Travis County Commissioners Court
May 6, 2008
Item 1
Item number 1 is to receive comments regarding the following, a, request to authorize the filing ofable instrument to vacate a 25-foot wide drainage easement centered along the common lot line of lots 1 and 2 of the resubdivision of lots 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267 of travis settlement, section four. And 1-b is a plat for recording in precinct three the villas of black smith cove, the revised plat of lots 1 and 2 of the resubdivision of lots 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266 and 267. 267, travis settlement section 4, five total lots.
>> move the public hearing be opened.
>> all in favor? That carries unanimously.
>> hi. Anna bolin, Travis County --
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> questions about what, ma'am?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> in just a minute whoever has come down on number 1 will be able to come forth and give comments and you will be our first one.
>> hi, anna bolin, Travis County tnr. Originally -- okay. This subdivision is in travis settlement section 4, and originally there were eight lots, and then that was subsequently amended into two lots and now that amended plat is being revised into five lots. Each lot is over two acres. That's really the part b, but the part a that goes along with that was when the eight lots were amended into two lots, there were -- there was a drainage easement that was put in between the two lots. That drainage easement is going to be vacated in two new drainage easements will be put in its place. So this plat and this vacation meets our standards, so we're recommending this motion.
>> okay. If we could get you and joe to move to one end. This is posted as a public hearing, so residents who would like to address the court on this matter should come forward at this time. And we'll have four seats available, so if four have come down, if those four would come forth. Joe, you don't like that seat on the end? Anybody else on this item? Item number 1, a and b? Anybody else here on this item besides those two? And if you would give us your full name, we would be be happy to get your comments.
>> good morning. My name is debbie norman and I live -- several neighbors have come down this morning to ask questions about this item. And I live on lot 268 on black smith cove. And my first question was we came down because the sign at the end of the street only indicated that the items to be brought before the court this morning were about the vacation of the 25-foot drainage easement. And then we received a certified letter that only talked about the resubdivision of the two lots and the five lots. So that was the first question. There was a conflict between the sign at the end of the street and then what we received on our certified letter. It wasn't both items.
>> ms. Bolin, is there a brief answer to that one?
>> I would need to look into that, but one of the things that we can only get so much information on the sign. When we send the letters we try to send a letter explaining everything that's going to happen along with a map, so that -- and contact information. But looking at the picture of the sign, it does say vacation of the 25-foot drainage easement and a plat for recording villas of black smith cove revised plat of lots 1 and two, resubdivision of lots 260 through 267 travis settlement section 4.
>> can you show her that?
>> sure.
>> it's all kind of included in a short statement. It looks like the vacation is the first part, and a plat for recording I guess was supposed to pick up b.
>> okay. That wasn't clear to us about the second part of resubdividing it. My second question is the resubdividing of the two lots into five says that this includes lot 267. And lot 267 is a 1.5 acres next to our lot, 268. And it's my understanding that that's not part of this property. And I just wondered if they could comment on that.
>> to my knowledge it is part of the property. Ross free, the developer for the project, is sitting at the end of the table. I would ask him to --
>> so the question is whether this applicant owns 267?
>> yes, sir. We called yesterday -- honey, do you remember the name of that gentleman we talked to?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> we called the number that was on our letter here, the 854 number, and he also indicated that 267 was not part of this property.
>> give us your name please and can you address that question for us?
>> yes. For the record my name is ross free and I知 here today representing the property owners, wally and stacy babin and I own a company, free planning and development concepts. And actually, she is correct that -- I don't know why it was posted that way, but lot 267 is not part of the property owned by the babins.
>> so whatever we do should not include lot 267.
>> I would take it out of the motion.
>> I would say that the name of the plat was the resale of several lots, including lot 267. That does not mean that all of the lots that were in the previous resub are being revised today.
>> good point. Instead of taking action today, why don't we take a week to clarify that in writing for those interested.
>> there's a different owner of lot 267. It's one and a half acres next to our lot.
>> it looks like we shouldn't do anything with 267, but if it's impacted by the redivision, I guess we iewt to figure out exactly what the impact is and let the interested folks know.
>> certainly. But like I said, my understanding -- it was just clarified for me. The lot number 267 is included in this because that was part of the name of the original subdivision -- well, the amended that's now being revised. So obviously they can't revise lots that they don't own.
>> well, in a are we asked to file an instrument to vacate? The easement on all of those lots, including 267?
>> well, 260 through 267 is part of the subdivision name from the previous iteration of this. This is the third time that these lots -- they were originally just I guess in travis settlement section 4, they were eight lots and then amended to two. And something called the resubdivision of lots 260 through 267 travis settlement section 4, and now they're being -- the two lots -- the amended lot is being revised into five lots. So even if we wait add week, next week the lot 267 would be there, but in the name of the plat that's being revised.
>> do you think the owner of 267 objects to this being done?
>> they don't know about this, sir, as far as I know. Because I know the first people that -- that property has always been owned by different people. It was a doctor first and then he sold it to the current owners. And I知 quite sure that those people don't know that it's on here, plus it's just a totally different property, not included. It should not be included in this parcel.
