Travis County Commissioners Court
April 22, 2008
Item 13
Number 13 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following. A is a plat for recording in precinct 3, reserve at west hill phase 1, a resubdivision of lot b-2, remainder, northwest hills ranch, five total lots. 13-b, reserve at west hill subdivision preliminary plan, 13 total lots; and 13-c, a plat for recording in precinct 3, reserve at west hill phase 2 final plat, 13 total lots.
>> hi, anna bolin, Travis County t.n.r. Joining me will be sylvia limon, city of Austin planner. We're both part of the single office that reviewed this case. This case was before you on April 8, and we had a public hearing and we had some citizens come down and raise some concerns. Since that time we have had a meeting on the site to talk about some of the concerns. The concerns that were raised on the 8th, there were -- I want to say four main concerns raised. One had to do with the tree ordinance and whether or not this area of the e.t.j. Was subject to the tree ordinance. I believe a red tag had been issued. And I’m going to ask sylvia to speak to the tree ordinance question.
>> good morning, Commissioners. Sylvia limon with city of Austin watershed protection. The tree ordinance in the e.t.j. Does not apply for protection. I have double checked with ingrid and michael, the city's or borists, and I’ve been assured that the tree protection ordinance does not apply in the e.t.j. The red tag, unfortunately, for the tree protection or cutting down the trees was issued by mistake.
>> let me ask you a question. I had someone to ask me something in regard to the tree ordinance since the last time this has come up before the Commissioners court. And since the ordinance making powers of the city are a lot greater than county's, the question was asked to me at that time is it any way in the future by law that the city can incorporate or bring into play on tree ordinance in the e.t.j. Is there anything that prohibits the city from doing that?
>> I would have to defer that to the city legal staff and county legal staff.
>> it would be good to know because I couldn't answer the question and even though I wanted to, how do we protect the trees that are out in the county, those that we feel should have some kind of protection, and, of course, not knowing that the city, you know, disposition on that legally, I couldn't answer it. So it would be good to know what -- if there is anything that the city is doing in the future.
>> does the county have any authority to create a tree ordinance inside the e.t.j. Or outside the e.t.j.
>> right.
>> I looked at that briefly and I couldn't find, since this came up the last couple weeks, I couldn't find any specific ordinance that would allow tree ordinance and I couldn't find any other county that had.
>> that was going to be my followup. Thank you, Commissioner. Thanks for watching my back.
>> issue number 2.
>> issue number 2 was kind of relates to the red tag that was issued by the city of Austin. It had to do with permits. And we did find that Travis County staff had prematurely issued permits for the five homes. It's not uncommon for when someone has gone through the development process for in anticipation of getting your plat arrived, get your permit in in advance, you know, to have that start working its way through the process. However, what was -- and I apologize, what was inappropriate in this instance, the permit was issued on a working copy of the plat, not on the approved plat. It couldn't be on the approved plat because the plat wasn't approved yet. So we are working with our permit staff to ensure that when we issue permits, we get a copy of the permit tract on an approved plat to help ensure this doesn't happen again.
>> so you are referring to construction permits?
>> right, for building the houses.
>> okay.
>> the third matter has to do with density. There was a lot of discussion about, you know, this section being more dense than other sections, and title 30 does not have -- it doesn't set minimum lot sizing and it doesn't have a density requirement. So with regards to that, there's not a violation of density with title 30. And the last --
>> so no county authority.
>> no county authority.
>> what about city?
>> no city authority also.
>> pardon?
>> I’m sorry, no city authority. In title 30, as long as they meet the minimum area for building, but under city of Austin or full purpose, we have zoning regulations, but since this is e.t.j., there's no zoning regulations for minimum lot size.
>> and finally the last thing that came up last week -- or last time this was at court, mainly had to do with public notification. Before we had title 30, we had a separate set of most if I indication requirements in the city of Austin. The city of Austin, their notification requirements come from 2-12 of the local government code. The county's chapter 82 comes from 2-32 of the local government code. When we did a consolidated office and we came up with title 30, one of the things that we were hearing for our stakeholders at the time was the desire to have a single notification process. So in part that's why title 30 and the interlocal agreement speak to the county doing public notices that's consistent with 2-12 and giving one set of notice. However, I do -- I would recommend that -- and I don't think there is anything to preclude this recommendation, that we do go back and add a step into the process where we put up signs on the site. I think that our constituents -- I think that would give our constituents a better chance to be sure that they know what's going on around them.
>> are signs included in the 2-32 notice provisions?
