Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Okay. We're gonna call the Wednesday, 05/06/2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Ceci, would you please call the roll?

Chair Clauson.

Present.

Vice Chair, Bone? Alternate Vice Chair Dominguez?

Here.

Commissioner Emerson?

Here.

Commissioner Holloway?

Here.

Commissioner Hockeyp? Commissioner Wen?

Here. Commissioners Tindes, would you please join us for our Pledge of Allegiance? 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, liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one indivisible. Thank you.

Pursuant to Texas government code 551,007, allows citizens to have a citizen communication to speak for any agenda item. Cecilia, do we have anybody signed up for citizen communication? No. Okay. Commissioners, everybody had a chance to read minutes? Need to make sure there's no amendments or revisions. Anybody need to pull anything? If not, I will entertain a motion to approve the 04/01/2026 plan and zoning minute meeting.

If there's no changes, I'd to approve the 04/01/2026 minutes.

I have a first. Do I have a second? I'll second that. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay. Item F1, consider public testimony regarding and recommendation considering the request filed by Drenner Group on behalf of property owner HCBC for an amendment number seven to plan unit development number 23 Preserve At Stone Oak to allow for limited commercial development as permitted use, generally located North of RM 1431 and West Of Stone Oak Drive, case number PUD 20 4. Kaitlyn, good evening.

Good evening, Chair and Commission. Kate Reeves, Planning and Development Services. As Chair mentioned, I'll be covering item F1, Preserve at Stone Oak, Amendment seven, Depend number 23. The tract is 13.22 acres North of 1431 and, again, West of Stone Oak. There's an aerial for context.

Before we get into the specifics on this case, I just kind of wanted to give a brief overview on what a planned unit development amendment is and how it works. So a PUD amendment is essentially a rezoning action that modifies development standards or uses that were adopted within the original planned unit development of a property. There's two major categories of PUD amendments, a major and a minor. Tonight, we're doing a major amendment. And that includes changes that are considered significant enough to warrant reconsideration by planning and zoning in city council.

That can be things like land use changes, density changes, things that could potentially impact compatibility with adjacent uses. A minor amendment is something that's typically done administratively. And that's for minor architectural modifications or numerical standards that don't impact potential compatibility with any neighboring uses. So a lot of questions that we get on PUD amendments is, well, why doesn't it get a new PUD number? Essentially, it's our ability to tie the property to the history that it's gone through so people, the public, can see what happened on a tract.

So it gets its same PUD number. So specifically on this tract, this is PUD number 23, Preserve At Stone Oak. Their base district is OF or office. The applicant's request is to amend the base district to allow for limited commercial uses and change that base district to c one a general commercial limited. The 2030 future land use map designates the subject track for commercial uses.

It's been designated since 2010 as commercial. For context, commercial land use designations are intended for areas that are appropriate for retail sales and services and other neighborhood oriented, uses. That can include things like restaurants, convenience retail, medical and dental offices. Those neighborhood commercial uses within our location criteria for the commercial land use designation is typically located at the entrance or with convenient access to a residential area. So the subject tracked in question does meet that location criteria.

So as we go through this, I'm going to start with some permitted uses and the conditions associated with those permitted uses, and then we're going to cover some prohibited uses before we get into some specific development standards. So to start off, as I mentioned earlier, the base district for PUD 23 on this lot or this tract, excuse me, is OF or office. That means permitted office uses in our base district of office or OF1 would be permitted. So an office building that's two stories could go there now. Additionally, the PUD allows for a place of worship, senior living opportunities like assisted living and nursing homes, and then a day care with a maximum square footage of 20,000 square feet.

The proposed amendment, again, would modify that base district to be C1A or General Commercial Limited. And there's a number of uses that are highlighted here with stars. Those are going to be uses that are highlighted with conditions or what we call supplementary use standards. So for a day care, that's been reduced to 15,000 square feet. For fuel sales, that's a limit of four fuel pumps with no more than eight individual fuel pumps or fuel pump islands.

Excuse me. One thing you'll see as a commonality on these is a 200 foot setback from the residential property line for these uses. So, fuel sale or fuel pumps, vacuums, air pumps, associated fuel facilities would require that 200 foot setback from the residential property line. Additionally, 200 feet for an auto service facility. All of those auto service facility uses would need to be conducted within an enclosed building, and no facilities would have allowable bay doors facing the residential property line.

For restaurant and bars, one of the concerns that has been highlighted by the community is alcohol only establishment or bars. And so bars have been prohibited. Bars are defined as establishments that do not have a commercial kitchen, and that's outlined in the PUD as well. Additionally, outdoor entertainment or outdoor live music is prohibited, and any outdoor eating and drinking facilities has that 200 foot setback as well. For drive throughs, we've defined those as restaurants, banks, and pharmacies.

It's not limited to those, but those are highlighted. There's a maximum of two standalone drive throughs and a third may be permitted in a multi tenant structure. Again, 200 feet back from from the residential property line for stacking spaces, speaker boxes, etcetera. And then for the dog daycare or dog facilities, again, enclosed structure, drop off hours between six and nine and or 6AM and 9PM, and then, maximum square footage is 7,500 square feet. So we understand there is residential to the north, so a number of uses have been noted as prohibited in this land use amendment or put amendment.

So things like auto body services, call centers, event centers, car washes, outdoor entertainment, small scale alcohol production, so microbreweries, those have been identified as incompatible with the residential to the north, and so they have been identified as prohibited even though they would be allowable by our base district of C1A. Currently within the PUD, we're going to get into the development standards now. So currently within the PUD, there is a setback of 50 feet for one story and 100 feet for two stories. That is not changing with this proposal. One thing to note is there is a height limitation that has been set for a maximum of one story except for places of worship.

They are still allowed to go to two stories. So all of the uses that would be allowed in this proposal is a maximum of one story or 30 feet. And then, again, that 200 foot setback. So in the photo, you can kind of see what approximately 200 feet would look like back from the residential property line. A big item of conversation and discussion is compatibility.

And so within the PUD, there's a requirement for a minimum of six feet of masonry wall. The photo to the right at CVS is an example of a masonry wall that that would need to match. There is a lot of concern on this site given some ecological features. So there's some drainage back there and some topographical changes. So we've included a requirement for a site elevation study.

So at the time of site development permit, when a developer comes in, they'll have to look at the topography of a site and ensure that the location of that masonry wall would maximize screening. So it's something that'll be done at site development, but that is a requirement and a consideration. Currently within the PUD, there is a pretty extensive vegetative buffer required to maintain existing trees. And if there's any sort of break in that existing tree line to replant with new new vegetation, that's not changing. So there is quite a large vegetative buffer as well.

So, again, to give some context, that wall at the north top picture, excuse me, where it says CVS, that is what typically would be required. That dotted line here where it says wall six feet, that's the approximate location of where that wall would be located. There's language within the PUD that states that that wall would be located at the north end of the development area, and that's to account for those ecological features like drainage. The city held a meeting with the adjacent neighbors, and one of the concerns that came from that meeting was lack of safe pedestrian access from the neighborhood to walk to the commercial areas. So that was, given to the developer, and a pedestrian access was included in this PUD amendment.

So it would be generally located along the eastern side of the private drive and approximately four feet in width. So, for context, that would be somewhere along here. This site does have caves, and so that would be taken into consideration for where that, path would go.

