~~o9o~I.s' ~,5 COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND TEN (10) COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT MADE BY: Chet Whatley & Dave Barney MEETING DATE: June 9, 2008 OFFICE: N/A TIME PREFERRED: 9:30 AM SUBJECT: Live Springs Ranch, Proposed Re-plat and Variance Requests. Items 1.13 and 1.14 at 5/27/08 Commissioner's Court Meeting Agenda. EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON) NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Chet Whatley and Dave Barney 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 as follows: Meeting scheduled for Mondays: THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY: THIS RQUEST RECEIVED ON: @ .M. All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards your request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners' Court. 5:00 PM previous Tuesday Unpaved Paved Local Collector Arterial Country Country Road Road Road Lane LAne ~ Number of Lots Served < 8 _ < 8 _ 9-60 61-120 120 > - Minimum ROW 60' 60' 60' 80' 90 Minimum Crown of 4" 4" 4" 4" 4" Roadwa Minimum Compacted Depth 6„ 6" 8" 10" lU" of Base Minimum Base Width 22' 22' 24' 28' 28' j Type C, Type C Type A Type A Type A Minimum Base Material Grade 2 Grade 2 Grade 2 Grade 2 Grade 2 Minimum Gradient .30% .30% .30% .30% .30% ~ Maximum Gradient 12% 12% 12% 10% 10% 1Wlinimum Pavement Width N/A 18' 20' 24' 24' Minimum Ditch Depth 12" 12" 12" 12" 12" Traffic Volume ADT < 60 < 60 61 - 800 801 - 1,500 > 1500 I Desi n S eed Limit 35 MPH 35 MPH 35 MPH 45 MPH 50 MPH Vertical Curve "K" Value - N/A N/A 19 61 84 crest Vertical Curve "K" Value - N/A N/A 37 79 96 sa Stopping Sight Distance N/A N/A 200' 360' 425' Minimum Horizontal Curve 382, 382' 382' 573' 955' Radius - Table 7.00 Road Construction Minimum Design Requirements < less than or equal to - > greater than or equal to - < less than - > greater than Design Speed and alignment of vertical and horizontal components (design speed, vertical curve "K" value -crest, vertical curve "K" value -sag, stopping sight distance, and minimum horizontal curve radius) may be coordinated to provide lesser figures. For example a collector or arterial road may have lowered speed limits, which must be properly signed, to adapt to existing Kerr County Subdivision Rules & Regs /Nov. 26, 2007 Page 56 May 30, 2008 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Barney, Re-plat Thank you for being part of Live Springs Ranch. We appreciate the feedback received from all of the current owners regarding the proposed re-plat. You will soon receive a revised proposed Amendment to Covenants document, which excludes the previously listed proposed covenant change allowing for lots to be subdivided down to a minimum of 8 acres. While the current Live Springs re-plat will still include 8 to 15 acre tracts scattered throughout the development, future subdividing will remain at the current 15 acre minimum specified in the covenants. This decision was made primarily because of consistent feedback received from you and/or your neighboring lot owners at Live Springs Ranch. As the developer, we agree that keeping the future minimum at 15 acres is a good long-term idea. Rio Grande Valley ful petit point tapestries decorated our four-table room. The shrimp scampi, served on a bed of spa- ghetti, was piping hot, and the generous ribeye was extremely tender. Even better, entrees come with an exquisite house salad of baby greens, walnuts, tangerine segments, and dried cranberries. Bar. 70~ 5. Texas Blvd (956-969-0185). Open Mon-Sat 11-9:30. Closed Sun. S> O San Antonio GETKINKY! Love the Kinkster? Visit texasmonthly.com f'or ~~, daily soundbite of urisdon~ front Kinl~y~ Friedlnaz~„ Want more`? Go to texasmonthly.com/kinky and listen to past podcasts, ~Tiew slideshotivs, and read Kinky's columns. BIN 555 Now here's a salmon special that lives up tc the name. Cooked a bit rare, the perfectly moist fish was topped with tangy-sweet roasted tomato, pine nuts, spinach, and a chorizc ragout. Another way to enjoy the Bin is to share spread of the menu's °meze plates" with friends; don't miss the Haan bread pizzas or the mini-paella. On this visit, an early lunch meant no fight for a table, and the servers were already on their toes, both in the chic modern dining rooms and outside on the Hill Country- ish patio. Bar. Artisans Alley, northeast rearcorner, 55~ W. Bitters Rd (210-496-0555). Open Man-Thurll-11 Fri & Sat 11-midnight. Closed Sun. Dinner reservation. recommended. 