Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're going to call the Wednesday, July 15, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Cecilia, would you please call the roll?

Chair Clausen?

Here.

Vice Chair Hollis? Vice Chair Bone? I'm sorry.

What did you say?

Vice Chair Hollis? Vice Chair Bone?

Here.

Alternative Vice Chair Dominguez?

Here.

Commissioner Emerson? Here. Commissioner Holloway?

Here.

Commissioner Huckabee?

Here.

Commissioner Wentz?

Here. Vice Chair Hollis. Commissioners, attendees, would you please stand us for a place?

Stand with us.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible, Thank you. Pursuant to Texas Government Code 551007 for citizen communications, Cecilia, do we have anybody signed up for citizen communication? No. OK. Seeing none, we will move to the approval of minutes. Item E1, commissioners, everybody had a chance to take a look at the minutes from last meeting. Do I have anything that needs to be pulled or take a look at, amended to? If not, I will entertain a motion to approve minutes as noted.

So moved, please.

I have a first by Commissioner Emerson. Second. Second by Commissioner Bone. All those in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Zoning item F1, consider public testimony regarding recommendation concerning request filed by the property owner. Horizon Hall for Amendment Number 1 to Plan Unit Development Number 32, Vulgar Pruitt Track, to incorporate approximately 0.99 acres of land into the PUD, generally located south of Round Rock Avenue, west of Chisholm Trail, case number PUD 26-00002. I believe it's 006, not 2. Then I have a typo, unless my... Is that it? Oh, I'm so sorry.

You're good. No worries. Good evening, everybody. Yeah, so we have a proposed amendment to incorporate 250 Chisholm Trail Road into PUD 32, creating a new track for permitted uses and development standards within the PUD. So this proposal constitutes a major amendment as it is incorporating new lots and changes the land used for the new tract. The current zoning is zoned single family two. And at this time, the applicant proposes a black box theater, which is not permitted under current zoning. The theater will serve as a performance and classroom space for homeschool groups and host small church services on Sunday. The flume currently designates the PUD as residential. However, current uses in the PUD include a school, an assisted living facility, and public facilities designation is appropriate for this PUD. The public facilities land use designation includes government facilities, offices, hospitals, nursing home, medical center, schools, university, and places of worship. The proposed amendment would allow the following uses in the subject parcels, a performing arts theater, an art studio and galleries, offices excluding medical offices, a broadcasting studio, schools, and places of worship. The proposed development standards would include a maximum building height of 40 feet for a performing arts studio or a one-story maximum for all other uses. Landscaping shall be in accordance with development code, and the exterior finish of all buildings shall be masonry. Notification was sent as per requirements. And the staff recommends approval of the major amendment for PUD number 32.

Thank you, Ms. Hall. Does the owner or applicant have anything they'd like to add to the presentation?

Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you very much for your time. So I'm Scott Anderson, President of the Board for Horizon Hall, the nonprofit that's looking to build this facility. And I want to say that we're excited about the opportunity to help facilitate homeschool, private school, community for having a place for performance. And so this 250 seat black box type theater we're sure meets a need here in the Round Rock area. And so we're just glad to be able to be a part of what's going on here in Round Rock and make sure that there's a space for the folks to be able to have performances and classroom. And so thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Henderson. This is a public hearing, so we're going to open up the public hearing. If you'd like to speak for or against this item, please fill out a yellow card handed to Cecilia. Do we have anybody signed up for this one?

No.

We do? Well, I can open and I can close at the same time. So I guess we will move to Commissioner's discussion.

Commissioner Bone, Hollis, would you like to start? Sure. Really no questions other than just a comment. I think having a passion for the arts that I do have in the area and the educational capacity of such a facility I know is something that we've been looking for in this community for a long time. And I like where it's located. I think this falls in line with what we're trying to do in our community.

Very good. Commissioner Wendt?

I just have a question. I'm not sure what a black box theater is. Sure. Just curious.

So it's different from kind of traditional theater where you have the curtain and a stage and the audience faces the stage. A black box is more a different multipurpose kind of space. And so it's called black box just because the interior is painted black. as a color traditional typically, and it's typically in a box shape. But the audience can be in risers and seats like the traditional theater, but then if a director says, oh, we'd like to have something called a thrust where the stage comes out and the audience is on either side, they could arrange it that way. So it's just a term to refer to a multi-use sort of space.

Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner Holloway.

I guess just to get it on the record, I assume any noise ordinances for the city would apply at the property lines?

Correct, although we anticipate all these activities to be conducted indoors inside the theaters. Okay, that's all. Thank you.

Commissioner Dominguez.

No, also just a comment. I think it fits for the area. I mean, based on what's around it, like they're just not residential, like really close by. I think that's, you know, we didn't have anybody here to talk about it. So that kind of signals to their, it's not in such a close earshot where anybody's really worried about that kind of stuff. So it seems for me like round peg and round hole. So I'm fine. Thank you.