That previous slide, was that what those were as the car features? Yes. On the lower left?

Yes.

Okay. So there okay. And that has to be taken into account for development too, right? Correct. Is that does that show the area they cannot develop in?

Correct.

Okay.

And that would be subject to state regulation.

I'm sorry?

That would be subject to state regulation. Okay. Thank you. There's been quite a level of discussion regarding this with public outreach. It was posted a notification was posted in the newspaper. There was a mail notice to those within 300 feet of the subject tract. Additionally, if we received written comment, or if those attended the city meeting, and they were outside of that 300 foot buffer, their information was included in that mail noticing. So they also received a mail notice. There's a sign posted. There was an HOA courtesy notice sent via email.

Again, if we had email addresses for those that have been participating, they received that as well. The city led a neighborhood meeting and then the applicant led a number of meetings. I can let them speak to the exact number, but I believe that was three to four. And then, you all should have received copies of the written statements. I believe there were 23 written comments, from adjacent neighbors, and so those have been presented as well. So with that, staff recommends approval of the major amendment for amendment seven of pod number 23, preserve at Stone Oak. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Caitlin. I'm sure we will. Does the applicant or owner agent have anything they'd like to add to the presentation? Evening.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Amanda Swar with Drenner Group. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I do have a brief presentation that I think might provide a couple of different a picture's worth a thousand words, and it really helps me orient things on the site. Will go while it's coming up, Adam Zimmel with Endeavor Real Estate is also here. Endeavor is the developer of this property. So if you have any questions about the vision, he is also happy to This speak to really helped me orient, as Steph said, larger PUD. This is just a small piece of it. I'll skip to this because they hit a lot of the pieces. Again, so we are not talking about an undeveloped property, whether development or not development.

We have a PUD that allows for development today. It allows for two story office buildings. It allows for two story places of worship. It has some minimal setbacks. The change that we're talking about is the creation of a neighborhood retail center. We are talking about a reduction in height and expanding setbacks that are there today and taking into account some of the feedback that we heard from the neighbors. This site is also not a site without constraints. I want to make sure that we acknowledge those pieces of it. There is a detention facility that is on the Northwest corner. There is, as Kate mentioned, there's a natural drainage way that runs along the Northeast, as well as significant floodplain.

We did get some questions on why can't you develop further to the east on this property. With the constraints that exist there today, we are not able to do that. There is also significant tree cover on this property. We are not requesting any modifications to the monarch tree ordinance with this PUD amendment. Again, this is an existing property.

This is what an office project could look like substantial parking, substantial building mass on here. You would notice that on the north of this is where the line the wall would have to go with the project. What we are talking about is a much smaller neighborhood scale retail project. We would anticipate this being services that serve the community. This is not large scale destination retail. This is not big box retail. This is small services that are intended to serve the families that live in this area. The project would have two points of access. It would have an access on 1431 that is controlled by TxDOT. We anticipate that we would get one.

That would be done at the time of site development permit. We don't see any reason we wouldn't. We do not anticipate that there's any chance on earth that we would get two points of access on 1431, given the lights. The secondary access point would come on to as Sendero Springs dead ends into 1431, that becomes a private road that extends north. There is an access easement that has already been granted to this property.

I think you will likely hear a lot of concerns about how that access is handled. We are working with the HOA to uncover all of the documents regarding maintenance, etcetera. We do anticipate continuing those conversations as we move forward to site development permit. An important thing that I do want to point out on this I talk about it later, but I think this image shows it better. The compatibility buffer in the wall that's required in the existing PUD is required to be on that northern property line.

I think the very first thing that we heard was, please don't put that wall on that property line. There is a natural drainage area that runs through there and a lot of features. There is also a significant the reason I wanted to show it on this one there is a significant amount of natural tree protection that sits there. The last thing we wanted to do is be in a situation where we were tearing down trees to put in a wall, where the trees will provide there is a tree survey. The majority of those trees are evergreen trees.

They provide a better buffer than a wall ever would. But we did still want to provide the screening for the spaces that have some openings in the vegetation. When staff talked about a study, there is some more topography on the site than you would think when you look at it in two dimension. Where this wall is looking to go, it will be on some of the higher pieces to provide even more buffer for the residents that were there. You'll notice that my thing moves.

So you'll notice that the wall will sit to the south of the detention area that is manicured and landscaped. It will come and hug the building. That will there screen all of the parking that would be proposed to be closest to the neighborhood and continue around the detention area while staying out of the floodplain and out of the natural drainage way. Staff mentioned this, but this helps to show it in a little bit of context. So this is conceptual, obviously, but it has been thought out very much.

There are three karst features on the property that we are required to stay out of. There is also the preliminary 50 foot buffer that was put into place with the original PUD. The secondary buffers that came into place with this PUD amendment are all at 200 feet. You can see that this is a very deep property. The majority of these retail users need to be closer to the street. Therefore, they are further back than what you would otherwise see that is allowed today. These are not example pictures. I put these here as a request that we got from the neighborhood. The question was, have you ever done other retail next to residential? These are all endeavor projects.

They are all with no buffer. These are all large commercial centers. It is not unheard of to have a commercial project next to a residential. Again, this is compliant with the city's comprehensive plan, which contemplates commercial on this property and has for some time. This is the wall image I was going to talk to, but the other one was better. So I talked from that one. The second piece that we've heard, as Saf mentioned, was that there was a desire to have a pedestrian trail. This is a really unique area. There are the karst features that are along the road. There's some trees.

So we said, yes, this sounds like a great idea. Let us make it something that can be an amenity. We envision this being a DG trail that will provide access from the terminus of the neighborhood where it is today all the way down to the 1431 and the private road intersection. This is just an example of how it could meander through. So with that, like I said, I am here to answer any and all questions that you have. I also have the development team thank you so much for the opportunity to be here, and we look forward to continuing the conversation.

JOSEPH Thank you for your presentation. So before we go into this, before we open up public hearing, I just want to make sure, if you're here to speak for, yes, make sure you fill out a yellow card. Give it to Cecilia. And I want to make sure just to we have a lot of people signed up. Be mindful of everybody's time.

We are talking about an amendment to a PUD. There are five, six, seven more steps before it even gets in front of development as to actually what is going to go be there. We're not tired to talk about what the potential is going to be here. We're just talking about what they're going to build, what the potential could possibly happen within this PUD if these changes are approved. So just to make sure and be clear, again, everybody's going to get three minutes. When I call your name, you'll come up. You'll state your name and address. You get three minutes to speak. This isn't a back and forth conversation. We're here to listen.

We'll take notes. After everybody's said and done, then we will address comments accordingly from each commissioner on the table here. So, with that, I will go ahead and open up a public hearing. And we will start with Gary

Good evening. I'm Gary Oldham with Protect Round Rock. The Mayfield Ranch, Stone Oaks, Arrow Springs area of Round Rock has long suffered from the city's poor decision making when it comes to fire protection, Allowing additional high traffic commercial growth in this area irresponsibly increases the risk for users of that property as well as those in surrounding neighborhoods and even considering construction of daycare facilities in this area is frankly reckless and irresponsible. This area of the city lacks a nearby fire station because of conscious decisions the city's made. Our fire department's own strategic plan for 2015 to 2020 recommended a Mayfield branch fire station by 2019.

