Travis County Commissioners Court
March 24, 2009,
Item 22
No.22 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following.
a is advise preliminary plan in precinct 3, and b final plat in precinct 3, lot 15 b, block 2, rgk ranch commercial unit a.
ms.
boulderin?
>> good morning, anna boldin, Travis County tnr.
what we have today at Commissioners court is a revised prelim, revising one lot from the approved rgk ranch preliminary plan into two lots and a final plat for one of the two lots out of the revised preliminary plan.
just to give a little bit of background, if you would like, about the original rgk preliminary plan.
the original preliminary plan application was submitted to Travis County on March 14, 2005.
on June 17, 2005, the applicant requested an exception to the Commissioners court di essential of preliminary plans.
at the time the Commissioners court did put a suspension in for accepting the preliminary plans because we were working on our water quality regulations.
on June 30 of 2005 the transportation and natural resources granted a hardship to the applicant because -- because the applicant had agreed to comply with certain -- certain features, including that the impervious cover on his rgk palestinian plan was less than 20%.
he would adopt the buffer zones for water waste as required within the interim rules, he agreed to an integrated pest management program, and he required native vegetation throughout the development, and he agreed to impose the night-lighting restriction.
all of those things were things that -- most of those things were discussed in various forms, including the southwest growth dialogue, and they were -- especially -- I remember the night-lighting restriction seeing something that we -- being something we thought were important to people in the areas.
also the preliminary plan was approved by the Commissioners court on August 18, 2006, and it included 1,508 lots, and at the time the water quality was done for lcra's high land lake ordinance, and there was -- lcra approved a master plan for compliance with the alternative performance standards established by the highland lake watershed ordinance.
we looked at one of the main things -- because we did a lot of comparing and crating the rgk -- contrasting the rgk preliminary plan if it had been approved on interim standards, and the main thing we found was there were five stream crossings, three of which were minor, two were major.
and that -- that was a little bit -- we found that two of the minor stream crossings would meet interim rules, one was too close to a street and two major crossings wouldn't have met because they were neighborhood collectors as opposed to arterials.
there was one variance when we approved the preliminary plan back in 2006, and that was for block length exceeding 1200 linear feet.
this is a common variance for areas of the hill country because the topography.
we look for the roads to be safe, and sometimes it just doesn't make sense to have -- to have a smaller block length.
>> what was that
>> [inaudible].
>> on August 18, 2006 is when the original rgk preliminary plan was reviewed, and so this preliminary plan was reviewed that I was giving some background history in 2006.
fast-forward to -- we get a final plat application for one of the lots in the existing preliminary plan, and that's where we are today.
the lot in question is lot 15 b.
the revised preliminary plan that's on the agenda today is to take lot 15 and split it into two -- two lots, because the final plat on the agenda today is not for the whole entirety of the lot from the approved preliminary plan.
for example, the lot on the 15 lot 2 on the approved palestinian policeman is 53.87 acres: it's stated to be a mixed commercial use review lot.
today that lot is supposed to be split into two lots, 15 a and 15 b, which is 2.14 acres.
that is the only change that this revised preliminary plan is proposing.
>> just repeat that one more time for me, that last statement.
>> the only thing that this revised preliminary plan is proposing to change from the original preliminary plan is to divide lot 15 blocks to -- into two lots, one.
one is 61.73 acres and the other is 2.14, and it contains the same land use as the approved preliminary plan.
>> okay.
so what's staff's recommendation?
>> staff recommends approval because it meets our requirements.
>> okay.
any questions for ms.
boldin?
anything from the applicant?
>> judge, Commissioners, I'm vick howl.
i represent rgk in this matter.
i think staff has covered it with the exception of I have August 2007 as being the approval of the preliminary, but I'm here to answer questions if you have any.
>> I guess that's not significant --
>> it feels a lot longer than that.
>> yeah.
>> [laughter] okay?
>> judge, I prepared some remarks I would like to actually read to be sure that I cover everything I had on my mind.
it grieves me greatly that Travis County is facing final approval of this subdivision today, because I believe it is seriously detrimental to the people of Travis County, and it is solely for the mercenary benefit of this landowner.
this subdivision is grandfathered from complying with the interim subdivision ordinance, an ordinance that implemented some very basic water quality protection measures.
it is grandfathered by virtue of the fact that its application was rushed under the wire to avoid the desirable water quality regulations.
by final platting this 2.14 acres today it will lock this entire subdivision, 1,595.8 acres and 1500 and 9 lots, into place for the next 50 years.
this property owner has repeatedly sent a message through his consultants that he does not intend to develop this property but just wants to protect the fiduciary interests of his heirs, and he's just going by the numbers.
he's doing what is within his legal rights to maximize his property value.
but is this action morally right and responsible to the citizens of Travis County?
no.
should a subdivision that is yet to be built be locked in for 50 years, regardless of measures enacted to protect and ensure long-term water quality and availability?
no.
with the population explosion we have seen in central Texas in the last decades, subdivision growth on sensitive lands has only recently become a huge issue that directly impacts our quality of life.
texas counties do not have the ordinance-making tools that cities do to ensure that developments are responsible.
so grandfathering now when the need for better water quality and other health and safety regulations have become more well-known, grandfathering now is something that some landowners are rushing to do while it is still legal.
should time limits be put on grandfathering?
i believe that failure to do so is already causing an aggressive cancer on our natural resources.
if this area of Texas is going to enjoy sustainable economic growth, it must preserve its quality of life.
continuing to allow legal mechanisms that avoid complying with regulations needed to maintain a high quality of life is like drinking water laced with antifreeze.
it may taste good to some at the moment but it will be devastating in the long run.
so is this process today legal?
yes.
is it what we need for Travis County and Texas?
no.
i deeply regret that there's nothing that Travis County can do today to stop this abuse of the grandfathering law.
>> may I a ask a question?
>> you may.
>> anna, what is the provision under which this plat is gfd?
grandfathered?
>> the 50 years provision.
it's a pop quiz, I'm sorry.
it's in the local government code, and it provides for a landowner's ability to lock in the most lenient regulations for 50 years, as long as they do a minimal amount of preparatory work.
correct?
>> I believe that's correct.
i would -- I would ask for our county attorney to confirm that, but I believe -- isn't that in section 245 of the local government code.
>> yes.
are there any efforts in the current legislative session to change that?
>> my guess is that there probably is proposed legislation to address the grandfathering situation.
>> my understanding is that there has been legislation in the past to reduce the grandfathering provision to a four-year time period.
in your oh well, I'll leave you out of this, anna.
>> we did a search of legislation yesterday and came up with none that's been proposed this year to limit grandfathering.
>> but there's no doubt that county legal standards are complied with today.
>> yes, sir.
and I do stand corrected on the date.
it was August 18, 2007, not 2006.
my brain was a little fuzzy this morning when I was writing this last preparation for court.
>> I feel a lot better now.
i've seen a day loss, but seldom a year.
>> yes, sir.
>> with that I move approval of the requested action.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor of the motion.
i see all Commissioners.
Gomez, Eckhardt and those two voting in favor.
voting against --
>> abstain.
>> abstaining, Commissioner hiewber.
>> abstaining.
>> abstaining Commissioner Davis.
motion carried by a vote of 3-0 with two abstentions.
>> with Commissioner --
>> with Commissioner Eckhardt holding her nose.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
thank you, ms.
boldin.
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, March 24, 2009 2:12 PM