Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 3
Number 3 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding a request to temporarily close rancho alto road in precinct 3 for road construction beginning October 1, 2011 and continuing through March 15th, 2012, or until construction is completed.
move the public hearing be open.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> good morning, judge acknowledge Commissioners.
this request is for the court's approval to allow us to close a section of rancho alto road in precinct 3.
rancho alto is a -- about a three quarter mile section of road that runs between fm 1626 and frate barker road.
just to the west of manchaca road.
runs parallel to it.
part of it is in the city.
the northern 600 feet and the southern maybe 350 to 400 feet is in the county.
and the southern piece of it is essentially a caliche road.
the northern piece has already been built and meets our standards and when we bring this item to court for the street acceptance which is on the agenda today we would like to have that accepted as well.
but we have posted notice on site.
we've received bids for the project.
we would like to close the southern portion of it and for about a five and a half month period, and that will allow us to get the project done quicker and safer.
and we have not seen any or heard of any objection to this.
we would recommend closure.
>> would anyone like to give comments during this public hearing?
this is item number 3.
if so, please come forward.
if you would give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe and honorable Commissioners.
I'm larry warner, a property owner of the northwest corner of rancho alto and 1626.
I've owned that property since about 1996, and it's been in the family since '83.
I have a lot of knowledge of the history of rancho alto since back in the '50s how that subdivision came to be that my property is on, and mr. Hensley, who has passed on, was my neighbor to the north.
we have communicated with the -- the county t.n.r., tony valdez being the project manager of this project, and also with steven frost, I believe, with vickry associates, the engineer for the project.
and we have expressed our concerns, myself and mr. Neal ray, the property owner on the east side of rancho alto at 1626, and in regards to the washout of that road.
unusually mr. Anderson, who owned the property and doyle wilson bought the property from, owned the entire length of rancho alto from 1626 to frate barker road.
and somewhere somehow or another mr. -- mr. Wilson was allowed to skate from developing that 310 feet from my driveway down to 1626 to improve the road the same as the northernco section of rancho alto.
our concerns, and I have seen the road since mr. Anderson developed it into Texas department of transportation standards for an unimproved road back in the '70s, he put in a gravel -- a caleche base and gravel road and it remains so and very passable for the years up until the time that it was bought and developed by doyle wilson.
in the process of that development, it washed out that road numerous times.
txdot has wished that that road was paved and, of course, they are happy to see that it's going to happen.
my biggest concerns right now are the fact that during the development my property was broken into three separate times and it's all on county records with the sheriff's department.
numerous things stolen.
lots of dollars, thousands of dollars worth of stuff stolen.
and my concern obviously is that during this construction process they are going to have to remove the 6-foot chain-link fence that I have and, you know, the property will be open to the trespassers again.
now, I have been supposedly reassured verbally that they are going to put up some type of temporary fence.
I don't know that that's actually the case.
neal and I both have requested that we have plans and specifications.
we have tried to participate on an amenable basis with tony valdez and the engineer.
we have asked for construction documents, we've asked to be participants in this in that mr. Ray and I have both a vested interest in that we have dedicated portions of our property for right-of-way and so forth like that.
my second concern is the fact that this is going to be a substandard road.
having been a resident of Travis County for the last 46 years, I've seen too much good county money chasing bad money or bad investments in poor construction.
and knowing the history of rancho alto, since it was passable up until about four years ago, I'm afraid that even though they are going to pave this thing 30 feet wide for three lanes of traffic, they are going to have rock I don't remember drainage in the swells in the ditches going down.
there is no storm water transmission underneath rancho alto at 1626 to the lower side which is on the west side.
supposedly they are anticipating that this they think on the east side is going to drain out across 1626 to the north.
and that's not much of a grade.
having been in construction and code administration and design and the whole nine yards for the last 40-plus years, I've seen a lost bad designs and I'm concerned that the substandard road that they are putting in is going to last a substandard amount of time before, unfortunately, the county is going to be out there fixing it.
I have seen rain events over the years that -- that are horrendous.
and now that it's paved, even though they have inlets on both the east and west sides of rancho alto, there is still an enormous amount of rain that comes down across -- across rancho alto and down across 1626.
so I've got security issues, I've got design issues, and I just wanted on to go on public record because this is the public forum to do that to let you know that there is a good potential that the money that you are investing is not going to be a good investment without a little bit further consideration particularly for drainage more than anything else.
y'all have any questions?
>> response to that fence concern?
>> we typically do put in existing fence on the property.
what we typically do is put up a lower quality fence temporarily and when the work is done we'll put what was in place back.
>> we have that fence up before we start construction.
>> they would need to do that, yes, have access to the property or to the easement.
>> I share somewhat of concern particularly as it relates to security.
I guess I would like to see what the specifications are related toq not necessarily quality but the security capacity of the fence that would be put up.
>> sure.
>> I know that's a problem, but I think we should appropriately address that.
>> what about the quality of the substandard road that you have in mind?
>> it's called a substandard road because that's the name of the program that the funds are coming out of.
the design standards that we use for that program aren't the same standard that you would use for a subdivision today.
mostly in relation to lane width and passing of some water events greater than 25 years.
we have standards for the substandard project program because if you try to fit a current standard design into the right-of-way that's available not necessarily at this location but others around the county where we have these, it would be pretty disastrous for some existing subdivisions.
the designs that we do use, though, they do require meeting a minimum drainage requirements.
it's not our intention to allow water to flow over frate barker.
mr. Warner is correct one of the problems we're trying to address is water washing down this steep caleche road and taking with it basement material and washing down on to a property below that where it accumulates and it's been a long-standing problem.
this will fix that problem.
>> we have a certified engineer charged with designing an appropriate drainage.
>> that's correct.
that is correct.
>> this quality substandard road ought to be a whole lot better than what's out there now, mr. Warner.
>> obviously it will be a whole lot better.
what was there before the development started is a whole lot better than what's there now.
>> ten years from now it should be a lot better too, right, mr. Manila?
>> that's right.
>> we have him on road in on re.
>> asphalt has a better life the more traffic it has on it.
we're hoping the traffic that will be on the road once it's improved the asphalt will stay.
my biggers concerns are major rain events both coming off my property and the subdivision that the rock -- rock -- they take flat rock and lay it.
that eventually that's going to a road under the major rain event.
obviously neal and I want to work with the contractorren a the county and I have no qualms letting t.n.r.
knows their bar ditches are washing out or they are washing across 1626.
neal and I want to work with the contractor and we want to be a participant with the contractor, because, you know, obviously they are going to be, if you will, infringing on our property a little bit and our access, you know, to those properties.
but we want to work with the contractor to help make this project a successful one.
>> you may get some free work.
>> take a look at the plans.
>> an introduction to the contractor, participation in the pre-construction conference, those sorts of things.
>> right.
we typically do invite the neighbors most affected to a pre-construction meeting if they want to attend.
>> thank you.
>> you may want to wear your hard hat.
>> I have a hard head, but I'll wear my hard hat.
>> [laughter]
>> good to see you.
thanks for coming down.
anyone else to give comments?
>> item 6 and 34 are related to this.
so if you decide not to do -- take this action, those will be affected.
>> okay.
>> move the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
this will be action item number 6.
Commissioner Davis is also in favor of the item, closing the public hearing also.
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.
