City Council - Packet - briefing

Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. I'll call the 7.30 packet briefing to order. And please call the roll.

Mayor Morgan, Mayor Pro Tem Montgomery.

Here.

Council Member Lee.

Here.

Council Member Flores. Here. Council Member Fleming.

Here.

Council Member Ortega. Here. Council Member Stephens.

Here. Thank you. Citizen communication any citizen wishing to speak during citizen communication regarding an item on or off the agenda they do so after completing the required registration card all comments must be no more than three minutes in length per section 2-2 6b 5 of the round rock code of ordinances 2018 edition any comments regarding items not on the agenda or may not be discussed or responded to by the city council per state law. We have one card for citizen communication. Mr. Snyder, please come down. And for the record, please state your name and address. Thank you.

My name is Mitchell Schneider, Mitchell Ryan Schneider, and my address is 2 Brenda Lane, Round Rock, Texas, 78665. I don't know how to do this. This is my first time coming to a council meeting. I probably shouldn't have come here based off of logic and reason. and common sense. But here I am. And I really appreciate all of the staff that I've interacted with. Y'all are all professionals. And just I humbly say that y'all are all better than me in every way. You're taller. You're better at basketball. You're funnier. I don't know what I'm doing. I don't even have really a speech prepared for this. So this is kind of just a freestyle off the dome. I'm not a rapper. Don't accuse me of that. I'm not a pro wrestler or anything like that. I'm not even really a good speaker. I don't even know how this audio works. So forgive me. But I guess just one thing I'll speak on is character. What is character? It's a term you use philosophically. It's also a term that you can use chemically. You have character tables such as gold. if you were to look at this, what is this right here? Or a color, at least. It's gold. But just because something looks like that does not mean that it is. It may look that way, but it's not necessarily. And so I don't know if you heard the story of Eureka. I got a minute 05 left, so I'll just finish with that story probably, unless I can go faster. But there was once a guy, I think he was in Greek, And there was a king. And the king said to him, I've got this crown. I've got this crown. And this guy says it's gold. And so they get this guy, I don't know his name, Steve. And they say, hey, Steve, is this gold? Is this gold right here? And the guy says, I don't know. So he goes to a bathhouse. I don't know if it was a gay bathhouse. But he goes to a bathhouse. And he gets in there. And he's just thinking. So he's thinking, what is this thing? How can I get some money and figure out what this is? And so he sinks inside the tub, and he sees the water raise. And right there, he jumps out of the water and goes yelling through the crowd, Eureka, I've got it. And that's how you figure out what gold is. Density is equal to grams over cubic ..

Thank you. I regretted that I didn't mention earlier that the mayor sends his apologies, but he will be here on Thursday. So my apologies for not mentioning that. Looks like we have several proclamations for Thursday evening. and one staff presentation. So it looks like that's going to be a busy night. On the consent agenda, do we have any questions or comments on the consent agenda? OK. Thank you. Excuse me. We will move on to resolutions. H1. Good morning. Good morning, Kevin.

For H1, this will be a resolution accepting the city's quarterly financial investment report with actuals due June 30, 2026. Per usual, I will plan on giving the full presentation Thursday night, but happy to answer any questions you may have at this moment.

Are there any questions? Excuse me. Thank you.

I feel like I'm missing something.

Just go to H2.

It's still going to be Kevin. H2. Consider a resolution setting the maximum property tax rate for tax year 2026, establishing the date for the public hearing, and setting the dates for the tax rate adoption.

The city manager's proposed budget includes a proposed maximum tax rate for the upcoming fiscal year of 42.3 cents. This has, back at the budget workshop on July 23rd, We had certified values, but they weren't yet finalized those values and property tax calculation were finalized as presented so no changes We just rounded down the rate to forty two point three cents this does exceed the no new revenue rate of thirty eight point five two six five cents This item meets the requirements in state law that City Council has to adopt a maximum proposed property tax rate each year as well as set the date of the public hearing So this agenda item does that. The city council is not required to adopt this rate. However, this is the maximum rate the council may adopt without and meet the timing requirements under state law without restarting the process. The purpose of this proposed property tax rate over the no new revenue rate is to fund additional public safety staff and fund the operations and paid debt service on projects funded by voter-approved bonds back from the 2023 voter-approved bond program. Thursday night I'll have a brief presentation, walk through the tax rolls, some more information on the property tax rate, as well as some required notices. But this morning I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this item.

Are there any questions? Thank you. H3, consider a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute quantity adjustment change order number one with Texas Materials Group Inc. for the 2025 arterial street maintenance program project.

Good morning, Mayor Pro Tem and Council.

Good morning, Michael.

This is a quantity adjustment change order for our street maintenance program. The work is pretty much complete. It's for $315,000. One of the bigger costs was we have a reused elevated storage tank off College Park Drive that we repaved that entire road that goes down to the tank. So that was an addition we made. And then just some ancillary. items, some quantity adjustments that equal the 315. The total contract amount with this change order is, let's see, over $3 million. So good work with Texas Materials Group as we continue to work on our streets across the city. We have to answer any questions.

Are there any questions? Thank you. H4, consider a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute quantity of change adjustments Quantity Adjustment Change Order Number 6 with Patent Construction LLC for the Old Settlers Boulevard Extension Project.

This roadway project is pretty much completed. The roadway is there. It extends from Redbud and heads east to County Road 110. It's a four-lane divided roadway. This item before you, since the work is, only thing that's left is we're going to ask them to mow and weed-eat along the road. And then we have some additional barricades that are stationed right here. We tie into the North Redbud project as North Redbud comes up here. So we are about to flip traffic from the west side on Redbud. We're going to flip it over here to the east side. And then we can open up this right here. So there's a temporary traffic signal. There's a signal there. But once Redbud comes through, they'll put the full traffic signal in place when we're finished with that. So this item before you is a $321,000 Money off the contract that we did not have to spend so it's a positive a lot of it This the grass just came up on its own so we do not have to do some reseeding some erosion controls a lot of savings there along this project So it's a really good project. We're excited to fully open, but this kind of closes out the contract with Patton But happy to answer any questions Are there any questions?