>> I don't know if they are in 2-32, but they are certainly in our chapter 82. So we -- and I’ll visit with the city about whether or not my recommendation will need to have a formal ask for us to put that in title 30. We certainly can do that. There's some other things in regards to the non-residential notice that we're going to be asking them to do, but it's my belief and I’ll visit closely with our attorney on this, that's something we can do even now. We go beyond the requirements and we'll work with city staff, I mean this will be a burden we will bear to put signs up and get signs taken down, but I think that we could satisfy the desire of the community to have one notice by -- I don't think it hurts anything to put up a sign saying such locations where the matter will be heard. So that is a recommendation I would make.
>> even with that, anna, and when that question came up last week, of course the county has been struggling with -- by example, of looking at the notification process to make sure that what we can do under chapter 82, but here with this type of setting that we have -- relationship we have with the city with chapter 2-32 and also 2-12 from the city, for an example, is that the marriage under the single office concept, and it just seemed to be -- have been some ambiguity as far as who is supposed to -- as far as notices is concerned. I posed the question last week -- I mean the last time it was on the agenda, pardon me, to see who was properly notified because I think that is a critical step in any type of due process.
>> certainly.
>> activity where you would make sure that those persons impacted or affected will have an opportunity to participate in the process. Now, I asked the question how and who was notified in this particular development process, and, of course, I heard different answers from different folks. Some within the 300-foot range as far as notification is concerned, and some that say they didn't get any notice. We have all heard similar cases here before the court. Each one of us that's up here. And to get a better handle, I think, as far as -- and I heard you make some suggestions as far as putting up a sign on the property. But then again, I wanted to find out what is the city going to do as far as cooperating under single office-type scenario with those marriages of these particular chapters via city and also county. What are we going to do to ensure that proper notification is implemented. And there appears to still be a little confusion. And I’m just trying to make sure that we as a collective body are able to eliminate as much confusion as possible as far as notification is concerned. So can you basically give me something back as far as an answer to those questions as far as -- that I posed last time.
>> if I understand you correctly, you are want to know what we're going to be doing in the future?
>> the information that I asked for for this meeting was who was actually notified, how were they notified, and to have a track record of notification. Because it does pose a problem across all the counties. Just not precinct 3, this is all over the county in each one of our precincts we are experiencing similar situations in the single office-type concept.
>> yes, sir. In this particular case, the notification was done under title 30 and we notified property owners within 300 feet, registered neighborhood associations that are registered with the city of Austin's public information office. We notified the actual property owners, their representatives, and then city staff also received a notice. On this particular case, these resubdivision -- there is further requirement that a newspaper notice be push lished 15 days in advance of the public hearing. On this case since the first public hearing was -- was actually at zoning and platting commission, the newspaper notice was published 15 days before the zoning and platting commission hearing. And -- you know, that's -- that's basically the process that we follow at this time.
>> and I know this is under title 30, but in that process to the zoning and planning commission that you mentioned with the city of Austin, did anyone appear for -- after notification was sent out, did anyone appear at that city meeting?
>> at the meeting, I don't --
>> the folks that had been notified.
>> at the zoning and platting commission meetings, I believe there was one person that showed up but they chose not to speak. I received several responses from the notices that were mailed out. There was also inquiries from citizens that received notices or neighboring properties, and we -- city staff, we answered their questions and as far as the mailed responses to the notice, that was included into the backup to the zoning and platting commission. And that was, you know, pretty much the scope of the contact that we had with the inquiries on this project.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> a meeting did take place.
>> yes, sir, a meeting took place --
>> were these four issues discussed there?
>> yes.
>> okay. Were the parties able to reach agreement on any of the issues that we discussed last time?
>> not to my knowledge.
>> okay. And we have individuals who have come down to address the court on this matter. If you come forward at this time, we would be glad to hear your comments. You have heard our discussion so far.
>> yes, sir.
>> we havquite a few more interested folks this week than last time. Good morning, Commissioners, your honor. Taki kind of gather concerns from a number of people in the community. I’m sure some of these other folks are going to have things to say, but hopefully we will be reasonably efficient of addressing those and keep the discussion to a minimum in respect to the court's time. On just a couple of brief comments on things you guys were discussing this morning.
>> did we get your name?
