Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

You good? Okay. We're gonna call the Wednesday, 09/03/2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Would you please call the roll to see?

Chair Clauson? Here. Vice Chair Bone?

Here.

Alternate Vice Chair Dominguez?

Here.

Commissioner Emerson?

Here.

Commissioner Holloway? Commissioner Huckabee?

Here.

Commissioner Memmick?

Here.

Commissioner Pumphrey?

Here.

Commissioner Wentz?

Here. Commissioner attendees, could 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, with liberty and justice for all. Honoring the Texas flag,

I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas,

one state under God, one and indivisible. Okay. Pursuant to Texas code, section five five one dash zero zero seven, which allows public to speak for a total of three minutes on any of the agenda items listed below, excluding executive session, to see it. Has anybody signed it for citizen communication? No. Okay. Seeing none, we will go to Item E1, approval for minutes. Commissioners, are there any amendments, revisions, anything that needs to be pulled? If not, I will entertain a motion. If I may. Who went first?

He went first.

I'd like

to entertain a motion. My mic is not working. But for item E1 as presented.

Okay. I have a first. Do I have a second?

A second.

Oh, got a two. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Item f one, code amendments. Consider public testimony and recommendation for concerning the proposed amendments to the code of ordinances, City of Round Rock, Texas, 02/2018, part three, zoning and development code chapters one, two, and eight regarding downtown mixed use zoning districts.

Mister chair, I'm gonna abstain from, the discussion or voting on this item.

Okay. So noted. Joel? Oh, Bradley. Excuse me.

Yeah. Good evening, chair and commissioners. I'd like to start things off before we just dive straight into the staff presentation just to kind of take zoom out real quick and and look at the big picture and providing some of that perspective. So the downtown and particularly the revitalization and bringing more people and more activity into downtown has been a big policy or strategic plan goal of city councils for several years now. And, you know, to that end, there's been a lot of investment in the downtown over the last couple of decades, and we'll get into some of that in our presentation.

And so here we're here tonight to discuss the land use regulations and the zoning regulations and expanding potentially expanding the zoning districts for those mixed use regulations in downtown. But overall, that's just one one piece of this larger puzzle when city council considers making downtown an exciting authentic community destination as family friendly for all. So 's also the infrastructure aspect, we'll touch on a little bit, but still infrastructure is something that we typically look at separately and propose different recommendations to city council, and we will be going through those processes in the near future as well. There's an economic development angle that the chamber of commerce works on that also involves the city manager's office and administration, other city departments too. Then there's also an arts and culture aspect with all the different special events that we do in conjunction with the parks and recreation department.

So many different departments, many different arms of the city kind of all working together, pulling in the same direction to fulfill city's council's goal related to downtown. So this is just one item. We're not necessarily looking at it in a vacuum here because we do consider all these things and we do work together with other departments. But tonight's discussion really is a land use and zoning discussion. So with that said, the kind of I'll give a quick run of show if you will.

So Joelle Jordan, our long range planning manager is gonna give the staff presentation for the evening. She'll present item f one. There'll be discussion and a vote, then she'll present one single presentation for items g one through g three, and then there will need to be individual discussions and votes and public hearings for each one of those. We've got all hands on deck essentially to answer any questions that you or that our residents may have. So Lily Park, senior planner, who has been living and breathing this for basically the last year and is very well versed in everything.

Susan Brennan, planning manager. We've also got Parmista Joshi, our newest planner. From other departments, we've got Katie Baker with Parks and Recreation, Ed Polashic with Transportation, Layton Carr with Utilities, and let's see, also our Assistant Director, Jeff Brooks. So with that, I'll let Joelle take it away.

Good evening, Commissioners. Joelle Jordan, Planning and Development Services. So tonight we'll have the three the zoning amendments will be the first item, and then three rezoning proposals before you for recommendation. Just a little bit about process. Once and if a recommendation occurs tonight, City Council will need to consider all of these items as ordinances for those four above mentioned proposals.

And then, if those are adopted, new development regulations are added to the city code effective immediately. Official zoning map is revised to show new district boundaries. The staff begins reviewing new development applications using new regulations. And just one item to note, that existing uses in buildings that don't comply with new zoning don't have to meet any new requirements to their property unless they propose future changes. A little bit of history.

So in terms of city initiated downtown redevelopment, significant infrastructure started investment started occurring downtown in 2001. There was a bond election at that time for Southwest Downtown. Southwest Downtown included street improvements, utility improvements, as well as some facilities, like the Baca Center and the Mechanical Building West Of Mays. In 2010, adopted a downtown master plan. It included Mays.

Three mixed use districts that were later adopted in 2013, so it's twelve years since these mixed use districts that we're looking at tonight to consider changes. In twenty ten, sixteen, the city looked at downtown improvements from an infrastructure perspective. And then in 2020, the city adopted its currently adopted comprehensive plan called Round Rock 2030. In it, it has a downtown policy to manage and guide the revitalization of downtown as a safe and pedestrian pedestrian friendly community destination for all. Within the comprehensive plan, there are some implementation strategies that are related to this proposal before you tonight.

One is to evaluate the three zoning districts that are currently downtown, MU1, MU2, and MUL, and look at those district standards to ensure that they continue to be suitable as downtown redevelops. Also, to facilitate a mixture of residential development types, to strive to develop a minimum of 1,000 dwelling units within a quarter mile of Main Street also to explore options to attract retail other than dining downtown and ensure a balance between residential and business uses downtown by encouraging compatibility. So those are all statements in the currently adopted comprehensive plan. A little bit about our process to get here this evening. So council adopted as a top priority in their twenty four-twenty five strategic plan policy agenda mixed use districts as a top priority to ensure that downtown is vibrant and dynamic.

After they gave us that charge, we started looking at the existing districts. As I mentioned, they're twelve years old at this point. And as planners, we looked at past issues with site development review within the existing districts. In 2024 and the city conducts a community survey every two years, so 2024, we included some questions about downtown in that survey that was a citywide, statistically valid survey to get some perspectives on downtown as it stands today. In July 2024, we did an update to the Heart of Round Rock, the Downtown Neighborhood Association, on this upcoming project to keep them in the loop.

In September 2024, we did a downtown business survey. We sent emails to all of the businesses in the downtown area to get some feedback on their opinions of downtown, challenges that they face, things that they like about being downtown. On the 10/08/2024, we hosted a Downtown Developer Roundtable. That was an opportunity for folks that had done development downtown to provide some feedback on how their experience was going through the process developing downtown. And then in on 10/29/2024, we hosted an open house.

Many folks attended that open house. There were 87 attendees. The open house included a survey and visual preference activity. Many of you may remember putting dots on photographs in different parts of town to talk about the to explain the types of development you saw in different parts of the downtown area. And then in December '4, we put together all of the public outreach that we had received so far and an initial proposal zoning map to present to City Council at their pre retreat for comments from them.

