Dec 11, 2025 P&Z Commission

[1. Call to Order.]

[00:00:13]

DECEMBER 11TH CITY OF LEANDER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONER MORALES AND

[3. Director's report to the Planning & Zoning Commission on action taken by City Council on the November 20, 2026 and December 10, 2025 meetings.]

[4. Review of meeting protocol.]

[ CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION]

[14. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-25-0194 to amend the current zoning of Interim SFR-1-B (Single-Family Rural) and Interim SFS-2-B (Single-Family Suburban) to HC-5-B (Heavy Commercial) on two (2) parcels of land 11.65 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcels R315913 and R031291; and generally located on the northside of RM 2243, approximately 1,100 feet east of the intersection with CR 269, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.  

• Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-25-0194 as described above.

THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATED ZONING DISTRICT OF THEIR PROPERTY TO ALIGN THE ZONING WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE. THE PROPOSED PROPOSAL DOES COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS APPROPRIATE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER, AS IDENTIFIED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SITE WAS ANNEXED IN TWO PHASES. ONE OF THEM WAS IN 2002 AND ONE OF THEM WAS IN 2013. THAT'S WHY THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ZONINGS AND CURRENTLY HOLDS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS, WHICH ALLOWS THE EXISTING USE AND STRUCTURES TO REMAIN AS THEY WERE AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION. THE PROPERTY OWNER NOW INTENDS TO EXPAND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WHILE MAINTAINING THE SAME USE. TO PROCEED WITH THE EXPANSION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONE CHANGE TO BRING THE SITE INTO FULL COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT REGULATIONS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF THE BABCOCK PRODUCTS AND EAST OF H L CHAPMAN PIPELINE, AND THIS IS THE AREA SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT THE SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE. THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED OR USED PROPERTIES WITHIN 500FT OF THE SITE, SO THEY DID NOT NEED TO DO ANY PUBLIC OUTREACH. AS PART OF THE EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST, THE COMMISSION HAS THE OPTION TO EITHER APPROVE THE PROPOSED ZONING CASE, DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING CASE, OR APPROVE AN ALTERNATE REQUEST THAT MAY INCLUDE A MORE RESTRICTIVE SITE COMPONENT, SUCH AS TYPES ONE, TWO, THREE, OR FOUR, OR A MORE RESTRICTIVE ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT SUCH AS TYPE A STAFF RECOMMENDS OPTION ONE TO APPROVE THE ZONING REQUEST. WE MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL LAND USE PATTERNS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER OUTLINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY, SO IS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION OR JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY. GREAT. ALL RIGHT THEN WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM 14? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTER INTO DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER COATES, NO COMMENT OR QUESTION AT THIS TIME.

COMMISSIONER OLIVER. NO COMMENT. I'M GOOD. VICE CHAIR, NO COMMENT. AND COMMISSIONER BRAY, NO COMMENT. AND WELL, WE'LL MAKE IT A A ROUND OF NO COMMENTS. THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. I'LL SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY VICE CHAIR LANTRIP AND SECONDED BY

[15. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-25-0200 to amend the current zoning of Interim SFR-1-B (Single Family Rural) to HC-4-C (Heavy Commercial) on one (1) parcel of land 3.973 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R031281; and generally located southeast of the intersection of CR 270 and Hero Way, Leander, Williamson County, Texas. 

• Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-25-0200 as described above.

[00:05:03]

CHENEY THARP WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF TEXAS. TEX-MEX CONCRETE AND H.L. CHAPMAN PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 270 WEST OF LIBERTY.

CIVIL CONSTRUCTION IN EAST OF COA RV PARK. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATED ZONING DISTRICT TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONING OF INTERIM SINGLE FAMILY RULE, SFR ONE B TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL HC FOUR C TO ALIGN WITH THE ZONING OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

THE PROPOSAL DOES COMPLY WITH COMPREHENSIVE, AND IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER AS IDENTIFIED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE APPLICANT WISHES TO INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY INTO AN OVERALL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IN ADDITION TO NOTICE MAILED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT, THE APPLICANT REACHED OUT TO RESIDENTS WITHIN 500FT OF THE PROPERTY ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2025 BY MAIL. ONE APPLICANT HAD GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. THE PROCESS WAS EXPLAINED AND THEY HAD NO FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. AS A PART OF THE EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. APPROVE THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE REQUEST. DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE REQUEST, OR APPROVE AN ALTERNATIVE REQUEST THAT MAY INCLUDE A MORE RESTRICTIVE SITE COMPONENT. TYPE ONE, 2 OR 3, OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT. TYPE A OR B STAFF RECOMMENDS OPTION ONE LISTED ABOVE. APPROVE THE REQUESTED ZONING OF HC FOUR. C HEAVY COMMERCIAL STAFF MADE THE RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL LAND USE PATTERNS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF EMPLOYMENT CENTER OUTLINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. IS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION? OKAY. YEAH. AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER MORALES HAS ARRIVED. SO RIGHT NOW I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? BUT THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING TO SPEAK. SO SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTER INTO DISCUSSION. START WITH COMMISSIONER BRAY.

NO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. VICE CHAIR. NO COMMENT. MR. OLIVER, I HAD ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF.

