[8. Conduct a Public Hearing regarding Special Use Case Z-26-0210 to consider action on a Special Use Permit to allow for an in-home day care with up to 12 children on one parcel of land 0.2 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R456282; and more commonly known as 1202 Drake Cove, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.

Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-26-0210 as described above.

]

UNANIMOUSLY. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SPECIAL USE CASE Z-26-0210. TO CONSIDER ACTION ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN IN-HOME DAYCARE WITH UP TO 12 CHILDREN ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND. 0.2 ACRES IN SIZE MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAMSON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCEL R 456282 AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1202. DRAKE COVE, LEANDER, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. STAFF PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING, KARINA CASTILLO AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. AS A REMINDER, THIS WAS PRESENTED EARLIER THIS YEAR ON APRIL 23RD. LET ME GO AHEAD AND JUST READ ABOUT A LITTLE BIT OF THE BACKGROUND. THE COUNCIL DISCUSSED UPDATES TO DAYCARE REQUIREMENTS DURING THE MEETING OF APRIL 16TH. THIS CASE WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION ON APRIL 23RD WITH NO ACTION TAKEN. THE COUNCIL HEARD THIS ITEM DURING THE JUNE 4TH MEETING AND REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO THE COMMISSION. FOLLOWING ACTION ON DAYCARE UPDATES, THE ORDINANCE UPDATES WERE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION ON MAY 28TH AND WERE APPROVED DURING THE JUNE 18TH COUNCIL MEETING, WITH A FINAL READING ON JULY 2ND. THOSE UPDATES INCLUDED ALLOWING IN-HOME DAYCARES TO HAVE UP TO SIX CHILDREN UNDER 14 YEARS OLD, WITH AN ADDITIONAL SIX CHILDREN SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN BEING 5 TO 13. IF THE DAYCARE DOES HAVE OVER SIX CHILDREN, A PERMIT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE APPROPRIATE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, SUFFICIENT PARKING AND TO VERIFY PLACEMENT OF OUTDOOR AREAS. THIS DID HAVE.

I KNOW ROBIN MENTIONED IT A LITTLE BIT AGO, BUT IT WAS POSTPONED DURING THE FINAL READING TO 716, WHICH IS NEXT WEEK. THEY'RE MAKING SOME UPDATES TO THAT. SO WE'LL HAVE THAT FINAL APPROVAL THEN. AS PART OF THE EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. APPROVE THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH A SIX MONTH TIME LIMIT, DENY THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR APPROVE AN ALTERNATIVE REQUEST THAT MAY INCLUDE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR TIME LIMIT. STAFF RECOMMENDS OPTION TWO, WHICH IS TO DENY THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THE STAFF MADE THE RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE LACK OF PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HOME AND THE DAYCARE USE. THE PROPOSED USE IS MORE INTENSE AND CHANGES THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER THROUGH CONVERTING THE GARAGE AND NOT ACCOMMODATING PARKING ON SITE. DURING THE APRIL 23RD, THE COMMISSION DID NOT TAKE ACTION, AND THE COUNCIL VOTED TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION.

DURING THAT JUNE 4TH MEETING. I WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION? THE APPLICANT IS HERE. DID YOU WANT TO PRESENT MA'AM, OR ARE YOU OR DO YOU HAVE ARE YOU JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS? IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS. I HAVE SOME. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE NOT FORCING YOU TO COME UP AND PRESENT, JUST GIVING YOU THE OPTION. GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. WHILE YOU KNOW THE DETAILS OF MY INDIVIDUAL REQUEST TODAY, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU TO THINK BEYOND MY PROGRAM.

THE DECISION BEFORE YOU IS ABOUT MUCH MORE THAN ONE HOME OR ONE PROVIDER. IT IS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF COMMUNITY LAND WANTS TO BE, AND WHAT MESSAGE WE SEND TO CURRENT AND FUTURE FAMILY CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. CHILDCARE IS ESSENTIAL FOR OUR ECONOMY. FAMILY CHILD CARE

[00:05:05]

HOMES ARE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT CREATE JOBS, CONTRIBUTE TO OUR LOCAL ECONOMY AND MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR PARENTS TO WORK. MOST PARENTS LOOKING TO GO BACK TO WORK DO NOT WANT THEIR INFANTS AND TODDLERS TO GO INTO BIG CENTERS. WE OFTEN SAY THAT CHILDCARE IS THE WORKFORCE BEHIND THE WORKFORCE. WITHOUT IT, FAMILIES STRUGGLE, EMPLOYERS STRUGGLE, AND ULTIMATELY, OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY FEELS THE IMPACT. THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE RECOGNIZED THESE CHALLENGES WHEN IT PASSED SB 599 BILL. HOME BASED PROVIDERS ACROSS THE STATE SHARED HOW LOCAL REGULATIONS WERE MAKING IT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO OPERATE. DESPITE ALREADY MEETING THE RIGOROUS HEALTH, SAFETY, AND LICENSING STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION. THE INTENT OF SB 599 WAS CLEAR TO REMOVE UNNECESSARY BARRIERS AND MAKE IT EASIER, NOT HARDER, FOR FAMILY CHILDCARE PROVIDERS TO SERVE THEIR COMMUNITY. THAT MATTERS BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN A SIGNIFICANT DECLINE IN HOME BASED CHILDCARE PROVIDERS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. EVERY TIME A FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME CLOSES OR IS UNABLE TO OPEN, FAMILIES LOSE OPTIONS, CHILDREN LOSE OPPORTUNITIES AND PARENTS FACE EVEN GREATER CHALLENGES FINDING AFFORDABLE, HIGH QUALITY CARE THEY CAN TRUST. THIS ISSUE IS BIGGER THAN ME. IT IS ABOUT EVERY FAMILY IN LEANDER SEARCHING FOR SAFE, HIGH QUALITY CHILDCARE SO THEY CAN GO TO WORK KNOWING THEIR CHILDREN ARE IN A NURTURING ENVIRONMENT. YESTERDAY I'M ASKING YOU TO APPROVE MY SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, BUT I ALSO ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER WHAT YOUR DECISION SAYS TO EVERY CURRENT AND FUTURE FAMILY CHILD CARE PROVIDER IN OUR CITY. YES. IS NOT SIMPLY SUPPORT FOR ONE BUSINESS. IT IS AN INVESTMENT IN WORKING FAMILIES, YOUNG CHILDREN, AND THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF LEANDER. A NODE DOESN'T JUST AFFECT ME, IT LIMITS OPPORTUNITIES FOR COUNTLESS FAMILIES WHO NEED CHILDCARE TODAY AND IN THE YEARS AHEAD, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE FAMILIES, CHILDREN, AND CHILDCARE PROVIDERS WHO HELP OUR COMMUNITY STRONG. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, MISS ASHANTI. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO HAVE THREE PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND I WILL START WITH MISS GAY GLICK. OH, YOU DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK, MA'AM? OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN. ON TO. GOT IT? YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM. MISS MARY MONROE. MISS MONROE, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE SPEAK YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS INTO THE MICROPHONE AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. OKAY. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARY MONROE, AND I LIVE IN THE SAME SUBDIVISION AT 522 TRAIL, LEANDER, TEXAS, 78641. I'VE BEEN HERE BOTH TO BOTH HEARINGS. AND THE FIRST TIME I EXPLAINED WHAT A VALUE, A VALUABLE EXPERIENCE BOTH MY KIDS HAD AT HER DAYCARE. THE LAST HEARING I HEARD Y'ALL SAY THAT Y'ALL WERE LOOKING TO CREATE A PRECEDENCE AND FOR FACTUAL ITEMS. CORRECT? SO THE OTHER DAY I WAS GOING ON THE INTERNET AND I CAME ACROSS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST IN GEORGETOWN, TEXAS. IT'S OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST. THEY APPROVED IT. SO I BROUGHT THAT PAPERWORK IN. I THOUGHT I DIDN'T KNOW IF Y'ALL WERE AWARE OF IT OR NOT. SO Y'ALL COULD SEE THE APPROVAL. ALSO, THAT PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, SMALLER ACREAGE THERE USING THE DRIVEWAY FOR PICKUP AND DROP OFF. AGAIN, THE TIMES ARE STAGGERED TO MINIMIZE TRAFFIC IMPACT AND IT'S WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S NO STRUCTURAL EXPANSION OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. SO I WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOU GUYS JUST IN CASE YOU WEREN'T AWARE. BUT I FELT LIKE THAT WAS IMPORTANT. JUST SO Y'ALL WERE AWARE OF WHAT THE CITY IS NEXT TO US ARE DOING. I WAS ALSO LOOKING ON THE INTERNET, AND THERE ARE TWO LICENSED HOME DAYCARES OPERATING IN LIBERTY HILL. NONE IN ROUND ROCK, NONE IN CEDAR PARK. BUT THAT'S TWO OF THE FOUR SURROUNDING US. SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO Y'ALL'S ATTENTION. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM.

