Travis County Commissioners Court
August 21, 2007
Item 29
Now we have come to item number 29. Consider and take appropriate action on the following. Amount, variance from section 82.202 l 2 b, standards for construction of streets and drainage in subdivisions in Travis County. B, preliminary plan in precinct three, rgk ranch, preliminary plan, 1508 total lots, and c, phasing agreement between rgk and Travis County, including provisions regarding a portion of reimers peacock road and improvements to highway 71. We've had this one on the agenda several times. Anything from staff? I think what we ought to do is hear from residents and the applicant early dude to be sure we give everybody who is here an opportunity to give comments. We have listened attentively in the past. If you feel the urge to repeat some of those very important points, then feel free to do so. Staff.
>> anna bowlen, Travis County tnr. Basically the same thing that we have had on before. The preliminary plan, the variance for block length. Block lengths would be exceeding 12 hin--1200 linear fees. And the phasing agreement which lays out responsibility with regard to reimers peacock road and improvements on 71. Since we met last week staff did look at comparing the lcra high land lake ordinance to the interim rules. I sent that out via e-mail on Friday. Largely what we found was that we will have more knowledge at the time that we have construct plans in. And this project is not unique in that. We'll know more about the cut and fill variances, not variances but the cut and fill requirements, and how it would have met or not met our interim rules at that time. As we go into construction, or if this project goes into construction, there would be, you know, review by lcran and Travis County about best management practices for construction. And those are some of the main things that we found in our review.
>> what is the key point now?
>> just comparing and contrasting the lcra high land lake ordinance to the interim rules. In some areas the lcra rules with regards to buffers were probably bigger. You know, they are compatible, the two ordinances. You know, but some of the things we won't know until we see the b mps when they go to construct, best management practices. That is really it in a nutshell.
>> are you saying this is not over until it's over?
>> well, you know, there's phases in the development process starting with the prelim and the final plat and construction plans and the elements that lcran and Travis County reviews for every aspect of the construction plan. So it will be continued to be looked at and reviewed as it progressed through the process. All projects in this area would have the same oversight from both agencies.
>> what actions, if any, has the applicant agreed to take that exceed the county's applicable rules?
>> I would let the applicant answer to that. But to my knowledge, in the plat notes that they worked out with Commissioner eckhardt in part to memorialize the come poniants of the variance request letter, I think that that doesn't get you all the waynessly through the interim rules but gets you to meet the spirit or meet most of those, a lot of those also I believe one of the rules that existinger eckhardt had worked on the--Commissioner eckhardt had worked on was minimizing the grandfathering date to minimize what that would mean in the future. I believe that was the purpose of that prelim note.
>> would we normally require or expect an applicant to make improvements to 71 such as the one the applicant has agreed to do?
>> with regards to their improvements that resulted as a part of, caused by their development, yes, we would expect that. Absolutely.
>> okay. Does the ap --applicant want to address that question? What actions have you agreed to take, things that you have agreed do that in your view the county's policies under which you filed is not required.
>> judge, my name is fritz powell, represent is rgk ranch. Basically the letter was our attempt in offering additional processes we would be willing to go through in return for the granting of the hardship letter. Those are also part and parcel to some of the preliminary plan notes that Commissioner eckhardt worked on with us so there are a variety of things. I think in this particular discussion, probably the most significant difference in what we have agreed do would have to do with compliance with the lcra master plan which take is the water quality apeck at least to another letter than would have been required under the county's so-called interim rules.
>> we raised the issue last time of whether the lcra nonpoint source water quality rules exceed standards set forth in the county's interim rules. What's your response to that question?
>> well, it's 72 percent more buffer than the interim rules would have required. So it's considerably more buffer. We have an illustration on a board, if you would like me to pull that out and show it to you. But it--
>> we may as well see it if we can see it quickly. And we will next go to residents who have come down to chat with us, by the way, if you all want to get ready.
>> it's easy enough to see. The red line is the additional above the interim requirement. So the red line around the blue hatching is what is additionally required under the lcra's nonpoint source master plan tereme.rees heed rse di r some.
>> okay.
>> (microphone not audible) is that a correct statement?
>> with the additional buffer, you have additional overland flow which is a proven treatment practice, best management practice, since many times development within the edwards can actually comply with the removal requirements just by having larger swales alongside the roadways for the imimperviouk cover they are proposing. On the one hand, the devil is in the details as far as design. And yes, that's a different level of review and consideration. From the standpoint of the preliminary plan, I do think there are actual physical representations of treatment that will take place as a result of the additional buffer.
