City Council - Packet - briefing

Good morning. I'll call 07:30 packet briefing to order, and please call the row. Mayor Morgan. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Stevens. Here. Council Member Lee. Here. Council Member Flores.

Here.

Council Member Fleming? Here. Council Member Ortega?

Here.

Council Member Montgomery?

Here.

All right. Citizen communication. Anybody wishing to speak? Seeing none. Staff briefing. Consider staff briefings and council member discussion and or questions regarding items on the agenda for the 04/23/2026 city council meeting. We have historic preservation month proclamations and then air quality awareness week. Councilmember Montgomery, you're to read that one? Yes. All right. Anything on the consent questions for staff? Yes? Mayor Pro Tem.

I'm trying to find it now. Sorry.

That's all right.

Just for F5, just an update or some clarification on that one.

Chief's out here. Think it's oh, that's never mind. Sorry. That's

Litigation.

Sorry, chief.

JULIET This is ongoing litigation with the surety for the Heritage Trail West project. If you recall, that's the project which the contractor abandoned the project. That was prime construction. We have engaged Allensworth Law Firm to assist in this matter. We've met the 100,000 threshold. The point that this is in is summary motions for summary judgment have been filed by both parties, we're waiting for a hearing setting. Anything further, I'm happy to discuss one on one, or we can have an executive session on it. Any

other questions? Alright. Resolution is G1 Kisser, resolution amending appendix A fees, rates, and charges for the code of ordinances relating to parks and rec.

Rick? Good morning, mayor of council. Morning. This one really goes over, hopefully it's about to pop up, some of the fees that we're looking at changing as appendix There it is. Okay.

As you know, we've had the expansion of The Rock And River. We hope to open that one late next month, and we really want to get these fees and some other fees before counsel so that we can set these for the public. What we're looking at for The Rock And River is a $6 increase going from going to 18 for youth and 20 for adults. The real winner here is that we did we did a marginal increase for the family season pass by only $10. So what we're really doing is trying to, if you want the discount, pushing families to get that family pass.

They can use it for the whole summer. After four visits, they pretty much got their got their money returned to them, a family of four. If they have an additional family members, we have an additional fee that they pay on top of that. When you look at the individual and the there is no increase to the individual pass. Lake Creek and Cresbach, they will remain the same. So if they really wanna go to a pool, they still have the ability to go to a pool very reasonably priced here in the community. The other fees that we're looking at are baseball, softball rental fees. When you look at this right now, we have we have maintained those for a long time. It's just time that we raise those fees. We're going up to 200 a day, basically a $140 increase for the day.

If you knew anything about the fields, it was really, really a big bargain to rent our fields in the community. When we looked at our surrounding market, this still keeps us below the lowest in the surrounding market for youth field rentals. Same thing when you look at tournament fees, really, really affordable. And then when you look at the the life fees associated with that, we've maintained and we've progressively switched over to LED lights, but it had been 18. We're really bumping that to $25 an hour now, which we feel is still very reasonable and at the bottom end of the market that we're in right now.

The other fees that we're looking at are the pavilion rental fees. And why this really comes into play is we're looking at increasing, you know, our community pavilions. Those are gonna be the smaller ones that that you see out there. They've typically been $25. We're taking those to 100. You start looking at one of the new pavilions that we're rebranding, and it's the backyard pavilion out at Old Settlers. And if you've been out there, we put two huge barbecue grills that come with that as the rental. It also has a has a setup for cornhole and some other things. So we've made it a cool space, and that rental fee goes to $300 for four hours. If you want additional hours, it's $50.

And then when you look at the new Lakeview Pavilion, this is still a bargain price at $600 for four hours. If you want an additional hour thereafter, it's another $100. But when you look at some of our other pavilions, the neighborhood pavilions, community pavilions without restrooms, and then the RAD pavilion, there is no fee increase. So we've got a plethora of different pavilions and options that people can look at. Each one of the fee increases is commensurate with the quality of amenities that each provides. Other than that, I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have them.

Questions?

Councilmember Flores? Rick, on the pavilions, I mean, what's the utilization of those? Are we always in high demand and not enough pavilions?

Always in high demand, especially ones with restrooms, and we've got so many variety in our inventory. I will tell you, the phone's been ringing off the kind of off the hook for the new Lakeview Pavilion. The backyard pavilion, that one can be rented quite a bit too, and we see that happening. When you start looking at some of our smaller pavilions, Play For All, it's rented pretty much throughout the whole summer. Some of our neighborhood pavilions that we didn't increase, there's also strong demand for those as well for birthday parties, things like that in neighborhoods and communities. So all across the board with our pavilions, we have strong rental opportunities for all

of them.

How many more do you need?

You know, it's hard to say. Think

Don't ask Rick that question.

I was actually going to say, I think we're good with what we have based on the neighborhoods in which we have them I, know, I think there we've done a really good job with what we have.

Thank you.

Councilor Ortega. Two questions. One, to follow-up with councilman Flora said. When our subdivisions move up and they're within the city limits, do they provide their own community park or pavilions in there?

Yes. We tried to get out of the neighborhood park business years ago, and we've worked with, you know, with planning department and others through our parkland dedication ordinance. We really push that new development pays for itself and that they have their own amenity centers. I think you see that in just about any new development that you have. They've got their own community pool. They've got a kind of an amenity center. They do their own thing. The only thing that we really want is connections through trails and be able to connect everybody in our community.

Thank you. And the second question is on the family rate. If they added another person, what is that fee for that?

I believe it is $20 additional, isn't it? $15 additional. I was jacking it up by $5. So but as you can see, it's still a very affordable rate. And I will tell you with the family passes, we're gonna limit the number of family passes. We're going to put those out there for the public. We're going to put them for our Round Rock residents before we put them out there for the rest of the community so that we can make sure that our Round Rock residents have the first opportunity to capitalize on those passes.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Rick, do we know I mean, I know it's been a while since we've raised some of these fees for sure. Do we know kind of what our sister cities do? I mean Yes. We we kind of have any range. I mean, we higher, a little lower?

We are we are still at the bottom end because we want it to be affordable. We want our community to utilize ours. You know, when we think of Flougerville to, you know, just to our south, they've got Typhoon Texas, which is, you know, kind of a a whole different beast of an animal. We're more affordable than they

are. Mhmm.

And the rest of the central market, we've also compared ourselves to to folks outside of the central market as well.

Yeah. I mean, the demand for this is, you know, in the use, then you've got to pay for the use of it just like do for roads and

stuff. Absolutely. I will tell you the important piece about this one is this pool pays for and subsidizes the other pool in our inventory. And we're trying to make sure that we stay there and keep a strong position.

Well, I think you have a good broad selection of options. I mean, you know, that gives everybody a chance. Just to be clear, all this money goes to all the revenue goes to the general fund, just like all our other fees?

