Travis County Commissioners Court

May 22, 2012 - Item 3
Agenda

View captioned video.

Item number 3 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding a request to authorize the filing of an instrument to reject the dedication and abandon the public streets lenape trail, lenape cove, superview drive and indian scout trail, all originally dedicated by the plat of the overlook estates phase 1, a subdivision in precinct 3.

>> move the public hearing be open.

>> second.

>> all in favor?
that carries family.
Commissioner Davis still aaway.

>> in this instance, this was an older plat.
it was originally approved back in 1986 and I believe construction plans were approved later this year.
they are seek to go convert the streets in the plat from public to private in part so that they have more control over the maintenance and landscaping and file filtration strips that will be in the right-of-way.
I don't know of any objections to this and it meets our requirement so we recommend its approval.

>> our objection.

>> there are people back here.

>> do we typically allow requests like this?

>> yes.
these are dedicated by plat as public streets.
and we have a process outlined in our regulations for converting public streets to private streets and we're going through part of that process today having this hearing and that which we've reviewed, we have reviewed against the regulation in chapter 82.

>> okay.
this is a public hearing.
we do have three seats available for those who wish to give comments during this public hearing.
if you come forth and give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
actually we have -- can you all just slide over toward the end there?
we have four seats available.
five available.
that number keeps increasing.

>> only

>> [inaudible].

>> and once people give testimony, other people can come up.

>> there's another chair available if there are others who wish to give comments.
yes.

>> yes, sir.
all right.
my name is lis rice.
I live at 10210 thomaswood lane.
I've lived there since 2001.
as far takes name of the street, there are about ten different ways to pronounce it, I think.
I call it lenape.
others call it lenape, lenape.
anyway, there are many ways.
thomaswood lane is what, about seven blocks long and connects between thomas springs road and lenape.
I know that lenape has been on the city maps ever since I lived here.
we have a lot of people go down with their gps, get down to lenape, down there, look for the zoo and they can't get there.
it's always been cut through on the map.
it has never, to my knowledge, other than for seeing where bulldozers have gone, it has not been used as a street.
now this -- this development group is developing streets.
my concern is we have the thing that hear repeats itself for persons who do not listen.
if that street is closed, it will prevent us from having a fire escape.
if anything such as our bastrop experience should occur.
so for that point I am concerned that emergency vehicles be able to get out there.
I live close to thomas springs.
I could probably get out.
I have a daughter that lives clear down on the one block area of lenape.
they could easily be trapped.
so that's my first point.
point 2, if that is closed in such a way that they put a gate across it and let their people out but don't let people from thomas wood lane going through, it's certainly going to put a tremendous amount of traffic on to thomas wood lane and it's the only place I have to walk my dogs and there are no sidewalks anywhere.
it would be lovely to have a provision if they do go ahead and want to put a gate across there or everything, if there were a walk or bicycle path to go around so I could -- so I personally could walk my dogs facility, so the persons there could walk their animals or bicycle back in because either way they are going to be very enclosed.
the circle drive and the other streets out do not have any accommodation for anything other than the vehicles going on it.
bicycle path, nothing like.
that one other thing, it has occurred because of this group is we are getting a number of construction trucks coming down.
they get down to lenape and they have to turn around in a difficult area and go back out and around, so I would request that a no outlet sign or something be placed on thomas wood lane right where it turns off thomas springs road.
that would sure save us a lot of grief and a lot of truck drivers a lot of grief.
any questions?

>> I take it that the residents out there have not met with the developer?

>> we met with the development on March 3rd.
he had a meeting and served donuts and had a little piece of paper to write on.
what was it?
if you objected or if you agreed?
I don't remember which.
if you agreed.
I think he got two signatures out of the group that was there.
so they did have one on March 3rd.
they made an attempt.

>> how many of the residents attended the meeting?

>> 15, maybe.
something like that.

>> okay.

>> there are 37 properties affected in this one.

>> but like with this meeting, most residents found it difficult to get time off.
so 15 was a good turnout.
that is a good turnout today.

>> any questions for miss rice?

>> what time of day was the meeting?

>> pardon me?

>> what time of day was that meeting?

