Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I call this meeting to order at 7 o'clock. This is our Planning and Zoning regular meeting, August 3rd. Absent today are Commissioners Chelsea Burkett and Keith Drown. The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes comment on items relevant to the Planning and Zoning Commission not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. In accordance with the Texas Attorney General's opinion, any public comment that is made on an item that is not on the published agenda will only be heard by the Commission. No formal action, discussion, deliberation, or comment will be made by the commission. Each person providing public comment will be limited to three minutes and will be asked to state his or her name and address for the public record. Is there anyone present wishing to address the commission? Hearing none, on to the consent agenda. Item 3, consent agenda. All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered routine by the commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary and final plats where staff has found compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All items approved by consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations. There will not be separate discussion of these items. If any commissioner desires to discuss an item on the consent agenda, it will be moved to the regular agenda for further consideration. Commissioners, are there any items that the commission wishes to remove from the consent agenda? Hearing none, I will read these into the record. Item 3A, 20260735, approve the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes for June 1, 2026 regular meeting. Item 3B, 2026-0648, approving a preliminary plan for Broadstone Weiss, a 20-acre tract located generally in the southwest of Weiss Lane and Pleasanton Parkway intersection out of the Kirkland Survey No. 7, Abstract No. 58 in Travis County, TX. PP two zero two six dash zero zero zero one two two item three C two zero two six zero seven one four approving a final plat for the FM nine 73 and Walton Hill pass C store subdivision, a 2.263 acre tract out of the John McDougall survey number 68 abstract number five 11 situated in Travis County FP two zero two four dash zero zero zero four two five and item three D 2026-0754, approving a final plat for Ica Meadows, a 13.05 acre tract in abstract number 2753, Jacob Kasner Survey in Pflugerville, Texas, generally located at 2004 Row Loop, to be known as Ica Meadows Final Plat, FP2026-000232. I'll accept a motion and a second to approve items 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D.

Move to approve.

Second. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. All right. Point of privilege. We're going to move item five to item number four. So this will be a discussion only for item 5A, now 4A, 2026-0762, which is the discussion regarding Unified Development Code Amendments with the Unified Development Code Advisory Council.

My name is Erica Craycraft with Freese and Nichols and we have a short presentation for you this evening. I'm joined tonight by Chance Sparks who is our project manager, Seth Pilger who is one of our project planners, and I am the assistant project manager on this effort.

Can you speak up to the green light?

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, green light. Yes. Okay. So for today's meeting on the agenda, I'll start out with a status update, a look at our overall schedule and where we are today, an overview of the meeting memo that we shared with you in your packet. Then we hopefully will have some time for discussion and feedback from the committee and talk about our next steps. So here's a look at our overall project schedule. It's a three phase effort. We started back in the fall. Prior to this, the city had developed a diagnostic assessment report that outlined the game plan for the UDC effort. So we started in phase one, reviewing that assessment report. We met with you all as the advisory committee back in November. We also met with city council for a work session around that same time in November of last year. Then after that, we switched into phase two, which is the actual drafting of the new code. And during that time, we've worked really closely with your city staff. We work through four different what we call modules, but those are basically just different sections of the code. So work through an iterative process there on each of those modules. During that time, we did have one virtual public engagement, which was an online survey for the public. And then we came back to you all and met in April was the last time that we saw you. Back in April, we had a similar memo with a couple of questions for you that we talked about, got some good direction at that meeting that we've taken back as we've worked through this effort. So as we've gotten through these four modules, we've now gotten into a complete draft stage where we've gotten city staff's feedback on the complete draft and we're moving forward getting ready to roll that out to the public. So today we are getting into the very first part of phase three, which is the public review, refinement, and adoption. You see our meeting there on the timeline for today. And then a little bit closer of a look at what that phase three looks like. All of these dates are tentative, but here's what we're thinking. So after today, we'll take any feedback that you all have, incorporate that into our draft as we're working toward refinement. Our next step would be a joint workshop that we're thinking will be in a little over a month from now. That is envisioned to be with the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council and the Parks Commission as well. So we'll have that chance to review the complete draft. So you'll be able to actually see the document and review that ahead of time, get You're all feedback through the joint workshop. And then at that time, we'll have a revised draft that incorporates all the feedback from that joint workshop. And then that's the draft that we'll be sharing online for public feedback. So we're expecting a public draft around the middle of September. And at that time, we'll be getting ready for an open house meeting where we'll invite the public to come out, learn about the process, provide any feedback that they'd like to share. There'll also be an online component to that. That's what we're calling virtual engagement number two. So there'll be about three weeks of time where the document will be available online and public comment will be available. Following that open house, we'll close the virtual engagement and we'll bring all of that input back to another joint workshop. So we can say we shared the draft with the public, here's what their feedback was, and here are some ideas that we have for revisions that may be needed to address that feedback. And you're all as direction at that joint workshop tentatively in October. Then after that, we'll incorporate that input as you all direct and move on to joint public hearings. We're thinking that that would be potentially in the November timeline. So that's a look ahead. There's still a lot of review that's going to go into this. We're here today really just to check in and make sure that we're on the right track and answer any questions you all have. So our discussion topics for today, there are five items that are outlined in the memo that you have. And in general, if you have any feedback on these, I know you may not have answers to all of them today, but we did want to go through these, give you an opportunity to share any thoughts that you have, ask any questions that you have. I'll run through all five of these. We really want to focus on especially topic number one as for us the most critical to get direction from because that informs more of the moving parts that are in the code. The other items, we can always come back to those later. They're not quite as big of adjustments, but more just items we wanted to check in on. So topic number one is in relation to the duplex or 2F district. This was something that we talked about a little bit back in the April meeting as well, but something that you all mentioned wanting to revisit. So today the 2F district is generally, its purpose is for allowing duplex development. There are a couple other types of land uses allowed, but it's primarily just for allowing duplexes. You see on the map here that there are a limited number of properties that are zoned 2F. There are several of them. but they're generally limited to the area you see in the map here. In our draft UDC that we've been working on, we have proposed a neighborhood flex residential district, the NFR district. The purpose of that district is kind of a missing middle type housing district that allows a broader range of housing types. That goes all the way from single family development all the way up to what's called neighborhood scale multifamily. That's in your code today that allows up to eight dwelling units. So with that new district, our question is, if that new district will accommodate duplexes, do we still need the separate standalone 2F district for duplexes? So our key question that we posed here, we have three different options for how you may want to proceed here. Option A is just to keep it as it is. We'll just keep the 2F district for those areas, and that will continue to really only allow duplex development in those areas that exist today. We did want to note that the last bullet here under option A is that that's generally inconsistent with the assessment report that you all had done before we started this. It had some recommendations, and one of the recommendations was that we take a look at this 2F district. Option B is in blue. That's our recommendation. And that would be to replace the 2F district with this NFR district that allows the wider variety. So as a result, in those locations that are already zoned for 2F that only allow duplexes right now, those locations would be allowed to have that full range all the way from single family up to the eight unit neighborhood scale multifamily, the missing middle type range. on those locations. That would help simplify the code a little bit so you wouldn't have this separate 2F district that's really serving this limited purpose. So we think that would be beneficial and also that is consistent with one of the recommendations from the assessment report. So that's option B. Option C would be we could still remove the 2F district and instead allow duplexes in your single family districts. So that would expand the applicability of duplex development in even more locations. So that is an option that is consistent with the assessment report. But we're leaning toward option B because it may not be desirable to have the duplex development in all of the SFR and SFS areas. So that's why we wanted to propose the NFR and think that's potentially the best path forward. So that is one item. I'll run through all five of these and I'll circle back if there's any discussion, if that's right with you all. Okay, topic number two is regarding tree preservation on residential lots. So your tree preservation regulations today, they would apply whenever a new subdivision is being developed, but once it's developed and the homes are built and occupied, tree preservation no longer applies to those lots. So a tree may have been preserved, then once the homeowner lives there, they're able to cut down those trees with no mitigation requirements. So what's proposed in our working draft right now would be to remove the exemption for the single family and duplex lots once they're developed. So tree preservation would apply across the board. However, there are lower standards that are proposed in these areas. So what we've proposed for the single family and the duplex lots would be that the tree preservation regulations apply really starting at the 18 inch diameter trees. For comparison, all the other development, it comes into play once the trees are at six inches in diameter. So it's a different threshold than what applies to all development. And then similarly for the mitigation of those trees, if a tree is removed, starting again at that 18 inches, it has to be replaced at one inch per inch removed. For comparison, again, to all the other types of developments, it also starts at the six inches in diameter. And that ratio can be up to three to one, meaning that three inches of new trees have to be planted for every one inch that's removed. So that's something that we saw as kind of a compromise between applying these standards but not going as far as making it consistent with all the non-residential and multifamily development. So that's another question that we had for you all. If you have any thoughts on whether you like that approach. Topic number three is regarding zero lot line homes or sometimes called patio homes. Right now, this type of development isn't clearly addressed by the UDC. And that's something that we see as being a potentially more desirable option. It's a detached single family product, which a lot of people like to see, but it is generally more affordable. It's usually smaller lots. and also this is supported both by the comprehensive plan and the assessment report that I mentioned earlier and I have a couple graphics here just in case anyone's not familiar with what a zero lot line home is that's the image that you see here on the left where all of the houses are kind of shifted over to be directly on the side lot line and so in this example it's showing a 10 foot side yard. So the alternative would be it's centered on the lot and then you have a five foot setback on either side. But then that's a really small side yard. It's not really that much of a usable space. So the idea here is you shift it all to one side, they have a more usable 10 foot side yard. So that's what we're talking about whenever we're asking about zero lot line examples. The other graphics that are shown on here is an example of cluster development. So on the top you see a traditional subdivision design. On the bottom, the cluster is there's maybe an environmentally sensitive area or heavily treed area where we'd allow them to have smaller lots in exchange for conserving the natural area. So you still end up with the same number of units. It's just configured a little bit differently. So back to the questions here. If we do want to allow the zero lot line development right now as drafted, they would only be allowed in those cluster type developments where it's being used to preserve some type of natural area. But our question for you here is, should we allow these zero lot line homes in other areas as well beyond just the cluster development? And if so, which residential districts do we think that it might be most appropriate in? have a list of the residential districts here we think agricultural is probably not the way to go here since these are usually smaller lots but the other list of districts they may all really be appropriate especially the the two at the bottom that are the missing middle type housing that definitely seems appropriate there and the SF districts it is a single-family detached product so we think it is compatible there The SFR district, that's the one that has the master-planned variety in lot sizes. The smallest of those go down to 4,500 square feet. So that would be, we think, compatible for the small lot percentage of those homes. So we're thinking probably in all five of those that it may be appropriate, but would love to hear what you all think about this type of development and where that might be appropriate. Topic number four, this is always kind of an evolving topic, but it's such a hot issue here that we wanted to touch base and let you know what we're all thinking right now. So data centers right now are allowed by right in three of the heavier districts. And then in GB2, the square footage is limited to 25,000 square feet. So not a lot of standards in place today. In the draft UDC, we've proposed keeping them in those same three districts, but instead adding conditions to those rather than just allowing them by right. So there would be conditions added, and those relate to setback from residential areas, using that 25,000 square foot maximum, and requiring a closed loop system and a non-potable cooling system. So that relates to water conservation. All of those would be, if they met those conditions, it would be allowed by right, but if they wanted to do anything different from that, then it would require an SEP for approval. Based on how we have it drafted right now, they would no longer be permitted in GB2 at all. It would only be in the three heavier districts. So just a general question there about Do you all support moving forward with this approach? We'll continue reviewing this throughout the process, but just wanted to keep you in the loop with what we're thinking there. And the last one, topic number five, is related to park dedication requirements. There's a couple changes here. One is related to how we calculate the amount of park dedication that's required. We're proposing switching from calculating based on persons per unit based on dwelling units per acre. So it's a little bit more complicated of a calculation. Our proposed draft right now is using instead a calculation based on the number of units for whether it's a single family or duplex versus multifamily. So that one's more of just a simplification on how we're calculating it. But the other part here to point out is the change in acreage size. So your current code today generally limits the smallest park size that would be accepted as land dedication would be three acres. If the dedication is less than three acres, the city will generally take a fee in lieu of the land dedication. Then the city uses that fee eventually to build parks separately. So what's proposed in the new draft would be a minimum park size of seven acres. So it's a larger park size. That's generally what we're seeing with cities across Texas moving to the larger size because you get a more sizable park, but also the maintenance burden for the city. It's a lot easier to maintain one seven acre park than two, three acre parks, for example. We've looked at that number quite a bit, whether it's five acres or 10 acres, what's the right number? The city also had a separate park specialist who's worked on this and did some studies. So all of that's incorporated in here. So that would be a change where the minimum park size would increase from three acres to seven acres. So that is the quick rundown of those topics. That information is also in your memo. Just a reminder of our next steps that we'll take your feedback. We're going to revise the draft based on what we hear from you all tonight and then move into that phase three series of engagements with a couple of joint workshops, public open house, survey, and then eventually moving forward to public hearings. So with that, I will turn it over to you all if you have any feedback, if you have any questions for us. And any of that would be helpful, especially our top question here is on topic number one, but I'm happy to go to any of these that you would like.

