ORDER NO.'~6916
HPPFtOVNL OF F'REL.IMINRRY PLR(i F'RSU CREEK RRNCH
On this the lath day of March c":001, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Will.iams9 seconded by Commissioner- Letz~ the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0~ to approve tl-ie
the preliminary plat for Faso Creek Rancho Precinct ~.
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
.-. PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS
TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: Franklin Johnston P.E.
OFFICE: Road & Bridge
MEETING DATE: March 12.2001 TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) Consider approval of Preliminary Plat for Paso Crcek Ranch
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Franklin Johnston P.E./Chazles Domingues
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: 15 minutes
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with
Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, government Code, is a follows:
Meeting scheduled for Mondays: 5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday
THiS RF,QUF.ST RECEIVED RY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:
All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has
been prepazed for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation
will be appreciated and contribute towazds your request being addressed at the eazliest opportunity. See
Agenda Request Rule Adopted by Commissioners' Court.
APPENDIX I O,{jice Use Only
ROUTING SLIP Date Re the by R&B
/o G OO
Kerr County Application for Preliminary Plat of a Subdivision
[ j Preliminary Plat [ j Preliminary for Revision of Plat
Name of Subdivision: P?ty CKY`«~'~ f2~at+G
Location of Subdivision: D~ ~'Mlfwfti.! f IC.wwR~' Precinct # 2.
OwnedDeveloper: pifllC-'fA~~ Phone#(~ ,~C7- 7272
Surveyor: /~der.~9~^t' Phone# ~To 89b~- 00
Is this part of an existing subdivisson? Yes ( ) No (~
If yes, Name: Volume _, Page _.
AGENDA DATE REQUESTED: _~G L'~ Z 3
Person(s) appearing before Commissioner's Court:
1. Submit ten (10) copies of Plat and Drainage Study to the Kerr County Engineer, for Review
Thirty (30) days prior to Commissioner's Court Date.** The Commissioner of the Precinct
,.-~ will be notified.
Received by: !0 z5 6 U
(Kerr County ngineer's Office) Date
2. Submit one (1) Copy of Preliminary Plat to County Clerk and arrange for payment of fees
per Kerr County Subdivision Rules & Regulations.
[ } Preliminary Plat [ ] Preliminary Revision of Plat
_ Do
Amount Paid $, 5 ~ Signature: ~i~fd/~~T EPe~~ / ~ '- -0 (~
(~ ,f (County Clerks Office) Dale
3. Submit one (1) copy of Preliminary Plat to Upper Guadalupe River Authority
d
[ ] Permit application and support data for On-sRe Sewage Factlrttes
[ ] Flood Plain information ~ o _ ~ _ o ~
a
Fee Amoun Paid ~~o ~~ Received by: 1 -
o~ (UGRA Office) Date
t'~ to+s

4. Submit one (1) copy of of the Preliminary Plat to Headwaters Underground Water
Conservation District and make payment of fees:
Fee Amount Paid $ " IL/ ~ "- Received by: /~ -oZ -c9cJ
CD Off ce) Date
5. 911 STREET NAMES (if applicable): The attached Plat is for Preliminary Review.
Discuss with the SurveyodEngincer any potential problems.
~-- Signatur : ~n ~~
(9l l ~. ~._-,-n.bi/ Date
6. If Platting includes any utility easements or changes to an existing easement this Preliminary
Plat is for review. Signature indicates receipt of the Preliminary Plat only. Utility shall give
SurveyodEngineer easement notes required.
_ :. ,,
1. Electric Utility:
uu ~,.
2. 1'' Telephone Company: '~-
(This shall be added to Final fat if Mylar applicable) Fax copies acceptable.
0
ul
,a
~ Return Receipt Fee
~ IEntlorsement Regmrep)
O Restricletl Delivery Fee
p (EnOOrsemenl Regwretll
n
O-
0
r`
a
I~~ ,~~
. lete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
^ Gomp 1s desired.
item 4 if Restricted DRGvery
^ print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
^ Attach this card to ac Permits=he mailpiece,
or on the front if sp
t gdirle Addressed tot ~ / ~ ~ I
~~~7
//ail//~ ~~~,
p gdlde Nu~bom service lade-0
PS F mro 811 ,July 1999
q Receiv~Please Print Clearly)
g. Service TYVe
Q Certified Mail
Q geyistered
^ Insured Mail
I A. Rest
panestic Peturn Pece~pt
Q Express Mad
^ Return Receipt for Mercha
^ C.O.D.