WAYNE. NO. SIR. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE JUST SPEAK YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS INTO THE MICROPHONE AND

[00:10:08]

YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. GOOD EVENING. WAYNE HOWELL, 1204 DRAKE COVE. I'M OPPOSED TO APPROVING THIS SUP IF THIS SUP BEING STATED FOR DEWDROPS MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL OR A DAYCARE AND CONTINUOUS OPERATING AS DEWDROPS MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL, AS EVERYONE KEEPS LOOSELY CALLING IT A DAYCARE. OR IS IT FOR BABYSITTING? DEWDROPS IS A MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL AND IS ADVERTISED AS SUCH, NOT A DAYCARE. FIRST, THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN PRESCHOOL, WHERE YOU GRADUATE AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND DO NOT RETURN, AND DAYCARE AND BABYSITTING, WHICH IS CONSIDERED AN AD HOC SFU, IS NOT THE PLACE FOR DAYCARE OR PRESCHOOLS UNLESS YOU HAVE THE AVAILABLE LAND AND PARKING. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS NOT ACTING AS AN HOA. HOWEVER, APPROVING THIS SUP WILL ONLY PROLONG AN ISSUE THAT'S ALREADY RESULTED IN MORE THAN A YEAR OF CONFLICT, AND THE CITY STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED A DENIAL OF THIS SUP THE SUBDIVISION CCR PROHIBIT GARAGE CONVERSIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS AND PROHIBITED LICENSED BUSINESSES SUCH AS DAYCARES AND PRESCHOOLS.

IN ADDITION, THE CITY'S ORDINANCE PROHIBITS GARAGE CONVERSIONS FOR HOME DAYCARES AND PRESCHOOLS. THESE RULES EXIST FOR A REASON THEY SHOULD BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY. ON A POSITIVE NOTE, THE SITUATION DID RESULT IN THE CITY UPDATING ITS ORDINANCE TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING MUNICIPALITIES BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CHILDREN TO SIX, WHILE MAINTAINING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NO GARAGE CONVERSIONS AND ADEQUATE OFF STREET PARKING. AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, THE HOA STATED THAT THEY ONLY GRANTED TEMPORARY PERMISSION FOR BABYSITTING BECAUSE THE APPLICANT INDICATED SHE INTENDED TO MOVE AFTER IT WAS REPORTED SHE WAS OPERATING DEWDROPS MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL.

INSTEAD, SHE HAS CONTINUED OPERATING WHILE SEEKING APPROVAL THROUGH THIS SUP PROCESS FOR MORE THAN A YEAR WITHOUT COMING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH EITHER THE HOA RESTRICTIONS OR THE CITY ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. IF THIS SUP IS APPROVED, IT WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE APPEALED AND CONTINUE INTO LITIGATION. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS A GOOD CAREGIVER. SHE MAY WELL VERY WELL BE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE RULES AND ORDINANCES THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE SHOULD ALSO APPLY HERE. AS THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER, I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THE IMPACTS. THIS PATTERN REPEATS EVERY YEAR AS NEW FAMILIES ENROLL. AS A TAXPAYER AND AS A MEMBER. I EXPECT THE CITY ORDINANCES AND THE SUBDIVISION CCRS TO BE ENFORCED CONSISTENTLY, JUST AS THEY ARE FOR EVERY OTHER RESIDENT.

ALTHOUGH I'VE ONLY HAD A FEW MINUTES TO SPEAK, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT OVER THE PAST YEAR, THE CITY HAS WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH THIS APPLICANT TO BRING THE OPERATION INTO COMPLIANCE WHILE ACCOMMODATING A 12 CHILD MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL AND CONVERTED GARAGE INTO AN SFU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, NOT FOR DAYCARE OR BABYSITTING DURING THE ENTIRE PROCESS. NO ONE HAS EVER ASKED ME, THE ADJACENT HOMEOWNER, ABOUT THE ACTUAL IMPACTS OF THIS PRESCHOOL HAS HAD ON MY PROPERTY, OR WHAT SOLUTIONS MIGHT ADDRESS THOSE IMPACTS.

BEFORE GRANTING THIS SUP, I ASK THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER NOT ONLY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BUT ALSO THE PRECEDENT IT SETS AND THE CONSISTENCY OF ENFORCING OUR ORDINANCES AND THE EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU SIR. THAT'S ALL THE CARDS I HAVE FOR TONIGHT. BUT IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT THAT DIDN'T SIGN UP YET WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? COME ON UP. ALL I'LL ASK IS THAT ONCE YOU'RE DONE. NOT RIGHT THIS SECOND. BUT ONCE YOU'RE DONE, GO OUT INTO THE HALLWAY AND GET ONE OF THESE CARDS AND HAND THEM TO MISS TOVAR DOWN THERE ON THE END. BUT IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

OKAY. I DON'T LIVE IN LEANDER. CAN I STILL SPEAK? IS THAT OKAY? OKAY, SO WE'D STILL LIKE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, THOUGH. SO IT'S IT'S ON THE RECORD. I LIVE AT 113 VINO ROSSI ROAD IN GEORGETOWN, TEXAS. SO THE ISSUE I FEEL THAT THE NEIGHBOR, THE PERSON THAT JUST SPOKE. THERE IS DOCUMENTED FOOTAGE OF THEM BEING NOT ONLY HOMOPHOBIC AND RACIST, BUT THEY'RE ON THEY ARE EXTREMELY HATEFUL PEOPLE. AND I DON'T WANT TO BE EMOTIONAL ABOUT THE SITUATION, BUT I FEEL LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND. SO, MA'AM, I'M GOING TO CUT YOU OFF. OKAY? WE ARE NOT GOING TO COME UP HERE AND HAVE A BACK AND FORTH ATTACK. I DON'T WANT TO TALK. I KNOW, BUT WHEN YOU OKAY. YES. WHEN YOU START COMMENTS LIKE THAT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO.

[00:15:02]

SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND EXCUSE YOU NOW. OKAY. BUT THIS IS ROOTED IN XENOPHOBIA, RACISM, AND NOT IN. THAT. SO I JUST I JUST HAD TO DO SOMETHING I HAVEN'T HAD TO DO IN THE SIX YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN ON PLANNING AND ZONING. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE RULES OF CONDUCT FOR OUR MEETINGS, WE WILL HAVE DECORUM IN OUR. IN THIS. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. OKAY. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTER INTO DISCUSSION AND I WILL START TO MY RIGHT. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER MORALES. YEAH, I KNOW WE GOT TO TALK A FEW WEEKS AGO ON THE TOPIC. SO I THINK I DO THINK WE SHOULD STAND BY THE REGULATIONS WE HAVE IN PLACE. AND, YOU KNOW, IT DOES SET PRECEDENT. AND I, I THINK WHEN IT DID GO TO CITY COUNCIL BEFORE, YOU KNOW, THE ADDENDUM TO THE HOME DAYCARE WAS EXTENDED TO FROM 5 TO 6, I KNEW THIS WOULD STILL COME BACK TO US. AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN.

BUT I THINK MY POSITION STILL I STILL FEEL PRETTY THE SAME. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LEWIS.