Thank you. And just to clarify, we're not voting on this. We're just making recommendations to them so they can go and do their work. Is that correct? All right, great. Let's take it away on item number one.

So I do agree with option B. I would say I do too.

Yeah.

A couple of questions. Can you define what's neighborhood scale multifamily?

Yes. That's a term that currently exists in your code now for the specific to the corridor districts right now. But we've proposed expanding that to all districts just for consistency. But the definition for neighborhood-scale multifamily is five to eight units in a structure.

Okay, so condos, I guess?

Condos or apartments.

Apartments, but very small apartments, not large-scale apartments.

Correct, yeah. It's more the missing middle kind of small scale.

Is there an option? I guess I also am great with option B, but I would love to explore the idea of also option C. You sort of presented either or, but it seems like you could allow duplexes in the NFR as the primary. That's what this NFR is for. But I think it would also be worth considering as the lowest next-tier option more than a single-family dwelling, could that be appropriate in SFR and SFS? I don't see why if in our existing single-family neighborhoods there's a building that needs to get torn down, it wouldn't be appropriate for somebody to put a duplex in. I think you have two dwellings instead of one, and I think that's better for the city and better for the community. My theme generally tonight is going to be we should be making it easier to have as many different types of product out there for people to buy to bring down the prices of homes and to have more affordable things out there. You don't want to go too far. I don't want to make everything into the NFR. But I think it's worth thinking about if just on the lowest scale, couldn't you have... just allow duplexes. Would we really notice in our own homes if the house next door was a duplex rather than a single?

Thank you, Robert. Any feedback for him on that? Any thoughts?

I would agree that those are not mutually exclusive. We could have, yes, both options B and C. That's just something we would defer to you all on direction if you want to go also option C to allow duplexes by right in the SF districts.

So that would be applicable to only, yeah, essentially to all non-HOAs if it's not explicitly excluded in the HOA documents.

Which then people would have to change their potential bylaws.

Well, the city ordinance takes precedent, but the I guess what would be the, what would happen in a best-case scenario or worst-case scenario, if we also added option C?