>> by the way, I’m sorry, I’m craig deal, from 10627 double spur loop. Commissioner Davis brought up notification last time and I heard your discussion again this morning. I think what's happened is there's been some difficulty with the change in law. The neighborhood really got caught off guard, and I’m not going to blame the dolor for that. It would be easy to sit here and say he didn't do what he did, but he did contact some neighborhood associations and chat about some. The -- did he talk to the people he should have talked to, there's some debate about that. What happens is these neighborhoods are so used to county rules where signage was required, people commend to me we were waiting for signs to go up. People were unaware the rule had changed. People don't read newspapers that much anymore. Everybody gets their news off the internet. And we are in agreement on this, we talked about this at length, the most important thing we can do to see a situation like this doesn't happen again is get the signage requirements back in place. People are used to seeing that. 300-foot notification, title 30 designates a intpped party as someone who lives within 500 feet. City notification is 300 feet. We have a bit of inconsistency. 300 feet does not catch very many homes particularly in neighborhoods with large lots. We have an inversely proportional problem whereas where people live and have larger lots or subdivision, you are going to have a situation where less people are getting notified. Where there's smaller lots where people might not mind as much subdivision, more people get notified. Right now we have some oddness going on in the rules that I think is working against everybody. But most importantly is getting the signage requirement back in. A quick comment on tree ordinance. I’ve talked to a lot of people about that, anna and I have had a number of discussions about it. You get different burp taitionz from different people. Two points I would like to make is both section 80 and title 30 make reference to the environmental quality manual, section 3 of the environmental quality manual which refers to tree ordinance. And now, I’m not an attorney and this is for these guys to sort out, but I would like to put on the record and point out that I think the reference to the environmental quality manual could be interpret at the time as bringing the force of law to the environmental quality manual. The environmental technical manual.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> thank you. The environmental criteria manual. It doesn't quite have the teeth that the Austin tree ordinance does. It doesn't completely prohibit the destruction of trees over a certain diameter, but it does bring in some tree protection standards and which is something he is planning on doing, and it would -- I’ll leave interpretation to you guys, but it would bring quite a bit of tree protection standards into place and maybe something that would be acceptable for future purposes, as mr. Davis was bringing up. I want to bring you guys around. Last time we were here, we didn't have good graphics. We were unprepare ms. Drinkwine thought we were going to be two of 50. There are a couple of issues I’d like to ask that were brought up last time. First is in the last meeting, mr. Blackburn mentioned they had gone around and gotten permission from the original developer as required by deed restrictions. I would like to ask is that permission in writing or what was the nature of that communication? We would like to see that. Because it's come to my attention that the original developer died in 1980. And so I do have some question as to how mr. Blackburn could have got even permission from the original developer. If someone could pass these around. Also, we contacted the developer's son. We don't believe in any way that authority to permit subdivision conveys to the son, our deed and covenants are very clear about the community's rights conveying with ownership and heirs, but it makes no mention of any conveyance of changes in the plat pertain to go the developer. It says with permission of the developer. I’m going to circulate copies of those in a minute too. So we did contact the developer's son and he stated to us that his father did develop -- did do this subdivision and that no one had contacted him. He furthermore stated it was out of his hands. He knew his father left provisions for that in the plats. And that he had no interest in it whatsoever and was not interested in giving permission or opposing in either way. It wasn't his issue, it wasn't his business. I discussed this with ms. Bowen yesterday in confidence. Unfortunately in her exploration of that it leaked out and I am aware that the developer was told my concerns about this yesterday which was -- I hate to admit, chris, I was kind of hoping to catch you by surprise on this issue.
>> so your authorization came from whom?
>>
>> [inaudible] I have here authorization I obtained from david barrow, jr., as executer of the estate of david b. Barrow, his father, March 19, 2007. And I’d be happy to -- I only have one copy of it. I’m not sure who this notice should go to. But permitting the resubdivision of lot b-2 into not more than five lots as shown on a concept plan we attached.
>> you mind if mr. Deal takes a look at it?
>> no problem.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> that is a copy there. Can I have this?
>> sure.
>> all right. As I think you have copies of the actual deed restrictions which were filed in 1966. Now, I would dispute that the right to approve conveys to the son. It says the developer. The developer has passed away. But really discussion of either becomes moot. It's clear that mr. Blackburn was aware of this document, and if you all will turn to the second page, on page 8, under item a, I’ll just read the paragraph for the court here since it will be hard to jump in halfway. These provisions are hereby declared to be conditions, restrictsdz, uses and covenants running with the land and shall be fully binding on all persons acquiring property in northwest hills ranch section 1 whether by purchase other otherwise. And every person by the acceptance of title to any lot of this subdivision shall thereby agree to abide by and fully perform the foregoing restrictions and uses and covenants which shall be binding until January 1st, 1985. On and after January 1st, 1985, the restrictions and covenants shall be automatically extended for 10 years unless a vote of three-fourths majority of the then owners of the lots in northwest ranch hills section 1, each lot or plot to at mid of one vote n 1985, the right to control these sort of things conveyed to the owners. At northwest ranch his, section 1. Now, I would like to pass around some documents to you where on many occasions -- this is just one example I found in the court clerk's records. These provisions have been used. They have been honored. They've been enforced and upheld by the court on numerous occasions before. People who own lots, they want to subdivide, they come to the owners and get consent by three-quarters majority as required after 1985. Mr. Hirve here, my neighbor, and richard go ahead and introduce yourself.
