Travis County Commssioners Court
June 29, 2004
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.
Item 21
Morning discussion:
View captioned
video
Afternoon discussion:
View
captioned video.
Link to text sections:
Executive session discussion prior
to lunch break.
5 p.m. discussion
Item 21 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following request regarding sweet water ranch a subdivision, a phasing agreement between Travis County and the developer sweet water Austin llp partner an 21 (b), a preliminary plan, sweet water ranch section 1, preliminary plan, 5, 6, 8, lots 291 to 1 acres, highway 71, no fiscal is required but preliminary plans. No municipal etj.
>> carol joseph tnr. We heard this item last week, this is a preliminary plan that still meets the rules and regular lakes of tnr. Last week several constituents came down to discuss the fact that they missed a few things and wanted to talk with mr. Gun n the traffic on 71, what he was doing to the land. He held a meeting, as far as we know, he and his engineer, with those foiks on Saturday, so far we haven't heard any other issues other than he's met with them and I'm assuming from the meeting, and here is mr. Wheeler, that they've discussed and answered the questions. I don't know that they could have taken care of all of the issues they wanted and most of the issues were dealing with the traffic on 71 and water quality that is regulated by lcra in the neighborhood. So I'm assuming they've answered all the questions, we've heard no other complaints from anyone and I don't know who is here to speak besides what happened on last week.
>> because of some of the e-mails that, you know, I think we've all received and I received, when you say that it meets all of the requirements of tnr, can you explain to people what you mean by that?
>> the preliminary plan simply just tells us what they have in mind. They have several hoops to go through. They're phasing it in. They need to have access to highway 71. They work with access from highway 71 on to their property. They're working with txdot to get that all cleared up. They have to go through those permits to get that. It tells us they also need to go through lcra because they control the water quality and the retention/detention ponds out there and they show us a preliminary design of how they think their land is going to lay out in terms of the homes and the lots and what they intend to do with the -- they're thinking about doing with the ponds and the retention/detention ponds that are necessary. It does not specifically line it out. They could change things between now and the end of final plat. They know that they have met our regulations. They are working with the other entities to meet theirs and then get the financing necessary to do what they plan to do and then come back in with a final plat. At that time we have construction plans of the roads and drainage within the area -- within the land that they've designed so preliminary is just that, preliminary, they have an idea of what they think they want to do.
>> and we look at the statement requirements.
>> correct.
>> they need to meet state guidelines and so that's what we deal with in county government?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> and so...
>> yes, Commissioner.
>> thank you.
>> what do we look for in determining whether or not to approve the preliminary plan?
>> I need to get fred in here, he's in the conference room, to explain exactly the points they look for. But I know that they look at the streets and drainage, the roadway to make sure that they have proper setbacks and he could explain in detail the engineer...
>> walk us through what you look for and what you found.
>> we looked for probably the best way to put it is generalities that the -- there is a commitment to properly serve the lots in terms of a roadway network, overview areas of drainage, there are going to be detention ponds, no specific, detention water quality ponds if they're required. We look at the various ownership components of the land, that they're satisfied that there are no encumberances or easements that aren't shown that would affect the use of the land in the preliminary content that is laid out. We -- we look at the roadway network serving the entire project boundary streets, if you will, are they adequate, are there any indications that there are campo requirements, increased roadway widths, things like that. In general, that pretty much sums it up.
>> what determination, if any, did we make regarding access to 71? And potential traffic issues?
>> the -- 71 is -- I don't remember. I don't believe that's campo road. I don't believe that is the campo road.
>> not to upgrade.
>> so there's no upgrades, so basically what we look for in that context is are there intersection problems that are going to occur? For example, are there streets coming from the other side that we should either propose or existing -- for example, if a proposed campo roadway or a proposed arterial or a proposed county cip project were to be coming from the other side of 71 for example, would we be interested in lining up a particular intersection with that? Or are they offset to a certain degree -- or a certain distance when they come in from opposite sides of the street? 71 has a capacity well in excess of what this particular subdivision would contribute to it. Do we -- so we wouldn't have asked for any improvements to 71 under the conditions that we have. Now, it is a state highway, but we -- if it weren't, we would have not asked, I guess that's the best way to put it. We would not have asked for roadway improvements to 71 if it were not even a state highway.
>> backup that I saw basically contains left turn lanes that would be constructed.
>> that's correct.
>> and do we think those would address any traffic adverse impact?
>> yes, sir. One of the issues that we know occurs on 71, it's been dealt with by txdot, other locations along there is the problem with traffic turning left out of the main driving lane and so they have -- we've put -- they have put in left turn lanes at various locations in one section of the roadway further out, they've got the left roadway down to one lane. This would address the movement. The expectation is most of the trips coming the other way would be right outs from the subdivision and wouldn't necessarily require any improvement.
>> [inaudible]
>> you bet ya'.
>> so regarding the phase-in agreement, if we approve phase i, there are standards in place at that time?
>> correct, yes, sir.
>> so we use those standards to determine if approval ought to be granted. Let's say that five years later phase ii is filed. And let's say that during that five-year period the coin has adopted other standards. New standards. So we use the standards in place for phase I or would mr. Therewith be -- would we apply the standards in place five years later to review phase ii?
>> sounds to me like there would be some legal standards that would have to be tested in there, judge. Maybe time could help me out with that but...
>> is that as simple as -- is the answer as simple as the question?
>> no [laughter]
>> I thought you were going to say that.
>> you have to take a variety of factors.
>> right.
>> into account. One of which is what type of standards are you talking about? I know y'all are all familiar with chapter 245 of the local government code known as house bill 1704. The vested right statute, the grandfathering statute that basically says when a developer files an application for some sort of approval to develop his land, whatever rules are in effect when the application is filed are the rules that govern that development until its built out. So standards can change later, but that developer is basically entitled to develop under the rules that were in effect when his application was filed. Now, there are several exceptions to that statute. One of which is for standards for construction of public improvements on public lands. I read that and I think it strikes me that the legislature there was talking about roads. Public -- construction of public improvements on public land meaning construction of roads on right of way, probably also includes construction of drainage improvements and drainage easements, so I'm of the opinion that if standards for road and drainage infrastructure change that the developer would have to comply with the new standards. Other standards, again, he's entitled to develop under what was in effect at the time he filed his application. But if you're talking about construction of road improvements and drainage improvements, road infrastructure and drainage infrastructure, there appears to me to be an exception from the grandfathering provision on that.
>> okay. I guess traffic and drainage are the two that were mentioned most in the e-mails that I received. In addition, mention impervious cover and the county doesn't have a requirement for that. I assume there is none.
>> that is correct.
>> in this.
>> there is none in this. We have no rules about impervious cover.
>> okay. So what I'm thinking is that the court would ask staff questions, then we would find out about the meetings or communications that have taken place since last Tuesday, then we would hear, I guess, from the-- the -- a report back on the meetings and conversations, et cetera, then we would hear from residents and hopefully that would get us done.
>> is it also not true under 1704 exemptions that sometimes the state legislature sets out very specific variances? I'm thinking of things under the health and safety code. Sexually oriented businesses is the easiest one to remember, it doesn't matter if it's 1960, we have now standards related to health and safety code. There may be new things under that. Fred, are they asking for any variances under this preliminary plan?
>> not to my knowledge.
>> no variances?
>> no.
>> so that is something where the court would have some discretion about how we would like things to be done but there are no variances?
>> no variances.
>> okay. What is the typical time, if you can say, between when a preliminary plan comes forward and gets approval to when something is final platted? Because I think that is the confusion a lot of folks in the e-mails I had read that somehow they think that today is the final approval of this subdivision and it's kind of the equivalent of a first reading over at city council in terms of a lot can happen between the first time you see it and the last time, in terms of getting to specifics.
>> Commissioner, the preliminary plans almost don't expire. They run for ten years. If a final plat is submitted in that process, that prolongs it. Did I answer your question?
>> meaning it -- we've got time? This is not going to final platting and recording with the county clerk, sale of lots anything like that?
>> no, ma'am.
>> there's a lot of time between now and then?
>> right.
