Travis County Commissioners Court
October 26, 2004
Item 7
Number 7 consider and take appropriate action on court directed modifications
to the previously approved rocky creek ranch preliminary plan, a subdivision
in precinct 3. 7-a is a phasing agreement between Travis County and the developer,
mchargue limited, reb beck ca hudson president. And b, preliminary plan, rocky
creek ranch preliminary plan, 486 lots, hamilton pool road. No fiscal required
for a preliminary plan. Sewage service to be provided by lcra. No municipal
e.t.j. Good morning.
>> good morning. Joe gieselman from tnr. This is to modify
action by the court last week. If you like, we could read into the record
the plat notes that have been added to the plat as per instructions of the
court.
>> this is basically incorporating the language from the
lcra. What if the lcra changes something from a guideline to mandatory and
vice versa. What if something that the lcra does changes? Does this lock in
the plat or what? I didn't mean to cause trouble, but it was just a question
that was being raised that I was asked to ask.
>> well, my first inclination is to say that's really up
to lcra because, again, lcra is placing conditions on utility service. And
the commitment is somewhat open-ended, so it seems to me that if lcra changes
something from a guideline to mandatory that they can enforce that through
their condition on utility service if they so choose.
>> that would be the answer I gave that person, but I wanted
to have the attorney second me up on that. Okay.
>> the reading into the record, I admit it's a good idea
just to summarize the whole thing.
>> in addition to the 15% impervious cover, you can have
a number of mandatory requirements on the homeowners with regard to minimums
and maximums on irrigation, landscaping of their properties. You also have
suggested guidelines. You also get into conservation of water through irrigation
on the individual lots. And those are numerous.
>> judge? Let me ask, joe, I know that there were a couple
of things that stuck out that I recall whenever I brought the engineer up
and asked if we were going to be able to deal with those things. One in particular
was the park that I don't think is in here. I mean, although I just got this
thing this morning. Is the moving of the park, is that something that we need
to have in writing or is that just something that we have agreed that that
will be looked at. And I would suspect that going through this process that
we're going through in western Travis County that I think that that's something
that the development community is going to say that's something that makes
you happier, then let's find a way to do that. Number 2, I know that there
are set back regulations from tceq with regards to how close the treatment
plant can be to the line, and I don't think that that was specifically put
in here unless -- and by speed reading mode I might have missed that. Don't
we need to have mention of those things in here? Because I think that the
engineer and I think that the applicant is fine to have those things done,
and I know that there certainly were those things that the people out in the
community wanted to see in particular the neighbor.
>> I think you're correct. They're not currently in there.
Whether or not they need to be I guess is depending upon whether or not there's
another legal agreement that might affect those changes in respect to what's
on plat note. If it's on the plat note or not, if there's another agreement
that they have to enter it for such setbacks, it might be redundant to put
it on the plat note. But I guess -- and there's probably no reason we could
not put it on there if the court wanted to do that.
>> just to keep from, you know, seeming, you know, either
nitpicking or a little ambiguous in some instances, I think that the applicant
is fine with a couple of those. What I want to do is get back into the stream
and people say, well, we suggested those things, the engineer said, hey, those
are probably things that we can do. Either rebecca or david or jordan or somebody,
if you don't mind addressing that.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> and I was real impressed, but it's not a small list. It's
pretty extensive of what's on the mandatory requirements and certainly the
suggested guidelines are beyond that that folks can look at if they build
out there.
>> this is not a public record, so if anybody wants to see
these, contact us and we'll make a copy available. Anybody here on this item
who would like to give comments?
>> judge, I would move then that we would go forward with
this, implementing these modifications both, you know, a and b, to go forward
with.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Thank you very much, staff. Thank you all for coming down.
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.
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:28 PM