Travis County Commissioners Court
June 20, 2006
Item 25
Number 25, joe. Is to consider and take appropriate action on, a, preliminary plan in precinct three, revised west cypress hills, phase one, preliminary plan in precinct 3, 415 total lots, 397 single-family, 17 utility and amenity association lots and one director's lot, 254.3 acres, no fiscal is required for this preliminary plan. Cypress ranch boulevard. Sewage service to be provided by cypress ranch wcid number 1, no e.t.j. 25-b, construction agreement and a plat for recording in precinct 3, west cypress hills, phase one, section 2, long form plat, 66 total lots, 63 single-family, three amenity and utility lots, 29.46 acres fiscal posted with Travis County. Cypress ranch boulevard, sewage service to be provided by cypress ranch wcid number one, no e.t.j. 25-c is construction agreement and a plat for recording in precinct 3, west cypress hills, phase one, section 3-a, long form plat. 83 total lots, 78 single-family lots, four amenity, drainage and utility lots and one director's lot. 27.90 acres, fiscal posted with Travis County. Cypress ranch boulevard, sewage it was to be provided by cypress ranch wcid number one, no e.t.j. Avenue and 25-d is agreement regarding sidewalks in west cypress hills phase one. Joe in.
>> joe gieselman and anna bolin with the transportation and natural resources department. Three years ago the Commissioners court approved the preliminary plan for west cypress hills phase one rks and then in 2004 you approved a plat out of that same preliminary. Since then we have been involved in quite a bit of controversy with some of the construction practices that occurred during that time, but I'd like to say that a lot of good has come from that bad. We have gone through a dialogue process with the people in southwest Travis County, developed some proposals, developed certainly a new set of interim subdivision rules as a result of some of those. So -- and iless think today we're -- and I also think today that the application that they're coming forward with is being brought first not only by a new technical team that's advising the developer, but a new attitude about development practices. And with that preface I'd like to hand it over to anna to explain what is before you today with regard to the approvals, the applicant and his engineer is here to speak to those, and any other issues that the court may want to address. One thing in section one of this development, this reduces the residential lots and reduces 160 feet of lanier roadway and reduces some impervious cover. It will now be at 15.75 gross and 15 -- or from that down to 15.35% gross impervious cover cover. Also on the Commissioners court agenda today is west cypress hills phase two section one final plat. This plat had been approved for alternative fiscal before and now is coming out -- it seeks to convert and be approved as a full final plat, and then the west cypress hills phase one section 3-a final plat, they want to approve and record this final plat. So those are the three items that are on today, on today's agenda basically.
>> what issues do we know about if any?
>> to what accident does the development -- to what extent does the development conform to the interim rules, and there's been quite a bit of discussion between the applicant and a group called the guardians of lick creek. Some of the issues that they have discussed and have come to agreement on go beyond what we have not only in our chapter 82, but also in our interim development rules. I'm not at liberty to discuss those because I'm not party to the litigation, but I do know -- I am a wear that there has been some discussion between them and that they're making good progress in that regard. And that addresses some of the construction practices that go beyond the county development rules.
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> I know that we have pepper morris here from the guardians -- we may be best going there and just seeing if there are any great issues. And joe is exactly right, there has been an extensive amount of work that has taken place in the last year to year and a half. The most positive thing that we can see out of the precinct 3 Commissioners office is the new team, if you will, that has been put in place with regards to working towards some resolution or at least moving in a direction that I think that the guardians feel good about. Pepper, if you wouldn't mind coming up and giving us your input.
>> I'm not here today to talk as a guardian of lick creek because as joe pointed out, this seems to be moving along to settlement, and that's a good thing. I am here to point out -- and I don't even know that the Commissioners court has -- can do anything about this, but last week one of our neighbors, his well is dry. This has been since 1976 he's had no problems at all with his well. There are other people, there are five people out there off of the park road with the same problem, along with an individual who is on crawford road, which is right across from west cypress hills. Others are experiencing sand in their pumps. Is this west cypress hills' fault? I have no idea, but I know that we all have concerns about the aquifer. Another point, one of the neighbors this past weekend noticed water trucks going in and out of west cypress hills, and he did not know whether these trucks were going to take water in or to take water out. So maybe somebody here with west cypress hills can explain that. Another thing that I and all of us are curious about because of the concerns we have with our aquifer is when will the lcra be providing water to this development? I mean, we're really curious about that, and I don't know if anybody here has an answer for that. I don't know. So in light of these things, I'm asking you all to really think carefully before approval, and maybe to delay approval until we can get satisfaction about what's happening to our aquifer. And what are those water trucks doing? Are they taking water out and selling it or they need water to be brought in?
