[1. Call to Order.] [00:00:09] GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE MARCH 12TH, 2026 REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE CITY OF LEANDER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. PLEASE LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONER COATES. AND NOW WE WILL MOVE ON [3. Director's report to the Planning & Zoning Commission on action taken by City Council on the March 5, 2026 meeting.] TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, DIRECTOR'S REPORT. GOOD EVENING. I'M INPUTTING AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT'S FORWARDED BY THE COMMISSION OR IMPACTS THE COMMISSION. AT THE LAST MEETING, THEY DID SELECT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND MADE THE APPOINTMENTS. AND NEXT WEEK, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE COUNCIL AND COMMISSION TO DO A KICKOFF OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN. THAT'S IT FOR MY REPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT, WE WILL REVIEW THE MEETING PROTOCOL. [4. Review of meeting protocol.] FOR THOSE OF YOU IN THE ROOM. IT'S UP TO YOUR RIGHT ON THE SCREEN AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE [5. Public comments on items not listed in the agenda. Public comments on items listed in the agenda will be heard at the time each item is discussed. [All comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes (6 minutes if translation is needed) per individual.]] PUBLIC COMMENTS. IF THERE'S ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA TO NOW IS YOUR TIME. IS THERE ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, SIR. YEAH. YEP, YEP. SIR, YOU'LL COME ON UP. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. AND ONCE YOU'RE DONE, PLEASE FILL OUT A COMMENT CARD FOR US JUST SO WE HAVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. OKAY. YEAH. RICHARD GEARY AND I, I'M A DEVELOPER IN THE AREA, BUT I WANTED TO JUST BRING THIS TO YOUR NOTE, WHICH YOU GUYS PROBABLY ALREADY KNOW, BUT IN CASE YOU DIDN'T, TEX-DOT IS REDOING THE SCHEMATIC FOR 29. THIS IS A BIG PROJECT THIS YEAR. SO THE REASON I WANT I'M ASKING YOU GUYS, I'M PROVIDING YOU THE LOCAL CONTACT TO CONTACT THEM. AND THE REASON BEING IS, AS YOU KNOW, IN DEVELOPMENT, THE WORLD IS CIRCULATION. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IS A BIG DEAL. AND THE POTENTIAL OF THEM BLOCKING COFFMAN LOOP ON THE LANDER SIDE SUCH THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A TRAFFIC LIGHT AS OPPOSED TO AN ELEVATED ROAD THAT WOULD TAKE THE MAIN CORRIDOR OF TRAFFIC THROUGH. AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE UNDERGROUND UNDER, YOU KNOW, GROUND LEVEL CIRCULATION. SO THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT'S IMPORTANT TO LEANDER, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. RIGHT NOW, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT FROM WHAT THEY TOLD ME, THEY HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANYONE IN LEANDER. SO I'M LIKE, LET'S CALL THEM AND TALK ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M CLEAR AS TO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO ELEVATE THAT INTERSECTION, HOW THEY ELEVATE THAT INTERSECTION AND WHERE THEY START. THE ELEVATION IS VERY, VERY KEY. AT THE INTERSECTION OF KAUFMAN AND 29, WHICH IS TECHNICALLY IN THE ETJ A OKAY, THERE'S THERE'S ABOUT 7000 HOMES THAT ARE JUST GOING IN AND OUT OF THAT JUST TO GET ON TO 29 IF THEY WERE ALL GOING THROUGH THAT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC THERE POTENTIALLY. AND IF YOU LOOK AT A 20 YEAR PROJECTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW ON 29 GOING WEST TO 183, IT COULD BE REALLY A PAINFUL TRAFFIC THING UNLESS THIS ROAD IS NOT, YOU KNOW, DESIGNED CORRECTLY. SO THAT'S ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS IS ENCOURAGING YOU GUYS. I KNOW YOU'RE MORE FOCUSED ON ZONING AND STUFF LIKE THAT, AND MAYBE THERE'S A WHOLE SEPARATE TRAFFIC, BUT YOU ARE CONCERNED CITIZENS VOLUNTEERING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF IT. SO THAT'S. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. IS THAT OKAY? YES, SIR. BY THE WAY, I GOT A NICE ENOUGH ON IT THIS WEEK. DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT? AND MY. APPOINTMENT. THANKS. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC [ CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION] COMMENTS AND MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. THIS CAN BE PASSED WITH ONE MOTION. MOTION TO MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OLIVER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. JANELLE. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. [8. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-25-0205 to amend the current zoning of 675 Kauffman Loop Planned Unit Development (PUD) with base zoning districts of SFT-2-A (Single-Family Townhouse) and GC-2-A (General Commercial) to remove the prohibition of automotive uses on Lot 3, Block B of the 675 Kauffman Loop Subdivision and allow for a car wash on Lot 4, Block B of the 675 Kauffman Loop Subdivision on one (1) parcel of land 2.4 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R328207; and generally located 1,500 feet to the east of the  intersection of SH 29 and Ronald W. Reagan Boulevard on the south side of SH 29, Leander, Williamson County, Texas. Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-25-0205 as described above.] CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING ZONING CASE Z-25-0205. TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONING OF 675 KAUFMAN LOOP PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD WITH BASE ZONING DISTRICTS OF SFT2, A SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE, AND GC TWO, A GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION OF AUTOMOTIVE AUTOMOTIVE USES ON LOT THREE, BLOCK B OF THE 675 KAUFMAN LOOP SUBDIVISION AND ALLOW FOR A CAR WASH ON LOT FOUR, BLOCK B OF THE 675 KAUFMAN LOOP SUBDIVISION ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND, 2.4 ACRES IN SIZE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAMSON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCEL R328207 AND GENERALLY LOCATED [00:05:05] 1500 FEET TO THE EAST OF INTERSECTION OF SH 29 AND RONALD W REAGAN BOULEVARD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SH 29. LEANDER, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. STAFF PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL. THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO AMEND THE 675 KAUFMAN LOOP PUD. THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING UPDATES. LOT THREE BLOCK B THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE EXISTING PROHIBITION ON AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LOT. THE PUD WAS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR OVERHEAD DOORS AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR WITH OVERHEAD DOORS SUCH AS GENERAL SERVICES, GARAGES, INSPECTION CENTERS AND REPAIR SHOPS. THE SECOND REQUEST IS LOT FOUR, BLOCK B. THIS REQUEST WOULD ALLOW THE A CAR WASH TO AND REDUCED COMPATIBILITY SETBACK FOR WASHING OF VEHICLES, INCLUDING VACUUM FACILITIES, FROM 150FT TO 75FT FROM THE PROPERTY ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. AND THAT'S ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 3VA OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES INCREASING THE HEIGHT TO THE REQUIRED MASONRY SCREENING WALL TO EIGHT FEET, WHERE BETWEEN THE CAR WASH AND THE. IT WOULD BE BETWEEN THE CAR WASH AND THE RESIDENTIAL USE LOT. THE HEIGHT WOULD BE EIGHT FEET ONLY, WHERE IT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THAT LOT FOUR BLOCK B. THE PROPOSAL DOES COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED IN THIS ACTIVITY CENTER. FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, AND THAT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU ALL SOME BACKGROUND A LITTLE BIT MORE. INITIALLY, THIS PUD FOR THE PROPERTY WAS APPROVED IN 2022. THAT INCLUDED A HORIZONTAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND TOWNHOUSE USES. THE PUD INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING PROHIBITED USES BAR, NIGHTCLUB OR PRIVATE CLUB EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE OR OTHER SIMILAR GOODS. SALES, REPAIR AND SERVICES FUNERAL HOME, INCLUDING EMBALMING AND CREMATORY FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ON SITE FUNERAL HOME OR CEMETERY MANUFACTURER. MANUFACTURED HOUSING SALES AND ACCESSORY BUILDING SALES. OFFICE, WAREHOUSE INCLUDING PAINTING, PLUMBING OR SIMILAR COMMERCIAL SERVICES. TRANSPORTATION RELATED FACILITIES INCLUDING COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS, PASSENGER TERMINALS, TAXICAB STATIONS AND MASS TRANSIT TERMINALS. NEW OR USED VEHICLE AND MAJOR EQUIPMENT SALES, RENTAL OR LEASING. REPAIR OF NEW OR USED VEHICLES. BODY SHOP AND WHOLESALE ACTIVITIES WITH LESS THAN 3500FT■!S OF GROSS AREA OF THE BUSINESS IN 2024, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THIS PUD. PRETTY MUCH IT WAS TO CLARIFY THE TIMING OF THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT. THEY ALSO REQUESTED AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD TO ALLOW FOR OVERHEAD DOORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMERCIAL USE, SUCH AS RESTAURANTS WITH OUTDOOR PATIOS, SO THE THE SURROUNDING AREA RIGHT NOW TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IS A STATE HIGHWAY 29 AND A VACANT LOT OUTSIDE THE CITY OF LEANDER JURISDICTION. TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY IS THE BAR W RANCH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH INCLUDES THE HEB. TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY IS A VACANT LOT AS WELL. THAT'S OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, AND TO THE SOUTH IS THE SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE PORTION OF KAUFMAN LOOP PUD, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. WE DID PERFORM A NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH. THE CITY MAILED LETTERS WITHIN TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT, AND THEN THE APPLICANT ALSO PERFORMED A NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TO ALL PROPERTIES USED AS SINGLE FAMILY USES WITHIN 500FT. THE NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH WAS CONDUCTED VIA MAILED LETTERS ON OCTOBER 27TH, 2025 REGARDING ONLY LOT THREE, BLOCK B PROPOSED UPDATES, NO COMMENTS AND OR OR CONCERNS WERE RECEIVED UPON UPDATE TO THE AMENDMENT. REQUEST TO INCLUDE LOT FOUR, BLOCK B, THE APPLICANT CONDUCTED A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH VIA MAILED LETTERS ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2026. PER THE APPLICANT'S NEIGHBORHOOD SUMMARY COMMUNICATIONS. THEY ALSO REACHED OUT VIA EMAIL AND PHONE. THE ADJACENT TOWNHOME COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE DISCUSSED RAISING THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE [00:10:08] TO TEN FEET TO HELP WITH THE NOISE. THE APPLICANT CONSULTED WITH STAFF TO CONFIRM THAT THE PREFERRED HEIGHT FOR THE FENCE WOULD BE EIGHT FEET, AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THE EIGHT FEET AS THE REQUEST. ADDITIONALLY, THE DEVELOPER OF THE CAR WASH VERIFIED THAT THE BUILDING WILL BE 75FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE VACUUM WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT CLOSEST TO STATE HIGHWAY 29. THE FULL REPORT IS IN ATTACHMENT EIGHT AS WELL. SO AS A PART OF THE EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST, THE PLANNING AND. AND THIS IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. ONE APPROVE THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST. TWO DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST. THREE APPROVE AN ALTERNATIVE REQUEST WHICH COULD MODIFY THE FOLLOWING. ADJUSTING THE ALLOWED OR PROHIBITED USES ON BOTH LOTS OR EITHER LOT. INCREASING THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CAR WASH. REQUIRING ALTERNATIVE SCREENING AND OR APPROVING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR ONLY ONE LOT. STAFF RECOMMENDS TWO. OPTION TWO DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST. STAFF MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE ADJACENT LAND USES, IN COORDINATION WITH THE PLANNED ADJACENT TOWNHOME COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES. THE INITIAL POD WAS INTENDED FOR A MIXED MIX OF TOWNHOUSES AND COMMERCIAL USES. THE ADDITIONAL USES ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL USE. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE MODIFICATIONS TO LOT FOUR, BLOCK B TO ALLOW FOR THE CAR WASH, IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE VACUUMING FACILITIES IN THIS SITUATION AND SOUND DECIBEL LIMITATIONS. THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ATTACHED ATTACHMENT NINE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT DOES SHOW THE MAIN VACUUMING FACILITY, BUT EXCLUDES THE VACUUMING STATIONS. THE VACUUMS ARE PROPOSED TO BE AS CLOSE AS 34FT TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, PER THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THAT THEY PROVIDED. WE HAVE COMMUNICATED THIS WITH APPLICANT WHO HAS JOINED US TONIGHT, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SHARE A PRESENTATION FOR THEIR CASE. I APPRECIATE IT. GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. HUNT. APPLICANT PRESENTATION. ANOTHER HANDOUT IS PARTICULARLY. DIRECTED. TO. BACK. IF YOU IF YOU WANT TO JUST HOLD DOWN THE SCRIPT HERE AND LET ME GRAB THIS FROM YOU. SORRY. THERE YOU GO. I WOULD LIKE A CLARIFICATION ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF BOTH OPTIONS, WHICH WAS DENIAL OF A AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE. CAN YOU CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT GIVEN. YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. I'M ASKING FOR A STAFF CLARIFICATION ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL OR COMMITTEE, WHATEVER THAT. ARE YOU ALSO DENYING THE AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE? YEAH, BUT BUT BUT RIGHT NOW IS THE TIME FOR YOUR PRESENTATION THOUGH. WE'LL HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS AFTERWARDS. SO WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR PRESENTATION FIRST. IT'S NOT A BACK AND FORTH WITH STAFF RIGHT NOW. OKAY. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO LET THE OWNER OF THE CAR WASH GIVE HIS PRESENTATION AND GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SEAN BIDANI. I'M THE DEVELOPER OF THE CAR WASH, SOME BACKGROUND OR A FAMILY OWNED CAR WASH COMPANY IN TEXAS. WE OPERATE 15 LOCATIONS ACROSS TEXAS, PRIMARILY IN CENTRAL TEXAS, AND WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD TO ALLOW CAR WASH USE. SO I WANTED TO PROPOSE. I WANTED TO PRESENT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND WANTED TO POINT OUT A FEW ITEMS. SO THE START OF THE BLOWERS, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF NOISE, IS GOING TO BE 155FT [00:15:02] FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE SECONDARY SOURCE OF NOISE IS GOING TO BE THE VACUUM SYSTEM. IT'S A CENTRAL VACUUM SYSTEM WITH A SINGLE MOTOR THAT'S ON THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN WHERE IT SAYS VACUUM. THAT'S 215FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. AND ON THE SUBSEQUENT SLIDES, I'LL GET BACK TO THOSE DISTANCES. SO LOOKING AT THE ZONING RULE, THE ZONING RULE STATES THAT WASHING OF VEHICLES IS NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 150FT OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND THE LOCATION IS MEASURED FROM THE CLOSEST PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH WASHING THE VEHICLE'S. IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF, THE INTENT AND THE CONCERN IS AROUND THE NOISE LEVELS THAT IS PRODUCED FROM THE CAR WASHES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE FOCUSED ON DURING THIS PRESENTATION. SO CIRCLING BACK TO THOSE TWO PRIMARY SOURCES. SO AS I MENTIONED, NUMBER ONE IS THE BLOWERS, WHICH AGAIN IS 155FT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL, THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN THE VACUUM'S, WHICH IS 215FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. AND I DON'T THINK MANY OF US THINK IN DECIBELS. SO I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME BENCHMARKS ON DIFFERENT DECIBEL LEVELS FOR SOME EVERYDAY ACTIVITIES. A WHISPER IS AT 30DB. A QUIET RESIDENTIAL STREET IS AT 60DB. A BUSY HIGHWAY IS AT 80. AND I BELIEVE WHEN WE DID THE MEASUREMENT ON 29, IT WAS ABOUT BETWEEN 70 AND 75 IS WHERE WE WERE. AND THEN THE EPA RECOMMENDS FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO BE AROUND 55DB. SO I WANTED TO FIRST TALK ABOUT THE BLOWERS. SO AT THE SOURCE OF THE BLOWERS THE DECIBEL LEVELS IS ABOUT IS AT 88. AND SOUND OF COURSE DIMINISHES AS YOU INCREASE DISTANCE. SO THERE'S A LOGARITHMIC EQUATION THAT SHOWS HOW SOUND DIMINISHES. SO AT THE SOURCE IT'S 88DB AT THE START OF OUR BUILDING. AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE START OF THE BUILDING AND THE BLOWERS IS 80FT. THAT'S THAT GOES DOWN TO 61DB. AND THEN AT THE PROPERTY LINE, IT MEASURES 52DB. SO THIS IS BASED ON THIS EQUATION HERE, BUT ALSO BASED ON OUR MEASUREMENTS AT OUR EXISTING LOCATIONS. SO AT 52DB AT THE PROPERTY LINE, THERE'S NO INCREMENTAL NOISE THAN WHAT IS ALREADY THERE AT AMBIENT LOW AMBIENT LEVELS. WITH THE VACUUM'S, IT'S A CENTRAL VACUUM SYSTEM WITH A SINGLE LARGE MOTOR, AND THESE ARE ALREADY DESIGNED TO BE QUIET. SO THESE VACUUM SYSTEMS, THEY ALREADY HAVE A SILENCER CAP. WE PUT THESE AROUND A FOUR WALL CMU ENCLOSURE. AND THERE'S A VERY LARGE DISTANCE. AND THEN IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT SCREENING WALL, THAT'S GOING TO FURTHER DIMINISH THE SOUND AT THE POVERTY LINE. SO IF YOU'RE STANDING A FEW FEET FROM THAT ENCLOSURE, IT ADDS ABOUT ABOUT TEN DECIBELS WITHIN THREE FEET OF THAT SOURCE. SO AGAIN, 250FT AWAY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR ANYTHING. AND THEN STAFF BROUGHT UP THE POINT ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL VACUUM STATIONS. SO THE INDIVIDUAL VACUUM STATIONS, THERE'S NO MECHANICAL MOTORS OF ANY SORT AT THOSE INDIVIDUAL STATIONS. SO IF THOSE STATIONS ARE IN ARE NOT IN USE, THE SOUND IS ZERO. IF THAT STATION IS IN USE, ALL IT IS IS A HOSE AND IT'S A SUCKING SOUND. SO IT'S GOING TO ADD ABOUT SIX DECIBELS. IF YOU'RE HOLDING IT AT