Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Okay. We will call the Wednesday, April 1, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to to order. Cecilia, would you please call the roll?

Chair Claussen? Here. Vice Chair Baugham?

Here.

Alternative Vice Chair Dominguez? Here. Commissioner Emerson? Commissioner Holloway? Commissioner Huckabay?

Here.

Commissioner Wenth?

Here. Okay. Commissioners and attendees, would you please stand for our pledges? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under god, one and indivisible.

Thank you very much. Pursuant to Texas Government Cove five five one zero zero seven allows public to speak for three minutes on any agenda item. If you are here to speak for against the items on, if you haven't filled out a yellow card, please do so. I have one in my hand. And we will start with or no. I'm sorry. This is I'm sorry. This is a citizen's do we have anybody signed up for citizen's communication? My apology. No. No. No citizen communication for anything. Sorry. I got ahead of myself. I'm sorry?

No. I've got citizens. I haven't gotten here yet. Now we'll go to minute. That's alright. Commissioners, have you all had a chance to take a look at, minutes, make sure everybody's good with anything? Do we need to remove anything? Go over? With none of that, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

Motion to approve the minutes.

I have a first.

Have a

I have a second. All opposed say aye. Or excuse me. All four say man, is it Monday? Just take a breath. Mean, just breathe. It was the rocket launch. It got me all

Jesus. Yeah.

Yeah. His sneakers, Bob. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Motion carries. My apologies. Item f one, consider public testimony regarding a recommendation concerning the request filed by Amburst and Brown P, LLC on behalf of the property owner, Performance Services Real Estate Seven LLC for amendment number one to a planned unit development number 148 to add an option for median density urban multifamily development, which allows for service parking generally located South East South Of East Old Settlers Boulevard, West Of Mesa Park Drive, case number, PUD260002. Lindsay.

Good evening. I'm Lindsay Darden from the planning department. And this site is located near the corner of East Old Settlers and Mesa Park Drive, and it has a little bit of frontage on both. As far as residential neighborhoods, it's adjacent to the Chapel Hill North and settlement residential subdivisions to the South. In 2023, this property was rezoned from commercial to the slate Round Rock PUD 148, and this PUD allowed for urban multifamily development and townhouses.

At this time, the developer is proposing a PUD amendment that retains all of the, original development, features that were approved by city council in 2023, but wants to add a second development option for a a slightly lower density urban multifamily development because of changing market conditions, which make structured parking garages cost prohibitive. So, just to fully explain this, there the PUD kept everything from the old and is adding another development option, and they would have to choose one path between the two of them. You can't mix and match the standards, so they would either choose the higher density or the medium density. And to the left, you'll see on the screen, this is the old exhibit b from, from the original approval that shows the multifamily on the top and the townhomes, in the purple. The multifamily is gold.

And then, the second development option does not have a townhome component, but it would be all multifamily. The Round Rock 2030 future land use map designates this property for residential use, and this PUD amendment is in keeping with that, and it meets the location criteria for urban multifamily residential development. No matter which development option is pursued, the site access is the same. There would be proposed site access from Old Settlers Boulevard. You can see, just kind of near where my cursor is, there's a shared access that comes in off old East Old Settlers and then kind of, turns over toward the subject parcel.

And then they would have a driveway entrance, from Mesa Park. And this project would be subject to the roadway impact fee regulations and any other roadway improvements determined during the site development permit process. So just to recap on the old, PUD approval, what was included in that? That is the high density urban multifamily. It included four and five story multifamily structures located in the area showed in shown in gold, and it had a combination of structured parking garage with surface parking and tuck under parking.

And it was anticipated that there would be maybe one large building with structured parking over in the square area and then a couple buildings that did not include structured parking over, in the more narrow strip. But it permit permits up to 375 apartment units, and the setbacks were concerned for this because of the adjacent neighborhood from the south. So the original PED approval has a 135 setback for four story buildings and a 170 feet for five story buildings, and it had a prohibition for balconies on south facing building facades. The townhome section, was basically, the density would be allowed based on the acreage of that. So that would be up to 12 townhouse units per acre, a 50 foot setback for the townhouses from the southern property line.

And that was anticipated to be provided as a transition from the higher density multifamily to the, single family to the south. And these are the elevations that were provided that anticipated the development to be substantially compliant with some of these features. Maybe not exactly, but just substantially compliant. So coming, to the new development option, this would be a medium density multifamily with only up to 285 units. The building height reduces, with only three and four story multifamily, And there would be a 90 foot setback for three story buildings from the southern property line and a 135 setback for the four story.

The setback for the four story is the same as what was proposed on the higher density configuration. And there is a provision included that requires four story buildings to be no closer to the southern property line than a three story building just to make sure that it transitions upward moving from south to north across the property. There would be a combination of surface parking, detached garage, tuck under parking, or carport parking. Just a mix of those, and I'm not exactly sure what that

would be.

And the 90 foot setback is the minimum, and that would be for the three story buildings. It would include a 10 foot PUE, then there would be a 15 foot wide landscape buffer, and the remainder could be surface parking with or without carports, detached garages, amenities, just no no, primary structures. And this development option proposes the same number of amenities as the high high density development option that was previously approved and proposed the same compatibility fencing and landscape buffer. One addition to this, development option is a request for Juliet balconies. I added this image to kinda show what the difference is, but a Juliet balcony is a railing or panel attached to a structure adjacent to a full length window or door that allows for it to be open for ventilation, but you can't really stand out on a surface because they do not extrude from the building.

And the applicant is proposing Juliet balconies on southern facing building facades only for the medium density option. And then these are the elevations that were proposed to be substantially compliant for the medium density option. I wanted to just do a comparative slide that shows the compatibility and transition to the single family neighborhood, for each option. The existing, option one provides a 50 foot building setback from the southern property line for the townhomes, and it prohibits balconies on south facing building facades. Development option two would have a 90 foot setback from the southern property line for three story buildings and would permit Juliet balconies on south facing buildings facades.

And the other elements, are are the same between both options. And just to highlight, generally, a six foot tall compatibility fence would be required along the south property line. And as part of the previous PUD, an eight foot was offered, and that is still, gonna be proposed for both options. And then a 15 foot wide landscape buffer, which exceeds the eight feet that would be required by the code with evergreen tree plantings is for both options. We did do the normal notifications.

