[ Call to Order.]
[00:00:06]
THE MEETING OF THE LEANDER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WILL COME TO ORDER.
[ Roll Call.]
LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE HERE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONER KALO[ Director's report to the Planning & Zoning Commission on actions taken by the City Council at the December 7, 2023 meeting.]
DIRECTOR'S REPORT.'CAUSE I WAS TRYING TO USE THE PPLICANT CRASH.
WE, WE HAVE COMPUTER ISSUES HERE.
UM, SO TONIGHT I'M REPORTING ON ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE DECEMBER 7TH, UH, MEETING.
UM, DURING THAT MEETING, THEY COMPLETED THE SECOND READING OF THE HOUSE TRACTED.
UM, THAT WAS THE ZONING CASE OFF OF, UM, HERO AWAY WITH THE, UM, THE FLOODPLAIN IN THE CENTER.
THEY DID APPROVE IT AND THEY ADDED SOME INTERESTING CONDITIONS TO IT.
UM, THEY ARE ASKING FOR A WATER STUDY, UM, FOR THEIR IRRIGATION WHEN THEY PUT IT IN.
UM, THEY HAD LIMITATIONS ON THE, THE TURF GRASS.
UM, AND THEY WERE TRYING TO ADD MORE THINGS TO HELP WITH THE, THE WATER RESOLUTION IN THE FUTURE.
SO THAT'LL, THAT'LL BE AN INTERESTING ONE WHEN THEY COME FORWARD WITH PERMITS.
UM, THEY COMPLETED THE SECOND READING ON TWO ZONING CASES AND THEY WERE BOTH APPROVED.
IT WAS THE CR 2 69 AND HERO WAY MINOR PUD AND THE LEANDER BUSINESS CENTER PUD.
AND, UH, THAT'S IT FOR MY REPORT.
[ Review of meeting protocol.]
TO MY LEFT ON THE WALL ARE OUR MEETING PROTOCOLS IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW WE CONDUCT OUR MEETINGS.THIS IS WHERE CITIZENS CAN SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES ON AN ISSUE THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.
ARE THERE? I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK?
[ CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION]
OKAY.SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO ON TO CONSENT.
AGENDA ITEMS ONE THROUGH NINE CAN BE PASSED WITH ONE SINGLE MOTION.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES.
[10. Conduct a Public Hearing regarding Subdivision Case CP-23-0023 to adopt the Mac Haik Quick Lane Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat on seven (7) parcels of land approximately 5.725 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcels R474912, R457903, R031360, R500607, R485578, R474901, and R305748; generally located at the south west corner of Merrill Drive and 183A Toll Road, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.
]
ITEM 10, PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUBDIVISION CASE.
CP 2 3 0 0 23 MAC HYATT QUICK LANE CONCEPT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLATT PARCELS AND ACREAGE AS SHOWN ON THE AGENDA LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MERRILL DRIVE AND 180 3 TOLL ROAD STAFF PRESENTATION.
UH, PLEASE DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING SUBDIVISION CASE CP DASH 23 DASH 0 2 3.
THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS PURSUANT TO SECTION TWO 12.005 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE APPROVAL BY MUNICIPALITIES REQUIRED SINCE THE CONCEPT PLAN SATISFIES THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS WITHOUT REQUESTING ANY VARIANCES, UH, THE ZONING WAS APPROVED.
THE ORIGINAL ZONING, UM, WAS APPROVED.
UH, THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES ONE COMMERCIAL LOT ON 5.725 ACRES, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.
I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION? NO.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, PEOPLE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE, CAN HE EACH HAVE THREE MINUTES? I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS.
IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO INTO DISCUSSION.
START DOWN WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER MAHAN.
AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING EITHER.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOSS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[11. Conduct a Public Hearing regarding Subdivision Case CP-23-0026 to adopt the Highway 29 Commercial Concept Plan on one parcel of land approximately 50.74 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District parcel R032262; generally located approximately 1,500 feet to the west of the intersection of SH 29 and Ronald W Reagan Blvd, on the south side of SH 29, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.
ITEM 11, A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUBDIVISION K CCP 2 3 0 0 2 6.
THE HIGHWAY 29 COMMERCIAL CONCEPT PLAN, UH, ACREAGE AND PARCELS AS SHOWN ON THE AGENDA.
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET TO THE WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 29 AND RONALD REAGAN BOULEVARD, STAFF PRESENTATION.
SO THIS IS, UH, AS JUSTIN SAID, I'LL REITERATE, UM, THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 1 2 0.005 OF TLGC APPROVAL BY A MUNICIPALITY IS REQUIRED SINCE THE CONCEPT PLAN SATISFIES THE, UH, APPLICABLE, UH, REGULATIONS WITHOUT REQUESTING ANY VARIANCES.
UH, WE SAW THIS ZONING, UM, NOT TOO LONG AGO, AND THE ZONING WAS APPROVED.
UH, WESTWOOD IS HERE TONIGHT TO REPRESENT THE PROJECT.
[00:05:01]
10 COMMERCIAL LOTS AND THE EXTENSION OF KAUFMAN, UH, LOOP RIGHT OF WAY TO CONNECT TO HIGHWAY.STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.
IS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION? NO.
WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTER A DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER COSGROVE? I'M GOOD.
MOTION BY VICE CHAIR AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAY ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PASS THIS UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM 13, PUBLIC HEARING FOR TO CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CASE CPA 2 3 0 0 0 8 TO ADOPT AN UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING THE UPDATED OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IN MATH.
SKIP THIS ONE 12, RIGHT UNDER 12.
THROW LOST MY MONEY FOR A SECOND.
[12. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-23-0098 to amend the current zoning of Interim SFS-2-B (Single-Family Suburban) and Interim SFR-1-B (Single-Family Rural) to GC-2-B (General Commercial) on one (1) parcel of land approximately 6.314 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R031278; and more commonly known as 17451 Ronald W Reagan Boulevard, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.
]
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING ZONING CASE C 2 3 0 9 8 TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONING OF INTERIM SFS TWO B AND INTERIM S FFR ONE B TO GC TWO B GENERAL COMMERCIAL ACREAGE AND PARCELS AS SHOWN ON THE AGENDA, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 1 7 4 5 1.
RONALD REAGAN B STAFF PRESENTATION.
UH, THIS IS THE FIRST STEP OF THE ZONING PROCESS.
UH, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATED ZONING DISTRICT OF THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL USES ON THE PROPERTY AND TO ALIGN THE PROPERTY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF ACTIVITY CENTER AND SURROUNDING ZONINGS.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF 2243 AND JUST EAST OF RONALD W. REAGAN BOULEVARD AND CURRENTLY HAS A RESIDENTIAL USE.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS NORTH AND SOUTH AS SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RURAL.
ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE ACTIVITY CENTER.
UH, THE LOT CONTAINS HEAVY TREE COVERAGE, UM, TO THE REAR, AND IT KIND OF LIGHTENS UP AS IT GETS CLOSER TO THE FRONTAGE.
UM, A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT THE REAR IS LOCATED, UH, WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.
IT'S A VERY SMALL PORTION ABOUT, LIKE RIGHT HERE.
UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, HAS FRONTAGE ALONG ALONG, UH, RONALD W. REAGAN, AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, IN, UH, THEY ALSO HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR A FUTURE EXTENSION OF, OF THE PRIMARY TRAIL SYSTEM, A 10 FOOT PRIMARY TRAIL ALONG THE FRONTAGE.
UH, THAT'S PART OF THE MASTER PARKS PLAN.
UH, WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES ARE ALSO LOCATED ALONG.
UH, RONALD WW REAGAN FOR THE SITE.
UM, THIS PROPERTY WAS A PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF LEANDER ON MARCH 23RD, 2005.
AND THE OTHER PORTION WAS ANNEXED JANUARY 17TH, 2013.
UH, AND THE AREA IS CURRENTLY UN PLATTED.
UH, DEVELOPMENT MEETING WAS HELD WITH STAFF, UM, IN APRIL 10TH, 2023 OF THIS YEAR.