Then at that point, we began developing draft zoning amendments in the '5. We did another update to the Heart of Round Rock Neighborhood Association in April '5. And then the summer entailed, legal review of the draft ordinance amendments as well as, recent public office hours that were held from, the twenty second through the July 31. We had 40 attendees come. That was an opportunity for anyone from the public to come in and chat with planners about this proposal.

We had many property owners come in and ask us questions specific to their particular property. So overall, there are a lot of common themes, in terms of public outreach, comments that we receive. People enjoy being downtown. They like the access to amenities and city services, the walkability and pedestrian activity. They like events downtown and programming downtown, and they like the atmosphere and sense of place.

There were concerns about maintaining the historic character and small town feel downtown and concern about long term preservation of the city's historic landmarks. Folks also felt that it was important to ensure pedestrian oriented development, public space availability, and that sidewalk design was also an important component of future development. Generally, folks want more retail and diverse dining options downtown with outdoor gathering spaces. In that survey that we did, asking people to put green dots on pictures they liked, patios and sidewalk cafes ranked very highly, in terms of people's wants in all areas of downtown. Generally, folks feel that there's a need for streetscape improvements, lighting, shade, and more on street parking.

And then there were diverse opinions about the desire for taller buildings downtown. It depends on location. Generally, it seems to be preferred West Of Mays. People like the idea of a mixture of uses and want to ensure the preservation of historic character and view corridors. So this is a map of the current zoning downtown.

You'll notice that there's a black hashed line. This is the area that in the proposal before you is defined as downtown. The three mixed use zoning districts that exist now and will continue forward are shown on the map. So you have MU1, the mixed use historic commercial core, which includes a two block National Register District downtown in the one hundred and two hundred blocks of East Main, and the area immediately surrounding it. You have MU2, mixed use medium density, which includes the Southwest Downtown West Of Mays, north of the historic district, including the flats and along Brushy Creek, and then MUL, Mixed Use Limited, which is the eastern part of downtown.

So we compiled a list of existing code challenges before we started addressing amendments in the code. This list includes needing to further specify how new construction should complement the historic commercial core in MU1, the need for stronger design standards for primary facades and frontages. Those are facades of buildings along street frontages and also public open space. Currently, in the existing code in MU2, the same design standards exist for all structures regardless of their form. So a bungalow home or an eight storey building all have the same design standards right now and we don't feel that that is appropriate.

There's also insufficient standards concerning how to densify and still maintain the residential scale and compatibility with the historic structures in the eastern part of downtown in MUL. Additional code challenges include insufficient standards for street activation, ensuring that we minimize curb cuts for driveways, and clarifying parking placement ensure that pedestrian friendly environment that everyone wants for our downtown. And then need needing clearer standards for landscapes and foundation treatment, we do have standards for those in the code. What we found with the DOT exercise is that folks are interested more in greenery and planting than hardscape features, so those are built into this proposal. Also, needing clarity for what happens if a property expands, converts from residential to commercial or there's a tenant change, so spelling those out in the code.

That specifically relates to compatibility between structures, landscaping, and screening standards, so the landscaping that I just mentioned as well as screening trash receptacles and compatibility fencing. Standards we found over time don't necessarily accommodate some of the requests that we're receiving, both in terms of uses as well as density. So overall, the goals of these proposed amendments are to provide increased variety of uses and activities downtown, allow purposeful density in targeted areas, protect the historic character of downtown, expand uses while ensuring compatibility with single family homes, create design standards for different building forms, and encourage greenery and pedestrian scale design and development. I'm going to go through each of the districts the three districts and talk about the current standards in each of those districts and the proposed changes. So in MU1, the historic commercial core, there aren't a lot of changes to these standards.

The design currently says to complement the existing two block National Register District without imitating it. This is an area that emphasizes retail, restaurants, and entertainment combined with upper story residential, live work, and office uses. Buildings are currently two stories for historic buildings and three stories for the rest of the buildings, and that is not proposed to change. The pedestrian interface is important in MU 1. Most of the existing buildings in MU 1 have a zero front setback, so that's also required for new construction currently as well as minimum percentages for glass windows on the Ground Floor.

On-site parking is also not currently required in MU1. We have a lot of public parking in the core. So a few proposed changes to this district to MU1. New construction expansions and conversions with alterations need to meet the building form and building fabric sections of the historic design guidelines for commercial properties. So we already have a set of historic guidelines that we apply to historic, commercial, and residential buildings, and we're proposing to apply those in MU1 to buildings that are not designated as well to help ensure their compatibility.

Flat roof with a parapet required for all new construction, again, this ensures compatibility with the historic buildings that are already down there. This is, again, maximum three stories, 48 feet, two stories still for existing, historic landmarks, lots of windows on the Ground Floor, and a three foot deep recessed entry, on the primary frontage. So those are the proposed changes. There's a few proposed use changes as well in MU1. New permitted use is small scale manufacturing and assembly.

That's permitted with standards. That proposes including a retail component associated with it as a use, as well as allowing bed and breakfast in MU1 with standards proposing to prohibit veterinary clinics, game rooms, and vape and smoke shops in MU1. So this slide explains the existing MU2 district, the MU2 downtown medium density. It currently allows a mixture of uses and has a flexible design standards, a variety of building forms permitted, site layouts that prioritize pedestrians. Already, this the zoning in MU2 allows eight stories closer to Mays in Southwest Downtown moving to six and then four stories as you approach Mays Street from I-thirty 5 and then three stories east of Mays Street.

This is the current height allowances. There's a variety of residential uses permitted currently and then retail and restaurant, office, indoor entertainment, hotels, live work, government facilities, parks, and places of worship. MU2 does not allow bars. You must have a commercial kitchen, so a restaurant versus a bar. There is currently a requirement for on-site parking for residential and no parking between the street and building.

Any use of alleys, if possible, is encouraged. So there's a few proposed changes in MU2. The first is to ensure that facades facing public streets and public open spaces are designed as primary facades. The second is, based on what I was speaking about earlier, dividing up the design standards based on the building form. So we're proposing four building types to address four different form design requirements.

I'm going to go through those quickly. So the first is Building Type one. This is a pitched roof, maximum two and a half stories, 35 feet. This is typically going to be a conversion of an existing structure to commercial. It would be it could be multiple buildings on one lot as well and still a pedestrian oriented streetscape.

Building type two is a lot of what you see in MU2 for current new construction, up to four stories, flat roof, building that's commercial in appearance. Again, all facades facing public streets or public open spaces defined as primary facades. Ground floors differentiated from the upper floors, as you see in these photos, and allowing a mixture of uses. Building Type three I'll show you some photos on the next slide. Again, this is a form that's commercial in appearance with an added height.