Back in 2023, this project had a lot of interest from the neighborhood. And so we, had a list of people that we had communicated with back then, so we made sure to notify them for this as well. I did hear back from two citizens that were interested during the last time whenever this was rezoned. And, they've expressed a few concerns about, the Juliet balconies, one of her balconies weren't proposed before, and also the, removal of the townhome transitional strip. So that's kind of what I've heard so far.

And that concludes my presentation. And I'm here for any kind of questions that you have, and we also have the applicant as well. So Thank you.

You very much. Does the applicant or owner or agent have anything they wish to add to the presentation? Okay. Thank you very much. So this is a public hearing. Again, if you're here to

sign up to speak for

or against, looks like we have one. Nobody else signed up with this particular one?

No.

Okay. So, we will go ahead and open up the public hearing and I will ask mister Brian Allen if you'd like to come up and state your name and address. Thank you. Good evening, everybody.

I don't, I'm disapproved. I I think this is a great idea for that dirt lot because I am a homeowner at 508 Clearwater Drive. My house, my yard overlooks that dirt lot. The trees are falling as we speak. One fell on my fence and broke four boards about four months ago and I removed it myself.

So having all that cleared up would be excellent. My concern though is threefold. You have a max bus driver, so how are you gonna get the kids onto the buses and into the buses morning and evening? Right now in West Mesa Park Drive, buses stop all traffic on West Mesa for about two minutes rightfully for the kids, but you're gonna have to figure out how are we gonna get the kids out of this apartment complexes and the buses and such. Secondly, the light at West Mesa Park is horrific.

It sometimes takes us four to five minutes to wait for our turn to turn left out of Mesa onto old settlers. So a lot of people go back the other way, and you currently have a situation at Country Air in Westminster Park, which is a stop sign for me, but not for everybody else, and there's a very weak sign that says cross traffic does not have to stop. That could be a problem because cars come flying through there and people don't realize that are new to the area that you've got to stop for that. And then lastly, because my bedroom window faces that dirt lot, across the street of Old Settlers right now, there's a warehouse. They start at 01:30 in the morning with trucks driving in and when they back up, they do beep, beep, beep, starting at 01:30 in the morning and continuing all the way till I wake up.

I'm afraid that or concerned that when the construction starts, you'll have the same situation of trucks that are building this facility, backing up with the beep beep beep, and then secondly with trash pickup, is probably two or three times a week, they'll have to come into the area which is gonna be up against my fence where the trash cans will probably be held, and they're gonna back up and do beep, beep, beep. So if we can make sure we have a curfew timeline, I'd love to reach out to that warehouse across the street and find out why you were letting trucks back up at 01:30 in the morning in the first place. But, again, those are the three things. The buses, there's how are we gonna get these people out of West Mesa Park onto Old Settlers in a timely manner because it's a nightmare right now. And then, the curfew issue of anybody that has I I agree that she said no south facing balconies, which would look onto my property.

So if we can make sure that we keep that under control, that would be great. Thank you, gentlemen, for your time.

Thank you very much, mister Allen. We appreciate your showing up today. Anybody else here? Okay. I will close the public hearing and we'll open up for discussion. Mr. Dominguez, would you like to go first?

Yes. I think there was enough said just there about traffic. I'd like to kind of hear about kind of how this will impact coming out on Mesa Drive from Mesa Drive to Old Tethers.

Good evening. Ed Poloshik with Transportation. The traffic on West Mesa Drive at Old Settlers, our signals, they're constantly monitored for delays and for traffic. And as this project comes in and the traffic is added to West Mesa Drive, it will show up in our monitoring delays for the signals and adjustments we made to signal timing to accommodate any turn movements that are delayed.

So, based on those adjustments, we think that will essentially as the traffic increases there, we'll be able to adjust to make sure that it's flowing as best as it can?

As long as there's capacity in the intersection.

Got

it. I mean, you get to a tipping point like we had the case with the high school a couple of months ago on Gaddis School Road. And you have a certain capacity for the intersection on Mesa Park. And as long as you don't exceed that capacity, we can adjust the signals for the timing the best we can. When you get to the point of adjustment where you need two left turn lanes or two right turn lanes, that's where the capacity issue becomes more than a signal that you can control with the existing design of the intersection.

It sounded like this change was going to reduce the number of units. I don't know if did I hear that right? Is this coming down? So this is actually better than from a traffic perspective than it originally was presented. Right. Okay. I think that's all I have for you. Sure. The other question I had, I think maybe for you, Lindsay, was about this conversation about balconies. We've added the Juliet balconies.

That was kind of part of this second phase as well. And then these emails, you presented us with some emails, they seem to be kind of focused on concerns with the balconies. If I got that wrong, please let me know. But, and that was kind of a key change with these two as well, is they're not usable. They're essentially like, you can open the sort of patio door and, like, walk up to the edge, but you can't, you're not, you're you're stopped at the wall of your unit. So, it's essentially just the ability to open up your door and then walk up to this sort of railing, so to speak. Other than that, it would be like a window. Do I have that right?

It is. I don't know if there's a difference in the way that people would use those, if it would encourage people to linger closer to that area or not, but there are some concerns about the balconies just because that was something that was pretty contentious back in 2023, for the usable balconies, which is why they were prohibited in, the development option one. And just to be clear, I think you had mentioned to Ed about the units reducing. So in option two, the units would reduce, but option two is still available as far as this PUD. This is not replacing it. They could choose either path.

I understand. Thank you for that clarification. I guess just on the the whole Juliet balcony, the alternative outside of a Juliet balcony would just be a window.

Just a window. Yes.

Got it. And the the only difference is that when you the way you open a window versus open a Juliet balcony is called like a balcony door where you can approach that railing. Is that right?

Yes.

Okay. Sort of just me understanding the difference between a balcony and a usable balcony and a Juliet. So, thank you. I think that's all I have for now. I might have something more later. Okay.

Commissioner Huckabay. Thank you. I just want to make sure I understand exactly what we're looking at here. Is the proposal for two different options?

Yes.

So the old one is essentially still, like, going away, and then now there's two different options that they they can choose?

The old one is still the same. So it's not necessarily going away. It's just becoming one of two options.

Okay. So the old option is still an available option to choose. Yes. But now they're adding a second option, which essentially is no townhomes.

No townhomes, less units, no structured parking, Juliet balconies, and probably just a different config configuration. It'll have lower building heights with three and four story for the apartment buildings versus four and five. And like you mentioned, no townhomes.

