• Ttem c. ,:, Conslder^ appr^oval of Committee to war^k with City
anti Ca~_rnty Officials to Develop ~ h~a.jor^ Road Plan. tCo~_~nty
Engineer^/Pi 11 Fair^/Joe McKay?
The Ca~_~rt pass on this item at time since no one fr^om the
City was in the Cour^t r^oom.
MEMO
To: Franklin Johnston,
From: Larry Vetter
Subject: Major Ro
Date: Apri14, 1
At its meeting of April 3, 1997, the City Planning and Zoning Commission requested that the
city and the County Commissioners Court join together in reaching a consensus regarding the
alignment of major public roads in order to give everyone involved in the development process a
plan on which to rely. The Commission discussed the following issues:
1. The City of Kerrville has a 1983 Circulation Plan which is being revised to reflect
both the policies of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and the conditions that
have changed in the past 14 years. This plan approximately locates the alignment of
either existing or future major public roads and extends into the city's ETJ. However, it
is not reasonable for the city to do this type of planning without communication and
agreement with the County. The ability of the City Fire Department to provide fire or
EMS service to areas both within the city and in the County is just one of the examples
that shows the real need for cooperative public road planning between the City and the
County.
2. While there are legitimate issues where the needs of the City and the County are
different with different solutions, there are some that should have a mutually agreed to
common solution. Besides the alignment of major roads, there is also the issue related to
construction standards. At least with the major public roads, there may be the possibility
that the City and the County can reach an agreement pertaining to construction standards.
3. It is not fair to land owners that there is not aCity-County plan which they can refer
to, rely on, and avoid unnecessary costs of developing preliminary plans that may be
denied.
4. Another question was raised by a private developer regarding the fact that subdivision
roads should be allowed to be private if so desired, and if the public feels it needs a
public road, then either the City or County can condemn and purchase the property and
build the road at public expense. This is probably a related issue.
I know that the County has a subdivision regulation revision committee appointed, and while
this major road plan is not directly a part of the subdivision regulations, it probably would be
referenced in those regulations.
In order to attempt to develop a common plan for these major roads, the Commission suggested
Franklin Johnston, County Engineer
Page 2
April 4, 1997
that a committee be formed to be composed of Chairman Bill Fair, Councilman Joe McKay, and
one or two city staff, and that the Commissioners Court nominate two members with their
County Engineer and Road and Bridge Administrator. The first area that might be evaluated
would be the east side of the County from about Center Point to the City. The reason for this is
that there is one land owner, Mr. Sims represented by Mr. Mike Lindley, who needs to know if a
public road will be required through his development rather than a private road. That land is
located off the end of Spur 100 and northwest of the Creekwood Subdivisions.
If it is appropriate, could this item be placed on the Commissioners Court agenda for discussion.
I appreciate the cooperation and assistance that you have offered in the past, and I feel that this
subject offers us the real opportunity of developing a closer working relationship which will be
good for everyone involved.
MEMO
To: Franklin Johnston,
From: Larry Vetter ~';
Subject: Major Ro
Date: Apri14, 1
At its meeting of Apri13, 1997, the City Planning and Zoning Commission requested that the
city and the County Commissioners Court join together in reaching a consensus regarding the
alignment of major public roads in order to give everyone involved in the development process a
plan on which to rely. The Commission discussed the following issues:
1. The City of Kerrville has a 1983 Circulation Plan which is being revised to reflect
both the policies of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and the conditions that
have changed in the past 14 years. This plan approximately locates the alignment of
either existing or future major public roads and extends into the city's ETJ. However, it
is not reasonable for the city to do this type of planning without communication and
agreement with the County. The ability of the City Fire Department to provide fire or
EMS service to areas both within the city and in the County is just one of the examples
that shows the real need for cooperative public road planning between the City and the
County.
2. While there are legitimate issues where the needs of the City and the County are
different with different solutions, there are some that should have a mutually agreed to
common solution. Besides the alignment of major roads, there is also the issue related to
construction standards. At least with the major public roads, there may be the possibility
that the City and the County can reach an agreement pertaining to construction standards.
3. It is not fair to land owners that there is not aCity-County plan which they can refer
to, rely on, and avoid unnecessary costs of developing preliminary plans that may be
denied.
4. Another question was raised by a private developer regarding the fact that subdivision
roads should be allowed to be private if so desired, and if the public feels it needs a
public road, then either the City or County can condemn and purchase the property and
build the road at public expense. This is probably a related issue.
I know that the County has a subdivision regulation revision committee appointed, and while
this major road plan is not directly a part of the subdivision regulations, it probably would be
referenced in those regulations.
~..
In order to attempt to develop a common plan for these major roads, the Commission suggested
Franklin Johnston, County Engineer
Page 2
Apri14, 1997
that a committee be formed to be composed of Chairman Bill Fair, Councilman Joe McKay, and
one or two city staff, and that the Commissioners Court nominate two members with their
County Engineer and Road and Bridge Administrator. The first area that might be evaluated
would be the east side of the County from about Center Point to the City. The reason for this is
that there is one land owner, Mr. Sims represented by Mr. Mike Lindley, who needs to know if a
public road will be required through his development rather than a private road. That land is
located off the end of Spur 100 and northwest of the Creekwood Subdivisions.
If it is appropriate, could this item be placed on the Commissioners Court agenda for discussion.
I appreciate the cooperation and assistance that you have offered in the past, and I feel that this
subject offers us the real opportunity of developing a closer working relationship which will be
good for everyone involved.
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
~^ * PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND FIVE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND
DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT
MADE BY: Franklin Johnston. P.E.
Leonard Odom. Jr.
OFFICE: Road & Bridge Department
MEETING DATE: April 14. 1997
TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT:(PLEASE BE SPECIFIC): Consider approval of Committee to work with City and County
Officials to develop a Maior Road Plan
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: YES NO XX
PLEASE STATE REASON: Consider Committee aparoval for a Maior Road Plan with City 8~ County Officials
,.-
cSTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: 10 minutes
PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Franklin Johnston, P.E.. Bill Friar, Joe
McKay. C ity Staff
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title 5, Chapters 551 8~ 552 of the
Government Code is as follows.
Meetings held on first Monday: 5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday
Meetings held on Thursdays: 5:00 P.M, previous Thursday
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:
All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judges Office to determine if adequate information has been prepared for the
~ourYs f~5rmal consideration and action at time of Court meetings. Your cooperation wi{{ be appreciated and contribute towards your
guest being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Guidelines.
~ 3 Consider ok with 1 o Develop
Item 2..tte to w wffi~lals t
of Co d County
CztY an gaol Plan
a Mai°r
April 1A' 191
Vol, V, Pale 1Q2