Travis County Commissioners Court
December 20, 2005
Item 1
Number 1 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding a plat for recording in precinct 3. Revised plat of lot 19-2, Leander hills subdivision (short form plat - 3 lots - 5.001 acres - rock cliff drive - no fiscal required - sewage service to be provided by lcra - no jo municipal jurisdiction)
>> move to open the public hearing.
>> second. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> the owner of this lot, five acre lot has requested mer mission to resubdivide into three lots, each of them is a little over an acre in size. We have looked at it regarding our subdivision regulations and it does comply with the subdivision regulations. So we are recommending its approval by the court. We have received comments from the public with various concerns about the resubdivision. Including a letter I just handed out that a gentleman that could not be here today that asked for that to be put in the public record. I believe there may be others here today to speak to the issue.
>> okay. The letter that you handed us a few minutes ago, is there a key sentence or two? That summarizes mr. Ross' position?
>> I think more than anything, perhaps the density of the development.
>> do we have any information about any restrictive covenants in the neighborhood or anything that might put that into play.
>> I do not have knowledge of any restrictive covenant. Would anyone like to give testimony during this public hearing? If so please come forward, have a seat, give us your full name and we will be happy to get your comments. Those three and -- right on the end there would be fine. Joe, if you have questions, joe may have the answers.
>> my name is mike.
>> good morning.
>> and I live on the street of the property that's noted. I’m concerned about the density of the neighborhood, increasing past an acceptable limit. You know, it's a fairly small street, small county roads, and I just don't desire for it to be subdivided so densely.
>> okay.
>> mike, say your last name again.
>> sturdivant.
>> thank you.
>> so the request is to take one lot and divide it into three.
>> yes.
>> and put three homes on the three lots.
>> I’m presuming it will remain residential in character.
>> your concern is that with three lots it increases --
>> it increases the density past an acceptable limit.
>> joe, what size of lot is there?
>> there are three lots, one is 2.5 acres, one is 1.25 and the third one is 1.25 acres. So all three lots are over an acre, one is two and a half acres large and the other are one and a quarter acreage large.
>> so the one lot is more than three acres.
>> five acres, the one lot is five acres. It's being broken down into three lots, one, two and a half acres large, the other two are an acre and a quarter large.
>> so the average lot size in this neighborhood is? How large?
>> my street it's five acres. -- there are other lots that are two and a half acres.
>> okay. Are you aware of any kind of restrictive covenants when your subdivision was formed, is there anything that you can help us with the understanding of what it was with people buying a lot out there.
>> no, just related to business activities.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> my name is jean nance, my husband and I built a home in this neighborhood about 20 years ago, have lived there ever since. My concerns about this plat revision cover four areas. First of all, water. We personally on our property, we have 7.5 acres, have never had a summary out there without at least one day when we didn't have any water from the local community well. It seems to be at capacity already, if we start allowing this kind of additional subdivision and density of houses in this area, we are going to overaction the water system even worse than it is now. My second concern is sewage. I don't understand this comment about sewage service to be provided by lcra. We're on septic tanks now, there is a separate area that was subdivided that has arm sewage treatment plant that was built for that capacity. But they would have to run pipes, good ways to get to that plant if they are thinking of using that, that would be a major development and impact along the roads there. So I’m not sure what this refers to about sewage.
>> joe what does that refer to?
>> that they have jurisdiction on onsite sewage. And we will have an answer to that in a minute. But that lcra basically has jurisdiction on all onsite sewage systems in the Lake Travis watershed. I believe that that is not -- they are not providing sewer service, they are merely permitting the onsite sewage system that the local -- that the owner will put in. This will be a septic system.
>> yes, I’m almost positive -- it is an acre, because that is probably what's required for an onsite sewage system.
>> that simply means lcra will regulate it. Not Travis County.