Commissioner Emerson. No comment. Great job, Ms. Hall. on your presentation.

Commissioner Huckabay.

No real questions. I think they see a need. And obviously, I think we all feel that there's a need for this type of thing in Round Rock. So appreciate you noticing that and bringing it forward. So appreciate it.

I have no questions. I think it's a great fit. It's a great job. So with that, we will go ahead and I'll entertain a motion to approve item F1.

I'll move we approve item F1.

I have a first by Commissioner Holloway.

Second.

Who's that? Commissioner Huckabay? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All righty. So we will move on to Code Amendments G1. Consider public testimony regarding a recommendation concerning the proposed amendments to Code of Ordinance of City of Round Rock, Texas, 2018, Part 3, Zoning and Development Code Section 8-87G1, Part B, open house sign placement requirements to amend signed placement hours.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Joe Bream. I'm the director of community and neighborhood services here with the city of Round Rock. And I have the pleasure of presenting this item to you. So this item is specifically looking to amend the open house sign placement start times. Section 8-87, real estate marketing signs, establishes the permitting process and guidelines for the placement of open house signs. The guidelines establish the location, date, and times that signs are permitted. And one of the goals of the signed ordinance is to keep the city-owned right-of-ways clear of signs unrelated to traffic or safety. The city's code enforcement division within my department confiscates about 6,000 bandit signs from the city's right-of-way each year. However, when potential house buyers are searching for a house without the assistance of a realtor, they often have difficulty finding the location of the home for sale and rely upon these open house signs posted by the seller to guide them to the property. So as a solution, The city created a licensing program to allow open house signs to be displayed in the right-of-way to direct buyers to open houses. The current times signs may be placed are from noon to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and national holidays. Staff proposes amending that start time to make it earlier from noon to 6 a.m. The city seeks the earlier sign placement to allow real estate agents additional time to set out their signs and prepare for the open house event. This was also based on feedback that staff received from the real estate community, and this does not change the practice or process of code enforcement, the fact that it even aligns with our code enforcement activities on the weekends. The text amendment is pretty short and simple, just changing it from noon to 6 a.m., And staff recommends approval of this code amendment, and I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Gray. We may have some. Let's see. This is a public hearing, so I'm going to go ahead and open up the public hearing. If you are here to speak for or against, go ahead and fill out a yellow card. I will go ahead and start with the one I have, Mayor Beth Ray. Good evening. If you would, state your name and address for the record, please.

Good evening. I'm Mary Beth Ray. I live at 1403 Deepwood Drive in Round Rock West. So I just here wanted to talk because this kind of came up because I am a busy real estate agent. And the mayor had come to speak at our county board over at, used to be one in Sioux County, it's called Five Points. And when he took questions, that was one of my questions that I asked was, why are we limited to noon? The problem is in June, July, and August, it gets really hot. And so when we try to do open houses, you know, in the afternoon, if you can't put the sign out till noon, that means your open house generally can't start till 1. And then you pick it up later. Well, it's really hot. So that's kind of been the hindrance. And my question was, all the other businesses in Round Rock are allowed to be opened, even Round Rock Donuts at 4.30 in the morning, flashing open, open. And I just want to know, why can't I do mine at 10 in the morning or 11 in the morning? So that was kind of where this came from, is that we just want to. The other problem is that I don't think Joe presented it, which I appreciate you, thank you for what you put, is that I like to have them on Friday evenings. And I have great success from 5 to 7 on Friday evenings. I've gotten calls from the code enforcer because she tells me I'm not supposed to. So what I've had to do is get permission from people in the neighborhood knocking on doors to put it in their yards because as long as it's not in a right of way, I guess it's called, then it's legal that it could be there. But it would just be real helpful because open house signs cost a lot. We spend good money and we pay for the permits to be the right color sticker for the right year to do all of that. and then for them to be taken. That's not our point. We don't want to leave them out there and make the neighborhood or the city look bad. It's just so that we could advertise so that buyers will come in, because when they see the signs, and in my neighborhood specifically, in my request, Three-fourths, if not more than that percentage of people come in and go, I saw your signs. It's not necessarily always yes. Do people look on Google or Zillow or some of those? Yes. But anyway, so that's why we're just asking for earlier in the day so we can do it, especially in the summer. And I would be really happy if y'all could amend that to be on Friday nights too, but otherwise I'll try to work around it. But I do appreciate y'all considering this. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Ray. Anybody else wishing to speak for or against? If not, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, and I will move to Alternative Vice Chair Dominguez.

