Travis County Commissioners Court
June 24, 2008
Item 20
20. Consider and take appropriate action on the following regarding the reserve at Lake Travis preliminary plan, a subdivision in precinct three: a, request for variance from chapter 82, section 82.202(e)(2), dual access (requires a new subdivision must have at least two access streets connecting to a different external street); b, request for variance from chapter 82, section 82.209(c)(3)(d), buffer zones for waterways (requires a 75 foot buffer from the 681 foot mean sea level contour line); c, request for variance from chapter 82, section 82.209(c)(d), buffer zones for environmentally valuable features (establishes a 50-foot buffer zone behind canyon rim rock and bluff crest lines); d, request for variance from chapter 82, section 82.209(d)(1), cut and fill (requires all cut and fill land balancing to be limited to a maximum of 8 feet); and 20 e is to request for approval of preliminary plan for reserve at Lake Travis subdivision, in precinct three (129 total lots)
>> hi, good morning, anna bolin and john white Travis County t.n.r. This preliminary plan is in precinct 3. As you just said, it's 129 total lots. 117 of those are residential. There's six open space detention facility lots, two landscaped or entry lots, a multi-family lot, a marina lot and a equestrian center lot and a private street. This is a private street subdivision. As you may be able to see on the map, this is on Lake Travis. Some of these lots have Lake Travis floodplain on them. We will speak to that in one of the variances regarding cut and fill balancing. All of the -- all of the structures that are in the floodplain would be elevated over one foot above the current floodplain. Whatever the current floodplain is at the time that they seek their permits. The first variance for this project -- oh, let me say one other thing. They are proposing to use joint use driveways, the areas in blue are joint use driveways. To service several lots in a subdivision and -- and the -- like I said, the remainder of the subdivision will be private streets. The first variance is for dual access. Chapter 82 requires two points of access on to two different roads. Based on the location and the topography that is simply not possible in this subdivision. So in this case, what -- and in every case that's similar to this, we have the applicant work with the fire marshal's office and to -- to mitigate the possible health and safety hazards. The fire marshal's office and the applicant work together. The applicant also worked with the Texas forest service and they are going to -- this is going to be a fire-wise community. And part of being a fire-wise community it looks to the safe building practices that are -- that are building materials that are used in the development and defensible space around the structure. So the goal is that the Travis County -- you know, to mitigate the hazard. So based on the applicant's working with the fire marshal's office and -- and the Texas forest service, and their proposing for this to be a fire-wise community we are recommending that variance. I'm going to have john white speak to the environmental variances which are several.
>> there are a number of environmental variances that have been requested. I will start with the -- with the proposed lots for the commercial lots you see in orange. The orange dots up there. The applicant requested a variance to accommodate commercial uses that are essentially water dependent or enhanced by their water side location. They are requesting an elimination of the 100-foot buffer that you would have for a commercial lot on these. Our conclusion was this variance can be acceptable provided this site is developed using best management practices that will ensure an inadvocate level of water quality protection. There are a number of -- one limits of disturbance and areas of no encroachment that would have to be established for both construction and post construction these limits have to be noted very clearly on the final plat the construction plans and then there will have to be some sort of deed restriction later on. Outside these limits of disturbance, so in -- in essence it would still be something of a buffer zone. Outside these limits you would still have to have natural vegetation maintained and protected, construction to be prohibited in those areas and then wastewater disposals for whatever -- by whatever means would be prohibited. That comes right out of the water quality interim rules. Now before they would do any construction on these lots we would want to see, would require a site specific and detailed erosion sedimentation erosion control plan. This would provide a number of protection, best management practices and the like. It would especially include self assessment of field conditions, corrections to better match their bmp's to actual field conditions so that it can't be just a simple document that they do up front. It has to be dynamic and changing and recognize what happens in the field as it's happening. There has to be a means of assessing and correcting deficiencies, must provide for an independent monitoring of performance. Then finally we would have to be a site specific and detailed plan for managing and treating storm water runoff from the fully developed commercial site. Given that the staff concluded that this variance would be acceptable.