So setback, buffers, all that stuff from the southern adjacent residential prop, you know, community is the same.

It's more.

The landscape buffers and setbacks, well, the landscape buffer and the compatibility wall are the same. The townhomes had a 50 foot setback. The three story buildings will have a 90 foot, and then the four story buildings will be one thirty five for both options.

But the townhomes were gonna be on the other side of the property, so that doesn't really

No. They were on the south side.

They're gonna be on the south side.

Yes. I can show you where the purple is on this. That's where the townhome area was and or is. And just to the south, it's not really shown on here, but the residential is to the south, and you see the 15 foot landscape buffer.

Okay.

So, I mean, in my mind, if you're coming with the option to change to add an option, like you still have the same option as you did before, then you're probably gonna change it to the other option. Right? I mean, what's the point of adding another option and still having the same option with it? I mean, you're not really gonna change anything. Mike?

I can, maybe the applicant could talk about that a little bit more.

Do you mind?

Hi. Jules Kane. I'm a land development consultant with Armbrist and Brown, and I'm helping with this process. It's a real simp simple answer for me. Not to get into the weeds of it because I really don't know, but it's it's gonna be market contingent. So we wanna keep both options just in case they do wanna still proceed with the high density option. But the way the market's been looking as of recent, it wasn't papering, and they needed or penciling. And they wanted to have a medium density option without the structured parking. So it's we don't know at this time. But right now, it's looking like medium density is a better option for the developer.

But we don't wanna

get rid of the first option because who knows? Things can things change quick in the market right now.

So a quick question to that. You know, if this gets approved or something, any idea on timeline of when development might start or anything like that?

Yeah. So, there is a site plan that's been in review for the high density option. I think it was approved. Not yet.

Not close to approval.

So that might continue, or they might withdraw that and resubmit with the medium density. Hasn't been decided yet. So, timing for site plan review, six months ish. Once that's approved, then you can start permit permit process for development.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Let me see if I had anything else. I think I'm good for now. Thank you.

Vice Trebone?

Good evening. Hey, Lindsay. I think we're probably gonna ask the same questions that commissioner Huckabee just asked. The current approved option is option one.

Yes.

And that option includes the townhome section along the southern border, 50 foot setback. And what is the height or that what's the max height of the townhomes compared to what is being proposed? Two and a half story?

Two and a half stories.

And so with the proposed option two, you would have multifamily now with a 90 foot setback with a height of how how

Three stories.

Three stories. We're going from two and a half stories with no balconies, 50 foot setback to three stories with these Juliet balconies and a 90 foot setback. Do I have that correct? And so going from two and a half story townhomes to three story multifamily, that's less tenants? Less residents?

It overall, it will be less residential units because the higher density part that was that is in the high density option, the gold up here, had, a very high density four to five story multifamily building that had a lot of units. So whenever you have smaller buildings, you can't have as many units, and it ends up reducing it quite a bit even with the allowance for the townhomes and that other option.

I remember this back in '23, and I remember the discussion. I'm sensitive to the the residential development to the south. I'm I'm confused by why we need Juliet balconies or any balconies at all on the southern face of the multifamily when, you know, windows windows would be permitted. Correct? I'm I'm I'm I'm not sold on that as far as a reasonable option there.

That's all I have. I wanna hear what Rob has to say.

Yeah. No. I know what they look like. Okay. I didn't know. I'm I'm good for right now.

Commissioner Witt? Okay. So in addition to what Commissioner Baum was pointing out and you alluded to it, Lindsay, so the other thing is the maximum height is four stories, right? So before, it was five stories. And it was at it was 170 foot setback for the five stories.

Now, we're talking about 90 foot for three stories, and 135 feet for four stories, which is what it was before, Yes. So, it had townhomes that were set back 50 feet and then you could go four stories that was set back 135 feet and then five stories set back 170 feet. Now, it's three stories at 90 feet and four stories at 135 feet and that's as high as it gets.

For option two? Yeah. Option one could still happen.

Okay. And what this really is, is just a math problem because they need the numbers to work out so they can do either one of them. And it's the cost of construction, the cost of rent and so it's really just an algebra problem. And so I understand why they want to have two options. The Juliet balcony seems to be an issue. So, I don't I mean, what's the purpose of that? Is it just so people can go out there and smoke? Or I mean, because they're are they the same width as the balcony, or are they smaller? I can't tell from that picture.

I would like to let the applicant discuss that.

That'd be great.

So I'll bring the picture back up that shows the different, balcony types.

I guess question, if I can jump in. The question is, is a Juliet balcony an actual balcony with an operable door, or is it just an operable window?

Yeah. Jules Kane again. It's, an operable door, operable So it does have

a full door access.

Yeah. But, but and the thought process behind asking for it with this amendment is simply because we went from high density to medium density. It is something we wanted with the high density, but to, meet neighborhood concerns and meet somewhere, we decided it's high density. Let's pull it. But for this one, because we're doing less height, less units, we thought not still not full balconies, but it might we might request Juliet balconies. We didn't think that that'd be an issue. It does add a nice element for the tenants living there to have the ability to have more than just a window and actually be able to get some fresh air and light, but more so than what a window would provide.

Well, on the original, if you go with option one, you were just restricted on how balconies on the southern face.

Correct. That's So,

really, what we're talking about, the issue seems to be with those because the residential, that's the southern face has a view into the residential.

Understood.

So, you have less height now

and it's

set back further, so they really shouldn't I mean, they shouldn't be able to see as much if they could even see anything in residential. But really the issue is what you're asking for is to be able to allow just the Juliet balconies on the south face. You can have other balconies on the other three sides, correct?

That's true.

Okay. That seems to be a big problem. So, I'm just wondering if that's something that

you We didn't get the impression it's a big problem.

Well, it seemed I mean, the only the objections we had from the neighbors mentioned that.

Are there so I haven't been made aware of like, maybe with one objection, but I didn't

Maybe I I misspoke when I said it was a big problem, but it seems to be an issue that and it was something that they didn't that that apparently from what these folks said in this email, and I'll you the email. I don't

know if you've

seen it, you can have a But copy of they said that was a compromise that the neighborhood, fought for and got was no balconies looking over on the South. So, I appreciate that it's just a Juliet balcony, but I guess it's still a balcony. And granted, I mean, window, I mean, you put a window there and it's probably the same effect, but that seems to be kind of an issue that was brought up. On the other hand, we had 2.5 stories that was 50 feet away and now we're going to only three stories and it's an additional 40 feet away. So, I get it.