47-5$~, CIAO LAVANDERIA Where else in town can you find such low prices anc such fine Italian food? The specials (braised duck o osso burn, for instance) may inch up in price, but the regular menu delivers some great bargains, includ ing an appetizer of arugula with bresaola and mail courses of baked trout and creamy shrimp risotto. Ca sual, but with attentive service, Ciao Lavanderia (yes it replaced a Laundromat) is a real find. Beer & wine 226 E. Olmos Dr, just off McCullough (210-822-3990; Lunch Mon-Fri 11-2. Dinner Mon 5-9, Tue-Thur 5-9:3( Fri & Sat 5-10. Closed Sun. 'a-5 O DOUGH PIZZERIA NAPOLETANA y;';;"~r,} Who would have thought pizza could be thi ~,,,,`n~ good? We enjoyed exquisite thin-crusted pie<_ *.•, ~ ranging from a simple marinara (tomato, gat lic, and oil) to a fancy combination of arugula, pro sciutto, and truffle oil. Green salad with lemony dres=_ ing added to the fun, but the smash hit salad wa the burrata caprese, a scoop of creamy mozzarell surrounded by halved cherry tomatoes. A surpris success was the appetizer (plenty for three or four of warm roasted olives. Beer & wine. Blanco Junctio shopping center, 6989 Blanco Rd, at Loop 410, soutY west corner (210-979-6565). Lunch Tue-Sat 11:30-2:31 Dinner Tue-Sat 5:30 until "the fresh mozzarella run out" (usually about 9:30). Closed Sun & Mon. `351 C see also Pat's Pick, page 157. EL MIRADOR Go with traditional Tex-Mex, then add a dollop c Nuevo Mexican at this loud-and-proud family-owne restaurant between downtown and Southtown. Th daily soups, notably Saturday's azteca, have garnere culinary kudos from publications like Bon Appetit an the New York Times. Likewise, don't miss the chipotl potato enchiladas or the seafood specials (like th tortilla crusted snapper); they put a whole new spi on the genre. Bar. 722 S. St. Mary's (210-225-9444 Open Mon 6:30-3, Tue-Thur 6:30-9, Fri & Sat 6.'30-L Brunch Sun 9-2. '; '`~ti+ O ERNESTO'S Ernesto Torres braidstogetherthreeculinarystrands the flavors of Mexico, the techniques of France, an the bounty of the sea-and so has been doing fusio cuisine since long before it became trendy. Choos any of ten or so fish or shellfish dishes, then add on or two of the dozen sauces (jicama-lime, perhaps, c maybe mushroom) to complete it. Genial, bustlin Ernesto welcomes customers, recommends dishes and generally acts like ahands-on proprietor. Simpl but dignified, Ernesto's has a distinctly retro tearoom like atmosphere. Bar. 2559 Jackson Keller, at Vanc Jackson (210-344-1248). Lunch Mon-Fri 11:30-2. Dinnf Mon-Thur 5:30-10, Fri & Sat 5:30-10:30. Closed Sul Reservations accepted for Fri & Sat. '>S->ti'j O GRISSINI Having left its more staid northwest location behinf this welcoming spot, with faux Mediterranean deco and romantically dim lighting, is now serving cre itable Italian dishes to the Alamo Heights area. A appetizer of paper-thin carpaccio with olive oil ail shaved Parmesan was the top starter of the evenini while amberjack with capers and mushrooms a~ FOR RESTAURANT REVIEWS IN MORE ILLL~~~-_JJI THAN 100 TEXAS CITIES AND TOWNS. GO TO TEXASMONTHLY.COM. 182 I ~un¢ 2008 TExwsMa~T>a~r.~oM Dare & Niki Barney 13519 Gainesway Drive Cypress, TX 77429 May 28, 2008 Mr. Bruce Oehler Kerr County Commissioner, Precinct 4 700 East Main Street Kerrville, TX 78028 Re: Live Springs Ranch Re-Plat and Road Waiver Proposal Dear Commissioner Oehler: We are landowners in Live Springs Ranch, a new development 5 miles north of Ingram, Texas off of Henderson Branch Road, with part of the development in Kerr County and part in Gillespie County. The purpose for our letter is to request that no approval action be taken by the Commissioners on the re-platting of the Live Springs Ranch development as proposed by the developer, Live Springs Ranch, L.P., c/o Texas Diamond Properties, Ltd., and that no action be taken by the Commissioners as proposed by the same developer to grant a variance to county road construction standards based on average daily traffic count numbers. Live Springs Ranch has been marketed as a gated community of 60 property tracts varying in size from 20 acres to 77 acres, with roads and drainage improvements designed to support this original concept. In mid-May, the developer sent letters to current tract owners requesting their vote to amend the deed restrictions in