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Alright. Thank you, Rick. Thank you. G two, consider resolution authorizing amended execute contract with Asphalt Inc. Michael? Good morning, mayor and council.

Good morning.

This is our street maintenance program, residential street maintenance program. We went out to bid. We had five contractors. Lone Star paving was a low bid at 4,400,000. As you know, we budget about 4,500,000 a year for our annual street maintenance program for residential and then also 4,500,000 for arterials. We did a street maintenance assessment in 2024 that kinda graded out all the streets. About 90% of our streets graded good or satisfactory, so we really focus on the 10% that didn't, and then we kinda organize those by priority. As you see, there's four subdivisions we'll be working in this round. Windy Park. Here's Gaddis School.

Windy Park's just south of the Clay Matson. And then we have Quicksilver, which is up by Eagle's Nest Subdivision just south of University. Stone Oak, here's 1431. The Stone Oak Drive is included. And then Chisholm Valley, you got McNeil Road in the interstate over here, Chisholm Valley. All the little light blue streets is what we'll be working on. So recommend approval of this contract for street maintenance program for our residential streets.

All right. Any questions on that? All right. G3, consider resolution authorizing merit to execute contract with Royal Vista Inc. Michael?

This is just an overall public works improvement for the Meadows area. Meadows is an older subdivision. Here's Sand Bass on the West side. Back when this was developed, not a lot of drainage infrastructure was installed with the subdivision, so we'll have some stormwater improvements, adding some inlets, curbing inlets. While we're doing that, we'll be improving some of the older water wastewater lines over here and then repaving some of the streets in this area inside the the blue.

So Royal Vista, $6,100,000 for this contract. We had budgeted about 7.1, so we had some very good bidders. We had seven bidders on this. Royal Vista has done two other projects in the past in neighborhood type work and done a good job for us. They're a small contractor out of Liberty Hill, so we recommend approval of this construction contract in the Meadows area to improve the infrastructure.

Questions? Councilman Flores. Michael, that

very jagged line, is that because this is the most need of that area, or is the rest of the area okay? Is that a future work to be done?

Yes, sir. This is kind of the backbone. We kind of really focused on the drainage first, right, because we want to get the main drainage line to get it out the drain towards the creek. So we kind of built our project around this. And then in the future, we'll make improvements on the outside of this as well.

Thank you.

Councilmember Montgomery.

Good morning. Thank you. So how long will this take once it starts?

This will be about a year, year and a half project. Obviously, it's in an existing area, so you got traffic control and work around all that, but it'll be about a year, year and a half.

Thank you.

Mhmm. Councilman Ortega.

In the neighborhood north of there, it looks like a subdivision, there will be some disruptions along in that area.

Talking about all this right here.

Just below your arrow, inside the blue. Oh, right here?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. This will be construction all within inside the blue area.

And they'll be notified of what's coming?

Absolutely. We'll have a a neighborhood meeting kinda to talk meet the contractor, talk about the schedule, work with them. They'll have all the contact numbers. We'll assign an inspector and a project manager to it so that everybody's in the loop on the schedule, and that if they have any issues, they know they have the phone number to reach out to if they have any questions.

Alright. Thank you.

Any other questions? So we've had some issues with flooding, I mean, like homes or is it just No. The drainage is just not good at all?

It's not. You have bar ditches. We've not had water get into homes, but you do get it in the right of way in the street.

Which thing gets nerve racking for Absolutely.

Okay. Any

other questions? Alright. G. Forks, the resolution authorizing the to execute QA with J. D. Abrams.

We thought we were done with this, right? Kenny Fort 2 And 3. Well, we are finished. This is the closeout. We've been negotiating for the last year on liquidated damages with JD Abrams. I'm happy to report this is the final closeout. We will receive $867,000 in liquidated damages. If you recall, this project was quite late. So there was a lot of negotiation on some quantity adjustments, some change order things, but included in this final closeout is $867,000 credit back to the city. We take that off.

You know, we hold retainage and things with contracts, so we're able to hold that money back and get this. So happy to report that project is finished, and now we can put it to bed. So hopefully everybody's enjoying it. It's a wonderful road for the city of Round Rock. Any questions?

All right. G5 consider a resolution authorizing reimbursement of QT South.

So this is QT South is located at Highway 79 and Counter 110 on this Southeast corner on the East Side of Round Rock. When this this is this property is not located in the city limits of Round Rock, so they had an out of city wastewater agreement with us. They do receive water from Jonah. So anything on the East Side Of Counter 110, which is right here, is Jonah water. But we do provide wastewater in our ETJ. So they constructed this wastewater line. Here's the Walmart on 79. They constructed the wastewater line, the yellow line you see here. We asked them to oversize it. So they needed a 12 inches wastewater line.

We asked them to oversize it because we know all this is going to develop in the future. So we oversize this first part to a 24 inch and then this from the manhole all the way east to a 15 inch. We have a reimbursement ordinance. So this is a 172,000 reimbursement to QT for the oversizing of the wastewater line for that property.

Questions? Alright. G seven, consider resolution authorizing the rate of execution agreement between the city of Round Rock and Round Rock Transportation Economic Development Corporation.

Same property. As I said, this is out

Oh, g six. No. Now you got me all confused. Yeah. G six. Sorry. Consider resolution authorizing mayor to execute first amendment to that of city wastewater development agreement. Sorry, Michael. My glasses aren't working.

That's okay. This is the same property, QT South. Here, it's shown in boundaries in yellow. As you know, properties that are located not in the city limits but in our ETJ, we put a limit on the number of LUEs from a wastewater standpoint. So it's four LUEs per acre when you're not in the city limits. So this property came in. We dedicated a 139 living unit equivalents for a multifamily I'm sorry, a 134 for multifamily, and we had five for a convenience store. And that's what was in the original agreement. They've asked us for eight additional LUEs because they wanna put a car wash in on this property. Okay?

From a water standpoint, this is Jonah Water, as I said earlier. But we said, okay. No. We have a limit in the ETJ. You will notice another item coming up with Bradley about annexation of a QT South on a property off University in 01:30. So part of our discussions were you voluntarily annex into the city on that property to the north. We will work with you on additional LUEs here. They agreed to that, so that's a good thing for the city to get those properties in the city. So Bradley will bring that item. But in this one, it's an amendment to their out of city wastewater service agreement to add eight LUEs of wastewater service. They will pay the eight LUEs of impact fees in this agreement. So I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Questions? Councilman Flores?

So, Michael, that highlighted parcel there, QT controls all of that?

Yes. So they own this entire property, and they'll be multifamily, their convenience store, and they want to add a car wash. So I don't know if they they may have sold the multifamily portion to a different developer.

Oh, okay.

But they were the original buyer of it, and that agreement is with them.

I'm looking at approximately how big is that parcel? I'm just curious.

I would say, let's see, probably 30 acres.