So there's... So it sounds like the most important thing here that we're getting is option A we can probably move away from. So that's an important decision in part one. Correct. Option B or option C, you are correct. That can be an either-or. So it sounds like there's some pretty good consensus on option B. So really it's talking about Do we take another step with option C? So there's a couple of paths you can take there. You could just say it's allowed by right. You can set it to be allowed by right with some conditions. You can turn it into a conditional permit in that circumstance. So let's kind of follow it to its logical end. You've got a couple of different kinds of neighborhoods included. You have neighborhoods that have HOAs with their deed restrictions, their CCRs, that In many cases, don't allow that. From the city's perspective, from y'all's perspective, y'all don't insert yourselves into that. Now, you might want to just let people know when they're applying, like, hey, if you haven't had that conversation, it's probably a good idea. But you and the city don't have a vested interest. You don't get to enforce this. On the deed restriction side, they've got a couple of options. They can try to petition to get them changed. wholesale in their neighborhood. They could seek exemptions depending on how their processes are written for their deed restrictions. There's also a reality that their deed restrictions may be aging out. They haven't gotten them renewed. They could even be looking at an issue of overall enforceability of their deed restrictions. None of those are things that you have a controlling interest in, but that's how it might play out in the real world for an applicant. So it's really kind of How far do you feel like following this? From a city perspective, there's a lot of good cases to be made for any and all. I often cite the building codes. Your building codes contemplate one and two family dwellings being treated exactly the same under that. When we think about federally backed mortgages, a federally backed mortgage makes no differentiation between one unit or four units. Um, so we've got plenty of precedent in that space. It's you stepping back and thinking from a policy, policy perspective, uh, fundamentally.

So where we see, well, where we see that, I mean, I think the most, the nearest physical example is like Austin, right? Where in certain, I mean, the price of the real estate is so high that it justifies, I guess the value, you know, you replace a 50 year old single family home,

two bedroom one bath structure on a three-quarter acre lot well let's build two 1500 square foot vertical right that's actually a really important point on the on the math side of this is the question a lot a lot of people would ask is well in a neighborhood would somebody buy a house and tear it down and build a duplex um based on your current values in your city, that math is going to be very difficult. What you're more likely to see is a case where something burned down or an older area where the house is in really poor condition, likely condemnable sort of situation. You're unlikely to see it where the house is in pretty decent condition, display buys under. The person knocks it down. You could see somebody attempt to do a conversion of an existing house. That has its own set of challenges. Almost everything here is slab built, which means adding a second kitchen is an unpleasant process. Some things like that that you would think about. You could also see somebody attempt a garage conversion. You have to think about how are you calculating your parking standards. So there's a few paths you can see emerge, but that's kind of the math of it.

if it were allowed in the SFR and SFS for duplex, that would still not change any of the other underlying setback rules or height requirements. So they would be playing in the same rule sandbox as a single-family residence, which is why it would usually go vertical. So it wouldn't be like suddenly you'd have a duplex taking up the entire property from property line to property line They still have to play by the same rules.

I think for me, I still would only go with option B. I think option C is probably... If there was a lot of special provisions, I think that could potentially work. I think for right now, option B is best.

But I could... Well, I think that... I think for Pflugerville today... Yeah. There's still grass available to buy. Right. And there's plenty of it. And so I think that adding option C would make sense in... Years. In higher density environments. Now, I personally am a fan of higher density environments because it means commuting is easier. Right. But I don't know if... I don't know if that would encourage... density in a meaningful way near term doesn't mean it's not worth revisiting at some point but i'm just i guess robert help me understand why where you think other than it just it makes it more affordable to buy a lot and put two houses on it yes in terms of dramatically moving the needle i think option b is the is the main step and we we've got to do that

If we were not going through the code right now and updating it, it's not such a big impact. I would say we need to open up the code to put this in. It simply feels like while we're here and we're opening it up, I see no downsides to allowing... a duplex to be built in an SFR, SFS space. I see no downsides to the community. I see very little actual downsides to the neighbors. I can't really envision a situation where we would want to say to somebody who did want to do it, no you can't. I don't think there's going to be many people who want to do it. I think it's going to be those instances that Chance says of this house is burned down or it's condemnable.

Well, I do think we have an ADU. We're allowed to have ADUs in Pflugerville, correct? So that eliminates option C because you could build an ADU. So we don't need... Option C is almost like 2F. It's eventually going to disappear. No reason to have it because we have ADU.

True. ADU is not exactly the same as a duplex. It's not exactly the same, but I think it's... It's not as versatile. So I guess what I would posit back is, why not? What's the harm in allowing duplexes in these? I don't... So that's the only reason I'm bringing it up.

Yeah. I mean, we have a lot of space. I think option B gets us really close to getting a, using the word, broader mix of individuals moving here and also a broader mix of housing, which does help. So, I mean, I guess I shouldn't be opposed to option C, but I don't, I am. I don't know why.

It's different. I get it. And it feels uncomfortable. I'm trying to be a bit radical of like, let's, let's make this better.

Are there any downsides to including option C?

I mean, I wouldn't say any inherent downsides. I think there would be a lot of public interest in proposing duplexes by right in SF districts. But also, like we talked about, some of the conditions could be used that I think would help with some of that.

I think on the downside is the unknowns. That's really it. The only downside is, well, what happens if it happens next to me? But then also, what do I think if it happens next to you? Or you, or you, or you. What does that look like?

I care about me, you care about you, you don't care about me.

That's how neighbors work. But broad policy has that impact. Broad policy is, well, let's just figure out what what the new boundaries are. And then the people that actually figure out those new boundaries are the developers or builders or residents who want to do that kind of thing. And I think you wouldn't, I think it'd be really very challenging for anyone to try to predict a broad change like that without there being a significant demand or, well, I'd say significant example of that locally I also would suggest that on the demand side, because it's not, well, I wouldn't know how many times somebody's come and asked to develop a duplex neighborhood in Pflugerville.

Has anybody?

Doesn't mean, and we'd probably benefit strongly from it if somebody was able to identify land in SFR or SFS and say, you know what, that suddenly economically works for me to buy that. 10, 20, 30, 40 acres and develop this product and I don't have to rezone from SFR to NFR. You know, I think, I think that's just also an unknown. And I think that that's broadly, that's, that's, that's what's wrong is we don't know what's going to happen.

Doesn't mean it's right or indifferent.

It looks like you want to say something.

No, I would say that's why I, here's what I should be able to do. What feels weird is, again, I just don't know what I perceive it as. Of course, when you're creative, once you kind of have that blanket policy to figure out what's the definition of a good place, how high can I go, it gets uncomfortable. It's the unknown. So therefore, with that, I'm not a supporter of combining the two because of the unknown. I've seen cases where once you sort of open that definition up, it gets, you can get creative.

Well, and also, I think, I mean, something allowed by right means that you don't know what the boundaries are. So to your point about special conditions and things like that, like what's the height limit of the square footage, how many tie-ins, taps in the utilities, all those other things, right? Correct. To include it in option C today or to encourage them to develop that, then it means that we have a lot of additional considerations to just flesh out before you could include that because you have to, because we'd have to go to city staff and say, Hey, what do you, you know, Any recommendations on how you would see this impact the way that works? And so I think maybe it's just the unknowns. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider it.

Yeah. I mean, it's not like we can't come back to this in two years, three years, and go, oh, we definitely... We're seeing the light of option C, so we can come back to it. Like, it's not gone forever.

Oh, sure. Yeah, and obviously what we're doing today is... Is talking about it.

Right, right, right.

And I think the... the broader regulatory trend is moving away from unnecessary zoning restrictions. I mean, just nationally, there is the movement to really more ask the question of why should there be any of these restrictions and justifying their existence more than justifying the absence. And so... Yeah, I'm fine if nobody's buying it today. We can look at it again later and we'll be.

Sure, sure.

And so, clearly I'm the only one on this one.

It's the only thing outside the box. It's okay.

So it sounds like B is the one we're going with.

Okay. Sounds good.

And if it's worthy of your consideration, I'd leave it up to y'all's opinion if you think option C is like, if we say, yep, you can do it everywhere. What does that look like? That might be an exercise for later.

If that's something you want to chew on, don't do it for me.

Okay, we'll make a note of that as we move into the joint workshop discussions. That may be something that comes back there as well. All right, thank you for that. Do you want to go through all five of these? Okay, so I had a question on the...

the tree preservation. So, um, so I was reading it and, um, there is something in there that says for the tree mitigation, um, what is considered, my question is what is hazardous? There's something in here I read somewhere, I don't know where I read it, but like you can remove a tree in this particular instance, if we go with your options, um, If I, as a homeowner, have a tree that is protected by the 18 inches or greater, but it's also causing my foundation to shift, is that a hazard? And now you're going to charge me because I cut down a tree to save my foundation? Is that in there? What are we going to do for that?

