iten ~.~ Consider~ation and discussion of 5~_~bdivision in ETJ'
on 5p:_~r~ i~t~ and effect it wiii have on County hiajor~ Road
~~Ian. tLar~ry Vetter^;
La•rr^y Vetter- addressed the Cour^t and Commissioner~ Lett stated
the 5~_~bdivision Committee is to meet on Th~_~rsday, r+iay 1, 1917,
and this item wiii be addr^essed at that time.
MEMO
To: Franklin Johnston,
From: Larry Vetter
Subject: Major Ro
Date: Apri14, 1
At its meeting of Agril 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 Couaty 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 maybe. .
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, 199?
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 tlieir
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 offthe 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.
.-
COMM1SSfONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
r. ~ PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND FIVE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND
DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT
MADE BY: Franklin Johnston. P.E.
MEETING DATE: April 28. 1997
OFFICE: Road & Bridge Department
TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT:(PLEASE BE SPECIFIC): Discussion of Subdivision in ETJ on Spur 100 and effect it will
have on County Maior Road Plan
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: YES
NO XX
PLEASE STATE REASON: Consider approval of Countv Maior Road Plan along Spur 100.
--ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: 10 minutes
PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Larry Vetter
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title 5, Chapters 551 ~ 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
TH{S 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
Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards your
request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Guidelines.
Item 2.2 Consideration and discussion
of Subdivision in ETJ on Spur 100
and effect it will have
a County Major Road Plan.iLarry Vetter)
April 28, 1997
Vol. V Page 118