JUST I NOTICED AN OPTION. THREE YOU HAD A OPTION TO INCLUDE A MORE RESTRICTIVE SITE COMPONENT TYPE ONE, 2 OR 3, OR TYPE A OR B AND I. AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, YOU CHOSE TO RECOMMEND OPTION ONE JUST TO PROVE IT AS IT IS. WERE THERE ANY WOULD THERE BE ANY REASON, CONSIDERING THIS IS AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER FOR US TO TO PUT IN MORE RESTRICTIVE TYPE, YOU KNOW, ONE, 2 OR 3 OR TYPE A OR B ON THIS? OR MAYBE MISS KARINA CAN COME EXPLAIN THAT.

HEY, IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THE USE IS. SO IT DEPENDS ON THE OPERATIONS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. SO THEY IF THEY NEED ANY OUTDOOR STORAGE, THEY'LL NEED A HIGHER TYPE SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE MORE OUTDOOR STORAGE. OKAY. SO IT KIND OF JUST DEPENDS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

GOT IT. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. AND I'LL JUMP IN JUST SINCE YOU'RE STILL HERE.

MARINA, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALL HEAVY COMMERCIAL. ARE THEY ALSO TYPE FOR. YES. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THEY DO OWN THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH. SO THIS IS JUST THE ONLY PARCEL THAT THEY NEEDED TO KEEP IT. GREAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER COATES. YES. QUESTION FOR THE STAFF. DOES THE TRAFFIC PATTERN FOR CR 270 AND HERE AWAY SUPPORT THIS LEVEL OF COMMERCIAL INTENSITY THAT WOULD BE LOOKED AT AT THE SITE DEVELOPMENT? OKAY. AND THEN WERE YOU GIVEN ANY INDICATION OF THE INTENDED USE FOR, FOR THIS PROPERTY BY THE APPLICANT. I CAN PULL UP THEIR LETTER OF INTENT. IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE PACKET. I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME. OKAY. OKAY. SO THE LETTER OF INTENT DOESN'T NECESSARILY INCLUDE THE THE USES THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO AN INDUSTRIAL PARK OUT THERE. SO IT WOULD BE SEVERAL BUILDINGS OVER THE FOUR LOTS OR FIVE LOTS THAT THEY OWN. AND DID THEY GIVE ANY INDICATION OF CROSS CONNECTIVITY WITH. YEAH. SO THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FROM OUR ORDINANCE OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

GREAT. THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MORALES. NO MAJOR COMMENTS. IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE FUTURE LAND USE. AND THAT'S ALL OKAY. AND I ASK MY ONLY QUESTION AS WELL. JUST A CLARIFICATION. SO THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. MOTION TO APPROVE.

[00:10:10]

[16. Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-25-0183 to amend the current zoning of GC-3-C (General Commercial) to adopt the 2100 S. Bagdad Road PUD (Planned Unit Development) with the base zoning of GC-3-C (General Commercial) on one (1) parcel of land approximately 0.36 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R098183; and located at 2100 S. Bagdad Road, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.]

AS NOTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY UTILIZED AS A DAYCARE. THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER HAS SINCE CONVERTED A PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL IN ADDITION TO THE DAYCARE CENTER, AND INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCING ALONG BAGHDAD ROAD. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATED ZONING DISTRICT OF THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR TWO KEY MODIFICATIONS INSTALLATION OF A FENCE TALLER THAN THREE FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG BAGHDAD ROAD, AND INCLUSION OF ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT WITHIN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. DURING THE NOVEMBER 13TH, 2025 MEETING, PUBLIC HEARING STAFF RECOMMENDED THE PUBLIC OR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ALTERNATIVE REQUEST THAT INCLUDED MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO REMOVE THE REQUEST TO NOT APPLY THE FENCING STANDARDS STAFF MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE INTENT OF ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 14 B 12 OF THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH PERMITS ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT AS AN ACCESSORY USE, PROVIDED THAT IS LOCATED ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR.

IN THIS CASE, STAFF BELIEVES THAT ALLOWING THE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE FIRST FLOOR WITH THE COMMERCIAL USE STILL ALIGNS WITH THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND SUPPORTS A FLEXIBLE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FENCE STANDARDS. THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN A SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG BAGHDAD ROAD FRONTAGE DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, AND WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ESTABLISHED STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. FENCING ALONG MAJOR ARTERIALS IS GENERALLY DISCOURAGED UNLESS IT CONSISTS OF A MASONRY WALL ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, IN COMPLIANCE WITH A SET WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. WHILE FENCING MAY BE PERMITTED IN CERTAIN CASES FOR SCREENING PURPOSES, IT IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED TO BE SET BACK FROM THE ROADWAY TO PRESERVE VISUAL CONTINUITY AND MAINTAIN CORRIDOR ESTHETICS. AS PART OF THE EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. APPROVED THE PROPOSED ZONING CASE. DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING CASE, OR APPROVE AN ALTERNATIVE REQUEST THAT MAY INCLUDE MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN REGARDS TO THE FENCE OR THE ALLOWED PROHIBITED USES BASED ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DURING THE DURING THE NOVEMBER 13TH, 2025 MEETING, STAFF RECOMMENDS OPTION THREE LISTED ABOVE, A PROVEN ALTERNATIVE REQUEST THAT MAY INCLUDE MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ATTACHED PUD THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. ALLOW THE FENCE ALONG SOUTH BAGHDAD ROAD TO BE PLACED TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. UPDATE THE FENCING SO THAT THE SMOOTH SIDE IS FACING TOWARDS SOUTH BAGHDAD ROAD, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. A RED LINE PUD NOTE THE RED LINE NOTES ARE ATTACHED. IT'S ATTACHMENT NUMBER NINE, AND IT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR AGENDA. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. WOULD YOU CONSIDER HAVING A I BELIEVE YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT? YEAH. WE I MEAN IS THAT OKAY. YEAH.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION IS NEXT IN THE ITEM ORDER OF OPERATIONS. ANYWAY. THANK YOU, MR. HUNT.