>> so we have -- we have the applicant's agreement to implement the best practices that you just described?
>> correct. However the specific details of this can't be finalized until later in the review process when we are looking at construction plans.
>> we do have -- we do have notes on the preliminary plan to address all of -- all of the variance discussions. What we would want in order to -- in order to recommend the variance. Those notes have already been put on the preliminary plan and would be followed through with appropriate to the final plans and deed restrictions and site plans. Is that the notes that memorialize the concepts that mr. White is discussing.
>> the second lot where they were requested a reducks in the 100-foot setback for the commercial lot is one of the other commercial lots out there, lot 56 they are proposing to put a series of commercial cottages out there. On to 25 feet. Our recommendation is that the Travis County should be no less than 50 feet, this is acceptable to the applicant at this point. Again, similar kinds of conditions must be met before they can proceed with construction on this lot. They will have to have a detailed site erosion and sedimentation erosion control plan to do the same kinds of things we are looking for on the other lots.
>> Lake Travis for single family residential lots. You see all of the lots that have the pink, I think. The ones that are along the northern edge that are on the bluff as well as the -- the ones that have the -- the pink dots that are down in the floodplain. They are requesting reduction of the -- of the -- of the buffer down to 25 feet. Again staff concluded that we would support a reduction of that buffer to no less than 50 feet and ensure that -- that there would be no use of that -- that -- for septic fields in that -- in that sort of a thing.
>> okay, so all of these things that you describing now, I guess they said they will be -- they will be -- they will be brought back as far as something that is embedded into whatever final action we end up going to, with this particular plan.
>> that is correct, that,.
>> those setbacks are pretty critical.
>> absolutely.
>> that's the reason that we had those rules and stuff like that.
>> yeah. Throughout this, the applicant said that they would be able to provide mitigation and controls that would be -- that would provide the functional equivalent of -- of the buffer. That there be protection on these lots for the future so that it doesn't just open the door for ultimately turning these -- these buffer zones into -- into -- into high -- impact zones along the lake.
>> how do you control -- how do you control that -- that zone, that area that is -- that is if -- if this goes forward is prohibited from the type of activity, type of activity that we -- that you just described? How is that actually monitored and controlled to make sure that it doesn't happen with that 50-foot setback as far as the buffer area is concerned that you can't do certain things within that buffer? How do we control that?
>> we can control it fairly easily. I think during the construction phase. And immediate post construction phase. It might be a bit more problematic for the future. Long term use the site. The -- the best we can do I think is to put it into deed restrictions.
>> both deed restrictions and on the final plat. The purpose for having it in both locations are -- are when we are going through the permitting process for the site plans, we will see the note on the final plat and that will tell us to look for certain things on the individual building permits. We also want it in the deed restrictions so when someone is closing on the -- on their property to build a house or closing on the house, they will see that. And in case it's -- it's added protection to be sure that in the event that someone doesn't look at a copy of their plat when they buy their house, will they get -- they get the deed restrictions at closing. So it's a little bit redundant, but we wanted to be sure that -- that -- that we -- that we minimize or we made it to where people would see the restriction at the appropriate time.
>> okay, thank you.
>> in addition for some of these lots with this -- with this particular variance request, there was some consideration of these lots that are sort of peninsulas out there on the lake. What we asked them to do is provide us a conceptual site plan that shows they can actually accomplish what they are trying to do with a minimal encroachment on the buffer zone, but also to protect trees, valuable oak trees aren't like that are out there. They were able to show us at least a conceptual plan that would show some -- you know, some level of protection for those. That will come back up again when we talk about the 8-foot fill limit.
