Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, if we can, this is going to be a little bit different since I'm going to call the meeting to order since we don't yet have a PNZ chair or vice chair at this point. Um, so I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Um, the first item is going to be the Citizens Communication. The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes comment on items relevant to the planning and zoning not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. In accordance with Texas Attorney General's opinion, any public comment that is made on an item that is not on the published agenda will be only 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 wishing to address the commission? Seeing none, we will go to the first item which is a discussion only um and it will be regarding the unified development code amendments and parkland dedication ordinance.

Make sure that's working. Okay. Well, good evening. Uh, my name is Jeff Achay. I'm the assistant parks and recreation director. Um, and we are honored and thrilled to be joined tonight by Dr. John Crompton. Um, who is a distinguished professor at Texas A&M University. Um, he won't like this, but we call him the godfather of parkland dedication. Um, he has written the textbooks. He, uh, has done this for 50 plus cities. How how many cities have you worked on their parkland? Oh, it's somewhere somewhere [snorts] north of 50. I don't know. I kept a record.

Um and so in in preparation for the UDC update, um we contacted Jo Dr. Krompton because we have not updated our parkland dedication ordinances in some time. Um and so if we were going to do this, we wanted to bring on uh the name in parkland dedication across the country. Um and so Dr. Crompton has has over the last couple months with parks and recreation staff has looked at our ordinance um and come up with some of his recommendations um for updates to the ordinance. Um so keep in mind and he'll mention this as well. He's going to talk through parkland dedication um as a whole. He's going to give you he's going to go into professor mode and give you parkland dedication 101 um and then talk a little bit about uh his recommendations. Um but keep in mind there's going to be some numbers we talk about. Um the draft you have in front of you is Dr. Crompton's recommendations. Um this is not set in stone. Uh those numbers while they are pulled from our uh master plan um and some of our most recent parks and we'll talk about that. Um there's still some refining that needs to be done. So this is more an overall conversation about the parkland dedication um section of the UDC and where it's headed. Um, so I wanted to give you all the opportunity to hear from Dr. Crompton about his recommendations and also ask questions of him and um, kind of drill down on on some of these uh, items. Um, so with all that being said, I will turn it over to Dr. Crompton.

Well, Jeff, thank you. Um, ladies and gentlemen, firstly a uh a note of apology and that is that I'm deaf and I particularly have a challenge with high-pitched female voices and I've got a wife and three daughters and most of the grandchildren are female and so although it is periodically convenient, it's really frustrating to the other folks when that when that occurs. So, uh, please feel free to shout at me and I and then it would be the best way to communicate. Um uh I also have a uh some affinity with the role that you play. I I um uh contested four elections in the city of College Station, prevailed in all of them. And so I've had a lot of experience on city council as well. And so I'm very familiar with some of the challenges that you that you're engaged with and um and have to resolve. And uh these things in my experience always come down to compromise.

[laughter] So um [clears throat] um we'll talk about that as we go on through. So can somebody bring this up? Do I do what do I do?

I'm technologically challenged too. Okay. So there we have it. Um let me start off by talking that as I understand it you are a city of fast growth just as College Station, Texas is a very fast growth city. And um there's three ways you pay for growth. The first one is that existing residents subsidize new park development and uh that is done through uh obviously through bonds and certificates obligation or whatever and that means the existing citizens subsidize the thing. The second one thanks Jeff um is you do nothing and when that happens you lower the service level of service in your in your city. Uh and so the third one, the third option is that you require new growth to pay for itself. And so so um uh these decisions as a as a council person many times you you don't want to raise taxes. Then that doesn't get you reelected and people are furious about it. But the decisions about needing to raise taxes are really um made at the front end and not at the back end. in the back end, you're catching up many times on these things on bond issues and so on. And if you make those decisions at the front end, it's much less um much less expensive. And so if you don't react, if you if if you don't um put in these front-end expenditures, then essentially you're creating uh infrastructure deficits for people down the road in some point in the future. So, um, most of us who run for election in in Texas run on a platform of fiscal conservatism. And for me, that means that those who benefit from services should pay for them. And that's the

bedrock really, because if they don't, then you you're you're left with having to raise taxes. Um, this this parkland dedication stuff is essentially a user fee. You're paying people are creating demand on the services. They're putting a generating need for additional amenities and so the people creating that need are being asked to pay for it with parkland dedication. That's the principle that we're relying on here. Which of these buttons do I press here? That one. Thank you. So let me first of all talk a little bit about um how that uh how these costs arise. And there's a technique called a cost of community services which has been around now for about 25 years and it's a template and a number of cities many cities um undertake this and what they do is they take their uh city manager and their financial uh chief and they take all of the items in the budget and they assign those budget those items to one of three categories. residential, commercial, industrial or farm forest, open space. So they take all the costs, all the revenues from property taxes, fees, uh sales taxes, whatever, and they allocate all of them into one of those three categories. And there's a template for doing this and they generally invite the school board to come along or the school officers to come along as well because they're part of this this whole deal. So about 10 years ago, I went scurryed around and and had my troops collect this stuff and we collected about 150 of these studies which have been done in communities mainly suburban communities rather than the big cities those suburban communities that have been done. I just want to share with you the results of that. And so these are averages. And what this shows is the median cost.

And my number of communities was 151. And it says that for every dollar in revenues the cities received, it cost 32 cents or 30 cents to service commercial industrial folks. And there you see why we all want and need commercial industrial stuff as a base for our city because they're the positive taxpayers. The second is farm forest open space and for every dollar in revenue we receive uh it costs 35 cents to service them. And that's taking into account that many of these people are on user um used taxes rather than value taxes rather than land value taxes. their own use taxes. Nevertheless, um the big item here, of course, is is schools and we all know that that's the big item on our property tax bills. And so, as one of my friends says, cows don't ride the school bus. And that's the key to why they're they're a positive taxpayer. And this is the one which we're really concerned about today. And that is residential development. And uh in the average um median the median average for these uh 151 cities what for every dollar in revenue it cost $116 to service. Now that is um that is not widely known by communities in the city of College Station. What that says to us is the more residences we build with two exceptions. The more residences we build the poorer we get. The more it is. And that explains why when you when you're growing rapidly, why your tax bills are going up, when you're thinking, hey, the tax revenue is going up. Yeah, but the cost of services is going up and it's going up faster when you're dealing with uh when you're dealing with folks. And so there's a myth which um you know my

good friends in the development community and I'm and most of the time we're on the same side and we're trying to do the same thing. But this is one area where frequently my friends in the development community and I differ. They'll come up to the council and they'll say we are taking this green field and we are building tax revenue for you which will help benefit all of your community. What they're not telling you is the other side of the balance sheet, which is it raises the cost of providing community services. They're saying they will increase the local tax revenues. And they're right. They will increase the local tax revenues, but there'll still be a net deficit because the costs of services are greater. And they'll say it reduces the tax payments of current residents. And you know from your bills over the last 20 years in a fast growth city, it doesn't. They go up. it actually increases the amounts that you get in there. So I want to make that point up front as we go on through there. So this was a cartoon I came across which uh represents this uh the developer is uh saying and think of the beneficial impact on the community. New tax revenues, new jobs, new businesses, increased economic growth. Where those of us on city council are thinking more houses, more kids means more schools, more roads and more traffic needed, more police cars, more policemen, more fire trucks, more sewers, more and don't get talked about whereas they should be talked about at the front end. So what we're talking about today is an exaction and there's two kinds of exactions. The first kind is the legislative authority and impact fees. And I want to right up front say that Parkland dedication is very different from impact fees. Impact fees are laid down by the Texas legislature what you can and cannot do and they give you exactly what

you the stages you go through and how you calculate it and all the rest of it. And uh in Texas there are 30 states that have impact fees. Texas is about the narrowest set of activities. I think it's just uh if I recall correctly it's uh road sewers and sewers and water perhaps uh impact fees. U many states have eight or 10 services covered with impact fees particularly the more so-called progressive or liberal states out there. Um but in Texas it's very narrowly defined. But that's some statutory authority. Th this parkland dedication we're talking about comes from the from the UDO from the police powers and it isn't statutoily laid out as to how you do it. What the lead does is in essence when the courts have ruled they'll put in a clause in the constitution that sort of supports what's been said but they don't lead anything and they don't give you the steps in how you put this thing put this thing together. So this the evol the evolution of parkland dedication is interesting. It started way out in California back in the in the 60s50s and 60s. It eventually got to Texas in about the 70s. The early ones were in the 70s and it was limited to land for neighborhood parks. And then it got expanded a little bit because there was a particularly well-known court ruling uh relating to Missouri City, which is just north of Houston, where the judges uh in in a case there has said, "You're assuming that neighborhood parks are positive." Um but what we see is little patches of land all around the community which are vacuums of empty space,

trashed out and of no value to anybody. And so so that gave encouragement to the development community to to attack. And their rule of attack is the fifth amendment to the constitution which says nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. And that has been that was resolved through um through the 70s in many states in favor of parkland dedication. However, it was not resolved in Texas until 1984. Texas was the last state to uh legally through the courts um uh um [clears throat] accept that parkland dedication was a legitimate tool. And there are two key questions related to it which I'll get to in a moment. The nexus principle on how big the dedication should be. The uh seminal case in Texas was 1984. Um uh the city of College Station of versus Turtle Rock which was a a relatively small development on that time on the edge of town. College Station at that time had a remarkable young attorney quite extraordinary. His name was L. Denton and Mr. Denton went on to be the chief attorney for San Anton and now has what is probably one of the best um um consulting most reputable consulting organizations in in public uh in government in the state of Texas. Um the um the lower courts had ruled in favor of the developers and said it might be okay in 49 other states but it ain't okay in Texas. You're breaking the constitution. Uh, so I remember going in in to a court hearing in ' 84 and to uh to Austin to watch the Supreme Court of Texas rule on it and watching Mr. Denton do an

extraordinary job. I mean, normally as a city, as you well know, we hire outside attorneys to do these kind of fancy stuff and it's not it's not what our normal city does, but La took it on himself and he turned these um um um conservative judges around. It was remarkable performance and it it indicated how what a fine attorney he was going to be and and [snorts] the state organization that year Jeff and I know you're the incoming president um made us a big deal at the opening ceremony of recognizing Mr. Denton for his contributions to uh to getting that passed. So that remains there remains two questions for the courts to resolve. The first was the nexus principle. Um and uh the classic case is the Nolan case the US Supreme Court in in 1987. Uh nexus means there has to be a relationship between the developer paying a fee and the resource that gets built, the park gets built. You can't have the developer paying a fee here and use that money over there where those houses do not benefit from it. there has to be a nexus, a close geographical nexus and that's what that case uh stated. Um the other case so um uh it it it led to the notion that you have to have zones in a community and you're familiar with that in your in your community here and and you have to deposit the money in a zone and then you can only spend the money for parks in that zone as you go on through. So parkland fees are deposited in a zone reference to the park zone or community park district involved. Funds deposited in a particular park zone um may only be expended for land improvements in that zone. Um the second case which was uh caused us to scratch our heads a lot was the