>> richard hirsh. And mr. Hirsh has another develop, where developers, owners of the property have come around and defined by the covenants and asked permission. We don't have a copy, but if you don't object they can pass that through and have a quick look. We have establish where this section has enforced covenants before, knows how they work. Other people have read it, recognized it, come to the neighbors and sought their permission and in cases immediately some cases had to make modification. However, in this subdivision, they have consistently held to a community standard of not allowing lots to be divided to less than one-half acre n the plot you have before you, and we're going to come back to this issue -- have they got those?
>> yes.
>> in the last meeting, mr. Blackburn represented that his lots would be larger than 75% of the lots in the surrounding area. I can read that from the record if you would like. If you all will please take my word or I’ll be glad to read from the transcript. If you take a glance at this map, you can see mr. Blackburn's proposed division, and remember ing this is two pieces of property. The residents of northwest hills ranch have not really evaluated the other -- the larger piece of property behind. We haven't taken a look at that. We don't have a position either in favor or against that at this point. However, this 1.2-acre tract that is not a portion of the tract, it is the complete tract plotted with the plot back in 1966. That fall it is under the owners of northwest hills ranch section 1 and it falls under their jurisdiction as part of their deed restrictions. If you will just look around, to me when I look at this map, I can see yaupon coming up the way. But when you get west of there, community standards larger than one-half acre, there are have you few lots smaller. You see lots of five, six, four. Mr. Hirsh lives on on an acre lot. To sees those .22-acre lots are larger than 75% of the lots in the community is absurd. Clearly, clearly the community standard in here is a half acre or more t residents of northwest hills ranch, they do not believe they are under any obligation to allow subdivision, although they do frrks the straw poll I conducted, seep open to some definitely of subdivision. The vast majority saying it should only be two lots, that would be point 6 acres each. Within this community standard being the smaller of the lots in the area, but within the range. Now, I have some more documents for you. I had -- several of us kind of got together and decided let's just see what there is. Mr. Blackburn has made a big -- has made a big deal about the fact that he had a lot of meetings. And I’m sorry, chris, but you are either the unluckiest devil in the world or somehow did a good job of talking to everybody surrounding northwest hills ranch section 1, specifically over in the areas where people live in smaller lots over in the city. Amazingly in the entirety of northwest ranch section 1, I did not find a single person, nor did anybody that went around and gathered these signatures find a single person who had heard a thing about this or been approached in any way, shape or form. It's almost as if the developer chose deliberately to not talk to people he needed to according to the deeds and covenants. This next document is proxy statements we gathered up where the residents have asked that myself or mr. Hirsh, there's many of them that couldn't be here today, we have a lot of retirees, but I’ll put it in the record. We the below listed residents at northwest hills ranch section 1 hereby wish to record our objection to the subdivision at lot b-2, said subdivision and deny our permission to do the same as required by the restrictions and covenants of david b. -- we further designate mr. -- Travis County Commissioners court related to or regarding this matter. Commissioners, I apologize. Mine is more up to date. I had a few sheets brought over last night. This list here has -- there's approximately 40 lots in northwest ranch hills section 1 as it sits today. The plat is -- looks to me like it slightly out of date. A few of these have been subdivided so it adds slightly to the count from what you see before you. 34 ofroximately 40 lots in the subdivision have signed opposition to this. And have no intention of either allowing subdivision beyond two lots nor do they have any intention whatsoever of vacating their control through the covenants to allow this lot to be pulled into thu. The feeling is that if we vacate this lot to allow people to move into a new subdivision, they will write their own covenants and further sub guide. The residents have no intention of vacating this lot and have no intention allowing this to be divided to any number less than two lots. To any more than two lots. Chris, I would have thought that clearly you had this document. I would have thought that you would have come around to the folks that had the jurisdiction and asked for permission. I don't know why of all the developers and all the property owners that come through over the years that have come through and sought permission that you seem to be the first that has chosen not to. But that's the lay of the land as far as --
>> okay, let me get -- what's the city and county's position on the restrict I haveive coven?
>> the restrictive covenant that's being referred to is a private restrictive covenant and if it had -- there's no plat note on the original plat that restricts the lots from being resubdivided. Into smaller lots. And since there is a restrictive -- a private restrictive covenant, the city of Austin normally does not enforce private restrictive covenants if they are not a party to -- made a party to the restrictive covenant.
>> I didn't understand that. Could you repeat that?
>> it's confusing, I know. Basically the city of Austin does not enforce private restrictive covenants. We do restrict -- we even enforce if there is a plat note clearly stated on the recorded platted that restricts the property from, say, being subdivided into smaller portions. We do enforce that.
