The Lakeway Zoning and Planning Commission on Oct. 1 recommended changes to Amendment No. 5 of the Oaks at Lakeway Planned Unit Development, approving the package 6-0 while striking language the commission said improperly shifted the city’s fiscal responsibility and trimming the developer’s requested timeline.

The commission’s action removes paragraph 5 of the amendment, eliminates a sentence in section 14(f) that Chairwoman Vance said would “promptly dismiss with prejudice any refiling of any alleged default of the developers’ obligations,” and shortens the proposed completion window for Main Street work to 16 months from the ordinance effective date.

The amendment covers about 34.745 acres within the original 89.724-acre Oaks PUD and updates timing and permitting language related to construction of Main Street and related infrastructure. Erin Carr, the city’s planning staff presenter, said the changes mostly clarify obligations developers have already met and set a new schedule for Main Street completion tied to the ordinance’s signing.

Kylie, a representative for Stratus Development (the applicant), told the commission the team has submitted a first site-plan correction and that they do not yet have an infrastructure permit from WCID 17. “Once the fees have been calculated and paid, we should be in a good position to move forward and start scheduling our precon meeting,” Kylie said. She told commissioners that permitting steps remain but that progress is underway.

Commission discussion focused on three items: whether the PUD should refer to obligations outside the PUD boundary (paragraph 5), the sentence in 14(f) that would dismiss prior enforcement claims, and how the Oaks timeline compares to neighboring developers’ schedules. Commissioner LeBlanc challenged an assertion that the Oaks schedule would put them “about a year behind” another developer, saying that when compared on the same basis the difference was closer to months rather than a year.

Chairwoman Vance told the developer she could not support the PUD with the contested 14(f) sentence in place, saying the clause would in effect ask the city to involve itself in an ongoing matter the commission should not resolve. The city attorney and staff noted the city already has mechanisms—developer fiscal posting and a voter-approved transportation bond—to ensure roads are completed if a developer fails to do so, making the paragraph potentially redundant and possibly nonbinding.

After discussion, a motion to approve the amendment with the three changes (strike paragraph 5, remove the 14(f) sentence, and set the completion period at 16 months) passed 6-0.

The commission’s recommendation will go to City Council for final action; staff said the effective deadline would be calculated from the council adoption date if council approves the ordinance.

Lede evidence and related exchanges are drawn from the commission’s Oct. 1 meeting presentation and the developer’s on-the-record responses about permitting and timing.