In fact, building a fire station in that part of the city has been recommended in 2005, 2009, 2018, and 2019. And the city already owns the land that's required. Mayfield Ranch, so far nonexistent fire station, wasn't included in the 2023 bond. Instead the city built three new stations all situated much further away and none of which provide any direct benefit to the Mayfield Ranch area the response times for those areas covered by the new stations were already far better than Mayfield Ranch experiences National performance standards set a target emergency response time at four minutes. Response times to Mayfield Ranch often exceed ten minutes.

A fire doubles in size every sixty seconds. If your brain isn't getting oxygen for whatever reason and intervention is delayed, irreversible brain damage occurs in about five minutes. I'll wait till you're done. Oh, A ten minute or more delay in response by our fire department can have tragic long lasting consequences. Proposition b would have helped the staffing and response time issues and stop the city's foot dragging.

But last Saturday, a majority of the small percentage of citizens who turned out to vote cited with major mayor Morgan to reject the proposal. Morgan says he supports implementing four person staffing and claims to work towards that, but he hasn't commented publicly on response times. As a community, we must hold the mayor to account and insist on tangible, rapid, and demonstrable progress toward making these needed changes. In the meantime, commissioners approving a project like this would be reckless, irresponsible and a failure in responsibilities to the community. To the developers, proceeding with this project and knowingly placing a risk those using or living on this property is frankly willful endangerment and for the property owner converting usages land to a purpose that would put our residents and our children in daycare at this level of risk is not the legacy you want to leave behind Knowing the information that I've just shared and approving this rezoning application or the PUD mod of amendment, then proceeding with this development could likely incur immense liability in the event of a tragedy.

Please do the right thing and and deny this amendment application. Our fire department cannot adequately respond to and protect a commercial development of this nature particularly a day care facility. Until such times our fire department is adequately staffed and a station is built to serve this area, no such development should be undertaken. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I have a Joy Once again, when you come up, would state your name and address, for the record.

Hi. I'm Joy Dumas. I live at 3451 Mayfield Ranch Boulevard, Unit 351. I'm an eleven year owner at the preserve at Mayfield Ranch. Development in the area is inevitable. My community has 156 detached home condominiums with narrow streets and no sidewalks. Please consider my concerns. First, my community will continue to be harmed through the increased public use of the community's private road. Maintaining this road will cause an undue financial burden. Undue means excessive, unwarranted, or inappropriate.

It refers to something that goes beyond what is reasonable. The city, however, will benefit abundantly from this rezoning through new commercial property taxes, sales tax revenue, and developer paid impact fees. The developer and for profit owners will benefit financially from this premier location and heavily traveled highway. There is no benefit to my community. You have the authority and influence to make this right for all parties.

This development will add to the constant and dynamic flow of traffic pulsing through this small area the entire day and night and entire week while using this private road. This is the total opposite of what church zoning was to provide us. Churches typically have a large flow of traffic on Sundays. However, this jam packed development will only add to the traffic snarl and will soon deteriorate this private strip of road. This cannot be the intent of this rezoning and sale.

The city can make this right and alleviate this burden. Please take over this narrow two lane strip of road. This is the right and fair thing to do to minimize the harm and to think about consequences before acting. Round Rock's transportation work gets recognized for creative problem solving in tight spaces. Multimodal design like cars, bikes, pedestrians, and collaboration like city county, TxDOT.

The city wins awards for specific transportation projects considered innovative like the Logan Street Connection Project, which was twenty twenty two APWA project of the year. Make this another innovative project that is well received by all. Please do the right thing. Secondly, all homeowners should have received a mailed notice of this proposed rezoning. All of them own a part of this private road.

All are affected. This was a commission oversight. Third, decomposed granite proposed by the developer for a path to the 1431 Road crosswalk is inappropriate. Granite can move under your feet and can cause a slide when a bicycle breaks. Granite would not hold up with the volume of walkers and cyclists, many that are youth, who frequent the quick trip in the Sendero Basketball Court all while crossing 1431.

Planned fast food establishments will also increase this foot bicycle traffic. Please install concrete, which is preferred for its permanence and safety, and will blend in with the existing development sidewalks. Fourth, please consider increasing the traffic lanes from two to three lanes for exiting onto 1431 to expedite the increased traffic flow. And finally, the existing development anchored by QuickTrip and CVS has no signage and is at high risk for accidents and fatalities. Please review this. Thank you.

Thank you, Veth.

And I would like to submit this.

Yvette Sissayu, please. Thank you very much. Laura Cohen, is that correct? Or Cochran? I couldn't quite apologies if I missed that up.

Hi, good evening. It's Conan.

Conan, I apologize.

That's Okay. No worries.

Was way off one.

That's Okay. Laura Conan. I live in Mayfield Ranch Preserve at 3451 Mayfield Ranch. Good evening, council members. My name is Laura Conan. Thank you for giving us the time to speak this evening. I'm one of the first residents of Mayfield Ranch Preserve. My family moved into the community on 05/01/2013, and we've lived there for thirteen years almost to the day. Over that time, we've seen tremendous amount of growth around our neighborhood. Much of that development has been thoughtful.

And many of the surrounding businesses, aside from the CVS and QT, are local Texas small businesses that we actively support as members of the community. However, I strongly oppose the proposed PUD amendment. While it is described as limited commercial, the permitted use includes fuel sales, auto service facilities, restaurants, drive throughs, dog day care and grooming facilities, and retail. These are not low impact uses. They bring increased traffic, noise, lighting, and environmental strain.

Specifically, we already have two gas stations on either side of the site. Adding another is unnecessary and redundant. An auto service facility introduces continuous mechanical noises and activity. Restaurants and drive throughs increase traffic volume idling noise throughout the day. A dog day care or kennel adds additional ongoing noise, and retail is, quote, undefined.

It includes use that do not align with family oriented residential community, And this proposal does not exist in isolation. Directly across from our neighborhood entrance, we already have a CVS, a gas station, car wash, two local coffee shops, a nail salon, and offices, all feeding into the same intersection at 1431 and our private drive. The intersection is already dangerous. Residents experience frequent accidents and regular red light violations. This is not theoretical.

It is something we deal with daily. And adding more high traffic commercial uses will only increase congestion, turning conflicts and risk, especially for families, children, and pedestrians entering and exiting our neighborhood. There is also environmental concerns behind the existing car wash. Trees along the private drive have died and have not been replaced, raising question about runoff, chemicals, drainage, and long term maintenance. If current development is already showing impact, expanding these types of uses without deeper evaluation is concerning.

I also want to highlight that this area is supported by local family owned businesses Mojo's Coffee, Almo Coffee, and Sanford Sourdough Bakery. The developer has indicated a preference for large national brands, which would directly compete with the and potentially displace the small businesses that make this community unique. Ultimately, this is a family community.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. Judith Carter?

Good evening, council members. Good evening. My name is Judith Carter. I live in Unit 2 66 In The Preserve At Mayfield Ranch. I've been a homeowner there for over ten years.

And when I moved into the community, I was under the impression we were under a green belt as well. However, I realized with the changing conditions that are going on in the community and the world that we are probably not going to avoid having some sort of development put on this property. I'm not in favor totally of it being developed, but I understand that that is the way of the world. I also have had the experience of living abutting this property and had the concerns of the ephemeral supreme and the drainage problems from our houses, which do feel Endeavor has done a very good job in trying to accommodate those issues and to avoid that cost to us. However, the fact that we will have increased traffic on a street that is going to be difficult to maintain and will cause more accidents and things coming from the Road On 1431 is definitely a community concern.