Yeah, so with tree preservation or residential lots, we do have the exception there. But if it's damaged, diseased, or dying in those instances, you would get that exception.

But that's not damaged. The tree's not damaged. My house is damaged. Not my house. Nothing from my foundation, I hope. But...

I believe we could, I mean, we could, right within there, they... include that specification that if it's potentially causing damage to the house and those kind of instances where the tree itself maybe isn't damaged but it could cause damage to the property we can include that exception there so that those instances it wouldn't cause an issue with the homeowner where they're trying to protect their property yeah they're running into this as a barrier yeah because i mean yeah i mean back like i grabbed an example i am a realtor so i grabbed an example of how much it cost back in 2013 to repair a foundation it was eleven thousand dollars

and it wasn't much damage and it was caused by a tree. So like if that happened to me and I had to pay $11,000 and then pay the city for a tree that caused me grief, that would be, that's just an expense most humans cannot afford. So for me, I'm actually a no, it's like a strong no. Um, because the other thing is that there was, uh, let's see, there's a tree ordinance in the city of Austin and there was a lawsuit. So, um, about the cost of the tree mitigation being $10,000, I cannot afford $10,000. Maybe somebody here could afford $10,000, but I just don't, I don't like number two. So like I have a lot to say about it, but in short, sweet, it's too expensive. So if I want to remove a tree, The city should not charge me $10,000 or more. I don't know how much it is to actually mitigate a tree. And then remove the tree, fix my foundation, everything else inside my house, because the sheetrock, the windows, all those things have moved. It's a very expensive, not insurable situation. Potentially not insurable situation. So, I don't know.

I would say my general thoughts were just, like, the unknown expenses to the residents. And, like, you're saying they can't afford something. And then I also had a general question, like, how do you know if someone cut down a tree?

Like, your neighbor is going to rat you out. Your neighbor reports you. Your neighbor reports you. Yeah, that's pretty much how that goes. Yeah.

I think primarily you would see that through, yeah, it would be self-reporting. Probably some of that comes down to a neighbor reporting to another neighbor. It could just be, you know, eyes on the street somewhat, you know, that kind of thing. But probably most likely it's going to be a neighbor reporting to another neighbor.

I've got a question more of a data point as well. Are we seeing something that's a spike or driving this conversation? I'm just curious, what drove this topic to be here today? I'm just more curious than anything else. What drove this as a...

I think during our module four discussions, it was something that was brought up kind of during the discussion back and forth with city staff about potential things we could include, potential things we should exclude, and so it was kind of driven there. as a potential area that we could push that subchapter a little further to try to be, I think, closer in alignment with what some other cities are doing with tree preservation. I think that's kind of what the initial push was. But it was initially during our module four discussions that this was kind of pushed as an example that we could try to include this in the subchapter.

So obviously in the absence of HOAs and other things like that, they're going to have their own say-so in my neighborhood if I cut my tree down, I've got a problem. So that taste can have a lot of that relative to what we're talking about. So yeah, I'm not, to make a long story short, I'm not supportive of topic two either.

I'm supportive of it. I'm the odd man out tonight, which is okay. I do like the idea of adding the exception for if it is damaging or potentially could damage property. because the way I'm understanding it is the requirements are you can't remove a tree just because you feel like it, or because you were negligent when you were developing the property. If it's sick, if it's falling down, if it's causing property damage, if there's a reason you need to remove it, of course, and correct me if I'm not understanding that, but that nobody's getting penalized for that and if we add that in and that's perfectly appropriate but i do think that just environmentally the city can stand up and say hey if you own property and it has a tree on it we need trees we are not we are not overburdened with trees in texas and so no no you can't simply cut down An 18-inch tree. You can cut down a small one and you're fine because you're a homeowner. But if you've got a big heritage tree, no, you can't cut that down just because you felt like it or because you wanted to add on to your property. No. And I'm okay with saying that.

Yeah, I would, I would echo that actually supportive of the caveat for damage. Uh, because one, I mean, in my, my own personal case, uh, I think my house is set back 25 or 30 feet from the street. And when we moved into that house, it had two trees per the develop city development code plus the developer. And, uh, this is HOA business, but the HOA bylaws stated that we had to follow city ordinance for two trees. well one of mine snapped a water line because the roots went right down it was right on the driveway and then it had to go it wasn't big enough to have to be mitigated but like that would have been a damage issue however directly across the street from me the couple that lives there they had a diseased tree but had to put two back in its place because that's what the HOA rules at the time referenced the city rules at the time and so that was fixed income folks that it was unnecessary for them in my opinion, but I think the caveat of damage makes me feel better about it because it's kind of the same thing. Like, uh, you know, if your trees are in the way and it's just a convenience, then yeah, sorry, you gotta pay to mitigate the big ones. But if, if, uh, it's causing problems, then you should be able to get rid of it and put it and either put one back. I don't know about this three to one.

Yeah. Right.

So if it's a, Big tree. These would be one-to-ones. It's one-to-one.

It would be one-to-one for the single family and duplex. So three-to-one is for the largest class of trees, but for non-residential or multi-family.

Oh, non-residential. Okay, great.

We also have staff in the back. We have David, who's our urban forester, and then we have Jeff, who's our assistant parks director.

They can answer any questions if you need for those. Well, take it away, guys.

But if you're required to put a tree back, so if the tree is causing damage, we've all agreed, well, some still know, we've all agreed that if that gets added in there, you have two yeses. Do I have to now put a tree back? No. Or no because it was causing damage to my house?

Right.

Because a tree that is one-to-one, 18 in diameter, is probably not $20 at Home Depot. So again, it's another cost to residents. We have high water. We have high electricity. We have high taxes. Can we just live in our house? I'd like to live in it. So if it's a one-to-one... Do I now have to pay the city what 18, you know, I'm hugging a tree, that size tree, do I have to pay the city because I can't replace it? Because it's going to A, cost me too much, B, still going to damage my house in the near future. What's the issue there?

I would say, again, this is only if there's no reason to remove a tree.

Right.

So that's where the mitigation would come into effect.

Okay.

If there's a storm damage and the top blows out, we're not going to try to charge you mitigation. So if there's a storm and the whole top blows out, we're not going to charge you mitigation for removing the spar that's left. If it's multifamily and commercial, in that situation, we wouldn't even make them pay mitigation. They would have to replant to adhere to the landscape plan. But, yeah, in cases of severe damage, death, hazard, then there wouldn't be any mitigation requirements at all.

What would happen in a scenario if I, for convenience, I wanted to add on to my home and I need to remove a tree?

What happens in that scenario? So actually, in that scenario, you would have to submit for a site plan, and you would go through the whole review process, and you'd be kind of held to the same standard as a new development.

I mean, I'm still a no, but... Yeah, I'm still a no as well.

In that scenario, it's going to be the city saying no, and then my home expansion would be... put on hold, how would that play out? The reason I'm asking, I actually did this several years ago and it wasn't an 18 inch or a 12 inch tree, I had to take it out to add on to my home. I just did it. So I'm just trying to play that scenario out. If we had this in place, how would it look?

The only time the city can actually tell you no to removing a tree, and let's know with a caveat, is if it's a heritage tree.

Okay.

When I say that we can tell you know the next step would be you can get city council approval and then they can just tell me to kick rocks. You would still have to pay the mitigation and everything along with it. But city council can't approve the removal of heritage trees. But that's really the only way a heritage tree can be removed is with council approval. Anything below that heritage status would just be a part of any other development.

And 18 inches, that's a big tree. The average Pflugerville neighborhood does not have this many. My yard's 20 some odd years old and my trees are this big. They're not that big. So I don't think you're talking about a lot of people who this would impact. And it would only be if they were choosing to cut it down and didn't have a reason, and only the 18-inch figure. So that's why I'm comfortable with it. But you're getting mixed views.