Councilmember Flores

Hey, Michael, so I was reading that, and I haven't been over there in a while, but that's open yet? It's open or not open yet?

It's not open. This is all closed. There's a traffic signal working here. You can come this way and get into this neighborhood right here. But the roadway all the way through is not open. So once we flip the traffic on the east side here and get the signal working right, then we will open it up. And that was my second question.

110, is it signalized? Yes, sir. Intersection? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Right here.

Are there any additional questions? Thank you, Michael. H5, consider a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute quantity adjustment change order number one with Cash Construction Company, Inc. for the Chisholm Trail South Improvements Old Town Project.

Chisholm Trail South, we start right here at Sandbass Road. As you've been over there, it's a lot of construction underway, all the way down to just past sunset with this project. This is a change order quantity adjustment. We're adding nine more of those antique lights that you see around town. They will go on this west side right here. We are finished with all the underground work. We're about to flip traffic from the east side to the west side. Now, you'll still only be able to go north for right now, but we're going to flip the traffic over here. It's going to look really good. We've put in the stamped concrete already for the sidewalks on the west side. Really appreciative of all the businesses along here for being patient. Right now, we're slated to be finished before the end of October. We're pushing the contractor hard. They're working six days a week to get this project done. So this item before you is $306,000 quantity adjustment change order with cash construction so that we can get this project finished. One other item to mention is we're doing some concrete work. Here's Sunset. That's some concrete work along here as well. This is different than that other project I've mentioned to you guys about going across the bridge with the sidewalks. That'll be a separate project that we do next spring.

Are there any questions? Council Member Fleming.

Just to clarify, so October when it's finished, will they be able to go both directions or still just north?

Both directions. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

Are there additional questions? Thank you. Thank you, Michael.

Yes, ma'am.

H-6, consider a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a contract with J.L. Gray Construction for the Eagle's Nest Street Phase 1 project.

New roadway project. We went out to bid. We had 12 bidders on this project. That is a big number. It had great, great pricing. Engineering estimate was around $5.5 million. This project that we're awarding is $3.5 million. Now, you may say that's quite a bit low. The engineer was the high bidder. All 12 of them were low. We had five bids within that three-point area. So we would not have awarded this contract if they were the only one down there. We'd have a bigger discussion. But excited about great pricing coming in here. We're up here on the north side of Round Rock. Here's Eagle's Nest coming. There's Sunrise right there in Eagle's Nest. So this is built to this location right here. This is Cypress. So we'll be four lanes from this location all the way to Mays Street with this phase one. Phase two, we'll take it from Mays Street west across the interstate, et cetera, to Chisholm. And I say that right here because we're working with TxDOT on this big TxDOT project. So we're not clear what we're going to end up doing right there. But phase one gets us tied into Mays Street. Really excited about that. So $3.5 million with JL Gray. It's about a nine-month construction That will really help us here on this north side of town.

They have to answer any questions Thank you are there questions councilmember floors Michael I just said this on Phase two How how far out are you thinking that is?

well, it's It's the original phase two plan Let's just take text out out of it for a minute and let's just say I-35 is like it is and We were going to come this direction and build a bridge over the top of 35 and then come down where you get the Chisholm Trail. That project would have been because we're in partnership with the county on this. And I want to mention that with this first part. The county is participating in some of this cost. Several years away, probably, because you have to work through TxDOT's permitting and all that. I would say if we went ahead with phase two and had the money, it's still probably five, six years away. But with that said, now that TxDOT's looking at all this road work through here, we've held back because my hope is we maybe can go at grade and have TxDOT come over the top of it, which would save us a lot of money. So we're having those conversations. There is an open house this Thursday on this TxDOT project. that we'll be going to regarding this. So still several years away. Okay. Thank you, sir. And the nice thing about this road, it'll tie us all the way in. We'll tie into Creek Bend and then keep on going west. We'll tie into that Wyoming Springs we've been talking about, ultimately. So this is a major roadway for our future, and that'll really help this whole property, you know, up here in the future. That's in the master plan. Thank you.

Additional questions? Council Member Ortega?

Michael, once we see the diagrams for I-35, wouldn't it be also easier to stop where you're planning to stop going east and then go ahead and phase two on the other side of I-35, complete as much as you can to a certain point, and then work around?

Yeah. So with this phase, we're going to stop right here. Depending on how conversations go, I think what you're saying is, can we bring this all the way maybe to the frontage road? Maybe, right? Obviously, that's in our plan for the future. So whatever we decide to do here, we really would like to bring this road to the frontage road. And on this other side, too, from frontage road back to here. So we're just kind of in limbo in negotiations. We'll see what we do. Because if we have to build a bridge over this, That bridge is going to go over the top of these frontage roads too. So we'll have to see how that would even tie in. But I hear what you're saying. We're in those negotiations. For this phase, we'll just get it to Mays. And then we still have a plan for the future on the second phase of see what we do. Thank you.

Additional questions? Michael, I have one. Where are we in the design of the complete project? Is that all done? all the way to Wyoming Springs?

No. So we've designed this, and now we're going to bid it. We have an engineer, half associates on board for this, but we have not designed this part. As you head west, we have not started design or right away acquisition or anything as you head west all the way to Wyoming Springs. At Barron's Ranch, Wyoming Springs goes north to 1431. We are in negotiations now with the appraisal for the right-of-way for that. And we have an engineer on board. That's a county project that's going to be paid by the county to design and construct. Round Rock's going to pay for the right-of-way. So that piece from Barron's Ranch north to 1431 is underway. We're just trying to acquire the right-of-way right now.

H-7, consider a resolution approving the Brushy Creek Municipal Utility District FY 2027 Brushy Creek Regional Wastewater Systems allocated budget.