Yeah, so I see these signs, obviously, in my neighborhood popping up all the time, and I feel like it's probably fair to say that people have not been following the rules already because I feel like I'm pretty confident that I see those popping up in the mornings. pretty often and maybe some of them are getting away with it and some of them aren't. I was looking at this stuff just kind of looking at other cities around us it looks like some neighboring cities will do like up to 24 hours before the the open house is happening and others do like you can have it up for a maximum of four hours and things like that so I'm just curious how did seems like there's some varying things happening in cities around us how did we arrive at this being the right solution?

Excellent question, sir. Thank you. We arrived at it because generally the intent of our ordinance is that the open house sign is available and on display during the day of the event, right, when it is open. So, you know, that's why we limited it to the day of. And then also we came to the time of 6 a.m. just because it just gives so much flexibility for that real estate agent to come out and set up those signs when it's convenient for them.

But like the 24-hour one I mentioned, we wouldn't be OK with just saying they can be up there for 24 hours?

I don't believe so. I believe the intent from staff's perspective is that it goes up the morning that you have that open house. Sometimes they're not full weekends. It might just be a Saturday-only open house. So staff prefers that these items come out, these signs come out that Saturday morning. They're there. Then the agent takes them when they're finished so that way they're not there overnight.

I just, you know, I'm going to sound like a big proponent of these signs, but when my wife and I were looking for homes, we would have benefited from seeing that there was an open house coming tomorrow. Like on Friday, drive around to tomorrow morning, there's an open house. Because if the open house starts at like 9 a.m., how am I going to find out about it unless I stumble on it? So I could see even maybe a different version of this that says like, you know, just like 24 hours that way, like people like in that scenario could see if the intent is to kind of accommodate these requests and be reasonable. I mean, I think that would be another option, perhaps, because you put it up too early in the morning, like, you're just going to have to be lucky enough to see it. So that would be the thought I would have in regards to that. It sounds more lenient, but I'm just thinking about the intent is to let people see it, and they're putting it up at 8 for an open house to start at 10, and how many people are really going to see that? So that's just a comment I had. Do you have anything to add, Bradley?

You know, not to discount that concern, I think when we are thinking about code amendments and composing code amendments, we also think about the enforceability of that amendment. And so putting a certain amount of time where something can be occurring, where that sign can be out, if you say it's four hours, six hours, 24 hours, it kind of puts it on staff basically to prove that somebody is in violation of that time period. We don't know when they put it out, so therefore we don't really know when it was supposed to be picked up. When you put something just between a certain set hours, time of day, it makes it a lot easier to enforce.

That's perfectly good justification for me. So thank you. I'll have.

Commissioner Emerson. Thank you. Mr. Green, I know this is a simple amendment. I don't mean to make it more complex. But just out of curiosity and terms, this only applies to real estate agent. Like if I'm going to sell my home, Would this apply to me as well?

Yeah, this applies to all open house signs, even if they're for sale by owner.

For sale by owner, okay. And enforcement, I know Brad had talked about or had alluded to enforcement to some degree. We really can't enforce this to some degree right now, can we?

We can. Within our code team, we actually have a weekend code officer whose primary job is to collect the bandit signs a lot of times. the private businesses are putting out there, and then they keep an eye out for the open house signs. The real estate market is generally really good about following the ordinance to make sure they've got the sticker on the sign and things like that. So, yes, we do have weekend code enforcement activities.

But there's not like a fine or an assessment against them that they leave it out there?

There can be. Honestly, how we operate currently is the first time we find if there's a real estate open house sign that is not in compliance, we will typically do one of two things. We'll either collect the sign and contact the agent, let them know. that, hey, your sign was out of compliance. Or sometimes we'll also put like a little warning sticker on there so when they come back to collect their sign, they see the sticker that they know to collect it. But if we did have a habitual abuser of the ordinance, then yes, we can take further action.

Thank you so much. I learned a lot. I appreciate it. Commissioner Huckabay.

So would this only be for open house signs? Like I know neighborhoods sometimes have like Neighbor garage sales or with so with things like that like would all be the same thing or Specific just to open house correct.

Yeah, this would just be limited to open house signs. We do have Neighborhood signage that we permit in fact you know Brown Rock West is a great example where you know there are very active neighborhood associations that they've got many events throughout the year and they're able to place their signage adjacent to the fence, along to the roadway. And, in fact, one of the other divisions in our department is neighborhood services. We provide city-owned signage for neighborhoods to do events to. So whether it's a neighborhood party, a block party, a neighborhood cleanup, they're city-owned signs that we can place those in the right of way, helping to advertise an event that we likely have an association with. Understood. No other questions.

Thanks.

Vice Chair Bone. Great questions, y'all. None here. I just appreciate Ms. Ray coming up and speaking, making a lot of sense in what she said. So great presentation. I appreciate it.

Commissioner Wendt?

I also have no questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Holloway?

Is there a reason or did the city consider expanding it on the other end of the deadline because she said she sometimes likes to have them in the evening?

