Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables vote on removing a segment of Fred’s Folly Drive after long debate
Summary
Council debated removing a collector segment of Fred’s Folly Drive from the roadway master plan at a developer’s request; public works and fire officials urged preserving connectivity for school access and emergency response, while developers cited construction costs (including a drainage crossing and bridge). Council voted to table the item 30 days for more analysis and developer/stakeholder meetings.
Council considered a staff request and developer proposals to remove a planned segment of Fred's Folly Drive from the city’s roadway master plan. Assistant Director Renee Couture reviewed the master‑plan intent, noting Fred’s Folly was designated as a C1 collector and that planning commission denied the requested amendment in December 2024 to preserve connectivity to two recently opened CCISD schools. Staff said the alignment would require a drainage crossing and a signal at Yorktown and emphasized the master plan’s role in future connectivity.
Developer representatives and their engineer said alternatives had been proposed, including rerouting the alignment or sharing right‑of‑way, and argued that constructing a required bridge and drainage crossing could cost roughly $1.5 million and impair the economic feasibility of an anticipated $40 million development. Public safety voices, including Fire Chief Brandon Wade, told council keeping the master‑plan alignment provides redundancy and faster emergency access for neighborhoods and schools.
Council debate was wide ranging: some members prioritized connectivity and public safety and opposed removing the segment, while others emphasized lost developable acreage and potential tax revenue loss if the project stalls. Several council members asked staff for detailed cost estimates and proposals that would preserve connectivity at lower taxpayer cost. Councilman Barrera moved to remove the segment; Councilman Kent called to table the item to allow developers and staff to work out alternatives. The council voted to table the amendment for 30 days to allow further discussions with property owners and additional technical cost estimates and alternatives to be prepared.
Council asked staff to bring back clearer estimates of construction and signal costs, any existing developer deposits for prior right‑of‑way, and possible arrangements for cost‑sharing or design refinements that preserve emergency access while reducing developer burdens.