BOY, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE. IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT IS WE CAN AND CAN'T DO. I WHILE MY HEART GOES OUT AND I WOULD LOVE TO BE MAKING AN EXCEPTION TO THIS. I'M JUST AFRAID THAT THERE WILL BE OTHER EXCEPTIONS THAT WILL BE MADE OVER AND OVER, AND WILL BE DEALING WITH IT FOR A LOT LONGER. SO THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH MAKING AN EXCEPTION. SO I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCEPT IT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. OTHER. YES, I'M GETTING SOME QUITE A BIT OF THOUGHT. I'VE WATCHED THE COUNCIL MEETING. I SAW THEM SEND THIS BACK TO US. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I IMMEDIATELY THOUGHT ABOUT WAS NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL ZONING CHANGE OF SIX AND SIX, WHICH THEY DID APPROVE UP TO SIX. BUT THE FACT THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND WHAT IT SOP IS, IT'S A SPECIAL USE THAT'S UNIQUE TO THAT APPLICANT. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENCE ON. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE CREATING THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO. IT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THAT APPLICANT, FOR THAT LOCATION, FOR THAT USE. NOW, IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND HAS THE SAME FIVE STAR RATINGS AND THE SAME, YOU KNOW, OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK THAT, YOU KNOW, YOUR ADVOCATES HAVE SPOKEN FOR YOU, WHICH IS OVERWHELMINGLY IN YOUR FAVOR, YOU KNOW, THEN THAT MIGHT ALLOW US TO APPROVE ANOTHER SPECIAL USE PERMIT. I MIGHT BE ON AN ISLAND ON THIS ONE, BUT THE THE FACT IS, I WAS GOING TO ASK THE CITY, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY ANY LIKE TRAFFIC STUDIES OR ANY OR DO WE HAVE A LIST OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THIS? HOME PRESCHOOL SO FAR? THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY? YEAH. NO, IT WAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE THAT STARTED.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO I GUESS CODE ENFORCEMENT SEEN ANY TRAFFIC STUDIES? OKAY. BECAUSE I MEAN, LIKE WHAT I'M HEARING TONIGHT AND, AND WHAT I HEARD LAST TIME WAS JUST BASICALLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY DETAILED DATA THAT BACKS IT. IT'S LIKE, WELL, THERE'S TRAFFIC ISSUES. WELL, THEY'RE BLOCKING MY DRIVEWAY. WELL, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, LIKE EVERY NOW AND THEN THE FEDEX TRUCK BLOCKS MY DRIVEWAY EVERY TIME. EVERY NOW AND THEN THE UPS TRUCK BLOCKS MY DRIVEWAY. SO THE POINT IS LIKE, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OR NO DATA THAT BACKS UP ANY CLAIM THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A NUISANCE OR AN ISSUE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, OKAY. OR EVEN FOR THIS PARTICULAR USE. AND SO I HAD SOME NOTES I WAS KIND OF GOING THROUGH, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE THINGS THAT REALLY KIND OF SET OUT TO ME IS THAT YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF PARENTS THAT ARE HERE THAT TRUST HER, THAT TRUST THIS SERVICE, AND THEY'VE LEFT A LOT OF GREAT REVIEWS AND TESTIMONIALS. SHE'S OPERATING A MONTESSORI SCHOOL. THIS IS NOT A DAYCARE. THIS IS A PRESCHOOL FOR KIDS. SHE'S TRANSFORMING AND CHANGING LIVES. AND BASED ON THE WRITTEN COMMENTS I SAW HERE, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT SHE'S REALLY GOOD AT WHAT SHE DOES. WHEN I SEE THE FIVE STAR REVIEWS, IT'S OBVIOUS SHE'S VERY, VERY GOOD AT WHAT SHE DOES. SHE'S PROVIDING A VALUABLE SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY, AND I'M CONCERNED IF WE DO NOT, YOU KNOW, APPLY OUR ABILITY HERE TO ACTUALLY REVIEW THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND EVEN APPROVE IT FOR THIS ONE CASE. I MEAN, WE'RE TAKING THAT SERVICE NOT ONLY AWAY FROM HER AND HER ABILITY TO ACTUALLY RUN HER BUSINESS AND HER LIVELIHOOD, BUT WE'RE ALSO TAKING THAT SERVICE AWAY FROM 12 FAMILIES THAT RELY ON HER FOR AFFORDABLE CHILDCARE IN LEANDER. AND SO, I MEAN, THE TEXAS STATE LAW, I KNOW THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT HOA AND I'LL REITERATE THE FACT THAT TEXAS STATE LAW, CITY LAW, IT TRUMPS HOA. SO JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT THE THE ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, THESE BOTH RECOGNIZE THAT THIS SMALL SCALE, YOU KNOW, CHILD CARE OPERATION IS LEGITIMATE. IT'S A VALUED LAND USE AND RESIDENTIAL ZONE. IT'S ALSO SUBJECT TO THE SAME, YOU KNOW, PERMITTING THAT OTHER BUSINESSES ARE AND OVERSIGHT ARE SUBJECT TO. AND SO THAT'S

[00:20:02]

WHY I'M SAYING THIS SUP PROCESS EXISTS FOR SITUATIONS LIKE THIS. THIS DOES GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY, NOT JUST LOOK AT THINGS BLACK AND WHITE, WHICH WE TYPICALLY DO. AND I'VE SAID THAT MANY TIMES, BUT I DO THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES WHERE WE HAVE TO KIND OF GO OUTSIDE THE BOX AND LOOK AT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBJECTIVELY, BECAUSE MY POINT IS, IF SUPS COME TO US AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT IT VERY OBJECTIVELY, THEN WHY ARE WE EVEN LOOKING AT SUPS TO BEGIN WITH? WHY ARE WE EVEN WASTING OUR TIME LOOKING AT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO APPLY THE STRICT ORDINANCE? SO I DO THINK THIS CASE RIGHT HERE DOES REQUIRE US TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE THE BOX. AND LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THE DATA SURROUNDING THE FEEDBACK AND THE TESTIMONIALS AROUND THE OPERATION THAT SHE HAS AND THE FACT THAT SHE'S HAVING TO OPERATE SOMETHING UNDER STATE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR CLEANLINESS AND SAFETY AND SO FORTH WITH HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. I MEAN, ONCE AGAIN, I MEAN, WITH IF SHE FALLS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THAT, THEN I WOULD THINK THAT THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT COULD BE NULL AND VOID, COULD BE SUBJECT TO BEING REVOKED UNTIL SHE DOES COME BACK INTO COMPLIANCE. AND I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH US PUTTING THAT EITHER IN THE LANGUAGE OR IF IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE LANGUAGE. I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH MAKING THAT PART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS. SO IF SHE EVER DOES RECEIVE A VIOLATION, THEN, YOU KNOW, THEN HER HER PERMIT WOULD BE REVOKED AND SHE'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND REAPPLY. WHEN SHE DOES SHOW SHE'S BACK IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE. BUT YEAH, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I MEAN, I LOOK AT THIS AGAIN, I JUST I REALLY FEEL THAT IF WE DENY THIS, IT DOESN'T MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFER OR BETTER. IT JUST ELIMINATES THIS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE TO THE COMMUNITY. AND WE'RE TAKING SOMETHING AWAY FROM OUR COMMUNITY. WE'RE TAKING AWAY A SERVICE. AND I THINK THIS IS A VERY VALUABLE SERVICE WE NEED MORE OF. AND I DO REMEMBER MULTIPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS EVEN STATING THAT THEY'VE USED IN-HOME DAYCARE AND PRESCHOOLS SIMILAR TO THIS ONE AS WELL FOR THEIR KIDS. AND SO I DO HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT WE COME TOGETHER AND LOOK AT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBJECTIVELY AND CONSIDER APPROVAL ON IT. SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. I'M LOOKING AT IT STRICTLY FROM, YOU KNOW, A A ZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT. AND BECAUSE WE HAVE THE NEW ORDINANCE, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THESE TYPE OF OPERATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS BECAUSE THEY CAN ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE ADDITIONAL CHILDREN, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE MORE MONEY THAN THEY WOULD HAVE UNDER THE OLD RULES. SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IF WE START MAKING EXCEPTIONS, WE ARE GOING TO SEE THIS COME BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH THESE TYPE REQUESTS. I THINK THE FACT THAT THAT GARAGE IS CONVERTED, ELIMINATING THE PARKING SPACES FOR THE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND EVERYTHING'S HAVING TO SWITCH, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE TWO AND TWO INSIDE AND TWO OUTSIDE PARKING SPACES AND A CUL DE SAC. IT IS EASY TO BLOCK OTHERS IF YOU HAVE SOME CARS THERE. SO I'M RECOMMENDING FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, DENIAL BASED ON THE LACK OF APPROPRIATE PARKING. SO THANK YOU, MISS CASTILLO. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO AND JUST SO IT'S ON THE RECORD AND FOR EVERYONE TO SEE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SPECIAL USE PERMITS, ARE THOSE DESIGNED TO BE TEMPORARY IN NATURE OR PERMANENT? IT IS A TEMPORARY USE, OKAY. AND THE REASON WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A DENIAL IS BECAUSE OF A CONVERSION, WHICH MEANS THE PROBLEM IS GOING TO BE PERMANENT. IS THAT CORRECT? UNLESS THEY RECONVERT IT BACK TO A GARAGE CONVERSION. SO UNLESS THEY UNDO THE CONVERSION, THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE ABOUT BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF KIDS. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T MEET THE CITY'S ORDINANCES AROUND PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT IS PART OF THE REQUEST, RIGHT? TO ALLOW IT SO IT CAN BE RIGHT, RIGHT.

BUT BUT AGAIN, IT'S STILL A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND IT'S ONLY TEMPORARY IN NATURE. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS UNLESS THERE'S, YOU KNOW, UNLESS MISS ASHANTI DECIDES THAT SHE'S GOING TO CONVERT HER GARAGE BACK TO THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE SCP. SO ONCE IT EXPIRES, SHE WOULD HAVE TO CONVERT IT BACK. OH, SO, SO WE WOULD ONLY GIVE IT ONE TIME. AND THAT WOULD GIVE HER THAT SIX MONTHS TO CONVERT HER GARAGE BACK TO BE WITHIN THE COMPLIANCE. SO IT WOULD BE WHATEVER THE TIME FRAME THAT IS APPROVED. SO IF YOU APPROVE IT, WHICH WAS, WHICH WAS OPTION ONE, RIGHT? OPTION ONE WAS THE SIX MONTHS. THAT'S WHY I SAID THAT. SO THEN SHE WOULD COME BACK FOR RENEWAL. SO IF SHE IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES OR IF YOU GUYS RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL AND THEY DECIDE TO RENEW OR APPROVE IT FOR, LET'S SAY A YEAR SO SHE CAN OPERATE FOR A YEAR, AND THEN SHE CAN COME BACK IN A YEAR AND HOPE TO RENEW IT. SO THEN IT'S JUST AS LONG AS IT'S RENEWED. OKAY, SO. SO, MRS. SHANTI, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MA'AM. SO, MA'AM, IF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS APPROVED BY COUNCIL, WHATEVER WE DO HERE, WE'RE NOT THE FINAL SAY COUNCIL IS. BUT IF IT'S APPROVED BY COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE PLANS TO CONVERT YOUR GARAGE BACK INTO PARKING SPACES? IF I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE AND I HAVE TO, I WILL HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE THIS IS

[00:25:07]

