Travis County Commissioners Court
February 14, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 13
13 is consider and take appropriate action.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> and we want to talk about some of the feedback we've received from the community in our most recent public meeting.
so again, the key components of this plan are the concept map and the narrative.
the concept map, again, is looking at 25 years.
and this corridor covers over 30,000 acres from the highway 183 to the county line, bastrop county line, and then from highway 969 down to highway 71.
so it's over 30,000 acres along the colorado river.
the concept map is intended to show land use intensity and some of the mobility improvements that we envision over the next 30 -- 25 years.
the intensity, in this particular diagram, shows what's envisioned in 2035 and the color-coded pie chart there, for example, gives you an idea of what would be hopefully in 2035 the land use intensity, and it's important to note here that if you look at the -- about three-quarters of this pie chart is basically rural undeveloped agriculture, it's recreational and natural areas, it's post-mining open space and the colorado river itself.
so almost three-quarters of this proposed plan is undeveloped or very low developed land uses.
also in the plan are street sections which reflect transportation and land use intensity, so you'll see in the plan details about what we envision as far as urban intensity, going from urban to a rural, and then what would drive that intensity normally is our roadway system.
and so the roadway system cross sections are shown in the plan, and it gives you a detailed kind of a idea of how the land uses that we don't necessarily control but we can incentivize with our types of road patterns and road scales and road details that we put into the corridor.
the plan narrative, the second major component of the plan, starts and speaking to the goals of the area.
for a plan framework we have three broad goals.
the first goal is concern to protect our natural resources.
the second goal was to improve our quality of life, and then the third goal was to provide mobility and transportation of choice.
and I'll go into a few examples of those in a second and then we'll come back to the plan map to finalize our presentation.
one of the things that's in our quality of life goals, for example, I want to touch on this morning is the concurrent reclamation.
we've had several meetings with the tri-party agreement and other meetings as it relates to upcoming mining in this area, and I think it's a very important part of this plan to recognize that the mining interests have looked at the -- what we're calling concurrent reclamation and that is what we believe will go forward in this corridor, it's the first time it's been used in this corridor for mining, and basically the concept is they are not stripping off and selling off all the topsoil.
the topsoil is being replaced back on to the area that it was previously mined, and it's doing it in a concurrent manner, so you don't have these large stretches of open pits that have -- without vegetation or without cover.
so we see that as an important critical element because mining is envisioned to continue in this corridor for the next 25 or 30 years.
but as the land intensity map showed, we envision that to maybe be scaled down to almost -- less than 700 -- almost less than 800 acres in 35 years.
so it's very important for, I think, the private sector as well as the public sector to work together here as the mining unfolds to meet our goals and objectives as it relates as to this concurrent mining.
I think it's an important part of the plan that I think the private sector has adopt and we'll follow.
>> so we have agreement on the concurrent reclamation?
>> yes, sir.
our understanding right now is that's where everything is headed.
>> and how is that agreement reflected?
>> I believe it will be in -- as the permitting evolves and the tri-party agreement itself, as it relates to txdot -- I mean, tex -- hopefully those incentives are there through those two types of documents, as well as the plan itself, putting that kind of vision, that's what we expect from the private sector.
we feel like that's a certain -- a good reality.
>> but we have talked with them and they have agreed verbally, orally, to do it?
>> yes, sir.
that's my understanding.
>> okay.
>> one more question.
that's your understanding, but who is negotiating that for Travis County?
who is involved in those conversations?
>> that would have been joe, joe geiselman and tom nuffles was involved as well.
I'm not sure that language is in the current language of the tri-party agreement.
we can verify that and insert it if we have to.
we have not sent all this information over to the city for the tri-party agreement yet, so that could be part of the package.
>> it's -- a big deal, not that I disbelieve it, but it would be good to have evidence of it if that's so.
>> yes.
>> this is in follow-up to judge Biscoe's concerns.
do we have a document yet that is -- that is the draft of the development plan based on the three-party agreement, or at this point is it in outline form?