>> about 10:00, 9:30, 10:00 in the morning.
it was on a Saturday.
but it was -- and it was on a bitterly cold day.
but all right.

>> well, I've lived on that street since --

>> your name.

>> my name is terry hendricks.
h-e pdr x.
I live at 10401 thomas wood lane.
I've been there since 1983 when it was just a caleche road.
I never got a notice there was going to be a meeting of this they are talking about.
they went on March 3rd.
I've never heard of anything like.
that and the reason I'm here is to find out just exactly what they were planning on doing.
were they planning on cutting the street through and then making it private and not letting the people that live on thomas wood lane use that to get over to circle drive, or are they just going to close that off.
I'm for it closing it off and not even cutting it through.
we've been up there all these years with only one way in and one way out.
I'm satisfied with that.
I don't want another subdivision being able to use our little street.
like she said, we have no sidewalks.
the road is not that big.
and we have a few people that live down on the end that drive too fast as it is and other people coming through are really going to rip through there.
there are no signs saying what the speed limit is.
there is no speed limit on it and I object to that.
so, you know, I wanted to find out just exactly what's going on.
what's being proposed.

>> are we able to answer that question?

>> at this point what is being proposed is just for it to be -- to become private.
we don't have an application and a site plan at this point for any kind of gate, but I believe the applicant or applicant's representative is here that can speak to.
that but today what is on the table is just to convert it from public to private.
not to put gates up.

>> how do you do that?

>> how do you do that?
do what?

>>

>> [inaudible].

>> well, I mean, there are some private streets without gates.
they may propose that in the future.
they are three judge panel are representatives from the applicant here that would be best able to discuss what they may do in the future.

>> how can the residents of thomas wood lane get their street private so nobody else can use it?

>> you would need to go through -- talk -- call us at t.n.r., I'll give you some contact information.

>> just a waste of time basically.

>> no, sir.
we have a process that just as these people are going through and other people go through when they want to proposing to from public to private, that you would be expected to go through.

>> nobody should be granted a privilege to make a street, a public street private, period.
I mean, if you are going to cut a street through our road, we should be able to use it just like the people that are going to use our road.
that's not right.

>> okay, are we able to describe what the plan is?
in response to the question that mr. Hendrix asked.
are you here for the applicant?

>> we have several people here

>> [inaudible].

>> this is a good time to do it.
just a description of exactly what's in mind.
okay, now, if I were to go out there today, the roads that are in this item have not been constructed yet, right?

>> that's correct.

>> but the roads that the residents who have testified live on have been constructed.

>> that is not correct.
the road has been constructed from circle drive through the new subdivision, has not been completed from the new subdivision to our street thomas wood.

>> okay.

>> okay, are we able to answer mr. Hendrix's question?

>> it's been a relatively recent permit that was issued last year.
okay.
so she's correct.

>> okay.

>> judge, Commissioners, vince hebinger representing the owners and developers at this along with terry.
in '86 this thing was recorded, but never constructed so we had a plat sitting there that was vacant, road were there, lots were there.

>> no roads were there.

>> I mean the road lit all literallywas not there but the d showed up on taxing maps.
this thing has only been built last year and only a section from the front of circle drive, a portion of lenape taken first 20 or 30 lots and it's been constructed to Travis County standards.
now, being an '86 plat, the right-of-way was 50 feet.
we had to dedicate another 10 feet for water quality and drainage and stuff terry is going to talk about.
these are smaller right-of-way roads, but it was -- it was constructed to Travis County standards.
the owners want to maintain these road and right of ways to higher standards than Travis County.
they want to take this burden off you and pay for itself through the hoa.
they want to put additional landscaping in, they want to put some macesonry in the areas of what would usually be a right-of-way area, so they want to better their system and take the burden off you and bear it themselves.
we met with the neighborhoods on March 5th.
I was there.
we put a bunch of signs up around the area to notify people and a lot of people showed up.
there was about 21 folks there.
we have pictures of the folks that were there.
most of the folks had a lot of questions and we weren't proposing closing the street at that time.
we were explaining to them the process is we ask the Commissioners court for private streets at that time to be able to pay for a little bit higher standards and maintenance than on our own, and then we would come back and see if there's any other options as far as closing anything.
we weren't talking about closing anything off.
so if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them, but I was at the meeting.
it was a pretty good meeting.
we talked a lot about those streets and how that would operate.

