Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

We'll call the Wednesday, 11/05/2025 planning and zoning commission meeting to order. Cecea,

would

you please call the roll?

Chair Clauson? Here. Vice chair Bone? Alternate vice chair Dominguez? Commissioner Emerson?

Here.

Commissioner Holloway? Here. Commissioner Huckabee?

Here.

Commissioner Memmick?

Here.

Commissioner Pumphrey? Here. Commissioner Wenth?

Here. Commissioner Attendees, would you please join us for our pledge of allegiance? Thank you. Pursuant to Texas government code section five five one zero zero seven, which allows the public to speak for a total of three minutes of any agenda item, excluding executive session. Sisiga, do we have anybody signed up?

No. Okey dokey. Get my cheat sheet here. Alright. We have election of officers. We'll consider a nomination for the election of a chairperson. Who will open the floor for nominations for a chairperson? Any nominations out

I'll nominate, mister Claussen. Second.

Third. I have a second. Any more nominations? We will close the vote for chair. Me. All those in favor Chair,

who who made the second?

Oh, I'm sorry. Thought Huckabee did. Huckabee did.

Thank you.

Am I good? All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries.

Good question. Question.

Chair, I I I I'd think like to nominate the current vice chair, Hollisbone.

I will second that. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, like sign, motion carries. And we will do alternate vice chair. Any nominations for alternate vice chair?

I'll nominate, Aaron Dominguez.

I have a first. Do I have a second? Second.

I have a second. All in the poll let's see. All in favor, say aye.

Aye. Motion

carries. Alright.

Excuse me. Who made the second for the for alternate?

Me. Oh.

Mister

Aye. Commissioner Witt.

Sorry. We're we're making up probably. I'm sorry. I was late, man. Golly. Okay. Consider approval for the minutes for October 15 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Anybody, commissioners, any items, any remove, anything on the minutes? So move. All right. I have a first. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I have a second. Oh, who did that? All in favor, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, like sign. Motion carries. Okay. We have zoning. G one, consider public testimony regarding recommendation concerning the request filed by Kimberly Horn on behalf of the property owner at 2601 Old Settlers to rezone approximately 29.69 acres of land from the light industrial district to a planned unit development to be known as the Skybox Old Settlers PUD, generally located East of North, I guess, AW Grimes Boulevard and South of East Old Settlers.

Case number PUD25Dash00009. Bradley. Oh. Oh, no. Lindsey. Yes. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Nope. I got it messed up. You're doing the others. Sorry, Lindsay.

It's okay. Good evening. I'm Lindsay Darden. I'll be presenting for staff presentation for Skybox.

Can I interrupt real quick?

Mhmm. Happy birthday.

Thank you. This is the highlight of my night. So the project before you is Skybox Old Settlers. And this, aerial just shows what's in the vicinity. To the North, there's some commercial, zoning and uses.

To the South, this is the Chandler Creek Mudd single family subdivision. And to the east and west are light industrial uses. In 2023, this property was zoned to the LI Light Industrial Zoning District, and now the applicant proposes to develop the northern portion of the property as a data center. Data center is not a defined use in the code, so our code is silent on where it would and would not be allowed. So typically, we've had a few of these come in and they have been permitted through PUD's on other sites in the city, and they typically fit in with light industrial based zoning districts.

The Round Rock 2030 comp plan land use designation is industrial, and this parcel has been sewn for light industrial. And data center and light industrial are both in keeping with that land use designation, so no real change there. Site access and roadways. The image on the screen shows three potential driveway locations, and those would be finalized at time of site development permitting in accordance with city standards. Driveway c would involve reconstruction of Kiffin Road driveway across Old Settlers and then it would end up combining with the shared access to the Chasco property that's to the east.

And if you have any questions about that, we have Ed here but I think at this stage, that's kinda what we know. This project will be subject to roadway improvement fees. K. So this PUD would separate the parcel into three different zoning areas in regard to permitted uses, and they're shown on the screen. Parcel area one to the north and adjacent to old Settlers would allow for data center and light industrial development.

Parcel area two would allow for light industrial development and a substation in conjunction with data center use on Parcel Area 1. If there was not a data center use on Parcel Area 1, the electric substation, would be unlikely. Parcel Area 3 is an open space parcel and it would consist of a 25 foot landscape buffer with an eight foot tall compatibility fence and wall and also, evergreen trees. And the remainder of Parcel Area 3 would be used for detention, storm water, and drainage infrastructure. No other uses would be allowed in that.