>> so a number of these lots are in the 100 yield floodplain. To english their goal of constructing residences down in the floodplain they have to be able to lift them up so it was at one foot above the 100 year, the floor level has to be -- one foot above the 100 year floodplain. They had an option of putting these things on stilts or propose to use fill to terrace up the base pads for these construction sites. And to accomplish that they requested a variance from the 8-foot cut and fill land balancing -- restriction. Staff concluded -- provided this is limited and provided they meet all of the other -- all of the other requirements that we have already spelled out for these waterfront lots, that if they can show that they can provide that -- that pad and would limit -- with limits of disturbance around with -- with good erosion and sedimentation controls, that we would not object to that. The idea being that it's not -- they are not coming into proposal that they are going to massively fill this area, but there would be limited areas of fill, limited areas of disturbance, it would be aspectally perhaps more pleasing than to look at a bunch of houses on stilts. In light of that we felt provided they can show they have good erosion sedimentation controls, a good plan with the provisions that we have already asked for, that the Travis County should be acceptable.
>> we are convinced the pad approach will work.
>> they have told us it will work.
>> the pad approach has worked elsewhere.
>> we have seen other -- we have seen a few other houses that have been built along the lake using that approach.
>> everything seems to be all right.
>> they are recent.
>> so it's to the best of my knowledge there -- they are okay. Time will tell.
>> stays she
>> [indiscernible], t.n.r. A number of homes on Lake Travis have used the fill approach to put the foundations, elevate their foundations to the proper level. For access wise it is a better approach. For access wise it's better than having it 20 to 30 feet in the air on stilts, easier to access. Either method is acceptable for the floodplain.
>> with the pad approach more so than the stilts. I mean, is there a choice of -- I really don't know. I -- I'm just trying to -- to figure my way as far as -- as far as looking at the options that -- that maybe available in -- I guess my point is what -- what are we recommending per se, the pad approach, fill? Are we owe the stilts, you said either way would be acceptable. I'm just trying to -- to decipher between the two.
>> either way is an acceptable construction. Activity pads or on stilts. Bringing the fill into the floodplain, doing a cut fill method does require them to compensate. For the floodplain storage that they will be removing by putting the fill in there. And they have also agreed to do that. That is also another note on the preliminary plat that we will take forward final platting and through the permitting stage.
>> the fill and pad approach. Has been used elsewhere. With success?
>> yes, it has.
>> over time.
>> yes.
>> okay. It's the first time that I've heard it. We have kind of taken a -- taken a stilts or else approach historically, but I guess nobody has come forth and said instead of stilts I would like to achieve the same thing. Fill and pads. If someone to ask today, if we approve this, if they believe they can achieve the same end, we would provide those, too.
>> provided they compensated for the floodplain storage that the fill is --
>> and provided they apply the same level of intent, best management practices that will provide for water quality protection during construction and post construction.
>> okay.
>> the next had to do with the 50-foot buffer from the bluff line and canyon rim rock line from single family residences which you see along the northern bluff line on the project site. They requested a variance of set back to 25 feet to allow placement of uninhibited structures, including septic, drain field, patios ... Staff recommended approval of the variance but with conditions. And that would be that the -- that the buffer be reduced to 25 feet, that there be no -- that there be no structures within that 25-foot barrier. Within that 25-foot buffer. Including no drain fields for -- for septic.
>> so the idea is that we were trying to protect -- maintain the buffer as best we could, that we would -- we would expect them to provide the same level of enhanced protection through best management practices, essentially the recommendation mirrors the -- the water quality rule provisions that provide for a 25-foot buffer zone along the pedernales. There the -- the -- the situation is a little bit different in terms of topography. And -- and in terms of -- of the requirement that there be -- well, the requirement is that the lots have to meet a certain minimum width of approximately 200 feet and that they have best management practices and essentially what we are asking them is to do the same thing, although they don't meet the 200-foot wide lots. However, if they apply, best management practices, retain that buffer, keep all disturbances out of the buffer. We believe that they can accomplish the same level of protection. One of the difficulties that we encountered in this is that our definition in the rules, this is something that we will probably come back to visit at some point, our definition of a bluff is -- is extremely restricted. It's -- it provides for a 40-foot height as well as 400% slope. Elsewhere in the country bluffs can be defined as having as little as 12% slope overlooking a floodplain. It can be a rise of -- of as little as 20 feet. So we have an extremely restricted definition of bluff. I think that anybody standing out there would say common sense is that the bluff that -- that the entire northern boundary is a bluff. However, under a strict definition the actual bluff line is somewhat down on the face. So there is some concern that -- that construction activities on that steep slope are going to be problematic. Again, what we have asked for are detailed erosion sedimentation controls on each lot. Cleared -- cleared definition of what that -- what that 25-foot buffer is or in some lots it actually may still be the 75-foot buffer from the lake. Just so that we don't have encroachment on those areas. Finally, what we have requested, because all of -- a lot of these lots have -- have 10% or greater slope, we have asked that prior to construction that -- that we receive a -- a detailed erosion and sedimentation control for each of these lots that identifies limits of disturbance and -- and enhanced best management practices so that we can be assured that during construction there won't be any issues. I believe that covers experiences.