>> I'm going to try to rephrase that. I want to be accurate (need microphone adjustment). In some respects there are design elements in the preliminary, and secondly there are also acircumstances that executions of the plan as already drawn out (inaudible)
>> I think that is accurate.
>> there are two aspects that have been brought up, well, one (inaudible)
>> I think we know what you are talking about.
>> good. High land lakes ordinance doesn't address cut and fill. So one aspect is that complying with the spirit (inaudible)
>> I think in my experience, and in work that I've done in the past, there is always a dialogue if you will, with review staff as you go through any kind of design process in order to come to some agreement on how you're going to approach a different construction aspects of a project.
>> (inaudible)
>> that's a hard question to answer. I guess the only thing I can say is based on the demonstration and the care of the family and their interest in the land and their demonstrated stewardship of the land, it would be hard to imagine that they would so easily emotionally detach themselves from that very land that they spent that time and energy on, to turn it over to a, pardon the phrase, raper and pill ager. I guess that is the only way I can address that.
>> one oath point that wasn't, I don't think, specific raised previously, the difference between our rules, our current rules and the rules that would apply to this subdivision in regards to the primary entry road being a neighborhood collector rather than an arterial, and how that affects the development. (inaudible). Under the grandfather provision the primary access (inaudible)
>> under the interim rules, crossing of a major stream would be required to be an arterial in the campo plan. In this instance, based on the amount of development, that's one thing, but then when we look at projects, we look to be sure that the roads are sized appropriately for the projects to convey traffic through and we look at the transportation network as a whole and how it plugs into that. In this instance, you know, we did not see that that road should be anything larger than a collector, a neighborhood collector. So that is why we see a collector here now, not just something that was sized, okay, well, yeah, it would have made some requirements for the arterial. I think that would be damaging to oversize roads just to sir --circumvent the requirement.
>> (inaudible)
>> I would imagine possibly. We would need to look at whether or not someone has the ability to access the developable parts of their property one way or the other. You know, we definitely need to take that into account when we review projects.
>> (inaudible)
>> are you asking me? I think it does. Because, I moon, we're looking at--
>> (inaudible)
>> certainly. We're looking at this project with its two major stream crossings and three minor stream crossings. And in my mind if they were looking to change this project in a way to add a stream crossing, yeah, it would change at least that element of the project.
>> two weeks ago we promised to talk with the property owners. Do you want to give us a report on that?
>> let me read specifically the letter that was hand delivered to me on the 17th, after having met with greg kosmetski. Deer Commissioner Daugherty, after years of informal discussion, my family formally undertook preparation of a preliminary plan for the rgk ranch in 2004. That effort, which was extensive if nature, culminated in the filing of a preliminary plan with the county on March 14, 2005. The plan was initially rejected by county tnr staff as not being technically administratively complete. As provided in the county ordinance directing such matters the rgk ranch submitted a hardship application requesting acceptance of the original submitted plan. That hardship application saluted a proposal by rgk ranch to include a number of additional restrictions to the preliminary plan. Those restrictions met the water quality provisions in the proposed interim ordinance which was under civic discussion at the time. The hardship application, including the restrictions, was approved by the executive manager of tnr in June of 2005. No additional restrictions were proposed by tnr staff as part of this process. When we then proceeded with the process of working with the tnr staff using the applicable ordinance as modified by the restrictions volunteered in the hardship application, ultimately on July 26, 2005, the Commissioners court approved the so-called interim ordinance. At considerable expense and reliance on the hardship determination made by the county the preliminary plan by agk ranch was modified and resubmitted if in compliance with the legal requirements imposed by the county under applicable ordinances and in compliance with additional restrictions agreed to in the hardship determination. The tnr staff has determined that the preliminary plan as submitted meets the legal requirements set forth by the county for approval. As you are aware, the preliminary plan is limited to 20 percent impervious cover, 50 percent open space and density of one family per lot. The preliminary plan has been reviewed and approved by lcran as part of high land lakes ordinance nonpoint pollution control master plan process. No wonder you could not remember that. The preliminary plan includes water quality controls that are most extensive than those required by the interim ordinance of this is a good plan and protects naturally occurring water features existing on the ranch and water quality. I believe the oh poniants of the plan haven't criticized the plan but the fact that we have one. You have approached us about totally reworking the submitted and staff approved plan and developing a plan under the interim ordinance this. Would be an expensive and time consuming effort. My feeling is that the restrictions volunteered as part of the hardship process meets with the spirit of the water quality protections of the interim ordinance. My attorney has advised me that under the interim ordinance preliminary plans expire four years from the date of approval for projects in a western watershed and that certain administrative extensions of no more than four years total may be granted. Therefore, it appears that development under the interim ordinance must occur within those time periods or the owner is essentially starting over with unknown future development restrictions. I don't know when the rgk ran of may be developed. My goal has been to develop a plan which protects the land, its unique features, and our significant invest. We feel fortunate to have this property to use and enjoy and for more than 30 years have been good stewards of this land. I respectfully decline to abandon the good work done in these efforts. Sincerely, greg kosmetski.