>> so if it is septic systems, then the other concern that I have about that is that there are studies out that have indicated that there are increasing problems with hill country stream quality deteriorating, when housing density gets less than five acres a house. And out there, we have some wonderful creeks that feed into sandy creek, which feeds into Lake Travis. So I would hope that everybody is a little concerned about water quality issues and how to -- how to keep those minimized as this whole area continues to develop. A third area that I’m concerned about is traffic. As mike mentioned, these are small roads and in fact the whole area funnels into one road that exits folkes, if we keep allowing to set this precedent of allowing tighter and tighter housing and more and more traffic in there, we are just going to have a real backlog of buildup of traffic, particularly getting in and out of the community. Not to mention more noise. I’m sorry?
>> I’m sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I was going to ask, are you through?
>> so -- so the last one, my last concern is --
>> ms. Nance, let me follow up. Is that a county accepted road that you all --
>> I’m looking, I believe it is.
>> the road that you all are on is a county accepted road? Yes, it is, the county maintains it.
>> oh, thank you.
>> and my understanding of the -- of any deed restrictions is that it is single family residences. So I would hope that -- that you know there wouldn't be apartment buildings or some additional density like that allowed to go in. But the fourth concern that I have is really to me the biggest and the most important. That's -- that's the density, the community feel, the sense of community that we have out there. The people who own this property now obviously they live in arizona, they have no commitment or concern about what's right for the community, only what's right for themselves. Those of us who live there are certainly concerned about the community and the commitment that we have made for many years, most of us have been there for 20 years or so, to maintaining this kind of rural feel. We have most of us have single homes situated in the middle of our lots. We just are concerned that this kind of precedent is just going to change the character of the community over time, completely, and change it for the worse. We all, I think, pretty much moved out there in order to avoid the rush and the crush and the noise and the problems with urban living. And to --, you know, we are just not anxious to have it thrust back on us. For reasons that -- that seem dubious. And I want to just finish up by saying I would encourage you to please not look at this in isolation as just one lot that's being subdivided. But to understand this is part of a bigger picture of our community and our neighborhood as a whole and as an important precedent that will be determined one way or another for the current quality of life and the environment that we have in our neighborhood. Thank you.
>> thank you. Are there others who wish to testify on this matter? We will need those two chairs then. And if we could get two more to come forward. Yes, on the end.
>> oh, yes.
>> good morning.
>> judge Biscoe. My name is lannie read, and first to answer Commissioner Sonleitner's questions about restrictions, bought my property in 1979. It's a lane poteet subdivision, we were handed a copy of deed restrictions which said nothing was going to be sold lets than 2 and a half acres and one single family resident per two and a half acres. Well the subdivider did not do anything about the restrictions, he didn't file them with the county. He did not follow through, even though several of us have contracts that say this would be so. We didn't know what to do. We lived out there. It was quiet, we didn't have any problems. But now 20 something years later, people are moving out, it's getting very busy. Someone has already addressed the water problem that is a big issue out there. It's very, very disheartening that we can't do anything about it except speak in open forums such as this. If one place subdivides like that, we are afraid they are all -- that the lot that we are speaking of is a vacant lot that's never been lived on. The whole time since it's been subdivided. Before that it was a ranch. Lot next to it is the same, the lot next to it is the same. All of the people own the lots right there on the corner, down all the way past my property are out of state owners. That don't have any -- you know, they are not really, just in for investment and it would be crowded with an acre and a half. We are really worried that there is a subdivision near us about a mile away. That was subdivided this way. It's distracting, it's rather sad, because people move out in the country to get away from everything, then all of a sudden it's subdivided smaller, it's just not the country living we all look forward to. Any questions of ms. Read if.
>> is it more the density.
>> density and the water. A lot of people out there had to spend 10 to six thousand dollars to put in a well. There's a lot of seniors out there that can't afford this. So if they live on the hill, they are out of water for weeks at a time in the summer. If they live at the bottom of the hill, they have water. That's just the way it is. They have fought it. They have used all of the outlets that they can to talk to people with the state. The system is just overwhat's. That's another problem because they've talked to the regulating authorities and it's just -- it's not up to them to not allow subdivision. It's not up to them to regulate the subdivision, just the water system.
