Sep 09, 2021 P&amp;Z Commission

AND DO YOU, DO WE EVER THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION? OKAY.

AT THIS POINT WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UH, COZ SEED X CHIPS, AFRICAN CHICKEN.

I'M SORRY IF I BUTCHERED YOUR NAME, IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

MY NAME IS CASA ALI KHAN AND MY ADDRESS IS 27 37 LAKE FOREST DRIVE ROUND ROCK, TEXAS.

THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

UH, THE REASON I'M HERE IS BECAUSE RIGHT, UH, CLOSE TO THAT LIGHT, WE HAVE A PROPERTY WHICH IS THE, UH, THE, THE SEVEN, EIGHT ACRE LOT THERE.

AND WE HAVE THE SAME CHALLENGES THERE.

IT'S ON THE EDWARDS, OUR FIRE ZONE, AND, UH, IT'S, UH, CURRENTLY TARGETED TO BE AN ACTIVITY CENTER.

IT'S GOT 20% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO MUCH, BUT THAT LOT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS.

AND I SAW THE 17 ACRES TRYING TO DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO.

THAT'S WHY WE CAME HERE TO, TO SEE HOW THIS GOES.

AND OUR PLAN IS ALSO TO DO, UH, YOU KNOW, BUT SEVEN RESIDENTIAL, LOTS IN THAT EIGHT ACRE PROPERTY.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE SIDE OF HIM AT THIS POINT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER, MAN.

SO THIS QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE MORE FOR STAFF.

UM, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SAY IN THE, IN THE APPROVAL CRITERIA THAT, UH, THE COMMERCIAL HERITAGES C USES MAY BE POSSIBLE, THERE COULD BE RESTRICTIONS ON BUILDING FOOTPRINT.

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A BETTER, UM, UH, ZONING CATEGORY FOR THAT LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THAT PROPERTY INSTEAD OF THE ACTIVITY CENTER? I'M NOT, I'M NOT TELLING YOU TO DECIDE FOR ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, I'M JUST SAYING, BUT ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO BUILD THE RESIDENTIAL VERSUS SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL OR THE HIGHER DENSITY THAT THE ACTIVITY CENTER WOULD ALLOW? SO WE, WE WERE TRYING TO SAY THAT, UM, EITHER LAND USE CATEGORY IS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE.

THEY HAVE SOME ATTIC CONSTRAINTS THAT YOU DON'T SEE THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHERE THE TCEQ MAY LIMIT THEIR IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SO THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO HAVE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT AND GO VERTICAL.

SO IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ADJACENT, LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST.

IT JUST MAKES IT MORE COMPLICATED.

WE JUST WANT TO ALL HAVE ALL THAT.

I THINK THIS IS A MODERATELY GOOD EXAMPLE OF ONE WHERE I DEALT THAT THE TEXAS OF THE TCEQ DISCUSSION CAME UP MUCH DURING, I MEAN, MRS. GRIFFIN COULD CORRECT ME ON THAT DURING THE, DURING THE, UM, THE PLANNING PHASE.

AND THEN, AND THEN MY NEXT THING IS NOT A QUESTION FOR ANYONE.

IT'S MORE OF A STATEMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M ALL FOR LARGE LOT SUBDIVISIONS, BUT I'M COMPLETELY AGAINST US GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN, AND THEN A FEW MONTHS LATER COMING BACK AND CHANGING.

THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY WITH A LOT OF LITTLE HODGEPODGE STUFF THAT WE HAVE ALL OVER THE CITY.

SO YOU GUYS KIND OF KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS, MR. CARPENTER.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING ON THIS ONE, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.

DO YOU KNOW IF THESE, UH, AT THEY'RE PROPOSING THE, THESE HAVE TO BE FOR SALE OR FOR RENT? UH, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE ON THAT.

I'M NOT SURE LAURA SLOTS ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE GETTING SOLD.

MY ONLY ISSUE IS A HABIT WHICH HOPEFULLY DOESN'T HAPPEN ANYWAYS, BUT HAVING A HOUSE AND THEN SEEING WHAT I APPLY, I'VE SEEN A LOT IS BUY IT AND THEN PUT IT UP FOR LEASE OR RENT.

SO THAT'S, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

UM, WELL I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR LAND USE, UM, UPDATE IS I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT DECISION.

I THINK THAT, UM, IT'S INTERESTING TO TCEQ INFORMATION.

IT'S NOT VERY OFTEN THAT WE HAVE A DISCUSSION THAT INCLUDES SOMETHING LIKE THEIR RE RECHARGE ZONE.

UM, WHAT I DO THINK IS THAT TO COMMISSIONER MAY HANDS POINT, YOU KNOW, BUILDING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IS, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SOMEWHAT LIMITED BY TIME AND HOW MUCH THOUGHT CAN BE GIVEN TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT I CAME INTO THIS IN A VERY SIMILAR POSITION.

WE HAD JUST GONE THROUGH ANOTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, RIGHT WHEN I GOT ON THE COMMISSION.

AND, UM, I THINK THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT GENERAL TACK TO TAKE IS THAT WE WENT THROUGH ALL THAT TROUBLE FOR A REASON THAT SAID,

[00:10:01]

AND IF THAT HAD BEEN KNOWN, I THINK THIS MIGHT HAVE GONE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

I DON'T PARTICULARLY HAVE ANY PROBLEM.

UH, AS STAFF STATED, MAYBE MAKING A MORE HOLISTIC, UH, UH, LAND USE UPDATE SUGGESTION, AS OPPOSED TO JUST THIS LITTLE ONE-OFF THING.

I THINK, UM, MR. HUNTER, MRS. GRIFFIN WOULD NEED TO LET ME KNOW WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'D HAVE TO BRING BACK FOR ANOTHER ITEM GOING FORWARD, OR IS THAT WE WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT.

SO THE PUBLIC NOTICE ONLY INCLUDED THE SLOT.

SO YOU'D MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PROJECT.

THEN YOU COULD DIRECT STAFF TO START LOOKING AT WHAT A GOOD CHANGE WOULD BE FOR THE AREA.

I, I THINK, I THINK TO COMMISSIONER MAY HAN'S POINT, LIKE THE WORST THING YOU CAN DO IS THE JIGSAW APPROACH WHERE YOU JUST DO ONE HERE AND THERE.

WHAT WE HAVE IS WHAT I ASSUME IS PROBABLY NEW INFORMATION INTRODUCED TO THE LAND USE DISCUSSION HERE, WHICH IS THIS TCEQ STUFF MS. GRIFFIN HAS THAT WRONG, WAS DO YOU KNOW IF THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION? IT WASN'T DURING THE ACTUAL PLANNING STAGES.

AND WE HAVE SUCH A SMALL PORTION OF THE CITY THAT'S IN THE CONTRIBUTING ZONE, SO IT'S KIND OF AT THE BACK OF OUR MINDS.

UM, SO IT, IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT.

NO, I THINK, I THINK IF, IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE INTO IT, I THINK THAT WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS, I DUNNO IF WE CAN SORT OF DISCUSS IT MORE BROADLY NOW, BUT WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BRING IT BACK SO THAT WE CAN REASSESS THIS INTERSECTION AND HOW SO THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH A HOLISTIC LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THIS GENERAL AREA GOING FORWARD.

SO IF I CAN, I THINK WHAT, WHAT WE DO IS FOCUS ON THIS LOT TODAY.

AND THEN ON THE NEXT AGENDA, I COULD HAVE AN ITEM TO TALK ABOUT THE WHOLE CENTER AND WE COULD LOOK AT WHAT WE WANT TO CHANGE.

AND WE ALSO HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, IMPACTS ON TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO WE'LL NEED TO COMMUNICATE TO THEM BEFORE WE MAKE THE CHANGES.

AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK ON THAT.

I THINK THAT'S, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT, ESPECIALLY.

I MEAN, WE SAW THAT ONE PROPERTY OWNER IS GOING TO BE BECOMING INTO A SIMILAR SITUATION.

IF WE CAN FIX THIS HOLISTICALLY, INSTEAD OF PIECEMEALING, IT THAT'S, THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN MY PROBLEM.

WE KIND OF PIECEMEAL THINGS ACROSS THE CITY AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAD NO PLAN.

SO EITHER WE STICK TO THE PLAN OR WE UPDATE THE PLAN COMPREHENSIVELY INSTEAD OF JUST ONE OFF SET OF TIME.

AND THEN WE DON'T AND WE PRESENT, WE PREVENT OTHER APPLICANTS FROM HAVING TO COME UP WITH THE LANDOWNERS, HAVING TO COME BACK BEFORE US FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL PIECE.

CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY SOLVED IT FOR THEM.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS INDIVIDUAL CASE, MR. STYLES, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT COMMISSIONER MAYAN IS AGREEING WITH MARSHALL.

IT'S AN INSIDE JOKE.

UM, HAVING SET ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP SINCE IT WAS AGREED UPON THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION FOR I'M IN FAVOR OF THE LARGER LOTS.

I'VE BEEN VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, WE'VE TENDED TO DIRECT THE CITY AWAY FROM APARTMENTS, BUT WE SEEM TO BE GETTING AS SMALL OF A RESIDENTIAL LOT AND CONDOMINIUMS AS POSSIBLE.

WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THIS TO LARGE LOTS.

I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF IT.

UM, I'M A LITTLE CURIOUS ROBIN, EXACTLY WHERE TCEQ WOULD COME INTO EFFECT ON SOME OF OUR THINGS, UH, OTHER THAN JUST THIS AREA, BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, THIS WAS NOT DISCUSSED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH US AT ALL.

WE HAVE A MAP THAT I COULD SHARE AT THE NEXT MEETING, JUST TO KIND OF SHOW I'M IN THE STAFF REPORT ON PAGE TWO, IT SHOWS KIND OF A SNIP OF THE AREA AND THE GREEN AREAS, THE RECHARGE ZONE.

UM, BUT WE CAN SHARE THAT DURING THE NEXT DISCUSSION, VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THAT FOR THE RECORD.

I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER HINES THAN COMMISSIONER MY ISLAND ON THIS ONE.

I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD IDEA.

AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE DID ADDRESS IT FOR EVERYTHING IN THAT AREA, INSTEAD OF PIECEMEALING IT.

I THINK THAT THIS MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF SENSE, AND WE SHOULD SEE ABOUT EXPANDING OF IT POSSIBLE.

THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE COMMISSIONER COSGRAVE GOES, UM, MRS. GRIFFIN, IF IT'S NOT, IF IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TROUBLE, WHAT WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL IS IF WE COULD GET A COPY OF THE CURRENT LAND USE MAP WITH THE SHAPE FILES FOR THE TCEQ STUFF, LAID OVER THE TOP OF IT, IF THAT WOULDN'T BE TOO MUCH TROUBLE FOR THE FOLKS, THE GIS FOLKS TO JUST LAY THOSE OVER THE TOP, WE CAN TRY IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT DATA FROM TCEQ, BUT, UM, THEY'RE CREATIVE SO I CAN SEE WHAT THINGS COME UP.

TRY AT LEAST IT WOULD MAKE IT REALLY EASY FOR US TO SEE WHERE YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, THESE SORT OF OVERLAPPING ISSUES.

