[00:00:01]
HERITAGE GROVE ROAD.[ AGENDA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LEANDER, TEXAS Pat Bryson Municipal Hall 201 North Brushy Street - Leander, Texas Thursday - December 9, 2021 at 7:00 PM ]
AND AT THE TIME OF THE CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL, THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT EITHER A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, TIA, OR A FEE IN LIEU OF THE TIA, AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ALSO DESIGNATES THE PROJECT TO INCLUDE AN EAST WEST CONNECTOR TRAIL ACROSS THE SITE.
UM, AND TYPICALLY OUR TRAILS ARE A 10 FOOT CONCRETE TRAIL.
THIS IS ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF EMPLOYMENT CENTER AND THE PROPOSED OFFICE WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE COMMERCIAL USES WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES.
AND THEY'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION WITH THAT SAID I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? FINDING NONE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN DISCUSSION.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE VICE CHAIRMAN.
I ACTUALLY HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
DO YOU, DO YOU PLAN TO HAVE A COURSE IF IT'S APPROVED AND, UM, ACCESS DIRECT ACCESS TO 180 3.
CAN YOU TELL THEM AND SPEAK INTO THE MIC? SO WE HAVE IT FOR THE RECORD.
THE TXDOT WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT KIND OF ACCESS.
AND, UM, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PLAN IN THE WORKS TO, UM, ADD, UH, A ROAD THAT WOULD BE ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY THAT WOULD PROVIDE ACCESS TO 180 3, BUT TEXTS THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THAT.
SO THAT WAS MY ACCESS QUESTION.
MY NEXT ONE IS FROM MR. , UM, GIVEN THAT THE, THEY WANTED TO DO, UH, UH, PLED WITH THE BASE ONLY THAT HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
WHY WASN'T IT JUST THE STRAIGHT ZONE I ASKED YOU THIS BEFORE, BUT I JUST WANT IT TO BE, UM, EXPLAINED ON THE RECORDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE WHO'S LISTENING OR WATCHING LATER.
UM, SO THIS AREA IS WITHIN THE, UH, IT CONTAINS THE CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT SECTOR AND THAT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL TOD AND ANY OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WERE PART OF THE TUD.
UH, THEY WERE ESTABLISHED AS A PUD.
SO NOW ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE ESTABLISHING THEIR ZONING HAVE TO AMEND THAT PUT, UM, SO IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE JUST DOING A MINOR PUT, CAUSE THEY'RE ESTABLISHING A BASE OWNING WITHOUT REQUESTING ANY VARIANCES OR WAIVERS.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, NO QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS CARPENTER.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
AS LONG AS THE MAIN QUESTION WAS THE 180 3 ACCESS SO THAT THAT'S TAKEN CARE OF.
AND MY QUESTION HAD TO DEAL WITH, UH, WHY WE'RE DOING A PUTIN INSTEAD OF A STRAIGHT ZONE.
SO, UH, WE, WE HAD THEM ALL COVERED, UH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
MOST OF THEM APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MOSS, ALL IN FAVOR OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY THAT MOVES US ON TO ITEM 11, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING ORDINANCE ORDINANCE CASE 21 DASH O R D 0 0 4.
TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO UPDATE THE DEFINITION.
SECTIONS PROVIDE OPTIONS FOR A DUE DILIGENCE REPORT, MODIFY APPLICATION COMPLETION, REVIEW REQUIREMENTS TO REMOVE BEHAVIOR AND C STREET REQUIREMENTS, UPDATE THE CONCEPT PLAN, SET MIDDLE REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE OPTIONS FOR CAN CHART AND REVIEW WITH THE PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESS TO BY FADING REQUIREMENTS, REMOVE MY LAW REQUIREMENTS, UPDATE EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS, UPDATE THE BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS.
WILLIAMSON AND TRAVIS COUNTY TEXTS IS AFRICAN CITY UGLY.
ANDREW WILL HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION.