Okay. Thirty, thirty five. But they keep the corner, perhaps have sold off the other part, but are just entitling this for future use.

Yeah. This is for a future car wash opportunity associated with that convenience store. You.

But it's outside the city limits, right? So, we wouldn't have any control on the MF, the multi family.

That's right. It's ETJ. Yes, Councilwoman

Montgomery.

Michael, if it's not too complicated, can you kind of tell me

the

methodology behind deciding that for LUEs for that type of property is the limit?

Yes, ma'am. We do a wastewater master plan of the entire city, and it's based on land use assumptions. So if you're a single family land use assumption, we we put in there four LUs per acre. If you're multifamily, we put in 20 let me get complicated here. We put in about 14 unit sorry, 20 units or so for multifamily per acre, four for single family, three to four between commercial and industrial.

So that's how we kind of size our wastewater infrastructure based on the land use assumption at the time, and this is before properties come into the city per se. So we know kind of how that's how we size our infrastructure and our treatment plant.

Okay.

So when you get outside the city limits in here, and this is a service area that's in the ETJ, we wanna make sure if you're not in the city, you don't take up all additional capacity that we built in for our city. So say this property wanted to be, convert to all multifamily, which is about 20 living unit equivalent per acre, we would say, wait a minute. We can't do that because that's taking away capacity that we set aside for property in our city limits. So to balance the capacity of our system, we put a limit on outside ETJ. Now, if you want to come annex into the city, then we're more open to adjusting that in working with you.

But we want to incentivize folks to annex into the city. That makes sense?

Yeah, that makes sense. So based on the fact that this is what seemingly is a large property area, if they decide to develop, and we've already given them eight LUVs, right? LEUs, whatever. Would that put a strain on our property, on our resources if they were to develop something that would consume more than eight?

If they

Because they're not in the city limits, they have the latitude to do what they want, right?

They only have the latitude. They can do what they want as far as development, but they have an agreement with us on the amount of capacity we're going give them for wastewater.

Okay.

So they can't come in and put a 10 story high rise there that's going to use 100 LUEs because we're not gonna allocate in an agreement to them to be able to provide that much wastewater.

Okay. Yeah. And I think I think if I understand correctly, this is gonna be Jonah Water. The one up north will be our water. And that property to the across from County Road 10 to the west is in our ETJ as well. I mean, it's so it'd be hard to get over here to annex that that lot or that acreage or It's

got to be contiguous, yes.

Right. It's got to be contiguous. Yes. Anybody any other questions? Okay. Alright. Thank you, Michael.

Yes, sir.

Alright, Kevin. I've already read it, so I'm not gonna read it again.

Good morning. Good morning. So this is a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement between the city of Round Rock and Round Rock Transportation EPA and Development Corporation. Thursday night, we have debt issuances on the agenda pending council approval. The issuance for CEOs or certificates of obligation includes $30,000,000 which will be for roadways across the city.

Much as we've done historically, this agreement will be in between the city and type B corporations. So the type B corporation will pick up the annual debt service requirements for that debt. The city has a AAA bond rating, which saves us some money over the type B corporations, AA plus rated sales tax revenue bonds. This is consistent with prior agreements. This, the language in the agreement says that type B corporation will pay the debt service through 2029. We're kind of lock loading up all the type B debt with that date, so we have a date pretty near in the future at which we can update the long range financial plan to see if that can be sustainable in the future. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Questions on G7? Mayor Protoon.

Is that the highest bond rating that type B can get, or can they

No. The type B corporation could have a AAA in theory.

Okay.

Though in practice, because it's sales tax revenue bonds, it's a more volatile revenue source and backed by the property taxpayers of Round Rock. I'm not sure if there's any Type B corporations that have a AAA bond rating.

Harder to get to it. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? That's why it'd be so dangerous for cities to be on sales. We'd lose every bond rating we had if we went to a sales tax funding source. G8, consider resolution authorized merit to execute service agreement with property owners of eight and a half acres.

So g eight is all related to h six, h seven, and h eight as well. I've got just kind of one presentation that can go through all So of if you want to change the the order that we go in on Thursday, it's kind of up to you.

Let me look at it, but go ahead and do it today Alright. This

So item g eight as well as h six, h seven, and h eight all kind of follow Michael's items related to that QT property on the South. Are all linked, so the amendment to that out of city wastewater services agreement. QuickTrip agreed to annex this property into the city. So the first thing up is a municipal services agreement in which the city agrees to provide all of the applicable city services to the property we're going to be annexing. In this case, that's everything except for water.

However, because this one is in the Jonas CCN, but still it's in our wastewater CCN. Whenever we have wastewater services out there, they'll be entitled to use that. Currently, it's just on septic, but as well as public safety planning code enforcement will apply to this property as well. Moving on to the next item, which is the actual annexation of the CR 107 Spurs. So, if you recall over the last couple of months, we have done two public hearings for this without any action.

So, now is actually finally the time for action without a public hearing though. So, whenever the city annexes a property, brings it into city limits, if that property is adjacent to County Road, the city is required by state law to annex that County Road. We've had to go through all those previous steps to get us to this point here. So, item H6 is the annexation of that section of County Road 107 Spur along the east side of the quick trip tract, and it was released or the release of that was approved by the Williamson County Commissioner's Court back in February, I believe. Item H7 is the annexation of the quick trip tract here, eight and a half acres.

And moving on real quick to the original zoning as well, all going together here. H 8, the original zoning. The future land use map designates this property for commercial use. It's at the intersection of State Highway 130 and University BoulevardChandler Road. So, C1A is the makes the most sense for this property.

There's very high utilization within this zoning district for what could be built there as well as the maximum height for any building there. It meets all of our location criteria for commercial zoning in accordance with the comprehensive plan, and so some of the land uses you could expect to see or that are allowed in the C1A zoning district are listed here. We've got a maximum building height of 12 stories because of that interstate or because of that highway frontage, I should say. So, you know, we anticipate this to be a quick trip gas station for a very long time. You know, one thing that might be interesting to watch out for is when we do get our wastewater out here and they're able to tie on to that and they no longer have to have septic in a septic field, maybe it opens up some developable land at which time, you know, who knows what they might want to do, but they'll be coming through us in our department for all those permits and the handling of all of that right there.

So the zoning was considered by the planning and zoning commission on February 18 and unanimously recommended for approval I'll be happy to answer any questions you have on items g eight h six h seven or h eight

All right. Any questions on any of that, Councilman Flores?

Brad, maybe you told me before and I forgot. But the little sliver of land that was released to us, What is that contiguous to that makes it contiguous to this parcel?

So, it's kind of hard to see right here. So, it's contiguous to this tract. It is also contiguous to Chandler Road, which we have inside city limits. And so since we have to take this portion of it that is adjacent to this property that we're taking into city limits, if we wanted to annex this property or this property over here, we would then have to take the rest of that, as well as whichever portions of that road are on the North side of those properties.