ARM'S LENGTH AWAY. SO THE CLOSEST BAY IS AT THE PROPERTY LINE IS 45FT. SO AGAIN AT 45FT, THE SIX DECIBELS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR IT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE. SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE OUR REQUEST. SO YOU KNOW IN OUR DISCUSSION WITH STAFF, THE PRIMARY CONCERN AND THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO PROTECT RESIDENTS FROM NOISE. AND GIVEN OUR EXISTING SITE PLAN AND GIVEN OUR EQUIPMENT AND THE DISTANCES FROM THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF NOISE TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE, NOISE SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR. AND RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL FOR THE FUND AMENDMENT REQUEST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE [00:20:04] PUBLIC HEARING. CAN I MAKE A PRESENTATION THEN? OH, WE HAVE A MORE OF A APPLICANT PRESENTATION. WE HAVE TWO. TWO. OKAY. NO, NO. YEAH. I'M SORRY SIR. YEAH. YOU'RE FINE. RIGHT. SO SO THIS WAS OUR OUR CARWASH GUY. AND THEN ANDREW, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP, YOU'RE WELCOME TO. BUT BASICALLY WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO GET AND APOLOGIZE THAT THIS IS OUR THIRD TIME TO BE UP HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS. THIS IS WHAT IT IS. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN THIS MIX OF DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE A 15 30,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL COMPONENT THAT'S GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT. AND THE STANDARD RETAIL MULTI-TENANT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AUTOZONE PARK STORE. WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A MIDAS REPAIR AND THEN A CAR WASH. THAT'S THE KIND OF THE THEME. IT'S BEEN THE THEME EVER SINCE WE WENT UNDER CONTRACT WITH THESE GUYS TWO YEARS TO THREE YEARS AGO. SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THAT. SO ANDREW CAN SPEAK TO MIDAS. YEAH. THEY'RE JUST YOU'VE SEEN THEM. THEY'RE LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE WITH BAZ, WITH ROLL UP DOORS 4 TO 5000FT. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. ONE LESS THAN AN ACRE. SO BUT NO, NO FORMAL PRESENTATION ABOUT IT. YOU JUST WANT TO SPEAK UP. OKAY. YEP. MAKE SURE DIFFERENT PIECES, DIFFERENT DIFFERENT OR DIFFERENT MOVEMENTS. I WAS THINKING THAT THE GUY THAT WAS REPRESENTING US WAS GOING TO PRESENT IT. IT WAS ALSO A AUTOMOTIVE THING. I NEVER UNDERSTOOD HOW AN AUTOMOTIVE PROHIBITION GOT INTO THEIR ORIGINAL. BUT SINCE WE HAVE A NTD IN THE ADJACENT LOT BESIDE US AT HEB, SO. SO WE'RE WE'RE. HOPEFULLY WE CAN JUST BE A GOOD FRIENDLY COMPETITOR. SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU AND MY APOLOGIES. I THOUGHT YOU GUYS WERE DONE. THAT'S WHY I WAS MOVING ON. SO THAT WAS THAT'S MY BAD. I'LL OWN THAT ONE AT THIS TIME. IF THE APPLICANT PRESENTATIONS ARE OVER I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TONIGHT WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL OPEN UP DISCUSSION WITH COMMISSIONER MORALES. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION ON THE ACOUSTICS. I THINK IT DEFINITELY HELPS US BETTER UNDERSTAND. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT CRAZY ABOUT HAVING A CAR WASH NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL, BUT I THINK YOU'VE WALKED THROUGH A FEW ITEMS THAT HAVE MADE ME FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER ON THE ACOUSTICS. DO Y'ALL EVER USE, I GUESS, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TO BREAK UP SOUND IN ADDITION TO JUST WALLS, OR DID THAT EVER COME UP WITH STAFF FOR YOU? I GUESS? SO WE'LL WE'LL DISCUSS LANDSCAPING, BUT AT THIS POINT WE. AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ONLY REQUEST WAS FOR A HIGHER FENCE AND. THERE WILL BE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ON THAT SETBACK, BUT TO HELP BREAK UP WITH SOUND TOO, I KNOW IT HELPS A LITTLE BIT. EVERY PART HELPS. ALL RIGHT. AND THE AUTOMOTIVE SHOP I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ON. I KNOW I CAME TO THAT COMMISSION MEETING, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT WAS UNDER THE COMMISSION. AND SCOTT, WHEN Y'ALL APPROVED THE OVERHEAD DOORS, I KNOW HE, HE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO SET A BAD PRECEDENT. AND HAVING OVERHEAD DOORS IS KIND OF LIKE THE FRONT ENTRY TO LEANDER. THE FIRST THING YOU SEE EVERYBODY COMING FROM GEORGETOWN. SO I, I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ON THE AUTOMOTIVE SHOP. I KNOW, I THINK IT WAS SOLD ORIGINALLY WHEN THEY SAID OVERHEAD DOORS, MAYBE IT WAS FOR RESTAURANT USE OR OTHER THINGS. SO I GUESS THAT PART'S NOT QUITE ALIGNED WITH BABY STEPS TO THIS DIRECTION. BUT THAT'S KIND OF HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT ONE. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LEWIS. BOY, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I MEAN, I, I, I GO TO A CAR WASH THAT IS JUST OUTSIDE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT ON RONALD REAGAN. AND THERE'S A BUILDING THAT IS HERE, THE CAR WASH IS HERE. AND SO THAT BUILDING KIND OF BLOCKS A LOT OF THE NOISE. SO I HAVE TO APPRECIATE THAT CAR WASH. I LIKE IT THERE. EASY ACCESS. I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO A CAR WASH BEING THERE. I JUST FEEL LIKE I NEED A LITTLE MORE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GOING ON. YOU GAVE A GREAT PRESENTATION. UNDERSTAND? THE DECIBELS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO IT, BUT I'M CURIOUS WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO SAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER OLIVER. YEAH. SO APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION AND THANKS FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE ADDED CLARITY AROUND DECIBELS AND EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS LIKE WHAT A WHISPER IS. WHEN YOU SAY 30, YOU THINK THAT'S PRETTY LOUD. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK LIKE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AT ONE POINT THEY SAID MUSIC AT 75DB WOULD BE TOO LOUD. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S SOMETIMES JUST HOW I TALK AT [00:25:04] 75DB. SO BUT YEAH, LIKE, LIKE, LIKE COMMISSIONER LEWIS SAID, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE CAR WASH THERE. AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE AS YOU MENTIONED ON RONALD REAGAN, THERE ARE MULTIPLE CAR WASHES AND THERE'S RESIDENTIAL RIGHT AROUND IT. THERE'S A TOMMY'S CAR WASH, I THINK IN CEDAR PARK, AND THERE'S RESIDENTIAL RIGHT BEHIND THAT. THERE'S THE THE WASH AND GO. AND THAT'S LIKE, I THINK IT'S EITHER HAZELWOOD OR RIGHT BY COLD SPRINGS. SO THERE'S THAT DEVELOPMENT THAT'S RIGHT BEHIND THERE. AND THOSE ARE HOUSES. WE'RE TALKING TOWNHOMES. SO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. MY MY QUESTIONS REALLY WERE KIND OF AROUND SOME OF THE RED LINES WITHIN THE POD. AND THAT'S WHERE MAYBE WE NEED STAFF. MAYBE MR. HUNT, YOU CAN MAYBE HELP US UNDERSTAND, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I GO INTO EXHIBIT A AND THEY CROSSED OUT S OF T TWO, A SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE, WHEREAS THE GC TWO A WAS LEFT ON THERE. SO WHY ARE WE CROSSING THAT OUT? WE'RE STILL KEEPING A COMPONENT OF THAT, RIGHT? THE TOWNHOUSE USE IS STILL THERE, BUT THIS IS THIS REQUEST IS SPECIFIC TO THE GC, THE GC OKAY THREE AND FOUR. GOT IT. THREE AND FOUR. GOT IT. OKAY. THAT THAT CLARIFIES THAT. AND THAT'S WHY THE TOWNHOUSE USAGE. YEAH. WE'RE NOT GETTING RID OF IT. YEAH. WE'RE NOT GETTING RID OF IT. AND THEN AND THEN THERE'S ASKING TO BASICALLY FLIP FLOP THE COMMERCIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL ON, ON PART OF THE POD AS WELL. DID I SEE THAT IN THE, IN THE PLAT, IN SOME OF THE EXHIBITS, WE'RE IN THE PURPLE AND THE GREEN PART WHERE IT SAYS PER POD, IT'S BECOME COMMERCIAL AND THE OTHER ONE PER POD WILL BECOME RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S ALREADY APPROVED. YEAH, THAT, THAT WAS I MEAN, THAT WAS THE FIRST. GOT IT. SO I GUESS THE EXHIBITS WERE ALREADY PREVIOUSLY. SO. ALL RIGHT. SO YEAH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS AS A QUESTION OTHER THAN IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. AND I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IS WHAT THEY GET. AND THEN OF COURSE, I THINK WITH THE ADDED TREES AND LANDSCAPING THAT YOU ALL EVENTUALLY WILL WORK THROUGH ON THE SITE PLAN, I THINK THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE HELPED WITH ADDITIONAL SOUND. BUT LIKE I SAID, THERE'S ALREADY PRECEDENT BEING SET. WE'VE GOT MULTIPLE CAR WASHES, RONALD REAGAN AND THERE'S, THERE'S RESIDENTIAL RIGHT AROUND IT. SO I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T APPROVE THIS. VICE CHAIR. I THINK IN MY MIND, I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF CAR WASHES ALONG REAGAN AND DIFFERENT STREETS, BUT THEY'RE THEY'RE MEETING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO BE NEAR A RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THOSE SETBACKS, AND I BELIEVE THAT IT IS JUST TOO CLOSE. I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT DECIBELS. I GO TO A CAR WASH ALL THE TIME WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR CAR. I HEAR IT FROM INSIDE THE CAR. I HEAR IT FROM OUTSIDE THE CAR. I KNOW HOW LOUD IT IS. AND AS FAR AS THE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTING A HIGHER FENCE, I THINK ALL THEY CAN GET IS EIGHT FEET. THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE THAN THAT, AM I RIGHT? THEY WANTED MORE, BUT THEY CAN ONLY GET. WE CAN ONLY REQUIRE THEM TO PUT EIGHT. THAT'S OUR MAX HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S IS REALLY NOT GETTING WHAT THEY WANTED. THEY'RE JUST THEY'RE HAVING TO SETTLE FOR THE EIGHT FOOT, YOU KNOW, BETTER THAN NOTHING. BUT OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE ASKING FOR MORE. I, I THINK IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, AND SO I'M A NO ON THAT COMMISSIONER. YEAH. I DON'T HAVE ANY I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. I THINK THEY'VE COVERED IT. YEAH. AND I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS, MR. HUNT, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF FUNNY. I HAD THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT HAD LISTENING TO YOUR PRESENTATION. IT MADE ME WONDER, IS STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF ONLY THE CAR WASH. IF BOTH THE CAR WASH AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE MIDAS PROPOSED MIDAS, THE AUTOMOTIVE, IT WOULD BE BOTH OKAY AND. DO WE KNOW WHY THOSE WERE EXCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL. BUT. I KNOW FOR. TYPE TWO OF THAT SITE COMPONENT. THE CAR WASH IS DRIVE THROUGH IS NOT ALLOWED. YEP. AND THEN ALSO THE CAR WASH COMPONENT OF THE VACUUMING AND WASHING OF VEHICLES IS IN TYPE THREE. SO I THINK THERE WAS JUST SOME MORE INTENSE USES THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SEE IN THERE AT THAT TIME. AND I CAN ALSO ADD TO THAT, IN 2022, WE HAD A DIFFERENT CITY MANAGER AND WE WERE LESS SUPPORTIVE OF AUTOMOTIVE USES. SO THAT WAS THE ADVICE GIVEN TO THEM BY STAFF IS THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE AUTOMOTIVE USES NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL. IT'S SOMETHING WE COMMONLY GET COMPLAINTS ABOUT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO LIVE NEXT DOOR. OKAY. AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE HISTORY. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR SOME OF THOSE SAME REASONS THAT MISS GRIFFIN WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTOOD THE HISTORY AND HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE'RE AT. SO, ALL RIGHT. THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION THEN. SURE. I'M SORRY, BUT YOU HAVE TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE FOR US SO IT GETS SPOKEN INTO THE RECORD. SO I JUST FORGOT TO INTRODUCE RAVI. HE REPRESENTS THE TOWNHOME COMMUNITY, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY MADE AN OFFER TO HIM [00:30:03] AS THE DEVELOPER THAT WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND THE FENCE THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THAT EAST WEST THING, EIGHT FEET. SO IT WILL BE ELEVATED THE ENTIRE TIME. AND RAVI, YOU CAN TELL HIM. SO THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED. AND THAT AND THE BLOWER IS LIKE 850 AND VACUUM IS 115FT THE WALL. AND THEN ANYWHERE IN THE SITE PLAN, IT WAS FROM THE LANDSCAPE ON THE SIDE. IS THAT OKAY? SO GOOD. SO, SO FOR, FOR JUST SO IT'S ON THE RECORD, ANYONE WATCHING, YOU KNOW, JUST UNDERSTANDING. THEY WORKED WITH THE OWNER OF THE, THE TOWNHOME PLACE JUST TO EXTEND THE WALL THE ENTIRE LENGTH AND THEN THE, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE TOWNHOMES IS OKAY WITH THE PROPOSAL AS IS BASED ON THE ADDITIONAL WALL. SO WE'RE KIND OF MEETING THE NEED. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT WHEN WE THOUGHT THAT THEY WEREN'T MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE TOWNHOME COMMUNITY, WE WERE INCORRECT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS INFORMATION. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYONE LISTENING, WATCHING, LISTENING TO THE REPLAY UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM MOTION TO DENY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BY THE VICE CHAIR. AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORALES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF A DENIAL. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT MOTION DOES NOT PASS BECAUSE WE'RE A33 SPLIT HERE. OKAY? IT'S STILL OPEN. I'LL ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SORRY, SORRY, SORRY. YEP, YEP. LET ME LET ME BACK UP. SO I'M A LITTLE BIT OFF TONIGHT. SO COMMISSIONER MAHEN MORALES AND VICE CHAIR LANTRIP WERE FOR THE DENIAL. AND SO COMMISSIONER BRAY OLIVER AND LEWIS WAS AGAINST THE DENIAL. ALL RIGHT, NOW, I WILL TAKE YOUR MOTION. SORRY. YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. DO YOU WANT TO APPROVE IT? PAID FOR IT. YEAH. YEAH, WE NEED TO ADD THAT IN. YEAH. WITH THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE WHOLE, AS WAS PROPOSED BY BOTH THE DEVELOPER AND AGREED TO BY THE HOMEOWNER. OKAY. SO YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO AMEND THE POD. YES. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE EIGHT FOOT EXTENSION AS AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. THEY'RE ACROSS THE ENTIRE LANDSCAPE. I'LL SECOND THAT AND MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER OLIVER AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEWIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. SO SO WE HAVE A33 SPLIT AGAIN. IT'S THE SAME THREE. SO COMMISSIONER OLIVER LEWIS AND BRAY WERE FOR. AND COMMISSIONER LANTRIP, MEHAN AND MORALES WERE AGAINST. SO IT'S GOING TO GO WITH NO ACTION. SO THAT THAT ALL THAT MEANS IS IT GOES UP TO COUNCIL WITH NO ACTION BECAUSE WE'RE AT AN IMPASSE RIGHT NOW. IT DOESN'T STOP ANYTHING. IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. IT JUST MEANS THAT COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE OR DENY WHEN THEY GET AT THAT LEVEL. ALL RIGHT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER [9. Discuss and consider action regarding Tree Removal Case TRP-25-0049 regarding the removal of six (6) Significant Trees and one (1) Heritage Tree associated with Oak Grove Estates (PICP-25-0274), generally located east of CR 175, approximately 250 feet north of Carthage Street, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.] NINE, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING TREE REMOVAL CASE TRP 25-0049. REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF SIX SIGNIFICANT TREES AND ONE HERITAGE TREE ASSOCIATED WITH OAK GROVE ESTATES. PICP250274. GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF COUNTY ROAD 175, APPROXIMATELY 250FT NORTH OF CARTHAGE STREET, LEANDER, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. STAFF PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARILEE VAN LEUVEN. I'M WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE TREE REMOVAL PROCESS. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO REMOVE SIX SIGNIFICANT TREES IN ONE HERITAGE TREE. WHILE THE LETTER OF INTENT AND PRESERVATION PLAN MENTIONED FIVE SIGNIFICANT TREES, THE CITY CONSIDERS THE MULTI-TRUNK TREES 917 A AND 917 B AS TWO SEPARATE TREES, AND THESE TREES WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR REMOVAL WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PER THE APPLICANT. THE SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION PLAN DESIGN REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TREE REMOVALS IN ORDER TO GRADE THE RIGHT OF WAY. ADDITIONALLY, THE HERITAGE TREE IS IMPACTED BY CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION. PER THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT TREES GREATER THAN 18 CALIPER INCHES REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WILL COMPLETE THE REVIEW OF THE SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVAL THIS EVENING, AND THE ACTION WILL BE PROVIDED DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. HERITAGE TREES MAY BE REMOVED ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL [00:35:07] PERMIT AND AFTER THE REQUIRED MITIGATION HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL REVIEW ALL APPLICATIONS FOR HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMITS AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL TO CITY COUNCIL, WHICH SHALL HAVE FINAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE PERMIT. SO FOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS, UP TO 50% OF THE CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES BETWEEN 8 AND 26 CALIPER INCHES MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT MITIGATION FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS, MITIGATION MAY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH CREDIT OF EXISTING TREES, ON SITE, REPLACEMENT TREES PLANTED ON SITE, OR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF REPLACEMENT TREES. IF PAYMENT IN LIEU OF REPLACEMENT TREES IS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING OR EXCUSE ME, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, THE FEE SHALL BE EQUAL TO $150 PER PER INCH OF REPLACEMENT TREE. FOR PLANNING AND ZONING