I'll talk about H-7 and H-8 at the same time. They're both related to the regional wastewater system. The first one is Brushy Creek MUDS budget, and the second item is Fern Bluff MUDS budget. They are sub-regional owners of the regional plant. They own capacity in it. They're not at the table with the other four cities, but they are underneath Round Rock's capacity. So they do have costs that they have to pay for. And you see here, here's their budget. The flow charge is based on their winter water average for January, February of each year, how much flow that they're sending to the wastewater treatment plant. We take the overall operations cost And we take the percentages of the four cities, Austin, Leander, Cedar Park, Round Rock, and these two MUDs, and we figure out their cost participation in the operations. So right here, this $46,000 a month is what Brush Creek MUD would pay us each month for operating and treating their wastewater. Capital is the debt. We've been expanding that plan and working. There's debt there, so they pay a portion of that, $43,000 a month. And then we have an admin charge that we include for managing it for them. So their monthly bill is about $90,000. And then that's the total. There is a second page. That's operational. And then this is capital cost. So whenever we do work out at the plant that's expanding or paying for capacity or working on capital cost, they are a portion of that. So you see here they're 5.61% of the actual ownership of the plant. So they pay 5.61% when we go do work out at the plant. So that's that cost for items that we're working on. These here are less than 5.61 because this is part of the interceptor network. So the interceptor pipe that follows Brushy Creek is There's different nodes, and everybody has different percentage ownerships by node. So that's why you'll see different percentages for these last three items. But they'll be responsible for this capital cost each year. So that's Brushy Creek mud. Fern Bluff mud is the next one. They have the same. They're smaller. They're only 1.67% of the total treatment capacity of the plant. But a very similar budget. We do this annually. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Questions on H7 or H8? OK, I will not read H8 since he's already discussed it. H9, consider a resolution approving the proposed Brushy Creek Regional Utility Authority BCRUA annual operating debt service and capital project budget for fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

This is our BCRUA annual budget. We bring this before the council every year as well. Let's just look at Round Rock right here. For the FY27 budget, our operating costs are $2.6 million. That's based on the amount of water we're going to treat as a whole at the BCRUA. So right now, Round Rock's got 6.5 million gallons a day that we estimate we will treat at the BCRUA. The total is about 19.5. So we're paying, if you take that, match 6.5 of the 19.5. That's how much of the operating budget we pay annually. The big cost is the second one. That's our debt service. We've issued debt for the deep water intake, the plant expansions, all that's rolled into there. And that's part of our debt service payment for the year. So our total BCRUA cost in the budget is $11.9 million for FY27. This item did go before the BCRUA board on June 24 and was approved. And now the three participating cities must approve the budget as well. Plant's going well. A lot of construction there with the deep water intake and the plant expansion. But it's looking great. The three cities are working well together. We appreciate our board members. But I think BCRUA is doing what it's intent to prepare us for the future for all three cities. So I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Are there questions? Thank you, Michael. H10, consider a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a supplemental contract number four with Plumber Associates Inc. for the BRWWS East Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Construction Phase Services Project.

This item is for the 30 MGD expansion that's underway right now. This is for Plummer. Plummer Associates is the design engineer, but they're also the inspection and on-site representative for us. They're the eyes and ears at the site with the contractor. As you know, this project, significantly late. Fall of 23, we were supposed to be finished. We're still running three years late. We're incurring costs with Plummer being out on the site. So this is $1.4 million for all the costs. And their contract basically ended earlier, like in February. And we've been negotiating with everybody. So this cost goes back to about March 1. And it's going to take us through August into September. So that's what this $1.4 million is for. Round Rock is 12% of this cost. We're $171,000. This is all part of the project. And we'll see, as we work through the end of this, how this all gets reimbursed or whatever. But we need them on site to help us finish this out. They will have representatives here. Plummer will on Thursday night. Their CEO will be here. So if we have any questions for them. But they've been a partner with us on this project. And we're all struggling to get to the end. But we appreciate them being there. They have done the design work for the next 40 MgD expansion, which is almost ready to go We'll go out to bid next year on that so they're a good design firm So that's what this is for Round Rock represents all the cities at the plant So the contract is with round rock only and then we have an agreement with our partner cities to reimburse us for their remainder So round rock is the only one that takes this item to council Be happy to answer any questions Are there questions?

Thank you, Michael.

Yes, ma'am.

Let's move on to ordinances. I1, consider public testimony regarding and an ordinance amending Chapter 8, Section 8-87 of the Zoning and Development Code, Code of Ordinances 2018 Edition regarding real estate marketing signs to amend open house sign placement hours. First reading.

Good morning, Mayor Pro Tem, Council. So Section 8-87, Real Estate Marketing Signs, establishes the permitting process and guidelines for the placement of open house signs. The guidelines establish location, date, and time signs are permitted. And one of the goals of our sign ordinance is to keep the city right-of-way clear of signs unrelated to traffic or safety. In fact, our code enforcement division picks up about 6,000 bandit signs out of the right-of-way each year. However, when potential house buyers are often searching for a house without the assistance of a realtor, they often have difficulty finding the location of a home for sale and rely on signs posted to guide them to the property. As a solution, the city created a licensing program to allow open house signs to be displayed in the right-of-way to direct buyers to open houses. The current times signs may be placed are from noon to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and national holidays. Staff proposes amending the code to change that start time from noon to 6 a.m. The city seeks the earlier placement to allow real estate agents additional time to set out their signs and prepare for the open house event. This is based on feedback staff received from the real estate community. This does not change the practice or process of enforcement. The text amendment is short and simple. And I present to us the P&Z on July 15th were passed unanimously. We did have one speaker at P&Z who supported the amendment. And the speaker also requests a desire for Friday hours to also be considered. I met with that speaker as well as our code enforcement staff regarding potential Friday hours. Staff would support adding Friday hours from 3 PM to 7 PM. Staff supports both potential changes since the signs are not staying up overnight. The point of the open house signs is that they are advertising an event happening that day. And as long as the signs have the permit sticker and come down every night, code enforcement is fine with either addition. And ordinance language for both options is available for you at the dais. And with that, I'm available for any questions you may have.

Are there questions? Council Member Stephens?

During the comments, were there any – I appreciate the Friday from 3 to 7. Was there any feedback about making it all weekdays from 3 to 7 and then the weekend hours? I know Friday is obviously getting closer to the weekend, but what about Thursday or Wednesday or Tuesday? Does it make any sense to do it that broad or just put it here and then kind of see how it goes?