AND THEN I HEAR YOU SAYING YOU'RE REQUESTING TO HAVE A REVIEW OF ALL THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING THERE.

YES.

OH, THAT'D BE GREAT.

COMMISSIONER COSGROVE.

I THINK THAT THE ACTIVITY CENTER MAY IN FACT BE A LITTLE BIT WIDE HERE.

SO, UM,

[00:15:02]

UM, BUT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MAN, THAT I'M, I'M, I'M REALLY OPPOSED TO DOING THESE THINGS PIECEMEAL.

UM, SO I'M GOING TO VOTE NO ON THE INDIVIDUAL CASE, BUT IF YOU BRING IT BACK, I'LL BOTH MAKE THE WHOLE THING.

RESIDENTIAL DON'T GO AWAY.

MS. GRIFFIN, I AM ASSUMING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE SLOT IS PAID SOMETHING TO BRING THIS HE'S PAID FOR THE AMENDMENT AND HAS A CONCEPT PLANNING REVIEW.

SO I'D SUGGEST WE LET HIM CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD WHILE WE ASSESS THE REST OF THE AREA, UM, OR HE'LL HAVE TO STOP HIS PROJECT IS THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS CAUSE HIM ADDITIONAL PAIN BECAUSE WE EAT.

IF WE MAKE THE ASSUMPTION, WE'VE DONE SOME, SOMETHING WRONG IN, UM, DOING THIS AS AN ACTIVITY CENTER.

UM, I DON'T WANT TO PUNISH HIM, UH, BUT I, I REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PIECEMEALING THIS OUT.

WE ONLY HAVE X AMOUNT OF LAND FOR ACTIVITY CENTER.

UM, AND YOU KNOW, W ONCE YOU BUILD ALL THE LOTS AROUND IT AND PUT ALL THE BIG, EVEN IF THEY'RE BIG LOTS, WHICH I LOVE HERE IN THE TOWN, IF THEY'RE ALL AROUND, YOU CAN'T SAY MOVE OVER OR WE'RE PUTTING A WALMART IN.

AND I'M JUST USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE THAT I'M NOT SAYING BUILD A WALMART.

UM, BUT TH THAT, THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH THIS.

AND I HAVE A CONCERN MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE OF THAT, BUT I DON'T AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T WANT TO PENALIZE HIM.

SO THAT'S MY 2 CENTS.

SO, SO I, I KINDA ORIGINALLY FELT LIKE COMMISSIONER COSTCO, YOU KNOW, AS YOU GUYS HEARD EARLIER, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT HE, HE WOULD'VE PAID A FEE TO DO THIS AND THAT.

I ALSO FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN TAKE A MORE HOLISTIC VIEW AND FIX THIS FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

SO WE DON'T SAVE THE APPLICANT ANY MONEY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO SAY FUTURE, UH, LANDOWNERS MONEY.

SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'LL SECOND.

IT I'LL, UH, AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE WHAT COMMISSIONER HINES JUST SAID.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAN.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STYLES, ALL IN FAVOR, ALL OPPOSED PASSES FIVE TO, TO COMMISSIONER COSGRAVE AND COMMISSIONER MAY'S OPPOSED.

AND AGAIN, I I'D LIKE TO CITY COUNCIL.

NO, IT'S NOT THE WE'RE AGAINST THE REZONING OF IT.

IT'S THE PIECEMEALING OF IT, NOT, NOT THIS INDIVIDUAL CASE.

SO WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON.

ITEM 16 HAS BEEN POSTPONED BY THE APPLICANT ITEM, 17

[17. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Zoning Case 21-Z-027 to amend the current zoning of Interim SFR-1-B (Single-Family Rural) to GC-2-B (General Commercial) and SFT-2-B (Single-Family Townhouse) on thirteen parcels of land approximately 183.415 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcels R555235, R031351, R031347, R462377, R555246, R031298, R031398, R473651, R555247, R031280, R031279, R031286, and R031297; and more commonly known as 3345, 3549, 3919, & 3957 Hero Way, 8330 RR 2243, and 17501 Ronald W Reagan Blvd, Leander, Williamson County, Texas. Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case 21-Z-027 as described above. Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Open Public Hearing Close Public Hearing Discussion Consider Action]

CONDUCT, A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING ZONING CASE 21 Z 0 27, TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONING OF INTERIM S F R ONE DASH B SINGLE FAMILY, RURAL TO G C TO BE GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND S F T TWO DASH B SINGLE FAMILY TOWN TOWNHOME ON APPROXIMATELY 13 PARCELS OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 183.4, ONE FIVE ACRES IN SIZE AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3, 3 4 5 3 5 4 9 3 9 1 9 3 9 5 7 HERE AWAY 83 30 ARE 2, 2, 4, 3 AND 17 5 0 1, RONALD REAGAN BOULEVARD, LEANDRA WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS STAFF PRESENTATION.

OKAY, THANK YOU, MICHAEL PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

AND SO THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS.

UH, THE APPLICANT TEST SUBMITTED THE REQUEST, UH, WITH THE INTENT OF DEVELOPING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ALONG HERE, AWAY AND ALONG RONALD REAGAN BOULEVARD, UH, WITH A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION IN THE INTERIOR LOTS.

AND THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 82 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL AND 94 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL.

SO THIS SUBJECT AREA IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HERO WAY.

AND RONALD REAGAN, A MAJORITY OF THE PROP SURROUNDING AREA INCLUDES INTERIM ZONING DISTRICTS, UH, AND LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL, UH, OR UNDEVELOPED LAND.

THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE ACTIVITY CENTER.

AS YOU CAN SEE OVER HERE, OR I'M SORRY, THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE LOCATED IN THE ACTIVITY CENTER.

UM, THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY INCLUDES

[00:20:02]

UNPLANTED PARCELS, WHICH WILL NEED TO BE PLANTED AT THE TIME.

THE AREA DEVELOPS A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY EXTENDS INTO, UH, THE FLOODPLAIN EXTENDS INTO THE SUBJECT AREA AND DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE FLOOD PAIN.

PLAIN WILL NEED TO BE EVALUATED IN DETAIL DURING THE CONSTRUCTION APPLICATIONS, YOUR PROPERTY CONTAINS SIGNIFICANT TREE COVER, WHICH WILL NEED TO BE, UH, SUBJECT TO THE CITY'S PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS THIS PROPERTY HAD, OR THE SUBJECT AREA HAD MULTIPLE ANNEXATION DATES AND THE PROPERTIES ALONG, UH, RONALD REAGAN AND RM 2243 WERE ANNEXED IN 2005, ALONG HERE AWAY IN 2016.

AND THE INTERIOR PARCELS WERE ANNEXED IN 2018.

UH, MANY OF THESE PARCELS WERE ALSO PART OF A PREVIOUS ZONING CASE, UH, LAST YEAR, UH, 19 Z DASH 0 2 3, WHICH WAS REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE FROM SFR SINGLE FAMILY WORLD TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

UH, THAT APPLICATION WAS DENIED BY COUNCIL, UH, LAST SEPTEMBER.

SO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, LET ME GO BACK DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS EMPLOYMENT CENTER AND ACTIVITY CENTER, THE ACTIVITY CENTER INCLUDES A DESIRED LAND USE DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE FOR COMMERCIAL OF 70 TO A HUNDRED PERCENT AND RESIDENTIAL ZERO TO 30%.

THE SUBJECT AREA CURRENTLY IS MADE UP OF INTERIM ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH WERE APPLIED AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION.

THE ACTIVITY CENTER ALSO INCLUDES A MAJORITY INTERIM RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, ACCOUNTING FOR ROUGHLY 71% OF THE AREA.

THIS IS ZONING REQUESTS WOULD INCREASE THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL LAND DISTRIBUTION FROM 11 TO 25% AND INCREASE THE DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL FROM 12 TO 24%.

THERE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 44% REMAINING AS INTERIM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, UH, WITH THE REMAINING LAND BEING OWNED BY L I S D A THIS SUBJECT AREA SITE HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER NOR STAFF WITH REGARD TO PLATTING, UH, DRAINAGE ACCESS OR UTILITIES AT THIS TIME.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION AND BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, UM, JUST WANTED TO THANK THE STAFF OR THE TIME THAT WOULD MAKE THEM ALL TO WORK TOGETHER TO PRESENT TO YOU THIS ZONING CASE.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE ZONING CASE, UH, COMPLIES WITH YOUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

UM, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A WAY FOR US TO ADVANCE THE PROJECT AND PUT SOME INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE GROUND SO THAT SEVERAL, UH, ENTRUSTING PARTIES, UH, WHO ARE LOOKING TO LOCATE HERE IN LANDER, BUT WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY.

UH, THIS IS THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF APPLICATIONS.

UH, HONESTLY THEY CAN'T EVEN REALLY SIGN A CONTRACT TO BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY UNLESS THE ZONING'S IN PLACE.

SO WE CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT POSSIBLY COULD BE THEIR NAME BRANDS, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

BUT, UH, WE WE'RE, UH, WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE FUTURE ON THIS CORNER.

WE THINK THAT THIS WILL BE, UM, THE ANCHOR TO THIS ACTIVITY CENTER, UM, RIGHT HERE ON THE INLAND AND ON THE INTERSECTION OF RONALD REAGAN AND HERO.

SO WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, UM, OTHERWISE THANK YOU.

THIS POINT, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I DO HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, EDITH PAYNE.

I'VE OKAY.

IF YOU'LL STEP UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

UM, YOU'LL NEED TO GET A CARD THEY'RE OUT IN THE FOYER, AND IF YOU TURN IT INTO THE, UH, YOU CAN JUST ENDED UP HERE TO COMMISSIONER HINES AND HE'LL PASS IT OVER.

AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE.

MY NAME IS EDITH PAYNE, AND I LIVE IN RICH MARTIN LANDING, WHICH IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AND IT, IT, IT WILL INDIRECTLY AFFECT ME.

AND I HAVE TO, TWO POINTS TO ASK.

ONE IS THE ROAD 22, 43.

IT'S ALREADY BAD WITH TRAFFIC AND SUCH.

AND HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE IMPROVED SOMEHOW? AND, AND MY BIGGEST QUESTION IS WHERE IS ALL THE WATER COMING FOR? ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS I'VE ALREADY RECEIVED IN MY WATER BILL TO BE CONSERVATIVE, WHICH I'VE ALREADY BEEN CONSERVATIVE, ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, BUT WHEN IS THE CITY GOING TO STEP UP BEING CONSERVATIVE ABOUT ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS? WHERE IS THE WATER COMING FROM? WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK BACK AND FORTH, BUT

[00:25:01]

OKAY, WELL, THAT'S MY TWO CONCERNS IS THAT IS THE HIGHWAYS BECAUSE THE INTERSECTION AT 2243 AND RONALD REAGAN, THERE'S THERE'S ACCIDENTS THERE ALL THE TIME, AND SOME OF THEM ARE FATAL.

UM, AND, UH, TH TH IT, IT JUST CAN'T HANDLE THE TRAFFIC THAT IT'S BECOMING TO, UH, TO HAVE.

