Travis County Commissioners Court
July 15, 2008
Item 18
18 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following regarding vizcaya preliminary plan, a subdivision in precinct three: a. Request for a b. Variance from c. Chapter 82, travis d. County standards e. For construction of f. Streets and g. Drainage in h. Subdivisions, section i. 82. J. 209f5, post k. Construction water l. Quality controls m. For western n. Watersheds requires a new subdivision to have minimum lot size of one acre to qualify for alternative water quality compliance demonstration; request for a variance from chapter 82, Travis County standards for is8-c, traf traf standards for construction of drainage and subdivision, 202. L2b. Suburban subdivisions and this required a new subdivision to have a minimum 1200-foot block length. D question for a variance request from chapter 82, Travis County standards for construction of streets and drainage of subdivisions. Section 82.202m, block widths requires a new subdivision to restrict double frontage on lots. E, request for a variance request from chapter 82, Travis County standards for construction on streets and drainage -- for for providing sidewalks. F, request for variance request from chapter 82, Travis County standards for construction of streets and drainage in subdivisions, section 82.202-b connections to existing subdivisions. G, request for a variance of request from chapter 82, construction of streets and drainage subdivisions, section 82.209-d-1-a, cut and fill. H, request for a variance request from chapter 82, Travis County standards for construction of streets and drainage in subdivisions, section 82.209-c-3-e-ii buffer zones and this sub desex requires that golf courses may only be allowed in water way buffer zones if no fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides are used. And I is a preliminary plan in vizcaya replacing 349 lots. And j is a phasing agreement with Lake Travis ranch llc. Good morning.
>> good morning. Travis County tnr. What we have today is an application for a preliminary plan with several variances. Some of the variances are environmental related, some are related to the engineering and the city. And john white and teresa are going to speak to the variances but letny give you an overview of the preliminary plan. Vizcaya is on 1,049.93 acres, bee creek road, Lake Travis frontage. This consists of 349 lots, 275 of which are single family residential. There is nine multifamily lots. Which will contain 222 condominium units. There is a sales office lot, nine open space and golf lots, 25 just regular open space lots, two utility lots and 25 private streets, one amenity lot and one marina-support lot. This is proposed to be a private street subdivision and it will have 58,183 linear feet of private streets associated with it. In addition to the variance items, there is a phasing agreement on this agenda as well, which the phasing agreement sets out the provisions for the clearing activities on adjacent property to include sight distance, and then some cut and fill activities, I'm sorry, embankment cuttives as well some of with that, I will letter -- letter reese is a speak to the nonenvironmental variances.
>> thanks. The first nonenvironmental varian is item b, cul-de-sacs and eyebrows, and chapter 82 requires that cul-de-sacs be no longer than 2,000 feet and primarily that is for access tore emergency vehicles. In this particular subdivision the streets have been designed to basically follow the topology fee of the land and stay up on the ridge lines so there are actually seven locations where cul-de-sacs are longer than 2,000 feet. 9 subdivision design has been provided for review and they've commented that the subdivision design is adequate and meets requirements for connect activity and for -- connectivity and for emergency vehicles. To make connections they would cross drainage ways and water way buffer zones and they wanted to stay out of those so on the basis the emergency services district has provided their con qurans be for the design, -- concurrence of the design, the staff supports this variance question. Item c on block length, that is similar to the cul-de-sac length. It requires that block lengths to not exceed 1200 feet in length. In this particular preliminary plan there is four blocks that exceed this length and because of the review by the emergency services district and their concurrence with the design we support this various request. Similar to the cul-de-sac throng make the block lengths shorter they would have to cross the branch ways and water way buffer zone which is they tried to stay out. Item d on block widths requires that a new subdivision restricts double be frontage on lots. This is supposed to be a private subdivision, bee creek road and thurmond bend road so what they proposed to do is have four access locations that have gates, one of those access locations will be for emergency use only. But the lots that actually have double frontage on the interior street and exterior street will be restricted to take access only to the interior roadway and similarly for lots that are interior to the subdivision, have access on two streets, access will be restricted to the street that's at the higher topology fee. Basically just do to the top graphical constraints to the project there be numerous places where lots were fronted on two streets and it will be resignatured to access on one street only and we approve this variance request. And sidewalks, it is requires they all have sidewalks. In lieu of sidewalk, they are proposing an extensive trail to provide connectivity through the subdivision and staff recommends approve of this request. Item number f, connections to existing subdivisions requires that when new subdivisions are laid out they connect to sub streets provided from previous subdivisions to provide connectivity. In this case there are two sub streets that actually sub to this proposed property. One is from siesta shores drive, the other from debco lane. Yet, at these two locations, the siesta shores is within a 100-year flood plain and it would connect to a singular access to that subdivision. The debco lane is proposed to be golf course. The amount cant does intend or wish to provide a driveway access at these two locations for access to raw water pumping stations where they would have access to five time as week with a pick-up style vehicle. Staff does recommend approval of this variance request. And that is actually all of the nonenvironmental variances requested in the preliminary mary plan.