>> any objections called to our attention?
>> from our community, no objections, we've had issues with development of the project, you know, throughout. There was early on there was a notice of violation from tceq related to clearing. There was -- there was a stop work order from lcra also related to clearing, so we've had some -- some issues with that. Part of this area is subject to the balcones canyonland preserves 10 a permit, so there were some concerns that clearing be -- be accomplished before beginning of the bird breeding season, it appears that was in fact the case. They met that requirement. So there have been issues but the -- the community representatives we have talked to have had no particular objection to the project. The reason for that is that the -- the potential for impacts on site are fairly limited. Much of the site is actually fairly, fairly flat, the interior. The issues would be along the bluff line where -- where the potential -- where the potential, the scale of adverse impact on the lake is fairly modest because of just simply the large size of the lake. You know, it can basically tolerate even worst case conditions would -- would not have a significant adverse impact on the lake. Similarly, as long as we have good controls in place on some of these other lots down in the floodplain, there should be no -- no critical issues during construction.
>> the issues with the tceq and lcra have been worked out?
>> at this point, yes, that is correct.
>> what kind of density are we talking about?
>> most of these -- I think all of these lots are greater than one acre.
>> what's the total acreage of the -- of the -- that may give us a little bit better finding. We have 129 lots, how many acres are there?
>> good morning.
>> on behalf of the developer, this is a 300-acre site.
>> how many.
>> 300.
>> 300 acres. Impervious cover is somewhere around 12.2%, so a very low dense project and I also, if you have any questions, I know with respect to the terracing of the lots, we have some photographs, we have some other examples where with these variance requests that we have made, we will illustrate why they were particular to certain portions of the property to accommodate for better aesthetics but also in our opinion better environmental controls as well. I do want to praise staff, john, anna, stacy, we have worked with them for the last six months. They have been great. We really worked diligently, I think that they have done a fantastic job of recognizing all of the issues, we have reached agreement on everything with them.
>> you have -- I notice that there are some reservations for commercial activity there. Could you maybe tell me what that commercial activity would be?
>> yes, sir, I can.
>> thank you.
>> I'm going to have julie with our office handout some photographs that also include some artist's renditions so that you can see the commercial activities.
>> thank you.
>> let's give Commissioner eckhardt one here, we have it.
>> okay.
>> if you will -- about four pages into this, there is a -- there is just beyond the site plan, there's some renditions of what we are proposing for the commercial activities out there, which includes a restaurant that's open to the public, which is -- which is on -- on one of the lot 54 I believe, which is out on the point. There will be a marina there as well as well as a grass amphitheater back behind it and a swim center. All of this, the intention is for the -- for not only the persons renting slips in the marina, but likewise for members of the public to be able to doctor votes there and come up to the restaurant and enjoy the facilities there. The next page is an he could questryian center throughouts the neighborhood. A number of trails, an actual equestrian facility on about 26 acres, which will include large areas of pastors and everything else, the horses that will be on the interior of the project.
>> uh-huh.