So in addition to those permitted uses that I talked about on the previous screen, this PUD would further limit the light industrial uses that could occur in Parcel Area 1 And 2. There's a list of them on the screen that would be excluded, and you can read through that. I'm not gonna read them all. Generally, they're uses that could be considered to be less compatible with, single family. Okay.

Moving on, additional parcel area one development standards. It would be a requirement that the data center utilize a closed loop cooling system to minimize water usage for the city's water resources. Parking, generally, what we're learning as we go along with these data center uses is they don't tend to have a lot of employees. So, we don't wanna have a scenario where they're grossly over parked. So, I think this one and then maybe the last couple have had a reduced or eliminated parking standard for data center.

Now if there is any office square footage that is provided in addition to the data center square footage, that would need to be parked according to the office standards to make sure that there is parking for that. And then there is a requirement that if if this is developed with light industrial uses, any loading docks would not face the southern property line toward the Chandler Creek neighborhood. Parcel area 1 development standards, would also include building design standards for the structure that goes on parcel Area 1. Generally, the Light Industrial Zoning District would be the base zoning district for this. So they have pulled the development standards for that so that would apply.

But in addition to that, to make sure that there is some appeal from old settlers, because it is kind of a major roadway, there would be building articulation features, that are chosen from a list in the PUD. And then additionally, changes in wall planes, color, texture, and exterior wall finish would apply across the length of the facade that's facing old settlers. Fences and walls. Generally, with data centers, they have to be very secure facilities so we anticipate that there will be some sort of perimeter fencing or wall to maintain security. We've had several different data centers come about now and some of them are like switch that have the really big opaque perimeter wall.

Sabi on Lewis Hena has more of an open picket fencing and then they have some, you know, other other things set back. So there's a variety of what is provided. For this one, it could be ornamental iron picket or other direct decorative view fencing for perimeter security. But if they have any mechanical equipment yards that are adjacent to the building, which data centers usually do, they would need to be screened with an opaque fencer wall, minimum height of eight feet, max height of 20 feet. Any finished face would be off-site or toward the roadway, and they would be comprised of those materials.

Landscaping is something that we flexed a little bit for data centers, mainly because of the variety of the enclosure. For some of the ones that have the perimeter walls where you really can't see the parking or the building so much. We have not had requirements for some of the parking lot landscaping because it's just not visible. In this case, this put is written where, the applicability of those things will depend on the visibility. So if they have view fencing, that's like ornamental picking it picket and you can see the foundation area of the building or parking, then the foundation treatment in the parking lot landscaping would apply.

If it's not visible, then it would not need to be added, and that would be determined at time of site development permit when we know the configuration and layout. Streetscape land landscaping consisting of large trees and shrubs would be planted along the north property line outside of any utility easements to make sure there is something along the roadway. So moving on to Parcel Area 2. Any light industrial use would have to be parked per the code. Electric substations, like data centers, don't really generate parking needs, so there would be no minimum parking for a substation use.

Generally, what we see with that is maybe an area for someone to drive up and service this and that and then they go away. Again, loading docks for light industrial uses would not be oriented to face the southern property line. And for any buildings that occur in Parcel Area 2, they would just be in accordance with the standards of the LI zoning district because they don't have that same roadway frontage as the ones in Parcel Area 1. For walls and fences, the code requires that electric substations be enclosed within within a perimeter wall and fence. Minimum height of eight feet, max height of 20 feet, same standards pretty much as what were applicable for the equipment yards, on Parcel Area 1.

And, the substation use would also require screening around the enclosure wall consisting of medium growing evergreen trees. Generally, those would be of an upright species so that way they're not spreading over the enclosure and interfering with the substation, more vertical growing varieties. Parcel Area 3 is intended to provide an additional separation from subdivision to the south. It would be, a total of 80 feet wide development setback, and that of that 25 foot would be a landscape buffer with wall, and the remaining could include detention, storm water, or drainage infrastructure. Just to note, typically with the LI zoning district, if you had a compatibility landscape buffer, it would be 10 foot wide.

In this case, it is 25 foot, so that is exceeding what would be required for the LI current zoning district. All the normal notifications were done, and we did some courtesy notices to Chandler Creek. And I think it was Homestead At Old Settlers. I did hear for one citizen today that had some concerns about, the substation and, whether the there is a road stub down on the southern side for Chandler Creek, but that is not proposed to be one of the access points for this project. And some wild loss of wildlife in that undeveloped parcel and just concerned about what the uses are, if it would be anything that is less compatible with the neighborhood or could pollute across the property lines like manufacturing.