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioners, my name is robert Moore, I represent the estate of trinidad lelasco, and the he is stairs to the estate of trinidad s. Velasco, I am with caldwell bankers, in georgetown. I was hired about a year ago to market this property for the estate of trinidad velasco and to sell lot 192 to settle the estate. It soon became very clear that the best way to market the property would be to subdivide it to enable the prices to be -- to enable the pieces to be sold as affordable prices rather than expect to get even close to the Travis County appraisal district value that was on the property. Things where we are at today, in the final step of the subdivision process. Before we even started the process, there were large piles of brush when the velascos thought they might build and live there. We cleared all of that off, cleaned it up and began a process to possibly subdivide the property. We have met all of the requirements of Travis County in our goal to subdivide this property. We chose to divide it into three parts, even though we could have divided it into four. And possibly even five had not the county wanted an extra five feet of right-of-way, which we gladly gave them. We thought the two tracts, approximately 1.2 acres each, one tract approximately 2.4 acres would be more logical, more aesthetically pleasing to keep the subdivision more closely like the larger lot surrounding areas. We believe what is being presented to you today is a very nice, simple subdivision of the original five acre tract. Again, we have met all of the Travis County requirements and respectfully request approval of this resubdivision of lot 192 Leander hills, thank you very much for your consideration, if you have any questions, I will be very happy to try to answer them.
>> I have one question, it keeps popping up, water, water, water, water, water, water, water, water, okay.
>> it's supplied by [indiscernible] cca authorized water system. They approved the subdivision of this property by essentially saying that it's okay to do it because we have the -- we have am people sources of water to supply the property with water. That's contradictory testimony.
>> I have been in touch with the aquasource people, talked with them on various occasions, they wouldn't have given me the okay to say that they would supply the property with water if they could not do so. Also the second system would be provided by approvals through Travis County, not lcra. We also have approval from the Travis County septic system administrator who is -- who is -- robert turner, and he is also approved the site for the required septics that would be needed for three homes.
>> so you divide it into -- you hope to have three residential lots.
>> yes. Do you have a plat of the property?
>> right.
>> as you see two lots were fronted on rock cliff, very logical subdivision, one of them being the corner. The other 2.4-acre tract will -- is desired to be subdivided off of ranch road, stretching the full lent of the original tract.
>> any other questions of mr. Moore? Okay. Yes? If there are others, are there others who would wish to give testimony during this public hearing?
>> come on.
>> I’m sorry.
>> last opportunity.
>> I was wondering if I could ask a question of mr. Moore.
>> you can after -- please do. After this gentleman, okay. We will need you back on the mic, otherwise our media people will be notifying us. Yes, sir.
>> my name is jim reed, I moved out there in 1979. That property is actually right across the street from me, down to the left, just a little bit. The water system does not work. I had to put a well in, spend $6,300 so I could have water. I drove a truck for a lot of years, to come home on the weekends, and didn't have any water. People down at the bottom has water. That department has water leaks so bad they can't keep up with it. People lives up on top of the hill like where I’m at, where this property is going to be, they are going to have the same problem, they are not going to have any water. And -- and lane poteet that sold us the land, he had that well dug by gary blakely and when they got in front of my place, I questioned them whether they was digging, if they dug it, pipe the pipe together, threw it in the ground, I asked him why they wasn't putting sand around it he says because lane didn't want to do that. That's why we have so many water leaks, water pressure problems. That's a pretty big expense. I had to borrow to make payments on it. Somebody is going to move over there, they need to be aware water is going to be a real problem for them, it's that way right now. Thank you.
>> any questions of mr. Reed?
>> thank you.
>> you said that's the same water supply company that spoke earlier?
>> yes.
>> anybody have a question for mr. Moore? I’m sure in mr. Moore has an answer, we would be happy to give it.
>> jean nance again. I had a question about his comment that they were subdividing in order to be actually to be able to get rid of the property. My understanding was just that there had been a neighbor who had offered them a fair price for the entire lot at one point. Seems like they are doing a little more than maybe just looking to get rid of the property. The entire three lots are available for purchase at a certain price, right, mr. Moore.