NO CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PROJECT SINCE THAT DEVELOPMENT MEETING.
UM, PUBLIC NOTICES WERE ALSO MAILED OUT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET, AND ALSO A NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH WAS COMPLETED.
UM, MAILING ANY RESIDENTIAL A ANY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED, UM, OR HOAS, UH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH LETTER AS WELL.
UM, THAT FALL WITHIN 500 FEET.
THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH ATTACHMENT IS, UH, ATTACHMENT EIGHT IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT FOR MORE DETAILS.
UM, I GUESS IN, IN, IN CLOSING, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IDENTIFIES THIS AREA AS ACTIVITY CENTER.
UH, THIS REQUEST, UH, THE ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF ACTIVITY CENTER AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR THIS.
I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION? OH, YES THERE IS.
GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
[00:10:06]
ALRIGHT, I'M HERE PRESENTING THE 17 4 5 1 RONALD REAGAN BOULEVARD REZONING.I'LL KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET SINCE IT'S PRETTY, PRETTY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.
BUT HERE'S A LOCATION MAP TO KIND OF PROVIDE GREATER CONTEXT FOR THE AREA.
WE ARE JUST NORTHWEST OF 2243 AND RONALD REAGAN THERE.
OUR EXISTING ZONING IS THE SFS AND THE SFR LITTLE MIXTURE THERE.
AND THEN WE ARE REQUESTING THE GC THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO BE ZONING.
IT MATCHES OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH AS WELL.
UH, THE FUTURE LAND USE AS, UH, JUSTIN SAID WAS THE, IS THE ACTIVITY CENTER, WHICH, UH, IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, FOR A MAJOR COMMERCIAL CENTER.
UH, WE DO INTEND TO HAVE A RETAIL USE, ESPECIALLY ALONG THAT FRONT EDGE OF RONALD REAGAN THERE.
SO THAT'S THE, THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST TONIGHT.
BUT I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL MAY HAVE.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NONE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTER DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER MAHAN? YEAH, SO AS USUAL, I HAVE MY, UM, I, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT BEING GENERAL COMMERCIAL, EVEN THOUGH THE SURROUNDING, UH, USES GENERAL COMMERCIAL ACCORDING TO OUR ACTIVITY CENTER, GENERAL COMMERCIAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR, YOU KNOW, UH, SPECIFIC USES.
AND WHEN WE DO STRAIGHT ZONING, THOUGH, I LIKE STRAIGHT ZONING A LOT.
IT, IT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CHALLENGING WHEN WE'RE IN THIS LOCATION BECAUSE NOW WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL STRAIGHT ZONING, THEY COULD PUT A NIGHTCLUB THERE.
THEY COULD DO ALL THESE OTHER THINGS WHERE IF THEY JUST WANT A RESTAURANT OR, OR DRIVE THROUGH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT COULD BE A, THAT COULD BE, UH, DONE THROUGH LOCAL COMMERCIAL VERSUS GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEIR INTENDED USE IS FROM THE CURRENT OWNER, IF THEY EVER SELL THAT LAND AS A GENERAL COMMERCIALLY STRAIGHT ZONED, WHOEVER MOVES IN AFTERWARDS COULD DO THAT.
IT DOESN'T MEAN I'M AGAINST IT.
IT JUST, THERE, THERE'S JUST SOMETHING TO BE CAUTIONED ABOUT AS WE THINK ABOUT THIS AND, AND, UM, APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE, UH, A STRAIGHT ZONING, GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER COSGROVE? NO, I THINK COMMISSIONER MANN, UM, HE, UH, ILLUSTRATED SOME OF MY, MY INITIAL CONCERNS.
BUT IT, AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MEAN I'M, I'M OPPOSED.
COMMISSIONER MOSS, I'M JUST, EXCUSE ME, I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT TYPE OF RETAIL, DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYPE OF RETAIL YOU ALL PLAN ON? UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY USERS IDENTIFIED, OF COURSE, AT THIS POINT.
BUT I THINK THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER REALLY HAS INTENT TO KIND OF CREATE, YOU KNOW, JUST A GATHERING SPACE.
SO, UM, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, MORE, UH, LIKE, I DON'T WANNA SAY LIKE RESTAURANT, BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, PLACE WHERE PEOPLE TO GATHER THAT SORT OF THING.
JUST LIKE GEN JUST GENERAL SERVICES.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY USERS IDENTIFIED RIGHT NOW.
UM, I'M KIND OF CONCERNED ABOUT THAT 'CAUSE I KIND OF WANT KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD, UH, PUT THERE, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU'RE ASKING FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL PERMITTING.
YOUR, UM, JEFFREY IS HERE AS THE ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT.
UM, YEAH, WE'RE JUST, 'CAUSE WE'RE SO EARLY MM-HMM.
UH, HE'S LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT'S SIMILAR TO LIKE THE DOMAIN, BUT OBVIOUSLY NOT, NOT, NOT THAT SCALE.
SO IT'S GONNA BE A, YOU KNOW, A VARIETY OF LIKE RETAIL, MAYBE SOME RESTAURANTS, BUT HE'S TRYING TO CREATE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO LIKE, YOU KNOW, RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS OR ANYTHING, BUT WITH A NICE COURTYARD THAT'S SIMILAR TO LIKE, LIKE THAT DOMAIN TO GET THAT FEEL, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE OUTSIDE WALKING BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT YEAH.
WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? YES MA'AM.
THIS IS JOE FEREZ WITH KINLEY HORNE.
YEAH, HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS.
UM, YEAH, SO I NOTICED THAT YOU, YOUR, YOUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE, ARE ALSO GC.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COL I MEAN, COLLABORATION? I'VE, YOU KNOW, I'VE, I'VE LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE AREA BETWEEN HERO WAY AND 2243.
I'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, WHERE AND WHO OWNS AND ALL THE DIFFERENT LLCS THAT ARE CREATED.
I'M JUST CURIOUS, ARE YOU, ARE YOU 6.3 ACRES IS NOT A LOT OF LAND TO, IN MY OPINION, FOR LIKE A GC DEVELOPMENT.
SO, UH, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE A DOMAIN LIKE TYPE ENVIRONMENT.
SO ARE YOU GONNA BE COLLABORATING OR WORKING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH AND POSSIBLY TO THE FURTHER WEST TO CREATE A, A BROADER MASTER PLAN? OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE JUST SELF-CONTAINED WITHIN THE 6.3 ACRES? YES, SIR.
'CAUSE THE, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, I BELIEVE IS DOING, UH, OFFICE IN THE FRONT AND, I'M SORRY, RETO IN THE FRONT THEN OFFICE CONDOS IN THE BACK.
[00:15:01]
IT.AND I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM MOTION TO APPROVE.
MOTION TO APPROVE BY VICE CHAIR AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAY.
[13. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Comprehensive Plan Case CPA-23-0008 to adopt an updated Comprehensive Plan including the update of the future land use plan and map; and to provide for related matters; Williamson & Travis Counties, Texas.
]
SO THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE COMPREHENSIVE, UH, PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL TO UPDATE, UH, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH REGARDS TO REDUCING RESIDENTIAL ZONING PERMITTED IN, UH, ACTIVITY CENTER AND EMPLOYMENT CENTER, UPDATE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO ADDRESS CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN AND PROVIDE, UH, CLARITY ON SOME LAND USE CATEGORIES.
SO, UH, NOT TOO LONG AGO MS. GRIFFIN PRESENTED, UH, MOST OF THESE, UH, ITEMS, UH, BOTH, UH, IN A, IN A, A PREVIOUS FORM, UH, AS A DISCUSSION ITEM TO THIS COMMISSION.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT WAS ON 11, UH, NINE NOVEMBER 9TH.
UM, SINCE THAT TIME, LET'S SEE, I'M GONNA GO ITEM BY ITEM.
UM, SO, UH, AGAIN, I'LL REITERATE, UH, SORT OF THE, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT STAFF IS LOOKING AT.
SO, UH, UPDATE THE DESIRED MIXED USE TO 0% RESIDENTIAL CLARIFY.