>> we talk about the tri-party agreement, what form that's in right now?
it's in the form of terms and conditions at this point.
>> so we need to just take a look and make sure that that's memorialized in the document?
>> yeah, right.
>> and I guess in that regard also, we have several meetings, public meetings, that are
>> [inaudible] some other areas, but we want to make sure that the person that was a part of that process, and they gave extensive testimony as we went through this, and of course we even had city of Austin representation because it's in the etj and a whole bunch of other things.
so it's just a cross section of exchanging information and then putting it down, looking at these particular recommendations.
I'm not going to -- you go ahead, you're doing a good job.
thank you.
I'm not going to steal your thunder.
>> thank you.
what's on the screen right now is the example -- again, back to our narrative, which is the other key component of the plan.
within the narrative are goals and objectives and I outlined those three major goals.
each goal within the plan also has a significant number of objectives, and then we have tools, policies for implementation, and then more importantly too is a time frame that we would suggest to the court is would the staff would work towards as it relates to implementation of some of these items. So a key part of this plan is to not only put forth the goals and objectives of how we would get there, but more importantly it outlines a significant number of strategies it would take to achieve this plan.
we know this is not going to be an easy task over the next 20 to 35 years.
there's a lot of unknowns in planning.
we take a risk in putting our vision out there and knowing it's going to be difficult to achieve, but I think the -- the alternative to not plan is certainly going to -- and let nature take its course is not what we're recommending to the court.
I think the court should recognize that planning is a risk, but the odds are in your favor taking these steps to lay out specific strategies that we think over the next 20 to 30 years could achieve this vision.
no guarantees, but we think this is at least a proper -- right step to help get us there.
we realize it's not a plan that's set in concrete and we do know that it will be flexible and things will change, but I think it's very important for the court to recognize that putting forth a vision and an idea of how we get there helps that community, as well as the private sector and this court achieve that vision.
we had a very -- and do have a very robust web site on this particular project.
I just want to draw that to the court's attention.
we have put the draft plan up there.
we've put all of our public engagement efforts up there.
the packet that you have this morning with the exhibits, exhibit 1 and exhibit 2 have been posted on the internet since the end of December, and we continue to get some comments and feedback on that as late as this week, we were getting, again, comments.
so my hope after we go through the plan, I think some of the changes that are being recommended we agree with, and so we want to review those with you and then hopefully at the end of this presentation we would recommend to the court -- move to have a public hearing and a plan adoption at the earliest -- at their earliest convenience.
with that I'll turn it over to charlie, he's going to take a look at some of the transportation changes in the draft plan, and this is the original plan that you saw six months ago.
we haven't made any changes yet so that's here today to talk about some of the recommended changes on the community.
also I'd like to introduce tom webber and jean drew.
jean drew is with the city of Austin and she's been managing the Austin side of this plan and been instrumental to help us get to where we are.
and in your backup jean is here to also brief you, but in the backup is some of the stuff that city of Austin have with their boards and commissions in the -- pretty extensive the last three months.
with that I'll let charlie talk about --
>> do you want to flip-flop?
we're going to try to show this on the laptop.
it may be a bit easier to see.
>> maybe you can show with arrows.
>> I'm not quite sure how
>> [inaudible].
>> there were a few comments from the public that we want to go ahead and make a change on the existing concept map.
the first transportation change -- can you see this, on the screen?
this is arterial c right here.
we're revising that alignment 500 feet to the west, and a lining that with holiday, and that's because there was an unrecorded final plat in this area and we worked with the developer to get that alignment changed.
no.
2 --
>> the reason for that, though, is -- as far as access to that particular developer, I guess the homes I guess will be constructed in that area.
>> right, there's an unrecorded -- that's correct.
we work with quality code, the developer.
>> so they are basically in agreement with the arterial c situation.
>> yes, sir.
>> which --
>> [inaudible] 969, arterial c; is that correct?