[00:15:17]

THIS IS AN OLDER PICTURE OF OUR OF OUR DAYCARE. SO I'M JUST OFFERING THIS PRESENTATION TO KIND OF ALLOW YOU TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE. WE'VE CHANGED THE FOOTPRINT PRETTY MUCH BECAUSE OF THE DAYCARE STRUCTURE. THIS IS ON COUNTY CORK AND BAGHDAD. THIS AREA ACTUALLY FACES COUNTY COURT. THAT'S THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE DAYCARE. SO WE REFER THAT NOW AS THE FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY. THE PREVIOUS FRONT YARD, AS THE DUPLEX WAS CONSTRUCTED WAS ON BAGHDAD. AND IT IS NOW WHAT WE REFER TO AS OUR BACKYARD AND A KIDS PLAYGROUND. THE THE KIDS PLAYGROUND IS, IS IN THIS AREA HERE. IT'S ABOUT 300FT■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

THEY'RE SWEET PEOPLE, BUT THEY HAVE A PRETTY MUCH A USED USED CAR LOT RIGHT NEXT TO US. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER REASON WHY WE RAISED THE FENCE HEIGHT. SO THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW, YOU YOU HEARD THE RECOMMENDATIONS. REDUCE THE FENCE HEIGHT TO THREE FEET, REMAIN A CURRENT LOCATION. THE IMPACT THERE IS THAT THE DAYCARE PARENT CONCERNS AGAIN WILL RESURFACE. OR WE CAN KEEP THE FENCE HEIGHT AT SIX FEET AND MOVE TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. WELL, THAT ELIMINATES OUR KIDS PLAYGROUND AREA. AND KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS PROPERTY PREDOMINANTLY IS A IS A DAYCARE. SO IT'S IT'S OUR DESIRE AND OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE KEEP THE THE FENCE AT SIX FEET IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION. NOW, IF YOU DRIVE UP AND DOWN BAGHDAD ROAD, YOU'LL SEE THAT 75 PLUS PERCENT OF THE THE FENCES ALONG SOUTH BAGHDAD BAGHDAD ROAD ARE. FENCES LIKE WE HAVE CEDAR OR PRESSURE TREATED PLANKS. THIS THIS PROPERTY IS IS TWO HOUSES DOWN. IT'S ON THE CORNER. THEY JUST PUT A FENCE UP AND IT'S 16.5FT FROM BAGHDAD. THIS IS A PICTURE ON THE LEFT OF THAT FENCE THAT I WAS REFERRING TO.

THE NEW, THE NEW, THE NEW FENCE AND OUR FENCE ON THE RIGHT, 16.5 ON THE LEFT. OURS IS 27FT FROM BAGHDAD. AND THEN AGAIN, THERE'S THERE'S NUMEROUS FENCES ALONG BAGHDAD THAT ARE BETWEEN 6 AND 8FT. THEY DON'T SEEM TO DRAW ANY ATTENTION. SO OUR PRAYER IS THAT WE RESPECTFULLY

[00:20:08]

