Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Alright. Call the Wednesday, 02/18/2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Cecilia, would you please call the roll?

Chair Clauson? Vice chair Bohn?

Here.

Alternate vice chair, Dominguez? Here. Commissioner Emerson?

Here.

Commissioner Holloway?

Here.

Commissioner Huckabee?

Here.

Commissioner Mimic? Commissioner Winn?

Here. Commissioners and attendees, please join us in our pledges of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.

Item d, pursuant to Texas government code section five five one point zero zero seven, which allows the public to speak for a total of three minutes on any of the agenda items listed below, excluding any executive sessions. Cecilia, has anyone signed up to speak in citizen communication? No. Thank you. Item e one, commissioners, are there approval of the minutes? Commissioners, are there any amendments or revisions to the meeting minutes from our last meeting? Alright. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve item e one.

Second. Commissioner Went motion. Commissioner Huckabee second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That carries six zero. All right. Item f, f one, consider public testimony regarding and a recommendation concerning the request filed by the property owner, QT South LLC for the original zoning of approximately 8.53 acres of land to the C Dash 1 a general commercial limited district generally located North Of Chandler Road and East Of South Of S H 130. Case number ZON25Dash00010.

Hi. Hi. Good evening. Kate Reeves Planning and Development Services. As mentioned, this is a 8.53 acre tract located North Of Chan Chandler Road and East Of 130. The current site is unzoned and within the city's ETJ. The future land use map designates this tract as commercial. The request by the applicant is to originally zone the 8.53 acres to c1generalcom c one a, excuse me, general commercial limited for an existing fuel station. The Round Rock 2030 comprehensive plan, as mentioned, on the future land use map designates us as commercial. There are location criteria within the Round Rock 2030 comprehensive plan.

For the commercial tracks themselves, that would be the intersection of two arterial roadways. And in this case, that does need it for this tract. The purpose of the C 1 A Zoning District is to establish and preserve areas of low to medium intensity. Some typical uses within the C 1 A Zoning District are things like hotels, retail sales and services, fuel stations, offices, etcetera.

The there was a public notice posted in the newspaper. There was a mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet of

the subject tract, and there were two public notice hearing signs placed on the property. We did not receive any public comment on this item. And with that, staff recommends approval of the original zoning of the 8.53 acres to C 1 a zoning.

Thank you, Kaelin. Does the applicant, owner, or agent have anything they would like to add? Hi there. If you would, just state your name and who you're with.

For sure. Thank you. Robert Costello with Quick Trip Corporation, QT South. Just here if there's any questions or comments or anything like that. I don't really have anything to add to to what Caitlin said. It's pretty straightforward, but just here if there's any questions.

Very good. We may have some after the discussion and appreciate you being here. Sure.

Thank you. Alright.

We are going to open up for public hearing for item f one. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this item, please come forward and fill out one of the yellow cards from the back and hand it to Cecilia. Cecilia, have we had anybody sign up?

No.

Is there anyone in the audience? Alright. Seeing none, the public hearing is closed, and we will move to commissioner discussion. I'll start with commissioner Dominguez.

I don't have any current questions, but I may after the rest of the discussion. Thank you.

Commissioner Emerson.

Thank you. I have one particular question. Caitlin, if you don't mind. If you can go back to the map, I was just curious about the 1.517 acres. Where is that included at? Because it's supposed to be annexed?

Yes. So that'll be a separate agenda item for city council. But when annexing property adjacent to county right of way Right. A requirement is to also annex the adjacent county right away. So that'll be from here to here.

Okay. Thank you very much, ma'am. And great job.

Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Huckabee. No questions. Thank you. And commissioner Went.

I've I've read through everything, but I've I've forgotten what I read. So I wanted to ask you, Caitlin. Why is this happening, what's the process? Because I I thought we would annex something and then zone that seems like we're zoning it and then annexing it. And then, on the on the dot where the dotted line is on Chandler, is that does that represent this that portion of Chandler Road represent property that's already been annexed by Round Rock? Yes. Okay. So that's already been that's already happened. And then why why does QT want this to happen? Guess who who started this? Did we start or did they start?

What's going It is a voluntary annexation request, and the applicant can feel free to step in if if there's anything I say incorrectly. But the purpose of this is they have another site located at, 79 And 110 that, they're pursuing additional LUEs through an out of city service agreement. Essentially, there's a a swap occurring here. They've negotiated with our utilities division to annex this property, so they can get additional LUEs for their out of city service agreement at their other site because there is a maximum allowance for LUEs on tracks that are not located within the city, which four LUEs per acre. So they've initiated this.

Okay. So the the trade off is we're gonna get this as in at the tax value on this Correct. And have control of it, and then we're gonna give a more okay. Well, that sounds like a pretty good deal. Everybody's happy with it, I guess.

Yep. Okay. As far as I understand.

Okay. But it's zoned, then when will it be annexed?

So the annexation, will be the first item that city council hears. So it'll be annexation then the zoning.