>> the next is a rendition of the swim center that -- that is next to the restaurant there. So those are the commercial sites. Also one peninsula where there will be cottages, these cottages are approximately 2,000 square feet in size. The intent most of them are all for the most part stand alone cottages. The intention there was to provide a product where someone who may not want a one or two acre sized lot could still have a product there on the lake. So there is one lot that is set aside for buildings -- building some of those cottages there. As -- I don't want to repeat anything. I would rather -- I would rather elicit questions from you if you have any, but we have worked with the fire marshal and have met them on site. We have worked with the Texas forest service and have reached agreement on all points with them as well as to becoming a fire-wise community. There is also pictures, if you go back after -- after the second point which is dealing with the setback variances, you can see that there's some photographs of the land taken two overhead that shows the area from the bluff down to the water, from the top of the overhang down to the water, in some instances it's as much as over 200 feet of -- of vegetation that currently exists that we are going to remain and leave in place. On those bluffs. So -- so in addition to adopting what staff's recommendations are on the -- on the intense environmental controls. If you would like to see the house, the reason for the fill variance that we were asking for is due to, if you will go back to under number 3, there's a picture of a house on stilts out across the lake on this project that we wanted to try to avoid. If you go to the next picture there is a picture of a house that has been terraced up, but direct on photograph as well as a photograph from overhead. That shows how they terrace the lot up and the house is not quite as imposing aesthetically, looks much better than the one that is on the prior page up on stilts, basically on cinder block stilts. That's the goal that we were trying to accomplish. A more extensive method of building because of the most of bringing in the fill and building the retaining walls, but we felt like it was a better product for the county, better for the -- for the parents from the lake and that's why we chose to do that. It also saves a lot of trees. If you will look at the next photograph there's a ton of beautiful old mature oak trees, one of the reasons as we talked with john about trying to seek some of these variances in a number of instances that was so that we could have flexibility with some of the terracing or with the placement of the houses to save these trees because in many cases they are huge huge, 100, 200-year-old oak trees that we are trying to save.
>> as far as your lot size, what is the minimum? We have 125 lots, of course 117 of these lots will be used for residential purposes. My question is what the minimum lot size as far as that you have.
>> on average, they average out to about two acres.
>> two acres is the max.
>> there's actually a couple of them over five acres.
>> oh, really. Okay. The average is two.
>> average is two acres.
>> okay. Yes, sir, yes, sir.
>> I didn't catch that average.
>> yes, sir. Minimum one can go up as high as five.
>> is that correct.
>> that's correct.
>> I wanted to add that we encouraged the applicant to seek out some of the environmental groups in western Travis County that we approved from -- on other projects and I believe the applicant has done that. And I haven't heard -- initially, early, early in the process I had some questions from them. I haven't heard anything in months. Even after I had the applicant seek them out, talk to them, educate them about what they were proposing to do.
>> I did. I met with christie
>> [indiscernible] with the hill country alliances in her offices several weeks ago. Went through all of our variance requests with her, discussed the entirety of the project, explained the reasons for the variance requests. She said she had no objection and was not going to protest this project. And so -- so I'm appreciative and very proud that we were able to sit down with her and visit with her about that.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> in 18 gel bay, for example, there are 16 lots in 18 gel bay. Of those homes 18 of us live there permanently. The rest are commuters from houston, dallas, other places. I believe a number of the buyers in this neighborhood will be buying lakefront property for a second home. And that's -- my best guess is probably 50% of it will be second home ownership and the other 50%, maybe less, will be permanent residents there. I can tell you that the developers, my partner, hal jones, is building his own personal residence there and intends to live there. That's why we've taken such a unique and driven attempt to make this one of the best lakefront communities we can.