Again, all facades facing streets and public open spaces designed as primary facades. This is for the five to eight story structure. It requires a tripartite design, which I will show you in a minute, and then a mixture of uses with requirement for ground floor commercial as well as a privately owned public space. And I'll show

you what that looks like as well.

So here's some examples. So on the left, that's defining the tripartite design. So it's allowing for a building that's a little bit more traditional, still flexibility in how you design but having a base, a mid portion, a shaft, and then a capital at the top. The public, The POPS, the privately owned public space, is shown there in the center between the two buildings. This would be a maximum of eight stories, 110 feet tall, again, flat roof with parapet and you see the front designed as the primary frontage.

Type four is very similar to Type three with the same requirements, but this is for nine to 12 stories. Nine to 12 stories is only proposed to be permitted along the on the I-thirty 5 frontage. So currently, many of those lots are Zone C1 that already allows 12 stories in height, So this would just bring those structures into the downtown in terms of the required design. So again, requiring facades facing streets and public open spaces to be designed as primary facades requiring that design, the non residential ground floor, and the POPs. So just summarizing height requirements.

So Round Rock Avenue and May Street are proposed for eight stories, 110 foot max creating corridors for those two streets. I-thirty 5 frontage, as I mentioned, 12 stories, which is currently allowed under C1 standards, and that's for along I-thirty 5. North of Round Rock Avenue, west of the Mayes Corridor, this area is currently not part of the mixed use zoning. I'll show you a map in just a minute, too. And those are that area is proposed for a maximum height of four stories and 64 feet.

And then certain lots along McNeil as well proposed for three stories, 48 feet in the eastern part of downtown. There's just note that there's no other changes proposed to height in MU2, so the area along east of the Mayes Corridor is proposed to stay three stories as is currently allowed. So here's the summary in map form. So you can see the I-thirty five frontage proposed as 12 and then moving east, eight, six, and then four to Mays with the exception of Round Rock Avenue and Mays Corridors at eight stories, and then three stories, east of the Mays Corridor as well as, the lots that are over here that are along the new McNeil extension. A few other changes proposed for MU2.

On-site parking, there's some changes. So there was a requirement to for for residential parking, we've changed the ratios. So for residential, 20 units or less requiring one space per unit, 21 or more, one space for one bedroom, two space for two bedroom plus, plus a percentage of guest parking. There's also a proposal to require fleet parking to be on private property with a limit of three vehicles and to prohibit drive throughs. A few use changes proposed in MU2.

New single family uses prohibited. This does not mean you can't rebuild single family if something were to occur to your property and you live there currently. This also does not mean you cannot expand, so you can still add on to your existing single family. Downtown residential would replace all the residential types in the current MU 2 district, so there's a variety of residential types outlined in MU 2, and this is proposing to just call them all downtown residential. In the current code, event centers are permitted, by special exception.

This proposal, specifies event center permitted with standards up to a certain point. So if you're meeting those standards, you don't need to apply for a special exception. But if you want to go beyond what's in the code, then you would still need a special exception. And then microbreweries requiring a public tasting room and a commercial kitchen. Some additional new uses in ME2 proposed enrichment center, which is nontraditional educational facility for all ages wellness center, which is non medical, non invasive wellness activities, so not producing medical waste, in other words small scale manufacturing and assembly permitted with standards which require an on-site retail component associated with that small scale manufacturing.

And then a prohibition of game rooms and vape and smoke shops. These are a couple of view corridor pictures. This one is east going east on Round Rock Avenue, and this one is north coming in north on Mays. So the last of the three districts is the MUL, mixed use limited. So the goal for this particular area is to maintain the aesthetic of the single family neighborhood.

This area contains a significant number of historic landmarks that are residential. So the existing standards specify that the structures must be single family in style and that the development must meet the residential historic design guidelines. So this is currently in the code now. Additionally, currently single family accessory dwelling units, live work, and small shops and offices limited in scope in terms of hours and intensity in that MUL district. And then height up to two and a half stories, so similar to single family.

Currently, there are contextual setbacks for the front setback and on-site parking is required, and there's also a requirement for compatibility fencing between residential and nonresidential uses unless it's waived by the residential owner. So some proposed changes in MUL. Still, the goal is to, maintain that residential look in that eastern part of downtown, however, to open up the permitted uses along the Main Street and Georgetown Street corridors. In the existing code, there was not language to specify scale. If you were to add structures in MUL or there was no limit to lot coverage or unit size, so there's some additions to ensure that we're maintaining the scale.

We're allowing three detached principal buildings on a lot less than 60% lot coverage where no building exceeds 2,800 square feet. The front setback is also proposed to change from contextual, which is a little vague, to 15 foot minimum to 25 foot maximum, which was obtained by measuring the front setbacks in the MUL District. And then proposing that on-site parking not be required for nonresidential uses. Go back to the photos. So these are some examples of pitch roof, residential form, and then three potential units that also meet that residential historic design guidelines on one lot.

So some use changes proposed for Hours of operation currently are specified as seven a. M. To eight p. M. That's proposed to change to six a. M. To nine p. M. However, six a. M. To seven a. M. Would be indoor activity only. Upper story residential units would be permitted on Main Street and Georgetown Street with a maximum of two units per building. Event center as well permitted on Main Street and Georgetown Street with standards to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area.

Restaurant as well permitted on Main Street and Georgetown Street. Outdoor dining would be permitted, addition to that compatibility fencing, if you're adjacent to residential, there are also other screening requirements associated with screening the outdoor dining area specifically. New uses as well in Richmond Center, which I mentioned before, nontraditional education facility, Main Street and Georgetown Street only. Wellness Center proposed for anywhere in MUL. Again, that's the non medical, non invasive, so that would be counseling, office, yoga, that type of activity.

And then proposing that the following uses are prohibited: veterinary clinics, game rooms, tobacco and cigar sales, and vape and smoke shops. So that's the summary of the three districts, but additionally, whenever you amend districts, there's other sections that are impacted as well. So there are changes to the permitted uses section that I already mentioned for each district, as well as lot and building dimensional standards, supplementary standards associated with the uses that are permitted in each district, and then all of the other sections of the code that mention downtown. So I'm going to talk briefly about those. So mobile food establishments are currently permitted in certain parts of downtown.

This program allows mobile food establishments associated with particular commercial uses, so they're not standalone on vacant lots. They're meant to be accessory to a primary use. What we are proposing is removing the downtown requirements and creating separate section for those that just addresses downtown. Additionally,

as

I mentioned earlier, new downtown foundation treatments in the landscape section to encourage greenery as part of the point system for foundation treatment. We specified outdoor storage requirements as they pertain to outdoor sales downtown, and then there are some updates to sign regulations as they pertain to downtown. This particularly impacts, if you have taller buildings closer to I-thirty 5. The sign regulations are pretty strict downtown, so this would allow some additional signage that's appropriate for a taller building. So overall summary of notable changes.