>> we would expect those restrictions to carry forth into the final plat.
>> yes, sir.
>> would they be enforceable by Travis County?
>> the restrictions from the plat note? Yes, during the review and while it's being built, absolutely.
>> okay. Any other questions or comments before we listen to residents?
>> only one comment. To the extent that the plat notes (inaudible)
>> I would say that the plat, and I would look to our county attorney for advice on this, but my feeling would be that the plat notes and the grandfathering applies to what is at hand now. If they go to change that, then it's a new, whatever element they are changing would not necessarily be grandfathered. But again, obviously, I'm going to hear from the attorney.
>> (inaudible)
>> my guess would be that if they went to change something, they would be changing a piece of the approved preliminary plan and the element that they change that would be what is being revised, now the reminder. That would be our traditional way of looking at that.
>> there is a difference between changing something and failing to comply.
>> right.
>> if there's a failure to comply with a commitment, there are various other legal remedies available. If after the fact, after the filing of the final plat there simply is noncompliance, then Travis County can enforce the commitment. Right? That is a legal question.
>> you're planning for executive session? Or you want that now?
>> I can hear it in executive session unless you want to give the for you.
>> that's up to you.
>> fairly rudimentary. Is it as simple as I think?
>> you just don't approve the plat. If they don't follow through with the requirements that have been laid out in the preliminary plan--
>> the plat is approved but the construction is not consistent with the final plat.
>> then they red tag the construction and we go for enforcement of the requirements of the plat if necessary.
>> right. Okay.
>> this is a new interpretation. The idea that it would be piecemeal, if one provision weren't complied with, the one element (inaudible)
>> have you to --you have to look at the application as a whole. If they have agreed to additional requirements that would be beyond the typical requirements in the regulations or that they have agreed to in addition to that, they are still held to those elements and we can enforce the contract.
>> now, residents have come to address had this on this issue. Please come forward. I will need to hear legal just address a couple of three questions that they addressed for us several times before, in my view, today. I don't think it will take more than five or ten minutesrb but it will help us to hear those. Yes, sir.
>> I'm dean lowen thal. I want to address a specific item here. Commissioner eckhardt asked about the cut and fill provisions of the interim rules, and that would not apply here. The letter that Gerald read from greg kosmetski, where we don't want to go back and redesign. But cut and fill is an execution issue, not a design time issue. In other words, you don't have to change the design or replat anything to agree to use interim water cut and fill rules during construction in order to minimize sedimentation and I'm asking the Commissioners court to require that the cut and fill rules be memorialized. Fritz howels discussion of the family being good stureds who would never sell to anybody who with a rape and pillage, for few years now we have heard that the family's responsibility is to maximize the value of the property for the trust. To be consistent they would need to sell to the highest bidder, whether or not that was a raper or really nice person. I think we need to memorialize these things rather than rely on goodwill, when the mandate is to maximize the value of the property. Thank you.
>> make note of that, john. If you are here on this item, please come forward. We have four chairs.
>> may I ask (inaudible)
>> certainly if I can ask those who come on the this item, to move forward at this time. Because I am about to announce our convene manage executive session. But we want those who have come to give comments today an opportunity to do so. We now have three chairs. If you are here on this item and wish to address the Commissioners court, this is the time to come forward. We now have two chairs left. Two chairs and two microphones already turned on.
>> ms. Bowlen, is that a fair statement that asking for requirements (inaudible)
>> I would say that actually the cut and fill, yes, in part it's true that at the implementation stage, at the building stage, that is where we are going to have all the best information and that is where it becomes especially apparent. But I would say that the design that we're reviewing now, even in the preliminary stage, lays the ground work for what we will see later in the implementation stage.
>> (inaudible)
>> I would say that's a fair characterization, but we don't know yet. And given that it wasn't designed with that in mind, that may have an effect on what actually gets built.
>> Karen huber. Thank you.
>> good morning.