CONSIDERATION. THERE ARE 221 SIGNIFICANT TREES BETWEEN 8 AND 26 CALIPER INCHES, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE A TOTAL OF 56 TREES. THE PRELIMINARY PLAT INCLUDED 25 TREES TO BE REMOVED, AND DURING THE. REVIEW, ADDITIONAL TREES WERE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED. OF THE ADDITIONAL TREES, 25 SIGNIFICANT TREES DO NOT REQUIRE ACTION BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS THAN 18 CALIPER INCHES, AND THERE ARE SIX SIGNIFICANT TREES BETWEEN 18 AND 26 CALIPER INCHES, AND ONE HERITAGE TREE THAT REQUIRES CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION. AND MITIGATION IS PROPOSED THROUGH CREDIT FROM APPROXIMATELY 773 CALIPER INCHES OF PRESERVED TREES. IN. REGARDING THE HERITAGE TREES, THERE'S 13 TOTAL HERITAGE TREES ON SITE AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE ONE AND AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, THE FOLLOWING MITIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE HERITAGE TREE. THERE'S A REMOVAL FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,000 BASED OFF THE REMOVAL OF 30 CALIPER INCHES AT A RATE OF $300 PER CALIPER INCH. AND THE REPLACEMENT TREES ARE AT A 3 TO 1 RATIO FOR A TOTAL OF 90IN. AND THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE GETTING THAT THROUGH PRESERVE TREE CREDITS. IT DOES MENTION THE DOLLAR AMOUNT ON YOUR SUMMARY, BUT THE COMPLETE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY IS PROVIDED AS ATTACHMENT FOUR, AND ALL OF THE FEES WILL BE PAID WITH THE P I C P PERMIT. SOME ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND IT'S LOCATED EAST OF COUNTY ROAD 175, APPROXIMATELY 250FT NORTH OF CARTHAGE STREET. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 20.536 ACRES. TO THE NORTH IS EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND AREAS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE UNDEVELOPED. THERE'S A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TO THE EAST OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS. THE PROPERTY DOES CONTAIN MODERATE TREE COVERAGE AND THERE'S AN EXISTING RESIDENCE. THERE'S NO CURRENT. THERE'S NO FLOODPLAIN. AND AS PART OF THE EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. APPROVE THE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST. DENY THE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, OR PROPOSE AN ALTERNATE PLAN THAT INCLUDES SAVING ADDITIONAL TREES. AND STAFF. RECOMMENDS OPTION ONE LISTED ABOVE. APPROVE THE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT REMOVE TREES AS PART OF THE ICP PERMIT. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF NEEDED. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION? I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE THE PRESENTATION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM, SO WE'LL ENTER INTO DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER BRAY, I HAVE NO COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM. VICE CHAIR. NO COMMENTS MR. OLIVER NO COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER LEWIS, NO COMMENTS. [00:40:05] COMMISSIONER MORALES, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF SIGNIFICANT TREES IS AROUND 75% THERE PRESERVING OR BALLPARK IS THAT? I THINK YOU SAID 220 AND THEN THEY'RE SAYING 150 OKAY. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT SOUNDS CORRECT. YEAH. THEY'RE SAVING 75%. THEY'RE REMOVING 25%. OKAY. NO, OVERALL, I, I, I SEE THAT THE SITE ACTUALLY ADAPTED TO SOME OF THE TREES AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE ROADS AREN'T JUST CLEAR CUTTING THROUGH THEM. SO I HAVE NO ISSUE. YEAH. THANK YOU. AND THEN MY COMMENTS ARE GOING TO ECHO COMMISSIONER MORALES'S. I APPRECIATE THE THE WORK THAT WENT INTO MAKING SURE WE SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. IT'S NEVER GOOD TO CUT THEM DOWN. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO BUILD, THE TREES ARE GOING TO UNFORTUNATELY HAVE TO GO. SO THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION A SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY VICE CHAIR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORALES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PASSES [10. Discuss and consider action regarding Tree Removal Case TRP-26-0051 regarding the removal of 13 Significant Trees associated with 675 Kauffman Loop Lot 1, Block B (SD-25-0374), generally located at 3244 Albion Drive, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.] UNANIMOUSLY. AGENDA ITEM TEN DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING TREE REMOVAL. CASE TRP DASH 26-0051. REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF 13 SIGNIFICANT TREES ASSOCIATED WITH 675 KAUFMAN LOOP, LOT ONE BLOCK B SD DASH 250374, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3244 ALBION DRIVE, LEANDER, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. STAFF PRESENTATION. SO THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE TREE REMOVAL PROCESS. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO REMOVE 24 SIGNIFICANT TREES AS PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND NO HERITAGE TREES ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL WITH THIS PERMIT AND PER THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE, REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT TREES GREATER THAN 18 CALIBER INCHES REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR THE APPROVAL OF AN ALTERNATIVE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN AND THE 13 SIGNIFICANT TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL REQUIRE ACTION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND PER THE APPLICANT, THIS TREE REMOVAL REQUEST IS TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. STAFF DID WORK WITH THE APPLICANT DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS TO MODIFY THE SITE DESIGN TO SAVE ADDITIONAL TREES. SO FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, THERE ARE 20 SIGNIFICANT TREES BETWEEN 8 AND 18 CALIPER INCHES, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE 11 TREES. THERE ARE 15 SIGNIFICANT TREES BETWEEN 18 AND 26 CALIPER