>> finally s. There anything about the approval of a phase-in agreement and preliminary plan that prevents mr. Gun and his company to continue in any kind of collaborative regional planning short of changing our subdivision rules that I know that Commissioner Daugherty is encouraging to happen out in western Travis County?
>> no.
>> so that can still happen in terms of mr. Gunn working with interested parties on concerns about density, even though it may not be our rule, they can go and continue to work on that, continue to work on water quality? Is mr. Gunn going to have to have serious discussions with u.s. Fish and wildlife and figure out their bcp requirements separate and apart from all of this?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> yes.
>> and finally, who else is going to play any kind of a role besides Travis County in what this final version of this subdivision is going to look like related to regulations that would be of concern to folks related to water quality, et cetera? Can you be specific about who else has a role in this related to regulation?
>> lcra regulates the water quality. Txdot will regulate the access from 71. And fish and wildlife will regulate the habitat.
>> what about tceq?
>> no, through lcra is how tceq -- they regulate the water quality and my understanding is it mimics fish an wildlife.
>> what about any emergency service districts since this is outside uninning corped area, obviously falls under somebody related to fire protection and having conversations related to fire protection access, et cetera?
>> I don't know what it is.
>> I would think that I guess probably a fair thing to say is because it's so health and safety related, that not only from that point of view but from the elements of the market that this drives that if there were significant changes to the esd or requirements out there that they would probably be followed.
>> and my final question is is if weren't somebody's etj and I'm thinking here city of Austin, would a lot of the questions and concerns that folks have have been worked out in that arena because of the rules of city of Austin has related to the environmental regulations?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> and because it's not, there is a whole 'nother layer there related to rules, regulations, working out of different kinds of issues that unfortunately are just not in play here because of the location of this subdivision?
>> for example, in probably the strictest area you would want to look at that there might be environmental and the impacts that the city's otothe municipalities allow -- they're allowed to protect their drinking water and for example, if the city of Austin's etj were to extend in that direction, it would be within their drinking water protection zone. Limitations on impervious cover, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
>> and under our combined office, all of that is already seated under 1445? That's correct.
>> just one follow-up, and I mentioned this to Commissioner Daugherty, that I think the group what he's trying to form is a really good idea. The thing that I worry about as a Commissioner of precinct 4 which is downstream, is the velocity of the water that -- or the runoff that is created by any development upstream and the effects that it has on flooding downstream, and so that is my concern and I want him to keep that in mind as -- as he works through these issues over on the western part of the county.
>> can we get a follow-up report on the conversations between the developer and residents? I know there was a Saturday meeting, maybe how that went, then we'll hear from any other comments mr. Gunn may have and then we'll hear from residents.
>>
>> (one moment, please, for change in captioners...)
>>
>> ... Signed a sheet giving us their name and address. So we have 35 here and we have located all 35 that were within the seven-mile radius of the property. The topics that were discussed were the same topics that we all have been discussing. Traffic. We did bring up potable water and discuss the lcra and the well water contract we have tkh- is a topic we did not bring up before the Commissioners last week. We likewise talked again about drainage, and of course you can see there's a large contingent right here from the lick creek area. That still is -- and should be very much of their concern. 71 and the general speeding on 71 and traffic congestion on 71, again, was another topic that we talked about. Two additional topics that we had not talked about, one was street lights. There is some concern about street lighting in the area being so bright that these folks out here would like to see the night sky, which we can. There's several innovations in street lights which can assist in that. And the other topic that in general that came up was, of course, the same topic you all are struggling with, and Commissioner Daugherty is trying to deal with, and that's notification. I was told by one gentleman at the meeting Saturday that we were called the stealth development. And I think that pretty well sums up their feeling of being unable to know who to contact, when to contact them or to find out what was going on. We notified all the folks that we could notify Saturday by the methods that we had, and the methods we had, of course, was the american-statesman helped us with free advertising to call our Commissioner. Our Commissioner turned the telephone numbers over to us, we in tpurpb would call those people. After last week out in the hall we took all the names of people that were here that would give us their name. We called them and asked them to attend the Saturday meeting. We also put signs on the property. As you can see, these are exactly like the city of Austin zoning notification signs. We put them all along 71 so when you drove along 71 you would see all these lines along the property which would attract your attention and there were several places to pull off to read the sign so you could see there was a town meeting type. The gentleman at cedar bar and tkpwhreul was kind enough to loan us his restaurant for the afternoon. We had a -- I would call it a vigorous give and take with the neighborhood groups. And we, I think, got many opinions on the floor that we did not know existed and would not have known existed had we not had that meeting. Is there any questions from anybody?
>> bill, has there ever been any attempt to have that kind of meeting before this past Saturday? I mean has anything like that ever been thrown out there?
>> no, sir.
>> and why would you think that that would have been the case? I mean you didn't have to or didn'tment to or what would have been -- obviously what we're dealing with here is people thinking they haven't had the time and there are a number of properties or there are a number of projects going on in western Travis County that that seems to be kind of a common -- kind of a common denominator. And --
>> Commissioner Daugherty, I think you could probably help developers or any property owners in that regard. As to -- you know, typically in the city and all of us or at least I have developed many subdivisions this the city, and to notify people within 1,000, 2,000 feet is pretty much your standard criteria. On a zoning, as a matter of fact, the regulations of city of Austin on zoning is 500 feet. For us to think that we needed to notify people that were two, three, four five miles away, some on the other side of the pedernales, no, we did not envision that would be something that would be either required or desired.
>> my question is not that, bill. I'm not trying to nail you because you didn't go five miles out or four miles out. And given that the city, you are right, as I well have property and any time somebody is going to do a zoning change you get something in mail. Where it says are you aware that you are within this space or within this sort of linear feet. And we don't have a mechanism for that, which is the reason why we are trying to pull together western Travis County and say those are the things that we need to do. But am I hearing you is that there has not been an attempt to do anything like what you did on Saturday? And not that you have to, but I'm just saying that was the case, right?
>> well, I wouldn't go so far as say there was nothing done. Of course, we did talk to many of the landowners surrounding us before Saturday. We did talk to folks across the street over here. We did talk to folks who were living right down in here and those that we saw were impacted immediately by our development. Some of the folks back down in here on him I will ton pool road -- hamilton pool road, they will never see what we're doing. There is a little ridge that runs along here that completely blocks the view of them from us and us from them. So in that case we didn't notify them or discuss it with them.
>> okay.
>> can you tell us what you have in mind as to drainage? That seems to be a concern of several residents. With what's the draining strategy?
>> our strategy is different than what's occurred at lick creek, judge. Without -- and I'm not a practicing engineer, I do have a degree, but I'm really not qualified to talk about and would not like to talk about what I think went wrong at lick creek except to say this. They have one detention system. It's in the creek. And we've had more rain than we've had in 10 years. I mean we have to go back nearly 10 years to find -- and that was only a single incident of a hard flood. We've had incessant rains. When this system got overwhelmed, it didn't have anyplace to go. It overflowed. The other problem, and I think these folks have legitimate complaints about this. The other problem is right now they call the e.p.a., The e.p.a. Is not going to talk about water quality if you just got mud in your yard. They are going to say that mud doesn't affect water quality. It affects whether you like mud in your yard or not, but it doesn't have anything to do with water quality. Lcra will do the same. Tceq will do the same. So one of the problems that the folks have is all of a sudden their creek did not get clear after two days of hard rain, it was brown, and this time it stayed brown and it stayed brown for a long time. And it was extra muddy. It wasn't just silt, it was know flowing some mud. And that's because once all the development started and the cedar was starting to be knocked down and roots exposed and topsoil could wash off, all of a sudden this system down here was overwhelmed. What we've done to avoid that is we divided ours up in seven different detention ponds in this 549-lot preliminary plan submission. We have nothing in the creek. All of our water quality and detention ponds, we gave up lots. In this case we gave up approximately 40 lots and at our sales price that's $2 million is what we've given up to make sure we had our detention ponds on top of the hill. The pheupbl the water comes off the hill, it will go right into our pond. Nothing is in the creek. The worst that could happen to us is one-seventh of what could happen down here, but we've overdesigned ours to make sure that the 70% rule, and that rule being that you have to take out 70% of the increase in pollutants that you bring by your development. In our case we've gone up to 90%. So we've overdesigned even what we have to make sure we don't do what happened in lick creek. Does that answer your question, judge?