>> now, there is a note on the plat making reference to the covenants. On the plat. And I have copies of the plat. It's very, very difficult to read. It's recorded on microfiche at the county clerk's office. We do have those. It's on the film. It's even on the screen when you are looking at it. It's very difficult to read. They look like this. They are the old black films. But the reference to the restrictive covenants are made on the plat notes.
>> but let me -- I’m trying to get back to the city the city does not, if I’m understanding correctly, does not enforce restrictive covenants. Am I hearing that correct?
>> if it is a private restrictive covenant, they --
>> oh, private.
>> the covenant itself does not list the city as a party to the covenant. The city of Austin does not enforce it.
>> but that does not preclude the county from enforcing restrictive covenants, does it? Because if it -- let me see what the county is saying.
>> I would look to our county attorney for guidance on that. But I would say that generally speaking we don't enforce restrictive covenants.
>> it was an incident and I’m trying to recall and I’m just having to go way back. Whereby some neighbors were complaining about restrictive covenants, deed restrictions, and this is within the city limits. And if my memory serves me correctly, and I’m not too sure, but if my memory serves me correctly, the city did not have the authority to enforce that restrictive covenant even though it was in the subdivision was located within the city of Austin. But it was incumbent on the county, I think, to ensure that that restrictive covenant was upheld in the city limits of the city of Austin as far as the restrictive covenant are concerned and I believe the county did get involved as far as the county attorney to ensure that restrictive covenants are adhered to. And I really don't know if that is applicable within the city or just a county-wide setting whereby the county attorney's office can look into restrictive covenant issues to ensure that they, the protection is actually granted under the umbrella of rctsdz. Restrictive covenants. That was quite some time ago and I can't recall all of the situation, but if my memory serves me correctly, the county did have the responsibility.
>> if I may --
>> if there is --
>> can we hear the response?
>> if I may, I believe that prior to title 30 when we still were applying chapter 82 at the same time the city was doing, I guess, title 25, we did -- in chapter 82 we do look to some components of restrictive covenants. So outside of title 30, we do look to see about things like lot sizes, clauses about can't further be resubdivide. There's one restrictive covenant that's in effect out in the county that has to do with dimensions that the froth part of certain roads and at the back if it's a body of water. So some of those outside -- outside of title 30 out in chapter 82, we do look to some of that. And I would also say outside of title 30, even today we would look to -- we would want something from a h.o.a. Is someone is going to subdivide or alter an existing lot. But under title 30, part of merging -- merging, you know, the two offices and coming up with a single office and a consolidated code, I know that one of the things we talked about while we were doing that was is there a different standard for reviewing your standard ties to this requirement in 2-12 and our standard ties to that requirement in 2-32. One of the things that we said was that we were going to follow the provisions of 2-12. And we said that in our interlocal agreements with the city of Austin.
>> but none of that, I mean this is good news for the neighbors. This gives you a private cause of action.
>> absolutely.
>> which we fully intend to pursue if we don't get relief from the court today.
>> the county is not a party -- whether it's in the unincorporated area or the e.t.j. Is immaterial. The county is not party to this private agreement.
>> if I could present one more document. This is from this court in August 3rd, 2004, item 17. And toward the bottom here, it's a very similar situation to what we have today. Some folks came in to talk about deed restrictions before the court, and the next to the last paragraph down there at the bottom, there's a couple of arrows and it starts with the words our findings. Our findings entitled to come to you because the deed restrictions have chose not to do that. The people inside the subdivision since the county originally approved the subdivision, the people inside could come to you if someone wants to change the subdivision and say don't approve that if it violates. Someone outside the subdivision, mae may be able to enforce those restrictions but they have to go to district court. If we could turn to page 2 before this court, about the sixth little set of double arrows down, judge, I would, somebody interrupted, said that means if anybody within -- if I’m understanding you correctly, tom, anybody that actually resides within the subdivision, if they oppose replatting, the derestrictions would be something we have to uphold. The court answer, yes.
>> can you come to work for me doing research?
>> the county attorney is going to look into it also.
>> we very much appreciate that.
>> a unique situation. I remember I referred to it, this was a long time ago. Anyway, I can't rekindle that -- the way I would like to this morning. But again, there is some possibilities there and that's why I threw it out because I remember something coming up not similar to this but to maybe some of the circumstances maybe have some similarities.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> .
>> .
>> the end of item 9 says no act or omission on the par of any beneficiary on the uses here inshall ever operate at a waiver of operation of any such condition or use. Therefore if a subdivision has happened without the northwest ran of hills exercising their jurisdictional authority, you understand that does not give any waiver. Also I the did provide documents to where this has been done before after 1985, the date it was passed down. That in itself established precedence had a this did carry forward to property owners. It's been done more than once. And.