But if passes, then the parcel to the north of it is now contiguous to this parcel.

Correct. So this the annexation of the Quick Trip tract will provide contiguity to this property here, which will allow us to annex that if we want to, but state law would still dictate that we have to take the right of way adjacent to it.

So Tanner Road is ours? Yes. And that's why that parcel was released to us, which allows us to get to this. Okay. Yes. That's clear as mud. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions over here? All right. Why don't you go ahead and do h nine, and then I'll bring Kevin back up, I'll figure out about for Thursday.

Alright. So item h nine is a major putt amendment for the slate round rock PUD. We are on the just on the South Side of East Old Settlers Boulevard here. Right over here is West Mesa Park Drive. It's a 10.85 acre tract. We've got a residential neighborhood a couple of them to the south here. Chapel Hill North and Settlement are located to the South adjacent to this property. You may remember this one came forward a few years ago for its original zoning to a PUD. Prior to that, it was zoned commercial C1. So, it was zoned PUD number 148 to allow for urban multifamily development and townhomes.

So, here's a map showing the surrounding zoning. We've got commercial zoning already, you know, kind of here and here, which are developed with multi story office buildings as it is. We've got a multifamily apartment complex over here and then all the residential. The TF right here, that's the two family zoning district which allows duplexes. So, do have a little bit of an informational or educational slide right here.

I'm not gonna get into all of it. It explains the difference between a major amendment and a minor amendment when we use each one because that's kind of been the basis for which many of the questions we've received from the neighbors to the south. They've asked us why do they need to do a PUD amendment if there's kind of changing these things. It's really just an educational slide to try and help inform people who will be here on Thursday evening just so that they know exactly what it is we're doing here, why it has to go back through the public hearing process. So the proposed amendment that the developer has applied for will retain the original development option for high density urban multifamily that was approved a few years ago, but then we'll add, you can think of it as a second option for medium density multifamily.

And this is due to some drastically changing market conditions since 2023. Back then, it still made sense economically to build a high density multifamily project. High density meaning it had structured parking garage for most of it, a little bit of surface, a little bit of tuck under and detached garages. But, since then, there's been a building boom and multifamily rents have come down drastically. And so, as we have discussed, going back to the December pre retreat, we are revisiting the policies as it pertains to multifamily housing in the city.

And so, we're kind of using this PUD as a little bit as the template or kind of the first project in that. And so, you know, back in our offices, we are working on amendments to the comprehensive plan to the zoning and development code that we'll be bringing forward in the coming months. In the meantime, we've been working with this developer to create this medium density option that is primarily surface parked to try and help meet the needs of the market where it currently is right now. So, the PUD amendment will keep the original high density option. It's going to add a new medium density option.

They're not going to be allowed to mix and match their standards between the two. You're going to have to pick A or B and ride that all the way through. So, we've called those the high density urban multi family option one or medium density urban multi family development is going to be the secondary one. We're still keeping or still consistent with the comprehensive plan, which designated this for commercial use. That was actually done back in 2023 when the PUD was first adopted, changed from commercial to residential.

Nothing is changing as it pertains to the comprehensive plan with this PUD amendment. So, both development options will have the same site access. There is an existing driveway here, and they have a shared access easement with the property to the west that will carry a driveway across and then match up with this driveway here. So they're not gonna be able to get their own driveway onto East Old Settlers because we do not meet the separation requirement between driveways in accordance with the transportation design and construction standards. They will also have a driveway, full access driveway onto West Mesa Park over here.

So a recap of the existing PUD and development option A, if you want to call it that, the high density urban option, allows four and five story multi family structures in the majority of the tract here, and those have to be parked with a structured parking garage as well as a little bit of surface parking and tuck under parking. It was limited to up to three seventy five dwelling units. There was a 135 foot setback from the southern property line for four story buildings. That increases to 170 feet for five story buildings. So originally, the plan was to have a five story building with a structured parking garage in this portion, and then there would be a few, one or two, you know, four story buildings along there in this portion of the tract, and those would have to meet that 135 foot setback.

Additionally, after negotiations with the neighborhood, there's a restriction on balconies on south facing facades just to prevent any of that and prevent to preserve some of the privacy as requested by the neighbors down there. This PUD also allowed a row of townhomes up to two and a half stories in height along the southern portion of the property to provide a buffer between the high density multifamily buildings and the neighborhood. There was still a 50 foot setback along the south side of where those townhomes are allowed. We still had that compatibility buffer. So, there's the property line, the compatibility buffer with the 50 foot setback area for townhomes, and then area for high density multifamily.

These are some renderings of what the proposed high density multifamily project could look like. It's really not something that you're supposed to take 100%. Literally, it's really just identifying some architectural features, general architectural designs, showing elevation variation orientation, those types of general architectural principles that we would expect to see here. The medium density option and the reason for the PUD amendment will allow up to 285 multifamily units. So, that's a reduction of 90 units because we're dropping from a higher density to a medium density project.

Also, we're coming down in the maximum height to just three and four story buildings instead of four and five story buildings. To account for the slightly shorter buildings, there's a 90 foot setback for three story buildings, but the 135 foot setback still applies for four story buildings no matter which option they choose to take. And additionally, another requirement that if they have a mix and match four story and three story buildings or want to kind of arrange those however they wish, they cannot have a four story building closer to the neighborhood than a three story building. It will be a combination of surface parking, detached garage parking, tuck under garage parking, and carports, so there will not be a structured parking garage with this. There is still a 90 foot setback, as I stated on the previous slide.

Within that setback, you have a 10 foot PUE immediately along the southern property line. After that, there's gonna be a 15 foot wide landscape buffer, and then the remainder of that setback can have carports and parking and other areas like that, with some select amenities, but not like swimming pools, basketball courts. They can't be within that 90 foot or, yeah, within that 90 foot buffer there. We're requiring the developer to provide the same number of amenities as the high density development option and the same compatibility measures in terms of landscaping and fencing. Some other architectural renderings.

This is really the focus of this one is to address how the building could look as it faces West Mesa Park, not necessarily how it could look on the South Side facing the neighborhood because we do have a balcony prohibition there, but just generally the kind of architectural style that they will be going for. This is a quick comparison of the existing high density option and the proposed medium density option as it relates to compatibility with the neighborhood and transitioning from the development on this property to the neighborhood. Most of it really is the same with the exception of the two highlighted portions. Under the high density option, there's a minimum 50 foot building setback, but, again, that only applies to townhomes because multifamily structures would have a 135 foot setback. For the medium density option, there's a minimum 90 foot building setback because we have all multifamily and no townhomes, but that multifamily can be three stories high and four stories high.