Dolan case which was uh 1994. I guess my guys got their sixes and nines grew up [laughter] here. 1994 and and the and the court ruled that there must be and their phrase was in their ruling rough proportionality between the requirements imposed on a developer and the needs for park use projected coming from the development. Now I'm looking at that and saying now how on earth am I supposed to figure out how much demand there's going to be before they get here? I mean what I mean where do you start with that? And then they made it even more complicated because they said went on to say in that ruling there should there need no precise mathematical calculation is required but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature that means it's got to relate to a park and that has all kinds of implications. It means you can't start using it for swimming pools and in my view for athletic fields or the all the specialist uses on the park just the park both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. after scratching about for a bit and the rationale that I came up with which I think has been widely accepted now around the country is that people when they come to your community uh have an expectation of the level of service that's one of the things that attracts them to your community and so my thinking was okay then the the mathematical calculation should be to maintain the existing level of service and that I think's been generally accepted as we go around. There's no other rationale you can get it. So the old days of saying, "Oh, there's some

national standards we have to meet." No, thank you. It's got to be individually calculated on your scenario. The old days of saying in a master plan, "Oh, we want to we want build all these kinds of facilities and so we're going to charge whatever for a parkland dedication fee doesn't fly." It's got to be based on your existing level of service. That's the key and that to to I've been using this now for 15 20 years and it hasn't been opposed yet by the development community because it's there's no other alternative for it. So the Dolan case now has been codified in the Texas statutes and the statute says but the statutes very wisely state the developers portion of the costs may not exceed the amount required for infrastructure improvements that are roughly proportionate to the proposed development. So translated what that means is you cannot charge a parkland dedication fee which is greater than your existing level of service. Your that that's your cap. That's your cap. And so what what I'm going to present to you today is what that cap is. That is not a recommendation for what you should apply. That's a political decision. That's the cap that you can go to that you can't go over and the and your political outcome uh will will resolve the actual kind of a number. So, but it makes it this Dolan case was critical because it changed the game. Prior to the Dolan case, developers challenging your park dedication ordinance had to prove it was unfair. The Dolan cases shifted that. It said the burden of proof is on the

communities to justify it is fair. So that was a radical shift in there. So the burden of proof is now on you to show the legitimacy of the rough proportionality that you're requiring. And again that comes down in my view to the existing level of service. So [clears throat] that's how I've operationalized it. It must be individualized. It can't be an arbitrary amount. In fact, I'm involved in a case now with another city in the state of Texas. And usually I I don't work for the development community for obvious reasons, conflicts of interest and so on. But in this case, the city's ordinance is so egregious that you have to council that I'm working for the developer and just hoping the city will not contest it because they'll lose. What they've done is pluck a number out of the air and stuck it in. That ain't qualifying. uh national standards are irrelevant. Uh what other people in Texas are doing is irrelevant in terms of what making your case and Jan said you can't request disproportionate amounts beyond the current level of service from the developers. Um and you can accommodate different levels of density. Now, some cities say, "Well, okay, we're going to have a different ordinance for apartment dwellers because there's only two or three people in an apartment, whereas a single family home, you've got maybe three, four, five, six people in." So, so you should have a lower rate for apartments than you do for single family homes. And some cities do that. My own view is that that's a facious comparison because um the people in apartments don't have yards and they use parks. You know, I'm I'm Austin here with my daughter. Well, she's blessed to have a backyard. So, the kids play in the backyard. They don't have to go to the park. So, so I don't personally don't accept that you need different densities, but nevertheless, um some cities, they'll go with that and that's

their prerogative. So we now have been building now from since about 2000 we have had land but this whole issue about vacuums empty vacuums and nothing to do with it mean they weren't get made in the parks and so we gradually introduced the notion of development fees and those have been generally accepted now by the courts. I'm not aware of any that have been the principle of I'm not aware of any principles where they have been challenged. And so now it's not just about the land. It's about paying for the cost of the park on the land, but basic amenities, not specialist facilities in there. And then we've moved beyond the neighborhood level to the community development. Neighborhood level may have made sense in the 50s, but in Texas, if you haven't got a car, you're lost. I mean, nobody walks to parks today. I mean, they drive to whatever park they're going to do. That's the reality, at least in my city, that they do. So, so it's now all parks. It's not just neighborhood parks. And now it's improvements for all of those parks. So, what I'm doing here in this pyramid is showing you how the base has moved up. and relatively few cities are at the top of that where they're charging the maximum amount for improvements and the and the thing. But the numbers growing and some of these cities haven't looked at this ordinance in 30 years and they're still down at the bottom and in my view they're not doing the taxpayers any favors by doing that. So you'll be familiar with that. That's your neighborhood park sectors and that's your community park sectors. I don't have the fingers at my fingertips. I should have checked them before I came out. But I'm thinking Austin has 12 zones.

You've got what 16 or 18 neighborhood zones and another you know what is it dozen or 11 something community zones. That's way over the top. You don't need anything like that. Um, Houston, I think, has 10 zones for two million people. Um, Dallas is at about eight zones for goodness knows how many they've got. I mean, I mean, you've got three zones as I understand it for your planning barriers now. And in my recommendation would be use the same three zones for this stuff. You don't need all of this lot. I mean, it's just overkill to the end degree and creates all kinds of complexities. And most importantly, it takes you a long time to collect enough money before you can do anything useful with it. If you got all these little kind of pots of money, you don't buy anything, you know. So, so that would be a primary recommendation. Get rid of these uh these fiddling zones and and go presumably with the ones that you the ones that you've got. And when you talk about zones, some cities uh say, well, the cost of land in their different parts of different zones is very different. They're radically different. And uh you know, I was working with the city of Austin for many years over there. And obviously in their core area [laughter] where you know, you might pay 4 million for an acre of land, it's going to be very different from the suburbs where it's very different in there. And so some cities have a different fee for different zones. In my own view, that's a nuance beyond where we need to be. But some cities prefer to do that because they say it's more equitable in doing that uh in doing in doing it. So that's what they do and you have that flexibility. So the first subjection that people come to when they um when you talk talking about this and I'm going to show you that the uh using the um the um numbers

we've got right now which may well be incorrect just the numbers I picked off the off the master plans and the census and so on for Lucasville. Um your maximum cap would be about $9,000. And so the moment you say that, people say you're driving um low-income people out of the housing market. You're raising the costs on low-income people. Well, it ain't so. And the reason it ain't so is because the development community do not control the market. Market forces do. So, so, um, if you've got, um, uh, a 9,000 exaction, uh, and, uh, you're buying a 350 and you're putting it on a $350,000 home, you cannot charge 359,000. Why? Developers would have done that if they could sell it at that price. They're not they're not in the they're into capturing consumer surplus. They're not into into giving stuff away. So what happens to it? Well, they have to respond to the market. If 350,000 is the price the market will pay, then they got to take it back on the cost side. So homes get less space instead of 1,200 square ft. If you're building at 300 square foot, 300 into 9,000. So you you're taking out what 30 square ft you get, 1170 foot square feet. You're still getting a home. It's just, you know, let's go get them. The flip of that is that if you don't do that and you're going to keep the same service quality, you're going to use property and sales taxes with the bonds to do it. And those are regressive. They hit low-income people most in terms of proportion of their income. They pay a larger proportion in rent and and a mortgage than wealthier people do. So, you're not doing them any favors by not by not doing this. Sometimes my friends in the

development community use what they they call the term they use I believe is value engineering which means you know instead of first class finishes you go to secondass finishes instead of full landscaping you go to part of it and whatever they they take it out of the cost in terms of the cost side in that way and ultimately the cost will be borne back by the land seller who gets a lower price for the land and again that's long-term market force. So let me just explain that before the exaction in this hypothetical place I've got 100 units sold at 350,000 and so the developer paid 4 million for the land after exaction the developer can't sell at 359 and so so that 9,000 has got to come out of the land price. The land doesn't do anything. It's it's just a cost. It's nothing else. So, so he pays if you crack that back, you take the 9,000 out of the uh out of the 100 units and so on and you you come up with a number or whatever. I think the mathematics might be a little astray there. Nevertheless, it comes up and so it's going to be a a a smaller number for the land and it gets passed back to the land owner. It doesn't get passed on to the owner. That's the key point about this, which is what the developers going to tell you. It ain't so. They don't control the marketplace. They have to respond to the marketplace. So, let me take you through now. And I think you have one of these. Do they have one of these out there? I think you have them. Okay. So, let me just take you to the last page if you would. The appendix. And uh uh sorry.

I believe on these ordinances you should also you you should always have the um the uh the numbers the way you explain is put in the appendics. Please, I I hate to interrupt, but before you move on, that question of passing along the costs,

I I agree with everything you've said. I'm just curious, do you see it impact the um developers choices of what to build? So, they can't charge more for the cost of the house and they can't uh they can't build a bigger house. Does that mean developers choose to build a more expensive property instead? Because that can then be borne out more easily.

Yeah. So, um it comes again down to the market, doesn't it? What the market will take. So, thank you for reminding me about that because I said earlier that there were two exceptions to um residences generating uh costing more than the revenues they generate. Those two exceptions. One is high-end homes and houses. Clearly, there's a point at which the re the uh the property taxes do cover the costs in there. In College Station, when we did this exercise back probably 10 years ago, that number was about 350,000. It's probably 400 450,000 now that then you start making money. And the second key element which the realists never talk about but which is key college station and that is uh the retirement community because they don't have kids in the school system and that's what drives the costs up and so um those retirees are very positive taxpayers I mean they don't get into trouble with the police or behave themselves all kinds of stuff there with them. So, those are the two exceptions for residencies, high-end and retirees. They are people you really want to attract to if you're going to um focus on residences. But, um I to the to your general point, I can't tell you how the developers reacted, sir. I've never done the research. I I I don't know. So, here's how I've uh how I the numbers the numbers I used for your population was 65191. I pulled it off the census charts. I know how accurate that is. Uh the census told me you had 23 985 housing units and uh the parks department told me you had just under 1,400 acres of parkland. So those were the basic numbers I was working with. So uh the parkland dedication fee is broken into classically I break it into three categories. First is citywide which

doesn't pay any attention to the zoning. It's a city-wide fee because everybody in the city benefits from the park. And I was told that you have two parks that meet that criterion uh totaling 336 acres. So if I take my 23985 number of dwelling units and divide it into my 336 acres, then uh every acre um has to be paid for by 71 dwelling units. And that's how I get my land fee for for um citywide or regional parks. So I assume then the cost of a of of land and again this is a number that the planning folks gave me to work with. I don't know how accurate it is uh was 43,560 in this community. So if I take my 71 dwelling units and divide that into my 43560, then each one pays $611 for the citywide land um uh to keep that level of service going at that level. The next one was maintain neighborhood and community parks. And in my view, there's no point today in differentiating between those two things. Uh people have cars and people don't go to the nearest park. they in fact go to the one park parks is a is is an amorphous term. It covers an awful wide range of of opportunities and people pick what opportunities they want that day and they go to the park they drive to the park that offers that particular opportunity that they want. So, so that to me uh that distinction is a false distinction particularly in Texas and in a big cities it might work but it doesn't work in my view in the suburban communities and I'm told that you have uh this set of number of acres here which is what um Jeff's folks gave me. So 476 acres of maintained