I am not in favor of including a fuel station in this project only because there are two already within equal distance. The caves are on this project, and this could cause very much environmental damage. Because Endeavor is probably going to develop the site, and then it's going to be sold to someone else to put properties onto it, if we don't remove that from this amendment at the beginning, whoever gets to go forward will have that opportunity to do what they choose to. Other than that, the traffic concern is a great one for the community only because it is difficult for us to get out of our community at this point and the traffic system I realize it's not the cities, belongs to the DOT is not very well maintained. And I thank you for listening.

Thank you very much, Ms. Corner. Melinda Kinning.

Hi. So I'm in Unit 264, and I've been there for eleven years. I back up to the property, and they have done a really nice job of communicating with us and changing things as far as what they will do as far as the setbacks of the roads. We are all on the steep, steep incline on those properties in the back. Most of what I wanted to say has already been addressed.

So I'll go ahead and change over to there is a school bus route on that road. Children are dropped off morning and night, five days a week. There is nowhere for those children to walk. We do have, as people have said, tremendous traffic concerns. I hear wrecks all the time because I am backing up to that fourteen thirty one crashes.

I'm not talking about just wrecks crashes all the time. There is no signage for that school bus, so we're always concerned about those children coming in and coming out. There's not any kind of official way for them to be dropped off and dropped off. People go around that school bus, taking the shortcut through all the time. The only other concern that I have was the condition of the existing trees.

And we have addressed that with the developer. Again, they've been very accommodating. But are a lot of dead trees back there, too. So a lot of the debris that wouldn't maybe be addressed if they were to just cut down the trees they needed to cut down Currently, it hasn't actually been brought up. It just needs to be cleaned up a little bit more, not just so you don't have to cut down trees to buy more trees. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Laura Flynn.

Hi. I'm Laura Flynn,

and I live at 3451 Mayfield Ranch Boulevard, Unit Number 310. I have lived there for twelve years now. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today regarding the proposed development. I also have concerns about the increase in traffic that the proposed development of this land would bring to the area. It's already difficult getting in and out of our neighborhood because there's just that private road, two lane, that connects the community to 1431.

There is a traffic light at the intersection with 1431, but only three or four cars will make it through the light. And that's only if the drivers are paying attention. Allowing businesses like gas stations, auto service facilities, gyms, drive throughs would only make this traffic situation worse as those type of businesses generate frequent in and out traffic throughout the day. Instead, I urge you to approve businesses that usually have much less traffic, such as business offices, retail shops, medical dental offices, and eat in restaurants. These types of establishments would serve our area well without creating more traffic challenges.

Preserving safe and manageable access to our community should be a priority, and I ask that you keep this in mind when making your decision. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Brand Dohan. Dohan? I believe I pronounced that correct.

Duhan.

Duhan, excuse me. Sorry if I aggied it up there.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Brand Duhan. I've lived in Round Rock for nineteen years, the past seven at 3451 Mayfield Ranch Boulevard, Unit 205. I'm currently serving a second term on the board at the Preserve at Mayfield Ranch HOA, directly adjacent to the proposed development. I'd like to thank Caitlin and the city planning department.

They've been very accommodating and easy to work with. I'd also like to thank Adam Zimmel from Endeavor and Amanda Swore from the Dremmer Group for their engagement with our community and accommodation so far. We recognize the city's directives to include design standards, buffering, and a list of prohibited uses. Our goal is to ensure that what is ultimately built is truly compatible with the surrounding residential community, not just at the time of approval but long term. At its core, this request represents a significant shift from a base officechurch use, which is relatively low impact and predictable, to a broad commercial designation under C1A.

While the PUD includes some added restrictions, it still allows a wide range of uses that can materially affect adjacent homes. I want to briefly highlight three areas of concern. First, as you've heard several times tonight, the traffic and intensity of the use. This plan allows multiple drive through uses, are among the highest trip generating commercial uses. Additionally, one of the plan's access points connects to a private road located on the easement between our community CVS and the new development.

This road is not maintained by the city or state, and the PMRHOA is partially financially responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of this road. However, there are no binding traffic mitigation commitments included in the put itself. Given the proximity to established neighborhoods, we believe this deserves close consideration as our community will bear the cost of increased traffic and long term maintenance. I know this is usually addressed during the site development process. However, terms and are not identified in the put amendment, and there is no guarantee for the preserve at Mayfield Ranch.

Second, the allowance of a fuel station, even with setbacks to this type of use, introduces extended hours of operation, increased light pollution, and long term compatibility concerns. From a neighborhood perspective, this is one of the most impactful uses that could be placed on the site, and we would like to request that this be added to the list of prohibited uses. Third, buffering and compatibility. While the plan includes landscape and fencing, many of the standards rely on administrative determination. The language allows flexibility in how buffering is implemented and even allows fencing to be non contiguous depending on the topography.

There are no clear enforceable requirements for long term maintenance or replacement of vegetation. That creates uncertainty for adjacent homeowners. With that in mind, we respectfully ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider a few targeted adjustments to the amendment prior to approval, limit or reduce the number of drive throughs, reconsider the allowance of a fuel station or increase setbacks, strengthen the buffering requirements with clear measurable standards and maintenance obligations. These are not requests to stop the development but to ensure it remains compatible with the surrounding community for years to come. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Anand? I'm just going to I'll let you pronounce your last name, sir. I apologize.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Anand Madhuri. I've been living in this community since 2021, so this is completing five years and serving the HOA for my first term. Most of my fellow residents have already expressed their concerns, but key topics I just want to reiterate. I've been in this community, and I feel the rules which we have behind and the access point from the community to 1431 are small enough for commercial use.

Second one, as it was mentioned, the kids bus stop. The kids bus stop is right opposite the gate, but there is nowhere, no place for the kids to stand or if there is any rain or any more storms, there is no way for the parents to drop them at the bus stop. So maybe consider that. The current development, which I have right behind my house, I don't think so it is maintained properly. If you see exhibit D in this doc booklet which is given, you see the grass overgrown, the dry trees which are planted as a buffer, so that is not maintained.

So I don't know from a resident point of view what is the point where I can go and complain about it, But these are the key points. Right? And then as as Brad mentioned in his last piece, right, the the road which we have is too narrow, and right now, we bear the burden of maintaining that road. So if it is basically being used for commercial use, I propose that it city might take it over so that we, as HOA, will have a less burden to maintain it. Those are the points. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Robert Lee.

Everyone. This is Robert Lee. I live at 3451 Mayfield Ranch Boulevard. I moved in about six years ago. I'm currently serving my first term on our board as well.

And it's opened my eyes a lot of things within the community as well and also helped introduce me into building relationship with a developer and the owner of the track outside and kind of going through the changes that this PUD would allow. I know you guys have heard quite a bit of other concerns tonight. And I believe you also have a presentation material in front of you that just kind of highlights some community engagement that shows a lot of the concerns that more of a commercial type and, I guess, retail space would allow in that community with increased traffic density, congestion, strain on current infrastructures and roads would bring to us and the surrounding businesses and potentially create redundancy within the other retail businesses that close by. One thing also to kind of highlight and bring up is potential changes within the development plan that would fall under minor changes. I know that might be something within, I guess, between the developer and the city can adjust.