AND, UM, I JUST, I KNOW THERE WAS A MEETING WE WENT TO IN GEORGETOWN ABOUT DOING ANOTHER ROAD.

I CAN'T REMEMBER NOW WHERE IT WAS GOING TO GO, BUT IT WASN'T, UH, IT WAS GOING TO KIND OF ELIMINATE A LOT OF THAT ON 22, 43, BUT AT THE TIME THEY SAID THERE WASN'T MONEY APPROPRIATED FOR IT.

AND I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANYTHING SINCE THEN ABOUT THAT.

SO THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY INPUT ON IT.

DID ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU.

IT WAS MEMORIAL.

HAVE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND I'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS THAT, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST TAKE IT AS A, YOU KNOW, NOT ADVICE, BUT AS A RECOMMENDATION TO MITIGATE THAT CONCERN.

HELLO.

MY NAME IS ELIZABETH MOORE AND I LIVE AT 1 37 WEST WINDEMERE, WHICH IS IN THE RIDGE MAR UM, LANDING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MS. PAYNE WAS IN.

AND I TOO HAVE SOME CONCERNS.

ONE IS ABOUT THE WATER.

UM, THE OTHER IS ABOUT THE ROADS.

I WAS JUST DRIVING HERE ON 2243, AND IT IS TIGHT ALREADY.

SO TO HAVE ALL THESE EXTRA BUSINESSES BEFORE ROAD CHANGES SEEMS PREMATURE.

TO ME, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT ON BRUSHY CREEK, MY LAND ABUTS BRUSH BRUSHY CREEK, BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT FURTHER UPSTREAM.

WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THAT EVERY TIME IT RAINS, THE CREEK FLOODS AND THE W THE LAND IS ERODING ALONG THE CREEK, BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO HANDLE THIS.

NOW, THE, THE LAND THAT COULD ABSORB THE WATER IS NOW PAVED OVER AND IT'S HAS HOUSES.

I'M AFRAID WITH OTHER HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE, THAT IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE CREEK NEGATIVELY.

AND I WONDER WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE RELATED TO THIS, THIS PROPOSED, UM, CHANGE IN ZONING.

AND THEN FINALLY, I'VE REALLY FEEL CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE, THE ROAD THAT'S GOING TO GO FROM RIDGE MART, THE RIDGE MAR DRIVE RICH MY ROAD, THAT GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO JOG IN THE PLAN AND GO ACROSS.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE CALLED RIDGE MAR TOO.

IT'S LIKE TAKING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ROAD AND TRYING TO LIKE EXTEND IT ACROSS, JUST ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO USE THAT ROAD THAT WAS BUILT WITH NEIGHBORHOOD FUNDS BEFORE THE CITY ANNEXED IT, UM, IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE A THROUGH WAY AND AT LEAST CALL IT A DIFFERENT ROAD OVER THERE INSTEAD OF LIKE TAKING FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I THINK IT'S REPUGNANT.

SO, UM, THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.

THANK YOU, MUHAMMAD.

UH, I WON'T TRY YOUR LAST NAME THERE, BUT IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, WE'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

I APOLOGIZE.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS MOHAMMED MOHIT.

UH, I LIVE IN, UH, AT, UH, 3 8 0 9 SPY GLASGOW ROUND ROCK, TEXAS.

UH, THE QUESTION THAT PROMPTED ME, UH, AS I WAS HEARING ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND THIS RELATES BACK TO, AND I DON'T WANT YOU ALL TO GO BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL AGENDA THAT YOU ALL ALREADY DISCUSSED ON THE SIERRA 2 64, THERE ARE PLANS IN PLACE I BELIEVE, UH, YOU KNOW, TO EXTEND THE 2243, AND THAT WILL ALSO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CR 2 64 CORRIDOR.

AND THIS, THIS IS AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR, FOR THE CITY OF LEANDER.

I'M PREACHING TO THE CHOIR HERE.

UH, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTLY UNDER YOUR JURISDICTION.

HOWEVER, I THINK IF, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS A WAY OR MECHANISM TO EXPEDITE THAT PROCESS OF EXTENDING THEIR 2243 TO DIVERT THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL MITIGATE THE CONCERNS THIS INTERSECTION, AND THAT WILL ALSO ALLOW, YOU KNOW, OR INCREASE THE POTENTIAL OF HAVING AN ACTIVITY CENTER, NOT AROUND THE CR 2 64, BUT I, I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE, YOU KNOW, TO OUR 62 TO 64, SO THAT

[00:30:01]

DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER.

COSGRAVE COME BACK TO ME PLEASE.

I'M GOING OVER THE LIST OF PEOPLE THAT WERE NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS, AND I'M SEEING A LOT OF BUSINESSES.

I'M NOT SEEING A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILIES THAT ARE NOTIFIED HERE, WHERE THERE NO MORE SINGLE FAMILIES CLOSE TO THIS DEVELOPMENT THAN ON THIS LIST HERE WERE YOU NOTIFIED BY MAIL? THANK YOU.

SO BASICALLY WE'RE NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE FINAL PRODUCT HERE.

40, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE THAT THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU THAT ARE YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS WERE NOTIFIED? SHE SAYS YOU HAVE TO COME UP HERE AND TALK TO MIKE.

I'M SORRY.

I KNOW MONDAY, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE THAT YOUR NEIGHBORS WERE NOTIFIED? I DON'T KNOW ALL THE NEIGHBORS THAT WERE NOTIFIED.

I KNOW, UH, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS UP THE STREET BY THE COVERT, THEY WEREN'T NOTIFIED NOW.

THEY ARE ON THE STREAM THERE, AND THEY'RE IN THE, CUL-DE-SAC SET UP ON A WINDERMERE EAST WEST, AND THEY WEREN'T NOTIFIED.

I DID NOTIFY MYSELF AND, UH, BUT THEY DIDN'T THINK IT AFFECTED THEM, BUT I THINK ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS THE RIDGE, MY LAND AND AFFECTS EVERYONE WE'RE LOOKING AT IS I DON'T SEE A LOT OF NAMES THAT LIVE IN RICH MARLANA GOMEZ.

UM, MY, ONE OF MY CONCERNS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS RADEK DIRECTLY ACROSS ON RIDGE MARR ROAD AND IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM MY PROPERTY, WHICH IS RIGHT ON THE END.

AND IT'S ALL IN RED AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALL MY COMMERCIAL AND THAT IS THAT TRUE? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I DID SPEAK WITH THE DEVELOPERS THAT IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPING OVER OFF ON, UM, RONALD REAGAN.

AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HE DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD INCLUDE THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

SO THAT'S MY CONCERN.

I HATE TO SEE ALL THE WILDLIFE AND I HATE TO SEE OUR DEVELOPMENT TURN INTO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AND TIME AND LIVING HERE.

WE MOVED FROM CALIFORNIA.

SO THIS WAS JUST LIVING IN TEXAS HAS BEEN REALLY A JOY.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

I DON'T WANT TO RUIN.

THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE HERE IS IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF THESE HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE 200, 2000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO LINE 2243 IN RONALD REAGAN AND MY INCORRECT IN MY ASSUMPTIONS HERE.

SO WE HAVEN'T REVIEWED WHERE THE LOTS WOULD BE PLACED AT THIS TIME.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT ZONING, THESE, UH, THIS INTERNAL PROPERTY AS THE RESIDENTIAL.

UM, SO ASSUMING IT WAS APPROVED, THEN THEY WOULD MOVE ON TO THEIR CONCEPT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, UH, WHERE WE WOULD GET TO SEE THE LOT LAYOUTS, UM, ANY RIGHT AWAY NECESSARY AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WELL, CAN WE GO BACK TO SAY ATTACHMENT NUMBER TWO HERE, WHERE IT SHOWS RONALD REAGAN AT 2243, IT SHOWS COMMERCIAL UP HERE AT HERO'S WAY.

IT SHOWS COMMERCIAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF HEROES OF 2243, AND RONALD REAGAN, THERE WE GO.

AND THEN IN BETWEEN THERE THAT SHOWS SINGLE FAMILY SUBURBAN, DOES IT RIGHT? AM I BEING COLORBLIND OR ANYTHING HERE? NO.

AND THEN WHEN WE GO UP 22, 43, WE SEE A LOT MORE SINGLE FAMILY ON 22, 43 AS WELL.

SO THOSE ARE, THIS IS CURRENT ZONING, AND THIS IS, UH, SO THAT WAS A MISS, UH, TYPE IN THE DOCUMENT, BUT, AND THESE ARE INTERIM SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.

THESE ARE THE DISTRICTS AS ZONING CATEGORIES THAT CAME IN, UM, WITH ANNEXATION.

[00:35:02]

SO AS FAR AS THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT, UM, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU UTILIZE THE, UM, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE DECISION MR. NELSON, CAN YOU SHOW THE PROPOSED ZONING? YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD GIVE A CLEARER PICTURE TO DR.

STYLES THERE.

SO, SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS IF YOU LOOK AT IT NOW, YOU GOT TO THINK BACK TO WHERE THE RED LINES ARE, THE RED AND THE RED KIND OF BLEND TOGETHER.

SO IT'S HARD TO SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, BUT THOSE, UM, THE RED AT THE CORNER OF HERO WAY AND RONALD REAGAN, ALL OF THAT RED THAT'S THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES AS WELL AS THAT RED TO THE WEST OF THE SINGLE FAMILY, TOWNHOMES, ALL THAT IN THE ORANGE IS THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL THEY'RE REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE FOR TONIGHT IN THE ORANGE THERE IN THE MIDDLE.

AND WHAT WOULD THAT BE IN THE ORANGE? UM, I'M GOING THROUGH ALL THESE DIFFERENT MAPS AND ALL THE DIFFERENT COLORS.

IT'S, SFT SINGLE-FAMILY TOWNHOUSE AND WHAT WOULD BE THE LOT SIZES FOR THOSE.

LET'S SEE IF I HAVE THE MINIMUM A 2000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM.

THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

YES, BUT HONESTLY, THOUGH, SO SORRY TO JUMP IN HERE, MR. CHELSEA, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTIVITY CENTER, UM, LAND USE CATEGORY, SINGLE FAMILY TOWN HOME IS THE LARGEST RESIDENTIAL FOOTPRINT THAT WE HAVE.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS MULTI-FAMILY.

SO SINGLE FAMILY TOWN HOME.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT FROM A DENSITY STANDPOINT, IT'S ACTUALLY LESS DENSE.

IF YOU WANT TO REDUCE THE DENSITY OF THE ALLOWABLE USES OR THE ZONING COMPATIBILITY.

SO IT'S, THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO A LESS DENSE OF WHAT IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE ACTIVITY CENTERS, OWNING LAND.

I USE CATEGORY AND I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, DONNIE, BUT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

OH, WAIT, UNTIL IT GETS TO ME SET UP.

I'M NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT WE ENDED UP WITH IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND THIS HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THOSE AREAS THANKS TO SHRINES.

WELL, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T ACTUALLY REMEMBER EVERY BIT OF DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS WHEN IT WAS THE DISTRICT 2243 CASE.