Friday was the only additional day that the speaker had mentioned.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Council Member Flores.

Sorry.

Council Member Ortega.

I'll go.

Council Member Ortega.

I heard you mention a permit. So they have to be permitted?

Correct, yes. The permits are provided through the Planning and Development Services Department.

And so each sign has to have the sticker on it? Correct. I just didn't know that. All right. And so they buy like 100 stickers, or how do they do that?

Correct. Yeah, one sticker per sign, and they're good for a full calendar year. So that's how code enforcement knows as they drive by. It's a very brightly colored sticker. The color of the sticker changes each year, so our staff drives by. We can clearly see the sticker. We know it's been properly permitted, and we leave it in place.

Is there a cost to the realtor for that?

I believe it's $5. Per sticker? I believe. Right, Brad? Yeah, $5 per sticker.

Thank you.

Now, Council Member Ortega.

Going back to the stickers, we keep a record of realtors who come in, right? And so we have a record of how many realtors on the records that purchase them. The other thing I want to know is these signs can be put up on city right of way. Well, according to our rules here, there are certain places where they can put them up. They have to have those signs in the subdivisions also with stickers. Am I correct? Yes. OK. Do we have anybody going out and checking on some of these signs? I mean, I know you don't know where those open house are going to be happening, but do you guys or your department or whoever's department is responsible for it go and check them out? Because to be honest with you, I've seen some without them.

Yes, Councilman. As a matter of fact, I do have a part-time code officer position. That's where the majority of the 6,000 bandit signs get picked up, is most of the time they are placed out on the weekends. So that's what I have that code officer doing on the weekend. is patrolling the city right-of-ways on Saturdays and Sundays looking for those signs. And one of the things that we do is because the open house permitting sticker is rather unique to Round Rock and not necessarily in any of our surrounding cities, we've even begun kind of a proactive education campaign where once a year we'll email the real estate groups, new realtors, to make them aware of the ordinance. And when code enforcement does see a sign, an open house sign that does not have the proper sticker on it, we will actually place a sticker on their sign, reminding them and letting them know of the requirement that they have to get the permitted sticker on there for next time. Then my code officer will note the sign. And then if we come back the next weekend, the same sign is out, and we still don't have a sticker, then we will take the sign. But we do try to be proactive and educational on the first go around.

So when you take... When you see it again, and they've already been notified, and you take those signs away, are they penalized for that at all?

Just the removal of the sign we feel is penalty enough at this point, because we take them and they are disposed of. They do not get them back.

All right. Thank you.

Additional questions? Thank you.

Thank you.

I, too, consider public testimony regarding and an ordinance, approve an amendment number one to planned unit development, PUD number 32, Volga-Pruitt Track, to incorporate approximately 0.99 acres of land into the PUD, generally located south of Round Rock Avenue and west of Chisholm Trail Road. First reading.

Good morning, Mayor Pro Tem. Good morning, council members. This is the first amendment to PUD number 32. We have a property that is currently zoned single family, SF2 right down here, two distinct tracks totaling just under one acre. The proposal is to incorporate them into the existing PUD number 32 right here, which surrounds it on the north and west sides. So we are on this kind of southern spur, if you could call it, of Chisholm Trail Road. We have Good Hope Baptist Church down here, a veterinary clinic, animal hospital here, lots of floodplain further to the south of here. I believe this is an independent living, senior living facility here. And then the Round Rock Christian Academy, their academic buildings over here, as well as their athletic fields right there. So I'll refresh for the benefit of the public on Thursday night, refresh everybody's memory about the PUD amendment process, what distinguishes a minor and a major. But in general, for this one, we're here because this is a major amendment, because we're changing the permitted land uses within the PUD. Again, currently, this property is on single family. The existing PUD can be seen right up here. It is a little over 14 acres in size. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from SF2 into that PUD to allow for the construction of a black box theater. And the intent of that theater is they will rent it out to private schools and also to homeschool organizations so that those students who don't otherwise have a facility to practice or perform in can rent out space in this facility. The Round Rock 2030 Future Land Use Map designates the property as residential, although you can see a little sliver of green right here, which designates open space. I don't recall if that's a mapping error or just kind of a rendering error, but I'd also know because there is some floodplain further down here along the creek that sneaks its way up Chisholm Trail Road. Possibly it was just a remnant of some of that floodplain, but there is no floodplain on this tract currently, so I don't want that to be any confusion here. However, with the PUD encompassing the senior living to the north, And then the private school to the west we think those both fit into the public facilities land use designation And so bringing this property into the PUD we're going to use this as an opportunity to change the land use designation to public facilities Since this is a much older PUD. We didn't really have The PUD to designate or to change future land use map back at the time it was adopted So we're just going to use this as an opportunity to change the designation there so in general the public facilities land use designation is intended to accommodate government facilities, hospitals, assisted living, medical centers, universities, and similar kinds of institutional uses. So right now, under the single family 2 SF2 zoning district, obviously a single family home is permitted. You can have small places of worship as well, in home daycares, group homes, and public schools, elementary or middle schools at that, but not high schools. Under the proposed PUD amendment, we would be allowing the performing arts theater as well as art studios and galleries, offices, but only professional offices, not medical offices. They typically generate a lot more traffic than you'd want to see coming down to this small property. Broadcasting studio, private school, primary or secondary private school, just in case at some point in the future Round Rock Christian Academy wanted to expand to this property, and a place of worship. The setbacks in the SF2 zoning district are here. So 20-foot front setback, 20-foot rear setback, five feet on the side. The proposed PUD would change those setbacks to 10 feet all around, providing a slightly larger building envelope for the property. Maximum height of two and a half stories in the SF2 zoning district. The PUD amendment will change that to 40 feet for that black box theater. But then any other use that is established here, whether it's an office or art galleries, will only have a one-story height limit. Landscaping must be provided in accordance with the non-residential standards of the code, and exterior finish of all buildings shall be 100% masonry, which is the same standard that we have in place on the other land uses within the PUD. Last month, this was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, who unanimously recommended approval. We did not have any public speakers during that hearing. On Thursday evening, the applicant and property owner will be here in case you have any questions for them. But that concludes the staff presentation, so please let me know if you have any questions.