>> yes, sir. Tell us -- can you just walk us through, if we approve the phase-in agreement and preliminary plan today, what would be the next steps that you would take in the development?
>> we first have to submit development plans back to the county. Those development plans go to the tceq. Drainage in turn goes to the lcra. We have to get driveway permits. Which right now we just have a t.i.a. And txdot says they will approve our locations. They haven't given us driveway permits. We have to get permits to access 71 so we have to submit plans to do that. Once you all have approved all of our development plans, we then have to go to the tceq with them because it's a m.u.d. And tceq has jurisdiction over that. Once we finally get consent from the tceq, we can come back in for final plat if we're willing to put up fiscal or you all can issue permits and allow us to begin construction.
>> okay. Other questions?
>> how long do you think, bill, that will all take in terms of to move through from a preliminary plan to when this might wind up back at Commissioners court tore final platting or alternate fiscal, however you decided to it. I won't hold you to it, I'm just trying to get a sense --
>> [inaudible].
>> so we couldn't possibly be back in before the end of the year.
>> four, five, six months?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> I just wanted to get a sense of it and you are the one who will be held to it. Thanks.
>> from our standpoint with probable a limited amount of scrutiny that the county has over engineering of the pond and of the water -- storm water, if you will, what -- I mean tell me exactly how we base our inclusion on that. Is that something you from an engineering standpoint work with rick and say yes, I concur with your findings and the redundancy and all the things you say that you have, is that something that do we get into that detail with that or is that basically -- there are a lot of people in the state of Texas that say if you are a registered whatever, be it architect, engineer, whatever, you put your seal on it, then that is good enough for, you know, most probably even the core u.s. Fish & wildlife and probable lcra. But walk me through real quickly what we do.
>> the county has requirements for the conveyance of drainage. And the attenuation of flood peaks. And I guess probably a kind way to say it is we would khrob rate with the engineer on the -- collaborate with the engineer on the design of those things. Obviously the engineer proposes a design. We don't do design for people, but we do review the stein that is submitted to us for the applicability of our rules and -- I don't think it would be fair to say that we don't tend to redesign things, but we do apply scrutiny to the designs that are submitted to us. And road design, street and drainage, conveyance of storm water, handling of storm water detention, flood peak attenuation, we're very interested in those things. That's what we do.
>> the reason I ask is because I think that, you know, a lot of the people's concerns out here, and rightfully so, if that was the process that I guess that we went through -- and I don't want to pick on lick creek. This is not a lick creek conversation. I mean that will -- that takes on its own fight. But how would I get people comfortable with this project from an engineering standpoint with the sign-off from us with regards to what did happen at lick creek?
>> well, ultimately the responsibility for a failure in a drainage environment is going to be the designers, the engineers. And again, we make it clear we review what is submitted to us, but you can see from the proposal that mr. Gunn has explained and what rick willard talked about last time is they have evaluated what went on in an area where they -- where local to them where they saw a failure and they have revised a design that precludes that from happening of the magnitude that happened there. I mean that's good planning. It's good engineering.
>> given though that rick -- this plan was probably done way before lick creek. I mean because -- or am I getting something wrong? Did you all look and see the failure that you had and said, hey, let's make sure that we don't do that because we're going to have to stand up and take on some scrutiny. Can you give me some assurance aoe --
>> Commissioner, lick creek had already occurred when we changed our system. We were thinking at that time in terms of not exactly what lick creek was going to do, but we were going to have a dual system or a triple system and it would be in the canyons and we changed that after lick creek. Lick creek had occurred and we had the benefit of their mistake.
>> so you did -- there was some application from what had taken place there, rick and said okay, listen, which is the word you all used the word "redundancy." I don't think that's necessarily an engineering term, but I think we all understand what it means. You said let's make sure we don't have the likelihood or anywhere near the likelihood of something that take place so there were alterations what you all did engineering-wise?
>> yes, sir. As mr. Gunn previously indicated --
>> you can have a seat. So your many friends in the engineering community will be able to [inaudible].
>> get their names and addresses so I can send them a bill, would you please? [laughter] as mr. Gunn previously indicated, some of our preliminary thinking about storm water detention and storm water quality management was oriented toward creating permanent pools, lakes, small lakes, if you will, and some of the tributary areas. And we had advanced the idea to the lcra and we were collaborating with them on the design, and at the point in time that it became obvious that the lick creek issue was becoming very serious, we literally simultaneously with the lcra decided that perhaps building permanent pool structures within the actual tributary flow lines was not going to be a very good approach to doing that. So we revised the overall drainage layout, and as bill said earlier, we have now consumed approximately the area that contained approximately 40 single-family lots that will now be pond and storm water structures. So we had sacrificed lots that were within the subdivision proper to provide areas that will allow us to put those ponds up within the subdivisions and much smaller drainage areas so the volume of water that's going to each one of these structures is much less than if it were going to a centralized, single pond actually within the creek. And so there are redid you know dan cyst. The amount of water that's involved for any single pond is much, much less, and I certainly cannot speak directly for lcra here today, but they have reviewed that proposal and that preliminary layout as part of our preliminary plan process of Travis County. So they are on record with your staff as having reviewed that and finding it to be an acceptable approach.
>> one more thing. Thanks, rick. What would the impervious ground cover of this project, I mean if there was some applicability from s.o.s.? What would the percentage of impervious ground cover object this project with a buildout on this phase that you have?
>> with city of Austin you receive credits for those areas you do not use and you can transfer those credits. We've never done the calculations, but rick, do you have any idea? I would be guessing and I don't want to do that.
>> well, as bill said, we have not calculated that specifically, but within section 1, which is approximately 260 acres with a 549 lots, that's going to be somewhere in the 35% impervious cover range. With all the area that we're setting aside and preserving in the canyon. It's going to be very limited.
>> what's the -- do you have a minimum lot size out there?
>> you mean by deed restriction?
>> I'm just trying to get a sense of do you have minimum lot size in your subdivision? What's the smallest lot.
>> to is our --
>> I'm sorry.
>> 5501 is the smallest in the first section. We will probably -- to give you an idea of price, if you would like price, the lowest price of house will probably be right at $200,000.
>> and Gerald, I think you saying something triggered something in my mind. I have been doing this for 10 years and I had a good chunk of western Travis County for about eight of those years and did a lot of subdivisions. I think people don't understand that somehow just because the county does not have the same level of rules as, say, the city of Austin, I want folks to understand the absolute professionalism of the staff and reviewers that work for Travis County that's out there. And believe me, there is no are rubber stamping that goes on in terms of somebody bringing in their plans and t.n.r. Signing off on those. It is rig use, it's vigorous. There is a lot of -- you know, there is a lot of interchange and exchange that occurs, and we've got some pretty darn tough reviewers that if it is not up to our standards, it is sent back and we do not engineer it for them. We send back papers over and over and over again until they get it right and it will not be approved until they get it right. The second thing is that everyone knows that the b.c.p. Is something that is near and beyond dear to my heart and so I always get nervous when something is coming through that's going to have b.c.p. Implications. I'm extraordinarily heartened that alan glenn is one of the folks that is going to be seeing this project through. I've worked with allen on a number of projects related to b.c.p. So I no the extraordinary caliber that anything related to b.c.p. Is going to be on the high end and not the quick and dirty. And i've worked successfully with alan on many subdivisions in western Travis County that had b.c.p. Implications. And so if there is a steady hand here on b.c.p., I'm pleased to see that you've signed him on board.
>> thank you, ma'am.