BUT I FEEL LIKE IT WAS A FAIRLY CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, THAT WE SAID, ALL RIGHT, WE'VE GOT SOME PROBLEMS THAT WE ALL SEE WITH IT.

AND WE MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON SOME IMPROVEMENTS AND THAT DID GET BACK TO COUNCIL AND THEN WAS DENIED.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THIS AND I SEE THIS AS AN OBJECTIVELY WORSE ZONING REQUEST THAN LAST TIME ROUND.

LAST TIME AROUND, YOU COULD HAVE IMPROVED SOME PARTS OF IT AND COME UP WITH A GOOD, UH, A GOOD POD.

YOU COULD HAVE HAD A GOOD PUTT.

AND NOW WHAT WE HAVE IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE STRIP SUBURBAN CENTERS IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND, YOU KNOW, A BUNCH OF SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE, UH, PRODUCT THAT LOOKS ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE CENTRAL CORRIDOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO, I MEAN, I, I THINK, I THINK COMMISSIONER MAN POINTED OUT LIKE AS THE, UM, AS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP GOES, I MEAN, I GUESS IT FITS SORT OF, AND, UH, IT IS A LOWER INTENSITY THAN WHAT IS POSSIBLE IF YOU WERE TO MAX OUT THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES.

BUT I MEAN, THE WHOLE THING, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS WHAT COUNCIL WANTS.

I COULDN'T MAKE HEADS OR TAILS OF WHAT THEY WANTED WHEN THEY DENIED IT LAST TIME.

SO I FEEL LIKE I HAVE A HARD TIME HELPING CRAFT SOMETHING HERE THAT WILL RECEIVE POSITIVE SUPPORT, UM, WHICH FEELS LIKE THAT'S, OUR JOB IS TO TRY AND HELP THEM, UH, GET WHERE THEY WANT TO BE WITH THIS.

BUT I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW.

SO THAT'S REALLY, IT WILL HAVE ON THIS.

I MEAN, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

IT'S JUST MORE SUBURBIA IS WHAT IT FEELS LIKE.

UM, ON THE ACTIVITY CENTER, DOES IT HAVE TO BE A CIRCLE? UM, I GUESS NOT NECESSARILY, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH DURING THE COMP PLAN REVIEW.

AND THEN FOR THIS PROJECT ALONG 20, OR HERO'S WAY, IS THERE ANY, THE DEVELOPERS HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING FOR THE ROADS TO BE UPDATED? UH, MOST LIKELY, UM, SO BASED ON THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, I THINK ALL THREE OF THOSE ROADS, UM, WILL HAVE SOME TYPE OF IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY.

UH THAT'LL THE FEES WILL BE EVALUATED AT A DIFFERENT TIME.

THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ONCE THESE TOWNHOMES BEHIND IT AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, OR IS IT, WE THOUGHT THIS WAS THE BEST THOUGHT.

AND THEN FOR THE DEVELOPER, IS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR HAVING THIS TO BE TOWNHOMES OR YOU HAVE TO BE TOWNHOMES, IS THAT, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S, WHAT WAS THE THOUGHT BEHIND THAT WAS THAT LIKE THE GENERAL CON LIKE

[00:40:01]

UM, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, APPRECIATE THAT.

LIKE MR. STILES WAS ASKING HERE, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL UP ON THE MAJOR ROADS.

SO WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS IS A ATRIAL GOING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY, THAT MATERIAL, UM, WHICH WE DEBATED LAST YEAR ABOUT THE LOCATION OF IS APPROXIMATELY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT ORANGE TRUCK LAND.

AND SO THAT'S WHY IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THAT DIVISION.

SO YOU HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL PART ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD, THE FUTURE ROAD, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE COMMERCIAL FROM BETWEEN THERE AND RONALD REAGAN.

UH, AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE HAD HERE.

SO ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE NAMING, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM EITHER.

I MEAN, THAT, THAT JUST SHOWED UP.

I MEAN, I WAS, I WAS PREPARING FOR THIS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S LIKE, WOW, ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE ROAD'S NAMED NOW, IT WASN'T NAMED BEFORE IT WAS LIKE C7 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

UM, SO WE, WE CERTAINLY WOULD SUPPORT NOT HAVING THE SAME NAME.

IT MAKES SENSE.

I, I AGREE ROADS THAT THIS JOINT ARE NOT ACTUALLY CONNECTED FROM ONE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY TO THE OTHER.

DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO CHANGE THE NAME.

I MEAN, TO HAVE A NAME THAT DOESN'T DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY OFFERING CONTINUITY.

UH, WE ALSO, I WANTED TO POINT OUT THE ROAD WAS DISJOINTED FROM THE EXISTING, UH, I FORGOT THE NAME OF THE ROAD.

WHEN, WHAT IS IT? UM, THE, THE NAME OF THE ROAD IS RIDGE MAR YEAH, I'M SORRY, RIDGE MARK.

THE REASON WHY IT'S DISJOINTED AND NOT CONNECTED RIDGE MAR IS BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO, UM, DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM DRIVING THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET TO, UH, ONE DEVELOPMENT TO ANOTHER.

THAT THAT IS NOT A GOOD CONTINUITY IN USE AND TRAFFIC PATTERNS AS WELL.

UM, THERE'S GONNA BE A NUMBER OF ROADS THAT ARE GONNA BE CONSTRUCTED, UH, RELATED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

UM, AND WE ALSO ANTICIPATE THE MAJOR HIGHWAYS COMING IN, UH, ALONG HERO WAY.

I MEAN, UH, THE, UH, THE TOLLWAY THAT'S GOING TO COME ALONG IN THE NORTH SIDE.

SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF MITIGATED TRAFFIC, BUT WE WILL HAVE TO DO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND WE'LL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT RULES AND REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE TRAFFIC.

MR. CARPENTER, DOMO.

I GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

SORRY.

HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT THAN THE PLAN THAT GOT TURNED DOWN BY THE CITY COUNCIL? WELL, UH, THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

UH, THE PLAN LAST YEAR, UH, OFFERED A LOT OF VERTICAL MIXED USE, UH, INTEGRATION.

UH, IT HAD MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE KRYPTONITE.

SO BECAUSE IT HAD MULTI-FAMILY, IT GOT KILLED BY THE KRYPTONITE OF MULTIFAMILY.

SO THIS IS MOSTLY DATA SET, ELIMINATED THE MULTIFAMILY COMPONENTS OF THAT, BUT IT'S STILL KEEPING THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT.

THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS IS, IS INTEGRATED INTO THIS.

HOWEVER, IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ENCOURAGING THE VERTICAL MIX EAST PORTION OF IT, UM, BECAUSE WE CAN'T HAVE THE MULTIFAMILY.

SO, UM, THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE, AND AGAIN, THIS ACTIVITY CENTER NODE IS ENCOURAGED TO BE AROUND 30% TOTAL IN THAT WHOLE NODE, UM, TO HAVE SOME RESIDENTIAL ASPECT TO IT.

AND THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL ASPECT THAT'S ALLOWED IS THE, THE SFT.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING.

WE HAVE A SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT.

I MEAN, W WHAT YOUR INTENTION OF COMING IN AND DOING THIS PROJECT, UH, PERSONALLY, I, I WANT, I DON'T WANT TO SEE SOMEBODY COME IN AND DEVELOP ALL THE COMMERCIAL OR ALL THE RESIDENTIAL FIRST AND COMPLETELY IGNORE THE OTHER PART.

IS THIS A BIG, A BIG PICTURE THING? UM, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF, UH, ACTIVE PARTIES THAT ARE ACTIVELY, YOU KNOW, NEGOTIATING IN ANTICIPATION OF A SUCCESSFUL ZONING CASE.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING I COULD REALLY SAY THAT YET.

THE ANSWER IS YES.

THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS, IS PRETTY INTIMATE.

UH, I THINK THAT ANSWERS MOSTLY MR. MAN STEAL ALL MY THUNDER.

I'LL TRY.

UM, SO WHILE I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HINES, THAT, UH, IT'S OFTEN HARD TO KIND OF TELL WHAT CITY COUNCIL WAS GOING TO DO.

I, I DISAGREE WITH THE POINT OF THAT.

IT'S OUR JOB TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT IS AND BUILD A PRODUCT TO MEET THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR JOB IS TO LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE OTHER, UH, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY AND MAKE AN OBJECTIVE VIEW ON A ZONING CASE.

NOT NECESSARILY THE IMPACT SOMETIMES TO THE ZONING.

AND FOR THAT REASON, I HAVE WATER CONCERNS JUST LIKE OUR CITIZENS HAVE WATER CONCERNS, CAUSE I'M A CITIZEN, BUT THAT'S ALSO NOT MY, NOT MY ROLE.

I'M HERE TO LOOK AT THE ZONING,

[00:45:01]

UM, AND I'M SURE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

UM, THE, THE, UM, THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE, THE ROAD AND THE ROAD EXPANSION.

UH, THAT'S, THAT'S RUN BY TXDOT, BUT ACTUALLY IT'S GOING TO START HERE IN LEANDER AND MOVE TOWARDS GEORGETOWN.

SO WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOME OF THE BENEFITS OF GETTING PEOPLE OUT OF LEANDER A LITTLE BIT QUICKER THAN WE WILL SEE IN THEM COMING IN, JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE ROAD IS GOING TO START.

IT'S GOING TO START ON HERE AWAY, AND IT'S GOING TO BE AN R AT 180 3 A AND YOU'RE AWAY AND PUSH OUT TOWARDS GEORGETOWN VERSUS COMING THE OTHER WAY.

BUT THAT'S A TECH STOCK THING.

THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THE FUNDS FOR IT.

THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, GET A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND.

AND HOPEFULLY THAT COMES SOON BECAUSE WE'D ALL LIKE A LITTLE BIT QUICKER WAY TO GET TO 35.

AND IT ALSO HELP SOME OF OUR DEVELOPMENTS AROUND HERE AS WELL.

UM, NOW MR. CHELSEA, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

SO NOW THAT MY STATEMENTS ARE DONE, UM, WHEN, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT HERE, THE PERCENTAGES ON THE EMPLOYMENT AND ACTIVITY CENTER, YOU KNOW, YOU SAID THAT, THAT THIS WOULD INCREASE THE DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL FROM 12 TO 24% AND APPROXIMATELY 44% REMAINING WITH INTERIM, AND THAT'S OWNED BY LSD, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S QUITE ACCURATE WHEN WE KNOW THAT WE HAD ONE CASE EARLIER AND, AND A FUTURE APPLICANT, I SHOULD SAY, UM, THAT WANTS TO DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL.

YEAH, YEAH.

SO, SO MY QUESTION IS GIVEN, SO MY CONCERNS ARE NOT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF.

IT, IT MEETS KIND OF OUR INTENT OF THAT.

IT, I, I AGREE WITH DR.

STYLES TO, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, AND, UM, COMMISSIONER HINES ON KIND OF THE LOOK AND THE FEEL AND KIND OF HOW IT'S BEING LAID OUT, BUT IT DOES FIT WITHIN SOME OF OUR, SOME OF OUR LAND USE CATEGORIES, BUT HOW IS WHAT WE ASKED FOR IT ON THE PREVIOUS CASE, LOOKING AT A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT THE ACTIVITY CENTER, PLAY INTO THOSE PERCENTAGES AS WELL.