And so for a three story building, that's a 90 foot setback. Another change is that in the existing development option A for the high density, balconies are prohibited on south facing building facades no matter what across the entire balance of the property. For the medium density option, balconies are allowed on south facing building facades as long as there's an intervening building of the same height to effectively screen that from the neighborhood. We still have our eight foot tall compatibility fence, which is above and beyond the six foot requirement in the base zoning code, as well as a 15 foot wide landscape buffer, which is above and beyond the eight foot requirement in the code. We went through all the standard public hearing notification methods.

We published in the newspapers, sent a mailer to all the residents down there, posted the sign. We also sent another courtesy notice to the neighbors who were participating in the public hearing process in 2023 to make sure they were aware whether they're renters or owners. It didn't matter. We want to make sure, since they were engaged at that time, that they're aware of what's going on this time. We've had a lot of interest and conversation with some of them as well.

This was considered that should say '26 right there, 04/01/2026. PNZ recommended approval by a vote of four to one with a condition regarding balconies that results in what is being presented today. Prior to that, the developer was pushing for allowing Juliet balconies on southern facing facades, and the residents did not want that at all. That was a negotiation that happened during the meeting, and the commissioners made a motion to effectively remove all balconies from southern facing facades unless you had an intervening building. So that results in what we're being what is being presented for approval right now.

We had one speaker who was concerned about the safety of kids and as it relates to school bus pickup and drop off and also for stacking spaces for left turn movements onto Old Settlers Boulevard from Mesa Park, stating that traffic already tends to back up for people on Mesa Park who want to turn left to go westbound on East Old Settlers. So, if this is going to be adding traffic to that, how is that going to be impacted? But, again, you know, for our transportation colleagues, they're always reviewing the signal timing and stacking. And so, if something needs to change, they'll be able to evaluate that and make that change if it's deemed necessary. Since that meeting, we've been in regular contact with a couple of the neighbors down there, one in particular who's really wanting to understand the actual process that we're undertaking right now, the need for PUD amendment, thus the presence of that slide at the beginning of the presentation, and then still stating concerns about compatibility with the neighborhood to the south, as well as expressing some frustration that the amendment actually includes two development options.

It is a little bit unusual. Normally when you're presenting a PUD, it's here's how you do it and this is what you got to do. But in this case, we're kind of creating option A or option B. We have no problem with that as staff because we're still creating unique tailored development standards for this particular property. We're providing flexibility in the sense that they can do option one or option two.

That really just is to account for changes in the market. If suddenly the market kinda starts their or signs it's gonna be swinging back in the direction that would be more favorable for a high density option, we think it's reasonable to keep that as an option in here instead of pigeonholing them into the medium density option. So a little bit unorthodox, but we don't feel like there's anything illegal, unethical, or even strange about it. It's just not something we typically do to provide multiple development options. But in this case, we believe it does make sense. So the developer will be here on Thursday evening to answer any questions you might have of him, and I'm happy to answer questions as well.

Any questions? Mayor Pro Tem.

So how far into the development process do they finally have to decide option one or option two?

Effectively, when they submit their site plan permit or site plan application, they have to tell us which option they're going to be going for, and that'll be quite obvious by what they present, the number of units. At that point, they are effectively locking in that development option and can't go back to the other one.

And it's just an interesting exercise that we go through here, and it can be messy and ugly. And I remember this one when we went high density. It seems like the market is really the dictator and driver. I know we did this with the one over close to Dove Creek recently also. So yeah, I think this is a good exercise. And just because they get entitled and it gets zoned that way, that doesn't mean you're going to finally see that finished product on the ground. There's so many other factors to take into consideration. All right, thank you.

Yeah, and I think that it's actually it seems like, you know, from all the speakers, if I remember, I've slept since the last meeting that we had on the 20 whenever it was in '23. It seems like it has become more accommodating to the neighborhoods because if I remember correctly, the biggest concern was the structure parking garage being right on their south balcony. I mean, on the south line, number one, and they were concerned about the noise and all that. I mean, you're reducing the units by 90. I mean, and then building heights go down a story or two.

So, I mean, I think it, you know, I mean, is it going to be perfect? No, but I think this is more on the line with what that neighborhood wanted, in my opinion, unless something's changed, And so I do get the frustration with the Putt Amendment. I mean, I think that's a question we can kind of ask the developers if they feel like it'll be option one or two if they have any inkling. I mean, saw an article in the paper today that there's a glut of apartments right now and the rents are actually dropping. We hear about affordability all the time in this city.

And so one of the things we've tried to do is give a mixed use of type of living for people at all the different levels that they're at in their respective lives. Councilmember Fleming.

I just wanted to confirm when there was questions or concerns about the traffic on Westmont Sub Park, there is a stoplight there that they Correct. Already were not going to have to add one?

Correct.

Okay. And then, I guess it's just to elaborate on what Mayor Morgan said. So, when you've been talking to them, are they feeling better about having this second option? And is the frustration because it's not determined for sure? Because like you said, it seems like it's a better option that they would be more happy with, but we're still having frustrations. So, is the mentality?

I think, generally, they are pleased that the new development option is less intense, lower building heights, less density than the first building option, and the frustration kind of stems from having to go back through a zoning process, but also keeping the first development option in there to begin with. It kind of presents the appearance or creates the perception that the developer wants to have their cake and eat it too or kinda get whatever they want, which is not the case. It's it's the city providing flexibility in a way that actually we think makes sense for the property, but it's it's kind of, you know, the perception the developer can't really make up their mind is just trying to, you know, go through, well, what else can we do here?

Well, and I think, I mean, they're going to have to decide. Like you said, they can't do both. So, hopefully, they'll go with the second option if the residents like it better, that it would help them. Okay. Thank you.

Councilman Flores. But they have the option to pick between A and B. I was curious, it's like from a staff's perspective. I mean, looked at this two years ago or whenever it was, and you're having to rehash it again. You know, with regards to your time, your fees, I mean, do you collect another

file fee or however we do that to review it and add a secondary option? We do for any major PUD amendment. It is treated as a new PUD effectively because you're going through all the same steps. You're kind of creating a new PUD in a way. Sometimes you're just redlining in a few areas to increase density or something or change land uses. In this case, we're effectively adding a whole another PUD into this one. It has to go back through P and Z with public hearings and all the notices that are required back through city council. So, it is because the code basically treats it as a new zoning or a rezoning, we do charge the original PUD fee as well. So, they're not getting a break on the fee there. It's the same fee as if they were applying for a new PUD or a new zoning altogether.

Okay. And then do you have any idea or opinion on, is this developer just getting entitled to sell or is this are they actually gonna go forward with the project themselves? And any idea on what that timing might look like?

I think they're all in on this property and developing it themselves. They actually had a site development permit in for review. They had gone through a few rounds of review under the original development option that they were have been and still are entitled for. Then the market started to change, and then they were tapping the brakes and saying, this probably isn't gonna work anymore. So, they still have that as a possibility they could go back to if the market does change again. But since they were already going through that process under the existing PUD, we fully expect that they're they would move forward, you know, later this year with a new site plan if this one gets approved.