>> let's hear from residents hold like to address the court. If we could get you to move down to the end and make four chairs available. If you would like to give comment, please come forward. We have four chairs available and as each speaker finishes and returns to the audience, if the next person desire to go speak would come forward, that would expedite matters for us. And if you would give us your name first, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> thank you. My name is kristen youth. I reside at 3300 crossland drive. I'm asking you not an aproof this phase-in agreement or the preliminary plan for the sweet water development tpr-fplt the first time I have heard about [indiscernible] I have struggled to acquire information regarding this development. Months ago, months ago I went to the lcra for information about this project that they had been negotiating for over a year. And it wasn't until extreme public pressure regarding the hamilton pool road surface waterline that lcra literally confessed to their knowledge and cooperation of lacey nine. I spoke last week and I will try not to be redundant. I appreciate the request you made of mr. Gunn to hold a public meeting. At short notice an impressive group of people did gather to voice their concerns. However, many people that I spoke to wanted to attend but were unable to do so. Not once did I hear mr. Gunn make a firm commitment to compromise or honor a suggestion or request from the group. Not even the simplest request which was to build a website where people can gather information about the project. Why not honor this? Is this the type of compromise we are hoping for in our planning effort, Commissioner Daugherty? Yesterday afternoon I had a telephone conversation with tom nuckols. I specifically asked him had if the phase-in agreement with grandfather this. He addressed this today but I would like to reiterate he said to a certain extent yes, but the purpose of a phase-in agreement is to tie both sides down and lock down the agreement. Sweetwater would be, quote, shielded from future regulations. House bill 1704 was passed when gary bradley was in the same situation developing circle c in phases and the s.o.s. Ordinance came into effect and circle c did not have to apply. I feel mr. Gunn has led you, me and everyone who was at the meeting on Saturday to believe that he would be required to comply with any new rules and regulations. He specifically said that when I was asked him directly and I feel that is deceitful because it's not true. Also many questions were raised regarding the lazy 9 m.u.d. He knew there was a m.u.d. Meeting scheduled for today at noon. That was the perfect opportunity to announce this public meeting. Help a public forum of interested people. Yet he chose not to mention it. The first item on his meeting today at noon will be public comment that once again the public won't know anything about it. Mr. Gunn repeatedly refers to this as the preliminary plan, and I want to make sure that everyone understands what I have been told is that the preliminary plan, once it is approved, you won't have the authority to reject something in the final plan that you did approve in the preliminary plan. If I'm incorrect on that, help me, please. The county defers to the lcra regarding water quality regulations. I have tried and tried to get a member of lcra, an official from lcra to be here today to answer questions. Why aren't they here? The lcra officials have publicly raised questions about the adequacy of our current ordinance in protecting water quality in areas of intense development. The current ordinance is over 10 years old. It was designed for much sparser development. There is a team of engineers and consultants currently reviewing the lcra's ordinance. I have asked lcra officials if they are confident that sweetwater won't pollute bee creek and they tell me no. Senate bill 873 has granted you the authority to protect our environment during this time of rapid growth. Please use your authority to limit impervious cover and establish strict water quality regulations before you risk irreversible destruction of the hillcrest steps in. It's been pointed out yes, there is risk involved and you are acting on 873, but this is new territory and you need to be a frontier. Would you rather risk the life of one of the last -- possibly the last remaining pristine creeks in Travis County? Traffic is probably the most immediate threat we have on development. As soon as construction begins, the already dangerous situation on 71 will worsen. Last week when I addressed you, I asked you to request statistics on traffic accidents on this stretch of highway. I hope you have that information before you today and I hope you are taking those figures into account. Please require this development to give appropriate amount of setbacks to adequately widen 71 and make both of these new intersections safe. Commissioners, if there is a shred of doubt in your mind about moving ahead with this project, please vote no. According to your attorney right here, you are not under any legal obligation to act on this today. There is too much at stake. I sincerely am looking forward to participating in the regional planning process with you, Commissioner Daugherty. The planning process starts with a plan. It does not start with approval of urban development in the country. Thank you for your time.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. And now you are requesting that we delay action.
>> yes.
>> for how long and what purpose?
>> I don't have a time in mind. I feel like we need to delay action until we are certain and we hear from lcra that they have a chance to approve, revise the n.p.s. Ordinance. Until it finishes approval process. It's being reviewed right now. I would also think you would want to move forward with Commissioner Daugherty's planning process. The lcra is currently undergoing a regional planning process. They have delayed surface water lines on 71. They have delayed surface water lines on hamilton pool road. They recognize that their question about how do we plan and deal with high dense development in the country and I think we need to let that planning process evolve. Thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> hi, my name is shawn ness and of course I have a lot of the same concerns. We are concerned about the -- limiting the food candles of the light -- foot candles of the light. I'm also very concerned about the right-of-way. There is, of course, no reason not to believe this is some day going to be an enormous freeway and contain an awful lot of traffic. And we need a large right-of-way. A minimum I would say of 600 feet from the center line for the corridor.
>> for 71?
>> for 71. Yeah, I mean, as it is now, you know, you can feel it on the road that the road is not properly -- not properly graded. You can see why people -- you can see as you are driving down the road people veering just a little bit over that median line when they come over some of these hills with the curves. And, you know, just looking out my back door, you know, i've seen -- we've only been living there for six months and i've seen two major accidents on there, not to mention the motorcycle accident from just a couple weeks ago. And once again, I would like to reiterate also my understanding is is that if this is -- if anything that's on this preliminary plan, if they stick to that preliminary plan, it's my understanding that you cannot change it. Or that you cannot reject something that you've already previously approved of. And that's a real concern. If we did have more time to continue considering this later and to have a real powerful position in bargaining, then, you know, it would not be as major a concern. We do -- also on that -- on the fact that you guys can protect the pollution and, you know, the runoff pollution is very important and that's tied directly to -- that's tied directly to impervious cover. Of course, the city of Austin uses that. So I think there is some room there to reduce the impervious cover and perhaps this requires a little more thought for explaining how this might happen. Oh, and another very important thing is to limit the height. Remember, we've -- they've got the pinnacle out there in oak hill that stands out like a sore thumb and this is a real possibility also on putting commercial buildings right up on the right-of-way that are very tall and out of place. And those are my concerns. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, I'm jeri brown. I've lived in the Lake Travis area since 1908 and cross wind since 1989 and I support the concerns of the residents that have spoken before me. I attended the Saturday meeting, and at one point mr. Gunn compared sweetwater to lakepoint. He talked about 50 to 80-foot-wide lots. He did qualify that the density was comparable to the area I live in by virtue of the open spaces that would be part of the canyon and the creek area, but we're still talking about building 200,000 to 300,000 dollar homes very close together in what was it, something like 240 acres, 260 acres in the first phase. That concerns me greatly. If you look at other developed areas west of 620 and highway 71, the oldest one, the homestead, for example, travis settlement, which is newer. Spanish oaks, which is coming up right now. What we see there are developed areas that are in harmony with the geography and the topography of the land. And it concerns me greatly. I drive -- I have -- drive out every morning and look at those hardwood areas that we learned in the meeting on Saturday right across the street where possible commercial development would occur with regard to sweetwater. I've watched those change colors for the -- since 1989. And when we're talking about houses that close together, that large, a lakepoint type of development, we're talking about a blight on the landscape. We talk about our refuse rapbs for the canyon land and Travis County and west Travis County and then we entertain proposals like this and that's very, very concerning to me. I think what I would prefer or hope to come out of this is delayed action toward looking at a significant decrease in density in the developed area that would be sweetwater ranch. Again, the area, the stretch of highway 71 between where the accesses to sweetwater ranch would be in my understanding is very, very dangerous. I've had a person in my household in a consider accident at bee creek road and highway 71. And I think if we're talking about building a left turn lane in the entry there where diminishing to one lane the through traffic, I think that's -- that needs to be looked at very, very carefully and very closely before we would -- I mean if we're talking about close to 550 homes, we're talking about a thousand automobiles, maybe less than that. Most households have two automobiles, coming and going out of sweetwater ranch. And that -- and I'm speaking strictly from a non-engineering standpoint but someone who has driven those roads and lived out there for all these years. It's already very, very dangerous and I think it bodes ill to talk about introducing that amount of density and that amount of traffic to that area. That's all I have. Thank you very much.
>> thank you. Yes.
>> my name is laura groke, a resident of bee creek road, and I also want to echo the sentiment that we don't pass this today.