But I think having that communication with us as neighbors would be beneficial and potential weighing in on certain decisions to be made. It was just a concern that 10% of changes could go through without our knowing, even though we may have some potential financial responsibility as it relates to the public road or the private road that everyone is speaking to. SILVA: And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Cecilia? This is the last?

Yes.

Okay. Just want to make sure to know that one was coming back or not or it got pulled out? Okay. Jeff H. Good evening, sir.

Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Heman Jaffe. I live at the Preserve Unit 250. And I think my neighbors said most of the concerns that we share. A couple of things I want to add to this.

I've been trying to approach well, not trying. I've been talking to your city engineers about including our streets and the city plan to maintain and everything. And, I've been told again and again that the preserve was built to be a cheaper community and things are not up to the code. So, this type of development is gonna destabilize that community. Our streets are narrow.

I believe that you guys have the courage and decency. I invite you for a cup of coffee on me. Come see how our children wait in the front of the gate, how limited access that we have. It just need one reckless driver with all that traffic that this development is creating on these narrow streets for a child to lose their life. So, I ask you to reconsider and look deeper into this. Our community is not built for it. Thanks.

Thank you, sir. So, once again, is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against? That's our last one.

Will go again.

I know, ma'am, you have your three minutes. My apologies. That's just the way it works. So I'm going go ahead and close the public hearing. Before we go into commissioner discussion, once again, I just want to reiterate, we are not approving what they're going or going not to build here. That's not what this is about. There's a whole other process, several processes that go through, and you're going to have multiple chances at counsel to speak for or against depending if this gets approved or not approved. We don't know yet. But just want to make sure everybody knows that the process is still out there. So with that, we're going to go ahead and move to commissioner discussion.

I will start on your end. You're the lucky number one, Mr. Wendt. Would you like to begin?

Sure.

I guess I want to ask about the private road. And so, Ed, I don't know if it's appropriate for you to come up, but I don't know where else to start.

Kaitlyn, do we have the presentation, either yours or Endeavor's up there showing the layout? That would probably help because that's a big discussion that's probably gonna get brought up a lot. It'd probably be beneficial to understand in deeper what road that's the private road that we're discussing right now?

This one right here.

So the

entire road that now enters from 1431 to the property originally and I don't mean to No. I'm not going stick your tongue, but I think we're going to set the table here because that was a lot. Was this a I do was this a a something I know this is one of our first condo type setups that the city was this for all city in the city from the beginning, or was this ETJ or outside and then was annexed in later? I'm just curious about this road and and the fact that it is a I mean, it's an artery to their deal, but yet it's off a major artery of fourteen thirty one and how that and maybe Ed can shed some light on how that is a private road, and and not being, either yeah. I'll just kinda leave it there.

Yeah.

I'll kinda lay out some of the big picture. The so this is planned unit development number 23. That's pretty low numbers. This is a pretty old PUD. This property 's been inside the city limits for quite a while, not just the frontage here, but the residential behind it as well.

And it's always been zoned for different varieties of non non residential use, you know, along this frontage area, commercial office, place of worship, daycare that has kind of changed over time as market trends come and go. But as as part of that and as part of the residential development in the back here, this was the the first of the, what we like to refer to as a single family condo planned unit development in the city. So, sort of developed like a townhome community but detached units instead of attached units. Presented some unique challenges in terms of development standards when it comes to drive aisle with fire lane layout, guest parking, just parking in general. But throughout the entirety of that, the PUD process, the development process, this private access road has always been intended only to be a private access road with a shared public access easement that all owners within the PUD have a right to use.

It has never been contemplated as a city street. It was never designed to city public street standards, both in terms of width and sub grade and finishing pavement. And so it's functioning as it is intended to function.

So this development that we're talking about is part of a much larger plan in the beginning. Is that my understanding?

Yes. So I think Caitlin or even the other presentation had a larger view of the PUD area or all the properties that were in the PUD. This is just, you know, was it Parcel 4e, 1 of the subparcels within the planned unit development area. So on the map on the left, you know, showing the outline of our 13.22 acres under consideration right now, the map on the right, our 13.22 acres is just Parcel 4 E, but everything else in the PUD up there these other parcels are all within the PUD.

So when the original and, again, we're gonna just kinda set the table so we can all understand because I I need to make sure we get my mind running on. When the original developer came in years ago and said, I'm gonna develop this piece of piece of property, there were looks like one, two, three, five different parcels. And within those parcels, each one has its own zoning

per se? Generally, yes. But I think there were probably fewer parcels when this was originally, you know, laid out or when the PUD first was approved. And then as time has gone on, a couple of those would get chopped up in different ways and a developer or property owner would seek a major put amendment just to allow a certain use on a certain subset of those parcels or a certain part of the property.

So when the development first came in, the developer elected to own the road himself?

Yes. But with the shared access easement allowing

That's what want to access try to to understand the private when we say private road, it was owned by the original developer and I'm assuming was sold when the condo regime basically was built, was part of the condo type setup as access, but had a easement deeded to other parcels within the whole development. Yes.

In the big picture. Yes.

In the big picture, there was always easement access on the private road that was always to be intended use for the bigger development when they came online. Yes. Okay. Everybody clear, kind of? There's mud. There's mud. Right. Okay. Anything else you want to add?

Well No. It met the standards at time for driveway width at the intersection. Over time, our standards have changed. I'll say that. But it met the standards at time for driveway width and for driveway length. If we were going to build a signal there today, we would have different standards. I'll say that much right now. But it met the standards of the day when it was built.

Okay. Did it also meet the standards to serve the front tracks as commercial?

Yes. That was designed for, yes.

Okay. Those that front track Parcel 4E also has access to the private road?

Yes. At the standards of the day when it was plotted, yes.

Right. But I mean, it is intended to be access to Parcel 4E, is the one that we're

Yes.

Talking about. Okay. And then I don't know if this is a well, we'll probably ask you about traffic and the amount of traffic that would be generated by a church or an office versus retail. What's the amount of traffic based on I think it was if we have the plan that Endeavor showed, I think I added up 27,000 square feet of retail roughly. It looked like there was a lot more office that could be on there.

And I

understand that's not necessarily what's going to be built. But the way they laid it out, I mean, the site's very restrictive because of those car features and some of the other things.

Well, when they do when they work with TxDOT on their other driveway, we will get trip generation numbers and we'll be able to analyze the driveways for level of service based on their trip generation and distribution on this new development lot. But we're just not at that point of the process yet.

Okay. So is it possible that as part of that process, you say, well, you've got to do something to this private drive to serve this development?

It would likely based on the trip distribution, it would likely trigger a right turn decel lane at the signal, which would add capacity for the right turns into the site. But exiting trips, I don't know what that will do yet.

I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time

hearing We don't know what the exiting trips will do to that intersection yet because there's

The exiting trips?

Yes.

Okay. But that's all part of the development process that gets worked out as they're going through and getting their site development permit.

Correct. They'll do their driveway analysis for us as part of the development process.

Okay. And all the traffic that's coming up that private road all gets taken into account? Yes. As well as what we believe to be the trip generations for the new development? Correct. Okay. Okay, I have a question related to the I guess the HOA. And I don't know who can I don't think it's you, Caitlin? Maybe Amanda, you may we may need your help.

