Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Let's call the Wednesday, June 3rd Planning and Zoning Commission to order. Cecily, could you call the roll, please?

Chair Clausen?

Here.

Vice Chair Bone?

Here.

Alternative Vice Chair Dominguez?

Here.

Commissioner Emerson? Here. Commissioner Huckabay? Commissioner Wentz?

Here.

Commissioner Holloway?

Here.

Okay. Commissioner, attendees, could you please stand for our pledges? Honored by the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible. Thank you. Pursuant to government code 551007, citizen communication, do we have anybody signed up for that today?

No.

Okay. We'll move on to minutes. Has everybody had a chance to look over the minutes from the last meeting? Do I need to pull anything? Anybody need any comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes for the May 6, 2026.

Motion that we approve the minutes as presented. Second.

I have a first and a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. We'll move on to zoning item F1. Consider public testimony regarding a recommendation concerning the request filed by the property owner Mark for capital for amendment number five to plan unit development number 129 the district excuse me to allow for modifications to maximize building setbacks parking and Development standards generally located south of Lewis henna Boulevard and northwest of Greenlawn Boulevard case number PUD 26-0 0 0 0 5

Good evening. I'm Lindsay Darden with the Planning Department. I'll be presenting the staff presentation for the District PUD Amendment 5. As you can see on the screen, this site is located south of Louisiana Boulevard and northwest of Greenlawn Boulevard. And based on this aerial, it is currently under construction for infrastructure development. The original version of this PUD was originally approved on June 10, 2021. There's so far been three minor amendments and one major amendment. And this amendment, number five, like amendment four, is a major amendment as well because it exceeds what could be approved administratively by the planning director as a minor amendment based on the criteria in the code. And this is a zoning map showing the gray indicates that it's a PUD zoning and this shows all the other districts around it. The Round Rock 2030 Comprehensive Plan designates this site for mixed use. Mixed use development was proposed with the original PUD and has remained unchanged in all the amendments including this one. The proposed PUD amendment includes modification to the maximum building setbacks, also known as build-to lines, that were approved in the original PUD to increase the setbacks along internal streets throughout the development from 10 feet to 15 feet. and also to eliminate the maximum setback from Greenlawn Drive. Currently, there's a 15-foot setback build-to line that applies there. And this would permit buildings along this frontage to be located much further from the street. This image to the left is not part of the PUD, but it's just kind of a descriptive. image that shows what the setbacks would be on the public and private streets adjacent to and throughout this development. And one of the reasons for this is to allow flexibility for buildings to have their main entrance and primary facade oriented toward pedestrian paseos in lieu of requiring them to address streets or private drives. So there are some paseos that are going to be proposed with this project. And just a reminder, a paseo is a pedestrian corridor. throughout the development. So they wanted to have some flexibility to be able to turn buildings to address those and make it more like a destination point for visitors. And moving on, the original PUD and the previous amendments envision a really urban-style development with mixed-use buildings that fronted Green Lawn Drive and structured parking. These exhibits are very detailed. They're more detailed than what you would see with the PUD and the building and parking layouts are subject to change, but you can kind of see how the concept ideas of how the site could be used has changed along the way and you'll see the one on the left really shows a lot more of the buildings coming forward to Greenlawn Drive with that Build 2 line. And then whenever the Build 2 line goes away, you start to see them shift backwards. Where my cursor is now, if you can see that, that is the site of Office Building 1, which is an office building in a parking garage. And we did receive a site development permit for that. And it went through to the point that it was approved. But because of market conditions, it hasn't been constructed at this point. But it's still kind of showing up there, which is why it's a little bit different than what the rest of Green Lawn looks like with the buildings pushed a little further back. And the applicant requested this amendment because changing market conditions make structured parking cost prohibitive. And there are areas of surface parking that are anticipated. And also to better attract and accommodate tenants to the parcels adjoining Greenlawn Drive. It is still anticipated that the district will include areas of high density urban style development, but it will be located more internally in the core of the project. This is a graphic depiction provided by the applicant. It may not be exactly what it ends up looking like, but just showing what the view might be from Greenlawn Drive with the change to push the buildings back and have that surface parking in between. staff we were concerned about the change in the interface of Greenlawn Drive due to the proposed amendment and we've spent a lot of time working with the developer to get some additional standards included into the PUD that would standardize parking lot screening for all the parcels adjoining Greenlawn and that would be comprised of a Minimum screening height of three foot tall that could be evergreen shrub plantings a continuous evergreen hedge or a low screen wall That would be three foot tall just to have some consistency along that frontage and then architectural standards for secondary frontages Secondary frontages being building facades to prevent long expanses of blank walls and exposed surface areas and This is needed because primary building facades could now be oriented toward a Paseo street or private drive. And we wanted to make sure that where those secondary frontages, let's say a building fronts on both a Paseo and a private drive or a street or is located near a corner, it would still have some architectural treatment to make sure that it's not a building blank wall. And some of the standards that we've included would be that secondary frontage facades have to be architecturally finished and include materials, articulation, and screening comparable in quality to primary building frontages. and limiting the length of blank wall segments to no more than 30 linear feet along the facade length, and then mitigating the blank walls by selecting a minimum of two items from a list provided in the PUD. And that list has a lot of different things on it. It could be material changes. It could be insets and other articulation. It could be breaking it up with murals, display windows, some of the glazing that's like spandrel. There's a lot of different treatments that you can use to make what is functionally more like the back of a building look more like a nice looking facade. And then there's also a requirement that service doors, loading areas, compactors, grease interceptors, and similar are also screened from view. And this is just a graphic depiction also provided by the applicant that kind of shows how applying some textures and things to the back could really change and break up that facade based on the previous picture, which showed it more like a continuous facade. And I'm going to go back. I wanted to mention one more thing. We did add three attachments to this PUD. And they're basically intended to depict materials for rooftop screening, for parking garage screening, and also materials for what that low screen wall along Green Lawn parking lot screening could look like and The other thing that I wanted to tell you about this PUD because we've gotten up to five amendments. It's getting a Little bit complicated to look through it on our website and go through all the amendments. So We wanted to include one final version To this date to compile all the amendments. So that's why everything is included as a whole on this one instead of just a red line copy and And we did all the normal notifications, newspaper, mail, notice, and sign. And we recommend approval. That concludes my presentation. And the applicant is here for questions.