MY LIVELIHOOD, RIGHT? OKAY. AND SO IF YOU CONVERT IT BACK, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT YOUR YOUR STUDENT RATIO? ARE YOU STILL GOING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE SAME NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT YOU HAVE? YEAH, BECAUSE MY LIVING ROOM IS MUCH BIGGER THAN MY GARAGE. SO THEY WILL JUST HAVE TO COME AND MEASURE AND LICENSING WILL NEED TO COME IN. AND THEY TOLD ME THAT IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENS, THEY WILL BECAUSE OF MY CASE, THEY WILL COME IMMEDIATELY AND APPROVE IT FOR ME. OKAY. THAT THAT THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW. SO, SO THAT KIND OF HONESTLY, THANK YOU, MA'AM, THAT CHANGES MY PERSPECTIVE A LITTLE BIT ON THIS. SO I'M GLAD. THANK YOU, MISS CASTILLO, FOR KIND OF DOING THAT BECAUSE TO BE HONEST, YOU KNOW, I I'LL USE MISS ASHANTI'S OWN WORDS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE WHAT MESSAGE WE SEND TO FUTURE FAMILY CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO USE IT THE OTHER WAY, BY THE WAY, BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO VIOLATE OUR CITY'S ORDINANCES. RIGHT? IT IS BIGGER THAN JUST YOU. AND, AND JUST ONE HOME. HOWEVER, COMMA. NOW I'LL GO BACK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER OLIVER SAID. RIGHT. SPECIAL USE IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNIQUE CASES. SO WE'RE NOT SAYING WE WANT TO ALLOW YOU PERMANENTLY TO OPERATE AND TO GO AGAINST OUR ORDINANCES, BUT WE DO WANT TO PUT A TIME LIMIT ON WHEN YOU'LL NEED TO CONVERT IT BACK. THAT I'M MUCH MORE THAT'S MORE PALATABLE TO ME. RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT I, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER OLIVER AND I SAID IT LAST TIME, YOU KNOW, I'M PRETTY SURE YOU PROVIDE A GREAT SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.

BUT AGAIN, I, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT OUR ORDINANCES ARE THERE TO PROVIDE A CONSISTENT, A CONSISTENT, I GUESS, FEEL I'LL USE. IT CHANGES THE THE STAFF SAYS IT CHANGES THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER THROUGH CONVERTING THE GARAGE. RIGHT. SO WE WANT TO KEEP A CONSISTENT CHARACTER THROUGHOUT THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. SO THAT BEING SAID, LIKE I SAID, I'M, I'M A LITTLE MORE PALATABLE TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THOUGH, BUT AS TIED TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, MAKING SURE THAT GARAGE GETS CONVERTED BACK. AND I WOULDN'T GIVE IT A VERY LONG TIME EITHER, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT US TO WAIT A YEAR, TWO YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AND WE'RE STILL BACK LOOKING FOR RENEWALS. IS THERE A WAY FOR US, AS WE RECOMMEND THAT IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RENEWAL? I MEAN, IS THAT AN OPTION? I FEEL LIKE YOU COULD PUT THAT IN THE ORDINANCE. OKAY. SO ANY ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YEAH, I GOT ONE LAST THING. LIKE I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT APPROVAL DENIAL LIKE THAT. LIKE IF WE DENIED IT, LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO SHUT DOWN THE BUSINESS. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS TO SHUT DOWN CHILD CARE. LIKE I HAVE TWO SMALL KIDS OF MY OWN. IT'S, IT'S ABOUT BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS.

AND IS THIS A RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I JUST THINK IF IT WAS MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR HAVING THAT MANY LIKE, LOOK AT HOW MANY. ALL RIGHT, LET'S LOOK AT HOW MANY CHAIRS ARE UP HERE. THAT'S TEN CHAIRS. WE'RE TALKING MORE KIDS THAN CHAIRS UP HERE. THAT'S THAT'S A DECENT AMOUNT OF KIDS FOR ONE HOUSE. AND THIS IS STILL A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOME.

SO I, I STILL DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T PROVIDE CHILD CARE. IT'S LIKE YOU STILL CAN'T UNDER THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE APPROVED. IT'S JUST HOW MANY. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. THAT'S ALL. AND THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SO MISS CASTILLO GOT ANOTHER ONE FOR YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MORALES. IT MADE ME THINK OF SOMETHING. SO IF THIS IS DENIED BY COUNCIL, I'LL FORGET US. RIGHT? I'LL SKIP US AND SAY COUNCIL. THEN WHAT HAPPENS AT THAT POINT. SO THE NEW ORDINANCE WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE. SO THE NEW ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR UP TO THOSE 12 CHILDREN. BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THEY COME BACK WITH THE PERMIT SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS. THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE MEETING WOULD BE THE GARAGE CONVERSION, SO THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE APPROPRIATE PARKING FOR THE HOUSE AND THAT USE, SO THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OPERATE UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT THEY'RE IN TODAY. OKAY. SO OKAY, NOW HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS A LITTLE BIT. SO IF WE DENY IT, THEN TECHNICALLY SHE GETS SHUT DOWN UNTIL THE GARAGE GETS CONVERTED. SO SHE WE'VE BEEN COMMUNICATING AND SHE'S KIND OF WAITING TO SEE IF SHE NEEDS TO CONVERT IT BACK OR NOT. SO IT'S IF THIS GETS APPROVED, SHE CAN KEEP HER GARAGE AS IS AND KEEP OPERATING IN THE CURRENT CONDITIONS. SO IF IT GETS DENIED, THEN SHE WOULD HAVE TO GO AND MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT SHE CAN. BUT WE WOULDN'T STOP HER BUSINESS WHILE SHE'S MAKING THE CONVERSION, RIGHT. SO WE WOULD NOT KNOW. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL THEN THEN AGAIN. SO THEN I GO BACK. SO NOW I'M GOING BACK AND FORTH HERE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF THE END OF THE DAY, WHERE, WHERE I WANT US, I WANT US BACK. AS YOU GUYS HEARD

[00:30:02]

ME SAY, I, I THINK WE SHOULD ENSURE THAT SHE'S COMPLIANT WITH OUR CITY ORDINANCES. SO THANK YOU AND THANKS FOR THAT BECAUSE THAT MADE ME THINK ABOUT IT A BIT DIFFERENTLY. SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WELL, FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, SHE SHE TECHNICALLY STILL HAS LIKE A GARAGE DOOR, RIGHT. I THINK. MRS. SHANTI, CAN YOU COME UP QUICK AND JUST ANSWER THIS FOR ME? BECAUSE I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO SAY. I DIDN'T WANT TO. I DIDN'T WANT TO ASSUME ANYTHING. YEAH. SO THE GARAGE DOOR ESTHETIC IS STILL THERE, CORRECT? YES. SO MY QUESTION IS FROM OUTSIDE IT LOOKS JUST THE SAME AND IT'S A TEMPORARY WALL. I HAVE PUT. AND ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN I ACTUALLY GOT IN TOUCH WITH THE SENATOR WHO WROTE THE BILL, AND THEY SAID THAT I. CITY CANNOT DICTATE TO THE AGES THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THAT IS THE STATE.

SO I, I JUST THOUGHT I WILL LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT THAT I SHOULD BE PROTECTED. YEAH. AND THAT'S FAIR. I, I DON'T WANT TO DIG TOO DEEP INTO THAT. BUT THE ISSUE WE HAVE IS CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO REGULATE HOW MANY CHILDREN YOU HAVE. WE'RE REALIZING THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE CHILDREN, THERE'S THERE'S A SPECIFIC CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT YOU HAVE. AND I ALSO SAID, IF IT'S 8 TO 10, I'M FINE WITH IT. YEAH. I MEAN, I, I PROBABLY, LIKE I SAID, I, I'M IN, I'M ON YOUR SIDE. AND THE FACT I THINK 12 IS FINE. I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S A FAIR NUMBER. AND THE STATE SAYS IT'S A FAIR NUMBER TOO. AND I THINK WE'RE. AND AS A CITY, WE'RE, WE'RE FAIRLY IN COMPLIANT WITH THAT AS WELL. AND CONSISTENT WITH THAT, I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE ESTHETIC OF IT, BECAUSE WE TALK ABOUT THE INTENSE CHANGE IN CHARACTER. WE'RE REALLY NOT CHANGING ANYTHING EXCEPT THE ABILITY TO PARK TWO CARS IN SOMEONE'S GARAGE THAT HAS, I GUESS, IS THERE A RETAINING, IS THERE LIKE A WALL THERE NOW, LIKE A PERMANENT WALL WHICH CAN BE REMOVED? I'VE DONE THAT BEFORE. OKAY. SO IT'S A TEMPORARY WALL IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO IS IT IS IT NOT LIKE A LIKE A SHEET ROCK WITH. YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT. OKAY. IT'S A, BUT I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, THERE IS A GAP IN BETWEEN THE GARAGE DOOR. CORRECT. OKAY. JUST TO TAKE IT OFF, BUT THE WALL, IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S RELATIVELY EASY TO REMOVE AND MOVE OUT OF THE WAY AND YOU CAN PUT BACK IN PLACE WHEN YOU'RE TEACHING AND THEN YOU CAN MOVE IT OUT OF THE WAY WHEN IT'S BACK TO A HOME? NO. SO OKAY, SO I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I MEAN, I WAS THINKING, OBVIOUSLY IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS MIGHT GO DOWN THE PATH OF THAT WALL IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET REMOVED. OTHER CITIES HAVE APPROVED FOR HOME DAYCARES, GARAGE CONVERSIONS. OKAY. YEAH. SO I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, I JUST THOUGHT I'LL LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE APPROVED. OKAY. MISS CASTILLO, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU? SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE WALL BEING REMOVED, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE PATH WE'RE HEADING DOWN, THE WALL IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO MAKE THIS MORE COMPLIANT.