>> yes, sir.
>> but that was the point for the shift.
>> correct.
>> go ahead.
>> and we're revising desmit boulevard in this location right here, west of hunters bend road, and again it's for a final plat we're making this change so we can get that connectivity over west of Austin colony subdivision.
the third change is revising smith boulevard east of arterial c.
we're going to have to delete this segment right here and have to do some mining -- due to mining operations that are occurring in this area.
so that's going to have to be deleted.
and then another comment is we're going to show a current schematic for -- in this area for the gilbert lane road extension, and that's going to reflect where we are in the schematic process, doing that 2011 bond project.
>> did we have any opposition to that gilbert lane extension?
>> I think there has been some opposition, and I think we are working with the public on that -- those comments that they're having.
>> I don't know that I would classify it as opposition.
they don't think -- yeah, they just don't think that the road will do what they would like for it to do, and that is to keep from dumping more Travis County on fm 969.
they'd prefer another route, completely independent route, out of the Austin college subdivision over to sh 130.
they feel like that would be a better road to build rather than this plus projects identified by charlie.
>> but I guess my point, though, is that with this gilbert lane extension, of course -- and that was secondary access basically for Austin college, which the last bond election that we had in 2011 suggested that that secondary access -- in fact, that was top priority.
that was the number one priority issue as far as the
>> [inaudible] bond coming back to us and saying, look, this is the top priority that we'd like to see that this court will place this on the ballot for a voter approval.
of course my point is that in this particular area the voters end up approving -- about 80% of the voters, example, precinct 101, approved this particular gilbert lane extension as it will relieve traffic coming in from
>> [inaudible] school, which was part of a problem, west fall and also sandifer street there.
so it appears that we are in line with what the folks in precinct 101 are supporting.
in fact, 80% of them did in this past November election.
of last year.
so --
>> and I don't know that the folks are 100% supportive of it, that's a large portion of the community.
to your point, Commissioner, we got that approved.
we got financed for another 18 million and -- we got $22 million worth of improvements going in that area.
>> this is basically all connected.
has some connectivity, especially when you're coming out looking at this fm 969, especially with the -- especially with the extension and widening of 969 from # 177 all the way up to hunters bend, which that will basically be a intersecting point here also.
so I just think all of it is basically tied in together.
>> it is.
the comments we did receive on the plan, one representative out there who says he's representing various numbers of the community, they pointed out that they didn't feel like arterial c that charlie just discussed would be any benefit to them.
they felt like more benefit would be building a road over to 130 at harold green, and that would give them a true back door on to a separate roadway, and I guess the message here is that this is not something that's going to happen overnight.
this road system the typically evolve through the development of the property, and a lot of the road system, as you all know, is built by developers as they develop their property.
and for those gaps between what they build, we have our bond referendums. So the roads on here we think are appropriate, which ones go when, that's subject to market conditions and the developers, where they want to start.
so that's where we are with that.
>> okay.
>> I just have two more changes.
one is in this area at harold green boulevard and 973.
we had left off the future transit station, proposed location for that, and that's occurring right in this area, sh 130 harold green and 973.
and then finally right along 130 we had left off a pathway trail that connects where it left off to state highway 71.
>> I would just make a comment on the transit component as well.
the comments were received.
they'd love to have it now.
>> I understand.
>> if capital metro were to go into that area they would have to be voted into that area, so to speak.
>> is that -- I know
>> [inaudible] come up, and of course they were
>> [inaudible] cap metro in this area for that type of relief.
but in the meantime I think we still at this point I don't know how many folks are aware, do we still have cart available for that area?
>> yes.
>> I'm wondering how many people are available of the carts system.
it is available a certain time of the week as far as transit.
but anyway, it is available, is that correct?
>> yes.
>> thank you, Commissioner Gomez.
>> more than likely carts is the one that -- to provide some of that is transportation because capital metro won't offer the service unless they annex the area.
so annexation just increases their service area.