I FEEL LIKE YOU JUST GAVE MY PRESENTATION, BUT THOSE CONTAINERS.
UM, SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
UM, WE HAD SEVERAL CLEANUP ITEMS THAT WERE PART OF THIS CHANGE.
UM, THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED, LIKE THE ABC STREETS THAT WAS TAKEN OUT OF ZONING.
SO WE'VE REMOVED IT FROM SUBDIVISION.
UM, WE'VE ALSO ADDED SEVERAL DEFINITIONS.
UM, WE HAVE COME UP WITH A NEW, UM, OPTION FOR PEOPLE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO ESTABLISH AN OPTION FOR DUE DILIGENCE REPORT.
SO CURRENTLY YOU COME IN AND YOU DO A DEVELOPMENT MEETING BEFORE YOU SUBMIT YOUR PROJECT.
A DUE DILIGENCE REPORT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU COULD CHOOSE INSTEAD OF THAT MEETING.
AND IT WOULD BE, UM, A WAY FOR THE CITY TO TAKE THE TIME TO REVIEW YOUR PROJECT AND GIVE YOU ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT IT IN A REPORT FORMAT INSTEAD OF DOING A MEETING.
SO IT'S JUST ANOTHER OPTION FOR DEVELOPERS.
UM, WE ALSO ARE REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FROM MYLAR COPIES OF PLATS.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, MOST CITIES HAVE GONE AWAY FROM.
SO WE'RE DOING THAT WITH THIS, UH, THIS AMENDMENT.
SO WE'LL BE PROCESSING, UM, PAPER, SO EVERYBODY SHOULD BE HAPPY, SAVE SOME MONEY.
[00:05:01]
SOME CHANGES, UH, WITH REGARDS TO POLICY ITEMS. UM, WE, WHEN, WHEN THE SHOT CLOCK, UH, REGULATIONS WERE FIRST ADOPTED, WE MADE A DRASTIC CHANGE TO OUR ORDINANCE TO REMOVE CONCURRENT REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLANS AND PRELIMINARY PLATS BECAUSE, UM, IT WAS A BIG CHANGE WITH THE TIMING OF THE SHOT CLOCK.SO WE WANTED TO PREVENT ANY CHANCE FOR US TO, TO MESS UP.
UM, SO WITH THIS, UM, UPDATE, WE'RE GOING TO BRING BACK THE OPTION FOR THAT CONCURRENT REVIEW IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, WHICH I THINK WILL HELP A LOT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS WHEN THEY HAVE THOSE SMALLER SCALE PROJECTS.
UM, WE'RE ALSO ADDING A PHASING COMPONENT TO THE CONCEPT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, UM, CURRENTLY PHASING AS AN OPTION FOR PROJECTS.
UM, THIS COMPONENT WOULD HELP US MANAGE OUR WATER A LITTLE BETTER CAUSE WE WOULD HAVE LIMITS ON, UM, HOW QUICKLY YOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE COMPLETED.
SO IT WOULD REQUIRE A MORE STRUCTURED SUBMITTAL AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE CONCURRENT REVIEWS AND RUN INTO ISSUES.
I COULD, WE DID WITH, UM, OVER THE BAR W RANCH, PRELIM.
WE HAD TOO MANY PRELIMS GOING AT ONCE PRELIM, SO IT WOULDN'T OVERLAP AND CAUSE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO, TO MAKE OUR EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
AND THEN, UM, FINALLY WE HAVE OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENTS TO KIND OF BRING IT IN LINE WITH ATLAS 14.
AND THEY'RE HERE TO MAKE COMMENTS IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
AND, UM, THAT'S IT FOR MY PRESENTATION.
SO I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THANK YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME, UM, I WILL THEN SINCE THE APPLICANT, HERE'S THE STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I WILL OPEN THE HEARING.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL OPEN DISCUSSION, WE'LL BE GETTING WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
IT ALL SEEMED PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD TO ME, ALTHOUGH I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'D WANT IT TO LOOK ALL THOSE WONDERFUL MILERS.