AND I'M NOT FULLY AGAINST THAT. BUT WHAT WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE PARTITION THAT SO KIND OF FOLLOW ME HERE. IF SHE HAD LIKE AN ACCORDION STYLE PARTITION THAT COULD BE RETRACTED, WOULD THAT STILL ALLOW HER GARAGE TO BE CONSIDERED PARKABLE IF IT WAS RETRACTED AND NOT BLOCKING THE GARAGE FROM ENTRY? SO SHE WE DID HAVE THIS CONVERSATION THROUGH THE PROCESS. THE WALL IS WHAT MAKES IT THE CONVERSION. SO SHE USED TO REMOVE THE WALL. WE WERE NOT GOING TO DICTATE WHAT GOES IN. A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T USE THEIR GARAGE FOR GARAGE PURPOSES. SO IF SHE WANTS TO KEEP OPERATING IN THE GARAGE, THAT WOULD BE UP TO HER. BUT SHE WOULD NEED TO CONVERT IT BACK TO BE USED FOR A GARAGE. CORRECT. SO SO THE WALL BEING REMOVED. BUT IF SHE HAD SOME SORT OF ACCORDION PARTITION THAT COULD BE EXPANDED OR RETRACTED BASED ON HER USE, AND THEN THAT WOULD WOULD THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW CARS TO GET IN AND OUT. THAT WOULD TECHNICALLY BE ACCEPTABLE, CHALLENGING FROM LIKE A BUILDING CODE AND AIR CONDITIONING PERSPECTIVE TO JUST HAVE YOUR GARAGE DOOR. SO THAT WAS A POINT I WAS GOING TO MAKE OF IF YOU GO IN THE GARAGE TODAY, YOU CAN'T TELL IT'S A GARAGE. IT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY CONVERTED AND REMODELED. SO THE WALLS ARE ALL LIKE THE INTERNAL OF THE HOUSE. THERE IS A UNIT INSIDE THAT PROVIDES AIR CONDITION. THERE WAS ALSO SOME PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC THAT WAS EXTENDED THROUGH TO THE GARAGE. SO IT OPERATES JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PART OF HER HOME. BUT THAT DOESN'T THOSE WOULD BE THINGS. BUT IF THE WALLS ARE REMOVED, IT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOU STILL CAN'T PARK TWO CARS THERE JUST BECAUSE SHE'S RIGHT. SHEET ROCKED AND PAINTED AND TAPED AND FLOATED AND AND DID ALL THE TEXTURE AND PUT SOME ADDITIONAL PLUMBING. DOESN'T MEAN YOU STILL CAN'T PARK TWO CARS THERE. WELL, THE GARAGE DOOR IS LOCKED, SO SHE CAN'T GET IN. I KNOW, BUT THAT THAT'S BECAUSE SHE HAS A WALL THERE. RIGHT. BUT I'M SAYING IF THAT WALL IS GONE RIGHT. EXACTLY. THEN THAT THAT SOLVES EVERYTHING. RIGHT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL LEAVE IT THAT THAT THAT WAS ALL I WAS GOING TO GET. BUT I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING THERE. AND, AND I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT APPROACH, BUT TO, TO GET IT IN COMPLIANCE AND THEN CERTAINLY ALLOW THE, THE SPECIAL USE TO BE APPLICABLE BECAUSE THEN SHE'D HAVE THAT PARKING AVAILABLE AND THEN SHE CAN MOVE THE 12 KIDS INSIDE, AND THEN SHE CAN STILL OPERATE HER SCHOOL UP TO 12 KIDS, WHICH IS THE FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY SHE NEEDS. SO. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. OKAY, I WILL SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BY COMMISSIONER SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORALES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ALL THOSE OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT. THE DENIAL PASSES 3 TO 2. COMMISSIONER LEWIS, DID

[00:35:06]

YOU WANT TO STATE WHY YOU OPPOSED THE DENIAL? YEAH, I REALLY APPRECIATED WHAT COMMISSIONER OLIVER HAD TO SAY. AND IT'S GOING TO STILL BE GOING BACK TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE GARAGE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. I THINK ALL THE DISCUSSION KIND OF MADE ME RECONSIDER THE VALUE THAT IS OFFERED THERE. AND AS LONG AS ALL OF THOSE ARE MET, THEN I'M GOOD WITH WHERE YOU ARE, WITH WHAT THE STATE HAS SAID AND EVERYTHING. SO THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE AND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. I UNDERSTAND THAT MUCH BETTER AS WELL. ANY MORE? NO.

LIKE I SAID, I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE WE HAD TO GO A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE THE BOX AND LOOK AT THINGS A LITTLE BIT BEYOND THE BLACK AND WHITE VIEW THAT WE TYPICALLY LOOK AT.

BUT I RESPECT EVERYBODY'S OPINION UP HERE. AND OBVIOUSLY, CHAIRMAN, I THINK YOU DID A GREAT JOB LEADING THIS DISCUSSION FURTHER AND TAKING A LITTLE BIT DEEPER, LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO. SO I APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL. AND, AND, AND, AND MISS ASHANTI AND EVERYONE PRESENT FOR AND AGAINST. PLEASE GO TO CITY COUNCIL, MAKE SURE YOUR VOICES ARE HEARD. RIGHT.

THAT'S WHERE THE DECISION IS GOING TO BE MADE. SO PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU GO THERE REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE VOTED HERE TONIGHT, CITY COUNCIL IS THE FINAL IS THE FINAL VOTE. SO IF YOU'RE FOR IT, PLEASE BE FOR IT. IF YOU'RE AGAINST IT, THEN YOU KNOW, AGAIN, LET YOUR VOICE

[9. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-26-0214 to amend the current zoning of Interim SFR-1-B (Single-Family Rural) to adopt the Bar W Ranch West Commercial Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the base zoning of GC-3-A (General Commercial) on three (3) parcels of land 29.036 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcels R491371, R485001, and R451803; and generally located northwest of the intersection of Ronald W. Reagan Boulevard and Kauffman Loop, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.

Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-26-0214 as described above.

]

BE HEARD THERE AS WELL. SO ALL RIGHT, ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION ZONING REGARDING ZONING CASE Z-26-0214. TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONING OF INTERIM SF, R1B SINGLE FAMILY RULE TO ADOPT THE BAR W RANCH WEST COMMERCIAL MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT WITH THE BASE ZONING OF GC3, A GENERAL COMMERCIAL ON THREE PARCELS OF LAND 29.036 ACRES IN SIZE. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAMSON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCELS R4 91371 R 485001 AND R4 51803 AND GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RONALD REAGAN BOULEVARD AND KAUFMAN LOOP. LEANDER WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. STAFF PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING. KARINA CASTILLO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 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 IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL SITE. WITH THE HOME IMPROVEMENT AND HARDWARE RETAIL RETAILER. THE PROPOSAL DOES COMPLY WITH THE COMP PLAN AND IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE USES LOCATED WITHIN THE ACTIVITY CENTER. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL TAKE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION FOR ANNEXATION OF THIS THE OF A PORTION OF THE SITE. SO IF YOU CAN TELL FROM HERE, THERE'S A GAP IN THE ZONING THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS TODAY. SO IT'S UNDER AN ANNEXATION REQUEST, AND THE ANNEXATION IS REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE ZONING CASE BEING APPROVED. THE PLAT SUPPORTS REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USES AND INCLUDES ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOME IMPROVEMENT AND HARDWARE RETAILER STORE, SUCH AS OUTDOOR SALES, STORAGE AND DISPLAY. THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL USE COMPONENT ALLOWS FOR OFFICE, RETAIL, RESTAURANT AND COMMERCIAL USES. THE TYPE THREE SITE COMPONENT SUPPORTS GAS STATIONS AND CAR WASHES WHEN PAIRED WITH THAT GC USE COMPONENT. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT ALLOW FOR THE VEHICLE THE REPAIR OF VEHICLES AS LONG AS THE WORK IS CONDUCTED INDOORS, AND SUPPORTING OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USES BEING LOCATED WITHIN LOT NINE. A LIST OF PROHIBITED USES THAT WOULD ALLOW WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THAT GC USE COMPONENT IS ALSO INCLUDED AS WELL TO PROVIDE FOR MORE COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT. THE PED ALSO INCLUDES ALTERNATIVE SIGNAGE STANDARDS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN INCREASE IN THE DISPLAY AREA. CURRENT ZONING TODAY WOULD BE THAT INTERIM ZONING OF SFR ONE B, AND THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD HAVE A BASE ZONING DISTRICT OF GC THREE A IT IS LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST AND NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RONALD REAGAN AND KAUFMAN LOOP. IT'S ABOUT 29 ACRES. IT'S LOCATED ACROSS FROM THE BAR W RANCH COMMERCIAL AND BAR W RANCH EAST SITES, WHICH INCLUDE THE HEB AND OTHER RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AND. NORTH OF THE SITE IS THE GATEWAY 29 DEVELOPMENT, WHICH INCLUDES RETAIL AND MULTIFAMILY TO THE NORTHWEST. DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THE SITE IS THE CITY WATER TOWER. PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. IN ADDITION TO THE NOTICES THAT WERE MAILED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, THE APPLICANT DID REACH OUT TO THOSE WITHIN 500FT OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL USES, AND NO UPDATES WERE RECEIVED AFTER THEY SENT THE CERTIFIED MAIL. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE REPORT AS EXHIBIT NUMBER NINE. AS PART OF THE EVALUATION, THE COMMISSION HAS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. YOU CAN APPROVE THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, DENY THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR APPROVE AN ALTERNATIVE REQUEST THAT INCLUDES MODIFICATIONS THAT WOULD TO THE ALLOWED OR PROHIBITED USES, OUTDOOR STORAGE AND DISPLAY OR SIGNAGE STAFF RECOMMENDS OPTION THREE IT'S TO APPROVE AN ALTERNATIVE REQUEST, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS UNDER THE VEHICLE REPAIR USES, SUCH AS THE SIZE LIMITATION OF 5000FT■!. STAFF MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE COMPATIBLE USES ALONG RONALD REAGAN AND KAUFMAN LOOP. I WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IF THERE ARE