order to re-plat the development and reduce tract sizes to a minimum size of 8 acres, thereby increasing the number of tracts from 60 to 109 total properties. However, the development could conceivably be increased to 214 total properties assuming the 8-acre minimum size. Although the developer has requested our vote as current property owners by May 31, 2008, they have already begun marketing the development as being re-platted through advertising in June's issue of Texas Monthly, their recent web site change reflecting a development of 8-49 acre size tracts totaling 109 total properties, and a banner over the entrance advertising the smaller tracts. As current large tract property owners, we do not agree with this unilateral change of the subdivision restrictions that deviates substantially from the original subdivision plans that were previously approved by the Commissioners in late 2006. Approval of the developer's re-plat proposal and road construction variance would result in the following: 1) Increased traffic flow on both the subdivision roads and Henderson Branch County Road, resulting in increased road maintenance paid by the Live Springs Ranch Home Owners Association, an obligation to upgrade the main entrance road that could conceivably become the sole responsibility of the Homeowner's Association without financial responsibility by the developer, and an accelerated need to upgrade the road and creek crossing on Henderson Branch Road, an expense borne by the County. 2) Increased environmental pressure to the subdivision and immediate vicinity that impacts water runoff, noise, dust, natural springs activity, and wildlife habitat. 3) A higher population density that will adversely impact aquifer performance through the near doubling of water wells that would be drilled in a re-platted development. 4) Increased septic tank system activity beyond original planned numbers, which will increase the concentration of treated sewage dispersion among close proximity land tracts. For these reasons, we ask that you: 1) do not approve the re-platting of Live Springs Ranch subdivision; 2) do not approve the granting of a road construction variance which cauld enable the developer to "stick" the Homeowner's Association with the obligation to pay for any road upgrades once they pass control of the HOA to the property owners; and, 3) advise the developer that the original plat approval designating 20-77 acre tracts for Live Springs Ranch must be followed. Respec~ll~~ ~~~' ~~ ~ ~ Dave & Niki Barney Page 1 of 1 Jody Grinstead From: Charlene de Kehoe [chardk@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:03 PM To: bbaldwin@co.kerr.tx.us; bwilliams@co.kerr.tx.us; jletz@co.kerr.tx.us; boehler@co.kerr.tx.us Subject: FW: Live Springs Ranch/June 9 Commissioners' Meeting Gentlemen, Mr. Oehler phoned me in regards to your June 9 meeting concerning the Live Springs Ranch re-plat on your agenda. I appreciated his call and wanted to send our personal letter to all of you voicing our concerns. Thank you for listening and for your most careful decisions on this matter. Sincerely, Charlene de Kehoe _ __ From: chardk@hotmail.com To: boehler@hctc.net Subject: Live Springs Ranch/June 9 Commissioners' Meeting Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:42:23 +0000 Dear Mr. Oehler, As a Lot Owner in Live Springs Ranch, I am writing this letter re: our concerns about the re-plat of the ranch, which is being discussed at your June 9 meeting. Personally, my husband and I decided to purchase our property there mainly because of the large land parcels available, instead of smaller 5-10 acre parcels. Live Springs Ranch WAS unique with that regard. If the owners had mentioned anything about becoming downsized in lot size we never would have considered purchasing there. The recent decisions by the developer do NOT reflect our best interests or choices in any way. Apart from our apparent personal concerns, I wonder about the impact on area roads and water supply with increased traffic and wells to be dug. It is currently a quiet, beautiful area. Please consider all the impact these changes would cause the county. There is ALWAYS acause-effect in every decision made. The Live Springs Ranch Lot owners who will be present at your June 9 meeting speak for us as well. I am sorry we cannot be there in person, but they stand for all of us who WERE looking forward to living in a special, beautiful part of Texas. Sincerely, Joe and Charlene de Kehoe (661)665-1230 Instantly invite friends from Facebook and other social networks to join you on Windows LiveT"' Messenger. Invite friends now! Enjoy 5 GB of free, password-protected online storage. Get Windows_ Live SkyDrive. 