So we're expanding the area that's associated, with downtown by specifying a boundary. We are proposing to increase density along corridors,

particularly Main And Round Mayes and Round Rock Avenue,

are proposing new and expanded uses along Main Street and Georgetown Street in MUL District, creating MU two design standards based on building form instead of use, proposing development and design standards focused on pedestrian perception and scale, and encouraging greenery and vegetation to soften the built environment require that street facing facades serve as primary facades with enhanced design features requiring the designation of a primary frontage, which is subject to additional development standards. That's typically where the building is addressed. Requiring that five to 12 story buildings construct privately owned public spaces and include requirements for ground floor commercial, for buildings of that those heights clarify design and development standards for expansions, conversions, and tenant changes and include consistency and clarifying language throughout, particularly with those other sections that reference downtown. So just a reminder of what isn't changing in the code. So MU2 properties East Of Mayes Street corridor are still proposed to maintain their height allowance of three stories.

Allowable height in the area West Of Mayes is also proposed to stay the same with the exception of the Mayes And Round Rock Avenue corridors. Additionally, the National Register District, the one hundred and two hundred blocks of East Main Street, the Commercial Historic District, height allowance of two stories remains the same. The commercial uses remain limited for the mixed use limited east end of downtown except for Georgetown And Main Streets, East Main. And then MUL required to meet historic design guidelines for residential properties isn't proposed to change. That's currently in there now.

A few other considerations, Bradley mentioned this at the outset. Zoning amendments are a land use exercise. The increased density would likely require land assembly in order, to achieve these taller building heights. Necessary infrastructure improvements will be, determined, after this process, and we are aware that current infrastructure is inadequate to accommodate the build out entitled, by these mixed use districts. Other considerations nonconforming uses.

Zoning amendments in MU2 will create some legally nonconforming uses. Those include auto uses, gas stations, and drive throughs. These uses are allowed to continue. The nonconforming components just cannot be expanded. So in terms of process to get to tonight, we mailed notices to all property owners and physical addresses in the downtown boundary plus the abutting property owners as required by law.

We posted notices for these public hearings at City Hall and in the newspaper. We did a courtesy email to the Hard Round Rock Neighborhood Association. We also posted signs, which many probably saw around downtown. We had this is what it looks like. There are 19 public notice signs currently posted downtown. That concludes my presentation. Staff recommends approval of the code amendments, and we're happy to answer questions after the public hearing.

Thank you, Joelle. Thank you very much. Great presentation. I want to remind everybody this is a public hearing. We're going to open for public hearing. We do have citizens signed up. If you'd like to sign up to speak for or against this, be sure and fill out a a yellow card, hand it to Alicia. I wanna remind everybody that when you do, come up to speak as I call your names, please tell us who you are and your resident's name and address for the record, and we will begin this process. Okay. We're going to open the public hearing. I will call my first, the first person, Ella Morrison.

Hello.

Hi, good evening.

Good evening to each of you and everyone here. This is my first time in a long time speaking, but my concern is the area of the M2 area down by where Saint Paul Church is on Martin Luther King Way and also all the way over to Spring Street. Apparently, there were surveys done years ago, but we didn't know what the result of those were. Down in that area is still a lot of noise when there's music going on up here. I can stand down almost on Pecan Street because my childhood home is on Spring, not even a block off of Pecan, and I can hear the music.

I've called the police one time when I was there so he could hear. The noise is really annoying. This area, known as The Flats, was predominantly owned by blacks back years ago. A lot of them died, moved out to families, moved to different areas. And I would guess there's about 60% blacks, they own acres, several acres in the area.

30% Mexican American and about 10% white people lived in that area. You might not know, but the area that the library is built on and including other structures here, they were all outside toilets there, ten and twelve feet toilets, and I hope they will feel down good. Down on Spring Street, the corner of Spring And Pecan, my uncle owned all that acreage, and he had like a fifty, sixty foot deep hole that was filled in with old stoves and a lot of things. The gravel taken out of it was used to build the dam. And its apartments build over that area now.

No telling when that ground, you know, starts to sink. My other concern is the sidewalks. We were supposed to get sidewalks years ago. We got a few and two people can't walk side by side on them. We still don't have sidewalks right up here in the flats area, and there's not enough room if people are walking, two cars can't pass each other.

Where are the cars going to park? There's no areas for the cars to park. The circulation of air, with a lot of these tall buildings, I'm a retired nurse of fifty five years, and you need circulation to prevent the spread of disease. And if we get all these tall buildings, how is the air going to circulate? And I know you can't stop progress, but this is just some of my concerns.

People park on both sides of the street, they're on the sidewalks, and the car can't go down the street. Two cars can't pass each other going down the streets right here in the flats. The areas from, Liberty all the way to Fannon and then from Lamb Passes to Spring And Lewis Streets, they are all, too narrow for the extra traffic. And that's all I have to say. I just think a lot of you all need to know more of the history of what's here.

Thank you, miss Warren. Would you do us a favor real quick? Could you state your name and address before you leave just for the record, please?

I'm Ella Sauls Morrison. My childhood home is 608 Spring Street. I live at 2005 Walsh Drive, Round Rock.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay. I have Judy Anderson. Again, if you could, go ahead and state your name and address when you decide to come up or when you get up with the microphone. Thank you, ma'am.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Judy Anderson. My address is 1169 Renaissance Trail in Round Rock. I'm president of Round Rock Preservation and here speaking on behalf of our organization. There's been a great deal of preparation by the planning and department and development department with many public engagement meetings, gaining input and public comment, and we are very grateful for the time and energy, the dedication that they've invested in this rezoning project.

On behalf of Round Rock Preservation, I want to encourage you to ensure that those who still reside in the downtown area are not overlooked and that the development that's planned is thoughtfully considered for these individuals and families, just to reiterate what Ella was telling you. And then also the proposed increased density along May Street and Round Rock Avenue is troublesome to us, particularly the consideration of eight story buildings in those areas. I didn't realize when I put these thoughts together about the flow of air that Elle mentioned to you, that's really something to be concerned about, I think. So please consider the change carefully. Allowing that height for buildings in the main downtown area is excessive and would forever change the look and feel of Round Rock and destroy the efforts to preserve Round Rock's unique charm.

So thanks for your time tonight.

Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate it. Okay. Next we have Kathy Carter.

Hello, I'm Kathy Carter. I live at 606 Pecan Avenue, which is just downstream of Veterans Park. I have two things I want to discuss tonight. One is probably just a typo and should be really easy to foot. Can the overhead camera be turned on?