NEWER, FRESHER LOOK. SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOU, AND I DO APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH LEANDER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. GILLESPIE. SINCE THIS IS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM, THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT. HOWEVER, I WILL OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THAT AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER MORALES. YEAH, I, I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU REZONE A PROPERTY, IT SETS PRECEDENT. AND I'M GLAD THAT I ENJOYED YOUR PRESENTATION. YOU KNOW, IT DEFINITELY BRINGS IT. IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT THE ONLY FENCE ON BAGHDAD. SO THAT PART I KIND OF HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ON. I DO THINK I GUESS I Y'ALL'S RECOMMENDED, YOU KNOW, IF IT COULD ESTHETICALLY LOOK BETTER, I COULD BE UP FOR APPROVING SOMETHING AT THIS TIME. BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. SO MR. COATS, YES. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. IT WAS THOROUGH. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE VISUALS. IT DEFINITELY PUT THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE. SO YOU SAID THAT YOUR CURRENT FENCE LINE IS 27FT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY, FROM BAGHDAD, BUT NOT FROM THE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT WHERE YOUR FENCE CURRENTLY LIES IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY LINE? SO THE, THE I'VE TOOK MEASUREMENTS FROM OUR THE FENCE EDGE TO BAGHDAD AND THAT WAS 20, 27FT. I KNOW IN TALKING TO JUSTIN THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. WE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE THE PLAT TO SEE EXACTLY WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE FENCE, OUR FENCE WAS ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND BUT I COULD BE MISTAKEN. BUT IN DEALING WITH WITH WITH WITH JUSTIN AND AND AND THE STAFF. THAT'S WHERE I, THAT'S WHERE I MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE FENCE IS ACTUALLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT I COULD BE MISTAKEN. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST A QUESTION TO THE STAFF. THE RECOMMENDATION FOR TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, HOW DOES HIS MEASUREMENTS VERSUS YOUR MEASUREMENTS. HOW DO THOSE LINE UP WITH WITH YOUR RECOMMENDING FROM THE STAFF? WELL, WHAT OUR ATTEMPT IS, IS TO REMOVE THE FENCE FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE FRONTAGE. THERE'S A TEN FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE FRONTAGE THAT IT'S CURRENTLY SITTING IN. SO THAT WAS OUR KIND OF MODIFICATION AND REQUEST TO THEM OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE THE ONLY QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE. AND I DO SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS AS IT'S MY COLLEAGUE HERE THAT JUST SPOKE BEFORE ME. BUT BUT THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION AND THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWER. COMMISSIONER OLIVER. YEAH. MR. HUNT, SO WITH THE WITH THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE PUD, WITH THE MODIFICATIONS, OBVIOUSLY IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, TO ALLOW TEN FEET FROM, I GUESS, THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE RIGHT OF WAY OF BAGHDAD ROAD. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY STILL HAVE DOES THAT MEAN THEY HAVE TO MOVE THE FENCE WHERE IT CURRENTLY IS SOMEWHERE ELSE, OR MOVE FURTHER BACK TOWARDS THEIR HOME? CORRECT. YEAH. I MEAN, SO TEN FEET BECAUSE YOU SAID THEY'RE IN A UTILITY LINE. HOW MUCH FURTHER BACK DOES THAT FENCE NEED TO GO AND HOW MUCH WILL THAT TAKE OUT OF THEIR CURRENT BACKYARD? DO YOU KNOW WE WOULD HAVE TO WE'D HAVE TO MEASURE THAT OUT. YEAH, BUT IT WOULD BE TO THE TEN FOOT. IT WOULD BE TEN FOOT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. SO RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT I MEAN, WE'D HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, GET A SURVEY AND MAKE SURE IT'S THERE. BUT IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE TEN FOOT FROM THAT FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAT'S RECORDED. RIGHT. SO I MEAN, SO I MEAN, IN THEORY, IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS WHERE THAT RED LINE IS RIGHT NOW, YOU COULD PROBABLY SEE THAT FENCE MOVE FURTHER BACK. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE THE FULL TEN FEET FOR SURE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MOVE. BUT EVEN BUT EVEN A COUPLE FEET, IT CUTS THERE.

IT CUTS THEIR YARD SPACE DOWN THE PLAY SPACE THEY HAVE FOR THEIR DAYCARE DOWN. IT'S CONSIDERABLY THEIR FRONT STEP. YEAH. AND ALSO I DIDN'T SEE ANYWHERE IN THE POD WHERE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION Y'ALL MADE THAT THIS STILL ALLOWS THEM TO KEEP A SIX FOOT FENCE OR OR DOES IT OR DO THEY STILL HAVE TO REDUCE IT TO THREE FEET? IT WOULD STILL ALLOW THEM TO KEEP THE SAME SIX FOOT FENCE. SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO KEEP THE SIX FOOT FENCE, BUT THEY'D HAVE TO MOVE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BACK TO GET IT OUT OF THE TEN FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY, THE THE PUBLIC UTILITY. SO GOT IT. BUT IF AT SOME POINT IF THERE'S A NEED TO CUT INTO THAT

[00:25:05]

YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LEONARD, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU AS WELL. ONE OF THE REASONS WAS THAT THEY STATED WERE, WAS THAT THE NEIGHBORS PARKING ALL THOSE CARS, ARE ALL THOSE CARS PARKING LEGALLY? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE THEY IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE NEXT DOOR, THEY PARKING ON THE YARD OR ANY, ANY PARKING SHOULD BE PAVED OR AT LEAST HAVE THAT PAVED SURFACE. SO IT COULD BE A CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO HAS HIS CODE ENFORCEMENT LOOKED AT THAT NEIGHBOR'S? I'M NOT AWARE. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF THEY HAVE OR NOT. I JUST, I WONDER, I, I TEND TO SUPPORT OPTION THREE AND WITH THE RED LINE CHANGES IN THE PUTT. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. COMMISSIONER BRAY. YEAH, I MIGHT HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT SEEM ELEMENTARY IN NATURE, BUT PLEASE BEAR BEAR WITH ME. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY OPTION THREE MEANS FOR THEM. JUST LIKE SIMPLY TO ME. CAN YOU MORE IN LAYMAN'S EXPLAIN REALLY WHAT THAT ENTAILS WOULD BE POTENTIALLY THEIR REQUEST? IT WOULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION FROM WHAT WE ARE PRESENTING RIGHT NOW. SO WE COULD GO BACK AND WORK WITH THEM. BUT IT COULD BE A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT REQUEST THAN WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. OKAY, SO IT DOESN'T DENY OR APPROVE IT. IT JUST ALLOWS YOU TO GO. CAN I JUMP IN FOR JUST A SECOND? SO I THINK WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE THREE OPTIONS, THAT'S FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. AND AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING Y'ALL CHOSE OPTION THREE. AND SO WE CAME BACK AND AT THE END IT TALKS ABOUT WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDING. SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE ATTACHED PUD INCLUDING THE CHANGES THAT ARE IN THE RED LINE. SO IF YOU WANTED TO CHANGE SOMETHING ELSE YOU COULD DO THAT. SO IT WOULD BE THE SAME PROCESS WE JUST TOOK. OKAY. AND BUT THE THE FIRST APPROVED PROPOSED ZONING CASE THAT WOULD BE INCLUDING OUR, OUR NOTES IN THE PUD, THE RED LINE. OKAY, SO JUST A FEW CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. IT SOUNDS LIKE FOR 3 OR 4 YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A THREE FOOT FENCE IN THIS LOCATION. AND THEN THE APPLICANT INCREASED THAT FENCE TO SIX FEET ON THEIR OWN. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. UNDERSTANDING THAT. CORRECT.

