Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant recommends Option 1B for Bee Cave Central Park; estimates about $3.6–3.7M and 650-day schedule
Summary
Walter P. Moore engineer Gabriel Morales presented a preliminary engineering report for Bee Cave Central Park, citing erosion at Freytag Creek and recommending Option 1B — an extended gated access road, additional parking and culvert repairs — with an estimated cost of about $3.7 million and a timeline of roughly 650 days. The board will provide comments before a final cost estimate is prepared.
Gabriel Morales, with Walter P. Moore, presented the preliminary engineering report for Bee Cave Central Park, a roughly 53‑acre amenity west of City Hall. Morales outlined existing conditions — a 25‑foot concrete drive that doubles as a fire lane, 62 existing parking spaces, and erosion issues where a discharge pipe and riprap connect to trails and the dog park — and said the report evaluates alternatives to improve pedestrian access, vehicle circulation and emergency response.
Morales presented two options. Option 1A would add roughly 1,900 linear feet of new fire lane and about 92 parking spaces (with accessible stalls and vegetative filter strips and independent detention basins for stormwater). Option 1B expands that approach to roughly 2,300 linear feet of roadway, removes the cul‑de‑sac in favor of a horseshoe‑shaped route, adds additional parking rows, widens the culvert crossing at Freytag Creek, and includes a guardrail and gated access so the roadway can be used by maintenance and emergency responders while limiting public cut‑throughs.
Morales gave a cost and schedule estimate: Option 1A at approximately $3,600,000 and Option 1B at roughly $3,700,000, with a timeline of about 650 days. He said the cost difference is modest because the culvert repairs are the principal driver; the consultant recommended Option 1B principally for multi‑point emergency access and improved circulation. “We recommend going with option 1B, because it provides an access extension… and it ultimately connects to the east,” Morales said.
Board members raised questions about whether the new access would create a cut‑through from Bee Cave Parkway (620) and about reliance on an existing private driveway for part of the loop. Morales said the private‑road connection stems from prior development and that modifying it would be costly and would require removing retaining walls and other infrastructure; he also said the gate could be used to restrict regular traffic while allowing emergency access if the board decides to proceed.
Staff asked the board for feedback; Morales and staff said they will compile the board’s comments and return with a final cost estimate and potential budget timing. The item remained discussion-only tonight: staff will incorporate board comments and bring the project back for budget consideration and potential council communication if the board opts to move forward.
Next steps: board and staff to provide written comments to the consultant for a refined cost estimate; the consultant will return the project for future budget deliberations.