So let's think about it in terms of new development. You know, 100 acres, and there's a creek that runs through it, so that wouldn't even be impacted because that's all wetland and you can't develop on that.

Mm-hmm.

Then there's a scattering of trees across, so they would identify every 18-inch tree or bigger, determine whether or not they want to pay the mitigation to have them taken out, or design the lots and the roads around them. And that's what they already do, right?

Because this only kicks in, the exception only kicks in after... the lots are built.

After the certificate of occupancy would be what this was.

So the developers are already having to do this. That doesn't change anything for them.

Okay. So Greg, what do you need from us?

I guess if the wording were clear cleaned up maybe after I reread it I may change my mind which might change you know other people other homeowners might have the same thought I would feel so horrible if I had to cut down an 18 or above tree period but I can't talk for my neighbors I mean, I am talking for my neighbor, but I can't make my neighbor pay that much money.

Yeah, and that's kind of where I am on this. To a large degree, I mean, people are going to do... I'm a big fan of letting people do what's right.

Yeah.

And if a person's got an 18-inch tree that's healthy... They're not going to do it. Then that's not going to cut it down. I just don't know the... I'm still going to know, but I don't know the huge value in this personally. But that's just kind of where I am.

Yeah. And as far as, like, if you wanted to add and build onto your house... You have to get your engineer involved. You have to get your architect involved. You have to go to planning and so on. You have to go to you guys, to the city. Like, there's so much involved in that. They're most likely trying to save that tree while they're building around it. So, I mean, I feel like that's a... I don't know.

We got Parks.

Yeah.

He's the tree expert. I'm not the tree expert. But I do want to just... you know, we get so in the weeds on this so quickly, take us back a little bit to think big picture. So one, the tree preservation portion of this just hasn't been updated in many, many, many years. So really what we're doing is going to industry standards. These aren't things that are other cities are not doing. These are just things Pflugerville hasn't done for a long time. Two, when we look at, you know, one of our goals, especially in parks and recreation is improving the urban tree canopy. We can only do so much. It seems like we have a lot of parkland across the city. We have 1700 plus acres. That is a very small portion of the city's total acreage. So when we're looking at trying to improve and retain the city's urban tree canopy, that is, I don't know what the percentage is, 98% privately owned. And so this is sort of one of those things that it's for the good of the community as a whole. We all kind of play a part in that. If someone were to decide, I know we say most of the time, they're not going to decide to take that tree out, but needs to be some thought given to it right so this is more of an incentive i think um to think about these things um it's not just a well we want to go put a tree you know a playground here let's just cut this tree down you have to you actually have to go through a thought process and think through what the impact of that is because if we had everybody doing that we're going to lose a lot of our tree canopy and no matter what we do on the park side we we can only do

what we can on 1700 acres across the community so it's thinking about this little bit big picture we went straight into the weeds on this but oh you're gonna think about it later i wasn't trying to advance you i was trying to answer questions but yeah i mean yeah an individual tree on your yard is part of a greater canopy yeah right so and that's why bless you bless you

So I guess there's two questions. Should the city require approval for removal of 18 inch trees on developed single family, two family lots? That's question one.

I think this is a revisit.

I think I would say yes. In my opinion, I would say yes. Because there would be circumstances that would require that, right? Either because it's causing damage. Which we would account for with the updated notes. Or because I want to. Right? That's really it. Because I want to build something or I want to have a soccer field or something in my backyard. You know, that kind of thing. But you would still have to go through the city approval process for permitting and construction and all that stuff. So they have to be allowed. And then the second question is... So the city require mitigation for damaged or protected trees. And then part two is one-to-one appropriate. So that would mean if I removed a... If I removed, damaged, or killed a protected tree, then the city... And just, you know, suddenly that tree's dead. And somebody finds out about it and reports it. Then they come to me and say, hey, we see that this heritage tree is diseased or dead or you killed it or cut it down. This dump's there. Then that's when the city would say, oh, now there's a fine or something. Or you have to replace it with an equal size.

Well, you're not going to find an 18-inch tree for planting. But it would be... A combination of caliper inches. Because I get two technicals with different measurements than the DBH. But it would be a combination of caliper inches that would equal 18. Okay. And if a tree randomly dies, definitely call and apply for that permit first. And then we can investigate. If it died by natural causes, again, there would be no mitigation requirement.

So there wouldn't be a mitigation because it died by... Naturally.

Yeah, but if we find a bunch of drill holes and, you know, empty cans of herbicide.

I mean, yeah, obviously. I mean, those are really, that's horrible. But, I mean, all right. I think the verbage just needs to be updated and then I can review it. What did I mean to say? Just, I think something needs to be added.

Yeah, it sounds like the follow-up for us is to work a little bit on the language to make it clear what does and doesn't prompt this. And kind of like, what's that investigative process maybe like and makes clear that if it's a damaged tree or a diseased tree or a dead tree, you're not going to get zinged for that. Likewise, you wouldn't get zinged if you had a tree that was causing damage. That's two things I kind of heard carry through regardless of how people felt about it. So I think our next step is to refine it in that manner and then raise the flag on it whenever we bring back that for the draft.

Okay, that's fair.

Thank you, item three. Thank you, city staff.

That's item three, zero lot line homes.

All right, zero lot line homes. So, any objections?

I'm a pro. I'm in.

Yep. Thumbs up, thumbs down?

Mm-hmm.

Any objections?

I do have a question. On the graphic, there was a 10-foot space in between the zero lots. That was for example only. Do we require 10 foot now? Could that be five feet?

It's five on each side, right?

Yeah, I was trying to figure out. Minimum, I think.

Yeah, so what a zero lot line does is it takes, instead of having two five foot setbacks that I kind of consider useless, you combine all the setbacks on one side. So you've got usually an active side of the house and a passive side with practically no windows on that other side typically. Right. And so you've got this side yard that can function like a backyard in terms of usefulness. So that's what you typically see done there. You see the 10-foot separation, 5 plus 5. But the origin of the 10-foot actually comes from your building codes. When you get below 10-foot in building codes, you have to start looking at the amount of openings on walls and the construction of the walls. Generally speaking, builders and developers are not real good about checking that. And so a lot of cities, when it comes to zero lot line, take this approach of a firm 10-foot minimum separation. If they want to go below that, they start looking towards some other type of permitting device for it. But that's the origin of it.

Okay. In a different meeting in a different city, this topic became very hot because of that reason. The shrinking of the The spacing became a problem. So at 10 feet, it makes sense. Five, I'm not sure.

And for the part of the home that's on the lot line, is that wall of the home essentially like a fence?

Essentially, yeah. So it functions like a fence. From a technical standpoint, there's some stuff that you see show up with this type of development. that you can't see. You'll see maintenance easements for that adjacent house on the other easement, basically, so you can place a ladder to paint, things like that. But that's really the extent of it.

Yeah, there's zero-lot line homes in the Wells Branch area, so if anybody wanted to go check out the 1980s zero-lot line, that's where you should go.

I mean, I'm for this, but I have a townhome, and part of the back... sticks out and is on the lot line and it's, it is hard to like coordinate with the neighbor to be able to go into their yard and fix the side. Um, so that's just a very offhand comment.

That's good to know.

Yeah. It's actually pretty annoying.

Yeah.

Uh, okay. So I go back a slide please for the questions. So the question is, should the UDC allow zero lot lines as an optional development pattern beyond cluster development?

In the notes that you gave us, they emailed us, it only had SFS, SFMU, NFR, and NMU. And I actually circled SFMU, NFR, and neighborhood and mixed use. I don't know if I was totally in for the SFR and the SFS, but those were the three that I chose, the three bottom ones.

Okay. Yes, you are right.

So the other two are added in.