>> we will need to discuss the that with legal counsel in executive session the to get whatever legal advice is available. Any other issues in the staff seem to indicate that we don't have the authority on the tree ordinance density. Public notice needs to be cleaned up and we immediate to revisit it after today.
>> your honor, if I may.
>> yes, sir.
>> address a few other points. Mr. Dillon in his discussion mentioned the pack that the neighborhood felt caught off gourd. Understanding those provisions, , that the something that is going to be looked into. I contacted four different homeowners associations over a year ago, met with one of him that responded and had verbal conversations with the second one to discuss the project and try and incorporate people into the process. I’m not sure that there was another way I could have done it other than go door to door. At what point do you stop resident in the area. I tried what city of city of Austin shows to the the neighborhood shows says to govern the area. Contacted them and met with them and tried to discuss the property, the project, get thoughts and opinions, took those steps. Notices were sent out for zoning meetings over a year ago and then again for the plat meetings in the last several months. I took the time, or tried to take the time, to follow up, or tried to , with the associations I had met with. I responded to each and every person that contacted the city of Austin or with a concern over the property, either called or e-mailed them if I was provided their information or looked up their information and sent a letter offering to meet with them and heard back from several of those folks addressing the property.
>> I don't feel that anyone here is accusing you of not doing you're due diligence.
>> okay.
>> I applaud you for doing that. My concern is I think there is a disconnect. This is what I think the rest of the court, everyone here is experiencing a disconnect somewhere when we are dealing with title 30 as far as notification. This is not the only time had this has col before the court. The remedy, I think, is for the city of Austin and Travis County to do a little more as soon as note if if I case is concerned.
>> okay.
>> I hear you. Again, I think some of the recommendation even coming from staff this morning, as far as sign issues. Big sign, here is what is happening folks, here is the signing. We need to tighten uptightel 30 I think a little bit more because we have discrepancies in the footage. 300 foot, 500 foot. We got to do a better job. I think there's got of governmental entities. I think you have done your due diligence per se.
>> thank you. Then just briefly two other points, if I may. Regarding the subdivision, we have a 12 lot section we had to get zoned through the city of Austin due to its location and we went in an and on --obtained zoning we requires a minimum. The five lot does not require joining. How, I believe the city could confirm that it has been platted or designed to meet all the requirements of sf 1 zoning including a minimum of 10,000 square foot lots. Regarding the trees that have been discussed, and I’m sorry, to that point, mr. Delooted to the fact that if we were approved the neighborhood is concerned that we would go back, create new deed restrictions, set up our own homeowners association, and even resub --divide the lot further. There have been five building permits issued on those lots. Inadd antly or not they were issued and five homes started and then stopped. It would be quite a cost to then go through and scrape lots and come back through another process and try to resubdivide for more density the. Also I provided loss week mr. Deal a copy of our deed restrictions filed in October of last year establishing the grounds and framework for homeowners association for both the five lot and 12 lot sectionwere you not aware of the, were you unaware that there were restrictive covenants on the previous plat is this.
>> no, we took those into account, the setback requiremented, for example, are addressed in our restriptive covenants. Our minimum square foot and for homes are higher hand the minimum in these restrictions.
>> you were aware of thery thetive cov mant that were apparently still in peck.
>> yes, ma'am, prior to March of last year is when I received the consent of the original developer's estate.
>> although by the plan language of the covenant it's not his to waive. Ice three quarters of the residents.
>> as I read it the three quarts of the residents have the right to major changes.
>> correct, unless they make the change, the original cov fants are binding.
>> which requires the consent of the original developer in paragraph one.
>> I think you're misreading that. I think that the restrictive covenants are in place as provided by the developer and run with the land as other people acquire the property.
>> to that point, yes. If title is pulled on the property today, or if it, and lots, whatever the number are resubdivided, this restrictive covenant still applies. Ours coast not remove --does not remove or undercut. The requirements here were more restrictive.
>> do the lots cover not less than 1600 square feet of the floor area, which not less than 1400 square feet shall be be in the house proper?
>> our proposed minimum or the main --minimum in our deed is 1800 square feet. The building sitbacks in section six are all covered by ours as well.
>> sounds like we immediate to take --need to take a closer look.
>> if that is the case, what is the problem? The size of the lot?
