Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Oakwood Trails development agreement, grants conditional master‑plan approval
Summary
Manvel council authorized a development agreement and granted conditional approval to the Oakwood Trails master plan in the extraterritorial jurisdiction, with staff to finalize conditions; discussion focused on phasing, access points and traffic analysis at later preliminary plat stage.
Manvel city council authorized a development agreement and conditionally approved the Oakwood Trails master plan on Monday night, advancing a proposed subdivision located east of Avellino and north of the Manvel Town Center pod.
Key points: Staff recommended approval of the development agreement and a conditional approval of the master plan; council voted unanimously to approve both items with the conditions identified by staff. The project is in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), so property owners would not immediately pay city property taxes but the city’s subdivision standards and ordinances will apply.
Why it matters: Oakwood Trails would be phased and — in one phase — temporarily rely on fewer access points than the city’s subdivision ordinance typically requires. Staff and the applicant requested a variance now to allow the applied phasing; they said access triggers tied to later sections will create the required number of access points when those sections are constructed.
Discussion highlights: Development staff explained the variance request: the developer plans to temporarily provide two access points through phases 1 and 2, and section 3 would ultimately produce the additional access point required by ordinance. Staff recommended the variance and said the subdivision would construct roads as needed in future phases; a development agreement will document triggers tied to phasing and access (including counting Kirby Road as two access points later because it is a boulevard entrance).
Council members and staff probed land‑ownership complications: parts of the area between section 2 and section 3 are owned by other MUDs and private parcels, creating a checkerboard of ownership. Staff said the developer and MUDs have been encouraged to pursue land swaps or coordination; staff also said any escrows or road construction obligations would be reviewed at the preliminary‑plat stage.
Traffic and drainage: Council asked whether the master plan should include a traffic impact analysis (TIA) now. Staff replied that TIAs are typically required at the preliminary‑plat stage and that detailed traffic and drainage analyses would be prepared then; the master plan was treated as a schematic layout to test general conformity with the city’s standards.
Action and next steps: Council approved the development agreement and conditionally approved the master plan, unanimously, and staff said the applicant must return with the resolution and final conditions once the outstanding staff comments are addressed. Council directed staff to ensure the development agreement captures phasing triggers and guarantees (e.g., when a boulevard counts as two access points).
Ending: Developers must complete preliminary‑plat submittals and the engineering reviews (traffic, drainage, ROW obligations) before infrastructure permits or plat recordation.