>> pepper, I mean, for the court to know, because they may not know this, in the last six weeks pepper has been very instrumental in setting up a little seminar, if you will, out in western Travis County regarding groundwater districts and perhaps the creation of a groundwater district under the guidance of folks who really know what they're doing. If you know anything about western Travis County, you do know that there are a number of wells that have had major issues with getting enough water and the right kind of water. So we are moving towards trying to determine whether or not we can identify an area that will be able to vote to either create a new district or to go in and be annexed by the springs, edward's aquifer group. And those are ongoing. I mean, I have told the folks that have come to me in the last couple of weeks that I am certainly -- if you've got neighbors that are supportive of creation or in joining a groundwater district, then maybe you could stand up and say you're supportive of that. Obviously the teetering there is who do you include in that boundary? Because obviously -- if you take people that are on larger services, they may not elect to vote. And since they would get to vote, they alone -- and since some of those areas are the more densely populated areas, you want to make sure that you don't get outvoted where those people don't really have an issue altogether because they do have enough -- they have ample water because they are in some sort of a central system. We're working towards that. I too would not know whether or not west cypress would have any effect on some of these wells, but the one thank that is glaringly clear to me and the reason that two years ago I did send a letter just from the precincter and my opinion about delivering the service water to western Travis County. It needs to be done in a comprehensive and con conscientious way. Surface water, granted that we don't dry Lake Travis up, is really I think the combination of what we need to be doing in western Travis County. Now, that is always a double edged sword because when you bring surface water to an area there is thought and probably understandably so that that encourages growth. And let's face it, growth is one of those double edged swords and something that we have dealt with in western Travis County in particular for a long time. I'm not groundwater expert, but we do have some engineers, we do have some folks here that may have some opinions as to whether or not west cypress hills has anything to do whatsoever with drying up of some wells. Paragraph obviously if you're drawing water out of the aquifer, you perhaps could have some effect of that, which is the reason why we do need to move forward with both those things, groundwater district and delivery of water to western Travis County via lcra.
>> do we know when lcra may provide water?
>> I'm brad dawson with rmd. We are in about six or nine months so far of negotiating with lcra and eco. Eco and the lcra are planning to build a water line out 71 to our project with our financial participation. Those discussions have been ongoing. Alignment issues have been discussed. Murphy engineering is the engineer for that project. Early on they looked at several different alignments. We're now down to what we think is the final alignment. We have preliminary cost estimates. And we're moving forward. The first thing that has to happen is eco and the lcra need to complete their agreement which there are drafts that are going back and forth and then we will have an agreement with eco and the lcra. And it's moving forward very positively as something that the lcra wants to do, eco wants to do and we want to do. So all the parties are moving in the same direction. There are a lot of moving parts and pieces as usual and we're working through those.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> we used water trucks to --
>> water your grass, I mean to -- if you have taken disturbed areas -- that's water out of -- out of the wells in west cypress hills not being hauled in.
>> correct.
>> and we would like to think, we have got a little rain today, we got a little rain this weekend, we would like to think that -- that that will diminish, we would rather have rain water that grass and when it doesn't, we have a requirement to get it up and growing. And the only way to do it is, you know, pump water on to it.
>> you might not be able to answer this, maybe hank can, being an engineer. Do you want to come up? Is there any sort of way to determine you would think when there's a straw on the ground, pulling water up, whether you are -- your individual wells, whether you are pulling this water out of this obviously aquifer area that's in this immediate area, would you be able to identify whether or not that could in -- in essence be of some impact, have some impact on individual wells? Because obviously I mean what you -- you know, what we have here is, if you have got somebody that is going, hey, the needs that you all have may be affecting some individual wells. I mean, is there an answer to that?
>> my name is hank smith, the district engineer and the engineer for the developer out here. There's no real clear answer for you. We have three domestic water wells within our property. We have a 500-foot setback around those wells, we can't have any other wells, any other equipment within that 500-foot setback. The intent of that setback is to have a cone of influence that we don't directly impact somebody else's well. So a direct impact I would say would be no. Indirectly we are all drawing water from the same aquifer, the more water that gets drown, the lower it gets. That is where we when we first took over the project, myself and red, we immediately contacted the well water, lcra, began negotiating to get surface water out there. Get off of the well water, get on the surface water. We have a water conservation plan in the district for our customers, only irrigate every five day type of plan, in writing, been distributed to all of the homeowners, we enforce that regularrism continue to enforce that as well.