THE DESIRED MIX, UH, APPLIES TO THE FIRST STORY, UH, BUILDING FOOTPRINTS UPDATE THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE TYPE FOR, UM, ONLY, UH, ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL ON VERTICAL MIXED, UH, USE BUILDING.
UH, AND WHEN IN SUPPORT OF THE, THE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE.
SO STAFF PROPOSES, UH, THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.
I'M GONNA START WITH THE ACTIVITY CENTER FIRST.
SO, UH, STAFF PROPOSES TO UPDATE THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE TYPE, UH, MATRIX TO CALL OUT A DESIRED, UH, MIXED USE OF 0% RESIDENTIAL AND CLARIFY THIS DESIRED MIXED USE PERCENTAGE FOR RESIDENTIAL SHALL APPLY TO THE FIRST STORY BUILDING FOOTPRINTS.
THIS CHANGE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, PASSING THE WATER RESOLUTION.
THAT'S THE SECTION HIGHLIGHTED DOWN HERE.
THIS WILL BECOME 0% UPDATE THE, UH, APPROPRIATE LAND USE TYPE MATRIX, UH, RESIDENTIAL SECTION.
UM, TO CLARIFY RESIDENTIAL AS PART OF HIGH DENSITY APARTMENTS AND OR LOFTS, THEY COULD PROPOSE SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR MORE CREATIVE.
SO THEY'RE NOT LIMITED TO THOSE TWO OPTIONS, BUT THOSE TYPE USES ARE ONLY ALLOWED IN A VERTICAL MIXED USE BUILDING OR DEVELOPMENT.
AND IN SUPPORT OF COMMERCIAL USES, THIS UPDATE IS FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY THE VERBIAGE CONTAINED UNDER THE INTENT AND CHARACTER SECTION, UH, WHERE HIGH DENSITY APARTMENTS AND LOFTS ARE APPROPRIATE.
IF DESIGNED AND CONNECTED TO, UH, A LARGER MIXED USE CENTER, THIS WOULD TYPICALLY BE SEEN IN A PUD A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UH, FOR A PORTION OR A HOLE OF THE SITE.
UM, NEXT WE'LL, UM, TURN OUR ATTENTION TO, UH, THE GUIDANCE AND INTERPRETATIONS PART.
UM, SO ANOTHER, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO UPDATE THE CODE ASSESSMENT CONSIDERATION TO REMOVE BULLET POINT NUMBER TWO.
THAT'S THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, AND I WISH I COULD ZOOM, BUT I CANNOT, UH, CONSIDER CREATION OF A MIDDEN, UH, MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.
THAT'D BE LIKE A STANDALONE MULTIFAMILY, OBVIOUSLY, THAT, UH, DOESN'T JIVE WITH, UM, UM, THE, UH, TASK AT HAND.
SO, UH, STAFF IS PROPOSING THE REMOVAL OF THIS BULLET, UH, TO LINE UP WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF A VIBRANT, UH, COMMERCIAL, UH, ORIENTED ACTIVITY CENTER.
ADDITIONALLY, STAFF PROPOSES TO REMOVE BULLET POINT NUMBER 10 UNDER THE GUIDANCE AND INTERPRETATION.
THIS BULLET ALLOWS UP TO 30% RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN THE HARD CORNER OF RONALD REAGAN AND HERO WAY INTERSECTION.
UM, AND IT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS THE, THE 30% PRIMARY LOTS IN THIS AREA ALREADY HAVE A COMMERCIAL ZONING, UH, DESIGNATION AND WOULD BE BETTER SUITED FOR COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
FUTURE ACCESS CONTROLLED IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF RONALD REAGAN.
AND HERO WAY WOULD ALSO LEND ITSELF TO MORE, UH, COMMERCIAL USES.
SO THIS IS GONNA BE, UH, I DON'T HAVE A MAP OF IT, BUT AT THAT INTERSECTION, THERE'S GONNA BE PRETTY, UH, SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS, UH, WITH THAT, UM, HERO WAY, UH, INTERSECTION WHERE IT, UM, MERGES INTO, UH, RONALD REAGAN AND CONTINUE, UH, EAST.
UM, AND THEN THE FINAL BULLET ITEM
[00:20:01]
WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE SIM SINGLE FAMILY TOWN HOME DESIGNATION UNDER THE EXISTING, UH, ZONING, UH, DISTRICT SUITABILITY.AND THAT IS THIS ITEM RIGHT HERE.
TOWN HOMES ARE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE CURRENT WATER RESOLUTION AND DO NOT ALIGN WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ACTIVITY CENTER, UH, DESIGNATION.
NEXT WE'LL TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER.
SO, UM, AGAIN, THE SAME, UH, GOALS.
WE SET THE DESIRED, UH, MIXED USE HERE TO 0% RESIDENTIAL.
UH, WE ENCOURAGE THE MIXED USE, UH, TYPE DEVELOPMENT, AND IT APPLIES THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, UH, OR THE MIXED USE APPLIES TO THE FIRST STORY BUILDINGS AND ONLY ALLOW, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT AS PART OF A MIXED USE, UH, HUD OR, OR CENTER IN SUPPORT OF A COMMERCIAL USE.
UH, WE'VE ALSO BEEN TASKED WITH, UM, DEFINING, UH, TWO OF THE, UM, TERMS THAT ARE MENTIONED IN THIS, IN THE VERBIAGE.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE PRIMARY EMPLOYER AND THE CAMPUS STYLE DEVELOPMENT.
SO THE FIRST CHANGE PROPOSED, UH, UPDATE THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE TYPE MATRIX AGAIN TO CALL OUT 0%, UH, RESIDENTIAL.
THAT WOULD BE THIS ITEM DOWN HERE.
UH, THIS CHANGE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, AGAIN, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE WATER RESOLUTION ORDINANCE, UH, AND NO HIGHER DENSITY, UH, RESIDENTIAL, UH, NUM ITEM OR CHANGE NUMBER TWO, BEGIN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE, UH, CORPORATE CAMPUS ZONING DISTRICT UNDER THE CODE ASSESSMENTS CONSIDERATION.
IT CALLS OUT A A ZONING DISTRICT.
UH, SO STAFF HAS BEGUN TO KIND OF COMPILE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE TO FIND THE USE, UH, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? WHAT ARE SOME OF THE, UH, THE PERCENTAGES OF COMMERCIAL VERSUS, UH, OFFICE VERSUS INDUSTRIAL VERSUS, UM, UH, MULTI-FAMILY TYPE, UH, COMPONENTS.
SO, UH, WE'VE STARTED, UH, COLLECTING INFORMATION ON THAT AND WE WILL, YOU KNOW, DEFINE IT AS WE GO.
AND THEN THE, UH, THIRD CHANGE, REMOVE REFERENCE TO LIMITED, UH, INTEGRATED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ONLY BUILDINGS, UH, WITH SUCH SCENARIOS BEING TIGHTLY REGULATED TO ENSURE A PROPER MIX, UH, WITHIN THE U UH, THE INTENT AND CHARACTER SECTION.
UH, THIS STATEMENT IS IN CONFLICT WITH BOTH THE WATER RESOLUTION AND THE RESIDENTIAL USE STATEMENT UNDER APPROPRIATE LAND USE TYPE, UH, MATRIX, WHICH IS THIS, THIS ITEM RIGHT HERE.
SO IT ENCOURAGES THE HIGH DENSITY, UH, RESIDENTIAL.
UM, AND THEN WE ALSO, WE ARE GOING TO ADD, UM, DEFINITIONS TO THE PRIMARY EMPLOYER.
UM, WE'RE GONNA ADD THEM INTO THE COM, UH, THE, UM, MASTER PLAN, AS WELL AS MAYBE THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE.
UH, SO IF THERE'S EVER ANY QUESTION AS TO, UH, WHAT THOSE ITEMS ARE.
SO WE RESEARCHED A COUPLE OF, UH, DIFFERENT CITIES AND TOOK THEIR, UH, HYBRID DEFINITION.
UM, SO WE DEFINED A PRIMARY EMPLOYER, UH, AS A BUSINESS AND OR INDUSTRY THAT PRODUCES GOODS OR SERVICES FOR STATEWIDE, NATIONAL OR INDUSTRIAL.