>> before it was subdivision, this was when it was a single lot.
>> if there is a person interested in purchasing all three lots today -- they are available. Now the court does not get involved in purchase price. But -- but there was a verbal offer, very early, in the listing that I had. The -- the tax value on the property was showing that the estate had been paying taxes on a $46,000 appraisal for several years. Through comparable analysis, I told them that chances are that they probably could not get over 39,000 for it. The offer that was done verbally, which was not in writing, was for $30,000. Which -- which the velascos did not consider that to be a commensurate offer with the -- what we were asking for it, nor was it in writing. Nor was it anywhere near the appraised value that they believed was a true and correct appraised value on the property. Through subdividing the property, I hope to be able to achieve after expenses to net them somewhere around 45,000 for all three tracts. Which the expenses for the subdivision have been over $6,000, the clearing of the property, the actual removing of the piles of brush was $2,000 and -- and we are currently asking 19-9 for the two 1 tonight 2-acre tracts and 29-9 for the 2.4-acre tract. Hopefully expect to get somewhere around 15 for the smaller ones and, you know, maybe a little more. We don't know right now what we are going to get. You offer a piece of property, for sale, and the -- the market essentially tells you what you are going to get for it. Dpairable comparable properties that have been around the one to two -- one to one and a half acre range in Leander hills and sandy creek subdivision have sold in the range of from 15 to $19,000. Therefore I don't believe the offer of $30,000 a year ago was a fair offer. And the velascos didn't either. So therefore that's why we decided to divide it up.
>> is there any question about this application meeting county standards?
>> no.
>> and for the residents, that's really our problem. If you meet county standards, then we are obligated to -- to grant the application. Now, the issues raised seem to be valid issues to me. They are concerns often but I don't know that the law gives us the authority to reject the application because these concerns exist is that right, tom?
>> that's correct.
>> tom is our resident lawyer. He's on the side of the court and the people. So -- any other comments today on this item? Would it help for us to give the resident an opportunity to meet with mr. Moore? After court today?
>> I would be more than happy to meet with them if they -- if they would like to consider buying the property. Other than that, I don't have any authorize to do any negotiating with residents concerning subdivision. I was tasked by the executor of the estate to go ahead and follow through and try as best as I could to obtain subdivision approval. And I believe that we have -- we have met all of the county standards, even given up an extra five feet of right-of-way, which may or may not ever be used, but we were glad to do so. We have subdivided -- we have asked for subdivision of this property, less than the -- than the maximum that we could have. We have satisfied the county's requirements for showing them the septic systems. Would be appropriate on this property and safe. And I believe that -- that the Commissioners court will hopefully approve this application for --
>> so with the septic system -- is it going through the review process or --
>> no, that would be up to each individual property owner.
>> that's for county staff.
>> yes.
>> some people may decide --
>> excuse me. They have gone through the -- the appropriate review for the platting process, and bob turner is here. He could speak to that if you have additional questions.
>> I just --
>> so they -- we have given preliminary approval.
>> saying that we would with any subdivision -- same that we would with any subdivision plat.
>> so if one of these lots is sold, then the owner would come, physical therapy the process.
>> right.
>> we would go and inspect the septic system and approve it.
>> right. They would actually come in and get the appropriate development permits and septic permits. And when they are ready to actually build. But they have gone through and gotten enough review to get just with any plat, to get plat notes, giving us the information that we can review so that we can issue plat notes and get bob turner's signature on this subdivision plat, yes, sir.
>> final words?
>> [multiple voices]
>> go ahead.
>> I have a question for this gentleman. Have you attempted to sell this property at two and a half acre plots, two, two and a half acre plots?
>> no, we did not. It was felt that the two lots that are 2.2 acres each or 1.22, 1.29, they would both front on rock cliff. A 2.2 or 2.5-acre tract would also have a -- an approximately four to five hundred foot frontage on rock cliff which wouldn't really aesthetically help a 2.5-acre tract. Right now they are relatively square in nature. A home could be very easily situated in the center of the property. And be very aesthetically pleasing. Without having the huge road frontage that the 2.5-acre tract would.