Okay.

So

the the action itself will take place first.

So this isn't official until it's obviously, it's not official till it's approved by city council but it's not also not official till it's annexed.

Correct.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Yeah.

Good? Yeah. Commissioner Holloway.

No questions.

Alright And only I appreciate you bringing that up, commissioner Went. So just for the sake of of understanding then, what is the time frame then on on an annexation process?

So it depends on if there's additional right way that's required to be annexed. In this case, because of the right of way annexation adjacent to this, that requires two public hearings. We do notify the county of that right of way annexation sixty days prior to the first public hearing, and then there's a twenty day waiting period after that second hearing. So this process is a little bit longer than if we were just annexing a property that was directly adjacent to, city limits. So this process in all takes about four and a half ish months. Standard process would be anywhere from two and a

half to three,

give or take.

Interesting. I appreciate the information on that. Alright. I don't have any further questions about that. Any more discussion? Alright, seeing no more discussion, I will entertain a motion for item f one.

I'll make a motion to approve item f one.

Commissioner Wendt, thank you. Second. Who was that? Me. Thanks, Scott. Commissioner Huckabee has a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any any opposed, say nay. Alright. Motion carries. Well, how many are we? Six to none. Alright. Very good. Thank you, Caitlin. Item number g, staff report. Consider an update regarding council actions regarding or related to planning and zoning items.

There's been a lot going on at city council lately, at least since the last planning and zoning commission meeting back in January. So on January 22, they had the first reading of the AIRCO PUD, and that required a second reading, which is gonna be going next next week. City council asked that applicant to meet further. Well, not just with the neighbors, but with city staff and with some city council members to hash out some things into the PUD that were being requested by the neighbors. They have done that.

So the PUD underwent a few revisions, and we'll be going back for a second and final reading next week. Additionally, on the twenty second, they adopted the old settlers association rezoning request from open space to the C 1 A Zoning district to accommodate commercial use in a hotel there. And then last week at the city council meeting on Thursday, the twelfth, the rezoning of a property at the corner of Mandel Street and Logan Street just West of Mayes in south of downtown So the M F 1 zoning district was adopted as was the skybox PUD for the data center on Old Settlers Boulevard on second reading. There were a few changes to that PUD between first reading and second reading, but it was it was adopted last Thursday.

A lot of stuff. Would it would

would you be able to share at a high level what those changes were?

Sure. Yeah. So the PUD, there were not necessarily any restrictions on the size of a building that could be built there or the amount of power drawing from the grid. Initially, the approach was that since the data center was only confined to half of the property or what was considered partial area one, the northern half of the property, it would be self regulating, essentially. But since it didn't have any actual caps in there, we met with Skybox after their neighborhood meeting, after first, you know, hearing with city council, and we added some caps or some maximums in there about how big the building could be in terms of square footage, in terms of height, as well as the amount of grid interconnected power.

They have claimed or said that's only gonna be in the 40 to 60 megawatt range, but the PUD is actually gonna cap that at 75, gives them a little bit of flexibility if they need it. The PUD also caps them now at a 250,000 square foot building even though they say they only need 150,000 to 200, again, to provide flexibility. And their building height will be capped by the PUD at 60 feet. In all likelihood, the building will only be around 40 feet, but since they haven't gone through full architectural design, they need flexibility in case they have to put cooling equipment or other kind of equipment on the roof of that building and then increase the height of the parapet walls to screen it. Additionally, there was some beefing up of the evergreen trees that are required in the compatibility buffer along the southern property line that's adjacent to the Chandler Creek mud.

So now it's two rows of evergreen trees instead of just one, and those trees have to be four inch caliper at time of planting instead of three. Then there's also a restriction on the location of generators just specifying that they can only be located in Parcel Area 1 and that it can't spill over into Parcel Area 2 as well.

Okay. That's helpful for future. I mean, I understood that there was a large community response to that particular item, so that's why I asked if there were some key changes. Do you think that because of the, significant, I guess, community response to that item that has that has that provided any thought of, how we view these type of projects in the future?

In a way, yes. But since we do handle every data center through the PUD process that gives us full leeway, whenever one is request or proposed, we can take a look at it on that case by case basis based on the actual location where it's being proposed and the size of the project being proposed. So this has been a very informative process, but, and I guess, you know, it it will change. Could it change our approach in the future if one is proposed adjacent to another neighborhood or in close proximity to a neighborhood? If there's one just kind of on the outskirts or in the middle of nowhere, you know, there still might be, you know, people interested in who who will come out to speak, but it'll have different considerations about what goes into the PUD.

So it wouldn't necessarily be a carbon copy of the same PUD, but we can still consider everything on that individual case by case basis.

Appreciate your really thorough work and explaining all that to us. I know that was that was a lot of work put into that, just that that particular item, but every item, but, being willing to share that with us as well. So thank you very much.

Sure thing.

Thank you. Thank you, Brad. Anybody else got anything? Alright. We are going to adjourn. Meeting adjourned.