>> he hasn't got the authority to subdivide at this time according to the deed restrictions I told mr. Blackburn yesterday that I thought we could probably with a few keep people's help win him the authority to divide into three, perhaps. It's going to be difficult to get to three with the neighbors. You've seen the sheets. I’ve talked to every one of him. It's not so difficult to go door to door. We deed in it a weekend. Mr. Blackburn could have chose ton do that. I think with some support with a few key neighbors in the neighbor wood we could win sib divide into two lots. We're willing to help him do that. I told mr. Blackburn yesterday we'd be willing to help you reach three under certain conditions. Five, it's just, we're going to stand firm against four or five or even three. I’m not sure that he can win three quarters majority even with some of our helping to three. But I’ve offered that help before today. I was told by my neighbors to come in here and say we would be willing to go two, not three. I can't speak for anybody other than to tell you guys what I’ve already been told. I promised some folks that I would mention a few issues. I just want to two through them real quickly because I think the substantive part of my arguments or our arguments have been made. Ms. Elwattly is with me of the she lives across the street from the property. At the last meeting mr. Blackburn said he had tried to contact her. Ms. Wattly communicated too me she would like the court to be aware had has called mr. Blackburn repeatedly and her opposition. We wanted to point out we thought that was a misrepresentation.
>> hmm.
>> a number of neighbors on the southwest side of the corner of Texas plume and dk have expressed grave concerns about this. The way the waterlines, and I home the engineers have addressed had this. I gave him a heads-up yesterday afternoon. The way the land lies on the 1.2 acres which is all we're talking about, the crest is about halfway up. They putting in a detention pond on the east side which we hope would catch the east side. The folks on the south and west corners of Texas plumeand dk already have tremendous water problem . They are concerned consider.
>> they have drainage problems?
>> they already have drainage problems coming off this street. They are very concerned this level of density is going to swamp them over there. And I haven't been an environmental engineer for 15 years, I think that is a valid concern and I think that needs to be given attention before the county and city before any subdivision at all, no matter how many we resolve on, has to be dealt with. That's one concern. Second was ms. Wattly's concern about how she has approached him a number of times. What else am I missing? There has been an allegation made. Have I not personally confirmed it. That work has continued on the property since the red tag. There's been a number of reports of hearing chain saw is running back deep within the property and continued clearing going on. I haven't personally observed it but it has been represented to me by more than one person who lives adjacentant to the property.
>> hmm.
>> confidential. Commissioners, your honor, thank you very much for hearing us today . We humbly request relief from this court and we will proceed diligently recordless of your decision. Thank you very much.
>> so if we were the to go out there today and look at the five lots we would basically see area land. You have the construction permits but you have not started construction but you have been clearing land to prepare for construction.
>> your honor, there are, I believe, boards on all five of the lots I know a four of the lot that were formed up. And the sand, I don't build the houses, I’m not sure of the property terms, but they were formed up with preliminary slab work done on I know four and possibly all five of the lots. That was before we were notified of the issue with the building permit.
>> that's correct. Forms and some dirt hauled in. Nothing beyond that. No cement whatsoever, no plumbing. Forms and dirt.
>> we will give you a chance to finish.
>> thank you, your honor. I am not going to debate everything here. I’ll say I’ve con tanthed people, I’ve bone told I haven't contacted people we are go around and round on that at the independent of the day, it's just pointing fingers. I’ve tried to do everything, I believe was right on this project, following what I believe was the proper way to do things. There's obviously a disagreement on the deed restrictions. I consulted an attorney. He said this is what needed to happen. I went and did that. Apparently a number of the other properties that were resubdivided did that too. Several of them did not and did take the steps of contacting the residents in the area related to their subdivision. I guess that comes down to misinterpretation of the restrictive covenant. I believe it exists as it is. Unless three-fourths of the people elect to make a change to this document. So we tried to follow that document. We have a project that meets the requirements of chapter 30. We are not asking for any variances. We believe we designed something that is in accordance with the neighborhood. Yes, there are large lots to the south of us. There are also much smaller lots to the north of us. There are lots of comparable size to the east and west. We have tried to create a blend. We had habitat for humanity on the property for a month, deconstructing the house that was out there. I donated the house. By donating, you get to pay the expenses of them getting the materials to their store. They took 15 dumpsters, full size dumpsters of materials to their store, estimated 70 percent of it used, another ten or 15 percent they thought they would recycle and what they count would go to the dump. There's been a sign on the property for a number of months. There's been opportunity, I questions. Over the last two weeks I’ve been labeled a number of things that really sometimes make me question why I’m in this business. I’ve been called a liar my project has been misrepresented to people, I’ve been misrepresentd to people. Events have occurred that have been misrepresented. I guess, you know, it's puzzling for people that don't know me. I’ve been acussed of being a developer from houston that had no interest in the city of Austin. I’ve tried to do what's right. Planting over a hundred inches of trees on the property per our deed restrictions before any issues with the trees came up. I’ve offered to double that. I --know that does the replace a larger tree but we're willing to double what we were doing before any issue of requirement ever came up. We've offered some other things that the neighborhood has deemed not acceptable. At this point I just think I’ve done all I can do on the property. We followed all the calls. We immediate --need to take that into considerationseems to --
>> seems to me we have a lot of legal questions we immediate too into executive session. The queson is, we think we will ed definive responses today?
