Travis County Commissioners Court
February 1, 2005
Item 2
Number 2 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding a plat for recording in precinct three: resubdivision of lot f-5, northwest hills ranch, sect. One (short form plat - 5 lots - 2.9428 acres - d-k ranch road - no fiscal required - sewage service to be provided by city of Austin - city of Austin e.t.j.
>> move to open the public hearing.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> this is a owe one of the older subdivisions in Travis County, a large lot subdivision, the other is asking to resubdivide a single lot into five single [indiscernible] lots. And we do have some public testimony this morning, I believe. We have provided you copies of letters that we have received from some of the adjoining property owners and these issues deal with drainage from the site. There are some drainage problems in the subdivision. The concern is about the runoff from the resubdivided lot on to the adjoining properties.
>> it's there a staff recommendation? If so, what is it and why?
>> staff recommendation is to allow for the resubdivision of the lot. There is a requirement that any drainage from the site be retained on the site. We are assured by the engineer of the applicant that that will be done. There are some pieces we believe we still need to look at, not asking for court action today. In part we want fiscal for the retention features on the lot to make sure that we do have the fiscal security to guarantee that it will be done.
>> if the -- if the engineer's assurances turn out to be incorrect and there are drainage issues later, what's the county's leverage?
>> we have a performance bond on subdivisions that have a year. I believe that we have had in this case, I will need to check to make sure that we do.
>> if you would like to give testimony during this public hearing, please come forward at this time. And if you would give us your full name, we would be happy to get your comments. There are two chairs left. So if you are here on public hearing number two, please come forward.
>> my name is rob [indiscernible]
>> have a seat there, get comfortable there.
>> my name is willard perkins.
>> the issues that i've been in this court before, couple of years before when there was a resubdivision on dk ranch road on some of the same issues. The fact that dk ranch road does not have the capacity right now to handle the water that is flowing, crossing the road and affecting the property on the west side of dk ranch road. The concerns that we have on our side of dk ranch road are the same concerns that we had last summer when we had engineers from Travis County and I had the representatives from Gerald's office come and do a site assessment and try to resolve the water issues prior to any construction, prior to any more subdivision going on. And we've had a lot of conversation in the last two weeks with -- with red [indiscernible] from Travis County and kent hubbard's office and his assistance and engineers and I think right now the -- the thought is nobody is sure how this resubdivision is going to affect dk ranch road's ability to handle additional water or if it will affect it. We as property owners in the neighborhood are not opposed to the development. We are just concerned about what's going to happen with the water, it's already a huge issue. Not only for us on dk ranch road, but the property owners down below us on yucca and in a cul de sac where all of this water is moving to. We are talking about the speed for the water, the level of erosion, the number of 50-foot tall oak trees that have fallen because of the water coming off of dk ranch road. These are issues that have to be, in our opinion addressed before you increase density because this is what we are doing. We are going from effectively five houses to 10. It's a 100% increase in the density. Two years ago, we were going from three houses to five, two years later now going from five houses to 10. Roof tops and flat work, it's -- it -- the canement, I told the -- the containment, I told the engineers a year ago I drilled a well and I had to contain 30,000 gallons of water. It was a piece of cake to do that. What we are talking about coming down my driveway, through his front yard and his next door neighbor, hundreds of thousands of gallons of water moving very swiftly. The thought through engineering is that a detention pond of some -- some size, something very solid, something very structural would be a good idea. You know, for -- from my position with the school being as close by in the neighborhood, we're talking about a school that's a quarter mile away, an elementary school, lots of kids on bikes, lots of kids walking. We have got a four-foot deep swimming pool right there on the edge of the road, that creates other issues that have to be certainly researched or certainly considered by the county if that's -- if that's going to -- number one, resolve the water issues and, number two, does it become a public safety issue.
>> joe, with can we scrap what the owner plans to do, deal with the water issue?
>> let me get one of my staff members to come up and describe that for you.
>> okay.
>> let me --
>> go ahead.
>> just for a second. Historical background here, I have lived here eight years, rob and I live directly across the street from this lot in question. From the history that we can find on the subdivision, this road was done sometime in the early '50s. It's a typical urban roadway. It has a -- somewhat of a crown, the center of the road with the drainage ditch not storm water drainage, but a drainage ditch on one side of the road. That being the east side of the road. So all of the water now cascades off that hill. Hits that drainage ditch, comes down through the culverts in the driveway, hits a storm water drain crossing the road approximately 150 to 200 feet north of our property. Goes -- goes behind rob's lot and down into the street behind us. We had a real problem over there. We have documented photographs and movies taken last year. I've got 30-inches of water, enough to kayak down rob's driveway. We have documented evidence showing this. This was prior to this subdivision taking place that's in front of you now. County came out there, met with us, decided to -- to maintain the drainage ditch, which they did a tremendous job. It alleviated somewhat of the problem that we are having currently. Two of the engineers from the county says that's great for the 100 year flood. They said the 500 year flood, he said we're all going to be taste. He said the drainage capacity of that urban roadway would not handle current drainage with the housing development the way it is now, much less any additional or future development that was done in that area. You have an urban roadway, there's no storm water drainage, no detention, there's been no detention on the previous five to six house that's have been built through there. However I understood that they were supposed to be done, also, by county standards, which they were not. So we have a situation here that we -- that the county admits they don't know what the problem is other than everything floods. Their -- my assumption is that they would like to at least do a study to find out what the problem is. If there's some way that we could at least get a moratorium for a period of time where we could study and see what the problem is before any future development is built, that would certainly be advantage to us to the current residences at this particular location. That's what I'm asking for I guess right now.