SO THAT'S SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE, UH, AS WELL AS KIND OF THE ACCURACY OF THE NUMBERS HERE.

OKAY, SURE.

UM, YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT PREVIOUS CASE WAS INCLUDED.

UM, I WOULD HAVE HAD, WE COULD HAVE DONE IT TWICE, I GUESS, IN THE EVENT THAT YOU GUYS DENIED THE LAST ONE.

UM, BUT, UH, SO THE 44% REMAINING, UH, ISN'T L I S D IT INCLUDES, UM, SOME OF THESE IT'S PROBABLY DIFFICULT TO SEE, BUT A LOT OF THESE LOTS ARE UNDEVELOPED.

UM, BUT RIGHT NOW THEY ARE, THEY'RE STILL THE INTERIM, A RESIDENTIAL USE.

SO THEY'RE PRETTY LARGE PIECES OF LAND.

UM, AND LSD DOES OWN, I THINK, LIKE 9%, MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE SEVEN OR SOMETHING.

UM, BUT, AND, AND SO, BUT, BUT MY NEXT, GOING BACK TO A LITTLE BIT, I KNOW I SAID A BUNCH IN A ROW THERE.

UM, IF WE TAKE A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT THIS SPECIFIC ACTIVITY CENTER, LIKE WE REQUESTED WITH THE LAST CASE, THAT'S GOING TO REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE OVERALL ACTIVITY CENTER, WHICH ALSO INCREASES THE PERCENTAGES OF DEVELOPED LAND.

SO WE'RE GOING TO, WE'RE GOING TO IMPACT OTHER LAND OWNERS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AND KIND OF FORCE THEM TO NOT BE ABLE TO DO RESIDENTIAL AS AN EXAMPLE, IF THEY WANTED TO, IF WE STICK TO THE PERCENTAGES AS OUTLINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

AND I THINK COMMISSIONER MAN RAISES SOME REALLY GOOD POINTS ABOUT THAT AND, AND WHAT THE IMPACTS OF THINGS HAVE ON THE NEXT THING.

SO THAT AGAIN, AND I SAID THIS AT THE LAST MEETING OR TWO MEETINGS AGO, I CAN'T REMEMBER NOW, BUT THAT'S WHERE I HAVE.

UM, THAT'S WHERE I GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF PAUSE.

I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE DEEP CONCERN, AND IT DOESN'T MEAN I'M GOING TO DENY A CASE OR, OR VOTES IN THE NIGHT IN CASE, BUT I HAVE CONCERNS WHEN WE PUSH ONE REQUEST TO THE LIMIT AND IT FORCES OTHER LANDOWNERS AND APPLICANTS TO KIND OF HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE AS A RESULT OF THIS.

SO WE'RE KIND OF FORCING THEM TO DO SOMETHING SO THAT, AGAIN, THAT THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS, NOT NECESSARILY THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, UM, WHERE I READ A LOT WITH COMMISSIONER HINES ON, ON THAT, I THINK THAT WE HAD, UH, UH, I HONESTLY THINK WE DID HAVE A BETTER PRODUCT LAST TIME.

UM, AND I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS JUST TRYING TO PUSH SOMETHING THROUGH, BECAUSE IT IS A LARGE TRACT OF LAND.

IT'S UNDEVELOPED, AND IT'S NOT DOING ANYTHING FOR THE CITY TODAY.

UH, SO I DO APPRECIATE YOU COMING BACK AND JUST DOING STRAIGHT ZONING, RIGHT.

IF YOU COULDN'T GET A PLED TOGETHER, DO STRAIGHT ZONING, IT KINDA MAKES SENSE THAT THAT'S GOING TO WORK.

UM, BUT YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS KIND OF GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT OF PAUSE AND HOW IT IMPACTS OTHER, OTHER LAND OWNERS AS WELL.

THAT'S IT.

DO YOU WANT TO YOUR TIME COMMISSIONER COSGROVE? THANK YOU, SIR.

UM, WOW.

THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS TODAY ON, ON THIS.

AND I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THEM.

UM, I AGREE WITH THE MISSIONARY MAN AND AT THE MISSIONARY HEINZ THAT PROBABLY THE PILOT I LIKED BETTER.

UM, HOWEVER, GIVEN WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND GIVEN WHAT THE PLAN LOOKS LIKE TODAY, UM, DESPITE MY RESERVATIONS

[00:50:02]

UM, I AM PROBABLY GRUDGINGLY IN FAVOR OF THIS.

WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL IN THIS FOR PRO PROPOSED COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL? OH, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THE PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED ON ME, UM, FROM AN ACREAGE STANDPOINT, IT WAS ALMOST HALF AND HALF ALMOST.

IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE 50% RESIDENTIAL, 50% COMMERCIAL ABOUT PLUS, OR TH THAT THAT'S, BUT PART OF THE COMMERCIAL IS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER AND NOT IN THE ACTIVITY CENTER.

AND SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY COMPATIBLE EITHER.

AND THAT'S A WHOLE ANOTHER LINE OF QUESTIONING AND THOUGHT WE CAN GO THERE.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP, I CAN GET, GET THE ACTUAL NUMBERS.

UH, BUT IT'S, IT'S ABOUT ONE THIRD.

UM, YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH RED THERE IS THERE COMPARED TO THE ORANGE.

I DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL NUMBER THOUGH.

I WAS LOOKING AT IT ON MY COMPUTER AND IT'S HARD TO BLOW IT UP ON THERE.

IT RUNS REALLY SLOW.

AND I DO THAT, BUT, UH, I THINK THE WESTERN MOST COMMERCIAL PART IS ACTUALLY IN THE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT THAT RIGHT THERE AS THE EASTERN COMMERCIAL WAS IN THE ACTIVITY CENTER AND THE ORANGE FOR THE SCENE, THE RESIDENTIAL WAS ALL WITHIN THE YES, YOU CORRECT? RIGHT.

AND, AND LIKE, UM, COMMISSIONER MANN POINTED OUT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE CONCERNED WHERE WE LET ONE PERSON UTILIZE.

I'M JUST MAKING UP NUMBERS.

I'M NOT, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IF WE GIVE YOU A 50 50 SPLIT, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT MEANS EVERYBODY ELSE, THEIR ABILITY TO PUT ANY RESIDENTIAL END GOES WAY DOWN.

AND THAT, THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE HERE.

THAT BEING SAID, I WANT TO SEE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN LEANDER.

I DON'T LIKE HIM DRIVING TO GEORGETOWN AND CEDAR PARK AND ROUND ROCK TO SHOP.

AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HERE.

UM, IT'D BE NICE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT AS COMMERCIAL.

UM, I MEAN, SOME OF IT IS, I GUESS WHEN IT'S PRESENTED, IF YOU WERE TO SAY, WE WERE GOING TO HAVE MR. BIG BOX STORE, THAT'S GOING TO TAKE UP 50% OF THE LAND.

AND PART OF THEM WANTING TO BUILD THIS IS THAT THEY WANTED X AMOUNT OF TOWNHOMES FOR THEIR CORPORATE STAFF OR WHATEVER IT IS.

SO THEY, THEY WANTED THAT.

IT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER DECISION DO GO FORWARD.

UM, BUT, UM, JUST, JUST TO HAVE IT AS COM RESIDENTIAL IS A CONCERN GIVEN THAT WE ONLY HAVE 30% OF THE ENTIRE CIRCLE.

AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW THAT WITH THE TWO OTHER, UM, AREAS AND POSSIBLY MORE THAN MAYBE KNOCKED OFF OF THERE.

BUT IF WE, IT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IN THIS, MS. GRIFFIN, IF WE REMOVE THOSE FROM THE ACTIVITY CENTER, WOULD THAT EVER, THIS IS THE DENOMINATOR.

SURE, SURE.

OF RESIDENTIAL, JUST GOING OFF THE NUMBERS, JUST GOING OFF THE NUMBERS.

THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.

SO IF WE, IF WE HAVE 200 TOTAL ACRES IN THERE NOW, AND WE TAKE OUT 50 ACRES FOR THE YEAH.

BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR TO THESE GUYS BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE IT OUT ON YOU OTHER THE SIDE OF THE STREET, RIGHT? YEAH.

WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING, IF WE MOVED IT FROM THE ACTIVITY CENTER, THE TOTAL ACTIVITY CENTER BECOMES SMALLER.

AND SO THE PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL HERE BECOMES A MUCH LARGER THING AND THAT THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS.

SO WE MAY BE CLOSE TO ZERO TOTAL OF THE LAST WEEK, JUST REDUCED THE CIRCLE.

AND A BUNCH OF THIS IS OUT TOO, RIGHT.

WHAT WE COULD DO IS SINCE AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE'RE GOING TO BRING THIS INFORMATION TO YOU ABOUT THE WHOLE CENTER.

UM, WE COULD CONSIDER ACTION ON THIS CASE, DURING THAT MEETING, IT WOULDN'T DELAY THEIR COUNCIL MEETING, BUT WE COULD GIVE YOU BETTER NUMBERS, MAYBE DO SOME COMPARISONS THAT WOULD GIVE US A CHANCE TO DO SOME MORE MATH.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BECAUSE I'M REALIZING COMMISSIONER, MEHAN SAID THAT HE SAID, OH, IT'S ABOUT 50 50.

AND I THOUGHT, WELL, NO, IT DOESN'T LOOK 50 50, BUT THEN RIGHT THERE IN THE DOCUMENT, IT SAYS 82 OF COMMERCIAL AND 94

[00:55:01]

AND THAT ONLY ADDS UP TO 1 76, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WHAT'S LISTED AS THE TOTAL SIZE AND LOCATION.

SO IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF DISCREPANCY WE NEED TO GET SORTED OUT.

I, I JUST WANT TO, UM, MAYBE POSIT AN IDEA HERE OR ASK FOR OTHERS IDEAS.

I DO UNDERSTAND THE POINT THAT COMMISSIONER MEHAN IS MAKING ABOUT WHAT A DECISION HERE WOULD MEAN FOR THE REST OF THE ACTIVITY CENTER.

I THINK IT'S A REALLY INTERESTING DISCUSSION POINT AND ONE THAT IS MUCH LARGER THAN THIS INDIVIDUAL CASE.

SO IT WARRANTS A LOT MORE DISCUSSION, BUT I WONDER IF THERE ARE REALLY ANYTHING OTHER THAN ABOUT TWO OPTIONS FOR THE WAY THAT YOU APPROACH IT, IT'S FIRST COME FIRST SERVE.

AND WHOEVER GETS IN THERE GETS TO PICK WHAT THEY WANT.

AND THEN IF YOU COME LATER, YOU JUST DEAL WITH WHAT'S LEFT BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROPORTION THAT'S LEFT, OR YOU FORCE EVERY SINGLE ZONING CASE THAT COMES IN HERE TO FIT THE SAME PROPORTIONS AS THE ACTIVITY CENTER FOR THE, FOR THE AMOUNT OF YOUR CASE, THAT'S INSIDE THE ACTIVITY CENTER.