INCHES, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE 13. THE FOUR HERITAGE TREES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY ARE BEING PRESERVED, AND APPROXIMATELY 586 CALIPER INCHES OF REPLACEMENT CALIPER INCHES WILL BE REQUIRED FOR MITIGATION, AND THE FOLLOWING MITIGATION IS PROPOSED FOR THE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST. MITIGATION IS PROPOSED THROUGH CREDIT OF 44 CALIPER INCHES OF REPLACEMENT TREES, AS WELL AS A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF REPLACEMENT TREES. IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $81,262.50. THE COMPLETE PRESERVATION PLAN IS PROVIDED AS ATTACHMENT FOUR, AND ALL THE FEES AND MITIGATION WILL BE PAID WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. AND THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF THIS. 675 KAUFMAN LOOP. AND AS FOR OUR RECOMMENDATION, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. CAN APPROVE THE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST. DENY THE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, OR PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN THAT INCLUDES SAVING ADDITIONAL TREES. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND OPTION ONE APPROVE THE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO REMOVE TREES AS PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. GREAT. THANK YOU. IS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION? DO YOU HAVE. DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION, SIR? OKAY. YEAH. YES, SIR. ABSOLUTELY. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS TOM GROLL. I'M THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR KAUFMAN LOOP, LOT ONE B AND IS MISS LIM. VAN LEUVEN HAD POINTED OUT, WE DID WORK WITH STAFF TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR SITE, PLAN TO SAVE ADDITIONAL TREES AS REQUESTED. [00:45:07] I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT I ALSO HAVE BEEN THE DESIGN ENGINEER ON THE 675 KAUFMAN LOOP PROJECT SINCE ITS INCEPTION, AS MR. GARY HAD TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. SINCE ABOUT 2022, AND THE SITE HAS NEARLY 500 TREES ACROSS THE ENTIRE PROJECT. NOT NOT LOT ONE B, LOT ONE B ONLY HAS I THINK IT'S AROUND 40 OR SO, BUT OF ALL OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE TO THIS POINT, WE'VE WORKED WITH STAFF PRETTY CLOSELY TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO SAVE TREES TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. AS MISS VAN LEUVEN POINTED OUT, WE DID DESIGN THE SITE TO SAVE THE FOUR EXISTING HERITAGE TREES AND A COUPLE OF THE TREES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL FALL WITHIN A JOINT USE ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED DURING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE AND OF COURSE, SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT. AND THEN FURTHERMORE, BECAUSE OF THE ZONING OF THE SITE, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A 15% LANDSCAPE, WHICH WE'RE EXCEEDING BY QUITE A BIT. THE INFERENCE WOULD BE THAT YOU COULD HAVE 85% IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT WE DON'T. AND SO I FEEL LIKE WE'VE DESIGNED THE SITE IN A VERY APPROPRIATE WAY TO MEET THE CODE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. AND THE THE TREES, I KNOW THAT WE'RE ONLY CONSIDERING THE 18 TO 26 INCH CATEGORY, BUT THE, THE TREES IN THE 88 TO 18 INCH CATEGORY ARE BASICALLY ALL ELM TREES THAT ARE THE LARGEST, OF WHICH I BELIEVE IS EITHER MAYBE 14 OR 15IN. I'VE WALKED THE SITE NUMEROUS TIMES AND THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED TREES THAT WERE THAT LOOKED VERY MAJESTIC, VERY HEALTHY, THAT WE WANTED, YOU KNOW, TO DO EVERYTHING WE COULD TO SAVE AND HAVE DONE. SO THE ONES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ARE NOT THE GREATEST SPECIMENS. AND IN FACT, ONE OF THEM HAS A, A TREE FORT IN IT THAT, YOU KNOW, WOULD WOULD HAVE BEEN PROUD TO BE PART OF AT A YOUNGER AGE. BUT AT THIS POINT IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO KILL THE TREE ANYWAY. AND SO I GUESS IN SUMMARY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WE'VE, YOU KNOW, THE SEVERAL YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY WORKED WITH STAFF TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS WHERE WE COULD TO STAY WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, BUT ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY BEING ZONED COMMERCIALLY, THAT FROM A DEVELOPER STANDPOINT, OF COURSE, THERE OBJECTIVE IS TO MAKE THE BEST AND HIGHEST USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY CAN. AND I FEEL LIKE WE'VE ACHIEVED THAT BALANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. WE'LL ENTER INTO DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER MORALES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. AND I DO SEE THAT YOU HAVE MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SLIGHTLY HIGHER PERCENTAGE SAY. BUT I DEFINITELY SEE THAT YOU'VE MADE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE. COMMISSIONER LOUIS. AND THANK YOU. THE PRESENTATION WAS GREAT AND REALLY APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING FORTH THE EFFORT TO SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN, EVEN WITH IT BEING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. SO THAT'S IT, COMMISSIONER OLIVER. YEAH. NO CONCERNS AS LONG AS WE CAN SAVE THAT TREE FOR IT. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL KIDDING ASIDE. NO, IT'S IT'S A IT'S A GOOD PLAN. I DO HATE TO SEE THAT MANY TREES REMOVED, BUT IT IS ALSO PROGRESS. I KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF TREES PLANTED IN THE PROCESS AS WELL DURING THE DEVELOPMENT. SO YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THIS VICE CHAIR. I'M GOOD WITH IT. COMMISSIONER BRAY, NO COMMENTS FROM ME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND NONE FROM ME. THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER OLIVER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEWIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11. ADJOURNMENT. THE TIME IS * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.