Bee Cave may see more development on Hamilton Pool Road

Click here to view original web page at
Bee Cave City Council discusses annexing a tract off Hamilton Pool Road on Dec. 6 in conjunction with a development agreement on the parcel.Bee Cave City Council discusses annexing a tract off Hamilton Pool Road on Dec. 6 in conjunction with a development agreement on the parcel.Leslee Bassman/Community Impact Newspaper

One of the last large lots owned by Bee Cave’s Grumbles family—a 128-acre tract south of Hamilton Pool Road and about 900 feet west of Cueva Drive—may soon be developed and annexed by the city.

Bee Cave City Council heard from a developer’s representative, Aaron Googins, during its Dec. 6 special meeting that his client wanted to build a gated community, including about 76 1-acre homesites, on the property, a tract that the city has set to be annexed next month.

The property is currently under an agriculture exemption that removes it from the possibility of annexation unless it is sold for a different purpose.

City Attorney Patty Akers said a permit for development will trigger the property’s annexation. However, if the proposed development agreement does not go forward, the owners—the Grumbles family—said they will maintain their agriculture exemption on the property and avoid annexation.

The project developers sought feedback from the city regarding their requests to reduce the setback minimums for the neighborhood and offered to create a nature trail within the community’s gates, an issue which some council members said would be troublesome since Bee Cave residents who do not live in the gated community could only access the trail by bike or on foot to connect to other city trails. The property abuts Little Barton Creek.

Googins said he does not yet know what the homes would be priced at in the proposed development.

“One-acre lots in this neighborhood will be extremely expensive, and there will be an expectation of privacy,” he said. “We’re going for a similar look to [the Belvedere neighborhood off Hamilton Pool Road].”

He also asked for a change in the water-quality detention plan, and Googins intends to overcompensate with regard to water detention on the north portion of the property and require less water detention elsewhere on the tract. The project will not have sidewalks to maintain the Hill Country feel of the area, he said.

Googins requested that the developer be exempt from the city’s requirement to conduct a tree survey.

“I’m not inclined to be in favor of changing our ordinances or lot widths or setbacks on Hamilton Pool Road,” Council Member Kara King said. “We can’t allow [the road] to be more congested than it already is.”

Hamilton Pool resident Nell Penridge, whose property is adjacent to the subject tract, said she is concerned about the developer’s request to obviate a tree survey on the property.

“I think [Council] should require a tree survey as well as [requiring] all of the subdivision requirements be adhered to,” she said. “There’s no reason, especially with a subdivision that is believed to be a high price point, to give breaks here. We’re only antagonizing our traffic on Hamilton Pool Road.”

Council members did not take action on the development, and the annexation of the tract is set for City Council vote Jan. 10.