06/09/2008 Page 1 of 3 Jody Grinstead From: Stacey.Warnix@uk.ey.com Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 8:53 AM To: cojudge@co.kerr.tx.us; bbaldwin@co.kerr.tx.us; bwilliams@co.kerr.tx.us; jletz@co.kerr.tx.us; boehler@co. kerr.tx. us Cc: jwarnix@sbcglobal.net Subject: Monday, June 9th -Proposed Re-Plat of Live Springs Ranch Importance: High Attachments: Sales Brochure - outside pdf; Sales Brochure - inside pdf; www_livespringsranch.com homepage- horiz.pdf Dear Judge Tinley and Kerr County Commissioners, I understand that on Monday you will be considering an application by Live Springs Ranch, L. P., and Texas Diamond Properties, Ltd. to re-plat the Live Springs Ranch ("LSR") development near Ingram, Texas. I am writing to respectfully request that you reject the proposed re-platting of LSR. Last September, I purchased Lot 5 in LSR so that my parents could retire there. My parents had been looking for property in the Hill Country for many years, and while my paren#s wanted a large lot (of 20 acres or more), with live water and hilly terrain, it was equally important for me that my parents not be too remote from the basic amenities and medical care that a town like Kerrville could offer. While there are many developments close to Kerrville and Fredericksburg offering lots up to 10 acres, properties meeting our collective criteria were difficult to find and usually located at least an hour drive outside of Kerrville. LSR was unique in satisfying all of our priorities, and I ultimately agreed to pay more per square acre to secure a lot in LSR (so near to Kerrville) than I would have further out in the Hill Country. I first discovered LSR last July, after seeing an advertisement in a Hill Country real estate magazine, promising a unique combination of large lots, hilltop views, and favorable restrictions, all within short distance of Kerrville. Upon further investigation, LSR did, in fact, prove uniquely positioned in the market. The developer consistently represented that only 60 to#s would ever be sold in the 2,400 acres development and that those lots would range in sizes starting from 20 acres. (These representations were made in numerous advertisements, marketing brochures, on their website, and in several live conversations when I was considering my purchase, and as examples, I have attached at the bottom of this email a scanned copy of their primary marketing brochure and a pdf of the homepage on their website.) As a further enhancement to their unique market position, the developer's on-site representative proudly acknowledged a contractual co-operative restriction whereby no lot could ever be re-subdivided into lots smaller than 15 acres. This meant that, under the official plat of record with the county, only a maximum 117 lots could ever potentially be created across the whole of the development. Now the developer is proposing to re-plat the development to increase the number of tracts for sale from 60 to 109 total properties, nearly the same number as ever could have potentially been created if every owner elected to fully utilize his/her re-subdivision rights (an unlikely scenario). The developer's new proposal shifts from being a remote "worse case scenario" to a current and disappointing reality. The newly proposed platting scheme results in nearly double the number of initial lots and half the average lot size as before (20 acres per lot instead of 37). Not only are small lots already widely available in the surrounding market, but this plat directly contravenes the developer's own 15 acre lot restriction which it has seen fit to impose on succeeding landowners. The new platting scheme has the following adverse consequences: Nearly double the amount of physical structures (houses, outbuilding, driveways, etc) and utility easements will scar and erode the land and potentially significantly alter existing drainage paths and the re-absorption of rainwater into the land. 2. Nearly twice the number of water wells and septic systems will double the corresponding negative impact on water 06/06/2008 Page 2 of 3 availability in the surrounding areas. 