>> okay. Let's get this gentleman, then we'll get you, okay.
>> good morning --
>> let's get the gentleman next to you. We may as well try to address these issues as they lay them out.
>> judge Biscoe, I'm mike rivera, the civil engineer for the applicant. I'm really here to address any questions and there have been a few that the neighbors have raised, I can address those or if you want the staff to start --
>> let's hear from the county's perspective what we think is being done to address these issues.
>> this is a -- this subdivision is a product of the single office venture between Travis County and the city of Austin, currently been acted on favorably by the city of Austin. The --
>> is that something news or bad? Is that good news or bad?
>> I'm not sure yet, judge. This area is subject to the requirements of title 30, which is we and the city have common rules for subdivision in this -- in the area of this subdivision, so there's -- there's no -- no problem with, you know, as there sometimes is with the defer shall between our rules -- differential between our rules and the city resumes. These rules you also -- the city rules. These rules require, have a number of requirements for the drainage. To make a long story short, the city requires that a development not increase the peak discharges for the regulated flood events, the two, five, 10, 100 year events, that is typically done by some sort of an attenuation pond, a detention pond. There are many forms it can take, but typically they are detention ponds.
>> what's being done in this case?
>> there is such a detention pond proposed. The details of which, as joe pointed out, have for the been resolved -- have not be resolved. That's why we are not asking you to take action on approval for this today. When it's all said and done, I'm confident that a pond, a structure can be completed at this location that will reduce the post development peak charges to predevelopment levels for those regulated storms. The issue that's being brought up by some of the property owners, one that I see myself out there, is there's a general problem with drainage in the whole neighborhood out there. This whole area was constructed in the '50s and '60s and -- there are problems with drainage out there. We have -- I have no way of knowing how to fix any one of them. We go out there from time to time and throw band-aids on things. We were out there twice in response to these gentleman's complaints and I think we got it reasonably close to right the second time. But it doesn't -- we don't know what storm event we resolved by doing what we did out there, any of these things. So I can't answer any of those questions.
>> okay. Now so joe this is action item 21 today?
>> uh-huh.
>> we are asked to postpone it?
>> that's right. We are -- we are asking for no action on this item. I believe -- let me make sure that --
>> 22, it's 22.
>> 22, excuse me.
>> so 22 we pull until further notice or postpone until next week?
>> I think postpone until next week. Because -- -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> so -- so I guess what -- I guess I'm trying to find out, so something is proposed but there's not an agreement by the city and the county on the proposal?
>> typically, in a case like this, the -- the construction of the items that are required via the platting process are not necessarily even prepared, let alone reviewed and approved by the time the plat is before the -- the approval -- approving bodies. In this case, it would be -- these improvements are things that we should issue a development permit for, like we do in the case of many subdivisions. And -- and in this case, however, because of the issues, it makes sense to -- to be able to represent clearly to the community that we are doing certain things and we are doing that by having the specific items approved before us, before we are --
>> okay. So should we tell the residents that we don't have the answer today but we will have the answer before final approval? Remaining issues will be addressed?
>> that's correct. We would not recommend approval of this subdivision were it not meeting the requirements for plat thank it has to meet -- platting that it has to meet. Absolutely.
>> okay. From your engineer's perspective, you are doing what to address these issues?
>> yes, sir. We have prepared the actual construction plan so we are actually -- as fred mentioned, we are in the subdivision process, but we have gone ahead and prepared the actual construction plans and submitted those to the city and the county. And so they are under review right now. So -- so we are -- we are very close to having the -- the pond -- in terms of the design of the pond, which will meet the requirements in terms of reducing the flows back to what the existing condition would be with -- with the single house on there where we now are proposing five houses. So -- so we do have construction plan that's we have prepared and we have submitted those and they are being reviewed, so I believe that's -- I believe once fred and the county and city both review those, I think they will be, you know, comfortable that we are meeting the requirements.
>> somebody remind me what the standard is, either joe or fred, on -- on flooding. My memory is on some of the subdivisions that it's to a 25 or perhaps even a 50 year event. But if we were talking about an arterial road project, we might be talking about elevating something to a 100 year standard, but i've certainly heard nothing in this town that's built to a 500 year standard. That simply is not what the standard is, but -- but what's the differential between what you would require for if this were the road project, versus a subdivision in terms of what's the county standard on a flood event?
>> the county regulates the same events as the city does. And basically, they go up to the 100. They are a number -- they are basically the 2, 5, 10, 25 and 100, but they do not exceed the 100 year event. That's the standard that's used country-wide. I'm sure there are exceptions to that statement. But that is basically the standard, the 100 year event. This design will attenuate the peak flow from a 100 year event to predevelopment levels or it won't get approved.