>> presently you have how many people on the service?
>> we probably have 45 to 50 homes on service right now. Let's say that you had this service, you did -- were able to guarantee that we thought that we could bring surface water to the project and what the next, you know, maybe by the end of 2007.
>> yes.
>> 2008, if we were looking at -- how many additional homes might we have in the next 18 months? I mean, because I know that you all are -- you are seldom -- you are building them as you sell, I suppose.
>> well --
>> what's the rate? What's the --
>> without these final plats, without lots to sell, there have been no sales. One or two homes that builders had already bought, but all of the lots have been purchased that are out of phase 1, so -- so it's hard for us to say in today's climate, in today's market, in today's cost exactly how many units we think we will bring on in the next 18 months. I think we would like to see another 75 to 100 homes during that time period. I think that's realistic. And once we get the surface water in place, hopefully by then, you know, we will have kind of ramped back up with the new identification and new going forward marketing and that -- that sales will increase above that. But I think that it's going to take a while to get from where we are today to -- to a place of having momentum.
>> would we know, pepper, whether or not the people that have had some well issues, are they deep, are they shallow, are they -- are there -- do we have any information from people --
>> I do on kelly's, I don't on the folks that are down there on the park road. Let's see. His well tested out at 25 gallons per minute and had 100-foot of water over the pump in '76. But that's not telling you how deep that well is, is it?
>> well, it would be -- I think it would be helpful for us to know, I mean,, you know, we certainly would want to make sure because of what's going on here and whether it really was or wasn't, you know, of -- of impact. And that's -- that's probably the -- the million dollar question.
>> I don't know how -- I don't know how we -- yeah, I don't know how that -- how we find that out. I don't know whether we need a hydrologist to come out there and tell us or --
>> again, I think what a hydrologist is going to tell you is that there's no direct impact, but you have got more people pulling from the same aquifer. What you are telling me, you are pulling from the same aquifer, getting about 25 gpm out of our same wells, no one has informed me of any issues in our wells, in terms of low flow or standards, no impacts on our wells in our areas. Our three are fairly close together. Within a thousand feet of each other. They are on the -- what I will call the south end of the property near -- near the property, as far away from where you are talking about as we could get. I don't have a problem with my well at this point.
>> do you know how deep that? Is take that measuring stick out there, the well, let us know --
>> hank you mentioned something there as an aside, I think it would be an important thing to put in the record, that is who exactly is working on this project related to the engineering and development team and let us know that -- that that is not who was on the first phase of this project.
>> there's been a complete change from the ownership through every consultant that has worked on the project being phase 1. Allan toppher is taking a lead, he has always been an investor, he's talking the lead as far as engineering. >> [indiscernible] c faulkner engineering company, red dawson hired as the development more, rvi >> [indiscernible] as the land planner on the project. I guess the main consultants that you have working on the project at this point in time. It's a whole new group. The first thing that we did was do a complete overall evaluation of the whole project, water, wastewater, drainage, utility infrastructure and made recommendations and that's what we have been implementing over this time. The first thing that we noticed, one of the first things was the water issue. We have got to get off the wells and get on to surface water, immediately began working on that issue. The second one was the drainage issue, we began working with Travis County for the last probably 12 months, out there building the improvements that we need right now for the drainage system.
>> coordinating with --
>> with lcra as well. The first thing that I did when I took over was to meet with everybody involved in the project. All of the regulatory agencies and ask them what are your concerns, what do we need to do to get this project back up and moving. And we have done all of those items right now. And --
>> I think another thing that you and I talked about was that unlike sweetwater, which had some question abouts whether there wasn't or wasn't grandfathering, we are not going to get into a discussion of that. Because of when you all did develop, get your first initial plat, you could have gone under the old rules, but could you update us as to what you are voluntarily agreeing to do in relation to interim water quality rules which came in after -- after you all coming in and getting your first plat.