>> we might need that seat, ms. Brown. Please step forward. Sorry.
>> no problem. I agree that we should delay action on this item today. I feel that the meeting that was held Saturday was a poorly planned meeting with short notice. There was no agenda and when we began to cover topics, mr. Gunn became agitated and ultimately ended the meeting saying that we had to vacate the premises when the owner of the restaurant himself said that is not the case. He became agitated when we started talking about issues of density. There was no progress made, no openness to looking at impervious cover and the issues related to drainage. I'm very concerned. At one point he said there was 56 feet between part of his development and the creek. I feel like these buffers are inadequate to protect the quality of the creek, not to mention flood control and a number of other issues with that. I'm also going to touch briefly on the traffic issue as well. There's a lot of come poepb come own epbtsz that are significant. There's a -- bee creek, I hear there's a red light proposed for that fall, but he has subdivisions entrances on the short curving section of 71 and if you are going to be, you know, not widening that road, I feel like it will be extremely dangerous. How many accidents and deaths need to occur before we would look at something like this based on traffic. There are so many issues it's hard to spend time on each one, but definitely they saw a impervious cover density -- based on impervious cover density and traffic you should look at this and wait for lcra to make some changes and for the regional plan to get underway before the development. Let's not put the cart before the horse. That happened all along 183 and we're still dealing with that. We really need to look at this carefully. And as a resident and a committed citizens, I would love to be part of the planning process, but I think we need to take it slowly instead of rushing through a preliminary plan will set news motion with certain things that can't be changed and let's take action today. Thank four your time.
>> how long did the meeting last? Aoeut lasted about -- less than two hours. But there was many people that had comments that were not able to heard and wastewater was completely undiscussed. I went up afterwards and addressed it personally because I was so --
>> less than two hours.
>> yes. Yes, sir.
>> high, my name is trey angley. I live off a street called crawford. It intersects 71 approximately three miles from the edge of this development. My main concern about this development is not signs as relates to drainage or runoff. I believe that science can take care of us. What I am concerned about are what I call the four seas of traffic twh- kh I said are carnage, congestion, counts and ultimately concrete. The traffic counts and the carnage can both be -- excuse me, the congestion and the carnage can both be bypassed if we plan ahead for this. We need to fix what is a broken model. These folks with sweetwater development and lazy 9 have a traffic impact analysis that speaks to some of these concerns. They meet the requirements as stated by law, as I understand the law. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an engineer. I have heard repeatedly left turn lanes, there's only one left turn lane on their initial proposal. That does not mean that they cannot come back if you proceed and give this the okay and make better adjustments. I think what that does is it puts forth a place in a real-world situation where the public has to bring this forth and create pressure and you all have to bring this forth and create pressure to make something work that everybody wins. I am a firm believer in what you do inside your own fence lines is your own business. I have a problem when what you do inside your fence lines spills into the public domain which at this time the roads still are the public domain and creates congestion for the rest of us that live out there. I understand stoplights will help slow down so we can take out the carnage, but that will create the congestion. I believe a solution needs to be put forth with all the developers in the area to start donating right-of-way to txdot so that that can then be leveraged the txdot because the cost of building their roads since this is state highway will drop exponentially because we will not have to proceed through numerous condemnation and right-of-way that drive up the cost of highways, highway improvements. This would then allow us to move expeditiously to a solution. The solution that I propose, which is to make highway 71 a model much like highway 151 was made a model in san antonio where the developers came together and donated the right-of-way within 90 days to make somebody happen. Granted that is mainly a resort area of northwest san antonio and the model may have to be adjusted to fit our needs. But it has been done in the past. We are not reinventing the wheel here. Obviously Texas went way off the grid when eisenhower proposed the interstate system and Texas highway systems, we have made a point to gerrymander these roads in the name of commerce for 50 years. I apologize for going off on a diverse of highway history. But we have got to change the way we put our asphalt down and concrete down and we've got to short circuit the carnage and congestion. We have the ability to plan ahead. We have the ability to make things happen. There are these great books and these great software programs that we can plug in this amount of growth and not only meet the minimum but see what the maximum needs are. And we need to change the developmental process of 71 from meeting the minimums to looking at the maximums so that we create good traffic flow and keep arterial flow moving through this area. I want to speak -- I have personal relationships with a lot of these developers or some of these developers within these corporations. I want to speak -- they are good guys, and I'm sure there's a lady in there that's a principal and I mean that not as a good old boy system, but i've known these people a long time, know their sons in laws. They are already. I understand they are in the development business. That has a bad name in Austin. Texas and extending down to Travis County. I think these folks look forward and though they like their rules because -- they are engineers. I don't mean to be an occupational racist, but they like their rules. But they understand good traffic. And rules are good, but that doesn't mean you don't have to go out above and beyond what is called for just in the rules. And I think these folks are willing to look at this and try and bring a solution to the table as it relates to traffic. That's all I'm speaking to is traffic. So I would say it's a close call. I'm glad I don't have to vote and be on record for whether to approve it. But you guys, that's what you all do. And I think there's time to come back and ask these folks to change up their traffic models to suit the real needs of the rest of the residents and their own residents which they propose to sell their product to on 71. So approve it with the stipulation they've got to keep working toward a better product. I would also ask you as a Commissioners court to ask them and the principals within their partnerships to dough nature right-of-way to -- donate right-of-way to txdot. You have no legal standing, but you can make that recommendation as a Commissioners court to ask them and we can change the model for development along this artery and around the state.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. If,.
>> we have two seats available. For the next two speakers. Yes.
>> hello, my name is Karen miller. I'm a real estate agent and I'm also a resident and I live directly across the street in a subdivision called travis settlement which is on the west side of this new development. I'm here for traffic. To speak to the traffic issue only. I do have a poster board here of the area where they are going to have their west entrance and exit. Mr. Gunn also has pictures, but i've included pictures that show in 2001, txdot denied an entrance to travis settlement to don chapman, who was the developer of travis settlement. The proposed west exit and entrance to this new development that mr. Gunn is proposing is directly across the street from what txdot denied in 2001. It is at the top of a s curve hill. It does not meet the 8-second rule. I realize that they could put in a traffic light with the warning much like they have at steiner ranch on 620. The problem is is that 71 -- on steiner ranch at 6 20rbgs you have a much wider area on your shoulder. If you are going to put in a stoplight at the top of this s-curve hill -- and I'm going to leave these pictures for you to enter into the record, that you can review after because it has arrows showing exactly. You are going to have 18-wheelers stopping on a grade heading west. It's going to be a lot of congestion. It's just going to be more accidents. It's also in an area where if any of the Commissioners had the time to drive out there, almost every other section of the guardrail is replaced. And you can see where there's no room for error. And I'm with trey in asking that the developers will grant some land to txdot for right-of-way, 200 to 300 feet. And these pictures will bolster this argument. There's absolutely no room for error. And I don't know how you are going to put a light at the top of this hill when it was denied by txdot in 2001. And that is on the record. I didn't have the time to get that pulled to bring here to the Commissioners. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> Karen, you are not against the development.