UH, IN INTERNAL INTERNATIONAL MARKETS.
THE GOODS AND SERVICES ARE EXPORTED TO CONSUMERS OUTSIDE OF THE LOCAL REGIONS, RESULTING IN A STREAM OF NEW INCOME FOR THE LOCAL ECONOMY.
COMMON, COMMON PRIMARY EMPLOYERS ARE MANUFACTURING, MEDICAL, AND, UH, TECHNOLOGY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS.
UH, AGAIN, WE'RE PULLING, UM, DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS THAT, THAT THOSE ARE THE, UM, UH, IDEAL FOR THE, THE CAMPUS STYLE DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO, UH, APPLY A DEFINITION TO AS WELL AS, UM, THE, THE, THE PRIMARY EMPLOYERS THAT, UM, THAT DEFINITION DEFINES TO.
UM, AND THEN WE ARE ALSO ADDING, UH, A DEFINITION TO CAMPUS STYLE DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS INTENDED FOR REGIONAL SERVICING PRIMARY EMPLOYERS IN A PLANNED CAMPUS, LIKE, UH, ENVIRONMENT FOR OFFICE RESEARCH, MEDICAL MANUFACTURING, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, UH, AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES.
THERE IS A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT, UH, VARIATIONS OF THIS, UH, ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.
SO THIS DEVELOPMENT, UH, TYPICALLY, UH, WOULD BE SEEN AS A MIXED USE OR A PLAN USE DEVELOPMENT, PRIMARILY CONSISTING, PRIMARILY CONSISTING OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, SUPPORTED BY HIGH DENSITY, UH, MULTI-STORY RESIDENTIAL, AND AN INTEGRATED PATTERN.
UH, DEFINING ASPECTS OF THE CAMPUS STYLE DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCLUDE LARGE GREEN SPACE.
THEY ALSO, THEY HAVE, UH, LARGE BUFFERING AREAS, COLLABORATIVE SPACES AND ZONES, UH, OUTDOOR AMENITIES FOR BOTH, UH, WORKERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE COMMUNITY.
UM, OFTEN BALL, BALL FIELDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND WALKABLE, UH, SIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANES.
[00:25:01]
UH, WOULD HELP.AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE, UH, FUTURE LAND USE MAP AT THE NORTHWEST, UH, NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 180 3, A TOLL ROAD.
AND, UH, 2243 UH, STAFF IS PROPOSING, UH, AN EXPANSION OF THE ACTIVITY CENTER, UH, DESIGNATION TO ENCOURAGE A GREATER PERCENTAGE AND DESIRED, UH, MIX OF COMMERCIAL USES ALONG, UH, IN SUPPORTIVE OF 180 3 A TOLL ROAD, THE FUTURE EXPANSION AND ACCELERATED USE OF 180 3 A TOLL ROAD SUPPORTS, UH, LARGE EMPLOYERS AND MORE COMMERCIAL USES THAN, UH, ITS CURRENT, UH, RESIDENTIAL USE.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, STAFF IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
I HOPE THAT WAS THOROUGH ENOUGH.
UM, SO WE'RE HERE TO TAKE ANY INPUT OR THOUGHTS OR SUGGESTIONS.
SO THAT'S OUR APPLICANT PRESENTATION.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM SCENE? NONE.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTER INTO DISCUSSION.
WE'LL START DOWN HERE WITH THE VICE CHAIR.
YEAH, SO I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION AND UH, I'D SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT YOU PRESENTED, UM, I'M DEFINITELY A HUNDRED, UH, PERCENT ON BOARD WITH.
UM, THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD REALLY HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN IS SOME CHANGES TO THE, THE URBAN MIXED USE WHERE YOU HAVE CURRENTLY AT 40 TO A HUNDRED PERCENT RESIDENTIAL.
I WOULD ACTUALLY LOVE TO SEE THAT REDUCED, UM, TO MAYBE LIKE, YOU KNOW, 40 TO 80 OR 40 TO 60% RESIDENTIAL.
THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.
BUT I DO, I DO AGREE WITH THE CHANGES YOU'RE MAKING HERE, AND I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE ACTIVITY CENTER.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MOSS, I AGREE WITH THE VICE CHAIR.
UM, I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH MORE TO SAY ON THE TOPIC.
UM, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU, UH, PRESENTED TO US, SO THANK YOU.
UM, JUST REAL QUICK, UM, SINCE THIS IS, UH, A RECOMMENDATION YOU CAN ASK STAFF TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES AND WE COULD BRING IT BACK ON THE 28TH, UM, THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE STILL HAVE TIME.
SO IF THAT IS, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, IS THAT KIND OF FEEDBACK.
SO WE CAN MAKE UPDATES LIKE THAT.
I MEAN THE, THE REA THE REASON WHY I BRING THAT UP 'CAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN AREA OF URBAN MIXED USE THAT ALSO BUTTS UP THE OLD TOWN.
AND THEN YOU'RE ALREADY LOOKING TO CHANGE SOME OF THAT URBAN MIXED USE INTO ACTIVITY CENTER.
AND SO WE EVEN HAD A CASE I THINK JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO THAT'S IN THE URBAN MIXED USE AREA THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO OLD TOWN.
THAT WAS ALMOST LITERALLY, IT WAS 99 POINT, LIKE 3% RESIDENTIAL
AND SO, AND IT WAS MORE OF A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY WE REALLY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT BECAUSE EVERYTHING THEY HAD, THEY HAD PUT FORTH WAS WITHIN THE STANDARDS THAT THE STATE, YOU KNOW, ALLOWS AND THERE WAS NO VARIANCES REQUESTED.
SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY AT LEAST REDUCE THAT PERCENTAGE FROM A HUNDRED PERCENT TO, TO 80% ON URBAN MIXED USE.
THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.
AND IF I'LL LET THE REST OF THE, THE COMMISSIONERS WEIGH IN ON THAT.
WE'LL, WE'LL PUT THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION AFTER EVERYONE'S HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
MR. COSGROVE? UH, FIRST I THINK, UM, I THINK CLARIFICATION ON, ON THE 0% RESIDENTIAL AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS, IS A REALLY POSITIVE STEP IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
UM, I'M, I'M REALLY INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT, UH, A CAMPUS ZONE LOOKS LIKE.
UM, AND THAT BEING SAID, I MIGHT EVEN GO FARTHER THAN THE VICE CHAIR IN, IN TERMS OF, OF WHAT YOU REDUCE THE NUMBER TO IN TERMS OF, OF DOING AN URBAN MIXED USE.
AND IF, IF IT'S GOING VERTICAL, YOU CAN GO RESIDENTIAL VERTICAL.
SO, SO I THINK, UH, I THINK I'M A, A A, UH, I I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT BY, BY THE VICE CHAIR AND, AND I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING STAFF IS DOING HERE.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, I, I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE ALL THE CHANGES AND THE CLARIFICATIONS 'CAUSE IT HELPS US, IT'S GONNA HELP CITY COUNCIL AS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH AND LOOKING AT THESE THINGS.
MY ONLY QUESTION IS, ASSUMING THIS DOES GET PASSED, ARE WE AS A CITY GONNA GO BACK TO SOME DEVELOPERS THAT HAVE BROUGHT SOME CASES THROUGH HERE THAT DIDN'T MEET WITH THE COMP PLAN OR THE RESOLUTION NOW THAT WE HAVE CLARIFICATIONS WOULD 100% DO THAT BECAUSE WE HAD A VERTICAL MIXED USE PROJECT THAT WAS IN THAT ACTIVITY CENTER SLASH EMPLOYMENT CENTER THAT ACCORDING TO THIS COMP PLAN, THIS CHANGES TO THE COMP PLAN WOULD MEET WITH THE INTENTS AND THE PURPOSES OF THE COMP PLAN.
[00:30:01]
A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENIED THAT BECAUSE OF THE RESOLUTION.AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY CITY COUNCIL DENIED THAT.