>> those are the transportation comments that we got through the public.
>> thank you, charlie.
>> I'd like to have jean just kind of brief you on the city of Austin's efforts on their side of the fence here to have this land reviewed by that area.
>> jean?
>> good morning, I'm jean drew with the watershed protection department of the city of Austin, and the watershed protection department has been the lead department working with Travis County on this plan.
we've coordinated with seven different city departments in providing the input for the plan, also working with them to coordinate the goals and working on the implementation recommendations.
we've coordinated closely with the imagine Austin comprehensive plan to make sure that there's good liaison and connections between the two plans, especially regarding the long-range planning efforts for that area, including the transportation and parkland and open space improvements.
since August of 2011 I've taken this plan forward to five different boards and commissions.
the environmental board, the planning commission, the zoning and platting commission, the waterfront advisory board and the parks board, in providing a staff briefing on the plan and also giving their recommendations and comments on the plan.
all of these boards and commissions have been very supportive of the plan and nudging of the long -- encouraging of the long-range planning efforts in this January.
staff provided in January a plan to the council on the corridor river plan and also proposed the time frame it's going to move forward through the Commissioners court to finalization of the plan.
>> what did the city say after -- especially at the high level of the city county.
not saying the commission is not high level.
don't tell nobody that.
they're all high-level folks at the city.
>> [laughter]
>> I haven't gotten any direct questions or feedback from the city council other than just, you know, thanking for the information and efforts that the -- they've been very supportive of the efforts, but we haven't gotten any specific questions or anything.
>> but at some stage of this, since it is in the etj, and since it has gone through the five commissions that we have with the city of Austin, and we are on a timeline.
we're trying to move forward as much as possible, public hearing coming up on this item, and the judge suggested it, but anyway, my concern is having everything in concert, where we have the blessings of the city and along with hopefully the support of the Commissioners court, and so I'm just trying to figure out as we go through the process as far as timelines are concerned, what will be the most appropriate timeline for the city to get back with the Commissioners court and say, hey, we approve -- we have interest in this and we actually approve the plan.
we have maybe some modification, or whatever we need to look at, but coming from the -- from the other level, city manager, city council, or wherever it needs to land, and I don't know how that would be housed.
so that's my question.
>> okay.
to respond to that, in working with the city manager, this is not an item that we're proposing for action from the city council.
>> okay.
>> the city council requested a briefing on the information.
we've provided that briefing.
I don't have any follow-up questions from them.
I can check again with city management to ensure that council didn't have any follow-up questions, but to my knowledge they were very satisfied for the briefing that they were provided.
>> okay.
okay.
that's good, then.
all right.
thank you.
>> so what's the plan?
what's next?
>> Commissioner Eckhardt has a question.
>> my question goes to the city.
do we know what the city's annexation plan is for this area since it's immediately contiguous to the city limits?
>> that was some of the information that we put together in preparing the documents.
the city doesn't have any immediate plans in this corridor to annex.
they usually annex contiguously, but that was something that was evaluated in terms of the information that the city provided in support of the plan.
>> this is contiguous, the city has annexed all the way up to the 130 corridor and in many ways our job is to make the unincorporated area so attractive that the city wants to annex it.
>> [laughter]
>> as far as next step.
>> the presentation, again, I'd like to encourage the court to move this forward and plan for a public hearing in the near term.
>> we'd like to incorporate changes that we've heard from folks into the thing before we present it to the public, and then have a public hearing.
if you can approve us to do that?
>> are those changes in our backup?
>> yes, sir, that's exhibit --
>> several?
there's several pages.
>> which exhibit?
>> 2.
>> judge, there are several pages to it.
>>
>> [inaudible] exhibit 1
>> [inaudible] exhibit 2.
>> exhibit 1 has the community comments and our responses, and then exhibit 2 is a summary of where we would recommend plan changes, draft plan changes.
so what the community saw is where we would change it from what we presented to the community, is exhibit 2.
and there's --
>> exhibit 2 is a separate document?