neighborhood and community parks. So again, when I take my 23,000 units, put it into the 476 number, use my land cost of 43,560, then the dedication fee for neighborhood community maintained parks is 8.66 for the land. So then I move to the next one which is nondeveloped um parks and lots of this land is sort of your um alongside creeks and flood plane and so on and so forth and clearly using the same [snorts] value for land of 40 odd thousand is not appropriate and so u I've picked an arbitrary number and your folks are going to have to get a better number for me if it's available. I assumed one acre of land will be 10,000 for this kind of land um in there because you and so you put the you divide the u the numbers [clears throat] into it the 23965 and it comes down to um 42 dwelling units divided into the 10,000 gives me 236. So that's my land costs. I add those three up together to get my land costs for what um for what the dedication could be. Now I've got to look at developing this stuff. And so um uh um Larry gave me the costs that you had recently for I guess Kelly Lane Park, a part of it that you had um you got to bids on and it came into just under 2 million uh for 6.1 acres I think I was told. So it's working out at about 318,000 an acre to develop the cost of it. And so for mainland for for maintained neighborhood and community parks um the uh the average of those was 50.3d

use per acre. The cost then you take the 318 you divide it by the 50 units and it comes to 6322. The service level for passive non-development is again um very much limited. you don't do much development on those trails alongside uh alongside creeks or in that flood plane land. Maybe you put some um a bridge or two in and maybe you do some footpaths and trails or whatever, but but it's pretty much underdeveloped. So again, I the number I've worked on in the past in the community is 15% of the cost of developed parks and again that's fairly arbitrary number and I'm certainly open to you all um correcting and changing that. And then you do the same calculation for those, it comes to 1128. So when you add all that lot together, the 611 for land for the regional park, the 866 for land for the maintained parks, the 236 for the land for the non-maintained uh neighborhood community parks, uh plus the uh 6222 for development of maintained parks and the 1128 for development of non-maintained parks. you come to 9163. Now let me say reiterate what I said earlier. This is your cap. This is what you can't go above in my view in terms of the amount you go and land on is a political decision. That's a policy decision that your community will make as you go on. I try to point out the the pros and cons of that, but um you you ultimately will make that decision. Uh let me speak as a politician now as a it comes down that uh the easy thing for me to do is to keep this number low that gets me reelected. But it sure builds in problems down the road and and and it means that in 20 years time suddenly you haven't got

anything, the land's gone, the costs are through the roof and so on. So you know you you'll have your own views on that but to me the the higher you can get up. Now some communities when they see the big increase from where they are now stage it and so um I think it was dealing with New Bron Falls recently they they staged it in over 3 years in my own community. Um we moved uh we moved it in I think last last time we raised it was probably 5 years ago. We moved it uh and we moved it over a three-year period. And that's and and when you announce this you have to give the development community time to adapt to it. So you don't put in overnight. You say to them, "Okay, we're going to start this in the maybe pick a time um in January 27." So they have time to adjust their land costs and their proformers and so on to the new cost that you're introducing to them in there. So I think that's about I think that's about time for me to shut up, Larry. And whatever you all want to shoot out, shoot away. Yeah. Questions.

So, I know we're not um it needs to be individualized to the community. Um but if we're talking about similar communities, similar cities, is this in alignment with what other cities are doing for parkland dedication that you've worked with? It's way out in front and you you would be at the you would be at the apex of the pyramid. Okay.

I mean, the problem is that some of these cities haven't looked at it for 30 years. I you know I've got 87 ordinances. There are 87 cities in Texas that have an ordinance. I have all those ordinances and there some of those ordinances are 200 bucks a house you know. Well [laughter] I mean doesn't do anything for you. So no and that will be thrown at the political in the political wrench. You're miles higher than everybody else. Okay. You know it's a part of the political decision making you'll have to make

and it is a discussion I think a lot of cities are doing at the same time. And this just happened to coincide with the UDC update, but a lot of cities are having this conversation because of what's happening with the legislature and, you know, some of the limits on um the property tax caps and and trying to fund these projects for the future. And they're taking a look at

this is how you pay for parks and recreation departments for residences for future generations. And so they're having to go back and and look at where they are in their numbers. those cities that their per dwelling unit is $200 are certainly going to be in trouble um in the coming years. So, um we're not the only ones that will update that. So, we we can certainly just like Dr. Crompton said, you really can't compare city to city.

That question is still going to be asked and we know here city council is going to ask that question. So, we will have some benchmarking. Um but at the same time, some of those cities are reviewing what they're doing too. So, it may be way out in front now, at least at our at our maximum that we could uh uh change this to, but it may not be in the next year or two.

I think one of the challenges with this is that the development community are absolutely on top of this because it affects their bottom line. They're absolutely on top of it. The general community are very unfamiliar. There's only one story being told and I put the comparison in one of my slides here. You're only seeing this side of the graph. There's a whole other section of the community I'm not informed about and there's nobody in informing on that side. And so in my view, the political process should make that effort to put both sides of this equation forward in there and and you and that needs to be done if you really want your um your political leaders to embrace this. Otherwise, they're naked out there and subject to attack and they've [laughter] got they haven't got the the bolstering behind them.

What is our current fee? Current fee? Yes. Um, so it's not calculated in the same way. This is a much simpler calculation. Um, I'm not sure what it is off the top of my head because it's a pretty complex depends on the on the development. It does depend on the number of dwelling units and and development acreage. It's just those numbers are plugged into a formula and we get a required acreage amount and a part development fee. What what we can do is provide you all with what the existing is. And that way you can review you now have the draft so you can look at it and see the math of it. Yeah. Maybe using an example.

Let me say there's a couple of other things in here too that that draw your attention. One is the recommendation that you um that you don't go um into little parks and that you put a minimum of of 10 acres in um because uh with these um caps the league is putting in now this 1% property tax and they discussed last summer gave them 2 and a half% I mean college station our growth has been 6% a year in property taxes for 20 years this 2 and a half thing is going to be disastrous for us and so I I think you you keep that in mind as you go on through. Sir, I'm sorry I interrupted.

Um so one of the challenges we face in our own my own neighborhood which is here in Flutterville um is that we have uh 10 or 12 total parks. Four of which I think it's 12 four of which are own owned maintained by the city and then the homeowners association is required to maintain the other eight. And uh that has a disparity between the quality of the park depending on the replacement cycle of the HOA versus what the city's doing. The city's gone through with all their debons and made massive improvements to the four parks that are owned by the city. But the remainder of the parks, you know, we have slides that have to be replaced. They're 20 years old and and you know, covers and things and those costs are then ultimately borne by the homeowners, which creates other problems. Secondary or or I guess it'd be fourth level. uh taxing issues, right? It's the homeowner association. We got to levy a fee so that those parks can be replaced and the amenities can be enjoyed. Um, does the the reason I bring that up is does a number like this, a cap like this allow for uh in the same scenario 12 parks then to be maintained fully by the city as opposed to a developer having to choose a portion that are city and then a portion that are just an amenity because they know that that's what sells homes that are then ultimately borne by the cost of the all the residents who live there. Does this does this number help offset any of that where the funds go to help the city with the maintenance and the ongoing uh repair and services?

All of these ordinances have some allowance for HOA and those kinds of things. This one is 25%. So that whatever the fee is, they get um they um they get a 25% discount if they meet the standards that are laid in here. In terms of ongoing maintenance, this this does not address that and it cannot this is a capital upfront kind of thing and it can say nothing about operation and maintenance either for the city or for the for the HOAs going in there. So um is this so this is to so new a developer comes in they they want to create a neighborhood the requirement is that they develop four parks minimum and those would then be city parks right that's that's what this or they pay the fee in lie and then you know there's no parks

of or

they the the requirement for most of the ping is that very very few are going to develop land because if you go to a 10 acre size. Uh, sorry, you go to a 10acre size park and you look at the number of dwelling units you need to get there, you're talking probably 500, 600, 700 homes. So, they're going to give fees. That's going to be the key. And then that gives you the opportunity to provide something uh greater because you can merge some of these fees in a zone to do it in there. But they do get a 25% discount because the thinking is because their homeowners in fact do some of that local stuff. So they so it it offsets the city at the same time those homeowners do use the city parks and so you're looking for the balance and and typically it's either 25% or 50% and um Mr. Aie said you were currently at 25% so we kept it there. That's an arbitrary number.

And so to that point, one of the recommendations that Dr. Crompton has, which has, I think, changed over the last several years because of the limitations on, you know, future M is um and you'll you'll read it in here, is to not accept parkland less than 10 contiguous acres. So there would not be neighborhood parks that transfer from a developer to the city at any point if that's what we decide to do. um which is a pretty drastic change from where we are currently. Um, so that's going to be one of the bigger discussion topics moving forward on this is do we do some version of that and that is like I said it's a completely a a reaction to future limitations placed on our funding. Um, and so this would be working more handinand if those neighborhood parks are put in. They would be maintained in perpetuity by HOAs.

We have here a a parkland development manual. In my view it's redundant. you really don't need this. I think having this document and referring to it and referring to the master plan and so on, you it just confuses the issue. I just keep it simple and put it in one document and not have these other documents floating around. But that's a that's a personal preference. Let me make one other point and that is uh this uh recognition that you can charge up to service quality rewards those cities that have invested strongly in parks and recreation because they have more acreage. What it doesn't and it penalizes those who have not put in bonds. The moment that you use city money to expand that acreage, you can up this number. And so you can leverage that number that you use to build parks uh with city funds leverages this number from the development community and the people coming in.

Yeah. So one of the one of the overall uh challenges that we face especially in in this region where there's lots of HOA development right because and the HOAs develop sometimes even out in the ETJ and so the developer and and I'm not going to speak to that. Well, in my in our case, I think it was ETJ. We were ETJ and then eventually we got annexed. Um, is that not only do we have the land that's being dedicated, but then you also have the maintenance operations, but then you also, you know, have staffing level requirements that have to go up along with that proportionately across, you know, the expansion of service.

And so the where where I've traveled and visited, my family that lives elsewhere, essentially all parks are owned by the city. There's no such thing as a neighborhood park that's that's isolated within a community that's not accessible, you know, or that's considered a private or like, oh, that's our neighborhood, it's our park, unless it's next to the swimming pool that's for the neighborhood, right? That's that's the nearest physical example. The rest are public parks and it's kind of a citywide complete package. Um, and where in in Flugerville, that's not the case, right? We have developers who who are continually developing further out. And so they're putting in park space, but because of uh all of our limitations in the past that bring us to where we are today, there's parks that are being built today that are not city parks and I don't think would ever be absorbed into the the city management. Um and so is is does any of that is this is this an opportunity or is does this number allow for accommodating those costs? And then and then setting a vision of effectively saying we're going to try and capture all of our parks so that the city can provide city level quality service and maintenance and operations as a benefit to the entire city. you know, does does that address this or is that am I missing?