[00:40:02]

ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE. THANK YOU. IS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION? GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION COMMISSIONER. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS JEFF GUERRERO. I'M THE AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT, AND I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PRESENTATION. SAY, I JUST WANTED TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS PROJECT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BAR W RANCH OVERALL DEVELOPMENT AS WELL, SO THAT THAT AGREEMENT WOULD WOULD FALL INTO PLACE FOR THIS PROJECT. IT IS PART OF THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT INCLUDES A COMMERCIAL NODE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. AND AS FAR AS THE THE APPROVAL REQUEST, THE DEVELOPER IS, IS OKAY WITH THE LIMITATION BEING PLACED ON THE VEHICLE REPAIR SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT IS REQUESTING AN INCREASE TO A TOTAL OF 8000FT■!S AS OPPOSED TO 5000FT■!S. THERE ARE SEVERAL POTENTIAL END USERS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE MORE AVAILABLE TO ADDITIONAL END USERS TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AVAILABLE FOR VEHICLE REPAIR, AS OPPOSED TO THE 5000 LIMIT PROPOSED BY STAFF. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. AND THE DEVELOPER IS HERE AS WELL IF WE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THEM AS WELL. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. GUERRERO. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTER INTO DISCUSSION. STARTING TO MY LEFT, COMMISSIONER. VICE CHAIR LYNCH. OKAY, WELL, IT ALL LOOKS GOOD TO ME. I. I NOTICED THAT ON THE IN THE PUD UNDER D THREE THEY TALK. YOU TALK ABOUT HAVING THE AUTO FUNCTION FULLY CONTAINED WITHIN A BUILDING AND I THINK WE DO NEED TO SPECIFY A LIMIT. I'M. I'M NOT UP ON WHAT THE STANDARD IS FOR THAT TYPE OF BUSINESS, SO I'M I'M TOTALLY FLEXIBLE ON THAT. THE 5000 VERSUS THE 8000. BUT I THINK WE DO NEED TO SPECIFY SOME KIND OF LIMIT, BUT I'M OKAY WITH THAT. COMMISSIONER OLIVER. YEAH, EVERYTHING LOOKS GOOD TO ME TOO. SO THE 5000 SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION WE'RE PUTTING IS REALLY JUST ON THIS TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT CAN BE USED FOR AUTO REPAIR OR BODY WORK TYPE, BASICALLY AUTO TYPE WORK, 5000FT■!S TOTAL. THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE DON'T WANT SOMETHING IN LARGE SCALE. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S COMPATIBLE FOR THOSE PAD SITES UP FRONT. IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT LIMITATION THEN THEN WHAT? THEN WHAT WOULD IF WE APPROVED THE THE OPTION ONE, WHAT WOULD THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE BE? UNLIMITED. OKAY, SO WE'RE PUTTING WE'RE PUTTING A CAP OF 8000 OR POTENTIALLY 5000 DEPENDING ON WHAT WE GO. CORRECT. OKAY. I'M ACTUALLY GOOD WITH THE 8000 THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING TO, TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. SO YEAH, I'M GOOD.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LEWIS. NO COMMENT. LOOKS GOOD TO ME TOO, MR. MORALES. YEAH. BASED ON THE LOCATION ON RONALD REAGAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE, IT SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THE PROPERTY. YEAH, AND I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU, MISS CASTILLO. SO IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IT SAYS APPROVED ALTERNATE ALTERNATIVE REQUEST, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE STANDARDS ON VEHICLE REPAIR USES, SUCH AS A SIZE LIMITATION. WHAT WHAT OTHER TYPE OF WHAT WHAT OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS YOU ARE? OR IS THAT JUST IT? YOU JUST OKAY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE WASN'T SOMETHING ELSE HIDING BACK THERE THAT THAT, THAT WE WANTED TO DO. I, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER OLIVER HERE. I THINK THAT AND SO WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE UNLIMITED, I GET IT. BUT WITH WITH STAFF BE COMFORTABLE WITH 8000 AS WELL. OKAY, GOOD. SO SHE'S SHAKING HER HEAD. YES. FOR THOSE WHO WHO ARE WATCHING A VIDEO OR LISTENING THAT CAN'T SEE. SO MISS CASTILLO SAID YES TO THAT. SO I ALSO WOULD BE GOOD WITH MOVING THAT TO 8000 BECAUSE THAT MEET WHAT THE DEVELOPERS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AND IT MEETS WHAT THE THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO CONTROL AS FAR AS THE MAXIMUM LIMITATIONS ON THAT. SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OPTION. WELL, THE ALTERNATIVE OPTION WITH 8000FT■!S VERSUS 5000. OKAY. SO WE HAVE SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE ALTERNATIVE REQUEST WITH THE 8000 SQUARE FOOT SIZE LIMITATION ON VEHICLE REPAIR AND SECOND SORRY MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLIVER, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. GOT A LITTLE TONGUE TWISTED UP HERE. MY APOLOGIES EVERYONE. AGENDA ITEM. YES, SIR. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER

[10. Discuss and consider action regarding Tree Removal Case TRP-25-0046 regarding the removal of 45 Significant Trees and four (4) Heritage Trees associated with the Burleson Phases 1, 5 - 8 Public Improvement Construction Plans Development (PICP-25-0220), generally located to the southeast of the intersection of Journey Parkway and Ronald W. Reagan Boulevard, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.]

TEN. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING TREE REMOVAL. CASE TRP DASH 25-0046.

REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF 45 SIGNIFICANT TREES AND FOUR HERITAGE TREES ASSOCIATED WITH THE BALSAM PHASES ONE FIVE THROUGH EIGHT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLANS.

[00:45:01]

DEVELOPMENT PICP25-0220. GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF JOURNEY PARKWAY AND RONALD REAGAN BOULEVARD. LEANDER WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. STAFF PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR LEE VANLUVEN WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PROCESS. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO REMOVE 45 SIGNIFICANT TREES AND FOUR HERITAGE TREES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE BURLESON TRACT. THESE TREES WERE NOT APPROVED FOR REMOVAL AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. DURING THE DESIGN OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THE APPLICANT IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL TREES THAT WERE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED GRADING, UTILITIES AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, TREES LESS THAN 18 CALIPER INCHES ARE NOT BEING REVIEWED AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, AND PHASE ONE IS PREDOMINANTLY THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE SUBDIVISION. WHILE PHASES FIVE THROUGH EIGHT ARE TO BE DEVELOPED COMMERCIALLY AS FUTURE PHASES ARE DESIGNED, ADDITIONAL TREES MAY BE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL AT THAT TIME, AND ONCE THE TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL EXCEED 50% OF THOSE BETWEEN 8 AND 26 CALIPER INCHES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTIONS, MODIFICATION WILL BE REQUIRED. SO, AS I SAID BEFORE, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT TREES AND HERITAGE TREES, AND THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE REMOVAL OF THOSE ADDITIONAL TREES WITHIN PHASE ONE, THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION, THERE ARE 4907 SIGNIFICANT TREES BETWEEN 8 AND 26 CALIPER INCHES, AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESERVING 68% OF THOSE. AND OF THE 135 HERITAGE TREES OVER 26 CALIPER INCHES, 90% OF THE CALIPER INCHES ARE PROPOSED TO BE PRESERVED WITHIN PHASES FIVE THROUGH EIGHT, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE 995 SIGNIFICANT TREES BETWEEN 8 AND 18 CALIPER INCHES, AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESERVING 92%, AND THERE ARE 2087 SIGNIFICANT TREES BETWEEN 18 AND 26 CALIPER INCHES. AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PRESERVE 96% OF THE CALIPER INCHES. AND OF THE 20 HERITAGE TREES, 100% OF THE CALIPER INCHES ARE PROPOSED TO BE PRESERVED. SO AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, THE FOLLOWING MITIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE TREE REMOVAL. SO FOR THOSE FOUR HERITAGE TREES, IT'S GOING TO AMOUNT TO $33,600. AND THAT'S BASED OFF THE REMOVAL OF THE 112 CALIPER INCHES AT A RATE OF $300 PER CALIPER INCH.