>> yes, sir.
it's right behind the table of the community comments.
>> I think that final page?
>> I don't have any one pagers here.
>> in the back --
>> now you know I haven't read it since I didn't know where it was.
>> [laughter] there's a whole lot of information here.
when would you like to have that public hearing?
>> as soon as possible.
>> yes, sir.
>> what kind of advance notice do you intend to give?
>> we have a very extensive email notification system set up.
we could also post it on channel 17 and in the agenda, of course.
>> how many days do you plan to give?
>> 30 days enough for you guys?
>> yes, sir.
>> 30 days.
>> okay.
that would work for me.
now, I think that the next presentation, we really ought to refer to pages.
I was sitting here trying to follow you and I looked at the pictures here, I'm really more picture oriented than words, I guess.
I was trying to follow you looking at these pictures.
I'm not sure I was able to do that.
it seems to me that this is substantial, and I think we ought to plan to have a Thursday afternoon work session before we have a voting session to approve it.
>> do you want to have that before a public hearing?
>> no, I would have it after the public hearing.
that way we can take public comments into account and the work session really for the Commissioners court first and second, whatever residents want to come and participate.
>> I want to thank you for the last thing you just said, you're eager for public input, and I'm sorry my hearing is -- I'm getting old and Commissioner Davis, was it cart system?
>> cart.
>> c-a-r --
>> spelled c-a-r-t?
>> it's an am row anymore.
>> capital area rural transportation system.
it's an acronym.
>> and again, my hearing, did I hear you say that there was a recommended extension to I 30, which is of course a toll road and some people are too poor?
>> no, there are roads that are shown in this plan that will be extended to 130, tied into 130.
>> so you don't have to use I 30 to access this --
>> right now one main road they've got they feed on to which is fm 969.
they would like to have a road extended over to sh 130, which would be south of 969 and then they can jump on the front annual road and avoid -- frontage road and avoid the section of 969 they're most worried about also crossing carol green boulevard which would allow them to go under 130 over to 973.
that's the free access --
>> so there is an alternative --
>> in the plan there's another alternative to get you to 973 that's right at the colorado river where the 130 bridges crosses.
>> that's fantastic.
>> and about the public hearing, in the backup material you all are talk about, is there -- talking about, is there public access to that backup material that --
>> it's on-line.
>> it's on-line.
okay.
so I can find that out, I guess from you guys or something.
all right.
well, that's great.
and -- okay.
I was just trying to write everything out.
thanks so much.
>> you're welcome.
>> what day -- 30 days from now, what Tuesday would you want that public hearing to take place?
>> I would advertise this in a newspaper.
so you got to have, what, four or five days for that?
>> yes.
>> and then the -- and schedule a public hearing for a Tuesday at 9:00.
>> I move that we do just as the judge suggested there and whatever lead time we need for advertising in the newspaper, for the public hearing to be set, and also a follow-up work session after that particular public hearing be held here, and I guess a time will be decided by the judge at some future date.
and -- but this would be my motion, to let that move forward.
I'd also like to include, I guess, the city of Austin as we go through this process, judge, because they've been very integral -- a very integral part of this process, in the direction of it.
and of course we kind of want to keep a close eye on the city of Austin.
>> [laughter]
>> the lower colorado river authority was also well involved in this as well.
>> right.
so --
>> you don't have any immediate retirement plans, do you, ms. Drew?
>> [laughter]
>> but I'd like to move forward with that -- with that particular motion, judge, if that's appropriate.
>> second by commission -- commr Gomez.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
do you plan to touch base with joe about the concurrent reclamation issue?
>> I will do that, sir.
>> there's a point person at
>> [inaudible] from whom we can get confirmation, I think that would help.
>> okay.
we'll do that.
>> thank you all very much.
appreciate it.
>> thank you for coming down from the city of Austin.
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.
Subscribe for updates