Can you turn on the overhead? So 624 Circle Avenue should probably be MUL instead of MU 2. I think that's just a typo. That should be easy to do. Next, I want to talk about MU2 zoning.

The one objection I have is something that I first brought up when it was proposed back in 2010 and 2011. At that time, the commission and city council wisely rejected it, and I hope you will reject it as well, and that is the proposal to disallow any new single family construction in MU 2. As far as I know, there have just been five new single family houses built in downtown since 2001. So that's roughly one per five years. I don't think this is a problem that needs to be solved.

The people who make the effort to do an infill custom house have to have a lot of persistence to do that. The rules are hard. It takes a long time. You have to deal with construction loans, which are very different from mortgage loans. Usually when people make this much effort, it's because they have a need that cannot be met by commercial builders in the subdivisions.

I have no disrespect for those commercial builders. They're really good at what they're doing, but they are not fulfilling all of the market needs. And I ask that you not cut off this opportunity for the few people who need to build a house that doesn't fit in a subdivision. If you look at this map of things that are in downtown right now, there's no scale. But there's a secret scale because this one lot that's here over the letters A And N in Pecan Avenue at the street is 100 feet wide.

And so you can use that 100 feet as a reference for all of the other lots in MU2. And what you'll see is that the MU2 lots that exist now and the lots that are proposed to be converted to MU2 are very small. I have one of the biggest MU2 lots. Most of these lots are much too small to be used for anything other than single family residential as they are. So if somebody owns just one lot and you say it's not allowed for new single family residential anymore, you've cut their feet out from under them. They don't have any route unless they can buy more property. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay, next we have and I hope I pronounced this right Maria, is it correct? Maria Calvin? Is it it looks like maybe an A? Memorial. I'm sorry. I I did not say that.

He's an Aggie, so Oh, he's allowed in. No, you're an Aggie. Oh. Oh, you're reading.

My name is Mario, m a r I o, Carleen. Let the records reflect that I've been a resident, lifelong resident here in Round Rock, born and raised. I have my wife here. We're at 205 East Milam. We're residents there, 205 East Milam.

I also would like the records to reflect that my mother's had a salon at, 411 Northland Passes since 1965, sixty five years this year. And I would like to just say that I'm picking it back off Kathy, and a couple of things that, I'm thinking here is that there would not be an opportunity for me to live next to my mother's salon if I didn't if y'all changed these rules about the homestead. And to me, that's a very powerful thing to live where your mother had a salon and everything. So I'm just saying that I'm not I don't like that idea or oppose that. And there's a lot of people there that are in the same situation that they've lived there for a long time.

Maybe some of those and there's a lot of Hispanics there that might wanna come and live where their parents lived at or they worked there and and had a lot of memories there. And so that's the that's the thing I'd just like to say and let the records reflect that my wife and I own four four lots there in in Downtown Round Rock. So we could probably combine something to make it work for something, but I don't think it would be if you own one lot, I don't see how you're going to get a commercial property on one lot in a lot of those small lots downtown. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. My apologies. I just sorry, I just couldn't read your writing. Okay. Brent Campbell.

Good evening. I'm Brent Campbell. I live at 2615 Brunston Court, but I've owned the property at 503 East Main since 1996, and I recently developed 107 South Lewis, which is between that property and the new McNeil extension. So I want to start just by saying that I met with Bradley and his staff a number of times, and we don't always disagree, but I respect them. I think they've worked really hard on this project, and so I want to tell them thank you, and I appreciate that.

So I just want to recognize all of the staff, because I think they worked really hard on this, And also because they put up with me most of the time. So I think I'm a proponent of this plan, not necessarily every detail. And I know different people here are going to have different opinions. Mine are as it relates Main Street and commercial. I've sold 20 I work for Don Quicke and Associates.

I've sold approximately 23 properties in downtown over the last five or six years, getting back to pre COVID. And so I just wanna give you some thoughts tonight of things to discuss as we're moving forward with whatever the decisions are on this plan. One of the biggest ones is water detention. I know we have a lot of issues down here with that. And if this is going to go forward, I would suggest there be a comprehensive plan of some kind of what we're going to do to meet the standards for TCEQ.

I think it's great that we have pretty pictures up here, we're talking about building all these different buildings in all these different places. But we to satisfy the state as well as our own local codes. And I just think it's a little unrealistic to be able to do that as things stand right now. I've expressed that to all these folks. And I just think it's something that PNC and council should be discussing. Because I know, to Bradley's point, a lot of the infrastructure comes later, but it doesn't matter if we have a plan if we can't build any of it. So that's pretty important. The second one is parking. Right now, I lost a tenant down here on East Main at 05:03. I'm retenning that.

It's been vacant for almost eleven months. And one of the reasons is because there's just not enough parking. I'm about to talk out of two sides of my mouth though because I'm gonna talk about downtown events also. So we have a lot of right of way in a lot of different places that can be easily accessible. And maybe I know there were concerns about additional development or density in the flats.

East Main could develop exactly like West Main if we had additional parking options. A lot of those homes I think from here to Georgetown Street, there are approximately nine homes that are still being lived in. The rest of you are already gone commercial or transitioning to commercial. And the price values down there for residential are in the 200s, maybe $2.50 versus commercial properties that would trade at closer to 700. So that's something important for you to understand.

Because if people are going to sell their properties, they're likely to sell it at the highest value, which is commercial within the current existing code and the future codes that we're talking about. With that being said, as we get more commercial development, and I'm just speaking to the area that I'm in down here on the East Side, we have to figure out a parking plan. And I know I spoke to counsel and I maybe came to speak with PNC about this a while back, kind of right after the parking garage got put in. Is there any way I can finish just a few more minutes?

You guys good with that? Extending time? You all good? Okay. Go ahead.

I'll try to be quick. The parking garage satisfies a number of blocks down here, but it doesn't satisfy the entire district that we're talking about. So I think there should be a comprehensive look at parking. I'm sure that will happen, but as we're gonna approve or potentially approve a plan like this, I think that should be something to very much be taken into consideration. It's already a problem, and it's gonna become more of a problem as we increase density. So that's something to consider. And then the final one is events. Tonight, it was mentioned that, you know, we want to have more event oriented downtown. However, I think council needs to really and PNC can relay this to council, I'll relay it to council, and this goes to council. If we're going to talk about having events, we've moved a lot of our events out of downtown, not all of them, but a lot of them, out of downtown and two old settlers.