AND SO WAS THAT WAS THERE A PROCESS THAT WAS GONE THROUGH IN ORDER TO DO THAT, OR DID THEY JUST DO THAT ON THEY JUST INCREASED IT AND THEY THEY JUST INCREASED IT. SO AT THAT POINT IT CHANGES. THEY MOVED INTO THE RESIDENCE AND ADDED THE SIX FOOT FENCE. IT WAS ACTUALLY A IT'S IT'S A IT WAS A COMMERCIAL DAYCARE OKAY. AND THEY MOVED IN AND CHANGED IT TO A RESIDENCE AND AT THE SAME TIME ADDED A SIX FOOT FENCE. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REQUESTS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT AS WELL IN THAT. OKAY. AND RIGHT NOW YOU DON'T KNOW IF THAT FENCE IS IN THE EASEMENT, OR YOU DO KNOW IF THAT FENCE IS IN THAT FENCE IS IN THE EASEMENT, OKAY. AND THERE IT'S EITHER ON THE PROPERTY LINE OR IN THE EASEMENT. ARE THERE PLANS RIGHT NOW TO DO ANYTHING WITHIN THAT EASEMENT? THERE'S I MEAN, NOT I MEAN ANY UTILITY COMPANY THAT HAS RIGHTS TO THAT EASEMENT COULD COME IN AND LAY DOWN, YOU KNOW, ANY DRY UTILITY, YOU KNOW, SO THERE THERE ARE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COULD BE USED FOR SURE. CAN I ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME UP? I HAVE A QUESTION. SO YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE FENCE IS IN EASEMENT? I DO, AND YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT IF THE FENCE WERE TO REMAIN, THAT WHAT STAFF IS SAYING, IF I'M SAYING THIS CORRECTLY, ANY UTILITY COULD COME IN AND YOU WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOVEMENT OF THAT FENCE. OH, ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. OKAY. AND TO CLARIFY, WE RAISED BECAUSE THE PARENTAL CONCERNS, WE RAISED THE HEIGHT TO SIX FEET BEFORE WE MOVED IN.

AND SO THAT THAT AREA ON THE ON THE FRONT PART RIGHT ALONG BAGHDAD, IT'S, IT'S LIKE A 340FT■!S OF PLAYGROUND AREA. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE SIX FOOT FENCE THERE. OKAY. AND I BELIEVE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT NOVEMBER MEETING, I ASKED ABOUT A

[00:30:01]

[00:35:02]

THEY DON'T CHANGE BETWEEN FRONT AND SIDE. BUT IF AGAIN, IF THE ORIENTATION WAS DIFFERENT AND IT WAS A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED, THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FENCE. CORRECT? RIGHT.

NOT AT ALL. NOT AT ALL. OKAY. THAT THAT'S THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW BECAUSE AGAIN, IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF CRAZY. AND THEN WE'RE DOING A LOT OF HYPOTHETICALS HERE TONIGHT. LIKE WHAT IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND BUILDS SOMETHING. WHAT IF WHATEVER. BUT THERE'S AN EXISTING NEED THAT WE SEE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHT NOW. SO I GET THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MEET THE INTENT, QUOTE UNQUOTE, THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE DOING THAT, TO BE HONEST. RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, AND I GET WHY WE DO THESE THINGS. AND I UNDERSTAND THE KABUKI DANCE I JUST WENT THROUGH TO TRY TO SAY, HEY, WOULD IT MATTER? WOULD IT NOT MATTER? AND IT WOULDN'T IF WE, YOU KNOW WHAT IFS, WHAT IFS. BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING THE WHOLE TIME TO TALKING ABOUT WHAT IFS AND THE AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ALREADY SAID, HEY, SOMEBODY COMES IN AND DESTROYS IT. I'LL TAKE THAT CHANCE. I'VE BEEN HERE 20 YEARS AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT RIGHT. AND WE AS A CITY GO, OH WELL, IF WE BUILD A IF WE BUILD A IF, IF WE BUILD A SIDEWALK, IF WE BUILD A SIDEWALK, THEN IT'LL BE RIGHT UP AGAINST THEIR FENCE.

