10 or 11 months ago about extending the street as well as the utilities to this tract.
at that time the project was -- I was told that it was on hold.
well, we got a notice that it was here at may Commissioners' court and the plan that we initially had showed no extension to the west to our property.
I am here asking for access for the boone-heep tract through this -- through this estancia development.
>> ms. Gilbert, could you orient us as to where boone-heep is on that map so I can keep consistent?
>> west of the tip.
the bottom of that tract at the tip of their map.
if you realign their map, it would show this.
>> oh, I see.
yeah, yeah,ing I see.
got it.
then it would be right there.
>> that is the boone-heep tract.
>> got it.
thank you so much.
>> as I mentioned, the road was not extensioned to puryear and in doing the preliminary plan we wanted to connect to that road and I received this morning the new layout.
and what you have before you is the proposed layout, so estancia adjacent to boone heep.
our issue is not with sh 45 at all.
all we want is access to the tract.
and we were willing to provide a road to tie up with puryear.
at the location that puryear is now, we have no access.
at that point there is somewhat of a 50-foot strip of property that we -- that we own, but that doesn't really give us access to i-35, if you will.
and the reason we need this access is because on the north end of our tract (indiscernible) drive is our way in and out.
I think if you know anything about this area, when you go out horse they have to royal adobe, there are flooding issues at twin creek and arroyo, at that intersection.
this is where the creeks come together.
we've talked with the county years ago about developing this property and using that as access to our tract, and the county had concerns about the flooding issue and said that that was the only way in and out and it would not be a good idea.
this provides us a second access, all-weather access, if you will, to the tract.
our layout where our road comes in is not necessarily set in stone, but we just would like to be able to connect in order to get out.
our development proposes something like 2009 lue's west of onion creek.
and to get out, to have access to our property, we need puryear extended at a different location than it is currently shown.
>> so what's the applicant's position on that request?
>> judge, a couple of points on that.
first of all, the reason we bent this road this way was to minimize the burden of this road on our development.
if we turn it to come back up this way, then we're going to add another 10, 15 acres of burden to our property.
second, I think -- my understanding is that there's a 50 -- that horse they have is not the only access.
there's a 50-foot joint access easement to old san antonio road that should be sufficient for a local street.
so there is an access from the boone-heep tract via that 50-foot access there.
this roadway also, frankly, provides access to the nen northward menard tra.
there is no other access there that I'm aware of other than the joint access easement.
so the question is do we connect this road to mr. Menard or do we connect this road to ms. Gilbert's client?
I don't think we're required to connect it to one or the other.
what we're required to do is we're required to come up with a layout that meet txdot's requirements.
we're required to -- although we dispute this, we're required to reserve right-of-way and dedicate right-of-way, which we've done, and we have extend add road all the way to our property line.
so we'll serve future traffic to the west.
now, if the owner over here, who I don't think has submit add preliminary plan yet, but if the owner over here would like to contact us and work with us about making a change, we can always revise the preliminary plan in the future.
but if you move this this way, then this is just back to the proposal that we don't support or agree with.
and so what we're hopeful is that if we can -- if you're interested in having 45 go through in this proposal, then we could -- we could at least do the best we can to accommodate the various interests in the area.
>> so steve, do we have -- does the county have a position on the request from the boone-heep?
>> normally we would rely upon the future platting of the other properties that are involved here.
the menard tract, if it ever were to come in, we would require them to dedicate the right-of-way necessary to extend this road through.
and then that would get it to them as well.
I agree with them they need another access.
I wouldn't rely on horse they have.
but horse thief.
but I don't know how far I could force them, the etancia through to accommodate another development.
>> Commissioner?
>> is the boone heep tract, is there a preliminary plan with Travis County on it?
>> no, ma'am.
>> no.
>> this is just preliminary drawings?
>> I'm john voigt, owner of the boone-heep tract.
we've submitted an f.a.r.
to the city.
we're working on preliminaries.
we've prepared a prelim and we've talked to the county.
we're right on the cusp of presenting it.
and when we talked to the applicant's engineers, we presented a couple of different ideas for connectivity.
the -- and we're basically in -- we would support their plan.
all we're asking is that the road be moved just slightly, just 150 to the north or so.
maybe not even that much, to where it will intersect with our property.
the way -- we do have a 50-foot joint access easement that goes out through -- out to old san antonio, but it's an s-curve right there.
it would be impossible -- Travis County would never allow us to build a road that has to take two very, very sharp bends.
mr. Menard is a rancher and is not interested in developing, or at least he's expressed that to us several times; however, if they move this road just absolutely to the north, it will not only give access to mr. Menard should he decide to do something, but it will also give access to us.
we are then going to hook on that that road.
we'll go to the west boundary line, the railroad tracks, so should the next property owner decide on to develop they can have access out to i-35.
we're also going to provide access up to horse thief trail and the arroyo dobles road up to the north and we also have the ability to connect down to the south to the southern property owner, so it does open up a fair amount of connectivity.
I know the county has told us in the past that they were interested also in providing some flood control improvements there, and this would help on the flood control.
I've got right now several thousand acres in Travis County that I'm going through the process and we're dealing with connectivity on every one of them.
I think we've worked well with these guys to provide connection roads to all of the property owners beyond us or that we may wrap around.
and none of the roads that we're providing actually are in any campo plan.
we're just providing stub roads to adjacent property owners so they can circulate through our property, we can circulate through theirs.
you don't have to go on to county maintained collectors to go from one subdivision to the other.
so while we're not trying to create any hardship on the estancia owners, if you look at their map -- let me just show you what all we're suggesting.