>> there's three phases in the project. Phase 1 is what we have an approved preliminary plan for. Phase 2 and 3, a preliminary plan submitted to the county, has been reviewed. We could request grandfathering on that. Part of our negotiation is that we are going to withdraw that plat and come under a new preliminary plan filed as drawn up by rvi and worked on by us to comply in -- and those will be in compliance with lcra's regulations in the interim rules in effect at this time from Travis County. Phase 1 we have got people living out there. Some of those homes are in what would be a buffer zone. I can't say that phase 1 complies. It was built two years ago. But to the extents that we can as we move forward from this point on, phase 2 of the roadways were also built. We talked this week, there's a -- probably half a dozen lots that are set back about 40 to 50 feet from the creek setback. If we complied with the rules there would be a 50-foot setback. Those lots were created two years ago, the roadways were already built and constructed. There's nothing that I can do about that half dozen lots. Phase 3 a, we came in an walked the project with the developer, everybody involved, we made the changes, the changes complied with the setback distances in the interim ordinance right now. As we move forward we are going to continue to try to comply with those, phase 1. Two and three we will fully comply with, no doubt about it.
>> as part of the due diligence, we also looked at could you work under the conservation development rules, that was pretty much ruled out because of the nature of the water features?
>> correct. I have been working with joe lisard. You really need an area where you have a large area of developable land and a large area set aside. The way this tract is set up you have large or relatively small development pockets on the flat land and then stay out in the vels and the creeks. It's just not set up to work within that conservation development ordinance.
>> but you looked at it. We looked at it and agreed that there's nothing that we can do with this piece.
>> okay.
>> any specific issues outstanding at this time other than water, completion of the agreement and project with lcra?
>> we were under construction right now with -- we met with the county inspector, developed a punch list for items to get the roadways accepted for phase 1 and phase 2. We are working on implementing that punch list right now within the next couple of weeks, we should have all of that finished up. We -- ongoing negotiations with the guardians in that lawsuit. That's not what we are talking about here, that is ongoing, we are down to just a few items of negotiation on that. We are going to work at it as we can to come to an agreement on that.
>> that lawsuit is still pending?
>> yes.
>> can I ask a question, judge. The agreement that you are talking about where you agree on a going forward basis to basically comply with the letter of -- if not the spirit or even some cases exceed the interim rules that's the agreement with the guardians that you are talking about?
>> correct.
>> in that -- that agreement hasn't been signed yet.
>> correct.
>> okay.
>> I mean I'm -- you know concerned about the water, but with the wells, but I do honestly think that we can work with -- with, you know, west cypress hills, monitor, you know, an -- obviously if we can ascertain, you know, the -- in the next six months, provided we don't have any water, I mean, we are bound to get some of this stuff that comes off the coast. And, you know, if -- if I could, you know, just have, you know, the understanding from west cypress because I do think that there have been a lot of -- there's been a lot of movement, a lot of positive movement towards, you know, lick creek and the guardians and everybody out there. I mean I think, you know, it's very obvious that we have a very conscientious owner and team in place having heard that there could be, you know, let's make sure that we don't, you know, let water get to the point where 100 wells start drying up because then we do have to do something and assume that's given take we are all out there in this geographic area, because I'm very confident that -- that allan and his team will be as conscientious as we can be with regards to do this, you know, I do -- I do not think that we can say well okay let's wait six or seven months and bring this thing back to us. But if we have an understanding, you know, from you all and pepper, knowing that we are going to work towards the ground water district, I think quite frankly you probably can get ground water district settled out there, I mean,, you know, if you have the right area, you know, where people get to vote and say we really are affected by this, I'm certainly willing to work with that. That's what the people want then fine, I think that I can go to these guys say hey I need some help from y'all to work towards that. If that is something that we are in agreement with, you know, then I'm certainly comfortable with taking this thing forward and I would -- I would move approval of -- of a through d. I mean I would think if there were tremendous issues, not on to say because I was out there Sunday I saw some people with signs let's face it atmosphere we all know, what happened with the project from the get go, you still have people that are highly upset, quite frankly we haven't had a big water -- had a big rainfall to see what, you know, will happen in the creek. But obviously we know that you know with you all being on board, that if something were to happen one thing that we do know is that we don't have 17-acres of a hillside with a -- with a 40% grade, it's just all dirt. Anymore. I mean which, you know, probably would have come a long ways to not, you know, have allowed that situation to happen to begin with. But I am -- I am very confident working with -- with this group and hopefully I mean, you know, most of the -- most of the guardians are knowing that we have got, you know, some honest brokers here working towards that. That's the reason that I will move, you know, approval of these.
>> second.
>> from the county staff perspective, the county requirements are met?
>> uh-huh.
>> yes, sir.
>> we will keep working through whatever issues come up.
>> uh-huh.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly voting in favor. Commissioner Davis.
>> abstain.
>> Commissioner Davis abstaining.
>> thank you all.
>> next item is somewhat related. It is number 26.
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, June 21, 2006 12:13 PM