I think we had the president of

that Well, I want to I don't know if

it was an HOA question.

Well, is this property in the HOA? Is it does it participate in the expenses of the overall development?

Does it participate in the I don't know if it's in the HOA. I can find that out for you. But does it participate in the expenses of the maintenance of the road?

Well, don't have a property that's in an HOA. But my understanding is if you're in an HOA and there's expenses that have to be paid, then all of the members of the HOA have to contribute.

My understanding and I would let the HOA president correct is that this property is not part of the overall HOA. It is just the residential KAUFFMAN: portion that set up its own HOA at the time because it was developed. This property has been undeveloped.

Okay. But regarding the road and this goes back to what Ed said regarding the road, if there is anything upgrading the road or anything like that, that comes out during the development permit.

Yes, That's accurate. We'll look at that at the time of site development permit. And as I mentioned, we have been working with the HOA to determine how maintenance obligations are set with that and how they were put in place at the time that the access is access

was Okay. Given you've the had discussions about maybe

And we're continuing to work through that.

Being responsible for some of those costs.

We are continuing to work through

Okay, perfect.

As I

think sets. Yes, sir.

Okay. Do you mind if I jump in?

Please do.

So let me say it like this, make sure the HOA owns the road.

Yes,

sir. How you all got it, I have no idea. It's none of our business. Right now, you own the road. Unfortunately, the property that's here has a right to use that road. That is set within deed restrictions, I'm assuming, on the property.

That's accurate.

Okay? But it doesn't say you have to participate within the cost of the road. You just have the right to use the road because the HOA owns the road. And however that came about doesn't really matter. I just want to make sure and clean that up. Is that a true statement?

The HOA owns the road. That is a true statement. We have access to the road by right. That is a true statement. The maintenance obligations, as everybody was up until tonight, everyone the HOA was assumed to have full maintenance. They've let us know tonight that there's a couple of documents that might have shared responsibilities. We've said, absolutely, send them over. Let's look at them. And we're more than happy to continue working through that.

Right. Because as of right now, we have no authority to say whether the road is going to be city maintenance. That's not ours. It's a private road. And unfortunately, because it's not city infrastructure, it really doesn't have a bearing on whether this property on this development. I'm I'm saying that so you'll understand what our responsibilities are on what the vote may come out. Unfortunately, we can't tell and say this has has an impact to the city itself because it doesn't. It's a private road. And how that came about is not necessarily the city's responsibility. Developers and y'all, y'all can figure that out. I'm just making

Okay. The

But because the road keeps coming up.

Right.

And that's why I want to be clear about whether does the road really have an impact on whether this gets developed or not? That's the key because it's not city infrastructure.

It's not city infrastructure, but what I just heard and correct me, Amanda and Ed, if I'm wrong. But what I just heard was if warranted, even though it's a private road, the city can request or can make that a condition of the site development permit that that road is upgraded if necessary. Is that what you were telling?

Per their traffic analysis, their trip generation, their driveway analysis, they will tell us if they can guarantee the storage capacity required, deceleration lane capacity required. And if there's any improvements to the private road, that will be part of the discussion at that time. But that is a limited right of way not right of way, easement. And working within that easement is going to be what we have to work with them through the development process.

Okay. If I can jump in also, that's going to be something that applies no matter what happens with this PUD amendment. This property is already entitled for place of worship, for office, for day care. And so that's still a condition that would apply even without a PUD amendment.

Right. And then what I also heard from you, Amanda, is that there's discussions about the developer contributing to the maintenance.

Yes, sir. We were informed today that there up until today, it has always been the HOA had full responsibility of the maintenance for this road. We were informed today that there might be some documents that we weren't aware of that would contemplate shared maintenance, we are working with the HOA to figure out where everything sits. So these are definitely still conversations. We've said, let's continue to work together and determine how maintenance is handled. Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank you. Just to be

clear, you see this little red line. If that area has to be improved, the city owns it because that's in their right of way. Anything past that red line is the responsibility of the

Yeah. That's I

what you

were talking about is the right of way maybe have to be upgraded, will be that's the whole impact fee responsibility. That's why we do that on that particular portion. Wouldn't no?

That's TxDOT.

Oh, that's a TxDOT. Oh, that's right. TxDOT right away. So TxDOT may get involved and and make you do whatever. I have to apologize. That's correct.

It's TxDOT. One one more question while you're up here. So you did show a curb cut off 1431.

Yes, sir.

Okay. And I'm sorry, I've been having a hard time hearing a lot of the presentations. But you have to go to TxDOT to get that.

Yes, sir.

Okay. And I don't know if you had any discussions with them about that?

We have had preliminary discussions with TxDOT. One of the first concerns we heard from the neighbors were this road. So we met with the city, and we met with TxDOT regarding signal timing, etcetera. So we've had preliminary conversations. We do anticipate that there is no prohibition of access by TxDOT on this property. So we do anticipate that we will get a driveway onto 1431.

Okay. And I would also assume that you'd like to have as many driveways along 1431 as you can get. What's the distance going to allow?

We would love as many as we can get. I anticipate that we get one.

Because of the distance to this next intersection?

Because of the speed of the road and the light and the spacing requirements.

Spacing requirements on an arterial this size are four twenty five feet. Okay. So what's the We'd likely have room for one driveway before you hit the drainage feature to the east.

Okay.

And with the KARS feature, you fit it in before the KARS feature, then you hit the drainage feature after that.

That's right. Because those KARS features are there and you have to work around those. Okay. It's a tough side. Okay. Thank you. You good? Yeah, that's all I have.

Commissioner Holloway.

Yes, sir.

So, the first question, somebody brought up the pathway and whether decomposed granite will last. Will you all consider a stabilizer? Do you know how thick it would be? Have you considered concrete? There's things you can do to make decomposed granite last a while. Five to ten years is probably the most before you're having to replace it.

Right. So we would be fully responsible for installation and maintenance of that trail. So it would be in our best interest to make sure that it is as stabilized as possible. The decomposed granite allows for more of a natural pedestrian area to go through there that can meander, go through the trees, etcetera, versus a standard sidewalk that would just sit right by the curb. We think it creates more of a place. So yes. But yes, to answer your question, we would be fully responsible for maintenance and installation and make sure that it has the stabilizers, etcetera, associated with it.

Okay. And then some people brought up the quantity of meetings. Can you just clarify how many meetings you all had with the HOA or the community at large?

JULIE We had an initial meeting with the board of directors. So we reached out before we turned in this planned unit development. We had an initial meeting with the board of directors. We had two meetings with the HOA and the community. And then we did have some additional conversations with residents that reached out to meet on-site to walk through the drainage areas, etcetera. So two full meetings, additional meetings with interested parties, and a meeting with the board.

Okay. That's if you Ed, somebody brought up only two or three cars being able to go through that light. As part of the traffic study that's done during site development, will the timing of that light be looked at?

We've already asked TxDOT and the developers asked TxDOT to look at that signal timing. Okay. That one is a static cabinet. It stands alone. You have to go to the cabinet and program it. And our signals, we control from our data center and we have multiple timings on signals. This one is a old TxDOT signal cabinet. So they have to do all these timings at the cabinet itself. And there's no way to monitor it other than go out there and count trips.

Okay. So that's a state of Texas question.

That's a state of

Texas question.