SO ARE WE GONNA REACH BACK OUT TO SOME OF THESE DEVELOPERS THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME PROJECTS THAT WERE DENIED BASED ON THE PREVIOUS GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON THE NEW GUIDANCE? SO ANSWER THAT.
AND, AND SO I, I WOULD LOVE, I WOULD LOVE IF WE DO THAT, THAT WAY WE, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY AND WE ALL DO.
UH, BUT WE ALSO KNEW WE HAD GUIDELINES AND KIND OF BOUNDARIES THAT WE WERE SET FORTH BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO I DON'T THINK WE DID WRONG, EVEN THOUGH I VOTED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE MAJORITY.
BUT, UH, I, I, YOU KNOW, WE WERE JUST GOING BY WHAT, UH, BY WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS BEST.
AND I DO ECHO THE, THE VICE CHAIRS AND COMMISSIONER COSGROVE'S COMMENTS ON THE, UM, URBAN MIXED USE PIECE.
SO I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT UPDATE.
AND EVERYONE, I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE AND WITH WHAT Y'ALL HAVE PROPOSED.
SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT THIS IN THE FORM OF A MOTION, WHAT YOU'RE WANTING THEM TO GO BACK AND, AND REWORK, THEN WE'LL START THERE.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, AS FAR AS THE VERTICAL PIECE, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS AROUND THAT? AND THEN WHAT, WHAT KIND OF PERCENTAGES ARE YOU THINKING? 'CAUSE I WAS SAYING 80% MAX RESIDENTIAL VERSUS A HUNDRED.
UM, YEAH, WELL, I I THINK THE WAY IT'S RIGHT NOW, YOU COULD DO 100 STRAIGHT, RIGHT? SO I WOULD BE, I WOULD BE, UM, I WOULD REALLY BE INCLINED TO 50 TO 60%.
RIGHT? 50 TO 60 ON ON RESIDENTIAL.
BUT THEN HAVING VERTICAL, ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT YOU CAN GO, YEAH, AS LONG AS YOU CAN GET FIRST FLOOR.
ARE YOU THINKING, ARE YOU THINKING FIRST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL TOO, OR ONLY COMMERCIAL I THINK CAN GO YEAH, I THINK YOU CAN.
I I, I THINK IN AN URBAN MISUSE YEAH, I, I THINK YOU CAN DO THAT.
UM, BUT WHAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE IS, IS THAT ALL DONE TO A, A MINIMUM STANDARD OF OF 50 60.
UM, YEAH, I'M, I'M, I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
AND I'M WILLING TO MAKE THE MOTION TO, UH, APPROVED CONDITIONALLY WITH THOSE CHANGES TO THE URBAN MIXED USE THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED OF, I WOULD SAY 60% MAX RESIDENTIAL.
AND THEN, UM, THE ADJUSTMENTS WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE CHANGED FOR SUBSEQUENTLY FOR COMMERCIAL.
AND THEN WITH THE, THE VERTICAL ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, ARE YOU ASKING TO POSTPONE THE ACTION TILL DECEMBER 28TH SO WE CAN KIND OF WORK THROUGH IT AND BRING LANGUAGE BACK TO YOU THAT SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE? YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COSGROVE.
[14. Discuss and consider action on Tree Removal Case TRP-23-0018 regarding removal of ten (10) Heritage Trees and fifteen (15) Significant Trees associated with the Heritage Grove Business Park Site Development Project located at 502 Heritage Grove Road, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.
]
SO WE'LL GO TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
THIS IS A TREE REMOVAL CASE, TRP 2 3 0 0 1 8, UH, REMOVAL OF 10 HERITAGE TREES AND 15 SIGNIFICANT TREES ASSOCIATED WITH HERITAGE GROVE BUSINESS PARK SITE AT 5 0 2 HERITAGE GROVE ROAD STAFF PRESENTATION.
SO THE, UH, LINCOLN ENGINEERING IS HERE TONIGHT TO REPRESENT THE PROJECT.
THEY'LL HAVE A POWERPOINT AFTER A STAFF PRESENTATION.
UH, THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE TREE REMOVAL PROCESS.
THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO REMOVE 10 HERITAGE TREES, A TOTAL OF 303 CALIBER INCHES, UH, AND 15 SIGNIFICANT TREES, A TOTAL OF 322.5 CALIBER INCHES DUE TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS, UH, ON SITE.
HER COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE, UH, REMOVAL OF HERITAGE AND OR SIGNIFICANT TREES GREATER THAN 18 CALIBER INCHES REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION.
UH, AND IN THIS CASE, UH, THE REMOVAL OF THE HERITAGE TREES WILL REQUIRE THE, UH, CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AS WELL.
UH, THIS COMMISSION WILL ALSO NOTICE, UH, ON THE ARBORIST REPORT, UH, THAT WAS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL AS THE TREE REMOVAL EXHIBITS.
UH, THERE WERE THREE HERITAGE TREES, UH, HERITAGE TREES NUMBER, UH, 2 5 1 3 4 6, AND 1 1 2, 4 0, UH, AND FOUR SIGNIFICANT TREES.
UH, TREE NUMBER 2 1 6 7 0 8 7 11.
AND, UH, 1 0 2 2 7 THAT WILL BE REMOVED WITHOUT MITIGATION DUE TO THE, UH, DEAD, DISEASED OR DYING STATUS AND OR, UH, HAZARD HAZARDOUS DESIGNATION, UH, PER THE ARBORIST.
UH, THESE TREES WERE INCLUDED IN THE ARBORIST REPORT AND THE TREE REMOVAL.
SO TO SET KIND OF THE STAGE OF WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THE SITE, UH, TO THE NORTH, UM, WE'LL GO, I GUESS I HAVE A ZONING LEFT TO THE NORTH IS ETJ.
IT'S, UH, RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST IS, UH, UNDEVELOPED LOT.
IT'S OWNED AT HC FOUR C TO THE SOUTH IS A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UH, UNDER SINGLE
[00:35:01]
FAMILY TO THE WEST IS, UH, ALSO SINGLE FAMILY, UH, RESIDENTIAL.SO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5 0 2 HERITAGE GROVE ROAD, UH, AS PARCEL R 6 51 4 29.
UH, IF YOU WANNA LOOK IT UP IN, UM, UH,
THE SOUTH AND ACROSS HERITAGE GROVE ROAD IS THE RESERVE AT NORTH FORK SUBDIVISION.
AND TO THE EAST IS HAVEN OAKS, UH, SUBDIVISION.
THE PROPERTY CONTAINS, UM, NO FLOODPLAIN AND HEAVY TREE COVER TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE LOT CURRENT LAND USES.
IT'S BEING USED AS A, UH, RESIDENTIAL LOT.
UH, SO THIS PROJECT IS UNDER REVIEW RIGHT NOW.
UH, AS PART OF SITE DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE PRETTY, PRETTY CLOSE TO, UH, WRAPPING IT UP.
THIS IS ONE OF THE NEW COMMENTS.
UM, I'VE PROVIDED IN YOUR, UM, PLANNING ANALYSIS PACKET, UH, THE TREES THAT ARE TO BE REMOVED PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT.
SO AGAIN, I'LL COVER, UM, THE MITIGATION.
UM, 303 CALIBER BRANCHES OF HERITAGE TREE WERE TO BE REMOVED AT THAT THREE TO ONE CALIBER.
IT TOTALS TO BE 909, UM, CALIBER INCHES THAT THEY'RE REMOVING OF HERITAGE TREES THAT THEY'RE OWING IN MITIGATION.
THERE WAS ALSO, UH, OVER 50% OF THEIR, UH, 18 EIGHT TO 18 CALIBER INCH TREES THAT THEY'RE, UH, UH, MITIGATING FOR AS WELL AS THE, UH, LARGE SIGNIFICANT TREES IN THE, UH, 18 TO 26, UH, CALIBER INCH RANGE.
AND AGAIN, THOSE WERE 322.5 CALIBER INCHES AND AT TWO TO ONE, SO IT CAME OUT TO BE 645, UH, CALIBER INCHES THAT WAS OWED.