I know there's trade offs and it doesn't the economics don't work and so I understand what you're trying to do. But I guess the city and the planning staff in agreeing to this compromise, I think they've done a good job in doing the setbacks and trying to keep the neighbors' concerns in mind. So, that's the only questions I have for you. But I do have a question that was brought up, and I don't know who addresses this, but the gentleman brought up the question about the warehouse across the street in the beep beep beep at 01:30 in the morning.

We can't, yeah, we can't control vehicular traffic and the times of day that occurs. We can regulate the how activities are occurring in a light industrial zoning district. So across Old Settlers Boulevard to the north, it is light industrial. So all actual activities, whether it's warehousing, manufacturing, assembly, that all has to happen inside of a building, but we cannot control when those vehicles come and go. As it pertains to the construction on this site, though, we do have strict regulations in our zoning and development code regulating hours of operation for construction activities, both for grading permits and the site development permits, so those earth shaking activities.

Usually, I think that 7AM to 6PM cannot be outside those hours. And then when a building permit is issued, so vertical construction on the building, that must occur between 7AM and 9PM and not outside those hours. If there's any violation of that, they can call into planning or sorry, the police department nonemergency line to report that.

Okay. Well and, for some reason, I thought there was a restriction against truck traffic until, 5AM in the morning. Not to my knowledge. But if this relates to the warehouse? Not to my knowledge. Okay.

But there is a sound ordinance. There's a noise ordinance that I do if I can get off track here. You're concerned about that? We can't do anything with what you're saying, and I probably shouldn't be responding, but I will. If if you wanna go look at the ordinance, I think it's a certain decimal within a certain feet of your property line. And if your decimal meter reads that and it's over that allowed amount, then go to police. That's what that's for. That's a there's a sound that's keeping you up, and they're above the decimal level that they're allowed to that period of time of day. I I No. I we can't.

It's not a back and forth. I'm just making a general comment to your comment. That's all I can do. Sorry.

I don't have any additional questions.

Anybody else? Good? Okay. Are you good? You look like you still got something going on. You want me to go and No, keep talking. Okay. So, Ed, do you know you got a minute? May I ask you a quick question? He's got a minute. You got you got a couple couple hours spare? Sorry. Do we know most apartments that when buses come in, the ones I've seen, they're in, pick up, and out. They don't park on the street and stop that I'm aware of.

Most school pickups are on the public street.

They are on public streets?

We have it we have them on Sunrise today at 05:00. They're dropping students off from the high school.

Okay. So that is so they can drop, stop and start their own settlers to

Well, they'll do it on West Mesa. They won't do it on all settlers.

Okay.

They won't do it on a major arterial like that. They try to avoid the arterials.

So, again, and understand this what we're doing is an amendment, but we're not in development stage. But I do have to ask if that property does get developed at some point in time, they're not going to be going through will they actually be going through Mesa or they'll be going through old settlers?

If there's a side street available, the buses typically stop on the side street rather than the arterial and West Mesa be considered a side street.

If there's not a side street available, then they would have to pull into

the complex to stop on the arterial like they do on Sunrise They will. Okay. There's not a side street available.

I didn't know and I just want to clarify the question that was asked. I didn't know the answer. So that's why I wanted to kind of understand what buses can and can't do when it comes to multifamily areas.

Right. They don't go into complexes typically.

Okay. Thank you very much. I'm sorry. And I would assume the development, depending when this thing does go off, do you know if it will or will not generate some kind of TA or anything like that or

It will be subject to roadway impact fees and the driveway analysis for turn movements if they have to do any deceleration lane improvements.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Lindsay, I'm we've all said this, Sami. I just want to make sure I'm going to say it in my very simple mind. Originally, we had a me get back up here. Yes. Go back to yeah. So you had originally with multifamily and townhomes.

They said that's not gonna work. We wanted option to do a medium density, no townhomes. So they're not gonna have any structures if they decide to go with option any of option two. None of the structures are gonna be the within 90 feet at the most if they build a three story

Right.

Townhome. Right? So it's further back. It's less units. It's less people for the most part if they go this particular route. Does this ordinance that we're passing have any verbiage in it about the balconies at all, or does that get vetted out during plan review?

This one has, language in about the balconies.

So this particular amendment does have language about balconies?

Yes. The high density development option, which carried over from the previous PD, prohibits balconies on south facing building facades. That would be the ones that face south. And, the medium density allows for Juliet balconies on those building facades, and it's in in this PUD.

Okay. So I I do kinda somewhat remember from the the beginning. Residents, very adamant. No balconies. No balconies.

Everybody said, okay. Now we're talking about, yes. We're pushing it further back, but we still got a balcony. So can we make a proposal to the language to say if we decide to pass this, that they have to uphold the original verbiage that there are no balconies on the South Zone, period, based on what we're hearing from I might say we will, but from the emails, listen to people, from what little we have, it's not everybody, but we know that it was a discussion a deep discussion prior to when the original development was going in. And it sounds like that's really about the only rub that anybody really has with it.

So how does that work, counsel?

Yes, you could potentially approve the proposal for medium density and not allow any balconies at all. You could make that amendment with a motion.

And we would have to motion that to approve that to change that verbiage. Correct? If somebody were to make a motion to do that?

Yes. And that would go to counsel and counsel will do what

they want.

And they can do whatever they want, but we spoke our piece. Yes. Okay. I have a question. Okay. Yes, sir. Go ahead, mister Webb.

So, Lindsay, I have a question regarding the balcony. So how how was that language stated? Because it seems to me that the issue is not the issue is with balconies facing the neighborhood. I don't know how the property lays out, but I would assume they have multiple buildings. And so I don't know that the developer would be concerned if there's balconies on the south side that face other units in the project. So how I mean, was that brought up? Was that part of the language in the restriction? Or did it just flat out say on the southern facade, there are no balconies allowed at all?

You're talking about the original development, original play.

Right. And you understand what I'm saying? I mean, think if there's multiple units, then the units that are on the south would screen any subsequent units by units, I mean, screen any other views from buildings in the project front to the neighborhood. The concern is the neighborhood.

So the way that it was in the original PUD which carried over is a minimum of 25% of units shall include balconies. Balconies shall only be permitted on west, north, and east building facades. On south facing building facades, individual unit yards are permitted on ground floor units.