>> okay. I will speak to the three environmental variances that we're talking about today. The first one we're dealing with less than one acre lots. The second having to do with maximum cut and fill and the one regarding development within a water way buffer. Let me point out first we've been in discussion with the developers for nearly a year, talking about preliminary aspects of this plan so the environmental concerns have been addressed throughout and I would like to commend our star, a water quality champion on these things, for taking an active role and working with them closely. A has a to do with a subdivision of one acre to comply with water quality compliance or, well, let me just say, the interim rules call for either one acre or greater lots with an alternative gutter and storm water calculations with the nonpoint source ordinance. Basically, what we're looking at is they're looking at some lots that are smaller than one acre. Staff has supported this variance because even though the lots are less than an acre, the cumulative mitigation effortses they're proposing for the entire development will meet and he can sees the variances and if they were to have larger lots. We've identified 15 components of mitigation measures they're proposing and I will go ear few of those. Number one, the proposal does meet the highlands lakes watershed ordinance, they have a low impervious cover for the development of 10.8% overall. They've minimized the street widths and design speeds so they don't have extensive cut and fills for roadways. They are maximizing sheet flow run off in the drainage plans. A lot of the mitigation has to do with providing for run off to go into areas where it can be absorbed. There are limitations on the square foot of lot disturbance, limitations on the square foot of landscaped and managed turf area, they are maximizing the use of native landscape, providing soil amendments where the existing topsoil is less than six inches. They are using rainfall and moisture sensors to trigger the irrigation system. A pest mitigation plan so elimination the pesticides in the overall development. They are encouraging the use of impermeable concrete and pavers with a homeowner education program with pollution control and prevention. These are a collection of mitigation efforts, all of which will provide greater protection than what might otherwise be provided by having a minimum one-acre lot size. The second item, item g has to do with the eight-foot maximum cut in fill. There are two elements to this today. One is the golf kohrs cut and fill. -- golf course cut and fill. 2.5 acres proposes to have up to as much as 12 feet of cut and fill. Our staff determines that this is acceptable because the fill areas have been minimized so.it is only that which is necessary for golf course design viability. Additional erosion and sedimentation control measures will be implements, instead of channels below these areas that are functional during and after conduction. The other cut and fill is for the marina and clubhouse. Rules allow marinas along the shoreline to facility recreational water use, used by the various members of the vizkaya community for lake access. The cut lab maximum of 54 feet for the marina and fill of 64 feet for the clubhouse. There are significant, permanent and temporary erosion control measures for both 6 these areas. This is a fairly significant under taking and we're confident they've developed a good plan for dealing with this.
>> did you see the, the lake yesterday.
>> yes. I saw it.
>> the point you just made addressed the issue raised in an e-mail.
>> I think his primary concern had to do, I think there were two concern, one had to do with cut and fill and may have been some concern with request to the marina but the larger concern had to do with water quality associated with the use of pesticides in the pufferrer area. We think that the plan they've developed addressed that and we think the control measures they've developed and will be required to implement during construction will be sufficient to provide the protection we need along the lake. Throughout all of this they've minimized the amount of disturbance as best they could while still having the project work but they have some significant challenges, and particularly where they're doing the cut and fill for the marina, there will be some significant challenges. They've proposed things like a silt curtain they would work behind when they're doing work within the lake itself. And there are various other kinds of measures that will be necessary as they work. We understand that mr. Lowenthal was the sender of e-mail I saw. We understand his concerns but we think that the approach the developers have taken will minimize the potential for adverse affects on the property.
>> as these measures are implemented, are inspections conducted basically to ensure compliance.
>> we will expect them to be self monitoring as well and we will be in thing as well. We fully expect that we will have probably more from the lcra on that as well.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> our final variance item has to do with the water way buffer. A golf course within the water way buffer is an allowable use provide you had don't have fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, proposes 2.75 acres in the buffer zone from the edge of Lake Travis where they will have limited use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Staff is recommending this for the following reasons it, it is state 6 the art for drainage design, use of drases using less fertilizer and water. Water conservation measures and irrigation systems. The golf course management plan is comprehensive and will be overseen by a qualified professional to minimize water and chemical use and to minimize use of chemicals so there is a low impact potential. And they will also be using people innocent storm water sediment basin as I mentioned before in the channels before these areas functional during construction and after conduction. So taken together, we think the plan that they've proposed is adequate to provide even better protection than our ordinance would otherwise have required.
>> I have a question about that aspect. The proposal requires an on going maintenance of a underdrained system that has a complete containment, but then goes into a storm water structural and nonstructural treatment circumstance. Is that correct?
>> that is my understanding, yes.