IN TOTAL, THEY, UH, NEEDED TO MITIGATE 2000, UH, 22.5 CALIBER INCHES.
THEY ARE PRESERVING, UH, A GREAT DEAL OF TREES IN THE BACK.
THEY'RE ADDING THIS, UH, WALKING TRAIL BACK HERE.
THIS IS ALSO LIKE A, UH, NO BUILD, UH, BUFFER ZONE BACK HERE.
UH, SO THEY'RE PRESERVING A LOT OF TREES, UH, ON SITE.
SO THEY'RE, UH, AND PRESERVING SOME UNDER, UH, EIGHT CALIPER INCHES, UH, TREES AS WELL.
SO ALTOGETHER, THEIR, UH, TOTAL PRESERVED INCHES, UH, WERE 3788.5 CALIBER INCHES, LEAVING THE DEVELOPMENT IN AN EXCESS OF 1,766 CALIBER INCHES.
SO BASICALLY IT NE GATES, UH, THE MITIGATION, UH, SINCE THE DEVELOPER IS REMOVING HERITAGE TREES, THEY WILL BE, UH, PAYING THE $300 PER CALIBER INCHES, UH, FOR THE 3 0 3 UH, CALIBER INCHES OF HERITAGE TREE.
THEY'RE REMOVING TOTALING, UH, $90,900.
UH, THEY'LL PAY THAT THROUGH THE, UH, THE PROJECT ACCOUNT.
UH, AND AGAIN, THE, UH, TREE MITIGATION, UH, REQUIREMENTS.
THE APPLICANT IS APPLYING, UH, TREE PRESERVATION AT UNDER STORE CREDITS.
THEY'RE APPLYING CREDITS ON SITE TOWARDS THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, NEGATING ANY, UH, ADDITIONAL FEE IN LIEU OF OVER PLANTING OR OVERSIZED LANDSCAPING.
SO, UM, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UH, THE APPLICANT, AGAIN IS HERE TO, UH, PRESENT A POWER SHORT POWERPOINT.
UM, AND THEN WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS AND STAFF WILL BE HERE FOR REGARDING THE QUESTIONS.
I'M EMILY MAHONEY WITH LANG AND ENGINEERING.
I'M THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THIS PROJECT.
CORY DID A GREAT JOB GOING THROUGH ALL OF THE SPECIFICS.
SO I'M NOT GONNA BELABOR THE POINT BY GOING INTO THE BACKGROUND TOO MUCH.
I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE DESIGN FEATURES THAT WE CHOSE TO DO TO TRY TO SAVE ADDITIONAL TREES AND SOME OF THE PSYCH CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAD ON THE SITE.
SO, CORY WENT THROUGH AN AERIAL ALREADY.
I WANTED TO BRING UP THAT ALL THE EXHIBITS I'M GONNA PUT UP ARE GONNA BE SKEWED.
SO NORTH IS GONNA BE FACING TO THE LEFT, JUST SO WE CAN SEE THE SITE A LITTLE BIT BETTER ON THE WAY THAT THE SIDE IS ORIENTED HERE.
I HAVE THE SITE PLAN OVERLAID ON TOP OF THE AERIAL.
YOU'LL NOTICE THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED DURING THE REZONING QUITE A WHILE BACK FOR THE SITE.
WE'VE KEPT IT VERY CONSISTENT.
THE ONLY DESIGN CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED HAVE BEEN ONES TO SAVE ADDITIONAL TREES.
AND AS CORY MENTIONED, THERE'S A LOT OF TREES IN THE BACK OF THE SITE, WHICH IS THE NORTH OR ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE STREET RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S ALSO A COUPLE OF AREAS OF HEAVILY WOODED SPACES NEAR THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND SO THESE ARE THE MAIN AREAS THAT WE FOCUSED ON TRYING TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE.
AND I'LL ZOOM INTO SOME OF THOSE AREAS NOW.
SO ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, THIS IS THE HEAVILY WOODED AREA IN THE BACK.
WE'VE INCLUDED SOME SIGNIFICANT RETAINING WALLS TO BE ABLE TO KEEP
[00:40:01]
OUR DEVELOPMENT OUT OF THAT HEAVILY WOODED AREA AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.WE'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF COORDINATION WITH THE CONTRACTOR TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTRUCTABILITY OF THIS WALL IS GONNA PROTECT THOSE TREES SO IT'S NOT JUST A LINEUP AGAINST THE TREE.
AND THEN THEY GO AND BUILD IT.
AND WE'VE GOT SOME DIFFERENT ISSUES.
WE ALSO HAVE AN OFFSITE BYPASS WHALE THAT RUNS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF OUR PROPERTY, HAVEN OAKS RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY TO OUR WEST.
THEIR BASIN HAS A POINT DISCHARGE DIRECTLY ONTO OUR SITE.
SO WE HAVE THE SWALE TO BE ABLE TO ROUTE EVERYTHING AROUND THE SITE AND GET TO THE ULTIMATE DISCHARGE POINT, WHICH REQUIRED US TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THOSE TREES THAT ARE AROUND THE BACK OF THE SITE.
NONE OF THOSE ARE LARGE, SIGNIFICANT OR HERITAGE TREES.
THOSE ARE IDENTIFIED ON HERE WITH A SMALL BLUE CROSS.
SO THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT THIS TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLIES TO.
BUT I DID WANNA MENTION IT 'CAUSE THOSE ARE TREES STILL.
WE HAVE A WATER QUALITY WET POND BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE EDWARDS AQUIFER.
WE TRIED TO PLACE THIS IN AS CLEAR OF AN AREA AS POSSIBLE ALONG THE BACK.
THIS IS THE LOW SIDE OF THE SITE, SO THIS IS WHERE THE POND WANTS TO BE.
SO WE TRIED TO KEEP THAT AGAIN OUT OF THE HEAVILY WOODED AREA.
AND AS CORY MENTIONED, WE ADDED A MEANDERING ACCESS PATH.
WE NEEDED THIS BOTH AS ACCESS FOR THE WATER QUALITY POND PER T CQ REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALSO IT'S AN AMENITY FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE GONNA BE WORKING AT THE SPACE.
AND THEN ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF AREAS OF HEAVY TREES AROUND THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE.
SO WE HAVE MEANDERED OUR ACCESS DRIVE THROUGH THERE TO TRY TO SAVE AS MANY OF THOSE TREES AS POSSIBLE.
SO YOU'LL NOTICE THAT IT LOOPS AROUND THOSE TREES THAT ARE PLANNED SOUTH ON HERE.
AGAIN, WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT RETAINING WALLS, SO WE COULD CREATE TREE WELLS AND TRY TO KEEP AS MANY OF THOSE TREES AS POSSIBLE, EVEN THOUGH THE GRADE THAT WE'RE DOING WOULDN'T KEEP THEM OTHERWISE.
AND THEN WE'VE INCLUDED A RAIN GARDEN BY RETENTION AREA, AGAIN FOR TCQ REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALSO TO ENHANCE THE LANDSCAPING IN THIS AREA.
AND THEN I'LL JUST END WITH SOME ZOOMED IN SHOTS OF OUR LANDSCAPING PLAN SO YOU CAN SEE THE FUTURE INTENT FOR THE PLANTINGS.
SO LEFT HAND SIDE AND RIGHT HAND SIDE, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
NO, I'M, I'M ALWAYS CONCERNED WHEN WE HAVE THIS MANY TREES, BUT IT'S A FAIRLY LARGE DEVELOPMENT WITH A LOT OF, BUILD A LOT OF BUILDINGS AS WELL.
AND I, I DO SEE, YOU KNOW, I DID NOTICE THE, THE KIND OF HOOK AROUND TO TRY TO SAVE THOSE TREES THERE FROM YOUR DRIVE SPACE.
SO I SEE THAT YOU'VE, YOU KNOW, MADE THE, UM, UH, MADE IT VERY INTENTIONAL ABOUT TRYING TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE.
SO, AND YOU GUYS MIGHT GET ANOTHER HALF HAND FROM ME TONIGHT.