Oh, I think that's appropriate, sir. And I I I understand the HOA because uh I'm in one in Austin and [laughter] so and it's uh you know in College Station um the city still provides infrastructure in the what HOA I'm in in Austin, they uh they do not. It's a private development and when those roads need fixing, we have to fix it. the cities opted out of those things and the reason they've done that is because of these caps that are coming in these one and a half 1% 2 and a half% caps they're looking ahead and saying hey we can't do this anymore you know the other mechanism that we've used a lot in College Station is the muds the municipal utility districts and again it's fascinating to me the muds in College Station has a property tax rate of a dollar per 100 the cities is uh 51 cents per 100 we get all kinds of clobbery moving 52 or 53 cents to the a dollar in their developments over there. I mean, I think the city has uh suffers because our residents don't are never fully informed. It's so difficult to fully inform. And I would say in College Station, there aren't more than 150 residents, ordinary residents who understand city government and how it works, the ins and outs of it and so on. They don't, you know, they've got a an impression [laughter] just, you know, and it's one of the one of the battles we fight. One of the battles we fight.

Yes. So, this conversation will certainly be ongoing. We were working on this a little bit before we brought Fa Nichols on, like I said, knowing that the UDC update was coming. We brought Dr. Crompton on. His schedule is dependent on the school year. So, we wanted to make sure we had him when we could. Um, so this this will not be the last time we discuss uh these recommendations. Um, and Frieza Nichols has this information as well, so we'll we'll continue to to talk through issues like that and others. Wonderful. Thank you.

Can I ask another question? Um, as we're getting more information too, um, so this Kelly Lane Park, this is one that was just recently bid on. It's being constructed now. It's being constructed now. Is there any way we could see because I'm we're using it as in this example as a basis of the development fee. I would be interested in seeing what is actually being developed on that land

and to make sure that it is an equitable um example. I know it's it's a good example because it's our most recent bid. Um, but we would want to make sure that it's a good solid example for total cost um, over an acre. Um, so I think that'd be something that'd be really nice to see as well when we're talking about um, specifically that fee since it is the largest portion of the $9,000. Oh, and last question. Um, I'm sorry to have the last question on top of the last question. Um, as far as the the dollar per acre price or the the the um the population and things, do we can we those be updated? Yes. Okay. Yeah, we're going to update. So, so

so we mentioned at the at the front that some of these numbers will need to be updated. This was um essentially giving you uh calculations based on what we had and allowing you to just see how this is calculated, how this is being put together. Um, like the dollar the dollar amount per acre. That's the existing dollar amount per acre from our ordinance that was updated however long ago, 20 years ago. Yeah. Okay. Whenever that was never seen a dollar per acre. I'd like to see that property. Um, but Right. There'll be a way for us to comment to freeze and nickels.

Yes, absolutely. This is only the first time you're hearing this. And we'll also send out the um the comparisons and such between what is proposed updated numbers plus what's already existing because there's just a lot going on to the residential community and again there's there's ways to get more money from the commercial. We're only getting 30 cents versus $116. So there has to be a way to get maybe more commercial to reduce the cost for residential. Well, that's a whole different conversation for another day. Yeah, I'm sure there is. Dr. Crompton can talk about that for a while too, I think. Yeah, [laughter] because this was focused on residential and I understand that, but I mean there's a way to I believe. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, we have such great park spaces, so this is exciting. So,

yep. Okay. And with that, we're going to adjourn this meeting at 6:58. We'll start back up with regular session in just a moment. All right.

Uh good evening everybody. The this meeting is called to order at 7:05. The uh let's see here. Any absent commission members? Are we all here? Uh Teresa. Teresa. Teresa. What's her last name?

Teresa Atkins is absent. Uh the uh citizen communication. Item two. 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 to address an address for the public record. And it looks like we have one uh person here. I'm going to call I believe it's Urch Dunar Cresbow to the

Oh, I'm so sorry. Seven. I apologize. Never mind. Um is there anybody that uh is willing to or wishing to address the commission at this time? All right. Uh item one uh it's going to be or excuse me item three is our presentation from Dr. Yasmin Turk uh for article 3A presentation regarding board commission and committee policy and procedure.

All right. Good evening, new commissioners and returning commissioners. I am glad to be here tonight to give you an overview of the commission's activities and framework. And these were also included in the email that I sent you. So, a little bit about the planning and zoning commission. seven members with two-year terms and appointed by council in serving without compensation. And together, you will provide recommendations to council on planning, zoning, and development matters that shape our community. And here you are with two-year terms. This is the current commission with expected uh expirations listed. This information was is also available on our city of Flugerville website. This is a little bit about the things that you'll be doing. Um, some of them will be reviewing zoning cases and uh looking at plat for subdivisions. And one of the things that you'll be doing is working on the 5-year capital improvements plan and the comprehensive plan which are kind of the the guides to uh the bigger operation of the city as well as this year we are working on updating the unified development code the UDC. So you'll have an important role to play in that as well. Commission typically meets on the first Monday of each month and uh this shows the adopted dates for this year on Mondays where there is a holiday on the first Monday. Uh commission moves to the third Monday of the month and there is no meeting in July. And these are this is the planning and development services department and the teams that are on it. Code enforcement, planning, inspection, leadership, administrator, administration, and the director and assistant director. And though you will most often be interacting with the planning team here

at Planning and Zoning Commission, it's really a team effort that um this group does behind the scenes to review applications, ensure compliance with city code, support public meetings, help guide development in a way that aligns with the community's goals, and um so this is really the team that supports a lot of the work that comes before you. And this is where applications begin. Online on our portal um is where applications are submitted and from there they are reviewed, fees are assessed, um questions are answered and um it's really where any of the items most of the items that are coming before you will originate. And I included this uh visual in your packets as well that goes through the process of development. And there is one that shows with public infrastructure and there is one that shows uh without public infrastructure. And this process is really important because it really makes sure that applications are reviewed very substantially. Make sure that all the issues are addressed hopefully before ever coming to you in planning and zoning. And the Aspire Flugerville 2040 comprehensive plan is kind of the long range policy guide for growth and development in the city. It reflects the community's vision for land use, transportation, housing, parks, and economic development over the next se several decades until 2040. And um this plan is especially important for you because it provides the framework used to evaluate zoning cases, subdivision plats, and development proposals. And when you make re recommendations, uh, Aspire 2040 is usually referenced in the recommendations coming from, uh, the the city staff to make sure it's in alignment with that Aspire Flugerville 2040 plan.

And for the zoning process, it begins with a required pre-application meeting with staff to review the request and identify any potential issues early on. And from submittal to final action, the process typically takes about 70 to 90 days. So it is a pretty substantial process. And uh as part of the public engagement process for zoning, it requires notice that goes out of the request that it's published in local newspapers that their actual physical letters mailed to residents that or to property owners within 500 ft of the site. Signs are posted physically on the property to inform the public of proposed zoning changes and then the request goes through public hearings with planning and zoning and then um also through city council before um before it concludes and if it's approved it would be adopted with an ordinance that would enact that zoning change. I don't want to get too far into the weeds with the subdivision review, but I did want to include a few slides that show kind of how land is divided and how new development is laid out. Applications are reviewed by staff to ensure that they meet city standards for infrastructure access, utilities, drainage, public services, and um it's both an administrative and a technical process. Um, and there there are times when they might come before you. And this slide I really wanted to include to show how [clears throat] it goes from the bigger picture of how a neighborhood is laid out into the more specific um the [clears throat] preliminary plan that gives you an understanding of the overall community and the preliminary engineering to the final plat with which solidifies the layout and the details for things like addressing. And these are also things that the

planning team reviews looking at the project elements. It gives you more of an idea of some of the things that are reviewed like landscape, traffic control plans, parking, architecture, lighting, and the platting of infrastructure [snorts] in the development process. This shows building architecture and we have very specific requirements in Flugerville for in our unified development code um for things like projections and recesses, screening of mechanical equipment, pedestrian space is required and like in this example where there's a gas station. Um some things that are uh that we require in Flugerville are elevated design standards which show um which enhance the appearance of land use in our community. things like pitched roofs that are required. Um pillars required to be encased in masonry. Banding of gas station is to be complimentary to the primary building and can't be used as signage and um limitations on logos and things like that. And planning and development services works really closely with departments across the city to review applications and to guide development in a very coordinated way. This includes collaboration with engineering, transportation, utilities, parks, fire, police, and legal among others. Each department pro provides subject matter expertise uh to ensure that proposed projects are safe, functional, and consistent with city standards. And this qu cross cross department coordination helps identify potential issues early on and improves project design and ensures that recommendations brought to the planning and zoning commission reflect a comprehensive citywide perspective rather than a single part department's review. Does anybody recognize this picture?

It's augerville Parkway when it was expanded. That was a little quiz fun fact quiz. [laughter]

And this right here is amazing. It's on our website. It is the development activity map. And if you ever see dirt moving around Flugerville, you can go to flugervilletx.gov/maps and you can find the development activity map and find out what is going on where. Um find out information on the projects, you know, what it what is going on and what's happening there. Um, and it um, it's it's a really good resource to look at to get an overall picture of what's happening in Flugerville, what's coming up in Flugerville. Um, and also gives you access to things like the capital improvement projects and um, zoning districts. You can get a good sense of um, where things are are intended to be. And then this is our final picture of uh, the Planning and Development Services Department. Uh, I really just wanted to celebrate the people who make it all happen. And this kind of captures a little bit about our energy and our teamwork and who all the people are that uh are working hard to make sure that the information that is brought to you is really comprehensive and um hopefully meets all of the requirements before it even comes to you. That's all I

All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Item 4 A, discuss and consider action to appoint a chair and a vice chair. I will accept a motion, a second to approve uh whoever is recommended. Are you running? I guess I'm sitting here. All right, let's do let's do number one. [laughter] Uh okay. I vote for you. Oh, thank you. Recommend. Recommend. Oh, nominate. So, we have recommendation. Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? All right. Eyes have it. Thank you. Uh, now we need a vice chair. I'll take a nomination for uh vice chair or a recommendation from a vice chair. Excuse me. Thank you, John. All right. We have a recommendation. I'll second it. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All those in favor? I Any opposed? All right, the eyes have it. Congratulations. [clears throat] Do I have to move over? [laughter]

All right. Uh item five, 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 be there will not be separate discussion of these items. If any commissioner desires to discuss an item on the consent agenda, the item will it will be removed to the regular agenda for further consideration. Are there any items on the commission? Are there any items the commission wishes to remove from the consent agenda? All right. Hearing none, I will read I have to read uh each line. Is that correct? All right. Item 5 A, approve the planning and zoning commission minutes for December 1, 2025 regular meeting. Item 5B, approve approving a final plat for Leetta Miriam EOTC, a 4.7 acre uh 4.78 acre tract of land out of the John Van Winkle survey, Travis County, Texas, FP25-0000493. And item 5C, approving a preliminary plan for the Parm subdivision, a 16.759 acre lot are tracked out of the Peter Conrad survey number 71, abstract number 200 situated in Travis County PP25-0000452. I'll accept I'll accept a motion and a second to approve items 5, A, B, and C. All those in favor or I need a motion, excuse me.