Are there questions? Thank you. I3, consider public testimony regarding and an ordinance amending zoning and development code, code of ordinance 2018 edition section 2-26F to amend accessory building setback requirements in SF

1 SF 2 and SF 3 zoning districts and chapters 2 8 and 10 to update and correct cross references resulting from recent amendments to the zoning and development code first reading Item I 3 you can think of as to two parts or two code amendments combined into one item for the purposes of adoption The first part is just a clarification The second part is fixing some references that have gotten a little bit misplaced or messed up over the years So part one, we're proposing an amendment to the single-family zoning districts regarding accessory buildings in those districts. The intent is to prevent accessory buildings from being placed in the side street yard, so between a house and the public street along the side street yard for those corner lots. But it doesn't actually explicitly say so, and that has led to challenges to our interpretation periodically over the years. And so we just want to clarify this regulation. It's not creating a new policy. It's not creating a new regulation. It's clarifying the intent of the regulation as written to help prevent some of those future disputes. So last year we had somebody who actually challenged us as far as taking it to the ZBA. They made an appeal to the ZBA. But the Board of Adjustment ruled in staff's favor, in favor with our interpretation as well. And so after that is when we started the process to re-evaluate this and make sure that we could clean it up to state what actually we have been enforcing over the years. Part two of this amendment is really just clean up to a lot of references that have been thrown off over the years, but most particularly because of the downtown mixed use code amendments that were adopted last October. It was a very lengthy and very involved and very complicated code amendment that inserted new land uses and changes to the supplementary use standards table. And so effectively what that did was it shifted a lot of References elsewhere in the code to those supplementary use standards table But we didn't find all of those other references in the code to be able to update them With some of their new locations in the code. So we're fixing those references again. This is really just a clerical thing We're not changing any policy or changing any regulations we're just fixing something that we messed up a while ago and then additionally the city attorney's office has found some erroneous references in chapter 10 regarding public notice procedures and Again, we're just cleaning those up, not changing any kind of policy. This went to the Planning and Zoning Commission last month. They unanimously recommended approval, and we did not have any public speakers. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Are there questions? Council Member Flores?

Brad, back to part one. I mean, I heard what you said, but I'm not sure I understood what you said.

Let me think. So I've got an illustration here, and let me kind of go back into it. I hid the slide, but I'm going to open it up again because I didn't know if having this here would be more complicated or less complicated.

I need pictures.

In this case, it was this property that Code Enforcement had located. It was a corner lot, so we're on the side street here looking at the side of the house. The front of the house faces a street over this way. So if you're looking at it from above, we have the house here. The front's of the street there, the side street over here, because we're on a corner lot. They constructed a pergola or shade structure to the side of their house coming all the way out to the property line, when in reality, we only have a five-foot setback on the side property line. Even if you're up against the street here, it's a five-foot setback for accessory structures. In the code itself, though, if I can scroll to this one real quick. The standard in the code only said in the SF1, SF2, and SF3 districts when a rear or side lot line does not abut a developed or planned single-family lot, there is no setback requirement. And so that homeowner realized this is not a planned single-family lot. It's right of way. So of course, I can build an accessory structure all the way up to the right of way there, ignoring the fact that they didn't actually secure a building permit from us first to verify that. So we were able to fix that retroactively. Code language was written, adopted into the code in 2020, I believe, with the intent that somebody who backs up to a open space lot or a drainage lot or a lot that is truly not developed, not right of way, not anything else couldn't be developed, to allow them the benefit of that extra five feet for the placement of a shed or a pool or a cabana, something like that. It was not intended for these areas in between a house and a side street along the right of way. So whenever somebody applies for an accessory structure building permit with us, We require them to meet the five foot building setback. Usually it's just a shed that's placed back here, making sure they meet the setback and they're not actually placing it on the right of way line, on the property line there. That's the way it's always been enforced. So we had this case here where code enforcement flagged it for us. We worked with that property owner. Eventually they did not like our interpretation, went to the zoning board of adjustment just for us to be able to enforce this regulation the way we've been enforcing it for years to begin with. So the intent of this is to ensure that anything that does get built along the right-of-way, sorry, on the side lot line along the right-of-way, whether it's an undeveloped, sorry, a to-be-developed single-family lot or any other developed parcel of any other zoning district or right-of-way that they're meeting that five-foot setback.

I understand that. Thank you. Cool. Thank you.

Other additional questions? Bradley, I'm curious, how many misunderstandings of this ordinance annually do we typically see?

Not many. I wouldn't actually be able to put a number to it because normally our building inspection staff is able to handle it and it doesn't rise to the level of needing an official interpretation from me or being appealed to the ZBA. But it has occurred enough where on an annual basis it occurs a handful of times where they have to kind of go back and forth with that property owner who eventually relents because they want their building permit. So this is just one of those cases where they didn't come to us for permission first for a building permit, so it went a little bit further.

OK. Thank you.

So we're not trying to change this based off of one instance of a misinterpretation. It is something that has occurred several times.

Well, I agree. Even if it's only one misinterpretation, I think it should be corrected. I was just curious if it's something that happens a lot. Thank you. I-4, consider public testimony regarding and an ordinance of proven amendments to the Comprehensive Plan 2030, including modified housing policy and implementation strategies for multifamily development, revised descriptions for low, medium, and high density multifamily residential development types, and updated location criteria for medium and high density urban multifamily. First reading.