In the memo, we did not have SFR listed or the agricultural, which we added just to show as struck out that it's probably not appropriate there. So the SFR, we had some internal question and discussion on that, which... As a reminder, the purpose of that district is to have lot size variety. And so we've made some changes to that draft district right now. But right now what that looks like for SFR, a quarter of the lots would have to be larger lots and a quarter would have to be smaller lots. So half would be that kind of average size. So where that would play in here is those smaller lots. quarter lots, those could be patio homes. That size right now is 4,500 square feet, which would be a good size for a patio home lot. For comparison, the SFS district, the minimum lot size is 9,000 square feet, so that would be pretty large for what we would typically see for a patio home, not to say that you can't do it. We could also allow smaller lot sizes in those districts for patio homes if we really wanted to accommodate them in different districts. That's an option as well. But, yeah, so that's the context on how SFR got added here was thinking later that, you know, maybe it would be good for those small lot options.

Yeah, I mean, I don't have any opposition to it. I mean, I circled the three, but I felt more in line with that, but I don't have any opposition to it.

Is there any feedback from city staff?

Efren, maybe? No? Nope?

All right, great. I got a note. Okay, so I guess question one, should we allow it by thumbs up, thumbs down on that?

Yep. I'm good with it.

All right, thumbs up. All right, so two.

I'm good with it.

Which ones do we like?

Well, I like the last three, but I more prefer the bottom three.

Indifference? But I get now what you're saying about SFR and SFS, so thank you for clarifying. Do you have what you need from us for part two?

You said yes in general to number one. Number two for the districts, was it just the last three? All of them. All of those. Okay, great.

Okay, great. Thank you. Number four.

All right. Ready? All right.

So, uh, so I have a lot of notes, but you, somebody who wants to not, here's the question is the advisory committee support moving forward with this approach. And, you know, I'll, I'll start, I mean, the, um, conditions make things more favor. I mean, it's, it's more control over this product that is, um, very sensitive to many. So, you know, as far as the drafted language and the other considerations, I'm fine with that. My only, the only thing that I see missing is as it relates to electrical power. And that's another very, very contentious issue. And I am not a ERCOT expert and I'm not a power expert and I'm not a load expert and I don't know any of those things. And so I don't know I couldn't speak well on that. But I also know that it's a very sensitive topic for anybody that is going through the development of this or nearby it. So I don't know what kind of guidance you could provide on something like that. In terms of closed-loop non-potable cooling, the biggest issue we hear about is water tables being impacted by the development of these, and then the drain on the water resource, which we all know is limited, especially here in Central Texas. And near a residential or far away, that seems relatively reasonable. And square footage, I have no idea how to calculate what a data center square footage looks like. I don't even know if that's the base square foot or if that's four plate or how they do them or if it's total...

aggregate square footage of the building um which doesn't seem all that big but anyway because they're typically towers i let everybody else y'all go ahead and talk too because i don't know i have a ton of stuff but um i guess i know you're updating the definition of data center are you including digital and energy storage facilities in that or is it what are you considering a data center like so i didn't think there was enough um there's not enough on there so um like That's my question. Digital and energy storage facility. I have a lot of pages, so I'm not going to read them all.

Can we just send those over?

I literally can just send them over. But there's just too much, and this is too vague. So, you know, he comes in with 25,000 square feet. I come in with 24,000 square feet. And I can, like, slip on by. Um, so anyhow, I have questions about like air cooled, non evaporative evaporative. I have questions on electricity because it's, um, if it's medium size, which 25,000 is that is, um, let's see 50. Uh, that's like, I wrote it in here. Here it is. It's 50 megawatts. So it would take 40,000 single family homes to equal. that not even get to that i mean it doesn't even get to the 50 megawatts so i have that question then are we giving tax abatements because then we're losing money on tax revenue so that's a question that's not in here then there's another one where um does this go to council like how many times when like a data center wants to come in does it go to council or is it by right the city just approves it um That's another question. Again, there's lots of things inside of each question.

Well, I think on that, before you take off, I think on that note, right, the question that we're asking is, does the committee support moving forward with this approach?

Oh, okay. I guess I'm a no. But I wanted to give my reasons of no, so I apologize.

No, no, no, don't apologize, please. Those are very valid. So I think just based on that, right, it'd be worthy of, if anybody has additional things, right, put them together. get them city staff and say, hey, would you please deliver this? And then that can be further developed because it's a very, very, very sensitive topic, right? And there's all kinds, I mean, it's sensitive from start to finish. And so I think that I would suggest that moving forward with this approach to answer that question right there is yes, but we want to add other considerations and just have that answered for us so that we can feel comfortable as citizens that we're not, you know, harming other citizens. So I wanted to reassure you that I think it's really valid that you brought all this and thank you for doing that.

Over and above my homework.

Also, yeah, thank you.

I went right to a student. Go ahead.

I was just going to tag onto that that as far as the approach goes, My global suggestion would be because of all the ups and downs and people's worried about this and concern about water and electricity, just make them all required to get a specific use permit. Don't do any by right.

Actually, well, there's not enough special use wordage.

Well, to the point, right? It's allowed by right right now.

Yeah, I know. I would say don't make it allowed by right. Make everybody, regardless of square footage... have to go through the specific use permit process so that then that is seen by Planning and Zoning, that is seen by the city, I think. Yeah. And so then all of those details would have to be worked out or they wouldn't get the specific use permit, I think, if I'm understanding how all that works.

Is that how it works? Like the way he's suggesting that's how it would work? So on the no, you can make me maybe a maybe. I don't know how far I'll get to a yes, but yeah.

The way that we have it drafted right now, if you met those conditions, it would be allowed by right in those three districts. If you don't meet those conditions, then you would have to get the SUP, go to planning and zoning, go to city council for approval. A lot of them would typically be larger than the 25,000 square feet. So it's likely that the SUP would be triggered. For those types of developments, the smaller ones, the data centers could be happening now as an accessory to a hospital use or something like that, that they're incorporated in other...

But that's allowed, right? Because they're only using that data center for themselves. Correct, yes. It's not for others. So that's actually allowed, which also is in my notes. But, okay, go ahead.

Well, I think this is... Brave New World, right? I would be hard-pressed to say, none of us are experts, but you've done your homework, right? So I'm going to give you the credit. That said, the mention of a data center is being built near my house or in my city, or a data center is attached to a hospital that's being built, that phrase data center is going to set off all kinds of questions and concerns and well, you know, does the, is the hospital or the office or the whatever it is that's using it specifically for this, do they also have the ability to poison my groundwater and the ability to absorb a bunch of like 40,000 living units of electricity and like what, what happens? So I think it's fair to move quickly to establish something, but also I completely agree that it's fair that anytime someone wants to build a data center, you've got to really work hard to make it justify the reasoning and bring it to the public and have it scrutinized explicitly, mainly because... They're not that old. A data center, the concept is only three or four or five years old. We still don't know what the long-term impacts of that are. And if we set a rule, we can always come back and change it. But our obligation is to the community first and foremost.

Correct. And I actually agree with you. I mean, we should add something around the power piece of this. It's a world that I live in. I will say that the definition of data centers, it's living that definition. It continues to change. The power consumption continues to change because the density of the units that's going inside the data centers are getting denser and denser. So no one really knows what that end state looks like. So I think we do have to have some level of process in place that continues to police this and evaluate it because it is a living, breathing entity, if you will, that continues to change. The power was the big one that jumped out at me. It needs to be in there somehow. You close the watering, that's the only way to go. Folks in Memphis are going through a big problem right now because of what Elon did. Again, nothing wrong, but when they made the decisions back then, the definition of a data center was this. Now it's this. And it's going to continue to change. So we need to have a mechanism in place that forces the reconciliation of what's going on based on that moment, based on the day.

Right. Yeah.

So...

So it sounds like the kind of lean with this is probably pushing this towards a discretionary approval of some kind. Driven in large part because it's a fast-moving, fast-evolving thing. Think of the water energy demand. Some of the stuff I've read with recent work is they're working on cooling systems that can operate at higher cooling temperatures, which has big implications for size of chillers, noise, all kinds of things. It's a fast-moving thing. Your discretionary approval process may be your vehicle to look at the data center at the snapshot in time of where things stand in technology.