>> I'll keep this brief. I hadn't actually planned to testify today. I want to reiterate what mr. Lowen thalsaid. I would like to say that I do believe the kosmetskis have taken wonderful care of this land. But given all the variables, I don't think we can review on the certainty that this land if it's sold would be bought by a developer that would have the intent of the family. So that said, I'd also like to say that engineering on these projects is only as good as the engineer on the project. We have really good engineers out there and we have some that aren't so good as demonstrated in the hamilton, the ranches at hamilton creek and the original engineering at west cypress hills. It's been my an understanding, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's been my an understanding that lcra has had problems dealing with problems generated by the ranches at hamilton creek. If they are having problems dealing with those problems, I see no reason why there wouldn't be the possibility for them having problems dealing with what might be coming down the pike on this project absent a cut and fill requiremented. So I think there are too many ifs out there. I'd like to see this, at the absolute minimum, the cut and fill issue be included. Perhaps there's a plat note that could be added that says if this property is sold to another dropper--developer, that the cut and fill could be added. But there are too many other problems. That is just a last resort.
>> do we believe the interim rules do a good job of setting forth the cut and fill requirements?
>> in what regards?
>> think about that question, I'll think about my follow-up question we'll tie it to the legal question. Yes, sir.
>> my name is hans hughes. I left a document with you at the last meeting. Perhaps you had had a chance to look at it. It addressed the serious problem serious traffic problem, in that vicinity of the reimers road that needs to really be addressed. What I am asking for is that there is some kind of a task force convened that involves tnr this court, and tex dot to come to some kind of early resolution of the kinds of problems that we have and that I outlined to you. I'm just asking, is there something like that that can be done.
>> this is about 71?
>> it's in the area of barb wire but it is really the 71 problem.
>> we can certainly try to do iti would appreciate.
>> I would appreciate if you could put some priority behind it.
>> okay.
>> mr. Dougherty is very well aware of situation therement I think we need to keep the ball rolling on that. Whether the project is approved or not, this area is developing rapidly with a new gas station under construction, with a small strip mall that's being developed, and in those environments, as an absolute minimum, you nice need restriction on the speed of traffic going through there. And what I suggest was 55 mile speed limit. I'm asking that that be implemented. Thank you very much.
>> hans, let me give you an update on that. We had the cc 71 folks and myself meet with tex dot on Friday to go over a number of things.
>> this coming Friday?
>> this past.
>> all right.
>> Friday. And there were a number of things that tex dot is considering doing. There was a very loud and clear asking from the people at that meeting, me included, to say can we do something with speeds that are practical, put the handbook aside, and let's get the practical ty. Not saying that they were willing to set the back aside, but I think they did hear us with regards to there are things that need to be done and speed is one of them. They have committed to go out and do a speed study, and they have committed to go out, they are already presently doing the asphalt pavement research with regards to, you know, any slip, I mean, antislip, trying to keep the water from going across the road, they are doing a number of things. It is clear that tex dot understand that there is an issue that we have got on our hands with regards to 71. And I am confident that with the organization that has been put together and with my office that we will stay as closely atuned as we possibly can with tex dot. It is obvious that one of the things that we have to do with tex dot, we have got to allow them to somehow find some money. If we don't allow them to find money, what it takes is it takes them taking people already in the queue out of the queue and coming over to 71. And they even committed to doing that with us. They knew there were things that we needed to do with 71. Hans, at the end of the day, who knows what will be done, but it will not go without something that there is energy, and it's not just from the community. There is energy on tex dot's level to get something done about this. Now, the inner facing of whatever kind of roads are out there, those will be part of the interfacing of 71 and what we determine to do. Tex dot is certainly willing to come out and do a community meeting, you know, where we talk about any and all of these things. So it is being done.
>> I sure appreciate that and I look forward to the results of that. But as far as money, investment, restricting the speed limit to 55 miles per hour is trivial expense. I'm sure that money is there. If the the signs for merging into a single lane can be paid for, then I think the signs for limiting the speed to 55 miles per hour can also be paid for.
>> I agree. I think that we can perhaps get that accomplished.
>> that's the most immediate priority.
>> you bet.
>> because we are looking at, and you know it very well, I have shown you the presentation, we are looking at the potential of a rear-end collision with a school bus.
>> sure.