Was a six o'clock cutoff because that's when the code enforcement person goes home or pretty much yes Yeah, in fact that the feedback we'd received was more about the start time making making the opportunity for earlier We didn't hear too many on the later times. Okay.

That's all thank you I Just have a question just to clarify a case public's watching this so I'm a property owner I have a house in a subdivision and of course there are HOA rules within the subdivision I decide I want to sell my house for sale by owner, and I put a sign up in my front yard that says for sale by owner. I can put that up at any point in time and leave it up as long as I want, barring HOA, but as far as the city's concerned. Is that correct? Because I'm kind of curious. Are we talking about public and private property, or just public property?

This is just public property in the right of way.

I just want to clarify that, and I think to Mrs. Ray's point, that's why she had to go talk to property owners to say, hey, can I put my sign in your yard so people can see it? So I just want to make sure to clarify that public versus a private property set up.

Great. I've just got a comment for you. Speaking as a real estate broker, you shouldn't try to sell a house by yourself. You should always hire a broker. Do you know any good ones? Oh, yeah. There's one right back there.

Very good.

Thank you for that comment.

Well, if there are no more questions, everybody good?

I will entertain a motion to approve item G1. Motion to approve item G1, zoning and development code amendment, open house signs placement. I have a motion by Commissioner Bone.

Second. Second by Commissioner Emerson. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Like signed, motion carries.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you, Mr. Green. Item G2, consider public testimony regarding a recommendation concerning the proposed amendments, Code of Ordinances, City of Round Rock 2018, Part 3, Zoning and Development Code Section 2-26F, to amend the accessory building setback requirements in Single Family 1, Single Family 2, and Single Family 3, chapters 2, 8, and 10 to update and correct cross-reference resulting from the amendments to the zoning and development code. Did I get all that, Alice?

Correct, yes. Good evening, Chair and Commission. Alice Wajarda with Planning and Development Services. For this agenda item, we do have one ordinance that addresses two separate items. The first is a substantive matter that requires discussion. The second is a clerical matter that just requires a cleanup. So after I get through both parts, we will then have the public hearing and discussion. So for part one, staff proposes an amendment to section 226F of the Zoning and Development Code to clarify language regarding accessory building setbacks. The current language has resulted in different interpretations of the setback requirements. creating inconsistencies in applications. So the proposed amendment will add the clarifying language to reflect the original intent of the regulation by the city. The amendment does not change the existing setback requirements, but therefore provides clear direction for the consistent interpretation and implementation. The amendment addresses the ambiguity within the existing regulation, which had intended to prevent accessory uses from locating within the street yard along a public right-of-way. The lack of clarity resulted in a conflicting interpretation between a property owner and the city. And by refining this regulation, the city will prevent future administrative disputes with clearer, precise language. Here is an example of a case that was taken to the Zoning Board of Administrators. So on this far left side, you can see the five-foot setback that is required per the city ordinance. And then the second example shows where the interpretation was that there was no setback next to a right-of-way and therefore The accessory structure was built right up along the property line. The fence line is that property line right there. So that was the misinterpretation. That is part one of the amendment. Part two, staff identified outdated section references in chapters two and eight of the zoning and development code. And this was a result of a recently adopted downtown mixed use amendments. And this altered the sequencing of the zoning and development standards. Additionally, our legal department found errors referencing in chapter 10 regarding public notice procedures. Staff is proposing amendments to the zoning and development code to correct these references in chapters 2, 8, and 10. And the proposed changes are non-substantive. corrections, and purely clerical. So we are seeking to correct these erroneous section references in the Zoning and Development Code. Staff is recommending approval of these code amendments.

Thanks, Alice. This is a public hearing, so I will open up the public hearing. I don't think we have anybody signed up, so I will close the public hearing. We'll move the discussion. Vice Chair Bone, you would like to begin for us?

Actually, this makes, again, a whole lot of sense. No questions. Commissioner Wendt?

No questions.

Commissioner Holloway?

No questions.

Alternate Vice Chair Dominguez?

No questions.

Commissioner Emerson?

No questions.

Commissioner Huckabay?

I guess I have no questions either. Thank you.

I guess I'll go with the flow then. Okay. Then I entertain a motion to approve item G2.

I'll make a motion to approve item G2.

I have a first by Commissioner Wendt.

Second.

I have a second by Commissioner Huckabay. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Like I said, motion carries. OK. We'll move on to item H1, comprehensive plan and code amendments for multifamily development. H1, consider public testimony regarding recommendation concerning proposed amendments. to Round Rock 2030 comprehensive plan, including modified housing policy and implementation strategies for multifamily development, revised descriptions for low, medium, and high density multifamily residential development types, and update location criteria for medium and high density urban multifamily.