Yeah, I mean, all I would suggest is I would encourage moving very quickly to establish something because right now it's allowed by rights.

Yeah, I agree. I think everything should be a special use permit, and then I don't think it should be.

You know, what's curious is in this whole presentation, right, We have a desire, we've expressed a desire to try to make it easier to build residential units, right, and get more people here. But this is a, whoa, whoa, whoa, let's slow way down because we know what houses look like, generally speaking.

Well, we know what retail centers look like.

We know what retail centers look like. We know what car dealerships look like. We know what hospitals look like. We know what these things look like. Whereas this is a relatively new product, so I think it's fair to... to say, well, we're not sure about that.

It doesn't change anybody's income level. 15 people can work in a 25,000 square foot data center. 15 people work in a coffee shop. I'd rather have 800 coffee shops versus a data center. I mean, a gas station employs 12 people, and that's two chefs. So, I mean, we're getting more bang for our buck with a retail center, gas station, hospital, blah, blah, blah. We're getting 15... for 25,000 square feet. And they're becoming so much better that it's going to actually decrease in time. So like in three years, those 15 people will drop down to like seven. And three more years, they're going to drop down to two. The person in the morning, the person, maybe three, right? Person in the morning, person in the afternoon, and person in the evening. Just to make sure everything's working. So we're not employing people. I mean, 15 people. That's ridiculous. So like, Yeah, something has to change so we don't become Data Central, comma, Pflugerville, Texas. So, yeah. Just a lot more has to be in here. There's two...

I also... Sorry.

No, no.

I also do like the chances you're saying we don't know what the new technology is going to be, and so I would feel more comfortable having a more just set discretionary review process than to put requirements in Because right now, a 300-foot setback seems necessary. Maybe it's not. And, you know, we used to, with this kind of code update, we're, as we've said, we're used to houses, retail centers, and the functions of those change. So we think, well, if we need to update the rules in 10 years, we will. But with data centers, it's going to be more like we may need to update our expectations six months from now. So I think better to... I don't want to put a lot of restrictions if people have good technology and good ideas, but I want them to have to show, okay, today, what are you proposing?

All right.

I'll send you my notes. Thank you. If anybody has any questions, please forward them to city staff. All right. Excellent.

Thank you. Number five. So the question here is, is the advisory committee support moving forward this approach? Thumbs up. Any thumbs downs or questions, go ahead and ask them away.

Happy.

Great. Anything else?

All right. Well, thank you guys for getting through all five of those. That's very good direction for us moving forward. Like I said, we'll make the revisions based on this feedback. We'll also plan to bring forward some of these topics that are still outstanding and talk about those again as we move forward.

Wonderful. Thank you all so much. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thanks.

Okay, on to item number five, formerly item three. I assume item four. The public hearing, the commission welcomes comment on the following items. Each person providing public comment will be limited to three minutes and will be asked to state his or her name and address for the public record. So item 4A is 2026-0755. to receive public comment and consider a recommendation regarding a rezoning application for approximately 0.71 acre tract of land located at 1304 and 1312 Taylor Avenue, requesting a change from Agricultural Development Reserve A to Single Family Suburban SFS. The property is generally located north of Taylor Avenue and west of Russell Street, situated in the historic colored addition subdivision city of Pflugerville, Travis County, Texas, to be known as the Dixon Lockett Project. R-E-Z-2026-00197. It looks like Cleveland's ready to prepare to present. But hold on, is there anyone present wishing to address the commission? I guess I have to ask you about this item. Just the applicants.

Yes. I can go ahead? Please. Thank you. Good evening Chair and Commission. My name is Cleveland, planner with the city. The item before you is the proposed rezoning for two properties located within the historic colored subdivision. And the proposed request is to rezone the parcels from the current agriculture to single-family suburban. This rezoning is being sought to transfer or rather build the applicant's future homes. The subject properties were originally five platted lots which were platted in 1910 and later annexed to the city limits in 1995. and assigned the base zoning of Agriculture Open District. The properties were replanted in 2023. This was as a result of the request of the applicants who came to us and said that they wanted to build their future homes. After that replanting was done, it was further determined that to proceed further, it would be best to amend the comprehensive plan and as well as rezone the property. So we bought the comprehensive plan amendment before you in April and it was approved in May 2026 by the city council. The Future Land Use Map Amendment from Parks and Open Spaces to Traditional Neighborhood was approved and it was approved by an ordinance. This item is now before you for consideration for the rezoning. The subdivision was originally intended to be a residential neighborhood. Currently, the subdivision is bordered by commercially zoned parcels, predominantly General Business 1, which is along Pekan Street. The subdivision consists of a number of parcels of vacant land residential and automotive businesses. There are two historic cemeteries and as well as the St. Mary's Missionary Baptist Church. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from agriculture to single-family suburban. The single-family suburban zoning district is intended to include land which is being used or intended to be used as a low-density single-family suburban housing neighborhood. This neighborhood also protects from incompatible uses and provided that necessary facilities and services are provided. As this property, these are the uses of the single family suburban neighborhood. This also satisfies the Land Use Goal No. 2 of the Comprehensive Plan which provides home ownership opportunities that encourage residents of diverse backgrounds and housing preferences to make Pflugerville home. The proposed Single Family Suburban Zoning District aligns with this goal of the Comprehensive Plan and provides long-term housing options and home ownership within the community and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. So staff recommends approval of the rezoning request from agriculture to single-family suburban. The applicant is here to answer any questions and I am also here to answer any questions.

I do have a question. Why are you not zoning at SFMU, single-family mixed-use? There's commercial around it. And I feel like, financially, it would be more or a better option to be SFMU.

So, when we...

I have another question to add on to that.

Okay.

So, it's strange. So, let's talk about the entire neighborhood there. Yes. It's so diverse. So, it's mostly businesses. Yeah. So, or vacant lots. So... it was ag and then that, which is in my opinion, not an appropriate designation. Okay. I mean, you're looking at it, right? Yes. Uh, but then we, we being this commission and freezing Nichols helped us out here, identify that area as residential. Yes. As the new change. So, Do all of these businesses continue on until such time as they're, I guess, grandfathered or whatever, they're allowed to be there because they're established until such time as they're redeveloped? And if somebody comes in and says, hey, I want to build on whatever's right north of number one here. Yes. And you go, oh, so sorry, you can't use it for whatever that purpose is. You've got to build a single family.

I think you have to, it isn't a straightforward answer, I think you would have to look back to history as well. So when this neighbourhood was envisioned, it was envisioned as a residential neighbourhood. That was back in 1910. And then over the years, yes to your point about the base zoning of agriculture, this particular subdivision was annexed by the city in 1995 and as a standard the city gives you the agriculture open spaces based zoning district which allows you to move up from there anywhere from single family like with the current UDC single family suburban single family estate single family mixed use in this case single family suburban now when this okay but do I'll jump again to your next question about the businesses existing within this. Yes, a lot of these businesses, so if you see, yes, so if you see on your right hand side the parcels facing Pecan Street, the RGB one, the two highlighted parcels, 1A and 2A, The patch of the properties between the GB1 parcel and the properties to be re-zoned, they are also agriculture. But they are functioning today as a result of... What's it called? Non-conformity? Not non-conformity. Grandfather? Grandfather, yes. I'm sorry. Yes, so they're functioning today as a result of grandfathering in. Okay. The rest of the entire neighborhood, if you see on your left-hand side as designated in the future land use map, majority of the northern portion of these two parcels, they're all traditional neighborhood. The parcels primarily facing Russell Street, which are highlighted in pink, they are neighborhood, retail, office, and commercial. Now the applicants have, you know, their intention is to build their future home. So that is why when they came in in 2022, we went ahead and replanted it. But again, the situation was such that it was replanted with a non-conformity. So right then we, to correct the non-conformity, we proposed a comprehensive plan amendment and now this rezoning. Now those two parcels, each of the parcels are 125 feet by 125 feet. The next higher use from single family suburban, the higher designation is single family estate and the minimum lot size is 90 feet by 140 feet. So that wouldn't conform to the street platting. So we took the next best option is single family suburban, which is 70 feet by 125 feet. So each of the parcels are 125 feet by 125 feet. They fit into the requirement of a designation and that is why we thought it was appropriate to give them a single family suburban designation so if you're rezoning just asking a question so if you're rezoning any lot in general

and they started it, in this example, ag, then they're non-conform, that's the next level, and then from that non-conformity, the only next level, you can only go one level? You can't.