Yeah, that's a TexDOT.

Good luck for Caitlin. So somebody brought up fire department responses to a day care, but I want to clarify, this is already zoned for a day care, correct?

JULIE WELL: Correct. And the proposal actually reduces the square footage allowance of the day care by 5,000 square feet. So it would be a smaller daycare permitted with the proposal than what is currently allowed at 20,000 square feet.

Awesome. And then somebody mentioned not having signs for the school bus pickup. I assume that's on Round Rock ISD to place signs like that?

That would be, yes.

Okay. So, talk to your school board. They're somewhat nice. And on the same tune as far as where the bus will go to pick up. Again, that's a school district issue?

Correct.

Not a city? Okay. They brought up light pollution. Not long ago, we had a really fun meeting about updating building codes. So, we're on the 2024 energy code, correct?

Yeah, all the 2024 codes. Okay.

So, full disclosure, I'm an electrical engineer. I do building design. So, in that, on sites, if it's not designated as a twenty four hour facility, they've got to reduce the light level by 50% when there's not activity in the parking lot. I'll just make that statement. That's true.

Can anybody answer if a fuel station is there, the IACC is very clear that the actual canopy over the fuel pumps is designated and exempted and it can be Fulbright granted less than the QT wattage per square foot was allowed but it can still be on. How does the City of Round Rock handle the general site around the canopy? Because the IC is not clear on if that area is designated 20 fourseven because it's a fuel station or if those lights have to reduce.

Yeah. So our compatibility standards for lighting require a certain foot candle allowance at the property line for residential property. I believe it's half a foot candle or zero foot candle?

Half a foot candle residential properties, but as far away as this one would be, we're not concerned about light spilling Yeah, we're not there. Going hit it. We also our code has a requirement specific to gas stations requiring that any light fixtures within the canopy have to be flushed with or recessed into the canopy and not protruding from it to help minimize that spillover.

JULIE Okay.

JULIE To clarify as well, the maximum light pole height is 20 feet here. So all over, our general C1 would allow 25 unless it's within a certain distance to a residential property line, but that's been just 20 capped.

Okay. This may be a TxDOT question, so nobody can answer it. They mentioned accidents. Does anybody know how many accidents per year actually happen at this intersection?

Via text dot question.

Okay. That's all I have for right now.

Good questions. Vice Chair Dominguez.

Okay. You can stay right there. I got some questions for you, Kaitlyn. The first is there was lots of conversations about the community engagement that the developer had. And so I'm curious, and I'm assuming you have this feedback. If not, we can bring Amanda up. But at a very high level, it sounds like there's been a lot of cooperation from the developer that and you guys have seen changes related to this, in regards to what it came back from the community. And some of that sounded like it had to do with some of of on the walk path. Maybe it was the type of buildings that were going to be there. She put up an example of what could be there.

And then she said, well, we're going to do this instead. So my question related to all that is, at a high level, what has changed in this plan based already based on the community feedback that came in?

JULIE Yeah. So some direct kind of things that came about from community feedback is the location of the compatibility wall. Amanda was correct in saying that originally that wall was going to be directly on the residential property line. That was discussed as two alternatives for that. And that's where that north end of the development area came into play to account for some of the drainage stuff. We were informed of some of that drainage stuff that we weren't necessarily as aware of. Additionally, the walking path. There was some clarification for the number of fuel pumps. Originally, it just said four fuel pump islands. And so in order to clarify the actual number of individual pumps, that was clarified to eight.

So there's been some direct feedback that's been inputted in here.

CHRISTOPHER Okay. The other commentquestion first, as a point of clarification. So if it's not auto, I understand it can set back requirements for 50 feet. And if it's auto service, it's 200. And then with that, we actually reduced the height requirements. We made the maximum two story for I'm getting lost on that part, No, that's okay. Feel like what I heard was that we actually, by changing this put, we're actually capping it to two stories, whereas before it was more

One story.

One story. One story office, but it could be two story with the church.

Correct. So so the OF zoning district would the maximum allowance is two stories. By this proposal, it would reduce all uses except a place of worship or a church to one story or a maximum of 30 feet. So the only use that could go to two stories would be a place of worship.

As it stands, before this, there could have been a big church there that was two stories. And what were the setback requirements for that? Do you know?

So it's 50 feet for one story, 100 feet for two stories. Which And that's made

original?

It's the same. That stayed the same. The only thing that was added were those 200 foot setbacks.

JULIE WONG: Got it.

JULIE And then, again, you could have had an office building that was two stories.

You could have

had a day care that was two stories. You could have had a nursing facility that was two stories, or assisted living, excuse me. So now, if that assisted living facility wanted to come in, it would be capped at one story, or maximum of 30.

JOSHUA In your opinion, is that change more restrictive and sort of better for the surrounding neighborhood? I mean, you find that what we're doing here is more restrictive?

I would say that by restricting it to one story, that by definition is a restriction. Our C1A zoning district at the base would allow for a taller building. So that is something that I would consider a restriction.

Okay. The next is regarding the screening study that's going to be done. Can you explain it was just kind of glossed over, but can you explain, maybe in general terms, what happens in a screening study? I know that we're talking about a six foot masonry wall. Does that mean that there could be a possibility that study be done? It maybe needs to be a little taller? I mean, what does that mean?

JULIE Yes. So the minimum requirement is six feet for the masonry wall. If a developer chooses to go taller than six feet, they could. The elevation study looks at the topography of the land, and it's essentially seeing where the maximum screening could be placed. So that, you can't really tell here, but the property kind of slopes down to the neighborhood. And so we want to make sure that lights aren't going right into people's homes. And so that's looking at that elevation to figure out where that wall can be placed to actually maximize that screening.

Okay. Thank you. That makes sense. I think the last one for you has to do, I think, you, with all the comments about the fuel station. Mean, you know, is that when we look at these PUDs, there were several comments like, hey, there's already fuel stations, like, pretty close, like, within the same distance. So what's our view on that? Did we consider restricting? And if we did, why didn't we?

So for fuel stations, that is an allowable use in the C1A zoning district. It's something that is typical of neighborhood commercial. We understand that there are some areas that already contain fuel stations. That's similar across the city. Realistically, the site does have caves on it, so they would have to comply with TCEQ regulations. So whether or not a fuel station could locate there is really up to the state for underground fuel storage, etcetera. So that's kind of the thought process there. It's similar for commercial areas across the city.

Okay. And I'm not sure who can answer this one, and I do have one for you, Amanda, in minute, is regarding some comments around fire and all that. You know, looking at the closest fire station, if I'm correct, is Fire Station nine on Sand Bass. And it looks like it's exactly two and a half miles away from sort of that intersection there. How does that factor into kind of what are our thoughts to this? I feel like those are two totally separate things, where we put a fire station in this private property. But can you comment on that at all?

JULIE So the fire marshal's office is a reviewing party of site development. And so they will look at any proposed site development and ensure that it meets all applicable fire codes. So they do have a say when things are developed. So where those fire station locations are selected is, I would say, a part of strategic plan and overall long term planning by the fire department. But I don't look at them specifically, no.

Okay. Also, we do have Fire Station nine is the one further south on Sam Bass at Wyoming

Is one closer? Yeah.

There is Fire Station number seven just across 35 on University Okay. Over there by, what is it, Oakmont and Mays in that area.

Oh, right.