Good evening. I'm Lindsay Darden from the Planning Department. Actually, because items H1 and H2 are related, I would like to present on both. And then you all would be able to vote individually on those. So here I have a timeline. And I'm going to go through each section. So I'm not going to stay on this page too long. But I just wanted to frame the conversation for why we're recommending these amendments to the Comp Plan and to the MF2 section. So back before 2012 we had just a more unified multi-family zoning district and what we were getting in Round Rock was a lot of the garden style walk-up apartments with exterior staircases, surface parking often in the street yard and there was Desire from council to have higher quality standards for multifamily including site design building design and materials and structured parking for higher density projects On this page. Here's a picture of some of those older developments with the exterior stairwells the garden style apartments so In 2012, that drove amendments to the comp plan to add separation requirements for those medium density garden style walk-ups, like I showed on the previous page, just to limit them. Because there were so many in Round Rock, they just wanted to have fewer of those and kind of push people more toward an urban style, higher density product, which showed up in splitting the multifamily zoning districts into three different ones which is the low density medium and the urban and There were development standards established for each the garden style that I talked about in the previous slide fit into MF2 So Talking about what we've been getting since those amendments, we rarely get any requests for MF1 because most developers want a higher density than what's permitted in the MF1, so we see very few, if any, requests for that. We do have interest in MF2, but the separation requirements that were integrated into the comp plan in 2012 limit where it can go, so that pushes most of our multifamily into MF3, which is the urban multifamily district. And over the past few years, I've personally brought quite a few of those to PNC through PUD entitlements because the MF3 requires PUDs for approval. So we have entitled quite a few of those. And even though structured parking is a requirement for MF3, many of those have been hybrid and included some structured parking and some other parking types, whether it's surface, a little bit of surface parking, tuck under parking. garage or carport parking. So these are just a few of the projects that have been constructed that are MF3. And you'll see the Warner, which is over off of 45. And that one is a hybrid. It has some surface parking and some structured parking. Palmer, same way. Parkside and the other one next to Bass Pro, which I can't remember the name right now. are the ones on the left-hand side. And they have a structure parking and a little bit of surface as well. So more recently, since we have entitled those numerous MF3 developments, we've been getting a lot of feedback from developers about the high cost of structured parking that has been cost prohibitive and causing them to not be able to develop those projects. I'm sure you've probably heard something about that with the current market conditions. As I mentioned before, we have had people interested in doing MF2, but because of separation requirements, there weren't really many sites where that could fit. Plus, we have had a belief for a while that the development standards in MF2 were outdated and weren't getting the high-quality development that we were looking for for multifamily. At a work session toward the end of 2025, council directed us to update the multifamily standards. And that gets us to today, where we're providing for consideration revisions to the comp plan and to the development code, particularly for medium density multifamily development. That allows for a variety of parking options and includes updated development standards. So that was pretty much just the background, and I'd like to just go ahead and go through the slides for H1 now, and then I'll do H2 as well, and then we can vote at the end if that's okay with you all. So the changes to the Round Rock 2030 comp plan, we've updated the housing policy section to basically summarize why we're requesting these changes and the need for updated multifamily and flexible parking revisions. We've updated the descriptions of low, medium, and high density multifamily. Previously, density was the dividing factor for those, or defining factor, for those in the comp plan. And we've kind of removed that because we've seen that, particularly for the medium and high density, The size of the parcel is going to dictate how many units you can have based on providing the required number of parking spaces and things like that. So there really isn't so much of a need to cap the density on the medium density like we used to. So the descriptions are more defined by building height now. in the comp plan. And you'll notice that in the red lines. And we have renamed medium density multifamily to medium density urban multifamily just to make it clear that we're really looking to have a more modern MF2 medium density district. That is more of an urban style development type as far as the look of the units and the fact that we would have standards that bring those closer to the street with parking to the side or rear. We have adjusted the location criteria to remove separation requirements so that way the MF2 zoning district with the new standards can be freely utilized. And we removed an implementation strategy that limited the percentage of medium density multifamily. That was another thing that was in the comp plan to really cut down on some of those garden style apartments. And we do recommend approval of that comp plan amendment. And now I will go through H2, which is the development code amendments related to the MF2. Recently, we've had a lot of interest in doing Juliet balconies. I think we talked about that at a P&Z meeting maybe in the last few months. And those Juliet balconies are non-occupiable balconies where you can just open a window or door and there's a railing there. So we did add a definition to that to the code. Residential lot and building dimensional standards chart. So we increased the max height for the MF2 zoning district from four stories to five stories. And in that chart that we had, we had a minimum setback from single family and two family for all the different building heights up to four stories. So we had to add a required minimum setback to account for the five story. So we did that. It's 125 feet. And We also, in that chart, we increased that maximum building height section too. I think I mentioned that, but just making sure in case not. MF2, medium density section, this is the actual zoning district. We updated the name on that to match the intent and aesthetic. We have flexible parking options. You can do structured surface, detached garage, carport, or tuck under. We did maintain a minimum percentage of parking that has to be enclosed in garages of any type, so that way it's not ever going to be a situation where it's solely surface parking. We updated the design standard incentive that allows for a reduction in the percentage of garage parking where upgraded materials are utilized for the primary building structures. That was in there before in the MF2, but we updated it a little bit based on the fact that other parts of that section were changing. We limited detached garages and surface parking areas to side and rear yards, so this way you can't have that street yard parking. And we established a maximum building setback of 25 feet. I don't know that I have that on this slide, but that was a big deal. A maximum building setback is a build-to line, and that is going to bring the buildings closer to the street to create that more urban-style aesthetic. And we added design standards for detached garages to ensure that they're high quality appearance. So there's not as many questions about those Juliet balconies. We did limit those type of balconies for any units that are facing single or two family neighborhoods if they are adjacent to a proposed MF2 development. And then we matched the MF3 zoning district standards for the required number of amenities, the landscape open space requirement, and the special streetscape and landscape features. And we do expect that this will result in an MF2 zoning district, which we can actually utilize instead of one that we're not using a lot because of the separation requirements and the outdated standards. And we anticipate it providing some relief to developers with the relaxed parking standards, or not really relaxed, but just more options. and the development standards that will ensure high quality projects with a more urban style aesthetic. And with this, we anticipate that we'll probably see a reduced number of MF3 zoning requests, which require PUDs. We are still going to be encouraging and supporting MF3 zoning for parcels near employment centers and major transportation and commercial nodes. And with that, we recommend approval of that code amendment as well. If you have any questions, I'm here for you.