So there was several concerns that were listed in that and I haven't heard from anyone else. And, that concludes my presentation. We recommend approval of the PUD. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer. And if I can't, I'm sure the applicant can.

Thanks, Lindsey. I'm I'm sure we're gonna have some questions. Does the applicant or owner or agent have anything they'd like to add to the presentation? If you would, when you come up, state your name and address.

Yes, sir. Jack O'Neil. 3706 White River in Dallas, Texas. First off, happy birthday. And thank you for, all your help and just guidance during this process, and appreciate all y'all's time this evening. Nothing else to add besides that we just aim to be good partners and stewards during this process and be transparent, communicative with all of the local city officials as well as invested members that would be a part of this project, and we're incredibly excited to partner with y'all. Thank you all.

Thank you. Once again, this is a public hearing. If you anybody here speaking for or for or against, I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Do we have anybody that signed up for anything? No. No? Okay. No citizens have signed up. No cards signed. So we will close the public hearing. We will move to commissioner discussion, and I will start with commissioner Emerson. Thank you. I don't. I keep looking at Humphrey, and I'm like, come on. Sorry. Thank

you. I just had a couple quick questions. It's really just to educate myself. You say there's no minimum parking. Just curious about the number of employees that will be hired or that'll be working there.

Great.

Minimum employees will generally between be between about thirty and sixty at the site.

30 or 60. Okay. Second question is that just educate me again on page number 15, dealing with the closed loop cooling system. How does that work?

Yes, sir. So there's multiple forms you can use to cool in a data center, and some use tons of water from an evaporative scenario. That would use, you know, hundreds of thousands of gallons of water. Ours would be closed loop, so you fill it up one single time, and then you're not gonna be adding and using water on a daily basis to that system. So it's going to be much more efficient on a water usage perspective.

Okay. You said initially, you would have to fill it up. How much water and where would that water be coming from?

Oh, that water would either be coming from municipality or we could also truck it in if that was a necessity as well. And, that quantity will fluctuate based on how much power is at the facility and how large it is, but generally around, you know, 10,000 gallons.

Okay. Last question is probably for Lindsey. Would this make our fourth data center that we have in Round Rock now, if you can recall?

I'm trying to think about it. There's Switch. There's. We had a pud for another data center on Chisholm, but I haven't heard anything about that one moving forward. The the PUD entitlement is still there that would allow that.

So this would our third one for the most part?

Yeah. If this one gets to construction soon, it will be the third one on the ground, but it would be our fifth entitlement for a data center because as Lindsay Lindsay mentioned, we have one on Chisholm Chisholm Trail over there, but also the Amazon property. They're entitled to one as well.

That's right. You did mention mention that. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, guys. Thank you so much, and happy birthday.

Thank

you. Commissioner Humphrey, happy birthday.

Thank you.

I don't have any questions. Thank you. Commissioner Mimic? Yeah. Happy birthday. I'll try to keep this simple. Is this a tier one, two, three, or four data center?

This would be a tier one.

Okay. So no do you guys plan on having a backup generation on-site?

Yes, sir. We would. There would be or apology. I guess it would be tier three data center. But there would be plans to do a redundant backup power system. So in the event, you know, there's an outage, the data center does not lose power.

And are there and not to rob some of your comments that you might have, but, are there concerns with noise?

No, sir. So you Go ahead. There there may absolutely be concerns with noise, but we aim to utilize kind of that nontransparent wall around the generator yard or we call it mechanical yard, and that would mitigate sound as well as you can do some noise dampening technology that really makes it tremendously quiet, relative to older technologies.

And how often do you have to exercise those units?

You'll run them only when the power goes out, and then really you'll just maintain upkeep about once a quarter.

Once a quarter? Okay. And you said there's no water utilization. What about makeup water on your cooling towers?

So we will not be using kind of any evaporative technology. So you'll maybe add a tiny bit from a top off scenario, you know, once every two, three years. But it'll be very miniscule. And then it'll be aimed to be a LEED certified building with, you know, toilets and sinks and minor irrigation in the area.

Okay. And what what is the total capacity of the the load, electrical curiosity.

We don't have any kind of interconnection agreement, so we can't say for sure, but the goal is about 60 megawatts gross.

Coming off of $1.38 k v?

$34.05.

$34.05? Yes, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Witt.