I'm sorry. Could you say that last part about on south facing?

On south facing building facades, individual unit yards are permitted for ground floor units. Would be like the little yards that you're seeing in a lot of multifamily where people can just walk out and they have a little fenced area on the 1st Floor.

Okay. There's Ground Floor only.

Yes. I mean, I don't think it's I think it's up to the developer to decide whether or not there's south facing balconies within the project intrude on the other buildings. I mean, the neighbors have spoken and said they don't like the south facing balconies, and that was part of what the original discussions were, there was a reason I was put in there. But, I mean, I would be willing to make a motion that said no. I'm not sure how you phrase it, but no south facing balconies that face the neighborhood the neighborhood to to the south.

South facing balconies are only allowed to the extent they face the other units in the project.

So, what I'm hearing is we possibly have a motion on the floor that we're willing to accept this or not willing to accept, but not voting on it, but you would like to change the verbiage that this particular amendment to the PUD state that they have to go back to one of the original agreements, which there will be no balconies allowed on the south face.

Is that That'd be the easy way to try to the make a Is hard

motion that I'm hearing?

That would be the simple way, but I'm trying to complicate it. I'm trying to strike a balance here between what developer wants and what the neighborhood wants. So what I'm saying is I'm not worried about the tenants of the apartment complex. I'm worried about the neighbors, and and that was the original issue. And so if it benefits the developer to have south facing balconies that don't look into the neighborhood, then they should be allowed to do that. That's their decision. Right? You know? And we could do it the easy way and just say, no south facing you know, no buildings on the south facing facade. No I'm sorry. No balconies on the south facing facade.

You're saying only the buildings that abut to the neighborhood from the south. So if it's a if it's a building

Because there are allowed balconies on all the other side. It

doesn't matter.

So right. And it is the the it'd be the same concept as when you had to screen. There was something in here about screening something from the view of the the neighbors. And so it's the same thing, I think. You know, the any balconies on the southern facade had to be screened from the neighborhood. I don't know.

Let me let me jump in real quick. I mean, to not I mean, hold that thought in advance this. In the original agreement on the townhomes, the townhomes have balconies or was it the multifamily areas that had balconies? Do we know? On the original agreement when it was talked about

It was the multifamily.

And what was the setback of the multifamily at that particular time where the once the town loans were set, where was the beginning of the multifamily from property line?

One thirty five feet for four storey and one seventy for five storey.

Okay. So we're the same height somewhat. It's the same setup, whether it's a multifamily or it's a townhome.

Yeah. That's interesting.

It doesn't matter. It's the same, and it's the same distance.

Well, no. It's not the same distance. It's it's 40 feet set it's set back 40 feet more. Yeah.

On the new But it's but it's a half story

higher in theory. I mean, and, you know, you don't you you don't have a half story in a townhome. I think it's just the the height.

You're gonna have two stories.

That was gonna be my question. Like, if you're looking at a 40 foot further back and no balconies at all on the first option, and now a balcony that's not really a balcony. It's kinda just like a big window that someone can open. What's the difference? I agree. Yeah.

You

oh, you mean what's the

oh, Steph. What's difference between the Juliet

and And, like, a just a big window.

It's a big window with the you just happen to open the window bigger. That's all. You can't crawl out there in the middle of a balcony that's

People aren't gonna hang out on the on those like you would a balcony.

They would. That's exactly right.

No. I see that. I mean, I I get it, but it just you know, that was something that was was agreed to for the neighborhood. You know? I don't Yeah. I mean, they want it for some reason. Guess they help sell them better.

Part of the original deal.

Right. Well, no balconies. I mean, you could have no balconies on the southern facade. And so now they're saying, we want them on the southern facade, but, you know, there'll be Juliet balconies, which I I understand that. There's a difference between somebody opening it up and, you know, being out there for a minute or two as opposed to hanging out all evening and, you know Right. On a on a balcony. I get it. I mean,

what if what if Juliet Balconies were an off like, we don't even know if that was a conversation on the original one. It was either there's a balcony or there isn't.

Well, we can't go back right now. All we can do is understand what we have in front us. So Yeah. If somebody wants to make a motion, we can. We can vote on it. If somebody wants to continue discussion, we can do that. But I'm gonna start kinda wrapping this up a little bit.

So

Alright. Well, I'll make a motion that that we approve item F1 with the amendment that there's no balconies on the southern facade that's closest to the adjacent neighborhood.

So I have a motion on the table, but I wanna make sure, is everybody done with discussion? Is there any more discussion that needs to be had? Mister Bone? Okay. So I have a motion on the table to approve the proposed amendment, but the wording is gonna have to be redone so that there are no balconies allowed regardless whether there's a Juliet or and and so what constitutes a balcony? A door? I wanna make sure and clarify this so there's no it's not muddy. Is what constitutes a balcony?

I think generally accepted definition is that a balcony has occupiable space, area where somebody could go out and stand outside their unit on the balcony.

But So door access to something. That'd be correct? Yes. So do we do we word it with balcony, or do we say no doors on the South Side?

I just say no balconies. No balconies? Okay. They can't I mean

I'm good. I just I'm just trying to make sure it's clean.

Yeah. I mean, I would say no balconies whether it's a regular balcony or a Juliet balcony.

Okay. So the amendment is or the excuse me. The motion on the table is we approve the put as amended with the note that or that is shown with the exception that there will be no balconies or Juliet balconies on the south side facade? No. Okay? Sorry. I told you I wanna do it the hard way. Okay. Speak k. Speak it again. Sorry.

So the amendment is, that that we accept that we approve item f one with the revision that there are no no balconies allowed on the southern facade of the buildings closest to the adjacent neighborhood to the south.

I'll I'll second that.

Oh, yes. But I'll second.

Yeah. So But it's only the it's only the southern facade that's closest

to the neighborhood.

So if you wanna do it on a southern facade that's within the project, you can do it.

I see what you're saying. If there's an interior if there are interiors, I apologize. Yeah. Now I'm I'm following what you're throwing

at. Yeah. Go ahead, Lindsey.

I would recommend, maybe we can I don't know exactly how we can word it here at the dais, but my suggestion would be to allow for the balconies on the southern facade if there's another building in between? Yes. And and it would have to be to the height of what that building is. So the balcony would not be visible from the southern property line for buildings that may be layered further into the north of the site.