^ Ves
ery? (Extra(Extra Fee -
7. If Platting has access to a Texas Department of Transportation Roadway a copy of
Preliminary Plat must be reviewed by the TXDOT Engineer. Signature on this form
indicates receipt of Preliminary P-at only, sign mylar for final approval.
~osnin~ues 8c 7Qssoc. F~~E COPY
Professional Land Surveying
Subdivision Design
October 31, 2000
Commissioner Bill Williams
Kerr County Commissioner
Re: Paso Creek Ranch
Deaz Commissioner Williams:
On Wednesday October 18th, Mr. Don Swanson showed Mr. Whetenfield and myself the
locations where he was shown the 1978 flood high water came, on TuNe Creek, at his property.
Near his rock landing there is a foreign limb in a Cypress Tree that appears to have been
lodged up there in a flood, it is at an elevation of approximately 1544 feet MSL. There is evidence,
on every Cypress Tree in this area, to have had limbs broken off and scar marks on the bark of each
tree, up to approximately this same elevation.
Up stream a little ways there is a building on the high bank of the creek, which Mr.
Swanson says he was told had a "little water in it." The high point in the garage at this building is
at an elevation of 1545.8 feet MSL.
There is a Cypress Tree [hat has an upstream scar going up to an elevation of 1547 feet
MSL. Lightening, not flood water, may have caused the scaz, on this Cypress.
Mr. Swanson stated he was told the water was above the high bank and it covered the field,
on the south side of the creek. An elevation of 1546 to 1547 would have covered water across the
field that is approximately 300 feet wide. This would make the flood in this area approximately
1000 feet wide. That is almost three times wider than the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
indicates the 100 yeaz flood width to be in this area.
The building on [he Swanson property appears to be the best evidence of the location of the
1978 flood. This building is 1300 feet upstream from the bridge across Turtle Creek, which
accesses the subdivision, Paso Creek Ranch. The down stream flow of Turtle Creek, in [his area
has been found to be approximately 0.35 of a foot drop in 100 feet. Using these figures the flood
would be 4.5 feet lower at the Paso Creek Ranch road than the building on the Swanson property.
That would put the 1978 flood, at the road into Paso Creek Ranch, at an elevation of
approximately 1541.5 feet MSL. Here the flood would have covered approximately 600 feet of the
field at Paso Creek Ranch. The floodwater would have been across an area approximately 1,400 feet
wide, as the high bank is at an elevation of 1540.7 feet MSL, and the field is flat for 200 yards.
Because the floodwaters spread out over a greater width than found at the building on Swanson, the
elevation of the top of the water would have been lower, than the calcula[cd 154 LS feet MSL.
The high bank at the proposed Tract 3, of Paso Creek Ranch, is an elevation of 1535 feet
MSL. This is 2600 feet from the building on the Swanson property, using the same creek drop, as
stated above, [he 1978 flood elevation at this location would have been 1536.9 feet MSL. Again the
1978 flood would have been lower than this because at this location [he flood would have spread
out over approximately a 2500 foot wide area. Which is almost six times wider area than what the
FEMA map shows the width of the 100 yeaz flood hazard azea to be.
Since there appears to be as much as a 2000 foot discrepancy in the width of the 100 year
flood area (using the 1978 flood as a bench mazk), the Commissioners should notify FEMA of this
major discrepancy, so they can have an opportunity to revise their maps.
A side note: There was no evidence of broken limbs on the Cypress Trees at the Paso Creek
Ranch, indicating the water was not flowing as rapid as it was at the trees on Swanson property.
Si
ar es om gues
ce Mr. Frank Johnston, PE -Kerr County Road & Bridge
ce Mr. Charlie Whetenfield -Upper Guadalupe River Authority
bog ~'idney T3akea, KexxvtUe, 2x. 78028 > ~Lel. 830~Sg6 6900 > ~ax R3o~Rg6 bgot
,^ 5.06 Concrete Monuments: A minimum of one concrete monument containing
certified benchmark elevations shall be required when any part of the subdivision is located within
a Special Flood Hazard Area (studied), as represented by the applicable Flood Insurance Rate
maps produced by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The monument location
shall permit comparable access from all lots.