I HAVE A QUESTION YOU WERE MENTIONING, UH, FOR THE PRELIMINARY, IT WAS GOING TO BE ONE LARGE ONE INSTEAD OF BREAKING IT UP.
SO THEY, THEY COULD STILL DIVIDE UP THE PRELIMINARY, THEY JUST COULDN'T SMITH MALL, UH, STAGGERED.
WE WOULD GET ONE AT A TIME AND THAT WAS PART OF THE FLAW CAUSE WE DID PHASE FIVE AND THEN PHASE SEVEN AND THEY BROUGHT IN SIX AND IT DIDN'T JIVE.
I JUST NEEDED A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON ADDING, UH, THE FACE COMPONENTS.
YOU SAID CURRENTLY THE IS CURRENTLY IT'S OPTIONAL TO PHASE YOUR PROJECT.
AND SO WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS IF YOU HAD, UM, A PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH, UH, 200 LOTS, IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT YOU PROVIDED LIKE THREE PHASES TO IT.
SO IT KIND OF SPACES OUT THE DEVELOPMENT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
SO IT'S KIND OF A PIGGYBACK OFF WITH COMMISSIONER HAMPTON WITH, WITH THE NEW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ONE, UH, PRELIMINARY PLAT.
IS THAT GOING TO ALSO INCORPORATE SOME OF THE TREE REMOVAL, UH, QUESTIONS? AND WE WERE, WE WERE, WE TALKED ABOUT JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO OF NOT UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW, THIS PHASE VERSUS THAT PHASE WHEN IT COMES TO KIND OF TREE REMOVALS, IS THAT GOING TO HELP WITH THAT? OR THIS IS NOT REQUIRING ONE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS JUST ONE AT A TIME.
UM, IT, IT WILL HELP BECAUSE YOU'LL DO PHASE ONE AND THEN YOU COME IN WITH PHASE TWO, YOU CAN'T JUMP TO PHASE 10, RIGHT? SO YOU WON'T HAVE A BIG GAP WHERE WE DON'T SEE HOW THE ROADS LINEUP, AND THAT'S HOW WE MESSED UP ON THAT ONE PROJECT BECAUSE WE WENT RIGHT THROUGH THE, THE HERITAGE STREET.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? YEAH, JUST TRYING TO, TRYING TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE, NOT THINKING AT THE BROADER SCOPE AND THEN THEY COME IN, YOU KNOW, PIECE BY PIECE.
SO THEY'RE REMOVING, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION IN ONE AREA, BUT YET THEY'VE IT IN THREE OTHERS OR NOT KNOWING THAT THEY HAVEN'T ASKED FOR IT IN OTHER AREAS THEY'VE ACTUALLY MITIGATED OR NOT, UM, REMOVED ANY TREES IN OTHER AREAS.
SO WE SEE IT IN THE AGGREGATE INSTEAD OF PIECEMEAL.
UM, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE.
IT'S NOT PART OF THIS AMENDMENT, BUT WE COULD LOOK AT THAT.
I THINK IT'S A STEP TOWARDS THAT ANYWAY, AT THE VERY LEAST, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK STAFF.
THIS IS, UM, I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A YEOMAN'S JOB REVISING THIS THING.
UM, AND UH, I'M REALLY PLEASED WITH WHAT I'VE SEEN.
UM, I'M, I'M HAPPY THAT WE'RE IN LINE WITH ATLAS.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO SEE THAT THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS TO DO CONCURRENT.
UM, THAT'S A, THAT'S A BIG THING.
UH, I THINK IN TERMS OF HELPING, UH, GETTING PROJECTS MOVING.
SO I JUST HAVE A, NOTHING, BUT THE GREATEST RESPECT FOR THE WORK THAT, THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE A SECOND.
I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER CARPENTER OR SECOND BY VICE CHAIRMAN, ALL IN FAVOR,
[00:10:02]
ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.AND WITH THAT AT SEVEN 15, WE ARE ADJOURNED.