So I'm going to handle I-4 and I-5 in the same presentation, if that's all right with you. It is all related to the same policy change. It just affects two different areas within the city. One is the comprehensive plan, which needs its own item to be amended. And then the other is the zoning and development code, which needs its own separate item in order to be amended. But I think it makes sense to have one cohesive presentation for both of these. So with that context, you don't need to read every bit of text right here on this slide. This is essentially to lay out some of the context in the background. going back about 15 years leading us to where we are today. So I'll take these one by one with a few photos along the way. So the background for a lot of this amendment that we're seeing right now stems from changes that were enacted in 2012 to the way the city treats multifamily development in the city. So through the early 2000s and through the first decade of this millennium, essentially, there was a building boom of these two to three story garden style walk up multifamily communities all developed in essentially the same way with the same look. You've got your external staircases out here protruding from the building, surface parking lot in the front street yard. Thousands and thousands of these units overall were built during a very short period of time. And city council expressed concern, essentially, that just too many of these occurring all at once, kind of changing the character of the city. And so they looked to staff to help write some new regulations to rein those in or essentially to close off that spigot. So in 2012, staff was working through the process, meeting with the development community, because this was going to be a big change. So we changed the policy in a couple of different ways. Number one was to add location criteria in the comprehensive plan, stating when the city would be able to support a rezoning to allow multifamily of that type. And what ended up being adopted was separation criteria stating that you can't get zoning for those garden-style walk-ups within a half a mile of existing zoning for garden-style walk-ups. And you can't build any of those new buildings within 500 feet of a single-family neighborhood. A very strict regulation, but it was the intent of the mayor and the council at the time to help rein in the building boom that was going on. So at that time, we amended the comprehensive plan. We amended the zoning ordinance as well to create three different multifamily zoning districts because if we're essentially tightening the reins on that medium density, that garden style walkout, we still want to have options for developers to be able to build multifamily housing. So we created the MF1 district for low density townhouse style development. And then we also created MF3, which is the urban districts requiring structured parking garages for essentially all of the parking at these facilities, more urban high density project. And so that resulted in us getting a lot of these MF3 projects because Also, as market conditions changed, it made more sense economically for developers to build these projects. So looking at these here on the left side, these are ones up by the outlets by Bass Pro and Embassy Suites right there. You've got a couple down here, the Palmer and the Warner. These were done by the same developer, the Warner, in Warner Ranch. And the Palmer is northeast of the intersection of 79 and AW Grimes kind of tucked behind some of those new banks and drive-through coffee shops and the Sonic that was there. So it's a much more urban design, urban presentation toward the street. There's much less, almost zero surface parking in the street except, sorry, in the street yard, I should say, except where you have your leasing facilities. In some cases, you know, there would be the possibility to accommodate ground floor commercial as well. But all the parking is in parking garages, tucked to the rear back there. Or in some cases, there's a little bit of surface parking that's allowed for the Palmer and the Warner. But it's behind the buildings to kind of hide that from the street. So most of the new development in the city has been of this MF3 style. We've had very few MF1 requests because developers generally can't get the density they need for that to work out economically, although we have had a few of those developments. They're generally much smaller in nature, 60 to 100 units total, whereas these high density projects can have 300 to 400 or more in a single development. And because of the separation requirements, we essentially had No new zoning for MF2 in the city over the last 14 years. I can really only think of one off the top of my head, way up in the northeast off of University Boulevard. But that project hasn't even been built yet. But then again, market conditions change, and sometimes they change very quickly. And so we have discussed this a couple of times. We have with you all over the last year or so, most notably last December at the pre-retreat for the strategic plan, because staff has received over the last couple of years a lot of feedback from just about every single multifamily developer saying market conditions have changed so drastically that it doesn't make sense to build what we're forcing them to build based off of our adopted policies, that high density MF3, or even a hybrid product, a hybrid between MF2 and MF3 that still has a requirement to provide 40%, 50% or more of that parking in a structured parking garage. And so that, essentially, closed off the city almost to new multifamily development in many ways. And we wanted to discuss that with you all, and you gave us the direction to go back, reevaluate our existing policies, figure out a way to make it work to allow some more multifamily to be built to help meet that market demand. And so that's what we did. We've been working on this for quite a while, trying to create standards that have a new zoning district, new regulations that meet the market where it is while providing a high quality development that the city can be proud of so we've been working on this we're here for for adoption of this and again it requires changes to the comprehensive plan and changes to the zoning and development code so the changes to the comprehensive plan are updating the housing policy section to kind of lay that groundwork in the context for why we're changing the policy updating our descriptions of those different multi-family zoning districts renaming the medium density multi-family district to the medium density urban multifamily district, adjusting the location criteria by getting rid of those drastic separation requirements between MF2 or medium density projects. And then also, we used to have a implementation strategy in the comprehensive plan that limited the percentage of medium density multifamily as a percentage of overall housing stock in the city. That had been a remnant from comprehensive plan from councils past. It stated that the city should strive to keep multifamily housing units to only 20% of their overall housing stock and the remaining 80% should be single family or maybe some other townhouse style housing as well. It's not something the city ever practically kept to and was never strongly or forcefully implemented in any kind of way. It was just something that was in the comprehensive plan from previous councils. But we feel like it's appropriate to remove that limitation now. I think the current numbers, we've been kind of hovering around that 25% to 30% range for multifamily as a percentage of the overall housing stock for a while. It seems unlikely that it's going to come down to the 20%, so it's not going to be something that the city should be striving to keep because generally as housing values or land values go up, there's going to be more single family that will be built over time and they're generally going to be on smaller lots, but then there's also going to be a strong demand for multifamily still as an affordable option for people to find places to live. And then the changes that will be considered as a separate item in I-5, but still related to this, the ones that we have to make to the zoning and development code. So we're changing the residential lot and building dimensional standards table by replacing a minimum building setback with a maximum setback, which is also called a build-to line. So instead of having a minimum building setback of 15 feet, saying that the closest a building can be to the street is 15 feet, We're replacing that with a maximum setback of 25 feet. So we have this 25-foot cushion where a developer could place their building, but it can't be any further than 25 feet away from the street unless there are some kind of extenuating circumstances, such as monarch trees, easements, overhead electric lines, something like that, that prevent them from coming closer to the street. The intent behind that is to, again, create that more urban aesthetic, but to provide more space in the back behind the buildings for parking. We're increasing the maximum building height from four stories to five stories. I don't know that we'll see many five stories get built because it is a lot more expensive. You're looking at different parts of the building code that come into play at that time. But still, we're going to allow that to help these developers get some of the densities that they're looking for in these projects. But a lot of that is still going to be self-regulated by their desire to have surface parking instead of structured parking. Additionally, since we're going to be increasing the maximum height in this multifamily to zoning district, we're going to be increasing the setbacks as well for those five-story buildings to 125 feet where they abut a single-family or two-family neighborhood. So currently, the code does address setbacks from single-family neighborhoods for a one-story building, two-story building, three- and four-story buildings. But since we're increasing to five, we needed to add a setback for those five-story buildings as well. Changing the zoning district name, as I mentioned in the comprehensive plan item to multifamily, medium density, urban, providing a range of flexible parking options for developers so they can still opt into structured parking in this MF2 district if they want. They could do a lot of surface parking. They can do detached garage parking, carports, tuck under parking as well. A tuck under is a garage that is located within the residential building itself on the first floor of the residential, so typically resident would drive straight into this parking garage, sorry, the tuck under garage unit from the drive aisle, then they can access their individual unit from within that garage instead of having to go through the building's corridors. We're maintaining a minimum percentage of parking that must be in garages, whether that's a structured garage, a detached garage, or a tuck under garage. The current MF2 zoning district has a requirement of 25%. We're increasing that to 35% because we're going to be opening up the city essentially to more mf2 development overall so we wanted to keep this regulation actually tighten this regulation a little bit as well to ensure that we're still getting some garage parking for residents there but still that leaves 65 or more that can be or sorry up to 65 that can be surface parking we're updating a design standard incentive that allows for the reduction in that required amount of garage parking so they can bring it a developer could opt to bring it back down to 25 if they opt into basically higher building design standards for the multifamily structures. And we're limiting the location of detached garages and surface parking to be only on the side and rear and not in front of those buildings. Adding design standards for the garages, we're going to be allowing Juliet balconies instead of standard balconies for units facing single-family or two-family development. This was something so that the Zoning district has a requirement for all buildings or all developments to have at least 25% of units to have a balcony. But we're preventing standard balconies from being adjacent to and facing single family neighborhoods, instead allowing only Juliet balconies there. This was something sort of stemming from the Slate Round Rock multifamily PUD amendment that we went through a few months ago. And it was one of the projects that helped us to wrap our minds around what we were looking at in trying to redevelop this MF2 district and our comprehensive plan And again, sorry, not again. Additionally, we're matching the MF3 district requirements for the number of amenities, an open space requirement, and then special streetscape and landscape features. Since these buildings will be a little closer to the street and without that parking in front, we want to make sure that they present well to the street. So we're hopeful, optimistic, but also pretty confident that these proposed changes here are going to result in a new MF2 zoning district that provides flexible options, that provides cost relief to the development community, helps them build what they have been wanting to build for years, but which our policies have been preventing them. But also, it has development standards and design standards that ensure we're getting high quality development that fits for the city. We also anticipate that we'll get fewer PUDs out of this and more straight zoned projects. because we won't be forcing developers into a PUD to pursue a higher density option or a sort of a hybrid option. We're still going to be retaining the option at the staff level to encourage developers, especially at the very high density commercial corridors or some of the high density intersections near employment centers to require MF3 zoning at those locations because those will be places where we do want to see better, more efficient use of the land with structured parking garages and higher density rather than the MF2 style development there. But overall, we expect to see fewer PUDs because of this. This went to the Planning and Zoning Commission last month. They unanimously recommended approval. We didn't have any speakers at the public hearing, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions? Yes. Council Member Fleming.