Thanks, Lindsay. Does applicant or owner wish to add anything to the presentation?

Okay.

Thank you very much for being available. This is a public hearing. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing regarding anything speaking for or against. Do we have anybody signed up?

No.

This will be quick. We'll close the public hearing and we'll move on to commissioners and we'll start with Mr. Bone.

Thank you, Lindsay. I appreciate it. the presentation tonight. A couple of questions I do have. Could you expand on the reasoning saying that structured parking is not feasible due to the cost, due to the changing market conditions? Can you just elaborate on that a little bit, or can somebody elaborate on that a little bit?

I could have the applicant come up to expand on that.

Could you go ahead and state your name for the record?

Sure. Bob Boone with Mark IV Capital. So, Commissioner Bone, as you know, this project has been evolving over time since we first purchased property, since our first PUD, certainly, and market conditions, as Lindsay mentioned, have been evolving as well. And in order for us to break ground and actually start delivering vertical improvements. We need to start with surface parking, again, as Lindsay said, because structured parking and other construction costs have risen after COVID, and they've continued to rise. And a project, particularly like the one you see here on the screen, just doesn't, just would not support structured parking, which we've seen increase in cost approximately 25% or more since, you know, two years ago. So I will note that we've designed this parking lot, the surface lot, to be compatible with the future structured or future parking structure. So that is something that we're planning for or that we're keeping as an option.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Does that impact the overall square footage of available space and the overall scheme of things?

No, it doesn't. And I should mention that as part of a multifamily first phase, we are building a parking garage that has excess capacity beyond what's required for the residential. So it will support some of the retail as well.

Okay, and that leads in beautifully to my last question. So I know there's a ratio of parking spaces to rentable square footage, so that's not negatively impacted or it's still within code and all of that?

Yes, we have the ability to meet code with the surface parking and structured parking combined. Okay. Thank you, Bob. I appreciate it.

That's all I got.

Commissioner Wendt.

It was a good presentation. Thanks, Lindsay. I don't have any questions.

Commissioner Dominguez.

I don't have questions. I was, when I read this, glad to see that we worked with the developer on the blank wall limitation. I, too, thought passing by and just seeing just blank walls would be something that people wouldn't want to look at. So there was a mention of a list. guess I'm thinking of a question now it says pick two from the list I guess I didn't understand like who created that list and and is that something that that is did I miss it is it in here can you talk through like they provided it and we agreed to it or what does that look like yes the list is actually in the PUD if you look under 6.5 the menu starts on number three

And it includes all of those items. I can read them.

I see it now. Okay. I was glad to see that. I mean, that would have been an issue for me. I mean, it just seems like it was well thought out. And I appreciate the developer being willing to work with us on that. And then my question that Commissioner Bowen asked about the impact on the overall space, it sounds like we've addressed that as well. So I think I'm good. Thank you.

Commissioner Emerson.

Thank you. Lindsey, a couple of questions, if you don't mind. On your presentation on page 11, if you don't mind going back to that one to start off, I was just curious of how many streets are we having that will be exiting and entering the property, especially on, I guess, is that I-45 on the Feeder Street? Is there an exit, or is that considered an exit or not? I'm just curious.

It looks like an entrance and an exit.

So it is. Right. No.

On to 45 Lewis Center. It's right here.

