Travis County Commissioners Court
August 22, 2006
Item 23
23 is is to consider and take appropriate action on a final plat, cypress creek ranch in precinct three, one lot, 1149.40 acres, hamilton pool road, no fiscal is required with the final plat, sewage service to be provided by an on-site private sewage facility. Especially.
>> good morning, anna bolen, Travis County tnr. I talked with the various parties involved with this yesterday. I know that there were several questions regarding people doing one lot subdivisions. The answer that I gave everyone regarding that yesterday is we do have one lot subdivisions. We've had them before. What's unique about this one is it's a rather large one, but sometimes that can happen. And then I had some questions about different prongs, if something comes in in the future, what would -- how we would necessity if it was a different project. I use what's called the duck analogy. Know we would have in place this plat, it would be this duck. If and when we ever get another project for this piece of land, we would look at it and see does this -- does the new duck that comes in look like the old duck, which would be the approve plat for the ranch is -- the thousand-plus acre plat. And depending on if those two things look the same, it may or may not be the same project or a different project. I gave all parties involved -- and when I say all parties involved, I'm speaking of the applicant, the engineer, and I spoke with ms. Miews. I gairch involved those messages.
>> the way we understand this particular division application, the intention is to do what kind of development on it?
>> to my knowledge there is not any other plans at this point other than just doing a one lot final plat of -- that we're seeing on the court agenda today. We don't have a site plan. I don't know of any other plans.
>> but weren't we told last week that there would be a few homes built.
>> said that could be one possibility. It's my understanding that whatever he would be wanting to do in the future would be for his own private yiewvment naturally if he was going to want to do anything else, he would have to submit another subdivision land or site plan or something else. But at this time I know of no plans whatsoever.
>> but his private use would be his use, his families. It's a little larger than a one person, it's family basically.
>> yeah. It's a large tract of land.
>> and in this case they're not laying out any streets and drainage in terms of what our duck looks like in 2006? Which I guess conceivably they could have driveway access off of the road, which would be allowed. But at this president clinton there are no roads. So that would be substantially different in all of a sudden at a future date something came in with platted roads and drainage improvements.
>> that is certainly one way that I would define the duck. And the duck is just an easy way for me to crieb projects to me.
>> anybody else here on this item?
>> morning.
>> good morning.
>> I'm here today representing the hamilton pool road scenic corridor coalition and the hill country alliance. And based on our conversations with anna and e-mail, it's our understanding -- and this is slightly different than what annaious said, but I think it's fairly close. It is our understanding that the applicant has filed a plat for one 1500-acre residential lot, and the project settle no streets or drainage, and will generally cift of a few family dwellings. That's what I understood last week from what the engineer had said as well. Is we ask that should you approve this final plat today that it is certain and clear for the record that it is the intent and the understanding of the court that this project will consist of just that, no interior roads and drainage, one 1500 approximate acre lot, residential lot, and what I thought were a few dwellings. Because the duck doesn't seem to have a very good description right now. I think that's what we want to pin right right now.
>> it's 1149.
>> yeah.
>> and for the record, last week as it was a way of describing something that you could do on a lot of this size, all that I know is that I would describe it as he's platted his ranch. Whatever is going to be done on it at this point is for his own personal use. So I don't know of there being a number of homes or anything -- anything to be going on there.
>> basically we really have one platted lot with no streets and no drainage. That normal?
>> in development, I don't know that there is a norm.
>> what is different about this is the size. I remarked before that I have seen several one lot it applications. I don't know that I recall seeing one this large, though. So the difference is the size of it.
>> as I said, if we could pin it down to a description, that would be really helpful. My understanding, as I said last week from viewing the court hearing, the engineer did say three or a few family dwellings or family homes.
>> the beauty of speaking in here is not only do we have minutes, but we have you on television. [ laughter ]
>> I'm with cunningham alan engineers. And to clarify that statement, the statement was that I believe there are a few existing homes on the property currently. I don't think I ever specified what the scope of any potential project would be because I don't know that and I don't think anyone in this room probably does. All we are doing now is is a one lot 1149.4-acre subdivision. It meets all the subdivision regulations for Travis County and it has no waivers or variances associated with it.
>> well, it wouldn't really need it since there's nothing there. I guess I misunderstood. Last week I understood that there would be a few family homes in addition to what is the hunting lodge or whatever else was said. Again, we would ask that we describe it as completely as possible today if it's going to be approved today.
>> in terms of the record that's going to be out there at some point in the future, somebody pulling back this tape, I'm going to liken this one to steiner ranch in terms of at one point it was a big old ranch and it did get platted, but they had to come through the process and it was treated as the whole in terms of having an impact on the road that went down the middle of it and they had to come forward with a phasing agreement because the impact on that particular road, and they had to lay out streets and drainage, and all of those things came through a process in every step along the way there was process. And it went through review. With so whoever is looking at this in some sort in the future, that's what I'm looking at. This is certainly the final plat and they're entitled to it, but I don't think this is the last time there will be procedural actions along the way and every step of the way they will have to meet county regs.
>> my biggest concern is that this was platted prior to the interim rules. And my understanding -- I would assume that the applicant would be assuming that in fact whatever is going to be platted, that could be a huge project, would not be subject to the interim rules. Or any current subdivision rules. We need to comply with what in place prior to -- I guess it's may '05. That's why we would like a description of what's to be here or something.
>> what we have before us is staff summary, which is this subdivision consists of one lot. Fiscal is not required with this final plat. There are no public streets in this development. Then we have a little map or pictorial depiction of what's there and we have what has been said in open court. That's the record. So it's kind of difficult to deal with a whole lot of possibilities, but when something comes up that adds a lot of specificity to this, then we think that will trigger additional subdivision requirements. As soon as a project starts it needs to come back to the county for additional approval.
>> I understand. So in other words, if roads and drainage were required in this particular subdivision, would that change the look of the duck to require a resubmittal of the application snirks quite possibly, yes. A duck looks -- now I'm sorry I ever said duck, for the record. But if the project looks this way to begin with, a one lot, a thousand plus acre subdivision is, one of the big things I'll be looking for is is there weren't roads there before and now it's not one big lot and it has streets and it has drainage. I'm going to be thinking, it may well be a different project, so one of my first calls will be to our county attorney and say tom, why do you think about this? I'm thinking it may well be a different project. We need to have is a discussion on this. Sthal be one of my very, very first calls because that is an indication that it is very likely an important discussion to have because it may not be the same.
>> anything else to add?
>> we look forward to that phone call.
>> so you're saying at some point in the future if there are additional efforts to dworngs and that may be so, at that point there is the need to come back to the county for additional approval. At this point that's kind of all we can say unfortunately.
>> yeah. I think we understand that. I think my purpose here is is to really put it on the record what our understanding is and hope that the court would confirm that and that we all are kind of clear and on the same page.
>> it's bare bones to this point.
>> okay. Anything further by anyone who would like to make comments? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor.
>> abstaining, judge.
>> I'm voting no. It's real hard to vote on something that you don't know what it is.
>> Commissioner Gomez voting no, Commissioner Davis abstaining. Motion carries. Thank you very much.
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:
Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:33 PM