>> no, I'm not. I mean i've been here for 24 years. I sell only residential homes. I think the developer has gone back to the drawing board after lick creek. And by the way, my husband -- our land, our acreage, we are on bee creek. We have the waterfalls and swimming holes right on our land. I'm going to trust that they do well or I guess we'll all be in court like the lick creek people are down the road. One other thing I do want to say, the thing that I am concerned about is the preliminary plan. You all did say that they would be grandfathered in and that's what I'm concerned about. They are not paying attention to traffic. They just are not. They get approval. I saw where their exit was on Saturday. Their west side. And seven years from now, and judge business koerbgs you brought up a good point is that we could all come back, but the developer has much deeper pockets than the citizens. Thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> good morning. My name is john sal la sar and I'm a member of the board of directors of travis settlement homeowners association and my statement pretty much accurately reflects the feeling of the board of directors because we've addressed the traffic problem with txdot before. And I want to thank the commission tore letting me read my statement today. I walk my dog every morning in travis settlement and yesterday when I was walking the dog, yesterday morning, I heard that all too familiar sound, another siren on an emergency vehicle passing on 71. And unless we can all convince txdot to take drastic action soon, we will be resigned to listening to those sirens even more frequently. I don't dispute the right of the owners of lazy 9 and mr. Gunn to develop their land. I continue to hope that they will realize the adverse effects their development will have on their neighbors, but that is for them to contemplate and hopefully take into account as they proceed with their plans. Where I think we can do the most good, all of us combined including the commission, is to ensure that lcra holds the developer to the highest legal standards in protecting the springs and creeks that will be affected by the development. And of equal or greater importance, we all us insist that txdot be proactive rather than reactive in making the necessary changes to highway 71 in anticipation of the flood of additional traffic that soon will be the fate of all of those who have to use that highway. At the very least, txdot should immediately take action to add an additional lane to that highway to allow traffic entering 71 to merge safely into traffic and to permit traffic coming off 71 to cross the highway on to their street. Everyone affected by the changes in the area where we live realizes the stakes here. Literally in our case our lives and the lives of our children depend on txdot's making sure that these changes are implemented before the flood of new residents move into the area. I'm just thinking of what goes on as the development continues. You can imagine all of the concrete trucks and lumber trucks crossing 71 going into Austin and it's a disaster waiting to happen unless txdot takes action before all of this gets started. And the commission's help would be appreciated by all of us. Thank you.
>> let me ask you a question. Has your association given any thought to the pole plan that's in existence? -- toll plan. And there's a reason why I want to connect this dot. Have you all talked about that?
>> we have not talked about the toll plan. What we did before is send a letter from the board of directors to txdot asking that a fifth lane be included or be installed to protect us against traffic accidents and to give people the opportunity to merge into traffic. We did that about a year ago.
>> the reason I say that, john, is because txdot is telling us the reason that we have this plan before us, it's just about money. When you start taking on 71, I mean we are desperately trying to find out in the campo plan, I mean how to come up with the dollars to do this study about what is really necessitated with 71. We all know that 71 has major challenges just for no other reason from the topography. I mean very seldom do you see somebody go up there and just draw a straight line down through the hill country and say that's where it's going because we need that straight line. I mean we all know that a lot of roads were built and especially in the state of Texas because of property lines and that's the reason you have and 71 is horrible. I mean I don't know why people go 90. I mean I don't know why people go 90 and drink two cases of beer and come back from the lake. I mean which are the -- you know, there are major reasons why 71 has issues over and beyond no left-hand turn lanes and all of the ingress and egress that's coming off 71. I'm willing to work with txdot on this, but you all as an association needs to understand if some of the methods that txdot is trying to get to all of us, if you want us to get out in front with roads, if you want us to get out in front with infrastructure in this community, we're telling you we don't have the dollars to do it. And my office had 6,000 and some of you that think I don't return an e-mail, let me tell you, 6,000 e-mails in the last four days alone my office has gotten. I am buried under paper in my office and it's over the toll roads. And so I'm trying to connect the toll road concept to this. And so -- and really get people out of the notion about, you know, we live here, but this is really kind of our domain out here and we don't really want to pay any attention to anything else. I mean and let me tell you, I'm just as bad about that so I'm not throwing rocks at you. I'm sure there are things people would say why didn't Gerald get more involved in this because it really did affect us all in this way. But if you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate you going back and saying you know what, we do have a big picture and the big picture with txdot, because txdot really doesn't have the dough to do the things they need to do, and to take on 71 and to think if this thing never sells one house, I mean is horrible. So if you wouldn't mind, I mean you know, take that back to your folks, but thanks for listening.
>> we have a board meeting a week from Thursday and i'll certainly bring that up and do my best to make sure you get a few more e-mails.
>> send them on. [laughter]
>> good morning. My name is Karen hueber. I live on pedernales canyon trail. Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak. And I -- based upon conversation that I had just before this meeting started, I have changed my testimony so I apologize if it's a little disskwrupbgt active. I came prepared to ask the court to defer consideration of this project at this time. Based in large part on a lot of the testimony you've already heard. I believe very strongly in not having the cart before the horse and I have serious concerns with the minimal regulations that are in place by the different governing agencies that that's not what's going to happen. I have concerns what will happen in our unincorporated areas. I realize the challenges that the court faces in dealing with this process and their historic process. I realize it would be very difficult or understand it would be very difficult give ten process that the court usually adheres to not to approve this project today because bill gunn and his team have done the minimal that is required for their project by the laws that Travis County last in place. I'm not here to question bill gunn's project either. I have no doubt it's got quality tonight, and I think the biggest problem with the project is the timing. And that's not necessarily bill gunn's fault. But we are faced with a huge number of projects coming down the pike on highway 71. And unfortunately the sweetwater project is probably one of the largest and in one of the most prime locations from a visibility and impact location. So I feel like it's very important that this project, if we're going to -- and I appreciate the leadership that Commissioner Daugherty has taken in trying to pull together a planning process that involves all the stakeholders in the area. That's the agencies as well as the community and the developers. And I think that this needs to be given an opportunity to work. I believe that most residents in western Travis County believe growth is coming and they are not out there to fight it. They would just like to see it managed. And with some very valid reasons behind those concerns of management. And I believe that what needs to happen given the minimal rules that the commission -- that the county has and that the lcra have and other agencies to control growth in our unincorporated areas, I believe we need to move forward with a process like Commissioner droughtry is proposing. And I had spoken with bill gunn, I met with him a little over two weeks ago and asked him if he would consider, because of the location of his project and the timing of it, of taking a leadership role on behalf of the developers in pursuing this planning process. He told me he would and he told me he would speak with Commissioner Daugherty. To my knowledge, that conversation has not yet taken place and I asked bill gunn before this meeting if he still continued or still intended to talk to Commissioner Daugherty and take a leadership role on the part of developers in pursuing this planning project and make his project a model which would be recognized by other developers and the rest of the community as a model for the desired growth along highway 71. I don't believe there's the time out there for the county, lcra, the tceq, the other agencies that can help manage growth to get ordinance, new ordinances, new regulations in place to impact what's happening. There's just not the time on the books. It is going to take voluntary effort by all of the stakeholders. And to that end, rather than asking you to defer today consideration of this, I would like for you to do what you feel needs to be done as far as your approval of this process with the caveat if there is a way to add plat notes or whatever to what takes place today that will limit the grandfathering that has been talked about earlier such that if there are new regulations and ordinances that come online in the future, that subsequent platting and phases of this development will be required to adhere to that. I would like to see that happen. But at the same time, I would really like to see a spirit of cooperation between all the stakeholders and the developers and I would like to see bill gunn stand up to what he promised me he would do and take that leadership role from the standpoint of the developers and I would look to my friends and associates in the county in the spirit of working together to work with Commissioner Daugherty on this process. Thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> I would like to get to some specifics, though, of reasons that the county might have to not approve it beyond the fact that they're not required to. For the preliminary plan regulations, the Travis County -- that Travis County has, water and wastewater services that are to be provided by a municipal court or district, the municipality, corporation or district must indicate that sufficient water and water and wastewater capacity is sufficient for the development. And to everyone's knowledge, lazy 9 m.u.d. Has a raw water contract with lcra. At the meeting that we had Saturday on the issue of where's the water going to come from, mr. Gunn said they haven't identified a spot on Lake Travis. They haven't identified if they're going to treat the water at the lake or treat it on the property. So as far as anyone knows, there's no retail agreement for the water. And you can't provide raw water to homes in the subdivision. You've got to provide treated water. So since your regs require water, I would just question that it is a raw water contract and not to show that water is available. I'd just throw that up there. And also on the wastewater side, mr. Gunn told me on Saturday that they haven't filed for a wastewater permit with the tceq, although they intend to do on-site wastewater treatment. And mr. Gunn also informed me that they have a pump and haul contract with lcra. And your reviewers probably know that, but I would just like to bring that to the court's attention that if this moves forward and the lots come on the market before they have a tceq wastewater permit, they're planning on hauling thousands of gallons of sewage down 71. We've been talking about the carnage and the wrecks on 71. Imagine trucks hauling thousands of gallons on sewage on 71 and dumping that into a manhole. I don't know if y'all are aware that that's --
>> how will you police that? [overlapping speakers]
>> it will be going into the barton springs watershed. And one last point this morning, save our springs filed suit in Travis County challenging the lazy 9 municipal utility district this morning, and I will pass out for y'all the notification that we found that was in the "austin american-statesman" before the m.u.d. Was created. We think that the notice that was provided to the public was insufficient under the statute that says you have to notify folks, so if you're creating a m.u.d. -- i'll give you copies of that as well. -- I wanted to know that we're challenging the creation of the m.u.d. Thank you for your time.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> my name is richard scroggins. I'm going to make this short and sweet. We respectfully request that all of the issues and concerns that have been brought up today be attached in some form or fashion to this plan. I don't know how it works in terms of what you do, but if we could have that on file and on record, we would very much appreciate it.