I CALL IT MY HALF HAND IS WHEN I'M LIKE, I'M GONNA SAY YES, BUT I'M NOT SUPER HAPPY ABOUT IT,
I, I, UH, YEAH, I'M, I'M PRETTY HALF HANDED ON ON THIS.
UM, I FIND IT AMAZING THAT THE DISEASED TREES ARE IN THE BUILDING, ARE, ARE, ARE IN THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND, UH, WHERE WE'RE NOT BUILDING WE'RE GOING TO, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE.
THOSE TREES AREN'T BECAUSE IF THEY'RE DISEASED, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE 'EM AROUND HEALTHY TREES.
SO THERE ARE SOME DISEASED AND DYING TREES THAT ARE OUT WITHIN THE HEALTHY TREES AS WELL THAT WE ARE REMOVING.
AND SO IF WE GO BACK TO THIS EXHIBIT AT THE BEGINNING, THOSE TREES THAT HAVE ORANGE DASHED LINES AROUND THEM ARE THE ONES THAT WERE FOUND TO BE DISEASE AND DYING.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF I CAN DO THIS.
SO THERE IS ONE HERE THAT WAS A, IN HAZARDOUS CONDITION, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE ICE STORM.
WE ENDED UP GOING BACK AND DOING ANOTHER ARBORIST REPORT.
AND THEN YES, THERE'S ONE THAT'S WITHIN THE TREE WITHIN THE BUILDING, BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO ONE UP HERE ON THIS HAND SIDE TOO.
SO THEY ARE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
BUT WE BOTH, WE BOTH KNOW MOST OF 'EM ARE IN THE, IN THE, IN, IN, IN THE BUILDING SITE.
BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA GET, YOU'RE GONNA BE OKAY FOR ME, I, I WORK WITH ARBUS ALL THE TIME.
UM, BUT, UH, WE KNOW COMMISSIONER MAY, IT'S ALWAYS A BATTLE, UM, WITH ALL OF US TO LOOK AT HOW MANY TREES WE WANT TO SAVE.
UH, AND, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE BUILDINGS TO PUT UP.
WE HAVE, UM, PLACES THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO PARK.
ALL THESE THINGS HAVE TO BE DONE.
AND IT'S ENCOURAGING TO SEE AS MUCH THOUGHT AND EFFORT PUT IN TO SAVING AS MANY TREES AS YOU CAN.
UM, BUT IT DOES SADNESS ALL TO SEE THE ONES BEING REMOVED.
UM, I'M, I'M FEELING SOME KIND OF WAY ABOUT THE TREE REMOVAL
UM, ARE YOU REPLACING ANY OF THE ONES THAT YOU'RE REMOVING OR THEY HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND THERE HAVE BEEN BUILDINGS THERE AND WHATEVER AND IT'S NOT GONNA BE REPLACEMENTS? YEAH.
SO ALL OF THE LARGER SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE TREES THAT WE'RE REMOVING WERE FOUND TO BE IN FAIR CONDITION.
SO THE STRESS THAT THEY'RE GONNA GO THROUGH TO TRY TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE THOSE AND RELOCATE THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE ON SITE, THEY WEREN'T FOUND TO BE GOOD,
[00:45:01]
UH, CANDIDATES FOR THAT.I WORKED FOR TCEQ FOR 15 YEARS, SO I UNDERSTAND ALL THE STUFF THAT Y'ALL HAVE TO GO THROUGH FOR, TO GET PERMITS, YOU KNOW, TO DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.
SO, BUT I'M, I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT ALL THE TREES GOING AWAY.
IT'S LIKE, IT, IT AFFECTS OUR AIR AND YOU KNOW, IT, IT AFFECTS HOW IT LOOKS.
SO I JUST WANT TO PUT IT ON RECORD.
I'M FEELING SOME KIND OF WAY, BUT I'LL PROBABLY VOTE FOR YOU.
WELL, I CAN DEFINITELY SAY WHOEVER YOU'RE WORKING WITH ON YOUR LANDSCAPING PLAN, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT OF TREES.
THEY'RE GONNA BE BUYING FROM THEM, I'M ASSUMING.
'CAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF TREES WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO REPLACE.
AND I DO APPRECIATE THE EFFORT.
UH, AND ALL THE WORK THAT YOU WENT INTO TO PRESERVE WHAT YOU COULD.
MY MY ONLY COMMENT REALLY, AND YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, HALF HANDED, THESE ARE ALWAYS TOUGH DECISIONS BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH TREES.
BUT, YOU KNOW, PROGRESS DOES HAVE TO HAPPEN.
I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT TREE NUMBER 2 38 TAG THREE.
IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST A BEAUTIFUL TREE.
I JUST HATE TO SEE THAT POOR TREE GO.
BUT NONETHELESS, THIS IS PART OF PROGRESS AND YOU'RE GONNA DO WHAT YOU CAN TO REPLACE.
MY ONLY THING IS I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE CITY IN SOME SORT OF CAPACITY HAVE A, A, SOME SORT OF RECYCLE OR REPURPOSE PLAN TO USE THE HERITAGE AND SIGNIFICANT TREE WOOD THAT IS CHOPPED DOWN AND DONATE THAT TO A LOCAL ARTISANS OR TO WOOD SHOPS AT, AT, AT THE HIGH SCHOOLS LEVEL WHERE THEY CAN USE THIS WOOD AND REPURPOSE IT INTO SOMETHING THAT MAYBE EITHER COULD BE, THEY COULD BUILD OR SOMETHING ARTISTIC OR SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONATED BACK TO THE CITY.
IT'S JUST, IT'S A SHAME THAT YOU'VE GOT A 28 30 INCH CPER, YOU KNOW, UM, TRUNK OF A TREE THAT IS GONNA BE COMPLETELY TORN DOWN AND POSSIBLY JUST DISPOSED OF.
AND, YOU KNOW, I HATE TO SEE THAT WOOD JUST GO TO COMPLETE WASTE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THOSE TREES THAT ARE BEING TAKEN DOWN.
I GUESS MY COMMENT, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
SEEING, SEEING YOUR MAP IS, IS I WAS PLANNING ON VOTING AGAINST IT UNTIL I SAW YOUR OVERLAY THERE WITH THE MAP.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE HAVING TO REMOVE SOME OF THESE HERITAGE TREES.
BUT IT IS, UH, WE SEE THESE ARBORIST REPORT AND I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT, UM, TO THE STAFF THAT I WOULD PREFER THAT ON THE PLANNING ANALYSIS THAT IT STATES THAT IT'S AN ARBORIST HIRED BY THE DEVELOPER.
THE ONLY REASON I SAY THAT IS A LOT OF CITIES, WE, WE DON'T HAVE OUR OWN ARBORIST, BUT A LOT OF CITIES DO.
SO AUDIENCE MEMBERS OR CITIZENS THAT ARE READING THIS MATERIAL MAY THINK THAT IT'S OUR CITY ARBORIST THAT'S RECOMMENDING THAT THESE TREES BE TAKEN OUT AND NOT, WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT.
I THINK THAT IT'S HIRED BY THE DEVELOPER AND 'CAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF THESE THAT ARE IN, YOU KNOW, PRETTY GOOD SHAPE AND YET THEY'RE, THEY'RE COMING OUT AND THAT THAT'S REALLY MORE BECAUSE OF THE, THE BUILDING SITE THAN IT IS BECAUSE OF THEIR CONDITION.
BECAUSE YOU'VE, YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF BUILDINGS TO, TO PUT ON THERE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I DON'T WANNA MISLEAD PEOPLE.
UM, YOU KNOW, TO THINK THAT, THAT THEY'RE ONLY BEING TAKEN OUT BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION THEY'RE IN.
IT'S BECAUSE OF THEIR, THEIR LOCATION.
AND THEY DON'T, YOU CAN'T TRANSPLANT A TREE THAT BIG.
UM, IF YOU HAD A GIGANTIC TREE SPADE MAYBE IN, BUT IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T MAKE IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE MY, MY ASK IS THAT WE CLARIFY THAT IN FUTURE REPORTS.
AND, UM, HAVING SAID MY PIECE WILL, IT'S AN ACTION ITEM.
MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAY, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR.