3. Approximately double (or more) the expected traffic. On the chipped roads inside the development, this will mean a significant increase in noise pollution, not only to the current owners, but to the abundant wildlife species living within the development. 4. The proposed re-plat is so dense in certain steeper terrains, that many owners will have to build their homes closer to neighboring property owners, and many will have to ask for set-back variances from the current CCRs in order to do so. 5. Smaller tracts and denser development will not adequately support the various wildlife habitats already in place, some of endangered species, as was previously envisioned and advertised by the developer. As one example, the development is a known refuge for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler. The current plat of record supports the continuance of these wildlife preserves, and many if not all of the current owners have already taken steps to educate themselves on what is necessary to protect the wildlife interests on their properties. However, the re-plat results in dense development and tracts which are too small to adequately support wildlife, and positions dense, smaller tracts next to the large lots, encroaching the wildlife habitats already being actively supported by landowners. 6. Increased road maintenance and its associated costs created by the increased traffic on both the subdivision roads and the Henderson Branch County Road. Adjoining landowners can account for you the substantial damage that was already done to Henderson Branch Road during the development of LSR, and it is questionable whether this county road can support the increased traffic demand resulting from regular, daily use by twice as many residents (and their construction crews). 7. I realize most of you will not have viewed the development, but every property in the subdivision currently has views up or down hillsides, many into the horizons. But with a more dense development of the subdivision, those views are much more likely to be of neighbors and infrastructure than of wooded rural hillsides. The current owners did not bargain for this when they carefully selected their tracts. I am really disappointed to think what the proposed re-platting will mean to the quality of life in LSR, not only to the current owners who bought into a markedly different vision of their future lives in LSR, but to the current adjoining landowners and abundant wildlife species who will find their former serenity and rural setting now utterly destroyed. The developer will contend to you that the smaller lots will be sold at higher prices per square acre and that those market "comparables" will drive up the value of our larger lots. Anyone familiar with the real estate market in the Hill Country (and certainly any future buyer) knows that smaller acreage -ots normally carry higher average prices per acre than larger tracts. But this misses the point entirely. The unique concept which LSR offered -large lots, the 15 acre lot restriction, and the natural, rural setting in close proximity to Kerrville -was an absolute differentiator which contributed to my purchase and that of the other current landowners and it caused me to forgo other buying opportunities in other parts of the Hill Country. In deciding to purchase, I relied on the developer's active representations. I respectfully request that you reject the developer's new platting proposal and force it to abide by its original, promised concept, as the developer specifically represented to buyers and the market in general that only 60 tracts would ever be offered, and it has reaped the economic benefits from the owners' reliance on those promises. Now, in ashort-sighted, knee-jerk reaction to temporary market difficulties, the developer is looking for a way to unload its investment, regardless of the impact to the surrounding environment and community. I do not approve of any proposed re-plat that substantially deviates from the original subdivision plans as were previously approved by the Commissioners in 2006, nor -and in particular -that violates the developer's own standard for re-subdivision, which is currently maintained at a 15 acre minimum lot size. The proposed re-platting is too dense to appropriately restrain the environmental footprint of the development in a manner consistent with