Motion to approve. Any second? Second. All those in favor? I any opposed? The eyes have it. Okay. Uh item six, discuss and consider items on. All right. So items on the consent agenda may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda. If the commission requires discussion on eight items since there are none, we'll move to item 6A. Discuss and consider action regarding an application for an architectural waiver for a property addressed as 102 North First Street to be known as iide architectural waiver ARC 2025-00560.

Good evening, chair and commission. So, this is another one of those pieces that the planning and zoning commission gets to do is uh review architectural waiverss. So, that's one of the powers that that does come to you all when when there is a waiver that's needed from architecture. Um, specifically tonight, we're going to be talking about um an architectural waiver for property that's in the downtown district. Um, so this is at 102 North First Street. Um it's the property that's um identified on your screen there with the gold band around it. Um it's generally at the southwest corner of Main Street and First Street. It's approximate 6,000 or so square foot building that's on that property as well as a unimproved um paved surface that's out there. Tonight we're talking about the building architecture on it. Um and we'll go a little bit go through a little bit of history on that property and and then talk about the waiver itself. So, thanks to Google, we have the opportunity to go to street view and be able to pull out some historic um images. And so, on the screen here on the right hand side, you can see from January 2009 um what the site looked like at that time. And then on the left hand side is May of 2024. Um what it looks like then. Um so, on the right hand side, you see the the different trailers there. There was a company that operated at that location. It was known as Princess Craft. um they sold and repaired maintained um recreational trailers. Um they then if you you could see the building back there in the backside if you look over on the left hand side in 2024 the property had exchanged um hands and as you can see the building itself there was not any additional improvements made to it. It's still consistent with what we see out there today. So, additional background on it. Um,

based on what I found in Travel Central Appraisal District, the the building is roughly from the 1970s. It's a pre-fabricated metal building. Um, in the 1990s, as I mentioned, Princess Craft had purchased the property or it acquired the property and then started to utilize it for their recreational trailer sales and service. um the city in the 2000s, in the early 2000s, we um created um downtown code regulations. At that time, we called it the central business district, and we included um regulations on if we were going to have um buildings be constructed within downtown, what did we want to see it look like? Um if things were redeveloped, what would it look like? So that was all part of the central business district that was created in 2004 and then later amended in 2006. Fast forward to 2020, we changed the name. Instead of it being called the central business district, we now call it the downtown district. We added some additional subdists within there and adjusted the regulations in there. Um tonight we're talking about some of the district regulations that are included in there specifically related to um how commercial developments um what that architecture needs to look like. Um also in 2020 there was new ownership based on what I find in Travis central appraisal district. The the properties changed hands. There was no certificate of occupancy established. there's still not a current certificate of occupancy for that property. Um, and so when we were having some conversations just this past year about a new user wanting to go into that facility, um, it was found that that property basically is, um, per our unified development code been considered abandoned. Um, and what that means is that anything that wants to go into that facility now needs to come into compliance. the site itself, the

building will need to come into compliance with the current regulations. So the applicant um has come forward and and they they identified that they wanted to do something at or you know come into that facility. Um we identified what those different uh development regulations were. identified also what the architecture requirements are inside the downtown district and on the screen um identifies what those two different styles are for commercial development within the downtown district. We have the Queen Anne on the left hand side and we have the Richardsonian Romanesque on the right hand side and those are the two styles that are permitted in the downtown district today. Um so that's that's quite different than what the building looks like under under the current um configuration. So one of the other options as I mentioned is that an applicant can come before the planning and zoning commission for a waiver for an architectural waiver. And these um bullet points that are listed on the screen are also included in your packet. These these are basically the items that you would be using um for considering whether or not an architectural waiver should be considered. First one is to look at whether or not the proposed architecture is compatible with the existing buildings within the area. Um looking at whether or not it's representative of the desired building form, materials, and aesthetics of the area. um whether granting a a waiver uh whether that literal enforcement uh would result in an unnecessary hardship and then also whether or not the waiver granting the waiver is not contrary to the public interest and that the spirit of the code is preserved. So, in looking at what the applicant has proposed, they have um identified and and I should take a pause now. Inside of your packet, there was a number of uh

renderings that were included in it. I wanted to make sure that everybody's clear that we're not talking about the site improvements that were included in there, but we're talking about the architecture of the building itself. So the site improvement component is something that they included to show that they they recognize the requirements that are in place and that we'll need to they would need to come into compliance with. Um but that's not something that we're considering tonight. Tonight we're just looking at the architecture. Um so they they've proposed to utilize and maintain the existing fac uh facade. Take the same building and and be able to utilize that for a proposed office. Um, they've proposed to paint the existing facade to to clean it back up. Um, to remove the opaque overhead garage doors that you see on the north side of the building that would face towards main, replace those with the overhead doors that have the glass panes in them so that transparency that so they're transparent and the light can filter through. Um, they've also proposed to enhance the corner there at the northeast corner of the building. um so that it would enhance the building entrance as well as offer um some awning on there. This is different than what the current downtown district regulations are. And when they were evaluating it to be able to move into this location and to comply with the the regulations, they would ultimately have to remove the building and start completely over or they would need to look at establishing a false facade to create the required twotory minimum um facade that's on the buildings and to meet the the styles. This is another um image that was included in your packet. Again, it just demonstrates what the elements that they're proposing to make the adjustment. Again, this at the top picture is uh the north facade. Um making changes to those garage overhead doors and making a change to the

building entrance. The bottom left facade is the west elevation. No, no changes are proposed there other than the paint. And the east elevation is the side that faces towards First Street. Um would also see headed parking. Um that's the the facade that would also see the improvements for the um building entrance. This is a concept if it if the architecture um if they're able to move into this facility. This is kind of a concept of what they're looking to do on the inside of their building. This is just a a rendering to provide you with an example of what it could look like on the inside and how their operations would work. But with the garage doors being um clear glass, it provides the light into their um area so that they could have a a useful workspace. Interior is not something we're worried about tonight, just the exterior. So when the applicants came forward and we we review our codes and we start to look at what is the condition of the buildings, we we've written a code so that it could create uniformity inside of the downtown district. And we've looked when the the downtown district regulations were established for the architecture. We looked at the different buildings that were in on Main Street and how to see those buildings come alive and then have that continuation. In this situation, we have a building that has been sitting without without an occupancy since roughly 2020 or so. Um, it's a building that has also existed within the downtown area since roughly the 1970s. Um, we have a picture that shows you in back in the 1990s with the trailers there. It's just been sitting at this point. This would provide an opportunity for a new user to be able to go into this facility to be able to

paint it and and to put some improvements in it to bring life back into that um facility in an interim condition um in the future when it became more viable to take down the building and rebuild or say build up on the other sides of the property. that would be another opportunity for them to look at um constructing a new building to meet all of the minimum architectural requirements. Um this uh the the removal of the building completely would be a significant cost. It would also um you know that that would be an option for them to do is to completely remove it, rebuild a new building. The other thing, as I mentioned previously, was to put a facade on it, which may end up being a false facade, um, which may not meet quite what we were intending for it to be. So, um, in review of all of those different things, staff has come to a recommendation of approval of the proposed waiver with the designs that they've proposed at this point. um and so that they a new business would be able to enter into this facility and then the current um location would be able to be open for others to come into. So, um kind of went around threw a bunch of stuff there. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer it. The applicants are also here to speak if you have questions for them.

Uh yeah, thank you, Jeremy. Uh so, I have a question about the metal building. Um, I think it was 2020 where uh we were involved or I came to be aware of reconditioning a metal building, an existing metal building that had been considered abandoned and the new use was going to require just some uh facade updates and it's almost the exact same shape and even the same color. So uh at the time if I remember correctly there was some landscape requirement that was necessary and then also to the building itself it had to be something like 50% stone like a stone facade had to go up to say 50% of the overall height of the elevation of that particular side um and comply with whatever you know natural stone was around the area or that kind of thing. Um is that particular uh code still a requirement elsewhere or is that uh is that has that been changed?

So the materials for downtown are applicable in downtown um and that was based on the way that um it was identified we went through a process of identifying that this was a historic area for 20 what was it prior to 2019 I believe it is. So, um, in that regard, yes, that piece would be there. The designs that they would have to comply with to meet the the downtown district is that which is different than the other

location. It was GB1, I think, is the issue. So, um, was there any discussion with the staff or the applicant about a middle ground, right, where you say, "Well, it's it's a metal building that there's an identical property currently being renovated that that uh is elsewhere, right? That I think has to meet that minimum standard." Was that ever presented or was that ever a thought that y'all went through? you just said, well, you know, it's it's been there so long and it's kind of part of the

Yeah, we we did not uh compare other buildings to it. Um it was basically this is what the architectural requirements would be, the minimum requirement would be and then what they had presented um was this one. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So other metal buildings not downtown and are new have to have stone. They do not actually. So the masonry requirement is not something that we can enforce in an area that's not downtown. Downtown. Okay. So that's just you would like to have it. That's correct. But you don't. So other buildings can look like this building. So it won't be Okay.

There's architectural requirements. There's articulation and projections and recesses that are required to be met, but the material requirement is different. Okay. All right. Okay. I just didn't the reason why I asked is because I don't want like all other metal buildings now to have more stone facade or a masonry facade and then this one not not that I'm not opposed I mean I'm not opposed to this just asking that question. Mhm.

And this might be a question more. I don't know if we can ask the the team. Um, but has there been any discussion on maybe having a mural of some kind on, you know, it's directly adjacent to West Panon. You can see kind of the corner there, West PCON's mural. Um, just curious whenever it comes to facade if that's been a part of the discussion. I I can speak to the mural components would be going through like the art commission and so that would be something else that we would need to do in a separate way but okay but this is just architectural just not demolishing the building just making it pretty okay

because when it comes to material I will say that is a very nice blank side of the wall right there that look great with a mural question uh clarification What what is the boundary of the downtown district? Where where does it start and stop? What what defines the downtown district? So off the top of my head, I think we extend the downtown district goes all the way to 10th Street. Mhm.

Um and then it goes to the to the east end to 685. Okay. Goes down south just a little bit. We we have an area that's called Sodo. as the southern downtown area. Um, I'll get you a map. I should have included it, but

the motivation behind the question is similar to what was just asked. Are there other buildings currently in process or plan that is going to have the uh is going to be compliant to the look and then this one becomes sort of a oneoff. I'm just concerned that we have just sort of initiated buildings. Today we do not have an application in in review for a new building that would uh be in in a same situation as this. Okay. So just to follow up on that. So I think I think want to make sure the difference between new construction versus existing construction abandoned now becoming occupied having to comply. Right. Right.