Thank

you. Any other questions? Can you tell me what and if you can't, it's no biggie, but what was the one no vote and why? I mean, do we know why there was why the her vote on PNZ would know the reason?

It was a little bit circuitous at PNZ because of the addition of the motion to to add the condition regarding the balconies. I believe the no vote was because the the desire to effectively the it wasn't a desire to vote down the Putt amendment overall. It was just not being on board necessarily with that motion. But I honestly, I would have to go back and look at that video because I don't want to misquote or put words in anybody's mouths that aren't accurate.

That's not

a huge issue. Any other questions? All right. Let's go ahead and do H10. I've been on the wrong agenda, so, you know, I apologize.

Geez. Item H10, another major PUD amendment. This one for PUD number 132. This is the Kenney Fort North PUD, formerly referred to as the Harris Tract. Also, might know it as the Stockwell Property or the Stockwell Tract.

So, along the north side of the property is the Union Pacific Railroad as well as the East Palm Valley Boulevard right of way. On the east side for a little bit, we have South Kenny Fort Boulevard kind of progressing further, but then there are a couple of intervening properties as well currently owned by Kalahari right there. Overall, it's a 110.54 acres and includes a portion of the Brushy Creek Regional Trail going through some of the areas towards the south down here. So, this major amendment is proposed because the changes desired by the developer as well as changes desired by staff will exceed what is allowed by a minor amendment. So, the development plan that we have here in the meeting packet in the PUD is just a complete replacement of what used to be in there.

We could have tried to go through and red line what the changes would be. It would have been entirely too messy because there are so many changes. It just makes more sense to provide a new clean development plan within that PUD. Here's the surrounding zoning map. So, the properties on the east side here, this one is C 1 A owned by Callahari.

This one is a PUD which allows for C 1 A plus their employee housing building right there, and then we have a lot of other zoning around including a single family neighborhood down here that was developed as a PUD because of some other properties towards the south there along Forest Creek. The future land use map designates this property for mixed use right here in this kind of hashed area, and so the PUD amendment is keeping this a mixed use development, and so that is consistent with the comprehensive plan, so no changes need to be made there. And the reason for the big overhaul is that we're effectively taking this from what used to be called a mixed use greenfield development, which takes a large property, undeveloped, you've kind of got a blank slate there, the MUG district and the MUG standards require it to be developed sort of around a main street or have a main street or a town center focus. But we are pivoting away from that and the developers on board with this. We were kind of pushing it, and they were completely on board.

So, we're bringing this now to a trail oriented design or a trod focus. We're keeping a lot of the same commercial uses, more multifamily, urban style multifamily, low density residential, adding office warehouse as well, but really moving away from a main street design to something that is more oriented towards the trail down here, and I'll elaborate on that in a moment. We're also revising the public street network in here to add the potential for a public street connection on the West Side over here that will connect to a potential future extension of Double Creek Drive. So, that is in the ultimate roadway network for the city that an extension of Double Creek Drive will come to the north and eventually hit Palm Valley somewhere over here, ideally right there, but maybe not, might not have the geography. However, we wanted the developer to add the option to have a public street coming across, meeting up with Double Creek, and then eventually, ideally, that would also be able to continue to the West as well and go provide a connection towards play for all in that area too.

So, we're providing the option for the connection there. Hopefully, this is a roadway that can come to fruition sometime in that ten, fifteen, twenty year time frame, not a guarantee, but it's important for us to be able to provide the option there. Additionally, because there is no direct access to Palm Valley Boulevard, so providing the connection out to the West and then eventually for Double Creek going to the North, it provides a much needed outlet, an additional outlet for everybody living here, visiting here as well, so that they all don't have to go out to Kenny Fort Boulevard on these two roads. A little bit about trail oriented design. We have talked about this, you know, back last year at the strategic plan pre retreat and at other times as well.

Trail oriented design is a approach to planning and recreation that integrates trails with nearby or adjacent residential and commercial and parks development. You want those two or multiple land uses to really be able to feed off of each other, provide energy back and forth. You've got the residential or the commercial, which brings people and gets them close to the trail. They see the trail. Maybe they want to use the trail.

But, it also provides opportunities for people who are already using the trail to have a fun place to stop off, maybe go to a restaurant, do some shopping or something, a way of kind of getting people out of their cars or able to do more stuff out of their cars either on foot or by bike. It enhances connectivity. It supports local businesses and creates transitions between trails and adjacent properties. And so, we really do have the perfect opportunity here with the Brescia Creek Trail that already extends through it to create our first mixed use trod development. So, why is this location so great?

This really sets the stage for the connection between trail usage and trod and other developments within the city. This particular location is right in between Kalahari and the Play For All Abilities Park. There's a lot of traffic on this trail right now. We have the ability with this development to bring more people to the trail, but also to get some people who are on the trail off and visiting the businesses that we'll be setting up here as well. There will be a lot of people living in this development, so they'll have immediate access to the trail.

So, the idea is to really find some of these strategic locations at points along the trail. We don't want to do this along the entirety of the trail. That takes away the appeal of the whole trail. We just want to find a few points here and there across the city where we can create these opportunities for people to have access to these kinds of amenities. So, the trail is the crown jewel, is the spine, the backbone of the city.

For the most part, we're leaving it alone or in nature, but we do have a few opportunities that we think we can really take advantage of, and this one is probably the biggest one that we've got. So, you know, as you move along the trail corridor, you've got the progression between natural areas and more developed areas. This would be one of those developed areas, still keeping a lot of those natural areas. We are preserving direct access to the creek within the PUD. So, as you'll see, the PUD is going to be relocating this portion of the Brushy Creek Trail into the property, but the PUD does require that the city maintain public access along that waterway for public access.

And, we have found with past city surveys that the majority of residents actually want this kind of connectivity between trails and entertainment retail restaurant options. So, the PUD creates a certain, you know, set of activity areas. The first one is the Brushy Creek Trail. We've kind of highlighted that in green right here. So, the actual black line is the approximate location of where the relocated Brushy Creek Trail will go.

Currently, it's identified by this thin double line right down here where we currently have it constructed. So, the developer is on the hook to pay for the cost of relocating that trail to bring it up and along the southern portion of the developable area there. They're gonna develop it to city standards, maintain all of our requirements, and then they're also gonna be dedicating a significant portion of the floodplain area to the city as well. We also have the water's edge highlighted down here in light green. So, this is a 50 foot wide linear dedication along the southern property line along the northern bank of the creek dedicated from the developer to the city so that we can maintain that pristine natural access to the creek along there.

Just because the trail is being relocated, we're not taking away access to the creek. We're gonna be preserving that down here. No development can occur in this area without Pard approval. I don't suspect there will be any development at all. It is obviously in the floodplain, and we wanna keep that as natural as possible down there.