AND THEN THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 3 TO 1 RATIO, WHICH TOTALS TO 336IN. SO THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO PAY $50,400 FOR THAT. MITIGATION FOR THE SIGNIFICANT TREES IS NOT REQUIRED DUE TO THE APPLICANT REMOVING LESS THAN 50% OF THE TREES. SO THE TOTAL FEE FOR THE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST IS $84,000 AND WILL BE APPLIED TO THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN PERMIT. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MITIGATION FEES FOR THE TREES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, SO IT'LL BE COMBINED AND THE FEE PAYMENT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN PERMIT. AS FOR THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT IS A GENERAL COMMERCIAL, LOCAL COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY SUBURBAN. AND THOSE ARE THE HERITAGE TREES THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE. SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE CEDAR PARK RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, AND THEN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND MIDDLE SCHOOL ARE LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY. AND THERE ARE ALSO COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS LOCATED TO THE EAST OF THE

[00:50:04]

PROPERTY ACROSS RONALD REAGAN. 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 ALTERNATIVE PLAN THAT INCLUDES SAVING ADDITIONAL TREES. STAFF RECOMMENDS OPTION THREE LISTED ABOVE. PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST THAT MAY PRESERVE ADDITIONAL TREES WHERE POSSIBLE. THIS WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PRESERVE TREES AS PART OF THE PERMIT, WHERE GRADING MAY BE DELAYED TO THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE, AND IT CAN BE LOOKED AT MORE CLOSELY. THANK YOU, AND I'LL BE AVAILABLE IF NECESSARY. OKAY. IS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION? WE DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION. OH YOU'RE HERE. OKAY. HERE FOR QUESTIONS. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT THEN. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL ENTER INTO DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER MORALES. YEAH. IT'S A IT'S A WONDERFUL PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, I DROVE BY IT EARLIER TODAY. IT ACTUALLY IN THE CITY OF LEANDER. IF YOU LOOK AT LOTS WITH THE MOST TREES, THIS IS ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THEM. SO I, I DEFINITELY AM ALL FOR TRYING TO PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. I DO REALIZE THERE, THERE ARE CHALLENGES THAT DEVELOPING A SITE WITH THIS DENSITY. IT LOOKS LIKE A FOREST RIGHT NOW. BUT YOU KNOW, THE ONE THING WE GOT TO BE CAREFUL OF, ESPECIALLY IS PERCEPTION. WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE CLEARING A SUCH A HEAVILY WOODED SITE IS ARE WE TRYING TO PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE? HAVE WE DONE WHAT WE CAN? THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS HERE, IT IDENTIFIED HERITAGE AND SIGNIFICANT TREES. BUT ALL THE ONES THAT WEREN'T UNDER REVIEW WERE ALL HALF TONED AND GRAY. SO IT WAS REALLY LIKE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF MAYBE THE OTHER ONES HAD LIKE A DIFFERENT COLOR. SO WE LIKE, WE COULD SEE, OH MAN, IT'S LIKE YOU'RE CLEARING LIKE A GAZILLION TREES. LIKE THAT'S THE PERCEPTION. BUT RIGHT NOW IT JUST MADE ME LOOK LIKE 1 OR 2 RED DOTS HERE OR THERE. SO THE REALITY IS WHEN THE BULLDOZERS COME, IT'S GOING TO BE A FEW MORE TREES THAN JUST THE COUPLE SPOTS. WE SEE. THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE A FEW MORE OF THEM BE SAVED IF POSSIBLE, BUT I DID SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE IN THE 6070 PERCENTILE, IT LOOKS LIKE Y'ALL TRIED TO AT LEAST PRESERVE SOME. IT'S NOT A CLEAR CUT. SO THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LEWIS. NO QUESTIONS. THANKS, MR. OLIVER.

YEAH. HEY, BEFORE I GET THAT, I JUST WANTED TO I FORGOT TO MENTION THIS ON ITEM NINE.

THERE WAS SOME JUST SOME LANGUAGE, AND IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, IT'S IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, BUT THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE WHERE IT CALLS OUT THIS CITY COUNCIL WILL TAKE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION. BUT THEN AT THE BOTTOM, IT ALSO SAID THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS.

YEAH, WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON THAT. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO REOPEN THE ITEM AND DISCUSS IT.

AGAIN, I'M JUST SAYING THE LANGUAGE, I GUESS, WHEN IT COMES BACK TO US FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING NOTES, MEANING THAT WE COULD WE CAN JUST CHANGE. IT'S JUST A LANGUAGE THING. YEAH. THAT'S ALL. YEAH. SO BASED ON THIS CASE, YEAH. I MEAN, I, THIS IS A PRETTY BIG COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT. LOTS OF LOTS OF HOMES. IT WAS LIKE 580 HOMES.

WE, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY APPROVED IT, THE ZONING A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. SO I, I'M KIND OF CURIOUS. STAFF, WHAT IS WITH OPTION THREE? WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR PRESERVING MORE TREES? DO YOU HAVE A PLAN ALREADY PRESENTED TO THE DEVELOPER TO TRY TO SAVE MORE TREES? BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 45 SIGNIFICANT A COUPLE OF HERITAGE TREES. THEY ARE PRESERVING, YOU KNOW, PRETTY LARGE NUMBERS OF TREES ALREADY. BUT I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WHAT WHAT ELSE CAN THEY DO TO PRESERVE THAT? WHAT ARE YOU RECOMMENDING THERE? I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING SPECIFIC IN MIND, BUT JUST MAYBE HAVING THEM REVISIT TO SEE IF THEY CAN NOT GRADE AS MUCH AT THIS STAGE AND POSSIBLY GRADE INDIVIDUALLY WITH THE LOTS, BUT WITH THE BUILDING PERMITS AS THEY COME IN. IS IT MOSTLY IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA YOU THINK THEY CAN PRESERVE, OR DO YOU THINK THEY CAN PRESERVE MORE IN THE COMMERCIAL? OR IS IT JUST EVERYTHING COMBINED? AS FAR AS WHAT WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING? AS FAR AS I THINK WE'RE MORE FOCUSED ON THE RESIDENTIAL AREA BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE DOING MOST OF THE WORK. THAT'S THE WORK, RIGHT? THAT'S THAT PHASE ONE ONE THROUGH FOUR. I JUST I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE LIKE, IF THERE'S NOT LIKE AN ACTUAL, YOU WANT THEM TO TRY TO COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT PLAN, BUT I KIND OF WANT TO HEAR FROM THE CITY. WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? IF YOU THINK THEY CAN SAVE MORE TREES? HAVE YOU ALL TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THAT YET? HAVE YOU HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER YET? SO THEY THEY PRESENTED A GRADING PLAN THAT THAT SHOWS.

DO WE HAVE THAT IN THE POWERPOINT BY CHANCE? IT'S NOT IN THE POWERPOINT, BUT IT WAS PROVIDED AS AN ATTACHMENT IN THE PACKET. IT HAS A LOT OF RED ON IT. ATTACHMENT NINE. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IT GOES ALONG THE ROADWAYS AS WELL AS THE THE LOTS. AND THEY WERE

[00:55:03]

DOING A LOT OF GRADING FOR DRAINAGE. AND IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF TIMES IT EXTENDED ALMOST TO THE EDGE OF THE LOT. AND WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR. IS THERE A WAY THEY COULD PULL THAT GRADING BACK SOME AND ACTUALLY LOOK AT THOSE TREES WHEN THEY BUILD THE HOMES? AND I THINK WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN IS THAT THEY THEY HAVE A LOT OF WORK THEY HAVE TO DO TO ACHIEVE THE DRAINAGE AND, AND THEY MIGHT WANT TO, TO SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. BUT IT WAS FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T ALWAYS UNDERSTAND THE DRAINAGE COMPONENT THAT ENGINEERING DEALS WITH. SO IT JUST SEEMED LIKE SOME OF THAT COULD BE SAVED. THAT'S THE EXHIBIT. YEAH. LOADING. VERY SLOWLY. IT'S A VERY LARGE YEAH.

IT'S A VERY LARGE. IT TAKES A WHILE TO LOAD. OKAY. THAT WAS MY MAIN QUESTION BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND LIKE WHAT THE CITY'S PLAN WAS AND WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE. SO YEAH, THAT'S ALL I HAD FOR NOW. I'M GOOD WITH THIS VICE CHAIR. THE, THE OVERALL, I GUESS THE OVERALL PERCENTAGES LOOKED BETTER THAN SOME THAT WE SEE. AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S HARD TO DO. SO I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT IS ARE YOU WHAT WHAT I DON'T REALLY LIKE TO SEE IS WHERE TREES ARE ONLY LEFT ON THE PERIMETER. AND THERE THERE ARE NONE THAT ARE LEFT, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT IS CERTAINLY. YEAH, I'M MY NAME IS BRAD GARNER. I'M THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WITH TAYLOR MORRISON. SO THE REASON FOR THIS TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO BEGIN WITH WAS SOME DESIGN CHANGES THAT WERE INSTIGATED BY TC REVIEW. THE POND FOOTPRINT HAD TO CHANGE AT TC DIRECTION FROM THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED WHEN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED. AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S NECESSITATED THIS TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION. THERE'S SOME DESIGN ADJUSTMENTS FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONAL REVIEWS.