>> and that scares me. That could happen. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you, judge and Commissioners. My name is dick callaman. I take care of transportation issues for the central Texas sierra club and also the state of Texas sierra club. There's been some very good coverage of this rgk ranch issue. I want to thank ed wear and marty tuly for an excellent article in the american statesman yesterday that covered things very well. I want to thank Karen huber for her op ed piece the other day in the Austin american statesman that also covered some good ground and cleared up the issues I think, and also want to thank sara eckhardt, Commissioner eckhardt, for her op ed piece which spelled out very clearly what the problem is in terms of the Commissioners court of Travis County trying to allege slate--legislate land use issues and where the peaknesses are. And Commissioner eckhardt made some suggestions as to how that might be corrected. There are some big developments out there beyond b k. And this kosmitski, I guess that is the correct pronunciation, ranch family is responsible and wants to do the best thing. We have heard from many people that they are excellent land stewards and they want to do a development of 1500 residences that is high quality and minimal impact on the environment. There are two others that are already in place out there, one on either side of the rgk ranch. One is the west cypress hills and the other is the sweetwater lazy nine. I have had experience with those a lot of us have had experience with those two, and believe me, they are not nearly the land use responsible developers that we have here with the rgk ranch. I think unfortunately, since those are already in place and moving right along, they have their development plan and it's well over 3,000 houses between the two of them, it unfortunately puts the rgk ranch in the position of being, I think, the straw that breaks the camel's back. That one additional development that's going to put pressure on two things. One is 71 from the y on out past Bee Caves, and the other is the y itself. Texas department of transportation has plans to put in 290 west through oak hill, and what they want to put in is a very large, very expensive, very high volume, wide and high road, series of roads. And that wouldn't be required if they weren't getting as much pressure for traffic from the hill country and the hill country, obviously, is not the place where we should be putting in development more and more and greater and greater. Commissioner Daugherty mentioned tex dot's concern and problem with funding. Tex dot has plans for five toll roads here in central Texas. They already have four in place. And these five are going to cost about $2.5 billion. That is with a b. But tex dot has said that they are already a million dollars short to making that happen. There's also a lot of review being made on the statewide basis, certainly locally, of the quality of the roads, particularly the bridges that we already have in place, because of the disaster in minnesota two weeks ago. That is certainly going to drain more money from the tex dot budget for building new roads or adding new lanes to roads. Further, tax rates are going up. Our interest rates are going up. And while tex dot was able to borrow almost four million to build the first toll roads in central Texas at a very good interest rate, that is not going to happen again. It's not going to be nearly as easy to borrow money. And that is a spin-off from the substandard, subprime mortgage issue that's happening now. If any of us wanted to go out and borrow money today we would would find out we would have a little more trouble than a few years ago, maybe quite a bit more trouble, even people to put down 20 percent. Anyway, tex dot has money trouble. They are not going to be building all the new roads they want to build. We might talk about 71 getting some of that money as priority and adding a lane or two and able to take more traffic. I don't think that's going to happen. Everybody considers themselves a priority issue in terms of roads. So I'll say no more except the fact that rgk is the straw that breaks the camel's back. It's going to put a lot of traffic on 71, a lot of traffic on 290 through oak hill. There's not a lot of of money to fix those roads. I don't see it coming in the future or fairly distant future. To allowing rgk ranch to build their 1500 units, even though they have every right do that, is going to give us trouble in the future, crowded roads, unsafe roads, and more problems than we really want. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. At this time I announce that we will convene in executive session to discuss number 29 with our lawyers under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. This is the only item that we will take into executive session. We will come out immediately after that and take any appropriate action.
we have returned where we discussed tell number 29 only with one of our lawyers. Had a few legal questions to get addressed. Is there a motion or discussion sm.
>> ?
>> judge, I make the motion to a b and c be approved as recommended by county staff.
>> second.
>> .
>> that include the plat note that we have been discussing the last few weeks.
>> yes, that Commissioner eckhardt work with the applicant with.
>> and all those plat notes are enforceable, correct?
>> that is my an understanding.
>> (inaudible) and the develope.
>> we would expect those to be carried forward in the final plat, basically. Discussion?
>> yes, in addition to that, I'm real concerned that we have the speed on 71 very high on the list and that we be persistent with tex dot in order to address that issue.
>> I agree with that.
>> I would prefer, from the western boundary to the eastern boundary of Travis County, sense development is occurring all along 71 from one end to the other, cars come speeding into eastern Travis County from b as strop after they get past the slow down signs going through bastrop and then come into eastern Travis County, there was a wreck close to the airport I think early this morning.
>> we are going to bring a resolution to the court in the next week, asking tex dot to impose a 55 mile an hour speed zone at least in the areas where they, you know--
>> where there is development.
>> where there is development, where it's sane to do so.
>> that's another recommendation that ought to be picked up.
>> okay.
>> anymore discussion?
>> just in clarification, the plat notes are enforceable in regards to this landowner and any other future landowner (inaudible)
>> that is correct.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor of the motion. Shows Commissioners Gomez, dougherty, yours truly voting in favor, and eckhardt, Commissioner Davis.
>> opposed.
>> voting in opposition.
>> only because (inaudible)
>> move that we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor. All in favor of that motion?
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, August 22, 2007, 18:30 AM