SO IF YOU HAVE A HUNDRED ACRES OUT OF, LET'S JUST PRETEND A 400 ACRE ACTIVITY CENTER.

AND THE SPLIT HAS TO BE 70, 30, ONLY 70 ACRES OF YOUR HUNDRED ACRES CAN BE ONE AND 30 HAS TO BE THE OTHER.

AND YOU, AND YOU REQUIRE THAT PROPORTION THROUGH EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT.

THOSE ARE BOTH.

I'M NOT SURE THAT EITHER ONE OF THOSE IS A GREAT INDIVIDUAL OPTION, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHOICE WE'D HAVE SOME OVERLY COMPLICATED HYBRIDIZED VERSION OF THAT.

I MEAN, WHAT ELSE IS THERE OTHER THAN THOSE TWO CHOICES I'M INTERESTED.

IF ANYBODY CAN THINK OF ANY TONIGHT OR LATER, WE DO HAVE THE OPTION TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

WE'RE NOT TOTALLY JAMMED INTO THIS.

AM I INCORRECT ON THAT? ALL OF THIS, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE A REQUESTED COMP PLAN? TOTALLY SET IN STONE.

WE DO HAVE THE OPTIONS.

PEOPLE ARE TELLING ME IT'S A LOT CLOSER THAN THAT.

YOU CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN.

WE JUST HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.

SO TODAY YOU COULDN'T CHANGE IT, BUT IN THE FUTURE WE COULD.

SO WE COULD CHANGE THESE SIGNS.

SURE.

CAUSE THIS WAS ONE OF THE REAL SORE SPOTS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RIGHT HERE.

AND IT WAS KIND OF A LAST MINUTE THING.

AND AS WE'RE SEEING NOW, IT WAS NOT AS GOOD OF AN IDEA AS SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS.

THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT CAME TO US BEFORE.

HOW MANY ACRES WAS THAT? I THINK IT INCLUDED MORE LAND.

IT'S ABOUT A HUNDRED, IT'S ABOUT A HUNDRED MORE ACRES.

SO THEY'RE ONLY, THEY'RE ONLY DEVELOPING ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF WHAT THE APPLICANT OWNS RIGHT NOW.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS GOING TO POINT OUT AS WELL.

SO HE OWNS MORE OF THE PROPERTY, UM, AS WELL.

SO HE'S KIND OF GOING BACK TO MY POINT, HE'D BE FORCING HIMSELF INTO THE SIMILAR SITUATION, RIGHT? IF HE CAME BACK HERE, HE'S IN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER FOR THE REST, NOT ENOUGH TO REST BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK, UM, THAT, THAT EXACTLY.

SO IT'S A LONG, 22, 43 WAS ONE OR 2 43 AND REAGAN RIGHT THERE AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER FOR COMMERCIAL ON THE CORNER, ON THE CORNER.

BUT HE OWNS MUCH MORE OF THAT PROPERTY.

IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE, HE OWNED ALL THE WAY STRAIGHT DOWN THE DECT WHERE IT'S THE LIGHT GREEN AND THE LIGHT BLUE AS WELL.

SO A HUNDRED ACRES STILL INVOLVED RIGHT BY THIS OWNER.

SO ALL OF THIS LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GETTING A LOT MORE COMMERCIAL THAN WE DID THE FIRST TIME AROUND IT.

I BELIEVE WE REALLY ARE.

THERE IS SOME MORE LAND INVOLVED IN HERE.

AND JUST TO REMIND YOU ALL, THIS WAS 300 ACRES THAT CAME TO US LAST TIME.

AND 85% OF IT WAS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING GOING UP TO FIT 10 TO 15 STORIES.

I THINK THE BIGGEST PROBLEM ON THE PREVIOUS CASE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY POINTED OUT WAS THAT THEY WANTED TO BUILD THE MULTIFAMILY THEY WANTED.

AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER.

SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GUESS, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND THREE OR 4,000 APARTMENTS THAT THEY WANTED TO BUILD.

AND THAT WAS PHASE ONE.

AND THEN IF THEY BUILT THE APARTMENTS, THEY WERE GOING TO COME IN AND DO COMMERCIAL AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE OPPOSED TO.

AND THEY WANTED TO BRING THE COMMERCIAL IN FIRST, RIGHT? BRING THE COMMERCIAL IN FIRST OR SET LANDMARKS THAT YOU HAVE TO BUILD X AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL.

AND THEN YOU COULD BUILD THAT AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.

AND IT WAS CORRECT.

THEN IN THE PREVIOUS, UH, PLAN THAT CAME TO US, THERE WAS A PLETHORA OF DIFFERENT HOUSING OPTIONS.

IT WAS ALMOST LIKE CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST TELL YOU, THIS IS A MUCH BETTER PLAN IN MANY WAYS THAN WHAT FIRST CAME TO US.

AND I THINK NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT WE'RE IN A CRISIS WITH OUR WATER, I, YOU KNOW, WE JUST COULD NOT PUT THAT MANY APARTMENTS IN THERE AND SERVICES.

WE'RE 11 YEARS OUT FROM RUNNING OUT OF WATER.

AND SOME

[01:00:01]

SO I APPRECIATE YOU DOING SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE HERE, BUT THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS HERE.

AND ONE OF THEM IS THERE'S STILL ANOTHER A HUNDRED, 120 ACRES TO COME WELL, SPEAKING TO THE WATER ISSUE, 25% OF OUR WATER GOES TO SPRINKLE ON GRASS.

AND WE COULD TAKE CARE OF THAT BY TAKING CARE OF OUR IRRIGATION SYSTEMS AND SAYING, KNOCK IT OFF.

VERY SIMPLY WE COULD TAKE CARE OF IT.

SO BRINGING US BACK TO THIS CASE, SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING, WE'RE GETTING OFF ON SOME CRAZY TANGENTS RIGHT NOW.

AND I WANT TO BRING US BACK TO THIS CASE.

I GET THAT DR.

STYLES.

BUT, UM, I THINK I HEARD EARLIER THAT WE, THAT, UM, WE'D LIKE TO GIVE STAFF SOME MORE TIME.

IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE APPLICANT RIGHT NOW, UM, TO COME BACK TO US THE NEXT TIME, UM, WITH SOME, SOME BETTER NUMBERS, SOME MORE UPDATED NUMBERS, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS HEARD SOME OF OUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.

AND SO I'M SURE THOUGH, THERE'LL BE, UM, THEY'LL HAVE SOME OF THOSE ADDRESS FOR US BY THE NEXT TIME.

SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING.

I'LL SECOND THAT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MEHAN AND THE SECOND PACK, COMMISSIONER MAE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ALL THOSE OPPOSED PASSES SIX TO ONE.

AND THIS ISN'T AN ADMONISHMENT TO THE PROJECT'S BAD THAT WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THIS RIGHT FOR YOU.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IN THE LAST TIME, WHEN THIS CAME, THEY DISCUSSED A HOSPITAL.

IS THAT STILL ON BOARD? I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE OTHER PEOPLE LED WITH IS THERE'S A HOSPITAL COMING AND THERE'S A HOSPITAL COMING.

I HEARD NOTHING ABOUT THE HOSPITAL THIS TIME AND I'M JUST KIDDING.

WELL, THAT WAS, THAT WAS IN A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT WASN'T BEING TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT HE STILL OWNED A BUNCH OF LAND.

18, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SUBDIVISION CASE 21 TO ADOPT THE GARLOCK CONCEPT PLAN AND CONSIDER VARIANCE CASE 21 VA 0 0 3 REGARDING INCLUDING ALL LAND OWNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN ON A PARCEL OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 53.2, TWO ACRES IN SIZE AND JULIAN LOCATED, UM, TO THE SOUTH EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF GABRIEL HORN AND RONALD REAGAN BOULEVARD, EAST OF THE VALLEY VISTA EAST SUBDIVISION.

SO LET'S MOVE ON TO, UH, UH, AGENDA ITEM, NUMBER

[18. Conduct a Public Hearing regarding Subdivision Case 21-CP-005 to adopt the Garlock Concept Plan and consider Variance Case 21-VA-003 regarding including all land owned by the property owner with the concept plan on a parcel of land approximately 53.22 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R021708; generally located to the southeast of the intersection of Gabriel’s Horn and Ronald Reagan Blvd, East of the Valley Vista East Subdivision and addressed as 450 Bradley Ranch Rd.; Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas. Discuss and consider action regarding Subdivision Case 20-CP-005 and Variance Case 21-VA-003 as described above. Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Open Public Hearing Close Public Hearing Discussion Consider Action]

AND ADDRESS IS FOUR 50 BRADLEY RANCH ROAD, GEORGETOWN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS STAFF PRESENTATION, JUSTIN HUNTON WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.

THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE CONCEPT PLAN SHALL INCLUDE ALL ADJACENT AND CONTINUOUS LAND OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE DEVELOPER OR THE PERSON FIRM OR CORPORATION THAT SOLD THE TRACK BEING DEVELOPED.

THE PURPOSE IN THIS PROVISION IS TO PREVENT REMNANT TRACKS THAT DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO RIGHT AWAY OR UTILITIES, AND TO ALSO PROVIDE AN OVERALL PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

IN THIS CASE, THE PROPERTY OWNER WISHES TO ALSO PROVIDE AN OVERALL, OH, I'M SORRY, UH, WISHES TO MAINTAIN HER HOMESTEAD SITE AND SELL THE REMAINDER TO THE DEVELOPER FOR A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

AFTER APPROVAL OF THIS CONCEPT PLAN, THE DEVELOPER WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SUBMITTAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WILL DEMONSTRATE ACCESS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY AND UTILITIES TO THE REMAINDER REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY.

THE ANNEXATION WAS APPROVED APRIL 21ST, 2016, AND THE ZONING WAS APPROVED MARCH 18TH, 2021.

THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES 27.16 ACRES OF SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL AND 17.5 ACRES OF PARKLAND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I'M MAKING A GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, JEFF GUERRERO.

I'M THE AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT.

AND, UM, LET'S SEE.

SO THEN YOU CAN JUST PUSH FORWARD THAT MIDDLE BUTTON I'M IN THE BACK WINDOW HIGHLIGHT WITH THE TOP OF THIS GUY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE, UH, I GUESS TO KIND OF START FROM THE BEGINNING, TH THIS, THIS PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE, UH, THE VALLEY VISTA EAST, UH, AND BLUFF YOU PUT AS A SINGULAR DEVELOPMENT, UH, AT THE TIME.

SORRY.

SO, UH, YES, I'M HERE TO DISCUSS THE, UH, THE, THE VARIANCE REQUEST, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CONCEPT PLAN.

AND, UH, THANK YOU, SIR.

AND WE,

[01:05:01]

IT, UH, IT DIDN'T OUT FOR MRS. GARLOCK TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROPERTY.

SO SHE, UH, SHE ULTIMATELY DECIDED TO STAY IN HER, IN HER, UH, IN HER CURRENT RESIDENCE, UH, WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SINCE 1980, UH, WAS WHEN THAT HESITANCE WAS BUILT.