OKAY. IT'S STILL THEIR PROPERTY. AS LONG AS THEY HAVEN'T CROSSED THEIR PROPERTY LINE. WE'RE NOT PUTTING A SIDEWALK INTO THEIR PROPERTY. SO AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE MAKING A BIG DEAL OUT OF SOMETHING, AND WE'RE MAKING IT A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT NEEDS TO BE. FORGIVE ME, I'M FROM NORTH CAROLINA, WAS AN INFANTRYMAN. I SMALL WORDS AND PICTURES, RIGHT? THIS IS TOO COMPLICATED, RIGHT? WE ARE MAKING IT WAY OVER COMPLICATED. IT'S ALREADY BEEN CLEARLY STATED. IF THE FENCE, IF SOMEONE COMES IN, IF SOMEONE BY THEIR RIGHT COMES INTO THE UTILITY EASEMENT, DESTROYS THE FENCE, YOU HAVE TO REPLACE IT, MR. GILLESPIE. MR. GILLESPIE HAS SAID ON THE RECORD HE IS OKAY WITH THAT. HE'LL TAKE THAT RISK. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE. WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE THAT IS ON THE PLAT AND ALL THIS STUFF.

IT CAN MOVE THE FENCE BACK. SO WE STILL DON'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD SITUATION HERE. I HAVE, I HAVE SET BY THIS HOUSE A LOT THESE PAST FEW MONTHS BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION ON HERE ON BAGHDAD. AND MY SON GOES TO LEANDER HIGH SCHOOL AND I TAKE HIM EVERY MORNING. SO I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO VIEW THIS PROPERTY A LOT. I HAVE NEVER WENT, WOW, THAT LOOKS OUT OF PLACE. NOT ONCE. I GO THERE EVERY DAY, FIVE DAYS A WEEK. NOT ONCE HAVE I SAID THIS LOOKS WRONG. THIS LOOKS BAD. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT HERE IN LEANDER. I DO THAT IN OTHER PLACES. I'VE EVEN COME TO ROBIN SOMETIMES AND SAID, HEY, I SAW THIS. IS THAT REALLY RIGHT? YOU KNOW? BUT NEVER ONCE HAVE I THOUGHT THAT WITH THIS PROPERTY. SO I WHILE WE MIGHT BE MEETING THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, I DON'T THINK WE'RE REALLY MEETING THE INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AS A CITY FOR RESIDENTS HERE THAT ARE TRYING TO CONDUCT A BUSINESS, HAVE A HOME, PROVIDE A SERVICE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. SO, SO MINE WAS MORE OF A STATEMENT THAN QUESTIONS I'VE ALREADY I'VE ALREADY GOTTEN ALL MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED. I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION IS, IS TEN FOOT EASEMENT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE STANDARD? I HEARD IT WAS STANDARD FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL USE ALONG ALL FRONTAGES, STREET FRONTAGES, TEN FOOT PUBLIC UTILITIES. I WANT TO MAKE SURE, BUT WE'RE SAYING THAT THE 27FT THAT WE HAVE BETWEEN AND I'M TAKING MR. GILLESPIE'S WORD, I HAVEN'T GONE OUT THERE AND MEASURED IT MYSELF. BUT WE'RE SAYING THAT THE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HIS FEET AND OR HIS FENCE AND BAGHDAD ROAD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HIS FENCE TODAY AND BAGHDAD ROAD, WE'RE SAYING THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. CORRECT. OKAY. BUT THAT'S AGAINST OUR BUT SHORTER DISTANCES IN OTHER PLACES BECAUSE THEY'RE RESIDENTIAL HOMES, THEY'RE NOT FRONT FACING ALL THOSE STUFF. THOSE ARE ACCEPTABLE. DIFFERENT SETBACKS FOR THE SIDE FOR RESIDENTIAL HOMES. GOT IT. OKAY. AND AND I THINK THAT WAS THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT OF MY LITTLE THING UP HERE. SO THAT THAT'S ALL OF MY STATEMENTS OR IF THERE'S ANY

[00:40:06]

IT'S AROUND I MEAN IT'S TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH THAT RED LINE RIGHT THERE. AS YOU CAN SEE, AERIALS KIND OF OFF ADJUST SOMETIMES. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN BE EXACT ABOUT. IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, BUT IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT WITHIN. SO PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR ME WHEN I HEAR FROM BAGHDAD ROAD, WHAT THAT MEANS TO ME IS THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE, BECAUSE YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT INSIDE THAT.

SO THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY I VIEW IT. YOU CAN SAY LIKE EDGE OF PAVEMENT OF BAGHDAD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT IT'S LIKE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY YOU CAN DO THAT CAN INCLUDE THE, THE DRAINAGE AREA. YEAH, EXACTLY. IT'S USUALLY AT THE TOP OF THE FLOOR DRAINAGE LINE, I GET IT. SO I, I WANTED TO JUST KIND OF AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU, YOU STATED.

I KNOW THAT MY QUESTIONS WERE KIND OF TECHNICAL AND SOUNDED LIKE IN ONE WAY, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T SEE LIKE YOU GO BY IT FIVE DAYS A WEEK. I GO BY IT ENOUGH. I DON'T SEE HOW THERE'S I WOULD NEVER HAVE EVEN NOTICED. AND I THINK MOST OF US WOULDN'T AND WOULDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH IT. I, I REALLY. AS, AS APPLICANT, HAS STATED THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND I JUST SEE IT AS IT IS, IS FINE. BUT THAT'S JUST MY FINAL STATEMENT.