We have another activity area that we're referring to as the Paseo along sort of along the east side over here. This is a linear pedestrian and bike corridor that extends north from Brescia Creek through the first three development parcels along this east side. It needs to be a minimum of 30 feet wide, and there will be it'll kind of jog back and so that pedestrians can cross at an intersection instead of creating mid block crossings through these busy streets because that safety is important right there. There will be commercial and mixed use buildings that are oriented towards the Paseo instead of being oriented towards the streets, and it'll include all sorts of landscaping, site furnishings, outdoor seating, etc. We've kind of laid the groundwork with our own Paseo right here in downtown, so you can kind of think of this as much larger, more active, more commercial uses facing onto that Paseo area within this PUD.

Some conceptual images for what that could look like. Let's see, starting over here, the picture on the right, you've got a very active, you know, in this case, concrete trail with some tables, chairs, umbrellas, but it's really lined by stores, retail services that front onto that trail. As you move further south, things will get a little bit less intense. You've got the option or the availability, the opportunity, I should say, for restaurants with patios frenting onto that Paseo, and then as you get further south closer into the floodplain areas, it's a lot more passive areas for recreation. This is that southernmost point of connection where further down you will have the Brushy Creek Regional Trail, and then you come further north into the property.

This is that first thing that you would see on that Paseo. The other activity area is the, we're calling it the publicly accessible outdoor recreation area. So, it's mostly the floodplain down here. Again, you know, at least 50% of this will eventually be dedicated to the city, but the developer has the opportunity to provide some development and some amenities in this area that is compatible with the floodplain. So, we're not talking any buildings or permanent structures.

What they have in mind is something like a pitch and putt course and a disc golf course, things that are low impact, provide recreational opportunities that are family friendly. They'll find their right opportunity to build that within this area that's outlined in green, and then much of the rest of it will be dedicated to the city. This area will actually let me go back to this because so we're moving into the multifamily design requirements as it relates to how those buildings interface with the trail, but we don't have a map on this page. So, I will point out that here in Parcel Area 4 is proposed for the first multifamily development within this property. They were actually going through the permitting process as well a few years ago to build multifamily here and over here in Parcel 1.

They backed off of the multifamily over there. Keeping it in Parcel 4 because they wanna have more food and beverage and retail options over here in Parcel 1. So, the development of the multifamily in Parcel Area 4 is going to have to address the trail as if the trail were a public street, basically treating the trail as the front door instead of the back door. We don't want those multifamily buildings to turn their backside to the trail because this is gonna be such a busy corridor. So, we wanna make sure they're kind of dressing it up on that side.

So, we have architectural requirements. We worked very closely with the developer and with Pard, Katie, and David, and Rick very hard on creating this, you know, cross section right here of a setback from the trail as it relates to the building. So, multifamily building over here, allowing some private yard space for some of those 1st Floor residents, a landscape buffer, a minimum safety buffer, and then the concrete Brushy Creek Trail right there. So, at least 25% of the units facing the trail, you know, on higher levels will have balconies. Pedestrian access to the trail is gonna be provided throughout the development, but you're not gonna have individual sidewalks from each ground floor unit coming out to the trail, and that kinda defeats the purpose.

We really wanna have a lot of the landscaping in there, and also the developer would like to provide some level of privacy for those residents on those ground floor units that face the trail. So, there will be sidewalks coming out effectively from the sides of the buildings and connecting to other parts of the development and bringing people down to the trail itself. There are a couple of detention ponds that will need to be built. The developer intends to have one of those as a wet pond and one as a dry pond. So, a wet pond has a continuous body of water within it.

No matter whether they do a wet pond or a dry pond, it has to be amenitized. It has to have a certain, you know, formula of landscape plantings, other amenities around it. It can't just be a typical ugly detention pond that you might see elsewhere in the city because this is gonna have a lot of eyes on it, a lot of traffic along it. So, it does have to be designed accordingly. As you can kind of see the location of those ponds, Pond B will have to be over here, and Pond A will be over there.

The reason for that is that the ponds have to be outside the floodplain, but everything flows to the south here. So, you're capturing all that runoff before it hits the creek. So, you're able to detain it right there and then release it slowly at a controlled rate back into the creek. So, access to the site or the roadway network, everything in orange is proposed to be a public street that will eventually be owned by the city. This one street right here in yellow will be strictly a private street owned and maintained by a property owners association here.

There will also be a bike lane along this yellow street, and we have the future connection to Double Creek over there. And then so these it's not colored in orange, but we have these public streets that will connect over to Kenny Fort Boulevard as well. There will be signal already a signal up here at Kalahari Boulevard in the future. There will be a signal down here as well to facilitate those safe traffic movements. Additionally, a new change in this PUD with this amendment is the introduction of office warehouse uses only along these northern parcels, Parcel 6a and Parcel 6b, but we're not talking like 150,000, 200,000 square foot light industrial buildings.

We're really talking much smaller fifteen, twenty thousand square foot buildings that have one or two or three tenants each. These are existing projects either done by the developer like this one. If you're familiar with the Springdale General development in Austin on Springdale Road, there's several buildings like this where they have a lot of artisans, artists doing their work. They've got a few restaurants in there as well. So providing that capability up here as well is a new addition to the PUD.

And then we have limitations also. Things that would normally be allowed in the C1A District or would be allowed in office warehouse buildings, we're actually going to be restricting in this PUD to make sure it is things that are compatible with what we want out here. Went through all the standard public notice procedures with this one as well. This one was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission back on March 4, and they recommended approval five to zero. We had a couple of residents who came out to speak.

One of them had concerns about the relocation of the trail. They were worried that relocating the trail up closer to this, you know, mixed use, high intensity development will just completely negate the appeal of the trail. But, again, we're doing our best. We're gonna preserve the actual natural access to the creek frontage itself. But the relocation of the trail is a big goal for us, for the city at this particular location, to get all that energy, to get more people onto the trail, but also more people who are on the trail off to visit local businesses. And so that's easily a trade off that we think is worth it for the mere fact that we're also maintaining the natural access down there. So the developer will be here on Thursday evening. We recommend approval, and I'll answer any questions you've got.

Questions? Mayor Pro Tem.

Who will maintain the trail in this part when once it's relocated? Will it be the developer or will

it still be city trail. They're just responsible for relocating it.

And is that concrete or granite?

Concrete.

I do know we do get some feedback from our heavy trail users that concrete can get a little rough on them after a while. So just curious about that. And just a comment, this is one of the more exciting things that you've brought to us. I know that sometimes your job gets a little stressful because people don't like change. But I would argue that because of the things that we've done to bring people here and create density, projects like this become more appealing to developers. So super excited about this. Good job.

Thank you.

Councilman Wartaga?

I agree with the statement because I think this is the best utilized area for that area. I want to make sure I understand the current trail will remain there, and then a new one will be developed to the north?