I had a tenant that didn't make it. We moved Christmas family night, and their store that was down in East Main didn't have that night to sell things. So I think as a community, we need to decide whether or not we're going to I know it's hard because of parking, because of access, to have events in downtown. But we need to decide as a community if we're going to have events downtown or we're going have events at Old Settlers. It's Okay to have both, but if we're going to do it downtown, then we have to have a plan for that. That's pretty much all I had to say, kind of those three things. I think we should be thinking about those items as we're deciding whether or not to adopt this. But I appreciate your time, and I'll answer any questions if you have any.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Patty Jordan.

Hello.

Good evening.

I'm Patty Jordan and I live at 207 North Stone which is between Liberty and Austin on North Stone. It is one of the streets that's not, curbed and guttered are, you know, that a lot like Ms. Ellis says down in the flats. They don't have curbs either. That's not my main thing. I'm really interested, and this may be a really naive question, but I'm very interested in knowing how any kind of rezoning impacts taxes.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am. Is that it? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Again, I hope I pronounced this right. Is it, Sherland Priest? Evening. You go ahead and state your name and address, please,

for the record. Alright. Let's see if we can

hello.

Better. It may be the proximity of people's mouths from the microphone causing all that loss of sound. I did try to talk to the man in the back, and he was he was nice about trying to turn it up. But in this auditorium, get your money back because the people that designed it, you can't hear more than four rows back there. I'm not hard of hearing. I can hear myself now. But just as a recommendation, that's why we get a lot of sleepers. They just can't hear what's going down. I didn't hear the first woman at all, and I I moved up here. So that's my opinion, you know, and you got it.

You know, I just I'd like to hear what's going on. Round Rock has been a home for me for a long time, back since about, I don't know, nineteen seventy seven ish. I really enjoyed the the city, kind of fell in love with it. It was a wonderful slower paced place that reminded me of East Lansing, Michigan. It was a nice nice place to be.

You see these big universities, and people are lounging out on the on the grass out on the campus, and they're enjoying themselves reading a book or something like that. They're not worried about being mugged, thugged, robbed, whether or not a bomb's gonna go off because some political factions out there. Round Rock has been a nice place in contrast with Austin. It has been a place to be a haven to live in Round Rock and not have to to go there. The old timers and the and the settlers, the old settlers, I knew a lady that was eight years old that walked beside her mother and dad's wagon, and that's how she that's how she got here.

She explained the whole thing to me. I talked to the folks that knew about the Sam Bass thing, how he was over in the in the where that Pony Express station is about three houses down hiding in a root cellar. You won't hear that in any book or whatever. I don't wanna make people angry. I'm just saying it didn't happen on television. I watched that show too. Pretty pretty happy to say, look that movie on TV. It's Round Rock, and I was kind of, like, proud of that. I was living in a place on a TV movie. But I'm not trying to ramble too much.

I'm just trying to say where I'm coming from on this. We've went through a lot of, we've went through a lot of changes. But Round Rock, to the people who have lived here, and I I just I was swelling with pride with the people that walked up, the elderly people, the people that are of a little bit of experience with the town. If we're if we're in such a place that nobody's from Round Rock, nobody's lived here, and this is coming from California, or I don't know where, some place where this plan seems to be pointing us to be another sprawling thing. And I look at the plans, we can have four different kinds of buildings or something like that.

But what resident who's lived here fifty, sixty years can afford to put in a flat top eight story building? None that I know. And the curbs and the parking, we're trying to pull in density. That is to say that I don't know what this is.

But I'm sorry, you're Is that

the same month? Is it the same month?

Yes, sir, your time is up. Okay.

Well, I just wanna say, please just send those very intelligent ladies back to those drawing boards and come up with a better way to make this the it won't be a lie that this is a cowboy historical district, but if we get rid of all the real cowboys and we bring in a bunch of people from Los Angeles, we're gonna be the Los Angeles District, and there won't be any history and nothing to come and look at. And if these big high rises are empty because of local political changes in our country, if they're empty, what good does that do but like the empty buildings in China? Nobody living in them. I don't know I don't know what to do. So I I would like to live in Round Rock.

I would like to be proud to live here, but this is not Round Rock on that proposal, and and the time limit is they can just go back and look at what what people talked about and submit another plan. It doesn't mean we have to vote on this today.

We appreciate your comments. Would you mind stating your name and address

for the record, please? Sorry. I can't hear you.

I said we appreciate your comments. Would you mind stating your name and address for the record, please?

I'm sorry. May I approach just to hear?

I'm sorry. Would you mind stating your name and address for the record, please?

Sure. Charlene Priest. And your address? I don't have an address currently.

Okay. Alright.

I would like to, and I have had. But right now, I am in a position where all

happy Okay.

A lot of people when they get older.

Very good, sir. Well, thank you very much for your comments. We duly noted.

The head of the committee committee or or commission, commission, the the mayor, mayor, I I I I don't don't know know what what what your what your your title title is. Is.

Neither do I. No. I'm just the chair.

That is a fair answer, and

I appreciate you for that.

Thank you, sir. Very good. Thank you very much. Ramsey Andrews. I just want to check-in, is the audience can y'all can y'all hear us plain and clear? We good? I do want to make sure everybody's good. I got a thumbs up in the back. Gig them to you too, sir. You had to throw I had to throw it in there.

I mean, you know. Hi.

Oh, wow. Hello. My name is Ramsey Andrews. I live at 606 East Main Street, the little yellow house. I had a couple of things I wanted to talk about when Brett said that there's only about nine families that live on East Main Street. We're one of them. We love our little house. We love the fact that most of the people in our neighborhood have been here for a long time, and we would like to see it stay mostly residential. We understand that might not be the case, but I'm a little concerned about the changes to the along Main Street, especially I guess it's a 500 block. There's the two houses that look like they're not inhabited right there.

So I'm concerned that they're going to change those into apartments. My other concern is the fact that there will be a lot of congestion on Georgetown. The bridge is small. It already gets backed up over there. And, yeah. So that's another issue that I have. But I do like a lot of the changes, but I would like to see it still residential in that area. I like seeing my neighbors walk their dogs. I like, people picking tomatoes off our plants, and I'd like to see that same feel. And that's all that I ask from you guys. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Again, I'm fixing the call, I I guess, or maybe our last one. Are we gonna we got if you you know, if you're here, that just we're still public hearing. You still go on. If you would like to speak for or against, be sure and fill out a card, hand it to Cecilia so we can get you

on. I just give you

No. I've I've got that's what I'm saying. I've got my last one. I'm fixing the call. I just wanna make sure

Oh, okay.

To give everybody ample time if if they if there's more coming to go ahead and get their cards for you. Leah Clark.

Hi there. My name is Leah Clark. I'm at 405 Dove Haven, just across the railroad tracks here. First, I just want to say thank you to city staff. They've been wonderful at engagement, and I'm thankful for all of you. I know this is an important and difficult role for you. My concerns about this entire plan is that it feels like we're sort of pouring gas on a fire, and we don't know how that fire is going to burn. It feels like it's a huge sea change without really thinking through a lot of significant impacts for infrastructure. We live across, you know, in Burnet and Dove Creek. You all have already approved a pretty significant development that we'll be dumping onto Logan.