>> if I’m not mistaken, aren't all of the tracts along has road set up as 2.5-acre tracts long-ways? Some of the tracts on the -- a lot of the tracts on rock cliff are five acre tracts. A lot of the tracts on ranch road are two and a half acre tracts. And there are other tracts of various sizes in other areas of Leander hills. All the way down to approximately 1.2 acres.
>> okay. So when they originally bought this land, it was a five acre tract, not two. Not two, two and a half.
>> yes.
>> if I’m not mistaken a lot of the tracts out there are exactly 2.5 acres, sold together as two, 2.5-acre tracts. Chronic a lot of people here, I can't speak for anybody but myself, they wouldn't mind it being a 2.5-acre tract because that's what the majority of the property on that street are. But in the smaller areas, it sets a precedent. We are afraid if this subdivides, all of the empty lots on this street will subdivide.
>> if there's an issue regarding availability of water, does the court have a heightened due diligence requirement to at least look into it?
>> when was the application filed?
>> for subdivision?
>> yeah.
>> uh-huh.
>> approximately six months ago.
>> [indiscernible] is looking in the file. We do have a letter from aqua water dated may 16th, 2005. So --
>> from aqua water?
>> yeah.
>> it's aqua Texas.
>> I’m sorry, aqua Texas.
>> okay. So they are the one that's have the ctn out there? [multiple voices]
>> I have some follow-up questions, too.
>> sure. The receipt was taken in July 5th.
>> I asked because of course we added some provisions in our interim rules about utilities and water supply and things like that. So I was asking because the application date would depend on whether they had to meet those new requirements from the interim rules. Or whether they were under the old rules. So if they were under the interim rules, there are some heightened requirements on water supply and the like.
>> not satisfied by a letter from the utility company?
>> what does the letter say? Because I remember that was basically the issue. You used to be able to get away with just a letter from the utility company, the change of the interim rule was you really needed more.
>> this is just basically a letter of commitment to serve.
>> a letter to do what, joe?
>> letter of commitment to serve.
>> on to serve. Well --
>> does that letter meet the requirement?
>> this would have met the requirement prior to the interim rules. I believe our interim rules probably went a little further than that. We were talking about the adequacy of the water supply in the interim rules and to having a certification. Now, from the supplier that the water supply was adequate.
>> this letter predates the interim rules, therefore the interim rules do not --
>> I’m not sure, judge.
>> okay.
>> [indiscernible] apply the interim rules?
>> no. We did not. [multiple voices]
>> we did not apply the interim rules.
>> we probably need to do that, to make absolutely sure that we are meeting everything that we can.
>> good point Commissioner. I’m really concerned about the water issue. I really am. I know that you have -- if you have new proposed lue's that are coming online, of course if we don't have I guess the bona fide commitment to serve lue's in any subdivision, that's a legitimate concern as far as supplying water. Water in the critical state of need. Through other ccns, where you don't have the adequate water for the type of -- of land use that's being asked of us. I’m hearing contradictory things. I don't see the Texas aqua folks here. Especially with the testimony that I am hearing this morning to suggest that there is problems with supply and adequate water to current residents that live in the area. So -- so there -- there's some inconsistency in -- in my opinion as far as what I’m hearing. Now, that may be all -- all right. Everything may be cool and all right. But then this is a press debit setting type of situation. If I’m going to -- if I’m going to stand behind the precedent setting situation, in my opinion, all of the I’s got to be dotted, t's have got to be crossed because it is a precedent. I don't want to go into any precedent setting situation half cocked, I just don't. I hear what staff is saying, but then there are some -- circumstances here that I’m also hearing. So now I’m trying to balance it out. I’m really not ready to vote on this today.
>> the -- I’m finding out exactly when we adopted the interim rules.
>> right, because that's very important, joe. [multiple voices]
>> take a week anyway.
>> all right. We will find that out. There is a contact person there for aqua Texas.