So the specific example I'm thinking of right the it's it's elsewhere. So the downtown doesn't apply. the downtown overlay doesn't apply. But if this exact same condition existed not downtown, would there be a requirement to have a stone facade on it? So if you're not in the downtown area, then stone is not a requirement. We cannot regulate the materials. Okay. All right. So that was what I was asking earlier. That did change. Yeah, it was a code somewhere like maybe two years ago.

It it was a it was a requirement in our unified development code and we still have it in our unified development code. We just identify what the provisions are that from the state law that says that we cannot regulate the materials any longer, but we do not remove it 100% so that people also can see it and they can see the other buildings that have been constructed and use that as a guide book. Okay. All right. I think I was reading the UFC code different. Yeah. Okay.

Jeremy, can you talk to us about what the impact of a waiver would be on future development and future owners? Because if if they're getting this waiver now, does that mean if they sell the property and other owners can move in as is without changing anything or when when would this property be required to come in to compliance?

Yeah. So that is it that this is a tipping point. This is one of those situations where if you were to approve this waiver today, the building, as long as it continues to be maintained and doesn't go into the abandonment, doesn't fall out out of line there, would become basically a legally non-conforming kind of situation. At which point they could continue to operate out of it and and the hands could change as long as there wasn't that abandonment or ceasing of the property. And could they could they add on a second story? Could they add on to the other side of the property and maintain the waiver?

So, the the lot is divided into multiple lots. Um there's probably a potential that they could construct on other pieces of the property, but that would be required to come into compliance with the regular code. If there was to be an adjustment to this particular building, I think we're back at needing it to be in compliance. But there that will be something that we will have to look at. So if there was to be an addition made um we will have to evaluate that further

and if anyone made any changes to the facade that would have to come back. As long as it's maintained exactly as it is within this waiver, it would never come back. But if there was a renovation, they wanted to change, like a future owner wanted to change this building's facade, but they have to ask for another variance since their change would not meet the code requirements. So I the way that legal can help with that, but I I believe the way the answer to that would be that as long as they comply with what is provided here

then that would be consistent. if there was to be an additional adjustment, that would be something that we would need to come back on.

Yeah. And two, um, in in y'all's UDC, you have a section on non-conforming structures and how they kind of operate within operate within um the confines of your UDC. And so that typically allows like maintenance of things, but when you begin to alter fundamentally um you can lose your non-conforming status at that point. Um so anything as soon if under this approval it becomes non-conforming it will then operate under um your I think it's chapter 8 um on non-conforming and so it have to comply with all of those various provisions to maintain legally non-conforming status

and just to clarify uh if so the lot's divided there's multiple parcels excuse me so the any additional development that happens on that particular site has to be conforming and the building as it's if it's occupied and operating and still conforming with section 8, then it continues existing as it is until such time as it's changed.

That's correct. That's correct. Unless something I mean I imagine an instance couldn't come up with if they were developing it impacts the major the main structure as we see it. So that would have to just be considered um at that time. But generally speaking, that is correct. If this is approved, does it place a city in a situation where other properties may have to be approved because this one is approved?

So this this is a merit on its own. You could utilize that as a well that one did it and so you know but this is a situation that this is a unique application and then you will review each application in its own merits. I will say that in in staff's review of the different areas and looking at the different buildings that are within um that surrounding area, it's not out of context with what we have in place today and it's been in existence for since what 1970 or so. Okay, thank you. Any further questions for Jeremy?

Just a curiosity. Um, so I know we're not talking about site, but are they going because there it's like a directly adjacent to this, isn't it? Kind of a like um kind of dirt parking area that sometimes there's food trucks whenever we have events. Is that going to be developed at all within this or is that separate parcels? So, so it's one one owner. Um, but I believe it is multiple parcel. It's multiple lots. So, we're only talking about this specific lot of that entire property. That other portion will not be touched. That other part, that other part of the property isn't um being considered with this waiver. So,

a granting of a waiver site, no improvement, right? A granting of a waiver for the architecture is only related to this particular building. So if another building was to be constructed, it would need to comply with what the regulations are or they would come forward to you for another waiver. I was more curious about site improvements, but yeah, and site improvements will be something that we will evaluate later. Yeah. If if this was to be approved, then they their next step is to turn in a site plan that would show here's the elevations, you know, and then the the additional site improvements

because the the landscaping proposal included landscaping around the entirety of the property. There's trees. One of the pictures they they've represented they represented that. So it so it is going to the overall use of the property is going to have to involve some amount of work on that field. We're just talking about the architecture waiver tonight. Right.

But at least in some of the justifications, their discussion of landscaping and what they're going to do to the property overall implicates, and this is really more of a question for them. I'd like to hear what what the plan is for that that bare bare land. Okay. All right. Now we can hear from them. Yep. And then uh once we hear from them, then we'll have discussion. Robert, do you want to talk? Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. There's no podium here. Yes. I did not put the the site plan the site plan.

Yeah, I saw that.

So, understanding that this building cannot conform to the current architectural requirements of the Queen Anne or Richardsonian Romanesque. We wanted to help that along with uh showing we presented a uh submitted a site plan that shows the current requirements of the downtown core of planers and benches and 15 foot setback with streetscape and planters and trees every 30 ft sight lighting all those. So we do plan to improve the the property. This is only for the architectural piece, but that was to help offset and mitigate that this doesn't fully conform.

Yeah. What What is your business? I'm with Mod Architecture supporting the current owner and the prospective owner. And what are you what are you what's your business? I is it like a autonomous cars? Unfortunately, it doesn't have an impact on the application. Good to know. [clears throat] [laughter] They currently operate in downtown Flickerville and and are wanting to stay here. So part of the architectural design was to demonstrate the full site, the full owned site developed, but the architectural impact is only for the the lot that that the building exists on. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. And so is that consideration of all the additional landscaping and and benches and things, is that uh I guess when we get to it or when you guys get to it, will that be included? So that that fulls site development will take place to accommodate the downtown overlay district and that development. So that's all done kind of at once, right? And then that site theoretically becomes developable and it's already in conforming conformity with at least the the public access parts.

If if this is able to move forward then we will move forward with the the additional site plan and looking at all of the different elements that are required there and how how that will come into play. But their first step was can they go here? Gotcha. and their ability to go here is dictated on the architecture right now. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? All right. Uh we will thank you for your report and we'll open discussion. All right.

Fireway. Um, I was just going to say I think it's um, you know, they're they've been in downtown Flugerville for some time directly between Pro and Victory Tap. I think this um, is a huge improvement to what's there currently. Um, and I think it's a reasonable request from my perspective. Anybody else? Any further? I agree. It's definitely an improvement and it's nice to see a business to stay downtown that wants to stay downtown,

you know, and then it opens up another spot for somebody else to come in. Um, I just see it as an improvement in aesthetically and, you know, something that would probably help downtown overall. And I I would say I mean I I don't want to harp on the whole mural um thing too much, but you know I I think that one thing that's nice is that there's a lot of flavor in in downtown. And I would really recommend I mean it is a it it's going to be way nicer looking. The windows look great. The the front facade is going to look so much better. The the site improvements, but it would be um really unfortunate if it didn't have some of that flugerville flavor to it. instead of just like a big gray building. So that's great.

Yeah, because it's it's it's really is in the middle of downtown. It can't meet that facade requirements, but um yeah, I would highly encourage that there is some, you know, over time some flavor added to it to make it interesting and exciting. Jeremy, do we have the opportunity to set such a requirement? So, I think paint is is general. you know, they're they're offering to to paint the facade. I think that [snorts] Yeah. Yeah.

And I think the gray is a great like pallet to eventually um I maybe it's more of just a discussion item. I I don't I'm not saying that it needs to be a requirement to move forward. Mhm. Um, but with where it's at and being directly beside Con, you know, kind of that main, you know, part of downtown, I I would it would be really nice if there were a little bit more like art related things that brought more interest to what is essentially a very rectangular metal building. Yeah.

Uh, yes. I would say that one of the things so we have an interesting downtown Flugerville in that it's relatively undefined and the buildings are very very varied. I mean I mean there's everything. There's a house next to an old restaurant next to a old building across the street from you know all the things that are there. Um the consideration of course is that as the as main street development and all the the wrecks and all that stuff gets built that's going to drastically change the desiraability of the of that area

in [clears throat] my opinion and the um I think I all things considered it's a relatively uh stable stop gap in between it's an in between time right and and I think that's what Flugerville is experiencing in downtown specifically. Um, if we have an opportunity to uh add some sort of language that says an artistic consideration or or a a beautifification effort should be considered, is that is that something we could do? because it it seems like something that's uh that um said here

from an enforcement perspective that could be kind of difficult for um for example the mural um because it has to go through other boards. Um conditioning your approval on the approval of a board that you have no control over can create a kind of [clears throat] weird situation that I would recommend against. Um, however, you do have some flexibility as it relates to design elements. So, like in the UDC, it has a bunch of different pieces of design elements that relate to each architectural style. And so, if you have a way to um maybe get some of your pieces there, that would be um a way that you could start to move down to what you're looking for. Um, but based on what I'm hearing, the the condition that's the like ideal I would recommend against adding just from an enforcability standpoint.

But I think if if you were to say that you were to paint it I mean that the allowance of paint you're not we're not saying that it has to be gray and it has to have the black trim with the orange. I just wish there was a little bit more architecture just to judge what the whether the art's good, right? gray as I wish there was more architecture to this like more hard to dress up. Can I raise I can I raise some concerns thoughhead? I I agree generally with the idea that this would be a much better use than an abandoned building. Mhm. 100%.

But I struggle a little bit because y'all have described Flugerville downtown as eclectic and and diverse and different which it is. Uh, but then we put this UDC in to to steer it away from that. And I don't know that I I don't believe I was around when we voted on on that. I think it was already in. And maybe I agree. I probably did agree to it and now I'm changing my mind. Um, I don't know that it's a great idea to force it to be that, but we do have it now as the downtown development guidelines. So to then turn around and say one of the very properties that would be a candidate for a tear down and build up in the new code now we're not going to use that code we spent so much time putting together. I worry a little bit about it. I again I don't want to I don't want you all to leave and I want you all to stay here and this is a good use but I [snorts] just worry that what does it mean going forward? Do other people come back and say, "Well, why do we have to meet this code when this building didn't?" To your point, there weren't conversations about stonework. The If you look at the other three corners around this intersection, they're all limestone buildings.

