Travis County Commissioners Court
September 13, 2005
Item 23
Number 23. Consider and take appropriate action on granting an exemption from platting requirements for a condominium project in precinct 1, chaparral crossing, approximately 500 detached units, 72.82 acres located at hunters bend road and done lap road, sewage service to be provided by hornsby bend utility company. Austin five mile e.t.j.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...meaning the subdivision plat, you know, that site plan for a condo, we have every right to -- to view it as subdivision plat. So having said all of that, I just wanted -- we are starting to see more of these, in this case we have no problem with this site plan and we recommend that the court issues an exemption from platting, which is I think what we would like to do is bring these to court when we have them. Mr. Baker has -- has posted what amounts to alternative fiscal for his site plan, which to refresh you all's memory is fiscal for revegetation and restoration. When we reviewed this plat, we look add the drainage -- we looked at the drainage issues associated with it and the transportation issues. Harris prepared a -- harris baker prepared or actually his engineer prepared a transportation impact analysis study, so, you know, we looked at that very closely. His -- his roadways or his driveways meet our criteria. His drainage meets our criteria. We want to review these just as we would construction plans for a plat. This uses sound engineering criteria so in his case city of Austin's nearest parkland provider, if it wasn't, I would want to -- to get fiscal for, you know, or fees for parks and just treat it just like a park. But I just wanted to bring this to all's attention since we are starting to see more condo site plans. That's really the whole purpose for this item.
>> so on the condominium projects, we do not approve the subdivision --
>> no, it's a one lot site plan. But just since it's kind of functioning like a plat, that's why we are bringing it.
>> okay.
>> judge, I have no problem with this. I have looked at it and it appears that everything looks appropriate now except the recommendation that the name and move approval of item no. 23.
>> I will second it. If I could add this is the kind of thing I expect to see when these are brought forward in terms of somebody who has answered all of those kinds of questions that have been problematic, to me this is kind of the template of going through the review that fiscal is being posted, we have looked at the fire marshal's issues, ingress, egress, this is the way things need to look.
>> did I leave anything out that you would want me to get in there.
>> I don't think so. There's a bit of history on the condominiums. You may remember this goes as far back as 2001. When there was one we did have a couple of problems with -- with -- we got those worked out and then there was a project done in hays county that was -- the owner wanted to develop as a condominium in hays county had some serious problems with it and they actually requested an attorney general opinion on it. And as you may remember, you all authorized the county attorney's office to file a brief, supporting hays county's contention that condominiums are subdivisions, the a.g. Ruled in favor of hays county. On that issue and ever since then we have been getting maybe one a year of these. We have sort of dealt with them on an ad hoc basis on the strength of the a.g. Ruling that they are subdivisions and should require a plat. But normally on condominiums, you know, the practice is that you have to do a whole lot of stuff that looks like a plat, but it not quite a plat. The intention onture's part for quite some time is really to adopt a set of rules and standards and procedures just for these condominiums. So that we don't have to do it ad hoc every time. But because we only get about one a year, we really haven't ever done that, hopefully it's something that we are going to address when we do the final subdivision rules sometime over the next few months.
>> but in the meantime, I would like to handle it the way we are handling this, with an exemption and requiring the same type of things that we do with the subdivision, look at it the same way and unless you guys tell me different.
>> okay. This item really is just to -- to approve exemptions from the subdivision plat ing requirements, that's all that -- we will continue on the ad hoc approach. Until t.n.r. What time to sit down and say which of the subdivisions that we have really does apply here. -- because -- to make sure the condominiums comply with that. Quekd come up with some sort -- we could come up with some sort of standardized procedure. It's good to do this, call it a plat exemption, which technically if t.n.r. Approved the site plan and the developer just went out and started platting without something from the court, that said you are exempt from subdivision requirements technically, they would be violating the law and -- and someone might call on you to "enforce the law" against this "illegal subdivision." so this is the cleefn way to do it as a plat exemption. Any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. If you have business with the court today, come this way because we have three or four more items, we should cover them quickly.
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:
Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:23 AM