[15. Discuss and consider action on updates to the Roadway Impact Fee Service Area Map and the Roadway Impact Fee Study.
]
ITEM NUMBER 15, CONSIDER, ACT, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION ON UPDATES TO THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREA MAP, AND THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY.
SO JAKE ATTENDED OUR MEETING TONIGHT AND OFFERED TO MAKE A, A BETTER PRESENTATION THAN WHAT I WOULD DO
UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO TALK THROUGH WHAT THIS IS AND WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, UH, UM, FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
SO, UH, ONE, UM, AS A REMINDER, UH, THE IMPACT THE ORDINANCE FOR ROADWAYS WAS PASSED LAST JULY COLLECTIONS BEGIN ON THAT ON JANUARY 7TH OF NEXT YEAR.
SO IF YOU HEAR THINGS OUT AND ABOUT, IF PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO SAY THINGS, THIS IS USUALLY WHEN DEVELOPMENT RECOGNIZES THAT THEY'RE THERE.
UM, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THEY HAVE TO START PAYING.
'CAUSE THE BUILDING PERMITS WILL START SHOWING UP ON THEIR BILL.
SO JUST AS A NOTE FOR AWARENESS A COUPLE WEEKS FROM NOW, DON'T BE SURPRISED IF YOU HEAR CHATTER ABOUT THAT.
UM, TYPICAL WITH THE FIRST IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE.
UM, SO WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.
UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT ROADWAY IMPACT FEES, THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER IMPACT FEE.
[00:50:01]
IF YOU RECALL FOR SOME OF Y'ALL THAT WAS A PART OF THAT PROCESS.UH, IT'S LIMITED TO THE CITY LIMITS WHEN WE DO THE STUDY.
UM, THERE'S BEEN SOME ANNEXATIONS THAT Y'ALL MIGHT'VE HEARD ABOUT, UH, SINCE THAT TIME.
UM, SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS EFFECTIVELY WHEN THESE ARE IMPLEMENTED, UM, UNLESS THE FULL BLOWN STUDY PROCESSES REDONE, UM, THE CITY LIMITS THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE STUDY IS WHERE THOSE, UH, IMPACT FEES ARE AFFECTED UNLESS THE MAPS ARE UPDATED TO CAPTURE THOSE ANNEXATIONS.
UM, SO WE'VE TALKED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEYS ABOUT THIS AND UM, THEY'RE ON BOARD WITH THE SOLUTION, UH, FOR AFTER TONIGHT, UH, TO ACTUALLY MAKE THAT PART OF THE STANDARD ANNEXATION PROCESS THAT GOES TO COUNCIL, UH, TO MAKE IT MORE OF AN AUTOMATIC THING TO BE ABLE TO ADD THEM INTO AREAS.
UM, BUT FROM A TEXAS LAW STANDPOINT, I JUST WANTED TO COVER WHY WE CAN DO THAT OR WHY WE CAN'T DO THAT, UM, TO THE MAP ITSELF.
SO, UH, IN THE STATE LAW, THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS.
UM, WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT, UH, IF YOU DO AN AMENDMENT TO THE IMPACT FEE STUDY, UH, THAT IMPACTS THE LEANING ASSUMPTIONS, THE, UH, UM, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN PROJECTS OR THE ACTUAL MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE, THEN YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS AND PUBLIC HEARING AND DO ALL THAT.
UH, WHAT WE FOUND WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THIS AREA THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO, UH, IS CONSIDERED AN ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE.
AND THE REASON WHY WE CAN PASS WITH THAT, UH, IS TWO THINGS.
UM, ONE IS, UH, SO LONG AS YOUR COLLECTION RATE, UH, IS NOT EQUAL TO OR SET AT YOUR MAXIMUM.
UM, AS LONG AS ADDING THESE AREAS IN WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THAT CALCULATION TO A POINT WHERE YOU WOULD VIOLATE THE MAXIMUM FEE WITH YOUR COLLECTION RATES.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE GENERAL THING.
UH, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS THERE'S ALSO A PROVISION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 3 95 POINT, UH, 0 5, 7 5, VERY SPECIFIC NUMBER, UH, ABOUT WHEN YOU CAN MAKE A DECISION THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO UPDATE, UH, YOUR LA'S ASSUMPTIONS OR YOUR CIP.
SO THERE'S PROVISIONS IN THE LAW FOR IT.
I WANTED TO BE VERY TRANSPARENT WITH THIS GROUP.
I BELIEVE, UH, WITH THE UPDATED STUDY THERE'S A REALLY HELPFUL EXHIBIT CALLED EXHIBIT ONE AND THAT SHOWS YOU ALL THE ANNEXED AREAS, UM, THAT HAVE COME IN SINCE THE STUDY THAT ARE BEING ADDED TO THE MAP.
UM, THERE'S ACTUALLY ANNEXATIONS IN ALL, UH, ALL OF THE SERVICE AREAS EXCEPT FOR SERVICE AREA E THE LITTLE TRIANGLE IN THE MIDDLE.
UM, AND WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SHARE.
JUST WANTED TO BE VERY EXPLICIT AND DIRECT ABOUT IT AND OFFER UP QUESTIONS ON THAT, UM, PROCESS.
VICE CHAIR, YOU WANNA START DOWN ON THAT END? ANY QUESTIONS? AND WHEN YOU REFER TO EXHIBIT ONE, YOU REFER TO THE 219 PAGES OF THE PLAN.
THERE IS AN EXHIBIT ONE WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE REPORT.
I THINK IT'S ON PAGE LIKE 19 OR 20.
I MEAN, I, I, I, YEAH, I WENT THROUGH IT AND LOOKED AT A LOT OF IT, BUT IT'S JUST DETAILED.
NO, NO, IT, I I I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, I WENT THROUGH EVERYTHING AND, UM, AS MUCH AS I COULD, GIVEN IT'S 219 PAGES, ITS LONG.
AND LOOKED AT SOME AREAS THAT MAY IMPACT ME AS WELL.
SO, UM, BUT YEAH, I, I, I HAVE NO, NO QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS.
I, I THINK IT, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO GO.
I FORGOT ONE THING 'CAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE SLIDES SECURE WITH ME.
UM, THE STATE LAW DOES, UH, DESIGNATE THE IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS GENERALLY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS THE BODY TO, UH, ALERT COUNSEL IF THERE'S A NEED FOR AN UPDATE TO THE, TO THE OVERALL STUDY.
SO JUST AS A NOTE THAT'S IN THERE.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO, UM, SEMI-ANNUAL, UH, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ONCE THIS STARTS.
SO YOU'LL BE HEARING ABOUT THE COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES ON A SEMI-ANNUAL BASIS AFTER THE COLLECTIONS START IN JANUARY.
SO IT'LL, IT'LL COME BACK, BUT MORE FOR REPORTING PURPOSES.
SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE SAID THOSE TWO THINGS.
UM, MY ONLY QUESTION IS ON THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE WHERE, UM, ONCE THE FEES ARE COLLECTED, IT, IT COMES TO THE CITY, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO THE CITY HAS TO ACTUALLY SET UP A SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR EACH OF THOSE FIVE AREAS.
AND THEN THE ONLY STIPULATION THE LAW SAYS IS THAT THE MONEY THAT GOES INTO THAT ACCOUNT HAS TO BE SPENT ON PROJECTS IN THE SAME AREA.
SO THE CIP IN THERE BASICALLY IS WHAT HAS TO BE DONE ON THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.
TOOK A WHILE TO READ THROUGH THE, IT WAS, I THINK OUR, UH, PACKET TONIGHT WAS 440 PAGES TOTAL
SO A LOT OF READING, BUT THE INFORMATION WAS REALLY GOOD AND THE MAP WAS REALLY CLEAR AS TO WHERE WE'RE ADDING IN.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COSGROVE.
I'M A LITTLE WORRIED THAT I READ IT AND IT MADE SENSE ALL TO ME
SO, BUT, BUT IT WAS, IT WAS A GREAT JOB.
MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER MAY.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOSS.
[00:55:01]
THE TIME IS 6 54 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.