Thanks, Lindsay. OK, so we're going to open a public hearing for item H1. I'd like anybody to be signed up, so I'll open and close. We'll go to discussions. And I'm just going to open up. Anybody want to start? H1, anybody have discussions about H1? Any to talk about?

I've got some questions. I think they're primarily H-2.

Well, I guess go ahead. We can talk about H-1 and H-2 at the same time since he's presented. We just have to vote on them differently. So if you have questions on H-1 or H-2, we'll go ahead and talk about them now since Lindsey's up there. So go ahead. You can start, Mr. Wendt.

This is a good presentation. I know it's difficult with everything that's going on. Did y'all get any feedback from actual multifamily developers on any of this to see if it's actually feasible?

We didn't solicit input from the multifamily community, and that's largely because this is mirroring what they had been requesting for much of this time over the last couple of years anyway. If you recall, there was a project or a major putt amendment earlier this year that came through P&Z and City Council for the Slate Round Rock property, which is on Old Settlers Boulevard at Mesa Park. And so through that process of working through that PUD amendment, that helped to inform a lot of the changes that we're proposing here with this code amendment. And so that's kind of one way that we know for a fact that we are on the right track. What we are proposing here is in alignment with what the development community has been requesting and wanting and something that would be economically viable for them to build.

Okay, so these folks that, and we've had a number of them, and I know you and I have discussed some of them, but So the folks that have the MF3 now where the structured parking was required, would you just say instead of amending what you have, you've got to go back and get rezoned to MF2 if this is enacted?

Correct. If they wanted to develop at the slightly lower density and with the MF2 development standards, they would have to come back and rezone to the MF2 zoning district instead of doing their PUD. It's possible that for some of those we might not support. Yeah. That rezoning, depending on its location, if it's in an area where we think that the high-density product is more suitable. But, you know, most of those we probably would support a rezoning to MF2.

Okay. And, Lindsey, you talked about the percentage of garage parking, but I don't – so is garage defined as anything that's not surface? Because I know you had tuck under and – There was four or five descriptions there, but is it pretty broad, what a garage is?

Garage would be structured. It could be those small detached garages that you see at apartment complexes, or it could be if it's a multi-story building and you have the first story, kind of like some of those townhome-style apartments where you can just pool under the building and park in an enclosed space. Those are the tuck-under garages.

But it's enclosed.

Yes, it's not a carport or a surface space.

Yeah, so what's the percentage that, what's the minimum percentage for garage parking?

Just one second, I will get that for you.

It's a percentage of units?

Yes, it is. Okay, so at least 50%. has to be either covered or in garages. So that could be carports and garages, at least 50%. And no less than 35% has to be in garages of any type.

OK. So if you had 15% that were in a carport or like the, what's the description, tuck under, where they're like driving under a unit that's above them, those qualify as covered. But 35% would have to be a garage. And then you said there's a credit if you use upgraded building materials, then you can reduce that percentage?

Yes. And that was in the MF2 before. So if you do the design standard incentive, which basically requires the ground floor of all buildings to be at least 75% natural stone, simulated stone or brick, at least two different materials on each structure, and no more than 33% of the building facade to be fiber, cement, siding, architecturally finished steel or metal, and upgraded roof materials, then you can go to just one second. 40% to covered parking, which would include garages or carports, and 25% for garages.