UH, IT'S SERVED BY ONSITE SEPTIC AND WELL WATER, UH, AND SHE INTENDED TO STAY THERE.

UH, AND THEN ALSO SELL, GO AHEAD AND SELL THE, THE INFILL PORTION OF THIS, UH, OF THIS PROPERTY, UH, WHICH IS WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY IN THE FORM OF A CONCEPT PLAN.

UH, WE, WE BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, THE, THE CONCEPT PLAN AS, AS PROVIDED, UH, DOES, DOES COMPLY WITH THE, UH, WITH THE, WITH THE, WITH THE, THE DEFINITION OF, OF THE CONCEPT PLAN REQUIREMENTS, UH, BECAUSE OF THE CONTROL THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPER KB HOME HAS OVER THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING PROPOSED IN THE CONCEPT PLAN.

UH, IT IS THE IT'S THE FULL PORTION OF, OF WHAT WAS, UH, RECENTLY REZONED AS A SFC.

AND, UM, WHAT I'D LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU AS IN FURTHER, UH, JUST KIND OF DEMONSTRATION OF, OF HOW WE INTEND TO COMPLY WITH THE, UH, CITY OF LEANDER, UH, ORDINANCES WITH THE MORE DETAILED, PRELIMINARY PLAN IS, UH, IS, IS BASICALLY THROUGH TRANSPORTATION.

CAUSE THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE, THE WAY THAT THE REMNANT TRACT WOULD, WOULD BE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL LOTS STILL, AND UNDER THE CITY OF LANDERS ORDINANCES.

AND LET'S SEE HERE, THIS IS THE, UH, IS ACTUALLY THE CONCEPT PLAN, UH, SPECIFICALLY THE PARK PORTION OF IT.

AND I CAN, I CAN, UH, ADDRESS THAT REALLY QUICKLY HERE.

THE, ONE OF THE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAN IS TO, IS TO COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THROUGH, BY WAY OF PARKLAND DEDICATION.

UH, WE ARE PROPOSING, UH, TO DEDICATE PARKLAND, UH, WITHIN THE PROJECT, BUT THEN ALSO PROVIDE THE, UH, THE, UM, 10 FOOT CONCRETE TRAIL.

THAT'S GONNA FINISH THE CONNECTION OF THE SOUTH SAN GABRIEL, UM, TRAIL SYSTEM THAT STARTED WITH BLUFF.

YOU, UH, THAT PORTION ULTIMATELY ENDS IN THE, UH, GARY PARK.

AND IT WILL ALSO TIE INTO THE, UM, VALLEY VISTA EAST, UM, CONNECTION THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE TYING IN, UH, FROM, FROM THE WESTERN DIRECTION.

THIS IS THE TRANSPORTATION PORTION THAT I WANTED TO KIND OF DEMONSTRATE RIGHT HERE.

WE HAVE BOTH THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THE CITY OF LEE ANDERS.

UH, IN BOTH INSTANCES, YOU CAN SEE THAT, UH, THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR ANY MAJOR THOROUGHFARES GOING THROUGH THE SOUTH OF THE PROJECT.

THE, UH, THE, THE CONCEPT PLAN PORTION IS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN AND THE REMNANT PORTION IS, UH, HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.

AND THE, THE LIMITATIONS OF THE PROJECT IN ITSELF ARE WE HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY, UH, TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST.

AND THEN THE BLUFF YOU DEVELOPMENT TO THE RIGHT ON THE SOUTH IS THE SOUTH SAN GABRIEL RIVER, WHICH IS, WHICH PROVIDES A VERY, UM, UH, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY PRETTY INACCESSIBLE, UM, CONTINUATION OF ANY ROADWAY NETWORK SYSTEM THAT IF, IF THIS, UH, IF THE REMNANT TRACK WERE TO REMAIN, PART OF THE CONCEPT PLAN WOULD BE UTILIZED AS TRANS AS A, AS A TIE-IN TO A DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE RIVER THERE.

AND AS PART OF THE DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE, ULTIMATELY WITH THE, UM, WITH LANDERS ORDINANCES, WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE A, UM, A, UH, CUL-DE-SAC THAT AT THE END OF THE, OF THIS, UH, OF THE CONCEPT PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL PHYSICALLY TOUCH THE REMNANT TRACT THAT WILL PROVIDE LEGAL RIGHT OF WAY ACCESS TO THE, UH, THE GARLOCK MRS. GARLIC'S REMAINING PROPERTY.

UH, THE VERSION ON THE LEFT IS KIND OF JUST A MORE BASIC EXAMPLE.

THE ONE ON THE RIGHT KIND OF IS, I GUESS, IS MEANT TO SHOW MORE OF JUST HOW THE, THE, UM, THE NATURAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PROJECT, UH,

[01:10:01]

WOULD, WOULD, WOULD HINDER THE, UH, ANY SORT OF ROADWAY NETWORK TO CONTINUE ON FURTHER SOUTH.

IT ALSO SHOWS THAT, UH, THE FOUR CONNECTION POINTS, UH, THAT THE CONCEPT PLAN AS SUBMITTED, UH, WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, REVIEW PROCESS.

UM, YEAH.

OOPS WITH THAT.

UM, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

THIS POINT WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TO IS ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THE SIDE OF NOW WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER, MAN, NOTHING FOR ME.

UM, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY BIG QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SORRY.

ON THE CONTACT PLAN.

NOW IT TALKS ABOUT APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED SINGLE FAMILY.

LOTS.

DO Y'ALL SEE GOING OVER THAT? NO, NO.

UH, WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAN READY TO GO RIGHT NOW AS A MATTER OF FACT.

AND, UM, WOULD I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO TARGET SOME MIDDLE, UH, FOR COMPLETE AND CHECK NEXT WEEK AS EARLY AS NEXT WEEK.

AND IT DOES HAVE 100, UH, SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.

EXACTLY.

CAN YOU SHARE WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? UH, I KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE A MIX OF, UM, UH, IT'S SFC, SO THERE WILL BE 50 FOOT, LOTS AND A 60 FOOT LOTS AS WELL.

THANKS.

WHERE'S YOUR HOMES? I THINK MOST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE FROM MR. HAHN.

UM, IF YOU WOULD, I, IT'S FUNNY.

I DON'T HAVE REALLY ANY PROBLEM WITH ANY PART OF THIS, BUT I JUST AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE VARIANTS CASE ITSELF.

WHAT IS IT WE WOULD BE, WHAT IS IT THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IN THE ORDINANCE THAT HE'S NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE? AND THUS IS ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, A SECOND CONNECTION POINT SOUTH WARD.

SO THIS, UH, THIS DESIGN RIGHT HERE WOULD, UH, KIND OF CREATE A REMNANT TRACK.

SO PRETTY MUCH WERE ASKING, REQUESTING THE VARIANTS, UH, FOR THE, UM, UTILITY, BUT, BUT HOW IS IT A REMNANT TRACT IF IT'S GOING TO BE SERVED BY A ROAD? SO IF YOU LOOK AT, UM, THE EXHIBIT ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU HAVE THE GREEN AREA AND THE RED AREA, AND THE WAY OUR ORDINANCE WORKS IS IF THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY IS SUPPOSED TO ALL BE PART OF THE CONCEPT PLAN.

SO IN THIS CASE, MRS. GARLOCK WANTS TO REMAIN SEPARATE FROM THAT.

SO ALL THEY'RE ASKING TO DO IS TO LEAVE THAT RED PIECE ALONE.

IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, UM, WITH REGARDS TO SIZE, BUT PART OF OUR CONCERN IS, UM, IT DOESN'T MEET THE EXEMPTION REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A ROAD AND UTILITIES TO IT.

THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT TRACT.

SO, SO WE'RE, WE'RE AGREEABLE TO THE VARIANCE BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO PROVIDE THOSE UTILITIES WHEN IT GETS TO THE FINAL PLANNING STAGE.

SO EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE WANT TO VIA THE ORDINANCE IS WE WANT THE ROAD AND THAT INFRASTRUCTURE BUILT BEFORE.

SO THE PURPOSE IN, IN THAT ORDINANCE PROVISION IS TO GET, UM, A MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH THE CONTIGUOUS PROJECT.

SO THEY DON'T WANT YOU LIKE PIECEMEALING YOUR DEVELOPMENT.

SO WHEN IT'S ALL OWNED BY ONE PERSON, YOU WANT THAT WHOLE THING TO COME IN AT ONCE.

THIS ONE'S KIND OF UNUSUAL BECAUSE USUALLY IT'S NOT, UM, REMAINING WITH A PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S GOING TO LIVE THERE.

SO IT'S JUST KIND OF A UNUSUAL SITUATION.

SO IT'S SO UNCOMMON THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT OWN A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY SELL OFF THE STUFF SURROUNDING THEMSELVES AND HANG ON TO THEIR LITTLE PIECE.

IT'S SO TYPICAL.

UM, AND THE, THE, THE, THE ACTUAL ROAD WITH THE CULDESAC IS BEING PROPOSED.

THAT IS A PUBLIC STREET.

THAT'S NOT A PRIVATE DRIVE, CORRECT? CORRECT.

I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR MS. GRIFFIN.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE MR. STYLES.

SO THE A HUNDRED LOSS WILL BE THE 44 ACRES, IS THAT CORRECT? AND MR. GARLOCK WILL RETAIN THE OTHER 11.

YES, SIR.

AND, UH, WILL THERE BE A PARK HERE OR HOW DID THAT WORK OUT OR WE HAVEN'T GOT TO THAT POINT YET.

THERE WILL BE A, UM, THERE WILL BE PARK LAND IS YET TO BE DETERMINED HOW THE, UH, THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO, UM, UM, UH, MONETIZE IT.

UH, THERE WILL BE HOWEVER LARGE AMENITY OF THAT IS THE 10 FOOT CONCRETE TRAIL.

THAT'S, UH, THAT'S CONNECTING THROUGH, UH, FROM BLOOD VIEW TO VALLEY THIS, THAT EAST.

DESPITE FINDING MR. GUERRERO SHIRT OFFENSIVE.

I'M GOOD.

[01:15:03]

I I'M NOT WISHING ANYTHING TO HAPPEN TO MS. GARLOCK, BUT OBVIOUSLY AT SOME POINT SHE'S NOT GOING TO OWN THAT LAND ANYMORE.

UM, DO WE HAVE, UH, WOULD SOMEBODY, COULD SOMEBODY COME IN AND DEVELOP THAT LAND AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THE CONNECTION ROADS? YEAH.

SO IT'S, UM, UM, SINGLE FAMILY RURAL.

SO IF THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING MORE DENSE, THEY WOULD ASK FOR A ZONING CHANGE IF THEY WANTED TO DO LARGE LOT, UM, THEY WOULD EXTEND A ROAD AND, UM, THEY COULD CUT IT UP INTO 10 LOTS.

UM, THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT WE'D LOOK AT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH THE SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS.

SO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE GO THROUGH, BUT IT'S STILL SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD DEVELOP.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T GOING TO SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT.

AND WITH THAT, IT'S A MOTION.

OH, SORRY.

NO, I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR MS. CHRIS.

SORRY.

I KNOW YOU'RE GOING BACK NOW.