>> while he's going up there, let me ask staff a question.
since you have offered that you would require estancia to provide the full right-of-way reservation for 45, when this preliminary plan on the boone heep comes in, would you then be asking them to provide a full right-of-way dedication for the proposed 45 south?
>> yes.
>> are you aware of that?
>> reservation, not dedication.
>> reservation.
>> I would want a combination.
>> she said reservation.
>> well, the issue is up for the same for your subdivision as it is for estancia.
>> whatever you come up with on estancia, we will live with.
let me show you where we are.
this is the edge of our property right here.
right there.
this is where the road is.
and so we're only talking -- I don't know if you can see that, but we're only talking about this road being moved from here to there.
actually it's a little over 100 feet.
so I don't think it's any huge hardship on estancia, but otherwise it would have to come here, make a right turn, then a left turn to get around there, which obviously Travis County would never allow us to build a road like that.
by moving is here it's straight.
in our plans we carry it -- continue on straight all the way to the west boundary line.
and this -- this has been designated as a future transportation node for mass transit with the railroad on the west side of the property.
so maybe some day that will happen too.
>> questions?
>> as I'm looking at your map, boone-heep is right below a subdivision right above it.
and I heard you allude to it, but how is your proposal -- how should we anticipate that your proposal would connect up with the subdivision to the north?
>> do we have copies of this plan?
>> no.
>> you can see -- on our proposed prelim we're intersecting with this road, this puryear road, so we have an intersection that goes up to the subdivision to the north.
and then we of course extend the road all the way to our west boundary line.
>> so you would connect up with which road?
I'm looking at the map quest.
that's horse thief.
so you would connect up on horse thief?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> got it.
>> we didn't name the road, by the way.
>> [ laughter ]
>> thanks for that clarification.
>> okay.
>> Commissioner, if I could follow up on that.
>> [ inaudible ]
>> we need that microphone, please.
>> god has spoken.
>> [ laughter ]
>> where this proposal would come in would be about here.
so there would be nothing to prevent mr. Lloyd from bending this road to come here.
it would be -- there would be a little piece of it across menard property, but it would be a much smaller change than having us give another 10, 15 acres.
>> is mr. Menard willing?
>> I don't know if mr. Menard is willing or not.
I assume that mr. Menard could be approached.
and we would ask that if this is something that mr. Lloyd wants to do, he could approach us and we could talk about that and we could revise our preliminary plan in the future if there's some mutual accommodation.
but otherwise his request would have us give another 10, 15 acres of our property to benefit a connection to him.
and that connection can be achieved in other ways.
and we are providing connection to the area further west once we connect there.
>> it would be nice to have a mutual plan along the landowners that we in government could then enshrine and move toward with the cohesive plan.
is that possible, is that doable?
>> I don't know.
I don't know.
I think there would have to be a lot of discussions about that.
and we have -- we need to get our plan approve by July 18th because we've been penned fog 18 months.
and so we can always revise it if we come up to an accommodation, but if we don't get it approve then we have to start all over again.
>> so it does seem that there's considerable mutual interest at least in three property owners right at that intersection of those properties.
>> I think what we ought to do is encourage them to work together to the extent that they can and deal with the item on the agenda today.
option 3 is still alive.
>> yes, sir.
>> at this time I suggest we go into executive session with legal and discuss this matter.
try to handle it as expeditiously as possible today.
so this is item 36, a, b, c and d.
and we have been advised that c and d there's agreement on so our discussion will mainly be about a and b.
we're going into executive session under the consultation with attorney to the open meetings act.
do we also need the real estate?
just the consultation with attorney.
we'll discuss this one item and then return to open court before taking action.
>> we've returned from executive session where we discussed item number 36, the only item that we announced.
Commissioner Huber?
>> from the bottom up?
>> okay.
>> move that we approve the request in 36-d -- can I do c and d together?
>> makes sense to me.
>> approve the request in 36 c and d.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Eckhardt.
discussion on that motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> move that we deny 36-a.
>> second.
>> I was going to do deny and --
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> I move that we approve the request in 36-b, conditioned on dedicating and reserving right-of-way on the southern part of the tract at the whits and along the alignment the applicant proposed to staff last week and would be in compliance with our regulations and with the caveat that this motion is not a vote of endorsement by Travis County of 45 south for campo planning purposes.
>> second.
>> mr. Howe, was that clear, that part of it?
we actually denied the appeal in 36-a, but approving alternative c from the way I understand it.
>> and approve alternative c under what item?
>> b.
>> b is the balance of the tract waiver?
>> it would kind of be part of 36-a, but we considered a and b en29ed.
and we that that by approving alternative c the need for b goes away.
that would be further addressed in the preliminary plan.
>> the need for b goes away?
>> the need for the balance of the tract waiver goes away.
>> we're basically -- we're waiving balance of the tract without you having to meet the requirements of 50-foot right-of-way and so on.
>> okay.
and we're specifying that this alternative 3 is going to be the reservation and dedication?
>> yes.
>> and I think if staff understands that, I understand it as well.
>> now the judge understands it too.
>> [ laughter ] and the record has us basically as approving that as staff understands it as laid out and as we discussed today.
are we together on that, everybody?
>> if I may, we will be seeing that in the preliminary plan that will be coming forward and I guess also spoken to in the phasing agreement that will be coming forward at the same time in the future.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all for your input.
we appreciate it.
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.