OK. Thank you. I'm sorry. No, no, no.

And to clarify, the tuck under parking is garage parking. Those are the ones that you drive straight into, but it's a garage door, fully enclosed garage, just on the first floor, the ground floor of the apartment. A detached garage, a structured parking garage, or a tuck under garage parking all qualify as garage parking to meet the minimum 35% requirement. Got it.

OK. Not just the little lean-tos that are built out there in the middle of somebody's parking space where they go in. Those are carports. Yeah.

Carports.

There you go. OK. Okay, but if you got MF2, then there's not going to be 100% surface parking? No. In no way that you get to that?

No, and there wasn't before in the existing MF2. We wanted to have better standards than what we had before in the outdated MF2 section, so we didn't roll anything back to be lesser than what that standard was before.

Okay. Well, that's all I have. Thank you.

Holloway you good everybody good down there.

Yeah, just a couple of clarification Clarifications here your time at the location criteria changing. I was reading the Packet here and I see some medium density. That's medium density urban and I see it's struck out where it says a new medium density family building should not be located within 500 feet of any single family neighborhood or one half mile of any existing or zoned medium density or urban. That's what you were talking about like it's kind of hard like there's not like sites so we're going to delete that to make it more plausible for people to find sites. Yes. Because that's the MF2 we're talking about right there.

MF2.

Okay and then I'm just making sure that I have that right and then the other one right under that urban multi-family we're deleting the section where it says urban multifamily density is characterized by living units with attached parking structure located with an activity center consisting of employment, retail, educational facilities, and transportation. So we're deleting that specifically because of the parking component, because we're getting rid of that requirement as well.

Actually, that is something that we felt like was more of a descriptor of the urban multifamily. So we cut that from the location criteria and we moved it up above those sections to the urban multifamily description. It seemed like it fit better there.

Okay. Yeah, I mean, there's... I'd like to add in the Juliette balcony. We just had one of those come up. I'm trying to remember which deal it was.

That was two meetings ago, I think. It was slate.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so I remember that, you know, and I thought it was nice that it specifically, you know, says that the difference between that and a traditional balcony that extrudes from the structure, because it would be important to me that we make that clear, that it can't stick out. It can't be a... I was doing some searching on that, too, that it meets the definition of Juliet as long as there's nowhere you can stand outside of the walls. It has to be flush. So... It doesn't say the word flush, but it's implied by saying it's different than a standard balcony. So I like that in there. And then, because there was just so much redlining going on in this code, rather than go over all of it and just ask you to confirm what it says, I understand what it says. You mentioned that there was some session that council had regarding this stuff that started this early on. I think it was in 2025. That's how you started the presentation, I think. It was in 2025. So has council would do that session where the council was weighing on, hey, go work on this. Have you already gotten some feedback from them on this during your work sessions with them that this is kind of in line with what they were hoping?

I will broadly answer that because I wasn't involved.

We presented, when we were talking about that with City Council at one of their strategic planning work sessions, we talked about we already had a general framework of what we wanted to do, how we wanted to amend the comprehensive plan, as well as the multifamily zoning districts. We, of course, still had to work out the details and go through the process of actually composing the amendments, but we had that general outline of what we wanted to do, and I prepared that and explained that to them, and they were all on board with it.

Okay. In really simple terms, it just really makes it more, we're making it more favorable for MF2, like you said, removing some strict language in there on parking garages as well to just make it easier to find sites for these to help fill that gap, that housing gap that we have. So I just was asking if, you know, based on the workshop, the strategic planning session you set up, Because they're going to see this next, right? Yes.

Okay.

And we felt like this is probably exactly what they were asking you to do. Did you add anything in there that they're not expecting to see? I don't think so. No. Okay.

Can I pile on that real quick? If I may. Basically, there was a need to the community. The community talked to the city council. City council went back to the community and said, you know, this makes economical sense. Let's shuck and jive a little bit more to make it economically viable, which I'm grateful the city is able to do rather than just say, this is the way it's written. Take the rules. Take it or leave it.

Yeah, and it's like if nobody's doing MF2 because they're just too restrictive, I get that. We need to change them around and not force people to do MF3s. And the location criteria helps find more sites. So I think it's good. I just want to make sure. You guys had the strategic plan session. We weren't in. And so, you know, I was just curious if this is in line with previous discussion. It sounds like it is. My guess is they'll be pretty happy with this when they see it. So I'm fine with it. Thank you.

Mr. Holloway, Mr. Huckabay, anything you'd like to add? Emerson? I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. That's OK. I've got H's on my mind. Sorry, Mr. Emerson. My apologies. That is no problem. Overall, we're trying to help the developer. And at the same time, we're trying to help the residents as well in terms of what they may or have asked for in the past in a sense, in a broader sense.

and to ensure that we have high quality multifamily in the city and bringing some of those standards into this in exchange for some of the flexibility on the parking. And I think that getting those higher quality standards with the buildings moving closer to the street, the parking to the side and the rear, the parking is less visible. that allows for more options for them.