Mr. Mimic asked all the questions I was going to ask. Happy birthday, Lindsey. This seems pretty simple to me because it was zoned LI, and it's just allowing an additional use and then they took away a bunch of uses they could have had and they've added a 80 foot setback for that neighborhood. I remember when we zoned this LI, I think the neighborhood had a lot more concerns. So it seems pretty simple to me. Have no additional questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Holloway.

Happy birthday. So I guess my first question, probably for the owner, has Encore and our Irkat confirmed that they're gonna have the capacity on the state grid to support this?

No, sir. They're they're still in the study phase.

And do you anticipate that there would need to be a load shedding agreement in place at peak demand?

So any of the agreements will have the ability for ERCOT to be able to exercise that right, and that will be the case for any data centers moving forward due to new regulation in the state.

And then will the generators be used, like, for life safety purposes? Like, for lighting, fire alarm, things like that?

Oh, for a house power. Yes, sir.

Okay. So if that's the case, then FPA is gonna want you to test these things once a month. Do you know when y'all would typically test those?

We can abide by whatever the local code would be.

Is there a local code on when generators can be tested?

Not specifically speaking to generators, but we do have a noise ordinance that sets decibel limits for daytime or for nighttime. There's an industrial property or any properties during the daytime. You do have a higher limit. And it also sets regulations on how long at certain decibels as well. Couldn't recite it off the top of my head, but we do have a general noise ordinance that this would apply to. Okay. Are you gonna want dual substations for redundancy?

No, sir. Not dual substations. The only event that would be there would be any substation on the property would be if Encore needs it to basically stabilize the load for the area, but they would just be

a singular one. And is there any wording on that area too that limits it to just one substation on that property?

No. We don't have that language in the pud. Okay.

Nothing further. That's all I got.

Commissioner Huckabee. I think I have to say happy birthday since everyone else did. But no other questions.

Only thing I have is or should I only two things. On the water initial intake, and this I may be getting way ahead of my skis, and this may come up during site development. Does the size of water meter and LUE and impact fees take does it get accounted for during their initial it it should. Right?

Yes. They'll they'll size their domestic No size. Meter based off of their need. Okay.

Alright. I figured as much. Mhmm. And then let's see. Chandler Creek Access. The only other thing I was again, the site development. Whenever Encore decides to get involved, our requirements, the city requirements versus Encore, what they'll allow us to do for screening purposes and whatnot, we're not gonna step on their toes or they can't step on ours. Right?

No. But they typically screen their substations anyway, and and they're not necessarily beholden to our regulations, but they generally abide by our regulations wanting to be a good partner. And so at other substations around that are inside city limits, at least, you will see those tall masonry walls around them.

Cool. That's really all I had. Okay. Any other questions? Anybody else? Yep.

I mean, only other comment, I mean, to build off of what we said here, I mean, is adjacent to numerous communities. Right? And so I think we have to be very sensitive to when generators are exercised because they are going to be loud. And so I'd recommend that we look at that a little sharper and make sure that we're not going to be waking up people. Good point.

Very good. Okay. Everybody good? All right. If there's no more discussions, I will entertain a motion to approve item G1. So moved. I have a first. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Very good.

Thank you very much. We will move to item H1, consider public testimony regarding recommendation concerning to proposed amendments to the code of ordinances, city of Round Rock, Texas 2018 part three, zoning and development code section 10 dash 21 c four d, map amendment rezoning regarding protest procedures for certain proposed zoning changes in accordance with section two one one dash zero zero six one, Texas local government code, case number TAM25Dash00003. Bradley.

This is a code amendment that we are proposing just to bring our code in line with state law, upon the passage of house bill 24, the last legislative session, changing the threshold for protest petitions for rezoning. So prior to that, our code and generally state law allowed for a minimum threshold of 20% of the property owners subject to a zoning change or the property owners within 200 feet of a zoning change to file a petition. If that petition was valid, then it would require a three fourth super majority vote of city council to approve it. This is leaving part of that in place, but then adding a new level or a new layer to it. It was one of the measures that the legislature passed in order to help address housing supply and housing affordability in the state to ensure that rezonings would be more easily approved in a sense, and that protest petitions would kind of have less power.

So it increased the threshold from 20% to 60%, but then it kept simple majority vote at city council, to be in effect for that. So it's a lot of words to just say we're changing our code to match state law.

Very good. Okay. Well, this is a public testimony and I will ask do we have anybody signed up to speak for against this item? No. I'll open and I will close at the same time the public hearing and we will move to commissioner discussion. Commissioner Witt.