So no no Well visual no how do just say? No occupancy What am I trying to say?

I think that intervening building language is the best because you can you can do a lot with different sight lines, different angles on the sides. So the visibility language wouldn't work quite as well, wouldn't be practicable from an enforcement standpoint. But to stipulate an intervening building and allowing southern facing balconies on the northern Building.

Yes.

Would be better.

I agree with that. I'm I agree with that. Does that make sense?

Sounds like exactly right.

That's basically if you can if they can see it, if the if somebody from the neighborhood can see it, that facade that facade does not get a balcony, period. If there is another building on the other side and there's a there's a pathway in between and it has a south facing facade, they can have a balcony if it's not seen by the residents. Correct? Am I saying that?

I I would lean against language like that in terms of visibility language and really just leave it with intervening building language.

Okay.

Okay. So what your suggestion, Lindsey, is no balconies on, the Southern facade unless they're blocked by an intervening building of equal heights?

Yes, something along that line.

Okay. Is that I mean, that's what is that what you're saying, Brad? That's a Yeah. So we concept of an intervening building is the the blocking building.

Yeah. It's to ensure that there's not a balcony on an immediate on a building that is immediately adjacent to the single family neighborhood. Okay. So I think that summarizes the the motion that you're trying to get at here. Okay.

So if you have a four story building, a three story building You then four story doesn't get

balcony. Because can't have a balcony on the four four or four story.

Alright. I agree. So I forgot what I just say. There's my motion is that there's no balconies allowed on the southern facade unless their, the view from this neighborhood to the south is blocked by an intervening building of the same height.

Brad said you couldn't say view. Brad said you couldn't say view. You just need to say that there is an intervening building behind it, to the south. You can't talk about the view, right?

Right. Intervening building.

It needs to be an intervening building south

of Of the same height.

Of the same height. Okay.

And that would be balconies, Angelia, balconies.

Yeah. We can play with the language later.

I think we understand. Think we understand the motion.

And why didn't you say that earlier? This

is all being recorded.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Just say what you said.

But y'all understand what I'm saying.

I understand your motion.

Yeah. Okay. Yes. Okay. That's my motion.

I think we understand the motion. I think we understand what we're trying to say. I think council and development services understand what we're asking for. Correct? So I'm not gonna repeat the motion because I'll mess it up. Yeah. But do I have a sec or what?

In a balcony, it essentially has to be, above the 1st Floor.

Yeah.

Right? I mean okay. That's

fine. Yep. Yeah. I I second that.

Okay. So I have a motion. I have a second. Yes. I have a second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed? Got one. Motion carries four to one. We're good.

Okay. Thank you.

Let's talk about ducks. Okay. Don't you remember that? Taylor? Let's talk about Duck. Okay. That's two two. No. Greater Tune. Is that it?

Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. Moving along. Item g one, consider public testimony regarding and recommendation concerning proposed amendments, code of ordinances, city Round Rock, Texas 2018 part three, zoning and development code chapter eight, zoning and development standards article six, off street parking and loading to reduce, modify or eliminate a minimum number of required off street parking spaces for certain nonresidential uses and update related provisions.

Okay. Good evening, all. My name is Drashti, and I'm a part time planner with the planning department here. And today, I'll be talking about proposed amendments to the minimum off street parking requirements. So at present, the code has a table that sets the minimum off street parking requirements by specific use, and as a part of this proposal, some of those requirements would be reduced, modified, or eliminated for certain nonresidential uses.

But it is also important to note that where a minimum parking is no longer applying, parking could still be provided and recommended parking ratios would still be provided in the guide for guidance in the code for guidance. The proposed amendments are also supported by the policy direction in Round Rock 2030, which is the city's comprehensive plan. Within that, the mobility related policies call for reevaluating the off street parking requirements for all land users and also develop a plan to manage parking supply and demand in large developments to make sure that there's an efficient use of land. The commercial centers, we encourage compact commercial redevelopment in appropriate locations, which can be influenced by how much land is dedicated to parking, and the plan Sorry.

Could I'm sorry. Could you repeat that last part? It's dedicated to what? I'm sorry.

Which can be influenced by how much land is being dedicated to parking, and the plan also recommends evaluating parking lot standards in the development code, especially for the retail users, and considering how parking requirements can affect the overall site development. So the main considerations behind these proposed amendments basically relate to how the current parking is being regulated and whether those standards reflect what a site actually needs. So one of the key goals here is to allow the parking supply to be determined by the project's context, its constraints, and the market demand. So right now, the current parking minimums are based on the peak demand and the broader land use categories. So in practice, the required parking may not always align with the actual demand of the day to day use of a project.

Another important consideration is the cost, and parking is expensive. So the estimated construction costs are about 5,000 to $10,000 per surface parking space and 20,000 to $60,000 per structured parking space. Another goal is to support more efficient use of land. So if parking is reduced, there may be more opportunities for more buildable areas, green space, and even more pedestrian oriented designs. And in some cases, reducing access of paved parking areas can also provide additional environmental benefits.

In addition to that, these amendments also intend to provide flexibility for business owners and the developers. And so minimum parking requirements do influence the site selection and development feasibility for the new development, and it can also create challenges for smaller businesses if they are on a limited budget. And then finally, another goal is to encourage redevelopment and reinvestment of the existing commercial centers. So in some cases, currently, existing commercial sites already have very large areas dedicated to parking. So removing those certain parking requirements could create more flexibilities for those those projects to redevelop on the excess of land which is dedicated to parking.

And finally, these comments also reevaluate the parking requirements based on the changing trends in the commercial activities. Mobility preferences and transportation patterns have changed over the time. So for example, people may be now more likely to use ride shares, and we also see shorter time at the curb activities such as pickups, drop offs, or delivery rather than long term parking. So this is more about recognizing that the parking demands right now may be different from what we had when these standards were established. So whenever we propose a code amendment, we also look at what other cities have been doing.

In this case, we looked at a range of examples. We looked at smaller cities, including Bastrop and Taylor. So these cities were able to eliminate the parking requirements for all their all their land users, which have allowed these cities to grow in a way that prioritizes parking that does not prioritize parking in the same way. We also looked at cities that are more comparable in size to Round Rock, and these include Peoria in Illinois and Gainesville in Florida. These cities were able to eliminate their parking minimum requirements for all their nonresidential uses.