So are we going back to the pictures that you had for 2012? Can we get pictures for the new design?

Our development standards that we're creating or that we are writing are going to prevent surface parking lots from being in between the building and the street. So buildings will have to be pushed a little bit closer to the street. All this parking is going to be behind the buildings. But additionally, our design standards are going to prevent this garden-style walk-up aesthetic, essentially, by requiring any stairwells like this to be behind the building. But generally, for the most part, it's all going to be internally accessed corridors. So what we're going to end up is seeing a lot more buildings like this in this kind of design style. It looks more urban. It looks like the high-density stuff, but it allows the surface parking. It's only behind. So the new MF2 district is going to be resulting in more buildings that look like all of these here.

So just kind of the one row in front and then the other parking behind it or a garage still?

Yeah, one row or no parking in front. So you can't really see it very well from this angle, but if you're driving up North Mays towards Georgetown and you're looking at the park side at Round Rock, the one by Embassy Suites, along this entire frontage along Mays, it's just landscaped areas, grass, trees, shrubs. I think they have some signs there as well. And then these ground floor units have kind of a walkout yard from their own unit, and then all the parking is behind. So I anticipate we'll see some of that as well. But there will also be occasions where you do have a single drive aisle with some parking in front, but it's not going to be expansive street yard parking in front.

And you had mentioned that it was 35% parking garage, but then it could be reduced to 25%. But again, we're not going to be seeing it. It's going to be behind the building. Correct. Okay. And then how many opportunities is this going to affect? I feel like we're running out of land, but is there a lot of areas that we could see this happening once we make this change? Like how many more multifamilies are we looking at this level?

There could be, but you're right. I don't want to say we're running out of land. I guess we're running out of a lot of individual parcels of land under different ownership where people are looking to just make easy money by selling off because a lot of the land that is yet to be developed in the city is really in the hands of just a few landowners. But this does open up essentially all that land because we will no longer have the strict location criteria preventing us from rezoning to have more of these closer together. So yeah, it opens up a lot of the city to have more multifamily. But again, we want to make sure that's going to fit in with our comprehensive plan even after these amendments should they be adopted. with staff us kind of making recommendations about where we think it's appropriate or where it's not appropriate, where there should be commercial or single-family versus multi-family. So it's not necessarily opening up everything across the board, turning on that hose again, and just making it a free-for-all.

There's still staff and council discussion. Because I would think that there's quite a bit on university, obviously, none of that. But there's like a handful, or are we talking like 20 opportunities? I mean, any idea or no?

I couldn't give it a number. OK.