THE THE TREES THAT ARE ALONG THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY. THERE'S A FEW OF THEM, I THINK, THAT WERE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL THAT WEREN'T CAPTURED IN THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT.

THOSE WERE DUE TO STREET GRADE ELEVATION ADJUSTMENTS RELATED TO WASTEWATER AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN THAT THAT WERE NOT CAPTURED IN THE PRELIM PLAT STAGE. SO THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE ADJUSTED IN THE DESIGN. ONE OF THEM WAS STREET GRADES. WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE FINAL DESIGNED AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE ENGINEER HASN'T GONE THROUGH FULL DESIGN OF ALL THE DEPTHS OF THE UTILITIES, THE WATER AND SEWER LINES AND WASTEWATER LINES.

THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, ESTIMATED AT PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE, BUT THEY'RE NOT FINAL DESIGNED. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S BEEN THE REASON FOR THIS APPLICATION. SO WE REALLY, IT REALLY IS KIND OF AN ADJUSTMENT AROUND THE EDGES. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES ON THE SITE, IT'S REALLY JUST A FEW HERE AND THERE. WE, WE PERSONALLY LIKE TO KEEP AS MANY HERITAGE TREES AS WE CAN. WE VALUE THEM. THEY ADD A LOT TO THE, YOU KNOW, FEEL OF THE COMMUNITY. AND SO WE DON'T LIKE TO REMOVE THEM. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IN THIS CASE, WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD ALTERNATIVE TO PRESERVE THEM. IN THE SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE LIKE A FRONT LOT TREE, KEEPING IT IN LIKE A TREE, WELL, FOR INSTANCE, IS NOT VERY FEASIBLE FROM THE HOME BUILDING STANDPOINT. IT REALLY, UNLESS IT'S, YOU KNOW, AN OVERSIZE LOT, IT REALLY DOESN'T WORK.

SMOTHERS THE ROUTES, I GUESS. RIGHT? I CAN'T SPEAK TO A LITTLE BIT MORE THE GRADING, GRADING, IF YOU'D LIKE. I'M CHRISTINE POTTS WITH LJ. AS HE AS HE MENTIONED IT WAS, WE DID HAVE TO CHANGE SOME GRADING DUE TO DRAINAGE WHEN WE DID IT. WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE SITE CONSTRAINTS.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID TO MINIMIZE THE GRADING IN THE FILL ON THE SITE WAS WE ENLARGED OUR POND NUMBER TWO FOOTPRINT. WE ENLARGED IT SO IT WASN'T AS DEEP. AND WE DID THAT.

WE, WE DID THAT. SO IN ORDER TO REDUCE OUR FILL AMOUNT. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO DRAIN THE LOTS AND WE STILL HAVE TO DRAIN OUR STREETS GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS. SO THAT WAS ONE THAT WAS ONE OF OUR DESIGN CHANGES THAT WE DID IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FILL ON THE SITE AND TO BRING THOSE TREE REMOVALS NUMBERS DOWN. I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION. I ALSO WANTED TO COMMENT, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE FROM THE TREE COMPANY IS HERE, BUT IN THEIR LETTER THAT THEY SENT TO YOU ALL IN THEIR CONCLUSION, ONE OF THE PARAGRAPHS, WHILE THEY'RE NOT, WHILE ASHE JUNIPERS ARE NOT REGULATED, THEY ARE NATIVE AND THEY ARE DROUGHT RESISTANT. AND THERE WERE SOME POSITIVE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT THEM. AND I THOUGHT, WE DON'T OFTEN SEE THAT. AND SOME OF US ACTUALLY LIKE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE SO DROUGHT RESISTANT AND SO FORTH.

SO I WAS JUST GLAD TO SEE THAT. BUT THANK YOU FOR THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I APPRECIATE IT. NO OTHER QUESTIONS. MISS FINLEY, I HAVE A QUESTION. CAN CAN YOU ASSIST ME AND GO BACK TO ONE OF THE THE BETTER MAPS LIKE THE LAND USE MAP, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH. THERE WE GO. AND CAN I SEE THE CLICKER? BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MY I DON'T HAVE MY LASER POINTER. WHICH ONE DO I PRESS? THE TOP ONE. SO. AM I, AM I TOO FAR. YEAH. OH, THERE WE GO. SO THE THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF HOW WE WANT THINGS IN LEANDER IS GOING

[01:00:07]

TO BE INTERIOR. THAT'S WHERE ALL THE TREES ARE AS WELL. SO THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO SAVE OVER 50% OF THOSE IS ACTUALLY KIND OF IMPRESSIVE IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY. SO THE EXTERIOR, SO AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST, THAT'S WHERE THE COMMERCIAL PHASES ARE GOING TO BE. AND THEY SAVED EVEN MORE, WHICH IS AGAIN, IMPRESSIVE. I THINK THEY'RE ACTUALLY IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE BETTER CASES I'VE SEEN FROM A TREE REMOVAL CASE IN THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION. SO WHILE I HATE REMOVING HERITAGE TREES, RIGHT. OR BIGGEST OR MOST FULL OR MOST PRECIOUS THING THAT WE HAVE, I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE A GREAT JOB IN TRYING TO PRESERVE EVERYTHING THAT THEY COULD. SO THAT'S MY ONLY STATEMENT. THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER OLIVER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEWIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. AGENDA

[11. Discuss and consider action regarding Tree Removal Case TRP-26-0056 regarding the removal of one (1) Heritage Tree associated with the Reagan Ridge (SD-25-0321), generally located southeast of the intersection of Ronald W. Reagan Boulevard and RM 2243, Leander, Williamson County, Texas.]

ITEM NUMBER 11. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING TREE REMOVAL. CASE TRP DASH 26-0056.

REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF ONE HERITAGE TREE ASSOCIATED WITH THE REAGAN RIDGE. SD DASH 250321. GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RONALD REAGAN BOULEVARD AND RM 2243 LEANDER WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. STAFF PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. HOPE YOU'RE ALL DOING WELL. SO THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE TREE REMOVAL PROCESS DUE TO IT BEING A HERITAGE TREE. WE'RE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL. THE APPLICANT IS REMOVING THE TREE DUE TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AND I'LL SHOW YOU THAT HERE IN A LITTLE BIT.

ASSOCIATED WITH THE REAGAN RIDGE CROSSING DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL INCLUDE A DECELERATION LANE AND DRIVEWAY OFF OF 2243 IN YOUR PACKET, YOU SHOULD HAVE THE TXDOT DRIVEWAY PERMIT.

THERE WAS SOME GOOD VERBIAGE ON THERE THAT I WILL REFERENCE. THE PROJECT ENGINEERS WORKED WITH TXDOT IN APPROVING THE DRIVEWAY OR IN GOING THROUGH DRIVEWAY SPACING OPTIONS. IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS AN UNUSUAL CONDITION ON THE SITE. THERE WAS A BRIDGE CULVERT THAT PREVENTED THE DEVELOPMENT FROM ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY SPACING FROM THE INTERSECTION. THE DESIGN HAS MOVED THE DRIVEWAY AND TURN LANE AS FAR EAST. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT NORTHWEST AS POSSIBLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE RIGHT TURN LANE. TO SET THE SCENE A LITTLE BIT ON THE SCREEN IS THE AERIAL. IT'S LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF RONALD REAGAN AND 2243. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES. IT INCLUDES. THIS WILL PROBABLY BE A BETTER MAP. IT INCLUDES THIS WHOLE LOOP PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO ALL OF THIS IS IN PLAY. AND AGAIN, YOU'LL SEE THE SITE PLAN. THE PROPERTY IS NORTH OF THE SIERRA APARTMENT HOMES TO THE WEST ACROSS RONALD REAGAN IS THE LCRA STATION. TO THE SOUTH IS THE BRUSHY CREEK FLOODPLAIN AND THE SARITA VALLEY GREENBELT. YOU CAN NOTE THE PHYSICAL FEATURES. IT CONTAINS HEAVY TREE COVER AND A DRAINAGE CHANNEL TO THE EAST. THE TREE COVER WILL BE ADDITIONALLY ADDRESSED WHEN THEY START DOING THE SITE AND WORKING THROUGH THE SITES. THE PAD SITES TO THE FAR SOUTH END OF THE TRACT IS ALSO IN THE FLOODPLAIN. NOW ON TO THE TREE ITSELF. SO THE TREE IS LOCATED RIGHT HERE ON 2243. YOU NOTICE THIS INSET RIGHT HERE PULLING IT OUT. WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THE TREE IN FIELD THAT THEY TOOK THAT IS ALSO IN YOUR PACKET. I THINK THIS WAS PRETTY RECENT FROM THE DATE. LOOKS LIKE THE 26TH OF LAST MONTH. SO THAT'S HOW IT LOOKS IN FIELD.