5.07 Drainage:
5.07.A Drainage facilities shall be provided and constrvcted in accordance with
approved plans as required in these regulations. Drainage plans shall be prepared by a registered
professional engineer experienced in hydrology analysis, and shall be signed and sealed.
5.07.B Drainage facilities shall be designed to min;m;~e any adverse impact to
private property either within or outside the proposed subdivision.
5.07.C When a drainage channel or storm sewer is to be constructed ,three (3)
copies of the design complete with construction plans, profiles, and specifications shall be
submitted. The plans shall show construction details ,calculations showing the anticipated storm
water runoff, including watershed azea, percentage and velocity of runoff, and time of
concentration. The storm drainage plan, prepared to a scale of 200 feet to one (1) inch and with
the same contours and scaled lot sizes as shown on the plat.
^ 5.07.C.1 No pipe less than 18 inches in diameter or compazable flow area shall"
be used, including driveway crossings.
5.07.C.2 All road widths and grades shall be indicated, runoff figures shall be
indicated on the outlet and inlet side of all drainage ditches and stolen sewers, and at request of
the County Engineer, at all points in the road at changes of grade or where the water enters
another road or storm sewer or drainage ditch. Drainage easements shall be provided as
5.07.D A storm drainage plan shall be prepared by the developer for all
subdivisions where the averase lot size is less than 15 acres. Three copies of this storm drainage
plan prepared by a registered professional engineer shall be submitted and shall contain
calculations showing anticipated storm runoff including water shed area, percentage, velocity of
runoff, and time of wncentration. This plan shall be prepared to a scale of 200 feet to (1) one
inch and with the same contours and scaled lot sizes as shown on the plat. ~ _
v5.07.E ~I runoff calculations and/or anticipated storm runoff shall be based on
five (5) year frequency as established by standard engineering practices.
5.08 Other Regulations. In addition to these rules and regulations all subdivisions are
subject to the rules and regulations of the Kerr County OSSF program, HUWCD program, and all
other applicable County, State and Federal regulations.
..-.
Kerr County Subdivision Rules & Regulations
May I1, 1995
~n "_ Page 16
/c~ : PR$O C r c e ~ 2u
ac% ~'v bdi /i 51 orl
f1YElZ46E t.d( S /~P /J, 5 /~'RFs ~ ~~ Mrn 4bo/B
(~ r7~d7 ~ r
February 26, 2001
Gualalupe Basin
Natural
Resources Center
125 Lehmann Drive
Ste. 100
Kemille, Texas
78028-5908
(830) 896-5445
Fax (830) 257-2621
E-mail: ugraadmn®ugra.org
The Honorable Bill Williams
County Commissioner
Precinct Two
Kerr County Courthouse
700 Main Street
Kerrville, TX 78028
RE: Hydrologic Study for Paso Creek Ranch Subdivision
Dear Commissioner Williams:
I have reviewed the hydrologic study and it appears proper investigation and
methods were used for determining 100-Year BFE's along streams within
Paso Creek Ranch Subdivision, Kerr County, Precinct Two.
Prior to signing the Final Plat, I will ensure these BFE's are reflected on the
plat.
Sincerely,
R. Charles Wiedenfeld, anager
Hydraulic & Environmental Resources
Floodplain Administrator, Kerr County
cc: Charles B. Domingues, Domingues & Assoc.
Franklin Johnston, Kerr County Engineer
UGRA Subdivision File
January 2, 2001
TO: David Motley
FROM: Fred Henr
SUBJECT: Ability to Require Developers to Upgrade Feeder Roads
Please research and provide the Commissioners Court with an opinion as to the ability of
the Commissioners Court to require an applicant for plat approval to upgrade a road that
will serve as the ingress or egress from the proposed development.
The situation that has arisen is as follows;
A plat has been previously approved with a certain level of mad required (and
constructed) based upon the density and usage of the development represented by the
approved plat. At a later time, plat approval is requested for a new development that will.
use the road approved in the eazlier plat as a significant or main source of ingress and
egress to the new development. The road approved in the earlier plat does not meet the
criteria for the traffic that will result from the new development. Does the Commissioners
Court have the legal authority to require the applicant for the new plat to upgrade the road
approved in the prior plat to handle the additional traffic resulting from the new
development?
If you need any additional information, please call either me or Franklin Johnston
Cc: Commissioners
Franklin Johnston