They're all uniform. If we're not going to apply the downtown district, wouldn't we at least want them to match the other three buildings that are there? So I just think there are some I

mean I'm okay with eclectic. So I think I think those are very valid considerations, right? Because the the the word that comes to mind that we worked we've been working on for the last five years is placemaking, right? So and it's been discussed both in this room at this desk and and dis uh as well as in our parks and recck steering committee that you know Flugerville's slogan for a long time is between a rock and a weird place. And so we're defining Flugerville as a place between two other places that are more interesting, right? because we use them to describe where we are as opposed to identity and and creating that place. And so the that Aspire 2040 plan and all the work that's gone to that over the last 5 years and then we've lived through that and now we're about to go through it again is those are very valid things.

Um

and and and as you consider too the that was where my the nature of my questions were coming from previously is like we can't specify the stone the stone anymore. Uh my recollection is that at the time that I was uh looking at something like this, it had to be. So it was a it was a gray building that was that was considered abandoned. And then part of the expense of of making it habitable or occupiable is that well we have to change the elevations and and add some uh you know stonework and there has to be some new uh skylights or or veillances or whatever the you know protrusions out of the top of the ceiling. I think those are really valid, too, because then you're getting closer just a little bit without significant expense of a tear down and a redo.

Um, you know, all development comes with an expense in those things and and you know, budget is is obviously consideration. Um, but but I I mean I agree with you there too, right? It's like why why why why create something that is kind of the vision for 10 20 50 years from now if if we're not willing to to uh you know accept what was agreed upon.

So that's I'm just wondering is there a way that [clears throat] to your point it's architecture waiver right now y'all are going to then be working on the rest of the site development plan. Is there a way we could approve this waiver for the building? But with with the with the requirement that the site development plan has to in some way that staff is okay with incorporate some level of stone just to tie it in with the other properties. They got their their bench plan. I don't want to interrupt that, but have some some kind of design aesthetic on on the landscaping or the some sort of short wall that's of stone. I don't know. I don't want to tell you what to do, but [clears throat] could we at least have some some level of tiein with with the required stonework to to have a nod to what it it's its neighbors. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. Yeah, it does. I think it's a question for I mean I think I hear it, they they hear it, but I I think that the site development component is completely independent of what we're here to do the architectural waiver on. And so if they they had a need to vary from the site component, they'll have to go through the board of adjustment for anything there. But with regards to conditioning the architectural to something else that's out there, I don't think we have that.

Please, could can I can I ask y'all that would um would adding some level of stone to the architectural plan? Would that kill the project? And I'm not an architect and I'm not an aesthetic person. So, if it's going to look terrible, I'm not trying to force you down that road. May I ask another question before they ask answer that? Um, so is there [clears throat] a way, it doesn't have to be stone, but to make it more architecturally appealing? This is a warehouse building painted gray with pretty barn doors with pretty in our downtown in our downtown area. Like nothing good job, but nothing is new here. So, designwise. Yeah. Go ahead. You have to come up here. You have to come up here. Please come up.

You know what I mean? Thank you everyone. Hello. My name is Michael Vigler. I appreciate to be here with all of you. Happy New Year.

So, first what we see over here is just a rendering. We not uh we want our building to look nicer as well. We are proud of what we're doing. Uh we company that open in 2013. We serving US Coast Guard, DoD, US Air Force. FedEx in Tennessee, the main hub. We're doing fantastic and life is good. We want our building to be a a diamond in downtown Flugerville and we decide downtown Flugerville for a purpose. I could go to downtown Austin or um Cedar Park or any one of the cities, but we love to be in downtown Flugerville. We already have two building in town on Flugerville. And we run out of space. So we have 117 and Main Street, East Main Street and 113 East Main Street. We not have space anymore. So we need to start to search. And um the building what you see here is a gray building by the way is the wrong shed of gray.

Okay.

Okay. So um and [clears throat] uh is without the lighting. So have some light throughout the building you know between each one of those that's what how we envision and also the gather over there is like in the rendering it stay the original one but it's not by the way the entire side of first street will love to have a mirror but I not want to say it now cuz it's maybe adding complexity. So I back up and that's the first thing that I asked Jeremy when I came to the office right if I if if it happen if we can have a mirror so like love to continue uh the coffee shop uh there now the the purpose of the place is actually mainly executive and high level individual over here in in in the headquarter Um so hopefully it's going to keep us for many years over here and and be able to grow and we have maybe the ability also to to do site plan in the other side. But the building going to be and actually if you see the architectural outside space is really interesting and have some rock in there cuz we believe that outside to have cool sitting areas and stuff like that but that's different type of committee. Correct. The outside area. Mhm.

So it's the structure going to be nicer than what we see in the picture over here. But that's what we can render to keep it minimalistic for you to to see. Uh we want we want to have elements of trees and and we have our the name of the business and stuff like that. So and and it's going to be open. So we attract a lot of startup and we belong to a lot of the the startup community and and we have a lot of visitors actually really interested people that came and visit us in in our offices today and we going to love to host we actually going to host some downtown hopefully flugville event with the tech people for evening and then they can tap into one of the bars in the area and enjoy But the it's a it's a community place and that's why we want the open door even that is a private office and we have private rooms that not be able people be able to go in but the idea is to host and enjoy. So hope hopefully it's not going to be too long but I open to question if you need me if not I

jump. Yeah. Thank you. [cough] Thank you. Thank you everyone. Of course. Thank you. Uh any further discussion? Yes.

No just want to statement just kind of thinking back off of what Bob was saying. First off, I don't like unoccupied building. So having a building occupied is always a good thing. Period. But it just feels like just through the conversation that there's some middle ground to get a little bit closer to the downtown region. U because it's to the conversation we just had to go away from it. Just feel like we're just not taking that step to get there. So I don't know if there's better rendering or maybe there's some of the small incremental way to get just a bit closer. It just feels that way right now with the fact that we're looking at our data and we just want to get a little bit closer to that architectural vision that we have. That's my initial reaction.

Okay. Thank you. Um so the I guess is there any is there any um so with an approval of this waiver the building gets to continue exist you know as is and then uh you know they re redevelop it and use the site with a denial of the waiver then uh the applicant either has to choose to conform to the downtown overlay or they have an opportunity to uh try again and come back at a certain point. Is that correct? With either any updates or considerations

as part of so so if if the applicant say if if it were denied and the applicant had the opportunity to return and they added stone to it as part of the rendering in their own design plan at their own uh recommendation and design then that would be an opportunity to come back and present because that will um it could either be denied or postponed with those recommendations of could you look at something instead of just a straight denial. So postponing is better for them. I would say a post. Do we have um does the applicant have costs associated with redevelopment at this time? Yes. Hard costs. Yep. So we're at 50 60% design, 90% design. Yeah,

it's always expensive. So, this would allow for the kind of incremental development of that, knowing that downtown is going to be changing, knowing that we're going to have to be discussing um the downtown overlay again with the UDC and with um what's happening further east of here with the new city hall and the Monarch

and things like that and start looking at and having all those bigger conversations again to see does do we need to better define what incremental development would look like and what that means for the city because we have so many that could be then benefited be useful now, not remain vacant and then be able to improve in the future. So, this will just be the architecture of the building doesn't change too much except for additional windows and things, but the site actually comes into compliance because that is not part of this request. So, the site with the sidewalks and the street trees and things like that, that all has to it's a dead. Yes.

So, I'm Chad Beckus. actually the owner of the the property and uh Michael and his wife Daffany have been chasing me for 2 years for this property by the way uh and very persistent and we've been under contract uh since about 5 6 months now and we have continued to extend it 30 days. We started with the city I think back in what October

November. So we're just now getting in front of you guys trying to figure this situation out. Um it would be a dealbreaker if this does not get approved um from a time standpoint. Um and there is some cost associated um and that is because I'm willing to sell it because of the timeline. Uh in February is when we're supposed to close. So this was going to help us get through that process so we could go on to the site plan and move forward. To answer your question on the brick and stone, I'm a home builder actually up in Georgetown. Um there are many things that we can do to this facade to help it get there. Um the the way the code reads with the the Queens building and that it's it just financially doesn't pencil um to be honest with you. Absolutely.

Um the landscaping that [clears throat] we've included on the site plan has some very nice steel benches with some concrete planters um I think which is going to turn that whole corner into a beautiful place and that's what they want. So uh I don't think I don't want to speak for you Michael but I think he's open to it. um whether it be brick or stone. I mean I think there is some components that can go into this building that will look really nice. Um and I think that's the intention here honestly. Uh this building does need some metal work already as it is and he's wanting to do that. So I just wanted to kind of throw that out there that there is a timeline constraint here. So understood. Thank you. Thank you guys. Um

and I I don't want to artificially say we require 5% stone or 10% stone or I just yeah I just want a little a little tiein to the neighborhood. I'm happy to w I'm happy to approve now and let them figure it out. So let me ask a question, Jeremy. So if if the waiver is granted now uh does this commission have an opportunity to set uh or or to see or or require any level of uh a stonework or is this the time do we do that? So I would say that what they have presented today is that the facades that you've seen

um without having a facade that tells you where that stone is going to be and

we don't Yeah. So so what we don't have is a drawing that says this is what we intend to build and this is our specs, right? And that that puts us in the position of having to guess or you know postpone which is totally possible and reasonable and say okay well we would [clears throat] like to see an elevation that has uh some some stonework on it right if it had arrived that way and we would have seen that okay yeah seems applicable and that's fine. Um and so the a postponement would give it anybody an opportunity to do that for us to architecturally say yes this is the middle ground. The issue that you've raised is that since we don't have a middle ground uh plan that that's that's up to that's on us, right? We don't have anything to say, well, for a building that's non-conforming, that's existing, that's undergoing change, then you have to do XYZ. We don't have that yet. Um, however, what this does get us is the improvement of the halfacre to the west, which which is the improvement of the benches and the trees and the landscaping. and this just building exists and could in theory exist for the next 50 years in its present condition and etc or at such time as it becomes more desirable vacated and torn down in which time it would have to be

built completely. So it sounds like there's opportunity for both sid for for both the city to make improvements in their processes but then also for the applicant to present something that would have complied today and given us a roadmap for that. Um based on the fact that uh based on all those considerations, it seems well I have my own I have my own vote, but I just that those are things that if there's anything else that we need to discuss on that, we should Yeah. My my only worry about postponing is I don't want this to fall through. I don't you know Well, he Yeah, he said he was going to fall through. Well, that's that's but the consider what's important to understand at this commission is that our our our responsibility is to the citizens which is the plans that we have not just individuals and we've covered many times. Yeah. I'm not debating that portion

of course. Um so is there anything else anybody wants to discuss [clears throat] or anything in addition to All right. Thank you. I'll accept the motion to close discussion. So move. Is there a second? All right. All in favor? I All right. Uh discussion is closed on this item. Uh I'll accept a uh motion to either approve the variance request or deny the variance request in a second. I make a motion. So it's going to be the waiver. Excuse me. The waiver. I'm so sorry. Let me read that correctly. Make a motion to approve the waiver. We have a motion to approve the waiver. Is there a second? I second.