No. So the current trail and its location where you see it right now will be relocated. So that's going to be removed, but not until after this trail has been built in its new location. So the developer will build this, then they have the ability to remove that trail down there. But simultaneously, we are going to be providing access. The city will maintaining access for the public down to the natural areas down here. It might not be, you know, a concrete trail. It probably won't be a concrete trail. It might just be more nature trail like. But the current trail as it stands in its alignment right now will be removed.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

And so, it gets removed, it's going to go up and then reconnect back to the trail? Correct.

It's just

gonna go by all the, you know, like you were talking about, trying to drive people to the businesses off the trail, back on, people onto the trail.

Right. So, is just within the bounds of this property that the location of the trail will move. It's gonna be connecting and, you know, the endpoints on both sides are going to be the same.

Okay. Any other questions over here on this side? Councilmember Forman?

Just a simple question. Knowing all of this, are there going to be bike racks for people who are riding their bikes up there? And is that gonna be provided by the city or by the developer?

It's not going to be provided by the city. I'm sure the developer will have plenty of incentive to provide those bike racks or some kind of bike parking area because they will want the business that is afforded by all the people on the trail. They'll want some place to accommodate those bikes so that people can visit those businesses and then hop back on their bike and head home.

Thank you.

Councilman Flores.

How many times have you touched this file, Brett?

Lot of times.

It's a good job. And to the other comments, it looks like a good project. With regards to the trail and to the area south of that, That is all, you know, slated for recreational purposes. And is that is that public recreation space or is that just for the people that live there?

So it will be public in the sense that anybody can go and use it, but it will be private in that any recreation down there, if it's pitch and putt or disc golf, that will be owned, controlled by the developer, so they'll be able to, you know, charge their fees for that. It is something that they are developing and they are owning and they are managing. The city is not owning and managing those. But, that's only within, you know, the areas that they're allowed to develop because the rest of that floodplain area, they will be having to dedicate to the city. So they'll reserve some for their own private development, but private still open for the public to come pay a fee and play or participate. Then the rest will be for the city.

And then the border by the creek, that's accessible by everybody.

Correct. Because that will be dedicated, land dedicated to the city for public access.

To your private road within the project, enforced? I mean, does that look like? How is that enforced that, hey, this is only for us?

Well, it's really not private in the sense that they're restricting access to a certain group of people. It's private in the sense that they are owning it and maintaining it instead of dedicating it to the city. So, in most subdivisions or in other streets that we have like Stockwell Drive and Wellpost Lane and Forsyde Drive down here, the developer will build that and then they will dedicate it to the city. They will effectively give it to us to own and to maintain in perpetuity. That will not be the case for this road segment right here. The developer will be, effectively, after they build that, keeping it for themselves, and then they're on the hook for maintenance and management. It's still an open roadway without any restricted access. So it still functions as a public roadway. The ownership is what's private.

So to the public, it looks no different. So what is the thought or what is the ideal that they want to keep that private? I'm just curious what's what's their advantage to doing that?

So usually when a roadway is is kept as private, because the developer wants to develop it to a different standard than what the city requires. We have certain right of way widths. We want to be able to get a certain number of cars through there. Parking may or may not occur on one or both sides of the street, but usually it's because the developer wants a design for this section of roadway that doesn't comply with the city's design criteria.

Okay and then within this parcel of land you know I know you mentioned the warehouse is up to the north side of it is that I I know this is within a PUD, but if it wasn't within a PUD, would that be kind of a C1A and everything else would be, you know? Doctor.

Right. Yes. So, in these areas, this is I think this area does mostly fall back to the C 1 A zoning district. So, any number of commercial uses could go there. You could see retail. You could see restaurant. You could see entertainment. This is just the designated area within the PUD where if the developer wants to build these office warehouses, this is the only location where it can go. But the PUD also restricts the number and the size. So even if they wanted to max out their entitlement of office warehouse, it could only take up a small portion of this area.

And just curious, is this put I mean, hold on. I think I'm reading it right now. No car washes, no gas stations. Hotels? Yes.

You could.

Hotels are permitted. Think you'd probably see that, you know, in this area if they do end up building one. But that'd be a good question for the developer.

Thank you.

Any other questions? All right. Thank you, Bradley. Rick, H1, sorry. Consider public testimony regarding ordinance readoption standards of care for the city's youth rec program.

I had the wrong agenda. Okay. Sorry.

No problem.

To the whole staff. I now know why everybody looks so confused.

The Standards of Care is a routine item that we have to do on an annual basis to basically talk about how we administer our programs. We don't have after school programs or after school care. We have after school programs. So we have different standards and guidelines that we follow that we have to adopt on an annual basis. And that's what this is. I'd be happy to answer any other questions if you have.

All right. Questions? And, I believe that the new agenda is all set up appropriate where people the order. All good? All right. Thank you, Rick. Sorry. No problem. Alright. Anything else for the good? Kevin. I'm just going home. Alright. Sorry, Kevin. Why don't you just do all of them?

Yes, sir. Start wherever we are now. I don't

even know where I'm at. So So just start. 3 I mean, 2, h 3, h 4, h 5. Go ahead. Sorry.

So items H two, h 3, and h four, these are new money debt issuances scheduled for Thursday. So, again, these have been in our plans for a long time. They're in our long range financial plans. They're in our debt plan. And they fund projects in the adopted 2026 budget, as well as our adopted five year community investment program, outlaying our expenses planned for capital projects over the next five years.

So item H2 is issuing $93,000,000 of certificates of obligation. As a reminder, counsel issued notice of intent to issue those COs back on February 12. Item H3 is issuing $100,000,000 of general obligation bonds. These are continuing the work from our twenty twenty three voter approved bond program. Item H4 is issuing $5,300,000 in limited tax notes.

Again, this is a shorter term instrument, seven year note that we issue to maintain the city's fleet. So in total, we have $198,300,000 of new money transactions, again, over items H2, H3, and H4. We are moving to the market on Thursday, seeking some bids for these. We are selling this debt on the competitive market. So the bid times are in the morning.

And then Thursday evening at council meeting, Gary Kimball, who serves as the city's financial advisor, especially public finance, will be here on Thursday evening to present these items to council. Staff is going to seek your approval at that time. Item H5 is a little different in that rather than a new money issuance as part of that $198,000,000 this is a refunding opportunity. We had this last month with some BCRUA debt we had. The market was favorable, went out for and got council approval for refunding.

This is the same thing but for a series of past general obligation and certificates of obligation bonds over the last several years. So that will be presented to you as well. We will be seeking the council to approve moving forward with the refunding so long as that market is still favorable and generates at least a 2% return in net present value savings. Happy to answer any questions on any of those items.

All right. Any questions on H2, H3, H4, or H5? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. Sorry. All right. Now, anything for the good? All right. We stand adjourned.