I MEAN, SO, SO THE, THE, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT MS. GARLIC'S PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TONIGHT ANYWAY, BECAUSE THE PORTION TO THE NORTH WAS ALREADY APPROVED ZONING.

THIS IS A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

SO IT'S KIND OF BOTH IN ONE, YOU KNOW, CAUSE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY, THE NORTH.

SO, YEAH.

SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ZONING, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE CONCEPT PLAN.

I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS WHAT, WHEN, WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO US BACK IN MARCH OR FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, WAS THAT WAS, WAS MS. GARLIC'S PROPERTY THAT 11 ACRES CUT OFF FROM THE ZONING OR WAS IT, IT WASN'T PART OF THE ZONING REQUEST, BUT THE ZONING AND THE PLAT DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO LINE UP.

YOU COULD HAVE MULTIPLES ZONING DISTRICTS IN A CONCEPT PLAN.

AGENDA ITEM, NUMBER 19, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING SUBDIVISION CASE 21 S F P ZERO FIVE TO CONSIDER THE WEEDER HEIGHTS SECTION TWO LOT SIX B BLOCK, A SHORT FORM PLOT ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 1.14, THREE ACRES IN SIZE AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 5 0 9 LION DRIVE THE ANDREW WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS STAFF PRESENTATION.

SO IN THAT CASE, MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE, UH, CONCEPT PLAN AND VARIANCE CASE SECOND, HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HINES.

AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER, COSGRAVE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

LET'S MOVE ON TO

[19. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Subdivision Case 21-SFP-005 to consider the Leander Heights Section 2, Lot 6B, Block A Short Form Final Plat on one parcel of land approximately 1.143 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R568413; and more commonly known as 509 Lion Drive, Leander, Williamson County, Texas. Discuss and consider action regarding Subdivision Case 21-SFP-005 as described above. Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Open Public Hearing Close Public Hearing Discussion Consider Action]

THIS REQUEST IS THE FINAL STEP IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 2, 1, 2 0.005 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE APPROVAL BY MUNICIPALITIES REQUIRED.

SINCE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SATISFIES THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS WITHOUT REQUESTING ANY VARIANCES.

THE SHORT FORM FINAL PLAT INCLUDES THREE, TWO FAMILY, LOTS.

THIS PROPOSAL MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND STAFF RECOMMENDS TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC.

DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION, COMMISSIONERS, UH, DELRAY, SUTTER THUMB.

ONE OF THE APPLE APPLICANTS.

UH, I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT I AM AVAILABLE.

COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

AT THIS POINT, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THE SIDE OF THEM? IF NOT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER GUISBOROUGH I HAVE NOTHING COMMISSIONER STYLES.

I HAVE NOTHING.

MR. RYAN.

NOPE.

THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, DO WE KNOW WHAT TYPE OF BUILDINGS HE'S GOING TO PUT ON THIS PROPERTY? THESE ARE GONNA BE TWO FAMILY, UH, TWO FAMILY HOMES.

SO JUST STICK TO GOALS, HOMES, UM, FROM HOW I UNDERSTAND IT, THEY'RE NOT MANUFACTURED AND THAT MANUFACTURING.

THEN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND IT.

EXCUSE ME.

I'M GOOD.

UM, SO THIS IS A SHORT FORM.

FINAL BITES, A MOTION MOTION TO APPROVE A SECOND MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HEINZ SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAN.

ALL IN FAVOR PASSES, UNANIMOUSLY, MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.

ITEM NUMBER

[20. Discuss and consider action regarding a change to the start time for the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; Williamson & Travis Counties, Texas. ]

20 DISCUSSING CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING ORDINANCE CASE 21.

TWO TO AMEND THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE TO UPDATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN ARTICLE 10, SECTION THREE D AND TO PROVIDE FOR A LATER MOUNTAIN MATTERS, WILLIAMSON AND TRAVIS COUNTIES, TEXAS.

UH, I GUESS AN ACTION ITEM FOR THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

UM, THIS IS,

[01:20:01]

WE DID UPDATE THE ORDINANCE.

WE ADDED LANGUAGE, UM, GIVING A TIMEFRAME FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE SIGNAGE.

UM, AND I'M AVAILABLE IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'D LIKE TO THINK? I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER WHO RECOMMENDED THIS ONE? VERY GOOD.

VERY GOOD RECOMMENDATION.

I AGREE WITH THAT THEN.

OH, GO AHEAD.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

AND I'LL SECOND MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HINES, ALL IN FAVOR PASSES, UNANIMOUSLY, MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 21, DISCUSS

[21. Discuss the Planning & Zoning Commission Progress Report for September 2020 to August 2021.]

CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING A CHANGE OF THE START TIME FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING WILLIAMSON AND TRAVIS COUNTY'S TEXAS.

SO THIS IS JUST A, AN ITEM FOR THE COUNCIL TO HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THE START TIME, UM, OTHER COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.

THEY START AT SIX O'CLOCK.

Y'ALL HAVE AN OPTION TO TALK ABOUT MOVING IT UP OR LEAVING AT THE SAME.

IT WAS JUST REALLY TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT IT BEFORE THE NEW CYCLE.

SO IN OCTOBER WE MIGHT HAVE NEW COMMISSIONERS, I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO IT? CAN EVERYBODY ATTEND? IF IT WAS AT SIX VERSUS SEVEN, MY CLINIC IS OPEN UNTIL SIX O'CLOCK, BUT MY TERM IS COMING TO AN END, IS MY TERM GOING TO BE, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE NEW COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 4TH? THE, THIS CHANGE WOULD TAKE EFFECT WHEN WE HAVE A TURNOVER IN THE COMMISSION.

AND I, I THINK IT'S GOOD OVERALL BECAUSE WE DO HAVE STAFF SITTING AROUND FOR HOURS AFTER, YOU KNOW, AFTER BUSINESS HOURS, JUST WAITING FOR, FOR THIS TO HAPPEN.

MY ONLY CONCERN WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A COMMISSIONER COMING STRAIGHT HERE FROM WORK WITHOUT TYING TO, TO BEING ABLE TO DO THINGS.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF WE DO MAKE THIS AND I'VE TALKED TO SOME OTHER, UH, PNC COMMISSIONS, UH, LOCALLY, I KNOW SOME FOLKS IN CEDAR PARK AND ROUND ROCK AND WHATNOT, AND I KNOW THE ROUND ROCK P AND Z.

UM, IF THERE'S MORE THAN IF THERE'S THREE OR MORE AGENDA ITEMS, THEY PROVIDE DINNER FOR THEM AS WELL.

RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO HOME AND FIGURE OUT SOMETHING TO EAT AND, AND, OR YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING TO EAT AND YOU'RE HERE FOR TWO OR THREE HOURS AND YOU'RE JUST KIND OF STUCK.

SO I THINK THAT THAT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, NOT THAT I'M ASKING STAFF TO DO MORE WORK, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK IF WE PUT SOME SORT OF QUALIFIER ON IT LIKE THAT IT COULD HELP OUT, UM, UH, FUTURE COMMISSIONERS.

I MEAN, I'M, I'M GOOD EITHER WAY.

I JUST THINK THAT WE, WE SHOULD CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS WELL.

I, UM, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, WHICH IS THAT HOW THE GOVERNOR'S ORDER CHANGE, UM, AFFECTS REMOTE ACCESS TO MEETINGS? BECAUSE MY THOUGHT IS I HEAR, UH, COMMISSIONER MEGAN'S POINT.

I GENERALLY TRY TO, AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER MANN WILL AGREE WITH ME IN PRINCIPLE ON THIS, BUT I GENERALLY TRY TO RECOMMEND AS FEW THINGS THAT ARE IN CURRENT, EXTRA COST TO THE CITY.

OF COURSE, I KNOW OF COURSE, THAT WE NEED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE TO EAT, BUT AN ALTERNATIVE I'M WONDERING IS THAT IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE WORKING DOWNTOWN OR SOMETHING ONE DAY AND YOU CAN'T GET UP HERE IN TIME, IS THERE SOME THRESHOLD WHERE PEOPLE CAN REMOTE INTO THE MEETINGS? AND THAT COULD JUST BE A PART OF THINGS GOING FORWARD TO, TO SOLVE THIS KIND OF WELL, MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO BE THERE AT SIX KIND OF A THING.

I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING I'D HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH THE CITY SECRETARY.

UM, I KNOW THAT THERE MIGHT BE NOTICE ISSUES, UM, BUT I CAN, I COULD TRY TO FIND OUT AND GIVE YOU MORE INFORMATION.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH SIX.

IT PROBABLY WON'T MATTER WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT, BUT, UH, I DON'T MIND.

I CERTAINLY DON'T MIND.

UM, IF, IF MEETINGS ARE AT SIX, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD SERVE, UM, I'M OUT OF TOWN.

LIKE I GOT HERE 10 MINUTES TO SEVEN TODAY, AND THE INTENT WASN'T TO TRY TO MAKE Y'ALL CHANGE.

WE JUST WANTED, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

UM, I MEAN, AND, AND I WANT, I DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT STAFF HAS TO SIT AROUND FOR TWO HOURS.

I DON'T, I, I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.

UM, BUT, UM, I'M JUST SIMPLY SAYING THAT I'M GENERALLY NOT BACKING THE TOWN BY SIPS.

SO YEAH, I PREFER SEVEN JUST FOR PEOPLE THAT DO WORK IN AUSTIN HAVE HIT THAT TRAFFIC, BUT, UM, REMOTE WOULD BE ALSO AWESOME IF WE COULD DO THAT.

OUR TERMS GO THROUGH NEXT FALL.

SO WE CAN INVESTIGATE THE, THE REMOTE PART OF IT.

WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND INVESTIGATE THAT AND CAN WE BRING THIS BACK UP AT THE NEXT MEETING? YEAH.

AND SEE, AND I THINK ALSO IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW WHO PLANS ON CONTINUING, YOU KNOW, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

PERSONALLY.

I DON'T CARE.

I CAN BE HERE AT FOUR IF YOU WANT ME TO BE, BUT, YOU KNOW, I CAN UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY'S 0.7 IS GOOD AS WELL AS SIX, SO, OKAY.

WE CAN DO THAT FOR SURE.

WELL, AND, AND THIS FALL, THERE'S, THERE'S ONLY THREE TERMS THAT ARE UP FOR FOUR OF US, UM, HAVE UNTIL NEXT FALL,

[01:25:01]

SO I PERSONALLY HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH IT.

I, MY OFFICE IS WHAT A MILE AND A HALF DOWN THE ROAD SAY I WORK FROM HOME TOO NOW.

SO IF YOU WANT TO MEET AT LUNCH, WE CAN BE THERE.

TO DISCUSS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PROGRESS REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER, 2022, AUGUST, 2021.

SO DO YOU WANT TO MAKE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

WE TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

I'LL SECOND THAT WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAY ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AND MOVE ON

[22. Discuss and consider action regarding Ordinance Case 21-OR-002 to amend the Composite Zoning Ordinance to update the Neighborhood Outreach requirements listed in Article X, Section 3 (d), and to provide for related matters; Williamson & Travis Counties, Texas.]