This is the official website of Travis County, Texas.

On This Site

Commissioners Court

Previous Years' Agendas

Intergovernmental Relations Office

Administrative Ops

Health & Human Svcs

Criminal_Justice

Planning & Budget

Transportation & Natural Resources
 

On Other Sites

Travis County Commissioners Court

January 3, 2006
Item 5

View captioned video.

5. Consider and take appropriate action on granting an exemption from platting requirements for a condominium project in precinct three: sweetwater glen (approximately 253 detached units - 56.556 acres located at 10301 manchaca road - water and sewage service to be provided by Austin water utility - Austin 2-mile e.t.j. I had win question on this. We really are exempting the condominium from the platting requirements. I think I understood the backup, but you closed by saying we are approving the condominium project, prawferg the site plan instead of the -- approving the site plan instead of the plat. In this item we simply exempt this from the platting requirements. If we do that, do we approve the plan automatically?

>> not automatically. You are relieving them of the requirement to -- to have a plat prepared showing all of the different lots and getting approval of that and filing it in the courthouse.

>> okay.

>> and I think what t.n.r. Is saying is the reason that they are comfortable recommending that is that they have a -- looked at their site plan and their site plan meets all of the basic drainage and road requirements.

>> we plan to approve the site plan?

>> yes.

>> that will come back to us later?

>> well, no. I mean, the site plan is ready to go. What -- this is the second site plan for a condominium that we have brought to court.

>> I understand. All right. My question is pretty specific. Right here we are asked to exempt this project from the platting requirements. Which is fine to me. Backup says we are also approving the site plan.

>> t.n.r. Is.

>> right. This item is not ready for us to approve the site plan or is it?

>> t.n.r. Traditionally approved, signs off and approves the site plan.

>> so the court doesn't have to do that, t.n.r. Will?

>> yes, sir.

>> okay, that's fine.

>> one quick question related to this section of manchaca. Is this section one lane, excuse me two lanes or four lanes? Gerald?

>> two. I think this is the two-lane part?

>> I think it has two, also a shoulder.

>> it does have a shoulder, but it's the part that's south of freight barker, so it's the two.

>> were there any kind of requirements related to setbacks to be able to -- for I hope at some point that this road gets improved to its ultimate buildout.

>> all of the right-of-way for the widening has already taken place.

>> that's the question.

>> the access point I’m sure was predicated in part by txdot's site distance requirements on the farm-to-market road.

>> right. That's all that I was really concerned about. They have got a second entrance as well. Dual access. It was really has txdot got the land at whatever point they decide to do it.

>> go ahead.

>> good morning, court. Tom moody with d.r. Horton, representing the developer here. There is in this area on manchaca, there is five lanes.

>> five.

>> each direction -- two each direction with a continued turn lane.

>> glad to hear it, thank you.

>> that's good, thanks.

>> once we exempt this from the platting requirements, the courtesies it no more.

>> yes, that's correct, yes, sir.

>> okay.

>> move approval.

>> bring up one thing, judge.

>> certainly.

>> normally for a subdivision they have to post some sort of fiscal security. T.n.r. Is not requiring that in this case. But in lieu of that they are asking the applicant to sign an agreement, that basically sort of serves as a phasing agreement. That's prn prepared for your signature. In my view, approval of this item would authorize you to sign it, it would be covered by the other appropriate action language in the posting.

>> shouldn't we have the motion clearly say that.

>> yes, if you could specify that in the motion it would be good.

>> Commissioner Daugherty is specifying exactly what now? [laughter]

>> authorizing the county judge to sign the phasing agreement.

>> that's what I said too.

>> pace part of my motion.

>> that is part of my motion.

>> that is part of my second.

>> okay. Any more discussion? Thank you very much. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.


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, January 4, 2006 10:36 AM