Since there's less parking available now, does that mean people have to park in the streets? And also in terms of they have family members that want to come and visit them as well?

There's not less parking. The required parking numbers are the same. It's just the different types of parking that are acceptable.

Sounds good. Thank you so much. Great job.

Commissioner Chuckabay? The only question I had was, I guess, a little off topic, but with thinking about kind of where our plans are going, what city council wants and everything like that, Do we see that we need a lot more multifamily in the area? Or did we know how full they are already, the existing ones?

Yeah, I think these amendments are recognizing the realities of the market right now, because there was a huge building boom of all housing types, but especially multifamily, coming through the COVID era or whatever term you want to use for it. And because the community responded in that way, the development community did, building thousands upon thousands of units in the whole area. And then rents came down, which is great for the community and great for renters. But then it also leaves you in a position where the development community has nothing left that they can build. They met the need at the time. And then now more people are continuing to move here, so maybe there is a little bit more of a need. And so we're trying to revise our standards to meet the market where it's at while still providing a high-level zoning district that gets the city what we want so that we're getting high-quality development, if that makes sense.

Yeah, so by doing this, you see more projects coming to the table.

Yes.

And easier to approve them coming.

Like I said, it's market-driven. I'm glad to see the city is... maneuvering and listening, but still maintaining the level of quality. So, yeah. Okay, great. All right. Nope. Nope. Yes, sir. Skipped right in. Yeah, I did. Well, so, you know. Happens at home, too.

A couple of questions, Lindsay. You used the term separation requirements. Could you expand on that and what that means? Because I'm not sure I know what that means.

So in the comp plan, and I don't know what page of your handout it is, but you'll see the location requirement in the comp plan, and specifically the one for medium density multifamily. It required that new medium density multifamily couldn't be located within 500 feet of any single family neighborhood or a half a mile from any existing medium density or urban multifamily use. So basically, it meant to establish an MF2 project, you had to be far away from any other MF2 or MF3 project and not within 500 feet of any single family neighborhood. And there was no such requirement for that distance for MF3 or for MF1. So it really limited the use of that zoning district. So now that we have the upgraded standards that we believe that will, we don't feel like we need the separation requirements for that anymore because of the upgraded standards.

OK. I just wasn't sure what we were separating. Yeah.

So MF3 from other MF3 and MF3, sorry, MF2 from other MF2 or MF3 and MF2 from single family.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate that. And Commissioner Emerson, I think alluded to this as far as I read in part of the presentation talking about cost relief for the development community, which is great. Does that translate to cost relief for for the residential community, for the people who are looking for a place to live? Does this lead to better prices, better costs for people looking for a place to live?

I think that structured parking, whenever it is a requirement, structured parking is more expensive to construct. And then the thought is that rolls down to the cost of the development. and the cost to renters. If you do not have actual parking decks that can bring costs down, we hope that that rolls down to the renters, and that's what developers tell us.

Okay. I just wanted to say I saw cost relief to the development community, and I'm hoping that does mean there's some cost relief to the folks who are looking for a place to live as well. It's a hope. Supply and demand. I understand supply and demand, and I get that. Thank you very much. I appreciate your presentation.

My apologies for skipping over you. Just open mic night. I get it. My apologies for not calling you the wrong person. Okay, so we're going to have a public hearing. Open for public hearing H1. Close H1. Nobody here. We're going to open for H2. Anybody here? Nope. We're going to close H2. So, well, I guess I should have done, sorry.

We've got to vote on it first.

That's all right. So we'll vote on H1. Do I hear a motion to?

A motion.

I have a first.

Yeah, on H1 specifically.

H1 specifically. I have a first by Commissioner Dominguez. Second. Who did that? Commissioner Holloway. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Do I need to reopen H2 again? No? Okay. So we'll take a vote for item H2. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve H2. I have a first by Commissioner Bone. I'll second that. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. All right. And we will move to staff report. Council actions.

Last month, City Council approved the major PUD amendment for the preserve at Stone Oak PUD. If you recall, that's the planned unit development on RM 1431 at Sendero Springs Drive by the Mayfield Village community there to allow more types of retail and restaurant and some drive-throughs on the property there. So that was unanimously approved by City Council. And then last week, they approved the PUD amendment for the district, which came before you all last month, changing some of the development standards in there. And that's all.

That was the parking garage thing.

Yeah, allowing service parking along Greenland Boulevard. Yeah, for the food and beverage plaza and the retail.

Was that also approved unanimously? Yes.

Okay.

Meeting adjourned. Thank you, guys. And I apologize.