Thank you.

Additional questions? Council Member Stevens? So I know typically we've appreciated the PUDs because we can set the design standards a little bit higher, more like what we want aesthetically. I think at the end of your presentation, but I just want to make sure I was clear on that, you're saying that now those standards are going to be wrapped into these multifamily buildings. different multifamily designations. So we're still going to be able to encompass those higher design standards, more aesthetically pleasing product. We just don't need the PUD for it now.

Yes. Yeah. Thank you for saying that. We used our process that we went through with the slate property with that developer. We use that as inspiration essentially for this new MF2 zoning district, taking what used to be kind of all the baseline standards we put into a PUD

Those higher level standards that we were asking for putting them in our normal zoning district instead so that we can get that same level of quality Okay, thank you Additional questions Thank you a lot of stuff there Brad so I Don't mean I'm sure there's difference Julia balcony versus the standard balcony. What's the difference I?

A Juliet balcony does not have occupiable outdoor space. So a standard balcony, somebody might put a bistro table or a grill out there. Hopefully not because I think that violates fire code, but you see it anyway. A Juliet balcony is essentially you have a French door, sliding door, something there, but you have a small grate or guardrail in front of it preventing somebody from actually walking out onto a balcony. So it's still a way to allow a large open window essentially for more fresh air coming through and more light instead of a small typical window. Thank you.

In the picture of the Warner there on the left, that would be a Juliet balcony, correct?

Ah, perfect. Thank you. So yeah, this is good because you've got standard balconies here. You can see some furniture, some stuff out here, but then Juliet balconies over here, which are essentially flush to the building. They don't have any depth to them the way these do. So somebody could open it up, still get the fresh air or whatnot, but it doesn't allow somebody to hang out on their balcony in those locations.

Yeah, thank you. Regarding the setback on a five-story building, you said it was put to 125. What was it before the adjustment?

So the MF2 zoning district currently only has a height limit of four stories, and if there is a four-story building adjacent to a single-family property, it has a $100 foot setback. So by increasing to five stories, we're also increasing the setback by 25 feet.

25 foot more if it's a story higher? Yes. Okay. All right. And then to the questions about the MF2 standard, is it the revised changes, it would look like what we're seeing now, except it would only be two stories?

So in the revised MF2 districts, you could see up to five stories. I think you'd probably see more likely four-story buildings like these. We still have the MF1 zoning district, so if a developer wanted to do something more townhouse in style with lower densities, they have that option. We'll still have the MF3 zoning district if they want to do full structured garage parking, much higher densities or taller buildings, they could opt into that. But the MF2 district would allow anything up to five stories within that range. It kind of falls in between those.

Any idea, like, if a developer wants to come in and do an MF2, I mean, how much land are you thinking they need to have to do a project such as that? Is it 5 acres, 10 acres of land they need to work with?

Most of these would probably fall in that 8 to 20 acre range. Usually you need that much space so that you can build enough buildings to help it pencil out. Smaller projects you would look for. For smaller properties, you would typically find those to be more townhouse style because you just can't get the full number of units in the MF2 district to make it work because it is a more expensive type of building or a more expensive type of construction.

Okay. And then maybe for Thursday, for context, if you can just have an example of an MF1, what that looks like so we can kind of see one, two, and three, what we're working against. And so making these changes, you think it will unlock the opportunities for more MF2 opportunities because you're taking away the restrictions of locations.

Yes. So that really was what made things difficult, if not impossible, to find locations to build the medium-density multifamily. It was that separation criteria. So I think if I had to guess, an educated guess, a lot of the PUDs that we have on the ground that require MF3 construction but that haven't been built, so there was a rush to rezone a lot of properties for this MF3 product four or five years ago, but a lot of them would get through the permitting process They get close to construction, but then the market has changed, so they're unable to secure those loans. And so they've just been sitting empty, sitting on permits. Permits are now expiring. I think a lot of those developers will come back to us looking to rezone those properties to MF2 or just to change up a few things about their PUD to lessen the structured parking requirement. So I think those properties that already have a multifamily entitlement are going to come back to try and rezone to be able to move forward under the current market conditions and the new requirements that we're enabling.

Good. And then last question. The recent changes we had made to kind of reducing the parking requirements for, was that just for commercial spaces and it does not apply to MF?

Correct. We were not touching the residential requirement, whether for single family or for multifamily. We know that multifamily, typically those parking lots get pretty full pretty quickly. We didn't want to allow that freedom there, if you want to put it in those words, just because we didn't want to encourage a lot of those developers to put fewer parking spaces and pushing people out to the streets. So we know that the need for all that parking is still there in the multifamily district, so it is still required in accordance with the code.

Is there a general rule for like a one-bedroom apartment needs two spots or something like that?

We have a prescribed formula within our code. I can't remember it off the top of my head, but it does mandate a certain number of parking spaces based off of the type of unit included, whether it's a one-bedroom, two-bedroom, or three-bedroom unit. There's a formula that the developer has to meet and provide that on site.

All right. Thank you.

Additional questions? Bradley, I have one. To Councilmember Fleming's question about opportunities for multifamily, do we have any idea of what the occupancy rate is on our multifamily projects that are currently

No, I don't, but I can get that information for Thursday. I'm just curious.

There's a market for more. OK, thank you. Any other questions on that? Appointments. Consider appointments to fill expiring terms and vacancies on the following boards and commissions. Transportation and Economic Development Corps, Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Zoning Board of Adjustments, Building Standards, and Ethics Review Commission.

Do we have any comments from the Appointments Committee?

Mayor Pro Tem, I'll just say that we completed the process and we have a slate that we'll present on Thursday for a vote. Excellent. Thank you much.

J2. What's that? Consider confirming the city manager's reappointment of one member to the Civil Service Commission to fill an expired term.

So I request the council to consider the reappointment of Chuck Sanders for a term that will go through 2029. He's done an awesome job on this important commission and hopefully keep him serving as long as we can.

Excellent. Thank you. We also have an executive session on Thursday. I won't read that. Are there any other questions or concerns? Thank you all. We stand adjourned.