That has allowed the market to determine what is their adequate parking supply for the projects within those cities. We also looked at Lancaster in California, which has been able to eliminate their parking requirements for all their commercial uses. We also looked at some larger city examples which have been able to eliminate requirement for all their land users, and one of the examples of it is Minneapolis. The city also requires, in that case, for the developers to participate in programs that promote more use of public transit instead. Then coming to Round Rock, we looked at what parking looks like in Round Rock today.

And for this analysis, we focused on the developed commercial lands within the city limits, which includes all the commercial zoning districts, c one, which is generalcom general commercial, c one a, general commercial limited, and c two, which is local commercial. We also looked at the commercial components within PUDs. Vacant parcels were not included in this analysis, so this analysis is basically about all the land which is being used currently. And based on that analysis, we found that 43% of the developed commercial land is being dedicated to parking, which shows a sick which shows a significant amount of land being used. In total, we looked at about 2,031 commercial acres, and out of those, 873 acres of land is being used for parking.

If we can also look at the map, the black highlighted parcels are the area of the black highlighted areas are the areas dedicated to parking out of all the commercial areas. We also reviewed the parking required versus parking provided in the new developments across a variety of users in Round Rock, which includes retail, restaurants, banks, offices, and hotels. And we noticed that in most cases, the amount of parking being provided matches the amount that is required by the code, and that suggests that the minimum parking requirement is actually driving the parking supply for these projects rather than it being based entirely on a site specific need. So developers are generally building to the minimum standard even though the actual needs of the project might vary from site to site or may even be less for their projects. The so these images show some of the examples of larger commercial centers in Round Rock, which includes the Boardwalk Shopping Center located at the Northeast Corner Of I 35, where the Home Depot is located, as well as La Frontera.

And as we can see from these areas, there's a large amount of land which is being dedicated to parking right now, and we can also see that not the entire area is being utilized at the same time for parking. We also looked at a couple of small site parking lots. So the first example is of the Diamond Oaks retail at 3800 East Palm Valley. This site includes a mix of users of retail and restaurants. For that site, the required parking spaces were one zero two, and the parking provided is one zero two.

So in this case, the amount provided matches the minimum required by the code. And even with that, we can see some of the open spaces not being utilized at the same time. In the second example, this is the Chisholm Oak Center at 130 so 1307 Chisholm Trail Road. So this is an office use. The required parking is 37 spaces, and the project provides 44 spaces.

So here, the site is providing what reflects their specific project needs. This could include the estimated number of employees or how the office is expected to work. We also did some case studies to understand how that access parking can be redeveloped over time. This example this first example shows the Thornton Place in Seattle in Washington, which was developed on what had previously been a part of a large Northgate parking lot. This example shows that, you know, as the commercial patterns have been changing and the centers are requiring lesser parking, Those parking areas can be redeveloped into opportunities which could include more mixed use development.

This case study specifically shows that this big area of parking was converted into a mixed use development consisting of residential units, almost 50,000 square feet of retail, as well as movie theaters. This another example is of Pike And Rose in North Bethesda in Maryland, where this was a former strip land, and it had a huge area dedicated to parking. This was redeveloped into a more compact mixed use development, and we can see from the before and after images how that area being dedicated to parking was converted into a mixed use redevelopment project. So now taking all that into account, the proposed amend here is what the proposed amendments would do. The proposed amendments remove the minimum off street parking requirements for certain nonresidential uses and provide the minimum provide recommended parking ratios as guidance in the code.

They retain minimum parking requirements for certain assembly users, proposed amendments update the off street parking table for selected public, commercial, civic, and industrial users, and they also clarify that accessible parking must be provided in accordance with ADA and Texas accessibility standards whenever off street parking is provided. For commercial and office users, the proposed amendments remove minimum parking requirements for the users listed here. That includes retail sales and services, restaurants and bars, shopping centers, offices, etcetera. Now for some of these users, there are exceptions in certain zoning districts, including C 2, which is the local commercial district, and MUR, which is mixed use redevelopment and small lot district since these tend to be closer to the neighborhood. So in those areas, minimum parkings would be would still be retained.

For the bed and breakfast, minimums would again continue to apply in certain single family districts in addition to C 2 and MUR. Then separately, hotels, models, and lodging users, the parking requirement is proposed to be reduced from one to 0.8 parking spaces. Similarly, for public and civic users, the proposal removes the minimum parking requirements for users such community services, government facilities, golf courses, etcetera. And, again, there are exceptions in certain districts like C 2 and MUR by specific use type. For the industrial users, the proposal is to reduce the parking standard for heavy equipment sales and leasing to one space per 500 square feet of cross floor area plus one additional space per 500 square feet of outdoor sales and display area up to 50,000 square feet.

There are some items of the code that are not changing, and these include the dimensional standards for parking spaces, parking lots, and drive aisles. On-site parking area requirements are not changing. Required stacking spaces for drive through users and required fleet parking would stay as it is. Other supplementary standards such as storm water drainage requirements for impervious surfaces and landscape and screening requirements for parking lots would stay as it is. And finally, there are no changes proposed to downtown parking requirements for mixed use districts as on-site parking was not required for more most drawn residential users in downtown.

Again, it is important to note that parking is not being prohibited, and recommendations for on-site parking will be provided as guidance in the code. However, if parking is not constructed on-site or not given up to the project's specific demand, then it could lead to certain unintended consequences, which includes potential spillover of commercial parking onto local neighborhood streets or state right of way if insufficient parking is provided on-site. There possibly could be property owner disputes and parking on grass or in fire lanes. Residents and visitors blaming the city for the decisions made by the city, and there could be opportunity of new pad sites in the large retail center areas coming up. So with that, the staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments as these changes would provide project specific flexibility.

It would also help reduce the cost for small business owners and also reduce the amount of land dedicated solely to parking. That concludes the presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Great presentation. Let's see. This is a public hearing. We will open up public hearing. Do we have anybody signed up? No. Okay. Nobody signed up. I'll close public hearing. Anybody have any discussions? Mr. Bone?

Yeah. Could you do all that again, please? That's a lot. And I appreciate you being very thorough in all this. Parking is a as we continue to grow, that's this is the reality. We gotta gotta be mindful of it, I appreciate the, slides. I appreciate the the visual comparing it to that other site showing what the changes in the the parking, regulations. I am curious. There was one item that said recommended parking ratios for each use would continue to be provided where minimum parking is not required. Are those ratios the ones that are in effect right now, or are those subject to change as well?