Right. And then also, Ed could speak to it, but it's still sometime in the near future, not no longer the distant future, working on an extension of Wyoming Springs to the north to connect to 1431 as well.

Okay, which would reduce the amount of time to get to this

What's the

one over the last For Station 9,

yes.

What's the station by Walsh Middle School?

At nine?

Is that nine? Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, Sevens by CVS on University in Oakmont.

Okay.

Or I guess May is now.

Thank you. I think that's all I have for you. Amanda, I just have one question for you. A lot of talk about the pedestrian, the walk path that we're talking about. We talked about what you're planning to do there. And I really appreciate it. It sounds like you guys have been so open to feedback from the community. But if the community came back and said, hey, we just want something. We want a normal sidewalk there, want it concrete and whatnot. And you heard that from the overwhelming majority of the neighborhood. Is that something that would be considered, seriously considered in doing there?

It's something we'd seriously consider. There are some concerns with doing a regular sidewalk there. Do have the car features that are there. We have some heritage trees that are along the way. That's why we didn't take this decision lightly. We knew that being able to do something that could meander and move, you have a lot more flexibility with decomposed granite than you do with concrete, and being able to create, again, that pedestrian feel. So it was not a whimsical let me use that word decision, again, with the environmental MACHT: features.

And there's easements, etcetera, that run through there.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.

Commissioner Emerson.

Kaitlyn, I apologize ahead because I'm going be all over the map. Some of my questions have already been answered, but I would like to talk about the site evaluation setting or I mean, the site develop When will that take place?

At the time of site development permit.

And when is that going to be, or do we have a clue?

So that would be when the developer comes in to actually develop the site. They'd be required to go through

Okay.

Yeah. It'd be when they actually come in to do the civil plan

This a for while.

Yeah. You're talking about.

Okay. I know we talked a lot about traffic in the road. If there's a second access road I know it's going to be done by TxDOT from what it sounds like where would that take place at?

When you say where

are you On the map here that you have a

It would be somewhere probably right in here.

Just before the other cars.

Halfway, you're saying? Yeah.

So this car's feature is a limiting factor in where you could develop, and then there's drainage on this side. So it would be most likely somewhere

You in the middle. JULIET

have a red line showing on the right hand side. What does that represent?

Right here? Right. That's actually a property line. This is two separate properties. They'll be required to go through the plotting process to plot the That section is actually right here on the right hand side, platted for drainage. So, but yes, that's a property line.

Okay. Is there any guarantee that they will add an extra road here to your knowledge, or could there wouldn't be? Ms.

Like a second driveway onto 14 Right. Thirty Ed said, there's a four twenty five foot separation with the car's features. It's unlikely.

It's unlikely you should, or is it likely?

Unlikely.

Unlikely that they would add it?

Yeah. That TxDOT would allow it.

I hear it first. Okay.

WOOD:

how soon do you guys plan to build out there? WOOD:

JULIE We anticipate excuse me, sorry. I didn't talk I didn't get close enough to speak. We anticipate moving forward, as soon as we're done with the rezoning, we would as Caitlin said, we would have to go through the plotting process, the site development permit, and then begin horizontal and vertical construction. But we would anticipate working through the permitting process this year.

CHRISTOPHER So you'd be starting this year or the latter part of this year? J. Yes, Okay.

JULIE And it will take a little while to get through the permitting process.

JULIE Right. Okay. On the pedestrian walkway or path, who would take care of that if it was implemented?

JULIE The

property owner

would Would have care that? Full maintenance responsibility for installation and maintenance, yes,

Okay. You guys talked about the fire station already. That's fine. And I do have a concern about the kids being picked up. I'm assuming they're picked up outside of the gate. I noticed when I drove out there today, there's a private gate. I can't see a school bus turning in there because it's a very narrow path. So I'm assuming the kids are picked up outside the gate?

JULIE That is my assumption. That might be something that the HOA president can confirm. But my assumption, also having been out there, is that that is gated. And school buses generally don't go through gated areas. They pick up in the path of least resistance. So they would likely pick up right before the gate and then take a left and continue forward would be my anticipation.

JOSHUA someone mentioned about the dead trees out there. Will that be taken care of by the developers as well?

Yes, sir.

Okay. That's all I have right now.

JACKSON: Thank you.

Doctor. You.

Very good, everybody. Good? Good. So, Great presentation. Everybody's I think a lot of stuff got vetted out here.

The one thing that I feel like didn't get necessarily not addressed, but somebody mentioned something about some drainage problems, but this has been an existing drainage forever. So whatever transpires in our development, just to make sure everybody understands when that gets through the process of planning and development and it gets approved, their water that they collect on their property has to remain and cannot leave their property any faster than it already does already. Does that make sense? So whatever flooding you may have, I may be stepping on your toes here. No.

You're good. Whatever flooding you may have is not caused by what the development is gonna happen. And if the development happens, they still have to maintain their water quality and drainage speed as it leaves or goes to their drainage facility or whatnot. But somebody had mentioned drainage that nobody really talked about it. I just wanted to make sure that if there was some flooding going on, it has nothing to do with the existing development or the new development that's happening because it's already happening.

Can I ask you, Brad, just for the group to review, in summary, what will happen after today if it passes? If it doesn't pass, kind of just talk through because this is obviously not the last opportunity to talk about this item, so some folks may or may not know. Can you kind of paint that picture for us?

JOSHUA Sure. Regardless of how the vote goes tonight, it's still going to go forward to city council next month. I don't have the date off the top of my head. But no matter when that date is, we will still go through the typical public notice procedures. Residents within 300 feet will get a notice in the mail, send a courtesy notice to the HOA as well. Everything else, newspaper, agenda posting. And so that's the next but, obviously, also the last opportunity for a public hearing regarding the zoning. After that, all the other steps are administrative. So that's subdivision planning, site development permit, building permit. Those are administrative reviews and approvals at the staff level.

Thank you.

So, again, we're just kind of the first line of events to help vet out a lot of this stuff. I feel as that as we have done, we've kind of vetted things out and exposed some things that have absolutely nothing to do with the city and some things that the property developer has sounds like they're definitely ready to lock arms with you guys. So I don't see any issue with this. I'm going to open the motion for anybody want to make a motion to approve or deny this?

I will make a motion to approve item F1, the preserve at Stone Oak PUD 23 amendment number seven.

I have a motion to approve. Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second. All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. Staff report g one, consider an update regarding council actions related to planning and zoning items.

At the last city council meeting, there were three items related to past PNZ actions that were considered by council. The first was the annexation of the quick trip property at the Northeast corner of the intersection of State Highway 130 and University Boulevard or Chandler Road. It was something that was considered by PNC, I think, way back in February. Had to go through several other steps related to annexation of part of a county road out there before it could be considered by city council. So it was annexed into the city limits and zoned to the C1A Zoning District.

Also at that meeting was a major putt amendment for the Slate Round Rock PUD that was a multifamily PUD along East Old Settlers Boulevard by Mesa Park Drive to add a second medium density development option to that PUD, which was also approved by city council. And then finally was the Stockwell major put amendment. That's the property to the west of Kenny Fort Boulevard across from Kalahari, 100 plus acres there. Developer came back to revise their PUD working with us and Parks and Recreation Department to create more of a trail oriented development, and that was approved as well.

Very good. Thank you. And with that, we will adjourn.