>> and we very much appreciate the input of all the residents. Now, the county staff, what is the obligation as to water and wastewater and what is our position as to water and wastewater in this particular preliminary plan?
>> typically our responsibility is to receive notification from the provider of that area, otherwise to offer to provide the services. And that has been done in this case.
>> all right.
>> i'll give you an example. When a subdivision is in the city of Austin's ccn their answer to the question is are water and wastewater services available. And that's adequate.
>> so what's the situation as to sweetwater?
>> the lcra has agreed to provide water and wastewater service through the district.
>> okay.
>> and we will have an opportunity to review the final plan before construction begins?
>> absolutely, yes, sir.
>> we will have another opportunity to ensure provision of water and wastewater by lcra?
>> absolutely, yes, sir, at final plat time.
>> do we typically look for that?
>> yes, sir. Let me field a couple of comments and then we'll get the rest of the court. As residents have observed, we've got traffic concerns for 71 that really are controlled by txdot. To the extent that we can provide input to txdot to do the right thing, we ought to until they would tell us, county, we always do the right thing, mind your own business. But if we ask for specific recommendations, then I have no problem with passing them on. But if in fact there are traffic issues already, then clearly the addition of other traffic will add to that and tells me that -- rather than assume that txdot knows this, I have no problem dropping a friendly reminder in just telling some issues that have been brought to our attention by residents. The other thing is as to the water quality issues, this is lcra's jurisdiction, not ours.
>> under the current regulations, yes.
>> we certainly have the right to make whatever suggestions we think are appropriate.
>> sure.
>> so these are concerns and I can understand the position of different residents. These big areas, though, are really controlled by other governmental entities with which we have good working relationships, I think.
>> that's correct, yes.
>> so I certainly have no problem with trying to communicate with them and offer whatever advice we think is appropriate. The other thing is that a regional plan for western Travis County makes sense to me. The problem, though, with efforts of that nature is that they take a little time. Regulations by the county under sb 873 make sense. If we get around to doing it. We have been working feverishly on implementing 1445 for two years, and are still working on it. So what I'm suggesting really is for us to do some of these things that have been recommended make sense, but will it take a whole lot of time? And I am not sure that we have the authority to place developments on hold until we do these things. But I indicated in an e-mail to a resident who asked about them that I thought we ought to go ahead and start doing some of these. The problem with that is that once we get them in place, then by law we apply them prospectively. So I'm on board with that, but I'm concerned about our ability really to delay action on applications before us until we have done some of this necessary work. Now, am I missing something? Staff's position is it meets our standards.
>> which also means state standards.
>> county standards to the extent that we have them and state standards to the extent that we enforce them.
>> that's correct.
>> along with traffic and water quality, we certainly can make recommendations to the others.
>> and we will do that.
>> it has come to our attention that we can certainly delay action, but to a great extent this preliminary plan before us looks a lot like others, doesn't it?
>> yes, sir.
>> he has an enlightening point.
>> I would ask the court, you have some -- you have some significant questions. I would ask the court a week to deliberate those questions, including advice of counsel. I think it just -- given the concerns that were laid out today at today's meeting, and the significance of the development, I think it's probably appropriate to take one more week to take a look at some of the questions you've raised.
>> I was under the impression that they were time constraints. Perhaps mr. Gunn is the only one that can answer that question. Because we talked about this last week about whether we would just go ahead and say it out loud if it's going to take us two weeks to work through all of our issues. And the answer we got was no, so the expectation at least i've had is that we would have to work through all of these issues over the next week. Help me out. Otherwise we would have announced last week, two weeks, fast and furious not to implement in a matter of days to have a public meeting if we had more time.
>> Commissioners, i'd like to introduce one thing that s.o.s. Provided you saying that there was no retail provider for utilities. As you know, a municipal utility district itself can be the retail provider or retail provider similarly sends out bills. Utility districts all over Travis County typically sign retail agreements with those entities that they desire to be retail providers. You have two new york stock exchange companies that are retail providers here in town and sign contracts with m.u.d. You have the lcra who does it. You have various and other m.u.d., Like wcid 17 out in Lakeway. They're retail providers for a couple of districts. We've been offered retail providing by lcra. We would like very much for that to occur. If the lcra chooses not to, the m.u.d. Itself will be a retail provider. So we don't need a retail provider as a district in order to give the residents freshwater. Likewise on our permit, the only reason we have a pump and haul contract is to give us a redundancy again. We're trying to get redundant systems in place for everything. So in the event that we're delayed in the permit, we'll have a pump and haul system so that nothing would occur that would cause any kind of harm to anybody. As far as --
>> (indiscernible).
>> what about the one week delay?
>> I'm going to ask for a vote today, judge. We cannot tolerate a week. We've done our homework, judge. We've in essence -- I think we've earned our right to be here. We certainly have spent the money and the time and the effort. I need a vote today and I'm going to ask for a vote today, please.
>> do you have legal questions that you have in mind?
>> I do.
>> why don't we go into executive session right now? If residential will come down (indiscernible) we will be able to do that.
>> judge, before you call it, can I ask a timing issue considering -- are we going to get to the barks dale item before noon?
>> is he here?
>> he was earlier. I've got commitments during the noon hour, and we've got things -- [overlapping speakers].
>> I can stay. We will need three for a majority of the court to be here, if a majority of a court cannot be here --
>> just the last item before we go to the break.
>> we'll take whatever motion is appropriate at 12 noon.
>> thanks, judge.
>> now, under the private consultation with attorney under the open meetings act, the court will convene with legal counsel to discuss items 21-a and b, and I know he will tell me that I need to read this item again. It is to consider and take appropriate action on the following requests regarding sweetwater raunch, a division precinct 3. A phrasing agreement between Travis County and the developer, sweert awrt Austin llp, william gunn partner and preliminary plan sweetwater ranch section one preliminary plan, no fiscal required for a preliminary planning sewage service to be provided by lazy nine mud. The court will return to open court before headache taking any action. We will be back within the next 10 to 15 minutes.
We have returned from executive executive session where we discussed item 21 a and b only. As a result of that conversation, let me announce it is the intention of the Commissioners court to commence the register regional planning that we have referenced today as well as to take a good look at sb 873 and see what actions the Commissioners court can take. My motion is for us to approve the preliminary plan before us in phase 1, conditioned on the developer's agreement to apply to subsequent phases, that would be 2, 3, etcetera, any new standards that the Commissioners court adopts between now and when phase 2 and subsequent phases are filed. We discussed today that there's some question about the applicability of 1704. And the developer has indicated his agreement to apply any new standards adopted by the Commissioners court to phases after phase 1. I think that motion is clear enough, isn't it, tom? By the way, tom will draft an appropriate phasing, a provision to the phasing agreement to capture this understanding. That will be ready late this afternoon or noon tomorrow.
>> we can try to have it done late this afternoon.
>> spoken like a true public servant. [ laughter ]
>> does your motion include the phasing agreement under a?
>> yes.