So that is an exit and entrance. Yes. So you have a total of four so far, it looks like. Okay. Just curious. Want to know that. Okay. One other item I've had, if you don't mind, is that I don't, I'm not sure which page it's on, but it's mentioned in the package that we received. 6.6, building a design. Reading some of the verbiage, it seems like we're asking to be, we're asking, or you're asking us to change the code some? Is that correct?

So the only thing that changed in Section 6.6 is screening materials for the roof-mounted equipment. And at the end of the packet in the exhibits, we added Exhibit F that shows that. And then we added exhibit G, which shows some typical screening that you might see for parking garages. We do have a requirement in the code that has been or in the PUD that has been in the PUD and hasn't changed that the first 15 feet from ground level of a parking garage has to be screened so this just shows some of the mechanisms that can be used for that and then Exhibit H is some of the materials that could be used for the low screening wall that I mentioned that Could be for parking lot screening along Green Lawn.

Okay, I'm looking at basically section 1 Subsection A, where it says the first phase of the percentage of the project shall include the residential and retail use. This requirement replaces Section 275B-5B. I think it was asked last month by a commissioner as well. I think it's thinking it may be helpful. And we had a comparison chart of the current code to what you're going to change it to. And so I wouldn't have to go in and look for it myself. It's just a suggestion. That's all.

And we actually did, sorry, we did have one change there in A. And it used to mention that an office use was going to be in the first phase. And that was intended, I think I mentioned this office building one with a parking garage. That's kind of where my cursor is. But because that's been put on hold, We had to update the PUD to include the multifamily, which is the residential and the retail uses, because we now know that office is not going to be the first thing in in the first phase.

Would it be inappropriate to ask at this time how many residential units there are planning on building in a ballpark?

We have a recently approved site development permit for residential in this area.

Okay.

I can't remember exactly how many units, but the applicant might be able to help me with that. And then I believe that there probably will be some residential proposed in other phases. I don't know what the total breakdown is, but maybe they can help with that. I'll let them come up.

Yeah, so this first phase, the cursor's still up, that is under construction and it includes 316 residential units.

Okay.

And there is more residential planned in the future. We can't say precisely how many units that is, but there will be more.

Okay. My final question, I'm glad you're here. In terms of The completion date in the ballpark, next year, in a couple years, or do you have?

For which project or which phase?

All of it. All of it?

I drive by there a lot, so. Right. I could point you to our development agreement that has certain milestones by which we have to deliver a certain amount of square footage, and the outermost date is 2039. So projects of this scale take time.

I wish you well.

Great job. Thank you.

Thank you, Lindsay. That's all. Commissioner Holloway.

Yeah, so I guess if we went, this will be for the developer, if we went from a structured parking to just surface parking, square footage went somewhere so is there less parking now than you originally had planned and you'll build more later did we lose green space did you give up retail like what where the square footage go well right now we can we speak to the current phases that we have planned right and our overall square footage has not decreased

And again, as I mentioned, we've designed this to be converted to structured parking in the future. So you just add additional parking on the same footprint. Currently, it is a bit less dense on the parking.

Okay. So then that means roughly the same building square footage and green space square footage. You're just not building a garage. So instead of having six levels, it's one, and you'll build the others later if you need it. That's correct. Okay. That's all. Thank you.

Awesome. Anybody else? Very good. I just want to say, staff, I think this is a great idea. I definitely am well aware of the moving and shaking it takes to make the economy work when construction comes into play. My only one quick question, I'm sorry, but is there a trigger point? This is just information. I'm all for it. Is there a trigger point as to when you think y'all are going vertical and what that trigger point is when y'all decide to put a parking garage in there? I'm sure it's an occupancy. I just was curious what that is.

And you're asking specifically about parking?

Yeah, since we're going from, we're basically taking vertical, going to surface. At some point, we're going to go back to vertical, we think. Sure. What's the trigger point of that if that does happen, if it does happen?

Yeah, I mean, that's strictly going to be defined by density.

I figured as much. I just didn't know if it was a set deal or was it being based on development and what you guys are able to sell. Right. Okay. I have no further questions. Anybody else?

I have a comment on that. Yep. You may never get there. I mean, the city of Austin just said there are no parking requirements, basically. I mean, with ride share and you know, self-driving cars and all that, they may never get to that point. Yeah, that's a very valid point. It's probably a really good move on their part.

No, I think it's great. I'm glad to see it. Glad to see the stuff still progressing and we're able to. Move and shake and get things happening. So with that, I will entertain a motion to approve item F1.

Motion to approve item F1, amendment number 5. I have a first.

I have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. We'll move on to staff report. Consider an update regarding council actions related to planning and zoning items.

Just one. A few weeks ago, the City Council approved the amendment, the code amendment related to minimum parking requirements for non-residential uses in most of the commercial zoning districts. If you recall, that was a proposal by staff to effectively abolish the minimum parking requirement for a lot of land uses, commercial land uses. City Council voted to approve that as well just a few weeks ago. So that is now in effect.

Awesome. Thank you very much. With that, we're adjourned.