>> okay, so basically you would build out the streets listed in the item.

>> yes.

>> and how would that impact the streets that exist today that are public ones?

>> well, only a portion of the front section exists today.
the back section hasn't been constructed at this time.
we propose not to leave anything out.
we'll still going to connect everything.

>> so the streets that are there now and the new ones would all be private.

>> would audible private, yes, sir.

>> if this is granted.

>> yes.

>> okay.
well, let's finish, get the other comments, then we'll come back to you.

>> my name is glenn renkenburger.
I live on lenape trail, the original section.
lenape trail is about half a mile from the through street that everyone uses to get to town.
so my main concern is the emergency vehicle access.
it would be very nice to have a second exit like was previously said.
my second point is that when all the development which is going to be occurring over the next five or ten years in our area, there's probably going to be about 150 new cars coming on to the main through street that everyone in our neighborhood has to make a left turn out of, so it's going to be really tough for us to get out of our neighborhood the way it stands right now where it's just a dead end.
so far traffic issues, it would be nice to be able to go through a public street and alternative route to get out.
so my third point is anything that the developers are going to be able to agree upon today, the futuristic homeowners association will be able to change so they might in the future vote up to put up a gate if it's a private street.
and eventually lock out the current residents.
so that's another reason I would like to keep a public street up front.
it just avoid problems in the future.
and that's all I've got.
so I'm for keeping it a public street.

>> okay.
yes.

>> my name is katherine powers.
I live at 10212 thomas woods lane, which is the end tee of will nape.
I vehemently oppose it being a public street.

>> you mean a private street.

>> I'm sorry?

>> said oppose a public street.

>> yes, I did mean private.
I'm sorry.
thank you very much.

>> just want to make the record correct.

>> I'm a little nervous.
I don't speak well in front of other people.

>> you are doing great.

>> I had done my due diligence.
I had seen that plat.
yes, that street was supposed to go through.
now, it's actually going to happen and it's going to be blocked off to us for emergency exit is the biggest concern to me.
also as lois stated, we don't have sidewalks.
it's a very rural community.
if they are allowed to come through on our street, it's going to give huge traffic burden.
I don't know how to correct that problem, but I think it should go both ways.
especially for the emergency part of it.
thank you.

>> thank you.

>> thank you.
okay.

>> my name is terry, I'm hear representing the applicant.
as vince said, this was subdivided in 1986, it was a Barton Creek watershed ordinance, but with 50 feet right-of-way it couldn't fully function with the overland flow strategy of the Barton Creek ordinance, which is why the additional 10 feet of right-of-way was dedicated for the vegetative swales that we're going to put in.
as vince said, the association would like to maintain that themselves and they think they can do a better job.

>> who is the association?
how many rooftops have been built in the subdivision so far?

>> there aren't any -- have any been started?

>> three or four has been start.

>> could you come up.

>> there's no occupants out there yet.

>> so the soaks right now is the developer and landowner standing in the shoes of the future residents.

>> correct.
correct.
as far as access goes, it -- there will be connectivity.
connectivity that has never existed for the last 26 years.
if any gating is done in the future, we would come back for permission to gate, but we've already talked to the fire department, talked about you know, they don't have a problem as long as you put in a lockbox with a backup battery power and have a gate system that defaults in case of a power failure to the open position.
so in the future there will be emergency fire access that does not exist right now and hasn't existed for the last 26 years.
no final decision has been made about the gating, but they would like to have control of the streets.
this subdivision doesn't have sidewalks either.
if folks in thomas woods are concerned or folks in thomas springs with concerned about a place to walk their animals, I suppose if our streets were gated, they would have a more private place to walk their dogs and I think that actually would make it -- ensure there was let cut-through traffic.
again, no decision has been made on the gating at this time.
we will have connectivity when we get to phase 2.
right now the only portion of the streets that have been built are the phase 1 streets and they don't connect in any case.