>> I’d like a little time.
>> would between now and three suffice? You hadn't planned to have lunch anyway, had you? Let's do the best we can to get those answers by the time we go into executive session and we'll take it from there.
>> we also have questions in regards to whether the proposed development meets the current, first the legal question of the force and effect of the restrictive covenants and then secondly there seems to be a factual question of whether the proposed development meets the requirements of the restrictive covenant. Will we be able to figure that out today?
>> I think we ought to lay all the questions out there and then figure out which ones we get answers to and proceed from there. The problem with this is that if you ask one or two legal questions, the responses will probably generate two or three other questions. So, I mean, we'll do the best we can. I guess for the residents and developer we will try to get an answer today. If not, we can let you know and did that this afternoon. We haven't heard you and we will. If we can get those seats, there is somebody here with something new and different to tell us about this item, this is your opportunity to express those to us.
>> your honor, I’m sorry. I fort to mention my engineer is here if already any concerns or questions about the drainage.
>> your name, please.
>> yes, my name is richard thomas, I’m the president of the neighborhood association, which this particular tract of this subdivision is actually a part of, again neighborhood association doesn't have any binding covenants however it is a voluntary organization. And mr. Blackburn did definitely contact us over a year ago in writing. He called us. I’ve spoken with him. I just want to say northwest hills ranch section one is generally not within it. So our lines for our neighborhood association run down Texas plume. So this would be on the very periphery. What I do want to say, what this plat doesn't show is the remainder --of the neighborhood to the south and the east. This development is in keeping with the nature of our neighborhood whereas the northwest hills, I’ve been a resident for 15 years, and this is kind of an anomaly in the area. A nice anomaly to safe see the nature of city of Austin agent bit, but I want to come down and say chris is definitely has done disdue diligence in contacting us . I represent 2200 residential neighbors within our neighborhood association. I’ve mentioned it on two different general meet thags we've had for our neighborhood association as well as writing in our e-mail group. He has done his due diligence. I’m in favor personally as well as the represent different of laurel oaks. We do have have some residents here, members of my organization, that are not in support. I don't pretend to speak for them. I want you to know if you look the developer is keeping with sf 1. The home sizes are quive let, maybe a little larger, but differently with those directly abutting this development.
>> thank you. Yes, sir.
>> my name is rob subczech. It's a resident on dk ranch road. This is probably the third time I have been involved in a meeting in front of your court for similar resubdivisions, replatting. In each case one of the biggest concerns that was put before the court was the density and all of the effects of the water. On our side of the street on b--bee cave ranch road, I know mr. Daugherty had his assistants, engineers from Travis County and numerous meetings on what we were going to do with the water on the other replating of properties on the other side of the road. This one falls into that situation. It's all going flow down hill. The Commissioners court has recognized that there are tremendous water problems in this area and there is no budget to make the necessary repairs either to the roads or to the drainage sub structure. Therefore, I’m asking the court to give consideration to the density that is coming out of this 1.2 acre tract. We did, the court approved a four unit project three years ago on five acres. And what the court required, that developer and builder to do in the way of retention, was significant. And that was a one house per acre increase in density. That's all I have.
>> thank you. Anybody else with something new and different. Last opportunity. Three chairs. Three people.
>> good morning, Commissioners. I’m with see walk engineering. I’m the engineer on behalf of mr. Blackburn. I wanted to speak to the drainage concerns. In regards to the five lot section, the second in question, we have notes on the construction plans that say the lots should be graded towards the back of the lots, which would be away from dk ranch road towards the drainage channel that we are proposing in the easement that will eventually drain to a water quality pond and retention pond further down veem with the 12 lots being included. That has been designed already and is in review at the city and county and has been approved pending plat approval and all these other issues. That drainage concern for dk ranch road has been addressed at least within our five lots through the use of a note and drainage channel on the back of all five lots. If there's any questions I’ll be more than happy--
>> can I ask a question related to that from here? You have notes, that the , that's all well and good (inaudible)
>> we did state the grading shall be forced towards the back towards the drainage channel.
>> (inaudible)
>> I didn't build the houses. I can't speak to the building.
>> you think you have edge neared a fix if your design--
>> yes, for the concern of dk road. I’m slightly aware of the concern on dk ranch road which is why we considered to not impact what is already existing.
>> okay, thank you all very much. We'll get done what we can today. This looks like a long day for us. Maybe we know at about four or clock.
>> no apology necessary.
>> Tuesday are typically long.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> I don't know that we will need a city person this afternoon. We will need ms. Bowlen in executive session. You will be at the city if we need you, right?
>> I have given my cell number.
>> thank you. I appreciate it.
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, April 23, 2008 8:51 PM