the immediately surrounding rural setting and is in absolute, direct contradiction to what the developer actively represented when the existing lot owners purchased our lots. In the eventuality that you do permit some degree of re-platting by the developer, I ask that you at least require the developer to plat to a 15 acre minimum standard. The developer openly acknowledges (in a letter to owners dated May 30, 2008) that this is "a good long-term idea" to impose against all future landowners in order to maintain an adequate quality of life in the subdivision. I also agree that it is an appropriate limitation and ask that you force the developer to equally abide by its own standard. This developer has chosen to enter your local marketplace and benefit economically from the draw that Kerrville and Kerr County affords. Please require this developer to follow through with the promises it made to your current landowning 06/06/2008 Page 3 of 3 constituents (both adjoining lot owners as well as many Kerrville property owners who are now moving out to LSR) and to many others who have already made a financial and emotional commitment to call your county home. thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue. As one final note of mention, I am currently living in the United Kingdom on a temporary work assignment. For this reason, I am not able to attend your commissioners' meetings in person, but I have asked my parents, Jim and April Warnix, to attend on my behalf. As they will ultimately reside full time at our shared residence, I kindly ask that you consider their interests and opinions in this matter as equally vested as my own. With kind regards, Stacey A. Warnix Owner, Lot 5 Live Springs Ranch Stacey Warnix I Global Network Coordinator I Transaction Tax Ernst & Young Global Limited, Becket House, 1 Lambeth Palace Road, London SE1 7EU Phone +4 (0)20 7980 0851 (Fax: +1 866 374 1322 I Mobile: +44 (0)7880 792 620 Email: stacey.warnix@uk.ey.com I URL: www,ey.com Assistant: Charlotte Kellyi Phone: +44 (0) 20 7980 0179 I E-mail charlotte.kellyauk.ey.com Thank you for considering the environmental impact of printing emails. Ernst & Young is proud to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Entrepreneur Of The Year in the UK. Ernst & Young presents its annual Entrepreneur Of The Year awards to the most successful and innovative entrepreneurial leaders of fast growth businesses. This global awards programme is run across 135 cities in 44 countries. Each year the national country winners gather for the prestigious World Entrepreneur Of The Year award celebration in Monte Carlo, Monaco, where the World Entrepreneur Of The Year is announced. For details of UK regional awards ceremonies, please visit www.eoy.co.uk/ . Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year is sponsored by the London Stock Exchange. This e-mail and any attachment are confidential and contain proprietary information, some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the author immediately by telephone or by replying to this a-mail, and then delete all copies of the a-mail on your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this a-mail. Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this a-mail and any attachment has been checked for viruses, we cannot guarantee that they are virus free and we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses. We would advise that you carry out your own virus checks, especially before opening an attachment. Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Younc Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. The UK firm Ernst B< Young LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC300001 and is a member practice of Ernst & Young Global. A list of members' names is available for inspection at 1 More London Place, London, SE1 2AF, the firm's principal place of business and its registered office. 06/06/2008 M 4-y O bA N RS 'L7 C .~ O 7C H v G by C ~L J.~k W~ ~ ;. k 4yY.~ x ` .~l~1~~ ~ /Y~ ~ _ ~ I ~' ,j. ~~ ~ `~ Kt~~ , 1~ . ~'F '~ ,y ~ {~__ .. _ .,~ ~~~ ~~ ~._ c H c i ~ ~~~~ Y, c ~ ~ i~ g:.. ~ ' ~ r. ~ ~ ~ ~ t `~~1 G.4~ ~ '". ~ °'. -'. ~ i ~ ~ 'mo' .~ ~ #' ,~yj+~ ' r . t R j ~ 'T , S ~~ s i "~ ,,~ ~`tY S w..~ r4~ ' 1~ ~t ~ , ~ t : - ~ ;t ~ ~ ~~ r. i . ~ ~` (' ~ ~; ~. R ~ 1 4> W O O N O N N M O N bq G1. N C~ l~ 1 x CU U C RS ~i y CA .~ a. J ,~ ~~ ~ ti ~~ ~~ "1.~ ~ n '+~~ ~~i~a '"ate f '~.aT 'l..y i '-a^ "+~. 