>> thomas wood lane subdivision is mobile home community.
they are putting nice houses come I adjacent to us and it's kind of like they don't want the trailer trash coming through their neighborhood.
it's all right for them to go through our neighborhood but it's not okay for us to go through theirs.
we're not trailer trash.
there's rules telling us how our mobile homes are supposed to be constructed.
it's not -- we have a few neighbors on the street that have trashy yards, I agree to that is correct but we're not basically trailer trash and that's kind of what it seems like to me that they are doing.
they don't want us to use their neighborhood, their streets, but they are going to use ours.

>> I don't see how we are going to use your streets.

>> if it's not going to be private, if it's not going to be public, you can go through our street but we can't go through yours.
and if we want to go over to circle drive and over to 290, that's another way to go besides going up comas springs road.

>> that argument could be solved with a gate.

>> could be involved with what?

>> with a gate.
to keep the overland traffic from using --

>> we don't want more gate.
real connectivity problems in an emergency.

>> if there was one on lenape at the point where the two subdivisions meet, that would solve your concern.

>> why don't we have about a 100-foot section, you bring your road up and stop it and leave the rest of it --

>> all right.
who else is here to give comments on this public hearing?
what if I recommend that the developer and the developer reps have another meeting with the neighborhood people out there?

>> that would be a good idea.

>> seems to me the more information may help this matter.

>> and please include the precinct 3 Commissioner in that.

>> I'm sorry?

>> please include the precinct 3 Commissioner in that guest list.
this is the first time I've heard of this.

>> if there is a Saturday morning meeting, it may be more convenient for more people.
the other thing is that seems to me that a one or two-pager describing a project that can be handed out at the meeting would be helpful.

>> okay.

>> now, in terms of our process, anna, this won't adversely impact what we need to do, right?

>> no, we don't need to do this.
this was a request of the applicant.
a permit was issued for the street and, you know, we don't need this item.
the applicant has requested it so that they've gone through a process and that's why they are here, but this doesn't impact the building of the street.

>> seems to me if we can have a meeting in a couple weeks or so, a couple three weeks, you know, it would help, rather than delay this matter unduly.
but I have three or four legal questions to ask just about this and the process today so we need a little more time anyway.
but why don't we do that?
y'all may be able to reach agreement with those donuts, can you bring coffee too?
or did they have coffee last time?

>> I forgot the coffee.

>> Commissioner Huber.

>> I have two questions for staff.
first of all, if this was to revert or to be made private streets, who controls after that decision whether or not they are gated?

>> well, even if it was private streets, the applicant would have to come to us and get construction plans approved for the gate and there are things that we would require before we would issue something like that, and one of them would be concurrence from the emergency service provider and to find out what the emergency service provider would want there to help assure there is access, emergency access.

>> but it doesn't require the neighborhood to be -- adjacent neighborhood to be a part of that decision; am I correct?
my concern is that if this was to go private, there are issues other than emergency access, which is the other question I had was I think we need to review this whole thing from an emergency evacuation standpoint.
for both neighborhoods.
but if -- if these were to go private and the homeowners association or the overlook would then control the gating of it and the only requirement is that emergency services concur, then it seems to me like someone is left out of the decision-making at that point.

>> why don't we try to get a representative from the esd to attend the meeting?
and you are talking about a meeting on hour or two, right?
I wouldn't think it would need to be longer than that.
Commissioner Eckhardt.

>> I agree with you, judge.
I have a couple of legal questions but I also wanted to bring some things out for the record that the residents and the developer and property owner might want to consider in the public hearing.
and I don't know the answers to these.
with regard to traffic flow and connectivity, we will have -- assuming for a moment that there is no gate, as far as traffic flow and connectivity, whether they are private or public is a wash because we will have those roads connecting where they don't currently.
so that's not a benefit or a detriment for either side of the argument.
that's a neutral.
is that a fair statement?

>> I would say that's a fair statement that when the paper plats overlook sections 1 and 2 are built, there will be connectivity that on the ground where in the past it was just drawn on a plat and recorded, but it was a paper street.
so now there will be streets on the ground that will provide connectivity where there hasn't been in the past.

>> okay.
in terms of what emergency service district covers this area, is this esd 3?

>> it's oak hill.
esd 3.