No. Those are the ratios that we have currently. After we remove those ratios, that will be included as recommended guidance.

Okay. I just I didn't know if we were I didn't see anything that said we were changing those ratios, so those are staying in place. Other than that, that was very thorough. Appreciate that. Thank you.

That's all I got. Mr. Winn?

Well, I think it's a good idea and I think there was some comment in there about the market deciding and I really think that's what it should be as the businesses decide if they can function whether or not they have enough parking. But I am interested in the unintended consequences. I missed that when I went through the presentation earlier today. So, if you could bring that up, I think maybe that's the it's like four slides or two slides back. So, I think what happens for residents and visitors blaming the city for decisions made by businesses.

So, the city gets blamed for everything anyway. So, you're not getting out of that one. But, the proliferation of new pad sites and large retail centers, that was actually a question I was going to have when you saw the picture of La Frontera and how big those are more of the boardwalk and how much land is there. I mean, is that we anticipate that where you could reclaim some of that land for pad sites? Is that there's nothing restricting people from doing that now.

Right. I mean, some of those large shopping centers, they're overparked as it is. I mean, they went above and beyond meeting whatever the minimum code requirement was because you've got your Walmarts and whatever. They're they wanna park for Black Friday in a time when Black Friday actually had a lot of traffic. So right now, they've got a whole lot of unused space, and they could probably convert some of that to businesses.

Removing some parking, convert some of that to businesses as long as they can prove to us, count every single parking space, show us your breakdown of land uses and how you're still meeting the code after you're removing those parking spaces. We actually had that recently just across 45 in the Target shopping center where that very small multi tenant strip center went in adjacent to 45. They showed us the entire quantity of parking in the shopping center and then how removing some parking and adding this square footage was still gonna keep them in line with city code requirements. So if there is no city code requirement, they can they can do that as much as they want. But one of the potential unintended consequences, I think, that we're trying to get at here is that if you allow that, then maybe all of a sudden you're getting drive through, drive through, drive through car wash, drive through, and so on and so forth, which is not, you know, still not an efficient use of land, but you're but then you're putting things back into the market's hands to do as it wishes without having to worry about, parking requirements.

Well, some of that's gonna be restricted by, you know, Walmart leases, not only the building, but that parking lot as well. And Home Depot leases, not only the building, but but the parking lot as well. So, some of that, you're going to have some limitations with that as far as redeveloping some of that. But I think with Round Rock basically being landlocked, the only way to grow is for additional density and this creates the opportunity for additional tax base, etcetera, etcetera. The thing that jumps out to me and I guess is the potential spillover commercial property on the local neighborhood streets.

And I think of this neighborhood in particular because I live in this neighborhood downtown, and it's spilling over into the neighbors, people parking in front of the neighbors and pissing the neighbors off, that's where you get the property owner disputes. And down here, we've got parking with the library parking garage and the city parking garage that I think eliminates that. I would think in some of these other neighborhoods, these older houses weren't required to necessarily have a garage or off street parking, but in the other neighborhoods, are you satisfied that they have off street parking? They have driveways, they have garages where we're not going to have potentially have issues. I just don't want to see us getting into the position.

This would be many years down the road, but you go into some of these neighborhoods in Austin and some of the other bigger cities that I have gone into, you got to have a permit to park in front of your own house. The neighbors have to have a permit and it's restricted as it should be, restricted to just neighborhood parking. But the spillover means that the neighbors have to show that they belong there and park in front of their own house. So anyway, I think it's good. We'll deal with the unintended consequences. I probably won't be around to deal with it, but, you know, you guys at the city are gonna have to deal with it, and we'll

figure it out. We will. And actually, to your point about, like, residential parking permits, we already have that near Round Rock High School because of the spillover of student parking or students who don't wanna pay for a parking space, and so they park in the neighborhood adjacent to there, in Round Rock West. And so along a couple of those streets, we have instituted it's pretty old by now, a residential parking permit program that we do have to administer.

Old Town Elementary. The plantation. Yeah.

That's right.

I think that's the other one. Those are the only two, I think, that we have in the city. But I guess, also, to your point, though, about worrying about that resident or spillover into residential neighborhoods is one reason why we are not allowing this to take effect in the C 2 Zoning District. If you will recall a few months ago, we had a rezoning come before, in the Round Rock Ranch area for, you know, the Paul Stitt Kate's stable property that was proposed to be rezoned from single family to C two. A lot of residents showed up concerned about parking, people parking on the street or in their neighborhood blocking their view. And that kinda helped open our eyes up a little bit and say, well, maybe we need to pull back on this allowance or removing this allowance for the C 2 zoning district. And so that helped form what we're presenting here today.

Okay. Well, good job. Thank you.

You're good? Mister Dominguez?

No. That that. Am I on? There we go. You said what I was going to say was I read this thoroughly, and I thought that it was clear that you were using some recent information to kind of make your exclusions. I thought that was notable, and, it I didn't I didn't have any issues with it. I felt like we were addressing the stuff that we're seeing currently and the things that people are saying right now. And then there was that, y'all know me. I'm I'm always, you know, you get me when you start throwing about green space. So, I thought, well, if somebody decides to build a property and maybe not put parking and there's more green space, it's just an additional option.

It may not happen, but I'm hopeful that some of these properties say, know, we don't need that for parking. We'll a beautiful green space there. And so, I just like that provides another option for some of these developments. And, we're growing. This might provide in that area you're talking about over there, where Walmart is, Look, if they can do it and we can bring more businesses to Round Rock, that's a great area to do it. So I'm I'm I'm for it. I can tell you thought really hard about what the exclusions were, where it fits, where it doesn't. I didn't have a problem with it, so I just wanna thank you.

Mister Chuck Bay.

That was very thorough. I think we've kind of hit everything I had questions about. Thank you though.

I'll add to a great presentation. Welcome.

Thank you.

You all good? No more discussion. I will entertain a motion.

Mister chair, I make a recommendation I make a motion that we approve item g one. I have a first. I have a second. I'll second.

All in favor, aye. Aye. Motion carries five to zero. We will consider an update regarding council actions related to planning and zoning.

No update.

None at all.

It's a good update.

Nope. That's good. Do we wanna talk about balconies anymore? We will adjourn. Thank you, guys.