>> so I'm assuming that that requires an on going maintenance by the eventual homeowners there, and I'm wondering about any information that we have or that the developer can provide regarding the obligation that is going to be in the deed, I'm assuming, to continue to maintain that system. Because it's found, these are california developers who are basically importing in a best practices on golf course, so I'm confident that the design will work. My only concern is that should it ever fail to be maintained as designed, we could have an issue with run off on the golf course. Is that a reasonable, is that a reasonable or unreasonable fear?
>> I think it is a reasonable fear. I think we're pretty confident that they've got an on going management structure that will be not just acceptable to that but it is a realistic fear.
>> then perhaps I should reserve that question for them.
>> yeah.
>> let's have them taken right now.
>> come on down.
>> your honor, economiesers, I represent the developer. This is mark and paul is back here in the background. I will let mark answer your question.
>> thank you for having us. It is a good question to ask Commissioner eckhardt and we appreciate the opportunity to answer it. There is two parts of it. Part one is the design is a rerobust system set up to handle things well in all circumstances, so in other words by installing proper drainage ways, but shaping the land properly, by making sure we know where all the the water is going we set up the first line of defense very strong, right 06 the bat on day one, with or without management. The other piece of it is management is a very important part of these programs and when we do a community like this, the entire community is based around the preservation of these precious resources. Our most precious resource out there is the lake and the land we're working on, the vegetation out there and the water on the property so it is probably the most important part of our program in setting up an overall management plan for the property that every homeowner who comes out there understands and they will buy property out there understands this thing is taken care of forever. There is a plan in place that ensure your backyard is not going to turn into a problem for you, that you will be happy with the way this entire golf course functions with the preservation of the lake, preservation of the environmental resources on the entire prompt. So yes, -- entire property. So yes, long-term maintenance is an important part of our plan, it is the obligation we will carry for a long while and then the obligation of the management long-term. When we talk about the fact we actually go to development permit to go build this golf course we will be expected to enter into an agreement that guarantees the long-term management and we wouldn't have it any other way. It is a big part of selling the community is to be able to tell folks this thing has been designed properly, we've worked with the local officials to make sure it is an environmentally responsible community and we're putting all the measures in place to make sure it remains this way so what you folks are buying into will be there forever.
>> so relatively speaking to other developments in the regioned in the central Texas market, I don't want to compare it to the california market but relative to the Texas market this appears to be robust, as you describe in terms 6 the drainage on the golf course, but also again in comparison, rather complicated. Is that a fair description?
>> I don't know if complicated is the word I would use because if you do things properly, you make it simple to maintain. You design everything in such a way that you don't have active management that has to go on to make sure the water goes in the right direction, for example, it is all designed to make sure it is less complicated to take care of in the long run.
>> and what is the price point on these properties?
>> well, I'm a little bit superstitious about prices before I've actually gone to market but it will be at the higher end of the western Travis County market.
>> so the assumption is that those who are purchasing these properties know that they're also purchasing an obligation not just to maintain their own but not to export any of the affluent from maintaining their own to other, for the rest of Travis County.
>> correct. And the hoa documents and the cc&rs of the community and all those associated things will include, we write pretty restrictive ccrs from anything from architecture all the way to what you can do landscaping wise on your property, how you have to use water and how you have to manage the resources.
>> do you have those documents drafted already or are those still in --
>> no, those already in process.
>> could you provide those to news the future, not because I want to make them a condition of the approval process but I think it might be instructive for us in the future in regard to other projects and environmentally-sensitive areas, as far as developing appropriate obligations to homeowners in environmentally sensitive --
>> absolutely, we would love tomorrow we worked through, as we were going through the development 6 our water contract with lca, we shared back and forth ideas for things like that that will be included in the hoa documents that we think are going to be a good model for what folks can look at as a way to preserve and protect what we love about the hill country, all you folks love about the hill country.
>> I think I asked you all this before, the lcra committee that has been developed regarding water protections in residential developments in western Travis County, I know it included a lot of folks who were landscape architects and to golf course designers because 6 this very issue. Is he involved in that?
>> yes, we've been monitoring that process and some ideas we're talking about has come between discussions with them and lcra.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> any other questions for the e applicant.
>> not a question but I would like to say how much I appreciate mark, paul and david for getting out and doing the real leg work on this thing. I mean, it has been over a year and when they came to the office and it was pretty obvious that, you know, what you really need to do, I mean if you really want to go and develop west, there are some procedural things that you just need to determine that you're going to do. And this group has been, you know, exemplary with regards to this, been very responsive to the folks in western Travis County and that takes a lot of time and a lot of instances money that they haven't, they have meat head on and I really appreciate it. I mean, as I've said before, it always makes it a lot easier for us when we don't have people down here hollering and screaming about why they don't want something so I just want you to know I appreciate your efforts for doing.
>> speaking of people down here, anybody else here to address us on this item sonoma if so, please come forward.
>> I would move approval of 18, a through j.
>> second.
>> any more discussion and a motion. All those in favor in. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, appreciate it.
>> thank you very much.
>> and thanks to staff as well for all of your work.
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, July 15, 2008 1:51 PM