>> I do have a contact.
>> mr. Moore, if you have a card, if you would give your business card to one of the residents and if maybe one of you all can give him a business card so you all know how to contact each other --
>> my signs are out there. At least they are out there until they get vandalized, until the county notice sign gets vandalized, they've had my telephone number for quite a few months.
>> [multiple voices]
>> two questions. When did they start the process and when was the commitment date from aqua Texas and how does that play into the final adoption of the interim rules.
>> the other question I guess that concerns me is the -- the testimony that during summer months, if you are -- and if you are downhill, you have got plenty of water or you have water, if you are uphill you have a water problem, there's a shortage. Now, there's no question about that. But an -- aqua representatives would know about it.
>> I would expect they would.
>> okay. They made no mention to me in any part of it, in supplying water. The -- there was no mention to me by the county staff that there were -- that there were new rules other than what they had originally told me concerning all of the certifications and all of the checks and balances that I need to get to -- to submit to them. So I -- I don't know that I -- that I was aware that -- that we were under some kind of interim rule. I was operating under the procedure that they described, prescribed to me, that I get a letter from aqua Texas, that they could supply the water.
>> well, we -- with or without the interim rules, seems to me if there's a water shortage, then we ought to at least try to get the facts on it. And you know that part of the discussion is new to the court. Today also. Now, we do have a -- we have a one week courtesy steps that we -- any time the -- this we grant any time a member of the court is a little uneasy. When issues like this spring up sort of out of the clear blue on us, typically we take a little time, mull it over, try to gather additional facts which is what we are trying to do on this. This was posted as action item no. 11 today. We will postpone 11 until next Tuesday, try to gather additional information between now and then. And we have -- we have phone numbers of some of the residents if we need to contact them, mr. Moore or county staff.
>> we have not provided the telephone numbers, but I’m sure that you would do so right now.
>> that's fine.
>> okay. Would anyone else like to give testimony during the public hearing, which is number one? Yes. Now, this will not be posted as a public hearing next week, but we always accept testimony from residents on action items. What we hope to do, though, is get the work done between now andnext Tuesday, so by next Tuesday we will know what the facts are, what the legal standards are, what we can and cannot do and take action.
>> my name is judy watson, I live on 14708 rock cliff. And I have gone without water several times and it's always cut off, there's no notice. I’m on a hill. Every time the water gets shut off, I’m the first to lose it and the last to get it back until the lines are filled again. When we had the freeze, I lost water, called the company and they said they were fixing a break. And then I -- the next day I called, still no water. He said, well, because everyone was dripping the lines, below me, that there wasn't capacity to fill up the -- the water line to get water up to me. I didn't get water until 11:00 that next evening. It just -- it happens in the summer. It happens when it's cold. It's -- it's just -- you know, it's a big problem. I don't water a lawn. I don't have a yard, a typical yard. It's all natural. But I do have -- I was having to carry -- I do have livestock. I was having to carry bottled water to feed my chickens, I’m used to losing gardens because of the water. It's been a big problem. I’m seriously considering putting in a -- a system, you know, rain water system collection.
>> good idea.
>> > for the animals and for the yard. But it's -- I’ve been there a little over 10 years, and it's always been a problem. I’ve been over a week without water at times. Every time I call them, we are taking care of it, we'll let you know. And it's just when it comes on, it comes on, when it goes off, it goes off. You just have to wait it out.
>> okay.
>> thanks.
>> thank you.
>> would anyone else like to give testimony during this public hearing? We will have --
>> I’m sorry to keep doing this. She reminded me of one other thing that I think is important to note about the water. That's that we don't have any other way to put out fires. If -- if a fire happens out in this rural area. And that -- that in the summertime is a great concern and particularly this year is a good example of we have got a burn ban on right now. It's very dry. But if we are without water on our property, can't turn on our hose outside, we have no way to stop any fires that come through. Yet another reason that water is a serious problem for us.
>> thank you. We will have the action item on next week. Move that the public hearing be closed.
>> 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, December 21, 2005 11:44 AM