>> judge, I'm going to second that motion. And I want to make sure that everybody understands what we're doing with this thing. 1704 is the thing that would allow this thing to be grandfathered, which is the one thing that I don't want because I know that the people in this community in western Travis County and all over Travis County -- not just western because we're not the only ones that have these issues, but we have asked and we will make sure that it is in writing that 1704 will be set aside, so anything beyond this initial agreement, this first 274 acres -- 271 acres will most likely come into play with all of the new things that we come up with in western Travis County that new development has to adhere to. So this will not be grandfathered. I mean, they will be able to go forward with a 271-acre tract that they have in place under the rules that we have now they have complied, but anything beyond that and whenever they come back in for final platting, whatever we come up with as a regional agreement, those will have to apply before we will consider doing anything beyond this first phase.
>> we do. Check with -- one of us chat with mr. Gunn just briefly. Is that agreeable with you, mr. Gunn?
>> yes, sir, judge, it is.
>> judge, are you asked at this stage? I see -- (indiscernible).
>> could you come forward?
>> before they make their comments, let me say this: you mentioned Commissioner Daugherty -- Commissioner Daugherty mentioned we have similar concerns in other parts of Travis County. It happened in my precinct 1, which I represent, 969, attendant section 973, going to the bastrop county line east on 969 is some of the most treacherous dangerous roads in Travis County. And of course because of that we even had a little -- they are incorporated because they had no way of controlling the flow of traffic, but the speed of that traffic and the dangerous public safety issues that they presented will now be -- (indiscernible). Txdot is going to have to grant that also. So we'll all end up in similar situations not only in your area as far as western Travis County, but we have them all over the county. And it's a fact this we have to deal with. But of course I think we're moving in the right direction to take care of this.
>> the only other thing I would like to add is I absolutely intend to try to work cooperatively with mr. Gunn related to future needs along 71 beyond the exaction that can happen under campo now. We're in the 2025 plan, there will be a 2030 plan next year, so I would like to work cooperatively with you about whether we can voluntarily do the right thing related to right-of-way on 71 even though it's not required at this point, but I certainly intend to continue my discussions with you about that.
>> yes?
>> just a quick question. The current overall phase of the project is approximately 1800 homes, the current overall completion of the project. If y'all put some restrictions in and hypothetically, hypothetically if impervious cover regulations were instituted under senate bill 873 and that meant that the entire development was reduced in number of homes, down to a thousand, 1100 1100 homes, I just want to be 100% clear that he would have to comply with that.
>> if we adopt new standards --
>> of any kind.
>> today, next week, etcetera, they would apply to phases that are brought to us for approval. For the homes that are in subsequent phases would be what's covered by the new standards.
>> any and every kind of regulation?
>> well, there remains to be seen what's in like the county's policy is my understanding. And we are good government people, so we normally have a whole lot of government input, so there will be opportunities for interested residents to let us know what they think about what ought to be in the study. 873 is kind of broad in language. We'd want to know what we have the authority to do, then we would want to know basically what we ought to do. And we would engage the lcra -- I mean, I don't really see us doing a whole lot to impact state roads, but to the extent that we want to make recommendations to the state in our policy, we could do that.
>> basically what we are saying, what ever stringent rules and regulations -- and I think that they know it. And everybody -- you would have to be brain damaged not to understand that western Travis County especially -- I'm not talking about you. [ laughter ] I know I'm pointing my finger at you. You would have to be brain damaged to not understand that we are serious about this in western Travis County. I'm not going to spend the time and I don't think any of y'all -- I'm not going to ask any of y'all to spend the time that we are willing to sit down and tell the developers, there is a new game in town in western Travis County. We all understand it. Urban growth is happening. And that's what we are trying to get our arms around. Somebody -- everybody is going to have to give up something. And that is what I think that we can work towards. If we need to put the teeth in 873 and we need to find a way to have the teeth as a county, I guarantee you I'm going to write it back to -- bring it back to the court and say these are the things that we have to do. But no, this is not one of these deals where we say there were 1874 homes or whatever it was that just sent everybody into a cat tonic state and I understand that. Beyond this first phase it's whatever we come up with and what we work with, and we are telling the developers that y'all are going to get to play with us, but y'all are going to need to be at the table along with the citizens. And this is what we're going to work towards. I mean, I set out from the get go and I said I didn't want to put any parameters, moratoriums, I don't want to do the things that people have been doing up to this point, which is the reason that I'm so insistent on saying, okay, if you've complied -- I'm not trying to be punitive to you about what you've done now, but do you know what, there are legitimate serious issues that we all want to deal with and that's everything from traffic to water to you name it. So I think that we will be able to work towards that, but what we've really got here, which is okay, guys, you can't take your 1704 because we're doing the preliminary plat, y'all do this 23 hundred acres and 1784 rooftops or whatever it is. That's not going to happen without the input from all of us. So I want you to trust that that's what we're going to work towards. And judge, I mean, I -- there are I think some acceptable plat notes that I would like to show -- I know we're late for our break, but I would like to show -- i'll make a copy of whoever else wants to see some plat notes that I would like to see, but basically what they are is they are the assurances that we are going to get from the other governmental entities -- and let me tell you something, folks, I'm going to work just as aggressively with other governmental entities like the lcra. They are our best potential partner. They understand that what they have the Marching orders to do in western Travis County, they can only do them with the acceptance of the people that already live out there. And so I'm going to be just as diligent about working with those other -- if that's tceq, if that's fish, if that's the corps of engineers, we will bring everybody into the fold on this thing and say, do you know what, this thing has gotten everybody's attention and we're willing to do that. So bill, if you don't mind, i'll make a copy of this versus reading over them. And before we would put them in with tom so that you could see them and I show the neighbors, if you don't mind. I don't think there's anything in here that you're going to go, I don't want to do that because it's basically just assurances of what we've already been given from the other governmental entities insofar as you presenting things that have already been passed.
>> I understand.
>> I just had visions of flashing ahead to depositions five, 10, 15 years from now in terms of Commissioner, what was in your mind when you did what you did? And christie said it in a way and I think people are hearing in in whatever way they choose, but let me make it really clear so I don't get called back for the deposition, they will have this videotape. And that is this this is almost like I am putting a fence around this 271 acres related to the rules are in place today apply to this 271. When we ask about what if new rules come into place for everything else? I am seeing this 271 as separate and apart. That it doesn't positively help mr. Gunn or negatively affect mr. Gunn. Let's say there's some other calculation. This 271 is not going to be part of any calculations in the future because it is what it is, what it is today of what were the rules. So if there are calculations to occur on the remainder, the calculations would occur on the remainder only, and this fence in my mind remains around the 271. And that may not be what everybody wants to hear, but I am afraid that's where I would have to be in terms of somebody saying, Commissioner, what were you thinking at the time you all did this? So there's no lack of clarity, at least from my vote today.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
We have been requested to call back up one item we discussed this morning involving sweetwater, that is item number 21 a and b. And mr. Knuckles of the county attorney's office has given us the plat notes. Tom, do you want to -- all these are new?
>> well, Commissioner Daugherty mentioned the plat notes earlier but I don't think they were formally made part of the motion to add them to the preliminary. So I was going to suggest we do that. And the other thing is this is the phasing agreement language. I drafted that up, gave it to mr. Gunn and his representatives, and they have approved it. So I think it would be good if we just had your formal blessings on these so there's no question about does the language reflect what y'all intended to do or not.
>> tom, for purposes of clarity, on page 2 you have a little 2 in parenthesis. Is that to reflect the page number?
>> that's section 2 of the phasing agreement. This is a new -- this would replace the existing section 2 of the phasing agreement.
>> okay.
>> would it take an alley amendment or would it take anything to get the plat notes attached to the plat?
>> I think we ought to move to reconsider.
>> second.
>> 21 a and b.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And basically in addition to what we approved this morning, we have specific language and provision in the phase development, and also plat notes 1 through 4. So the motion would be to include basically a platting a and a preliminary platting b and include these two documents.
>> yes.
>> I second that.
>> do we have names and addresses of the key residents who -- I guess we could ask mr. Gunn.
>> I can get those. I'll make sure that we get them.
>> we ought to share these with them.
>> because we got a list of the 45 people that showed up, and i'll make sure they get a copy of these two things.
>> any more discussion? There's been a motion and a second, right? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> move adjourn.
Last Modified: Thursday, July 1, 2004 11:41 AM