Travis County Commissioners Court
August 12, 2008
Item 7
>> item 7, consider and take appropriate action on request for fox hill preliminary plan, 476 total lots in precinct 4.
>> good morning, anna bolin, Travis County t.n.r. The fox hill preliminary plan is in precinct 4. It's on 215 acres. 89 of those acres are in city of Austin's full purpose. And with the remaining 126 acres being in the two.
>> mile e.t.j. So we're really here on the portion of it that is in the e.t.j., the single office reviewed this. This plan has 476 lots. 463 would be standard lots and four multi-family lots. This preliminary was originally submitted in October 2006. And there was some controversy associated with this based on some fill that was placed in the city of Austin portion of the area back in 2005, and the fill was allegedly placed there for agricultural uses and crops were planted. The federal -- fema major fema,e federal emergency management agency, the applicant did a protest to the new map to fema, and the protest was approved giving a new location to the flood plain. After the discussion -- after the flood -- the fill and the flood plain issue came to light, there was much discussion with the city of Austin, and the applicant completed and field calculations determining that there was 24-acre feet of fill that was -- had been placed in the flood plain and they did modeling of pre and post-fill conditions and they came up with a mitigation plan to rectify the fill that was placed in the flood plain. In June of this year, the city and the county both approved a permit to remedy the fill situation. And the applicant posted fiscal for the -- it's a separate site plan permit. The applicant posted fiscal for this and they have 90 days to complete the mediation action. So that was one of the biggest controversies that came to light with regard to this preliminary plan. This subdivision is -- it had a service extension request from city of Austin for wastewater, and it will be served by Creedmoor maha for their water. There was some testimony and some concerns raised by an adjacent neighbor that the map shown for the service extension request showed a pipeline -- or showed the wastewater line going through their property. The city has-the service extension request was granted, because there are alternate ways to get the wastewater to the subdivision other than the -- that one adjacent property owner's. And originally when this prelim came in, it just had one access on to 35. Since that time in working with the city of Austin and with txdot, they came up with an alternate access, which would be emergency only and usually gated on to 35. So there would be two ways on in and out. In addition there's several substreets surrounding this property. So those were the main things that came to light during the review process and the approval process at zoning and platting commission. The only other thing I would feel the need to tell you at this point is that there were administratively granted block length waivers for approximately five -- five blocks in the subdivision, which exceeded the 1200 feet length. And those were administratively granted because it was found that due to topography and due to the fact that it would not have an adverse impact on transportation, that those were appropriate as per code.
>> those were granted by Travis County?
>> those were granted by the single office. As per title 30.
>> so the mitigation for removal of this dirt, I guess, we believe that the -- that there is an agreed remediation plan. So the question is -- well, then the applicant has 90 days to complete that?
>> yes, sir, and the applicant posted fiscal to ensure that if they did not take care of the mediation plan, the city of Austin had the right to go in and draw down the fiscal and finish the work themselves if need be.
>> okay. So in your view, what issues are outstanding today?
>> in my view, this preliminary plan meets the requirements of title 30 and that's why we put it on recommending approval.
>> okay. But there may be residents who disagree. And maybe not. Anybody here in opposition to this preliminary plan? If so, please come forward. So the city and county basically recommend approval.
>> yes, sir. This has already been approved by zoning and platting commission, and, you know, I would say the most complicated thing about this is we're approving the prelim, but in the course of reviewing the prelim, the need was -- the cause and the need for a separate site plan to take care of the mitigation, that came to light and so there have been two parallel processes going on, you know, at the same time. But aside from that, this prelim meets our requirements and we recommend approval.
>> and you've had meetings with whatever residents that had concerns before today?
>> yes, sir. Our staff has.
>> and I believe the applicant has also met with neighbors in the area. They do have a signed contract that kind of says that the mitigation plan will be taken care of before the final plat comes back to us for approval. This is a preliminary plan, if we can explain again to the public, no construction takes place immediately, it just is for the purposes of planning and to get a bird's eye view of what the total subdivision will look like. So it just gives us an opportunity to plan. I would move approval, judge, of this preliminary plan of fox hill.
>> second.
>> okay. Would the applicant like to say anything or since we appear to be on a roll would you like us just to go ahead and do anything.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> any questions for the applicant? Any discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all.
>> thank you.
>> and this item did not take as long as the county judge thought it might so we'll be able to pick up some other items. And those waiting to take up the compensation issue may want to head this way as soon as possible. Anybody from planning -- planning and budget is here.
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:
Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:37 PM