>> we ought to at least call them. Let's call and verify that. If they don't, then you're right.
>> certainly.
>> do you know what if anything we're doing to 267? If not, then why it's list odd here. I hear your explanation, but I guess for the owner we ought to clarify that.
>> I guess if I can have a few minutes, I壇 like to take some time to explain this whole thing and it might answer a lot of the questions.
>> we only have one specific question. You have other questions, right?
>> no, sir, I don't.
>> do you have more to say about that specific question?
>> yeah, a lot.
>> let's hear it.
>> all right. Again, thank you, judge. Anyway, like I said again for the record, my name is ross free and I own free planning and development concepts. I知 here this morning representing wally and stacy babin, who brought this property about a year ago. And in this packet of information I handed out, if you just turn to the second page, it shows where this is located within travis settlement section 4. I guess the -- if you look at the next page, it shows the original plat of travis settlement section 4 back in 1984, which included all the lot from 260 through 267. And that was like originally platted back in 1994 -- 1984. And then if you turn a couple more pages, in 1992.
>> the five lots, 261 through 266, were replated or resubdivided into two lots. And my prone whoars wanted to buy this property because they wanted to build their personal residence on it, it's a 13-acre tract altogether. The two lots, they didn't want to purchase that much property, but the owners of the property, that's the only way they would sell it, so what they did is they purchased the property, they plan on building two personal residences on the property. And then we decided to resubdivide it back to the original five lots. And what they'll do is build personal residences on two of the lots and then try to sell the other three. And that's what we're proposing here in 2007 will reason we're requesting the vacation of the drainage ease am, when it was replated back in 1992 they just put a drainage easement in the center of those two lots. If you look at and including in that packet of information I handed out, there's a contour map, as well as we hired an engineering firm to review this from an engineering standpoint and when it was platted into two lots they put in the drainage easement --
>> mr. Free. This has come to us as part after standard redivision. Which staff is recommending. Two interesting questions have been raised. One I guess has been dealt with to some extent, that was about the posting. The second question goes to lot 267. It looks like there's another owner, and there are technical steps that we probably need to make with that owner to make sure we understand exactly what we're doing. So not to cut you off, but staff is recommending it. I don't here violent objections, but I do hear concerns raised about 267. And your additional new and different comments about 267 are what?
>> my comments on 267 is not included as part of this resubdivision. I think the reason it was -- I don't know the reason. It was legally post that had way because that was part of the original travis settlement section 4, but if you look at the redivision that's submitted, it clearly does not include that lot, and that's not what we're requesting approval of today.
>> so there's no issue. All she's trying to do is make sure we get a signoff on 267 on what's being done and there's really no issue, I think, ross, with what you're want to go do with your lots. Right?
>> you're right, sir.
>> then I think all we need to do is get in contact with 267, get the information to ms. Norman an all the other people that are concerned.
>> no, we don't.
>> lot 267 was publicly notified. And also for the record, we met with the neighborhood association back in December on this property. They sent it to the architectural review committee. There's a letter in this packet that shows the neighborhood association. There were 51 property owners notified. The architectural review committee reviewed this resubdivision and there's a letter in this packet from the neighborhood association recommending approval and that we follow -- meet all deed restrictions.
>> I think we ought not to take action today, but take action one week, touch base with the owner of 267, make sure there's a good understanding of what we're doing and why and why 267 is listed. Typically we wouldn't see that, so the issue wouldn't surface. But now that it has we may as well deal with it appropriately. You.
>> I was just wondering when it was going to come back. It seemed to be pretty straightforward with the exception of lot 267. I was basically trying to find out how long it would take staff to verify and bring back the issue with 267. But you said it will come back next week.
>> that would be my recommendation. We can do this in a week, right?
>> absolutely. If I have the contact info for lot 267, I can probably call them today.
>> ms. Norman needs to know and anybody that came down with her.
>> thank you.
>> I guess I知 just -- we can come back in a week. I guess I知 confused why. The owner of 267, if they had an issue with this, I would assume they would be here.
>> I don't know if they live here.
>> I would understand if she owned lot 267, however she doesn't.
>> well, we own the property next door to it, so we're concerned about what's going on in our neighborhood. I think the owner would want to know. I知 not sure where they live.
>> you pochted signs on the property to give notice. To be honest, a lot of folk don't see them. That issue comes up routinely. So typically we post for the public hearing and action, but it's routine for us to take an additional week if there are matters that should be clarified.
>> judge, let me ask. If anna can get in contact with the owner and get signoff on that and get with ms. Norman and let she an all the neighbors know that there's no issue with the owner, can anna let us know and we bring this back?
>> I would take another week on it.
>> okay. Ross, another week, is that doing anything for you? Let's just procedurally get this thing done and so that everybody is aware of what needs to be done.
>> anybody else here on this item? Item number 1?
>> move the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We'll have it back on next week.
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, May 7, 2008 8:51 PM