COMMISSIONER OLIVER. YEAH, I MEAN, I, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID AS WELL.

AND I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE BUSINESS OWNER HERE AS WELL. BUT YOU RUN A SMALL BUSINESS, YOU PROVIDE A VALUABLE SERVICE. AND WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO CALL OUT IS THAT IF WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, ALLOW THIS SIX FENCE TO CONTINUE TO BE IN PLACE, YOU KNOW, TO YOUR POINT, YOU'RE RISKING THE SECURITY OF THE KIDS THAT ARE PLAYING BACK THERE AS YOU OPERATE A BUSINESS NEAR A BUSY STREET, AND THEN YOU HAVE PARENTS WHO ARE CONCERNED WITH THAT. AND THEN MY CONCERN IS IF WE FORCE SOMETHING AS ARBITRARY AS A THREE FOOT FENCE, THAT WITH A SIX FOOT FENCE THAT I THINK IS ALREADY IN A DECENT ESTHETIC PLACE, BUT YOU'RE ALREADY YOU'RE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST OFFERING TO IMPROVE THAT EVEN FURTHER WITH SOME OF THE, I THINK, I'M ASSUMING, SOME OF THE OPTIONS YOU HAD PRESENTED EARLIER IN YOUR PRESENTATION.

WHEREAS I GO DOWN BAGHDAD ROAD AND I SEE THESE OLD BEATEN UP CHAIN LINK FENCES, WHICH TO ME ARE NOT ESTHETICALLY PLEASING. RIGHT. AND SO I WHAT I WANTED TO ASK THE STAFF HERE IS IF WE, IF WE DID GO WITH OPTION ONE, WHICH IS APPROVE THE POD, DOES THAT GIVE THEM EVERYTHING THEY NEED? MINUS AND NOW NO SETBACKS OR NOTHING. RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE THE ORIGINAL ZONING CASE. SO THAT WOULD HAVE THAT SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THE SIDE. BUT IT WOULD BE IT WOULDN'T INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL VERBIAGE OF WHEN IT REDEVELOPS OR IF IT REDEVELOPS IT WOULD BE REMOVED.

GOT IT. SO THEN IF WE DID GO WITH ANOTHER OPTION THAT WE'D HAVE TO MAYBE TAKE THAT PIECE OUT AND THEN JUST ALLOW IT TO BE IF IF THE BUSINESS DOES CHANGE TO SOME SORT OF DIFFERENT TYPE OF BUSINESS, THEN THEY'D HAVE TO REMOVE OR SHORTEN THE FENCE. EXACTLY. AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE, THE CURRENT STANDARDS OF THE ZONING, BECAUSE THAT THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF I WANT TO SUPPORT THE BUSINESS OWNER HERE, AND I THINK THE FENCE IS FINE IF HE'S ALSO RECOMMENDING TO PUT A BETTER QUALITY FENCE THERE, WHICH WOULD LOOK GOOD, BECAUSE UP AND DOWN THAT SECTION OF BAGHDAD, IT'S IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE. RIGHT. SO I'D BE OPEN FOR THAT. AND THEN HE'S ALREADY, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN ON RECORD TO SAY THAT HE KNOWS HE'S IN A UTILITY EASEMENT, WHICH MEANS THAT AT SOME POINT THAT COULD POSSIBLY.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WILL HAPPEN. SO THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SAY. THANK YOU. SO AND I'M SORRY I GOT ONE LAST QUESTION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS THE PROJECT MANAGER, IF IT WASN'T WRITTEN, IT WAS NEVER SAID. SO IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE SURE WE GET INTO THE POD NOTES, HIS AFFIRMATION, YOU KNOW, SAYING THAT SHOULD THE EASEMENT BE ENCROACHED UPON AND SOMEONE DESTROYS THE FENCE, IT'S HIS EXPENSE. CAN WE ADD THAT TO THE POD NOTES THAT WAY IT'S DOCUMENTED AS WELL. OKAY. NOT JUST SOMEONE HAVING TO GO BACK TO A MEETING FROM DECEMBER 11TH, 2025 AND FIND THAT, OKAY, SO ARE THERE ANY ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. SO WITH THAT THEN I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS IN THE POD OF SAYING THAT UPON CHANGE OF. I SAY THAT CHANGE OF USE, OKAY, CHANGE OF USE THAT THIS EXCEPTION GETS REMOVED, AS WELL AS THE POINT I JUST MADE ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FENCE BEING AT THE COST OF THE OWNER. I WILL SECOND THAT. YEAH. THE REPLACEMENT. YES. CORRECT. YES. SORRY. SO I HAVE THE

[00:45:04]