We're already feeling tremendous impacts through our neighborhood just because of AW traffic and Gattis School. So our neighborhood will be squeezed entirely by all the density that's going to go in in the downtown footprint. These people will all be leaving to go to work and coming home from work at the same time. They don't live in, you know, we're going to dump 1,000 people who are all going to work somewhere else, most likely. That's a lot of traffic on these roads that are not meant for that much traffic.

And I would just say our other concerns are about the need for downtown police, what the impacts will be for just how our, you know, basic, I think, public safety goes in the downtown footprint. If there's ways to require developers to pay a little bit more so that we as taxpayers aren't paying for this, I think growth should pay for growth. So, those are our main concerns. I would echo the other concerns that were expressed here tonight, and I appreciate y'all's time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, ma'am. I'm going to try my best. Christine Bouley? Bouley. Bouley. I was close.

No. No? Sorry?

Bob was close. I was trying.

Yeah.

So hi. Thank you for having us today. I'm going to keep this very short and sweet. I do want to ask again or reiterate a question a lady had because this has been on my mind. How is this going to affect our property taxes? So are you allowed to answer us now or is this just for us to get our seal and something for you to consider?

No ma'am, this is not. We can't really have a back and forth. We wanna listen, we're gonna take some notes, then we'll have to open discussion. You may be called back up if you wanna have discussion, but right now we're just listening and taking notes. We're not here to have a back and forth at this particular time.

Okay.

Not yet. I'm sorry?

Not yet.

Okay. So, we are already heavily burdened by property taxes right now, as you know, with increasing every year. And it's getting to the point where many of us will be coming afraid we're going to be completely taxed out of our homes. Because legally, even if we pay our homes off, we can be taxed out. If the tax burden gets so great and we can't cover that tax burden, the government can take our homes. So, I do want to know how this is going to affect us. And I also want to know, with all due respect, is anybody on this board going to profit from these changes? So please just keep this in mind, and I would like everybody else to think about this too. Because if there is someone going to profit it, that's a a huge conflict of interest. Interest.

So please just be transparent, be completely honest with us. Okay. Thank you. That's pretty much my spiel.

Could you go ahead and state your name and address

for I'm group Bula. I'm at 612 Circle Avenue.

Okay, thank you ma'am.

Thank you.

Cece, are we good?

Yeah, that's it.

Okay. Okay. So we will close the public hearing right now. We'll move to commissioner discussions. Vice Chair Bone.

I want to thank the city for the presentation. I also want to thank all of y'all for being here tonight. A lot of times we have fifteen minute meetings, and we get stuff done, but they're kind of fifteen minutes long. And this is when this job or this role as an opportunity to really feel like we're digging in and working for the community is really frankly rewarding. So I thank you all for taking time out of your evening to be here.

I listened to the presentation. I listened to the comments that came forward. I have quick questions. Joelle, on your presentation, I just have a few quick questions. Small scale manufacturing, can you give me an example of what small scale manufacturing is?

I think it could be a variety of things, production of some, good. We see that with pottery downtown. There's the Bell collection that produces and sells goods as well. So it's typically some it tends to be an artisan item.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. That helps. I need visuals.

In the discussion about MU2, you made the comment that C1 already allows nine to 12 story buildings of nine to 12 stories along I-thirty 5. Do we have any nine to 12 story buildings along I 35 right now that you're aware of?

I think the ones are are they eight with the

Nothing along I 35 Okay. Reaching that height.

Okay. So how long how long has that allowance been in place for c one to allow? I mean, how long have we had that in place?

2002. 2002.

So twenty three years?

Okay.

On the single family, it says new single family uses are prohibited existing, but existing can expand. I'm a little confused, because you said they can't rebuild?

They can rebuild.

Can rebuild if there's some dramatic thing that happens.

Correct. It's different than a nonconforming use that becomes not able to expand. With the single family, if you are existing, you can add on with no limit, and you could rebuild if your, property were damaged or destroyed.

What about renovating? What about I mean, that in the same as

As you long as you're living there currently as single family, it would just impact new single family coming in.

Okay. MUL, there was the existing, it says the front front setback is contextual. I hate to sound like an Aggie. What does that mean?

So that means and and it wasn't clear. So that's the existing language, says contextual, which means you take the surrounding properties and you can make your front setback similar to that. So instead, we're proposing saying fifteen minuteimum, twenty five maximum, which we did by measuring the front setbacks of all of the structures down there, and then taking that out.

Okay, so right now, it's just in context with what's around it?

Correct, we're trying to be more explicit with that.

Okay, very good, thank you. I have more comments, but I want to listen to my other commissioners talk real quick before I get into those, if that's okay.

And for the record, knew what that word meant already, so. Vice Chair, Vice Chair Dominguez.

Thank you. I don't know if my mic is working. Okay, cool. I'm gonna fire a few that should be fairly quick. On MU one for the historic, I guess these are ones that have historic overlay. Well, there's you can build new properties there that have to be compatible with historic properties. But can you kind of talk to me about what that means? Like, does that mean, compatible? I seem to recall there's, like, limits if you can't, like, carbon copy what the historic buildings look like. But just in general terms, what does that mean?

So for this is specific to new construction In MU1, historic in MU1. Yes.

And it said something about compatibility to the historic Right.

But not imitated. That's the current language. We're trying to be more explicit going forward, saying that we're going to review these proposals against our commercial historic design guidelines, which are the guidelines that we use for existing historic properties to review alterations to their exteriors. So we would be using that same set of guidelines, for new construction. So we don't want it to look like it's we don't want to confuse people into thinking that it's a historic building. That's not the goal. But the goal is to provide some scale and that interaction with the street that we're looking for with new downtown, and then, you know, structures in MU1.

Okay.

So there's some variety that can be Sure. Had with that, but we would be looking to those historic design guidelines to help us with that compatibility judgment.

Got it. Ultimately, the city decides if it fits. Is it too close to imitating historic or not? Like, you're going to make that judgment call when that design Correct.

That's exactly what we would do for a historic building as well.

Okay. Next is, it said a three foot deep recessed entry for the MU one. Is that a just a set? Is that a minimum or maximum? What is that?

That's a minimum. So a recessed entry on new construction, we're talking about again in MU1. That's something that is common, for a more traditional design to have that recessed entry. So, that's, one specific that we're proposing construction.

Okay. So you could have some that are three, some that are five? Correct.

Yes. Minimum of three feet.

Okay. And then regarding the small scale manufacturing, you said that it had to have some amount of retail.