1 l }, a l+`~ i '~ l °!. 4 n ~ '~~ ~"'`4--i ~ Fly :. , ~ ice" .""i \.A/ ~ ~h~-.~ it ~ ~ ~~i ~ l ~ .~ y ~) i ~ '~ ` ~ ~s ~.> .,,,, .t 1 1j e~J..,,~ ^'wt 'rti~ ~ rnii ti, { ~a !"~2 ~~ ~ ~ " ~wr~ ~. '~` ~ ,,. . ~ , ~ ~~ ,' ~~ ,.yam z.. i t.:;~; ~ ~i ~ ~,1 ~~ +++~ \ 4~ ~f ~'y w 1 ,~.w ^.,,, ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ' „ .~ ~?+ ,.~ ~'.41 'yea-~ .q, ~• i~• .'i ..J ) 4~ ~ X1..5 ... ~i...~j . "~ ~~ ~.1 1 .'air ~~ 4 ~.1} ~.+ ` }j a ~~ S i „W ~~~ f 4 1 `' ~, 1 " `+ ~:4 f ~` ~~ ._ t ' ~~-... O O N O N N ~--a M 4. O M cct G. ~° 1 N O X h U C ~+ on .~ L ~1 ~1 ~~ ~~ L2 (1 L L C~ '~i ~: u a r.: c~ c U } s o~ 0 ~. a Ti 0 .~ .~ ro Q d ~ +dl+ .L = i U L N N d aL+ L y Y ti ~ .6 m U d ~ C N = ~ d y . i~~ Q~ ~~ C C ~ 0 d ~ - ~ C ~ 3 O +.+ ~ Y ~ w d ~ ~ C C ;,~ ~ O ~+~., C L C l4 ~ U u O ~ C+'-"C O N N C y C ~ ~ 14 f0 A = 'O ~ ~ O C 'O ~ 3 .C C Z37 ~ N ~ 'ai L O. ~ Q C C y N ~ ~ ~ '~ V J V ~ d i 16 ~ S L r t N ~/ 3 3y ~ ~ C,= o,x o ~ ,C d O ~ N ~ L C Q +,, w ,01 ,G (/) L i d ~ - L N d •_ LL ~ +r C O- ~ UJ C1 U ~ 16 C ~ O T d ~ ~ ~ C > tC C w ,~ E !a O d t N +~-+ ~V ~ l0 O ` aL.~ V ~°~•"d o °- rn +' Coo=3 N = 'm vi ad L .~ L ~ ~ ~ }I C C ~ '6 1D O ~-~i .~ U~ ~ ~o -_ 'p .` N = d ~ Q- ~ L~ Ww`_ 113 )C pp d d H V a~- ~ N O C C O N it,, i L C y.., m V N ~ ~ O L N 0I R i y R C s~y ~~ m c -a ~; ~ t d y 10 L 1 +O+ w ~ •L 0 N aL ~,~ d m w 3 ,'~° ~ 3 O O O N N TUN-~q-?~~l° ~r~:SS 6g Jul ?~Q7~c~ ~! -F.~+e.~ ~~il i v'aY ~ -T ~- JC~r-. ~ J ~{ d~ ~/®GGlN~ CQyr~/.11551 de~/~ ~ "" - D9~ ~f f ~! w i /~ ~, ~ f der ~,~p ~ ~-~ a.. ~ ~ Warr ~.~ ~~` ~ °t'`) - r/1- yam' ~ : ~ ~dy~. f ''~ ~~ COM,~ X31 ai"""r , fj ~,¢~c.i ~,a ~w,l53ia,f•/ 4! r ~~1~5 wN~1p,~rTyld~/,r f- ~OMM r3~lo ~~/ L~t-•~ J_ ~,.~ ~ t~ P. ~a1 JUN-89-?S@S ©659 307 o Mormandy DrfYe McKinney. Texaa 76070 07 June, 2008 Jonathan tretz Ken- County Commissioner, Precinct 3 700 E. Main Street Kerrville, Texas 78026 Dear Mr. Lett: Sul~ae~ ihna'Pa'sed Re-PIaE of L]vs S~in~s Ranch Approximately one martth ago, the developers of Live Springs Ranch {LSR) on Wenderson Branch Road mailed a letter td my wife and I and the aiher property owners in I.SR containing a proposed re`plat of the development. This proposal would take the existing 60 lots and create 770 k>fs frrnn 8 to 2t3 acres in size. Just about every lot with the exception of the six sold lots is targebe~d far subdividing. The six pn)perty owners have some together to oppose this re-plat proppeai. We a!I have voted against the proposal and wall oppose this In every legal way available to us. We are aN adamant in not wanting this n~-plat Oa take place. We (my wife and I) purchased in LSR because it was different from every other subdivision in the surrounding counties. That being large tracts of land with manageable land use reshictions. There are plenty of subdnrislons in the Hfil Gauntry with 5-15 acre krts. Most of these are very mice, but not what we were looking to same in. While Fredericksburg is a very nice place, we found wee liked Kerrville and Ingram much more and decided this would be a good place to make a home. The other properly owners, in their letters to you, have listed severe! of the mesons for our opposition fio this proposal. I will not repeat these all here with the exception of a few key issues- The only access to LSR is via Henderson Branch Road. There is no Gillespie Country access, therefore increased traffic into LSR would require Henderson Branch upgrades. This w~auld be at Kerr County's expense. Aquifer taps and septic runoff would double. I am not a geologist, but ! do understand with twice as many wells in the same area as originally proposed, there is bound to be issues with water flow. Likewise, there would be twice as many septic systems placed in the same Brea. t.,asdy, we purchased in I.SR based on the 60 plat map. That is what we were told would be there witty possible subdivisions to 7 5 acre fats il` owners chose to do sa. I respectfulry ask that you and the other commissioners thoroughly review the ra-plat proposal, taking into consideration the current six pn>perty owners posittons and vote against the developQrs proposal. Finally, it has tame to my attention that some of the commissioners believe any homes in LSR will be second homes far the owners- This is false for my wife and I as well as the other owners. When I build in LSR, ~ will be my Name. Respectfully, Dan Rodriguez (Lot 47) P.~S