AND WITH VICE CHAIR LANTRIP BEING THE ONLY DISSENT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON WHY YOU DISSENTED? THE REASON THAT I'M NOT. I THOUGHT THAT WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT WAS A GOOD COMPROMISE, BECAUSE THEY WENT OUT ON THEIR OWN OUTSIDE THE ORDINANCE AND KIND OF DID THEIR OWN THING. AND THEN ONCE IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THEM, I THINK THERE WERE NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS THERE. THEY APPROACHED US WITH THE PUD. AND I THINK YOU SOME OF Y'ALL MENTIONED THAT THE FENCES ARE KIND OF A MESS AND ALL OVER THE PLACE ON BAGHDAD. I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE BECAUSE YOU'RE SETTING I THINK WE'RE SETTING PRECEDENTS BY LETTING PEOPLE GO OUT AND DO THEIR THING, AND THEN COMING BACK IN AND APPROVING IT AFTER THE FACT. SO THAT'S MY REASON FOR THE NO VOTE. AND AND WE PROBABLY HAVE TO VOTE AGAIN IF I DO THAT. SO SORRY. I LEFT OUT ONE PIECE WHICH WAS IN THE THE RED LINE OF ENSURING THAT THE SMOOTH SIDE IS FACING BAGHDAD, AND I DEFINITELY WANTED TO KEEP THAT IN THERE. SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE ANOTHER I'LL HAVE TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION OF CHANGE OF USE. IT REMOVES THE EXCEPTION SMOOTH SIDE FACING BAGHDAD AND THE IT IS RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO REPLACE ANY DAMAGED OR DESTROYED FENCES SHOULD THE UTILITY EASEMENT BE UTILIZED. SO. AND I'LL SECOND THAT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OLIVER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND IT PASSES AGAIN 5 TO 1. AND VICE CHAIR LANTRIP, I

[17. Discuss and consider action regarding Significant Tree Removal requests associated with Subdivision Case PP-25-0071 regarding the removal of seven (7) Significant Trees as part of the Oak Grove Estates Preliminary Plat one (1) parcel of land 20.536 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R392186; and generally located east of CR 175, approximately 250 feet north of Carthage Street, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 17 DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS ASSOCIATED WITH SUBDIVISION CASE P250071 REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF SEVEN SIGNIFICANT TREES AS A PART OF THE OAK GROVE ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT ONE PARCEL OF LAND 20.536 ACRES IN SIZE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAMSON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, PARCEL R392186 AND GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF COUNTY ROAD 175, APPROXIMATELY 250FT NORTH OF CARTHAGE STREET, LEANDER, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. STAFF PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU AGAIN. COMMISSION. THIS REQUEST IS A SECOND STEP IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS AND THE FIRST STEP IN THE TREE REMOVAL PROCESS. THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED UPDATES TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ON JUNE 6TH, 2024, WHICH GRANTS THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS IN SITUATIONS WHERE SIGNIFICANT AND OR HERITAGE TREE REMOVALS ARE PROPOSED. THE. THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES ACTION FROM THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL. ARTICLE SIX, SECTION 1C5 OF THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE COMMISSION REVIEWS AND TAKES ACTION ON THE REMOVAL OF ANY SIGNIFICANT TREES GREATER THAN 18 CALIPER INCHES. FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL, STAFF MAY APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONFIRMED THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE HAVE BEEN MET. THIS PRELIM PLAT INCLUDES 47 RESIDENTIAL LOTS UNDER ONE PHASE. THIS REQUEST INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF SEVEN SIGNIFICANT TREES OVER 18 CALIPER INCHES, TOTALING 150 CALIPER INCHES. THE PROJECT IS PRESERVING 100% OF THE EXISTING HERITAGE TREES ON SITE, AND PRESERVING 88% OF THE EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES ON SITE, TOTALING 2676 CALIPER INCHES.

SINCE THE APPLICANT IS SAVING MORE THAN 50% OF THE SIGNIFICANT TREES, NO MITIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED. TREE REMOVAL ARE DUE TO THE ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION AND CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION. I KNOW THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO SEE, SO I KIND OF TRIED TO CREATE SOME GENERAL LOCATIONS OF THIS, AND THEN THE TREES THAT WERE IN QUESTION. BUT THOSE ARE THE SEVEN SIGNIFICANT TREES OVER 18 CALIPER INCHES THAT ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE OF THE ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION AND CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION. SO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF, AS PART OF THE EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. APPROVE THE REQUESTED SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVALS AS PROPOSED, OR DENY THE PROPOSED SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVALS. THIS ACTION WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH STAFF ON POTENTIAL PRESERVATION CANDIDATES FOR SPECIFIC, SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT TREES. STAFF RECOMMENDS OPTION ONE APPROVE THE REQUESTED SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVALS. THE TREE REMOVALS ARE DUE TO THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE APPLICANT HAS MADE GREAT EFFORT TO PRESERVE OVER 88% OF SIGNIFICANT TREES IN 100% OF HERITAGE TREES. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. MR. HUNT, IS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO. AS I DID BEFORE, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I DIDN'T OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING

[00:50:02]

COMMISSIONER BRAY, NO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. VICE CHAIR NO COMMENT, MR. OLIVER. I'M GOOD.

NO COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COATES. NO COMMENT. COMMISSIONER MORALES. YEAH, THANK YOU ALL FOR TRYING TO PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE, AND I WILL DITTO THAT. AND THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION APPROVED BY VICE CHAIR LANTRIP, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OLIVER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. BEFORE I GET TO ITEM NUMBER 18, I WILL REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THIS IS OUR LAST MEETING IN DECEMBER. SO OUR LAST MEETING OF THE YEAR, OUR NEXT ONE WILL NOT BE UNTIL JANUARY. SO WITH THAT, THE TIME IS 6:50 P.M.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.