>> you are saying after this project the flooding situation may not be remedied but it certainly won't be worse.
>> the condition, the rule is not to create any adverse flooding conditions, so the answer is yes to your answer.
>> whatever flooding problems exist before this project, basically will be there. But this project will not add to that situation?
>> that's precisely correct.
>> in any measurable way. The retention pond is designed to do that.
>> that's precisely correct, yes.
>> we will approve that detention pond and know the specifics and be able to share that with residents before final approval?
>> yes, sir.
>> but if flow is creating a problem for these folks, before you put something on there, who has the responsibility of containing the water that just naturally is hitting that property and right now is creating issues?
>> that's an incredibly complex question. Commissioner. The county is the jurisdiction, the governmental jurisdiction in that area. At least down to dk ranch road, the -- these gentlemen live between dk ranch road and I'm -- what's the parallel road? Down below?
>> yucca.
>> that used to be my precinct, yeah.
>> then half a block further downstream from that is the city of Austin. So ... The water goes through all of our jurisdictions.
>> I understand that. I understand if our road is creating a flooding issue in terms of how it sheets off of our road and goes into their property. But seems like some of this is -- well, it's created by what's coming off of the raw land to begin with. This is not anything new in terms of old lampasas trail, very similar kinds of issues, this is not unusual for this area unfortunately.
>> no, it's not unusual. The -- this construction and design dates back way before the standards we currently have. And it was not -- it didn't contemplate the levels of runoff that we are -- that it's receiving today. We have gone out, we have improved dk ranch road. And, you know, some might argue it was a significant improvement or not, but we put as big of a ditch as we could get there, taking it to pipe the crosses the road. To some degree it has solved at least the lower storm problems for at least mr. Subcheck.
>> that is correct.
>> it is not just my property. For me it's just a driveway. What I don't want to be in a position to do is when I put that flat work down, we are talking about the speed at which it's moving, it's going to be in my lower neighbor's living room if it's not addressed up top. It's not -- it's not destroying my property. But ultimately I'm going to have to send it somewhere. And bill is in the same position.
>> what compounds this problem, also, is the fact that we have a tremendous amount of rock or hard surface in this area, very little soil on the top. Compounded also by the tremendous amount of caves in this area, so we get water collect in this the caves that also shoot-out for a period of three or four weeks after the rain has stopped. So there's some real subsurface issues going on here.
>> you should go down to yucca after the rain that we've had this weekend and look. There's no construction going on on my property. I mean, for the most part. Just some minor landscaping things. And look at the brown, the construction silt and the soil that's sitting on the road on yucca and the cul de sac that's adjacent to the street below us. It's all coming from up on dk ranch road at the resubdivision that was approved two years ago. It's still coming down.
>> number 22, the action item for this public hearing, has been pulled. Can we let the two gentlemen know when it's back on the ago came?
>> agenda?
>> yes.
>> what I'm hearing from staff we will know specifically what the remedy is before it's put back on the court's agenda so we will be able to share that with you.
>> judge, let me ask -- are we going to insist that the applicant put a performance bond up? That we can draw on in the event that this does not work? From an engineering -- you know, we have all seen engineering not work. I certainly am not challenging anybody's engineering abilities, I mean,, you know, but, you know, occasionally that happens. So -- so where would we go to hopefully we would have the performance bond there that would allow us to take care of this.
>> the issues of engineering are much closer to being resolved than those issues, but yes. This -- this currently is -- is located on a -- on private property as if it were a private improvement. But our position on it will be that this is much more of a public improvement than private improvement. And we're going to request that it be conducted in that way. We will require fiscal for it, easements covering it, we will require that there will be a maintenance entity.
>> rob. Is it willard?
>> yes, sir.
>> rob and willard, do you all have engineers that -- that represent y'all as well? Because sometimes you'll see engineer versus engineer, I mean, I don't -- I mean, that -- I think that would be helpful, too, I mean, if you had somebody --, I mean, we all know as you all are living examples, I mean these elevations in the areas of Travis County, not just western Travis County, all over Travis County, where there are -- there are big-time issues with -- you're right, subdivisions that have been built upstream, whatever, we have folks downstream that really are having some problems with these particular things, so I would, if you could, I know -- I know it starts, you know, a meter for somebody, but -- but y'all are going to either have to get comfortable with signing off, I mean, if mike comes up and the plans that comes before t.n.r. Is okayed, then y'all are going to find yourselves in a spot where we feel like we have met the letter what was we need to do. For your own protection, I would -- I would hope that -- you know, that you all would have that.
>> I'm an architect by profession, we have two engineering firms, too, that are reviewing the plans. We have not seen anything yet. We have a meeting with the city out on the site Thursday at 3:30. They have also pulled the project because of the drainage issues. So ... As far as I know, we're on top of everything.
>> we'll be working with the city, also, before it comes back, right.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. We appreciate you coming down.
>> thank you very much.
>> anybody else on this item to give comments during this public hearing? Okay. Motion to adjourn the public hearing or close it.
>> move.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, February 2, 2005 9:40 AM