>> judge, let me say a couple of things. If kind of goes without saying whenever you have one of these projects before us and you don't have a large contingent of people down here that really has issue always tells us a number of things. I know for a fact that clint and his organization has taken a lot of time to bring people out. Some people kind of try to dodge people, some people -- as a matter of fact, one of the first conversations we had, I said go call christie. Get the people that you know that are going to be at the table that are going to have issues and just meet it head on because that's one of the things that we are all going to deal with, we should deal with it because people live out there. They're your neighbors and they have done a great job with that. This is a project that I would like to hopefully hold up, at some point in time hold it up for a long time and say you can have -- create, you know, a workable relationship with people where variance -- where the word variance is not a word that makes people want to push back. Because generally that is one of those things that happens. And if you've got buy-in because you have done the work with the folks, I'm very appreciative of that because it certainly makes my life a lot easier. As well as the court's. So I applaud that. But I will ask, because I'm happy and I think there may be some other questions, but when it comes time to make the motion, I'm happy to do that. But I do want you to understand, clint, that there are still -- there is still a lot of work to be done with this project. And the people I have to go to is I have to come to you and your staff and say, you know, we said that we were going to do this, we're going to do it for the right reason, and that is really the thing that -- that's really where the rubber will meet the read. Obviously there are some issues with staff that make everybody cringe about, I sure hope that this works. What you really want to think and what you hope for whenever you see projects like this is that you're dealing with people that are really going to follow through and do the things that they know they have to do. Because the last thing that we need is to have a train wreck for this. We don't need somebody that's going to come out an when they sell a lot -- a lot of times this is what happens and we can name it all over Travis County. We okay these things, we know that we have limited staff, and that we have really got to depend on people that are going to do the right thing. We always hear about it after the fact, then we have an absolute fight on our hands. So I'm going to ask of you, clint, to really stay at the table with these things, and whenever you have things that -- and you know the things that are making staff a little -- I sure hope that this deal work. I'm sure they will work and I think that you are people of your word. I know that we're fortunate because you do have the resources. And a lot of times resources is one of those things that you want to go to and see who is doing a project because quite frankly people are doing these things sometimes on a real shoestring. I'm at least -- I'm very comfortable with the fact that you all have the ability to do this. But I do want you to make sure that you stay at the table with with this thing and that if somebody is doing something on a lot that quite frankly, I didn't really read that plat note, you go, no, that plat note -- that's not a typo. You've really got to apply and comply with that.
>> and we intend to. That's the reason why we have agreed that before a builder, per se, for one of our buyers can start construction under the deed restrictions, it will clearly require that builder not only to go to tceq for purposes of his swp 3 permit, he will likewise have to come back to Travis County and show his erosion and sedimentation control plan to Travis County, to upon, and get that approved on the site plan before he can commence construction. And likewise we'll have to retain, much as we had to with horizon environmental, we will have to retain a third patty to continuously throughout that construction to monitor those erosion controls and make sure they're up to par. So we've put in -- we want to be a model community and we want to follow through. We want to be finishers that will finish it the right way. And the main thing is that we want to make sure that what county staff has recommended, that's why we have agreed with them to adopt these not only in the plat, but agreed to put them in the deed restrictions. Basically as redundant as it may be, it's important that our resident know there are strict restrictions, you abide by though, you can have a great house on the lake, but are you to abide by though. And we intend to enforce that.
>> it's a serious challenge to us as members of the court to do as this particular developer has done, working with staff, now only that, but working with the community before it gets here for construction. A lot of things can be worked out among those three conversations as far as being in the conversation to bring an example of this magnitude, but other illustrations we have where we're not as successful as I think we can be as far as getting the three entities to work together before it comes to the court. It's not always the case. And regardless of how things work out later, it just appears to me that on the surface, this appears to be something we can go forward with. I have no problem with it because of the exchange of the issues that have been brought before the staff of Travis County, along with you, developer, along with the community. I think those three have to work hand in foot. We really need to strive for that. I think more often than not it just doesn't go that way all the time. So I'm really glad to see this type of situation come this far without the type of -- I think Commissioner Daugherty mentioned it, without a lot of folks here that have not had -- didn't have an opportunity to participate in the process. That's what part of the problem is. And so I'm just happy to hear that.
>> thank you.
>> any additional comments from staff?
>> judge, I move approval --
>> anybody else here on this item?
>> I move approval of a through e and I want to thank staff because I know that y'all have worked hard. And the applicant to get to the table and take care of the concerns. Thank you very much for doing that.
>> thank y'all.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all very much.
>> thank y'all for your hard work. Thank you, staff.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:51 PM