Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Okay. We're gonna call the Wednesday, January 14, 2026 meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission to order. I also see you. Can you please call the roll?

Chair

Claussen? Present. Vice Chair Bone?

Here.

Alternate Vice Chair Dominguez? Here. Commissioner Emerson?

Present.

Commissioner Holloway?

Here.

Commissioner Hackebe? Here. Commissioner Memick? Commissioner Wanth?

Okay. Commissioner Tinese, please join us for our pledges. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Honor of Texas flag, I pledge allegiance the Texas one state under God, one and individual. Thank you. Pursuant to Texas government code five five one zero zero seven for assistive communication, do we have anybody signed up to see you?

No.

Okay. Seeing none, we will move on to approval of minutes, item e point one. Commissioners, everybody have time to take a look at the minutes? There's nothing to be removed or talked about. Anybody? Seeing none, I'll take a motion to approve the minutes as noted.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve the December 17 minute I have first.

Oh, I'm sorry. I keep cutting you off. I have a first. I have a second. Second. I have a second. All in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Zoning f one, consider public testimony regarding recommendation concerning the request filed

by

HPE on behalf of the property owner Fernando Jose Marrique. Thank you. To rezone approximately 0.74 acres of land from SF2 single family to district MF1 multifamily density district generally located Southwest Logan Street and West Of Mandel Street case number ZON25Dash00009. Alice.

Good evening, chair and commission. Alice Vajardo, planning and development services. As mentioned, this is a 0.74 acre tract on the Southwest corner of Mandel Street and West Logan, highlighted in red. The request is for the rezoning of the 0.74 acres from the SF two single family standard lot zoning district to MF one multifamily low density zoning district. The Flume designates this tract as residential, which supports the low density multifamily development with the following location criteria.

I'm just going to give you a minute to look at that. And while the location crite while the site doesn't, meet the location criteria precisely, staff does feel that it's supported by the flume for the following reasons. It is a small neighborhood scale tract with easy access to the major arterial of South Mays. And due to the size and location, a traditional single family residential development is unlikely. It directly supports the comp plan's goal to expand housing diversity through the missing middle infill projects on the smaller lots, and it meets the comp plan's objective encouraging new residential units with close proximity to downtown.

With the M F 1 zoning district, it is to establish and preserve areas of medium intensity land use primarily devoted to low density multifamily residential development compatible with abutting and nearby single family neighborhoods. It has a density of 12 units per acre of apartments or townhouses. There is a design incentive for up to 14 units per acre. And the maximum building height is two and a half stories. Permitted uses in the M F 1 District are apartments, townhouses, daycare, places of worship, parks, and public facilities.

On this slide, we have the differences between the SF 2 zoning district, which is what the site is currently, and the MF 1 district, which is what the rezoning is proposed. There are many similarities. The biggest difference in the MF1 zoning district, they are required a minimum 15 foot landscape buffer excuse me next to single family and two family zoned properties. So that would be on the western and southern side next to those single family properties. And then also, of course, the compatibility fence, max light fixture height of 20 feet in parking pedestrian areas.

Public notices were sent out to properties within 300 feet of the site, posted in the newspaper, and then posted on the site as well as you see here. And with that, staff recommends approval of the rezoning from SF2 to MF1. That concludes my presentation. I'll be available for questions after the public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, Alice. I'm sure we may have some. Does the owner applicant have anything he wish to add to the presentation?

Good evening, chair and commissioners. I am Jen Henderson, the applicant on this one. I don't have another presentation to add. I don't have much more to say other than what Alice said. I think she did a really great job of presenting this. We did send out a letter we heard from one landowner. He didn't hate the idea of MF two. He just wanted to know the ownership of the property, and he wanted to talk about what the idea was on this property. So we had that discussion by email. We included staff on that and have heard from no one else.

So I will be here to answer questions if you guys have any. I won't bore you with more presentation, so thank you for being here tonight.

Thank you, miss Henderson. This is a public hearing. We will open up the item for discussion. Anybody wishing to speak for or against? Do we have anybody signed up? No. Okay. We will close the public hearing, and we will move on to discussion. We'll move on to Vice Chair Bone.

Thank you, Alice. Couple of questions or a couple of thoughts. What I saw the statement on there that said that the development as a single family residential is highly unlikely. What what are the factors behind making that comment?

Bradley, could you speak on

that a little bit?

I mean, honestly, I think it's the fact that we've got a three quarter of an acre lot where there's probably a higher and better use there, but that is a vacant tract and hasn't had a house on it for who knows when, if ever. So I think, you know, there's been plenty of opportunity for it to develop as single family. It's probably not the most economical use of the land for it to be one single family home, and so property owners saw an opportunity to do something more with it.

So it's not I mean, you know, three quarter of an acre tract, you could very easily build a single family residence there. This is really just more of a matter of the economics of it or the fact that it hasn't been done in in such a manner, and and I guess the owner is trying to to get have a a higher higher return on investment in the property. Okay. So that's the unlikely hood of having SF on this on this property is just because they can make more money by doing m f one.

They can. Yeah. It's been single family, you know, zoning ever since, you know, it's been inside the city limits, I'm sure, and it's still vacant.

Okay. Given that for a for m f one max district allows for an increase in the max 12 units per acre. If if if there was a 12 units per acre max, and we're talking about three quarters of an acre, does that mean that the max on this could be nine units?

Correct.

If I'm doing my math right? Okay. But could get up to, I guess, 10 it could be 10 units since we're saying that it could be up to ten fourteen units per acre with a design standard incentive. Okay. That's all I had. Thank you.

Commissioner Huckabay.

No questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Holloway. No questions. Alternative Vice Chair Dominguez. I

like the side. I looked at it myself and I thought the same thing. I thought, you know, mean if somebody wanted to build a house on it, they probably would have done it already. So I had the same questions that Commissioner Bohn had, but so those were answered. But one is more procedural. So we're changing the rezoning, but do we need to also change the future land use map as well?

No, because multifamily is supported in the residential land use designation.

Okay. And that's all I have. Thank you.

Commissioner Emerson. Thank you, and good afternoon. Out of curiosity, I drove by the site and noticed that the signs, the public notice signs, are a lot larger now. Is there any particular reason why they are, or

what happened? Don't know the answer to that.

There is a new state law that was enacted last year that required those cities who post signs like this to actually meet a minimum size. So we used to do, I think, a 24 by 36, and now it's I don't even know what it is. 48 by 60 or something. Cecelia would know. What is what?

24 by 48.

Okay. Mhmm. Yeah.

Okay. No further comments by the residents around the property?

No, sir.

Okay. Thank you so much. A wonderful job.

Thank you.

My only comment is just, you know, thanks for presentation, Alice. I think this is a great place for this to happen, especially with the locate with all the other stuff around it. So, yeah, I think it's great. So for that, we'll go ahead and take a vote. All those in favor for approving item F1? Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. Excuse me.

You know what?

I'll help you there, and I'll let the motion to approve for item f one as presented.

I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Like, sign. Motion carries, and we'll move on to discussion.

At the city council meeting on December 18, because I believe there's been two since our last p and z meeting. So on December 18, they approved the updates or the adoption of the twenty twenty four editions of the building codes. And then at the last meeting last Thursday, city council approved the rezoning of the tracks on Gattis School Road at Round Rock Ranch Boulevard, the Paul Cates stables tracks from single family to the local commercial zoning district.

Alright. Thank you. With that, we're adjourned.