Nothing. Thank you.

Commissioner Holloway. No questions.

Commissioner Huckabay. No questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Emerson.

I had one or two questions, Brad. When I first read this bill and when it was first introduced, there was a lot of, native comments about House Bill 24. And I guess with the committee substitute, it, kind of made some changes to make the bill better. My concern is that what type of impact will it have on Round Rock?

You know, it's hard to say what kind of impact it would have. It would really kinda takes away a little bit of the impact or potentially a little bit of the power of adjacent property owners, whether homeowners or commercial property owners when a rezoning is proposed near them. And something that I forgot to mention earlier is that the 60% threshold really only applies to properties that are subject to a rezoning where you're increasing residential density. So not for an industrial, not for commercial zoning, just residential and and mixed use residential at that as well. And so, really, it kind of removes just a little bit of the power or a little bit of the influence for neighboring property owners to effectively kind of hold hostage a subject property owner's rezoning request.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Humphrey. No questions. Commissioner Mimic. No questions.

Okay. And I have none. So we will move for a motion to approve item H2. Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. H1. Sorry.

I move to approve H1.

I have a motion to have a second.

Second.

I have a second. Golly, I cannot talk tonight. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Alright. We will move to item h two. Consider public testimony regarding a recommendation and concerning the proposed amendment to the code of ordinances City Of Round Rock 2018 part three zoning and development code section four dash four eight b driveways to comply with the City of Round Rock's adopted transportation design and construction standards, case number TAM25Dash00004.

Right. This is another code amendment that we're making in response to a change. This time, it was our transportation department or public works department transportation division who made a modification to the design and construction standards for driveway spacing, and so they increased the minimum separation between driveways or from a street intersection to a driveway from 200 to 250 feet, in their technical criteria, so we're just changing our code to to reflect that.

Very good. This is a public testimony. I'll open for discussion. Do we have anybody signed up? No. No. I will close public testimony, and we will move to commissioner discussion. Commissioner Emerson? No comment. Commissioner Humphrey? No comment. Commissioner Mimic? No comment. Commissioner Winn?

No comments or questions. Thanks.

Commissioner Holloway? No questions. Commissioner Huckabay?

Nothing. Thank you.

I have no questions. If nobody else has anything else, I will entertain a motion to approve item h I'll make a motion to approve H2.

I'll second.

I have a second. All in favor, aye.

Aye.

All

right. Motion carries. We will move to item

sorry.

I'm on my wrong sheet. I1. Is that where we're at? Consider approval of twenty twenty six planning and zoning commissioner meeting schedule. Has anybody had time to take a look at the schedule? Everybody good? No issues? I'll entertain a motion to approve the schedule.

So moved.

I have a first. Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second. All in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. We will consider the annual review for the rules of procedure. Has everybody had time to take a look at amendments, revisions, or rules for procedures? Everybody good? Anybody have any questions, concerns? I'll entertain a motion to approve item I2. So moved. I have a first. Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second by I heard two. Who got it first? He did. Hucklebee? Or no. Holloway? Holloway. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion carries.

Alright. Staff report. Two weeks ago, the city council adopted all of the downtown code amendments as proposed by staff with one change, though they did remove the proposed prohibition on new single family homes in the M U 2 Zoning District. So that was kind of, you know, giving giving back our concession to the neighbors who are concerned about some of that higher density, but also the inability to build a home on a property on a vacant lot that they owned in that zoning district. Everything else was passed as proposed including all the rezoning of some of the subject tracks in that area.

Question? Man? Absolutely.

So the what what the the what they took out that you can build a house down there whether it was there or not before because I thought I had heard that it was only rebuilding something that was existing.

So how the the staff proposal was to prohibit construction of new single family homes where they did not currently exist, or just to, by choice, tear one down and build a new one. So property owners who had an existing single family home could keep it. They could expand it. You could add a second home or an accessory dwelling unit. It was just that no new homes effectively on vacant lot. So city council removed that proposed prohibition for the vacant lot parts. So now across the board in the M E 2 Zoning District, homeowners or property owners have the ability to build a new home, tear down a home, and build another one, whatever they would like to do. Got it. Thank you.

Yeah. I think the big concern was of all those vacant lots that had been there. Yeah. They thought they couldn't build homes on them anymore. Right. And that was a big concern. So I'm glad the council recognized that. That was a good idea. Very good. Everybody else good? Any discussions? All right. We will adjourn. 702.