All right. We have a motion to second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? All right, the eyes have it. Thank you very much. Lively discussion. Well done. A great building. All right. Thank you. So, next we'll move on to item seven. Uh the commission welcomes comment on the following items. Each person providing public comment will be limited to three minutes. Yes. And we'll be asked to state his or her name and address for the public record. Uh we have Do we do public? Do I read it first and then we do public comment? Um, I would read the item.

Read the item. Okay. So, item 7A is to conduct a public hearing and approve an application for the replat of Windermir Park Garden Villa section 2 consisting of lots 5, which is a 4.841 acre lot, and lot four, which is a 1.123 acre lot totaling 5.964 acres of land situated in the Windir Park in Travis County, Texas. RP2025-0000349. Uh and then uh do you present and then it's public comment? Yeah. Yes. Go ahead.

All right. Well, good evening everyone. Uh tonight's uh reply is for lots four and five of the Windmir Parks Garden uh villa section two. Uh the subject property did that change? Yeah. uh subject property is located southeast of the Grand Avenue Parkway and West Black Locust Drive intersection and it is that total of the 5.9 acres in size. Uh this is a little different than most replats that we normally see or that we're going to see where we're looking at subdividing property or redrawing boundary lines. Um for this request, uh the replat is intended to establish the correct location of the drainage easements for lots four and five and show the locations of the uh flood plane. All improvements within the site will be reviewed by city staff at the time of site development and uh in the process with the unified development code. This property is zoned the MF10 that's the multif family 10 residential district and the driveway locations, lighting, parking, uh buildings, detention ponds and all other development related items will be addressed at the time of site plan. Um so there's no changes to the zoning here. This is just looking uh strictly focused on looking at the location of the drainage easements and the uh flood plane locations and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions? None for me. Anybody? All right. No questions. All right, we do it. Thank you very much. We do have public comment on the item. Uh I would like to call uh Urcha Dunar Cresbow to the lectern, please. And if you'd please Hello. If you please state your name and your address for the record, please.

I will. Good evening everyone. My name is Ursa Dunar Crespo and I live at 1230 Draeli Circle. It's within 200 ft of this area that you're replatting. And my concern is that it's looking at drainage and the flood plane. This area is prone to flooding. I live across the street and this developer built a town town home behind me. That's a whole another issue. But my biggest concern is that you take a real close look at the drainage because the area is prone to flooding and I know that I don't want my property to move into a higher cost flood zone. When I bought my house in 1994, I was not in a flood zone, but I bought flood insurance just as a precaution. Over the years, it increased. We were told that the developer would make sure that whatever they built back there didn't affect the flood zone. Well, that didn't come to fruition. We are now in a 100year flood zone and my flood insurance has gone from $251 a year to over $1,000 a year. So, I noticed the comment um 17 on the plat replant document. It says this subdivision shall mitigate post-development peak runoff rates for the 2-year, 25 year, and 100year storm events. My concern is if that doesn't happen, I could go from a 100redyear to 25 year to maybe even 2year. And you know what? My flood insurance goes skyhigh. Many of my neighbors don't have flood insurance. So, I'm asking that you guys take a real close look, including city staff, at

what this developer does with this and also the site plan because I have a whole another issue with the site plan. Um, three of the town homes look directly down on my property. I have no privacy. And if the developer does the same thing on the other side, I'm not only going to have a flooding potential issue because now there's concrete instead of ground. I may have other town homes looking down into my backyard. And that's something that until you live it, you don't know what it's like to go to sit on your back porch to have a cup of coffee or read a book and you got neighbors looking right at you and you could hear them on the phone and see them. And so fortunately, my area has not flooded, but when it rains for any number of days, I'm looking at the drainage ditch, and I've seen it get up to 3/4 high. But if you build on the other side and you don't do proper drainage, that could cause additional higher water, possibly flooding in my area. So, I'm just asking that you take a close look at this. Um, the developer says they'll do certain things. They don't always do it. And and I think the developer is a respectful man, but money talks more than um action. So, I'm just saying please take a look close look at what they do so that my my neighbors don't end up in a 25-year flood plane because on their side, they have flooded some of their backyards. Mine hasn't. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Uh I need a motion to close the public hearing. Andrew, do you mind if I go ahead? Do you mind if I ask one question for staff real quick? Of course. Did you raise the question of the flood planes? Did What flood plane map are we using? Are we just using FEMA's flood plane map or is it just what the developer said or I believe it's we're going into FEMA is what we're looking at on the map here. And um at the time of site development plan that will be reviewed by engineer just to see you know if there's the detention ball would be required as well and there is a requirement that you can't increase the storm water runoff uh to the neighboring tracks that will be addressed at the time of site plan as well.

Okay. So they do know there there are issues with FEMA maps and there's a whole new thought of better flood planning. Um that's well beyond our scope but sounds like we're at least checking. one more. Okay. Yeah, I believe uh we have another gentleman who just arrived. Hello and welcome. Made it just in time. I looks like I did. Uh I'd like to ask Brian, is it Clifton? Yes, sir. All right. If you please uh state your name and address for the record.

Uh Brian Clifton. I'm at 1239 Blackthorn Drive and my property would back up directly to that plaque. Um, three houses down from Urser on the other side of the street. So, having seen what was done behind her house where they removed 100% of the vegetation from a 200 yard easement. Um my concern along with hers is the flooding and having that mitigated. Um, there are also a number of 10 to 12 inch trees that are not within 20 ft of the creek bed that are between the prop our property, the residential property and the creek bed that could still remain and be used to prevent soil erosion, provide wildlife habitat, and a privacy screening. Um cuz I know when they came through before everything was just bulldozed and those those larger trees are not right on the fence line. So when they come in to replace it, it wouldn't impede that progress either.

Okay. Yeah, we can just hear from you. Yeah, that that was my concern. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Do we have another arrival that wishes to speak? Somebody come in. Applicant that may be can speak on it if you would like. This is the applicant that would that may be able to speak if you have any specific questions. All right. Uh I need a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close. There second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? All right. Public comment has been closed. Uh yes.

Yeah. Hi. Um my name is Thomas. are the engineers for this project. Um, I just wanted to address some of the concerns that they might have. Um, we actually already have a site development permit for this particular project. We've also gone through the FEMA application process which is a conditional letter of map revision. That's taken into account the Atlas 14 that was recently adopted in 2019. So, you should not have any flooding concerns really. So I don't understand why your insurance rates went up but we are and have taken into account the updated rainfall data as part of the side development that was permitted by the city as well. Thank you.

So the updating of the easements is really just to show where that easement is going to be now. So you shouldn't have any concerns by this. All right. Uh if you don't mind trust the commission but that's all right. It's okay. Thank you. Um okay. Okay. So, this opportunity to discuss. So, um is the So, it looks like there's a ve a vegetation line and then it appears to be a silt fence that I can see on Google Earth. Oh, yes. So, as part of the site development permit, we have a erosion sedimentation control plan that's going to also meet all of the standards from TCQ to FEMA. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh,

that was that one. [laughter] All right. It's all good. Okay. Um I do have a question for our city staff uh whoever knows on this. So is the um I mean that vegetation line has a certain privacy value but also certainly I'm I got to imagine it it takes up acorage that would be considered part of the development. Is that right? I mean just looking at the tree line. I mean it's let's take a guess here from the the estimated fence line of a particular property. That's about 60 ft or so. Is that right?

I believe the distance uh you're talking about lot 4 is 70 uh 73 ft on the southern end and then 55 on the north that's referring to I'm on the between the houses that are the houses that uh are addressed on Blackthornne. Behind those houses there's about a 60oot strip of vegetation. Mhm. [clears throat] And then I can see a silt fence on the map. Is this the site development everything is that does it uh encroach on that vegetation line?

It shouldn't. So the drainage ement actually dedicated doesn't allow us to encroach into those areas. So we had to set those ement lines and the ESC controls kind of following those easements. So I'm looking I'm looking at the the drawing that was submitted. So it looks like lot four on this particular drawing uh on the uh on the engineering uh plan lot four is uh it's a drain 23 ft deep. So that that retains the current 60 or so foot vegetation. That's correct. We can't even grade into that area.

Understood. And then is that um looking at the there's a is that a two-track road or is that a drainage channel that goes That's a two track. So that's a that's a true drainage easement. So that means there's Yeah, it's an absolute V channel. Yes. Okay. Okay. And then is there any detention work that's required? So it's part of the FEMA and submittal to uh the city. We carried out a hydraulic analysis that proved that there was no rise from our development. So um no, there is no detention required. Understood. Yeah. Um okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you, sir.

Wait to clarify, I guess, cuz we're not seeing exactly what they're developing, but if they develop it, they would have to have detention to handle the development on there. But no additional detention is needed to um reduce where the 100red-year flood plane is to develop in the area that they want to develop in. Correct. They just can't have adverse impact offsite. Okay. Yes. So detention will be needed but not detention without developing the land. No detention required. No additional detention required. Now develop the site site detention as developed. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Did we get that right? I believe so. Okay. [laughter] All right.

I just wanted to clarify because my said detention kind of shortcircuited. Yeah. Okay. So the public is hearing is closed. Is there any discussion on the item? All right, I will accept Can I just reiterate one thing just for for the folks that are here? Um, one of the one of the concerns was related. Am I allowed to go ahead? Am I allowed to discuss their comments? I'm just allowed to You're allowed to talk to us. You're allowed to talk to us.

Okay. Okay, great. So, the main one of the main concerns I heard was the 100red-year flood plane, but what we're we're hearing and seeing on here and based off of what the developers said is that the 100red-year flood plane is where it shows on this plan and is is not made worse in the adjacent residential areas based off of what they're they're doing currently. Um, and this is showing the the most current Atlas 14 100-year flint plane. And the other concern was related to the vegetation having that buffer directly um for the the houses that are off Blackthorn Drive. And that easement, that drainage easement is significantly wider than what the vegetation area is. So that vegetation area will not be impacted because they will not be developing where that easement is located. So I just wanted to reiterate that for those that stuck around to listen. And is that a correct summary from what we're seeing here and what the developers said?

And the only thing I would add is I believe some of those trees were actually protected for the UDC. So some of them won't. Oh, and they're protected. Some Yeah, the bigger trees are protected so they wouldn't be touched. Yeah. And and so that easement is technically Is that a city? That's a city easement. Is that correct? The drainage should be done. So only the city could come in and remove that vegetation. The developer could not for Yeah. If they needed to for drainage. Okay. But there's a chance, just to be clear, there's a chance that the vegetation could be mitigated. Should the city determine that at a certain level, it must be at a certain point if if it was necessary for the drainage, then it could happen. Is there like an alert that goes out that you sent a letter, we're going to be removing some of these trees? Likely not. It's just it's for the betterment of the community drainage.

Okay. Okay. Uh any further discussion on the item? Then I will accept either a motion to approve the item or deny the item with a second. Motion to approve. Is there a second? We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? Who seconded? Okay. Thank you. Uh the eyes have it. Very good. Item item approved. Wonderful. Uh this concludes our meeting. I adjourn our meeting at 8:26.