No, not really, I'm sorry.

Did they know that they were single family? Potentially they could go mixed use because there's commercial here? Like, did you ask for that? Were they told about it?

It was always zoned SF. Like, how long is the zoning for SF? Since 95, I guess. Since 95?

Single family since, I honestly, I don't know. I would have to check how far back.

Because it doesn't change that they can build their home on SFMU. But if they decide later on that they want to sell to a business, they can't.

So I think I can answer that, actually. Because I was here in 2022 when we had this first conversation. And these families are... descendants of the original families that were part of the colored edition in Pflugerville. And what their desire is, is to bring the neighborhood back to the residential neighborhood of their ancestors. And so I don't believe they're interested in selling to businesses. Instead, they are actively working to bring the... Yeah, not saying that they should sell to businesses. But so I think that's why they've chosen this direction, is that they are part of a community group among other families, too, that own parcels there that are actively trying to bring it all to single families. Exactly. So that's why.

But the future land use map isn't going to allow that because it's in pink.

No. Wait, which one's future land use map? Just the two little parcels in pink above them.

Yes, the one bounded by a black border. 1A and 2A.

Yeah, I know we're only talking about 182. I know that I'm asking. My question is, so in the future, Alley and Russell Street will change to single-family.

What we're talking about is just in between Caldwell and Russell Street. Just in between. It was the traditional neighborhood. And, yes, the parcels around Alley, we would like, I think they would like, everyone would like to have transitioned, but they are already... fully built businesses they're not going back and so it's just everything north of Taylor that is pretty much not built on not developed except that little that little this might not be true that building right there so yeah you've got the undeveloped then you've got house empty lot the building just north of whatever is above Taylor Lincoln just north of Lincoln is the same business That's below Taylor. They own both.

They're operating both plots. They're all on lease. I'm sorry. They're all on lease.

Yeah.

So you might have, in your packet, you would have also received a letter. It's not exactly an opposition. Right. But it's neither a support letter, but it's the property owner stating their case.

Yeah.

Okay. Again, we mentioned that for it to be as part of a public record. But again, if you see the parcels highlighted in pink, they still allow for residential, if that is a concern.

Go ahead. It's just... It's strange. Right, I think, for lack of a better term, because the... So, Robert, to your point, right? It makes a lot of sense to have houses built in this area. Very supportive of that.

And I'm supportive of the SA. But also... I'm not trying to say no.

Yeah, and like going from ag to... I just thought... That makes a lot of sense. But considering... The strange part is considering how many of those have just been allowed to turn into non-conforming... businesses and i mean if you go back to that picture it's mostly parking lots yes you know and there's what i would describe as low impact improvements meaning slab and red iron steel building what is that right um i mean you know and so like that that's a bit strange uh but also somebody's got to be first to build a house in that area. Right. And if, and if there were houses there, right.

Yeah.

Um, I mean, I do have a question though about, let's say one of the businesses. So like the bright thing, which is mixed use neighborhood over here on this side, neighborhood, retail office. That's very, that's, that's, I mean, it's a parking lot. Uh, it looks like a storage facility of some kind, but if, uh, If that owner wanted to change the zoning to commercial, would they be able to do that? Like, would they have to come to the Planning and Zoning Commission and get a variance for that?

Yes. So, as you can see, the... The entire, the comprehensive plan also, and even all the idea of the neighborhood, or rather even the community is rallying for this neighborhood to be brought back to a traditional neighborhood sort of a structure. And all the designations that you see, the traditional neighborhood, or even the parcels in pink, which is neighborhood, retail, office and commercial, they're all designed to be low in density. as well as supporting a traditional low-density neighborhood kind of a use. But again, to alleviate your concerns, any proposal for a comprehensive plan amendment or a rezoning will have to come to this body first and then go to city council where you would have to take a decision.

I guess because the future land use map is literally going against what they want. So... the city, not you, I apologize. When I use the word you, I'm just collectively. So it's being called out as neighborhood retail office commercial in pink in the future. However, the community wants it to go to single family. So it seems like they have a huge...

I think the reasoning there and why you've got the light pink blocks where you do instead of a full block of traditional neighborhood, and why you have the hot pink, is we didn't want to create a master plan that put on a non-conforming use automatically. We have had a bad history in Pflugerville of having lack of zoning or agriculture. We had to do something. So we put agriculture on everything that didn't have anything else, even though it was not agriculture. These businesses were already there. And so there's been – I think when we did the master plan, there was a recognition of let's try not to put SFS – Where we know there's a business because they're already non-conforming.

But they want to have their community back. So why did the city do that?

So this was the compromise. This was everywhere that didn't have a non-conforming use already is the brown, is the tan. And everything that has a commercial use was the closest commercial district to something that could turn more residential, was the lowest density district. With the hope that it does transition. I hear what you're saying.

I mean, I do hear what you're saying. Probably the alley, the pink alley next to Taylor, or on Taylor Avenue should probably go back to single family. All the other pinks inside the community should go back to single family. And the alley facing Pecan should stay commercial. Again, not my community. If they want it single family, they should have single family.

Yes, ideally over time that's where it would

Like that's what I would want. I'm not arguing. I don't know why I'm arguing with myself, but like, it seems like I'm pro SF. What I'm saying is that looks like they, the community in the future will have a hard time to ask the city. to give them back single family if you've already called out commercial?

No, because again, agriculture as it stands today, you can still do single family on agriculture.

Yeah, but I'm talking about the pink because it's future land use. Am I not reading it right?

So as long as the use remains residential, it's fine in the agriculture with the rezoning map. If now, example, in the future along Pecan Street, All the businesses today are non-conforming. If someone comes in and wants to maybe change the business, we would have to evaluate at that particular point in time. Yes, if they continue the same business, it would still be grandfathered in. Now, tomorrow, let's say, hey, I want to scrap the warehouse at the front on Pecan Street and maybe put in another business. That would, we would have to give them a CO. By giving them a CO, we would have to check if it conforms to the zoning. If it doesn't conform to the zoning, we'd have to ask them to go back and change and redo the zoning. So either which ways, there is still a system of checks and balances which still prevents the larger neighborhood from being disrupted in terms of rezoning.

I don't think I'm satisfied for you, for them. But I feel like if they want to have single family in their community again, I think we're thwarting that issue. We're thwarting it. Like we're just not allowing it for some reason. In my head. I'm probably overthinking it.

Am I overthinking that? Respectfully a little. Sorry. Yeah, no, that's what I'm asking you. It is the difference between the comprehensive plan on the left that is trying to harmonize what is our future plan and what's already there versus what the actual zoning is on the right, which leaves it open if the person who wrote this letter If they sell the property to somebody who wants to build neighborhood homes, they can come in here the next day and ask for it to be SFS. And I'm pretty sure staff would say, yep, great. Doesn't matter that it's pink on the comprehensive plan because obviously we are all agreed that that would be great. But if they come back and they say, no, I'm selling to another business because they're it's an existing business and will continue to be a business, well, then that's the property owner's choice. So we're trying to provide individual property owners the flexibility to continue to use their property while making a general statement that we are in favor of this neighborhood becoming a neighborhood. And it's not clean and it's not great, but that's what we are.

Okay.

Is there any further discussion?

Sorry. I overanalyze that.

Then I will accept a motion in a second to close the public hearing on the item.

Move to close public hearing. In a second.

We have a motion in a second to close public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. All right. I'll take a motion in a second to approve the item.

I'll make a motion we approve the zoning proposal.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve item 4A. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okie dokie. All right. I adjourn this meeting at 841. All right.