>> I agree that the esd should certainly be involved in this discussion.
if the streets are public streets, is there a requirement for sidewalk or shared use path in the construction?

>> in a new subdivision there would be new requirements not in place in 1986 when this plat was originally approved.

>> so they would be grandfathered; is that what you are saying?

>> well, the plat was already approved and the construction plans were approved based on the date of the plat.
there were something --

>> so the answer is no, they would not be required to do sidewalks or shared use paths because it's such an old plat.
is that --

>> I think that's a fair statement.

>> okay.
now, I've already asked, the property owner and the developer standing in the shoes of future homeowners.
if those future homeowners were to find, as we have had happen with decent regularity, if they were to find after their roads were, you know, available to all the residents to use whether they lived in overlook or not, if they were to wake up one morning and be shocked to find that their roads weren't public roads and that they actually were responsible for their upkeep and they had been calling us and saying why are there potholes and problems with our roads and who is going to come out and mow the weeds in the right-of-way and we said, umm, your roads are private.
what would be the future neighborhood's remedies for that?

>> well, in this case since the roads were built to public roads standard, we do occasionally have people come in and want to convert their private streets to public streets.
sometimes that's a relatively engineeringly simple process.
if not, there may have to be some retrofitting of those private streets, but now when we review a private street subdivision, we require that they are built to public road standards she but we also put a note on there on the plat that says if you are -- in the future you want to convert these, you have to bring them up to any standards that we have.

>> so at that point would they have to be brought up to standards that would require sidewalks, ada compliance and whatnot for that future moment in time rather than the 1986 requirements?

>> not necessarily.

>> but it is in question.

>> it is a question, but I don't believe that they would have to then bring sidewalks in.
and this is a noncurb and gutter subdivision.

>> what if it's 20 years from now and this is a much more densely populated area with pedestrian generators?

>> we will look at that, you know, on a case-by-case basis as we would with anything else.
but part of it is key when that subdivision was platted.

>> okay.
thanks.

>> now, we heard ten residents were here.
four have spoken.
what about the other six.
if you would come forward and give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
one is taking advantage of that opportunity.
two are.
anybody else?
we can make some seats available.
anybody else to give comments on this item, number 3?
final call.
yes, sir.
name.

>> judge and Commissioners, my name is tom mcdill.
I own property right on lenape trail.
and coincidentally I was also the engineer on this project about 20 years ago and I just wanted to point out to the commission that the original plan was to come in with just one cul-de-sac on one side of the creek and another cul-de-sac from circle drive.
but as was pointed out to us that didn't meet any of the standards and we would have created two cul-de-sacs that were longer than 850 square feet, and they wanted the connection between the two in the event of fire or e.m.s.
or actually just, quite frankly, people using the subdivision, either one of them.
so -- so that's why there was that connection between the two.
and now after having seen the horrible damage out in bastrop and stuff, I actually wish that we had provided an access from the subdivision out into the -- the -- what's the -- bird preserve type area because it's all very potentially very bad fire situation.
so I would strongly recommend that they leave this a public access and for just about every reason that you and the city requires it in their standards.
do you have any questions?

>> any questions?
thank you very much.
it would help to have that esd representative at the meeting.
I agree with that.
yes.

>> my name is ginell hirsh.
I'm in lenape trails in the house closest to the subdivision.
I'm also for keeping the street public and just point of reference, had a house fire last may.
no less than with areas as dry as it was, six fire trucks responded.
they had a heck of a time getting out thereof because lenape is a very short road right now.
it will be a lot longer once this subdivision is complete.
I do see the reason, the need for keeping it public, the access there, and I think that would be the best way to go.
that's my vote.

>> okay.

>> thank you.

>> thank you very much.
anybody else?
why don't we have that meeting and do we plan to send a representative from t.n.r.?

>> we can.

>> and maybe update the court and we'll put it back on the court's agenda for appropriate action.
I will be out of town and unable to attend the meeting on that Saturday morning.

>> we haven't scheduled it yet.
how do you know that?

>> [laughter]

>> but our precinct 3 Commissioner will be there.
thank you all very much.

>> thank you.

>> that is my way of saying I'm not real fond of those Saturday morning meetings.
we'll take 3 into executive session too for legal questions.

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.