Or

I should say, you said it had retail. Is there an amount? Like, are we just saying it's just some component of retail? How do we measure that? Is it just like they have a little front store where they sell one item? Is it just how do you define retail?

Specify. It says on-site retail component for direct sales to consumers required.

Okay. I just kind of wonder if that's something that can be, you know, sort of games, right? If I have small scale manufacturing and I have one item for sale in the front and that meets the definition for retail, but it's really that we're kind of gray with what exactly small scale manufacturing is. And I imagine people with three d printers and all kinds of like you said, the art stuff. But I just kind of wonder if that vagueness might become a problem down the road with the retail component.

So like with maybe this is not a good example, but like with the bars and restaurants, we we say like how much has to be in a restaurant and that type of thing to prohibit just a bar. But with manufacturing, I mean, I just sort of wonder if like maybe that could be a can of worms we might be opening by not being specific on what that means, retail. And maybe it's a amount of square feet or something, you know, because I like the spirit of it. Like, hey, somebody's manufacturing something artistic and you could come and buy it. But if I just wonder if the vagueness maybe leaves some room for people to make it all manufacturing and, again, have one item, one SKU, and it misses what the spirit of what we're trying to do.

Hopefully, that makes sense what I'm saying. Yes. So just something to think about. I'm not looking for a specific answer now, we can talk about as we can continue on. Regarding the the MU 2 and the Building 3 type, we I may have missed it, was there is there a step back from the primary frontage that's required a minimum for building type three?

So I believe it's zero to 10, is that correct?

For type three, it's it'd be the same for all building types

here. In MU2.

So 10 foot maximum for building types two through four.

For

building type one, it would be a maximum of 15 feet setback.

JULIET DUNN: Okay. Thank you. Let's see, and then moving on, I'm okay with that by the way, just wanted to note what it was. Regarding the infill, the single family residence comments that were made about, hey, lots are small. I mean, it was mentioned that this was rejected before. Can we share some opinions from the city as to what your thoughts are on that? And I think the comment was made has only been five in the last five years. Do we agree with that? I mean, do we feel like it's a big impact restricting single family homes on those lots in MU 2?

Yeah. The thinking behind the prohibition on new single family construction on vacant lots in MU 2 is really just to bring more more activity, more business, and more density as well to to downtown. So while a single family home would be prohibited or new construction of one, there are still other types of residential that could be constructed, such as duplex and townhome and even multi family upper story residential. But it also provides more opportunity for people to locate downtown to start a business as well.

Got it. I think, you know, in general, it sort of looks I mean, it's small building kind of office sort of resembles and it's this is one of the ones with the peaks on it. Right? It has the the the peak roof and everything?

The building type one. Yes.

Yes. Okay. Okay. I mean, it's probably a tough one. It's like that's one that just not everybody can be happy with. It's just and I understand there's some that, you know, we're probably not gonna attract new homeowners, but the people that own lots on them now that that maybe there's a dilapidated home and there's or there there's nothing on it now. If they hold that property, they own it today, they can still build a home on it in the future. Is that correct?

Not under the proposed regulation. If it's currently a vacant lot that does not already have a home on it. If it were to be passed as written, as proposed, then a home could not be built there.

Thank you for clarifying that. I think the last two things I have is the a lot of comments on infrastructure. And I know it says in there, like, the city will figure it out later kind of thing. And it, you know, it's a tough one. It's like, hey, come in here, we're saying like, we want all these roads, and we want police, we want all these things. And I know it's hard to get a commitment, you know, now is what we need. But what kind of thoughts have been had about, you know, impacted traffic? And have we thought about, okay, well, this particular area is gonna be impacted first. So has the traffic plan been thought about as far as what what might need to be done first and prioritizing some of that infrastructure issue? And then also, detention ponds and all of that. Like, can you touch on that at a high level?

Sure. Yeah. And that's really the reason why we are trying to confine the taller buildings, the higher density to those corridors along Mays and along Round Rock Avenue because they already have the existing infrastructure to to be able to handle a higher volume of traffic. That's why we're not proposing them further out into the neighborhood or to the east where the rights of way are narrower, where we don't have curb and gutter, where the streets are very narrow. We wanna set up that development where the infrastructure is is essentially almost ready for it.

But, you know, that kind of leads into the next point about drainage and sometimes even utilities. You know, every lot and every proposed development has to be evaluated in its own unique geographical situation. There might need to be some regional or large big picture drainage solutions that are that are sought and and proposed for downtown. But at the same time, there are a lot of properties that can be built on right now that either could discharge their flows to the creek if they can provide or sorry. Prove that that flow or those increased flows wouldn't cause any adverse impact. But, you know, at the same time, they could they might need to propose or have some type of on-site detention, but they would be required to send us a study showing one way or the other what they're going to be doing because we can verify that and approve that.

Do you feel like the for for detention that the fact that we have the creek in so close proximity helps us in in a lot of this and our plan for water flow into the creek?

Well, we already know that there are some downstream flooding issues and concerns on Brushy Creek, so there's no situation in which a large development is gonna be able to come in, pave a lot, and just send all of its flows to the creek undetained. So that's kind of where some of our big picture looking and thinking at the creek and even further downstream of the creek of some improvements the city could do to help increase that regional capacity for for storm water conveyance.

Thank you. And, you know, a lot I asked some of these questions, not not only for my benefit, for the benefit of the folks that came and spoke. So thank you for clarifying that. The last one I had is another one of these questions that came up more than once about taxes. You know, that's I'll leave it to you. This is sort of a an opening question to explain how it impacts of taxes to these zoning changes.

Mhmm.

Sure. Yeah. So the Williamson Central Appraisal District is the body that that, you know, creates the or says the appraisal appraised values of the properties. They don't look at zoning necessarily. They look at the how the property is being used.

So a lot of properties in downtown are already zoned for mixed use, but that is not reflected in an appraised value. They look at how the property is being used. Then if it converts, then that valuation will be changed for that future owner or for that future use. But just because some zoning is going to change doesn't mean the property is going to be assessed differently just because it has different zoning. However, we do we we we'll still acknowledge as Brent, mister Campbell was mentioning that, you know, if a property nearby is gonna be sold at a higher value because somebody is trying to get a commercial valuation out of that, we can't ignore that there could be, you know, further downstream impacts on other properties as well. But the point remains that if you're occupying your property as a residence, it will be assessed as a residence and not as a commercial property.

Thank you. The last, I'll just make some comments. You know, the if you've heard me talk before, you know, I talk a lot about trees and greenery. So landscape's a big deal for me. I looked through this plan and, you know, it seems like you guys are thinking about landscape. You're thinking about making Round Rock, keeping Round Rock green. I saw some stuff in here regarding those requirements. I won't make you go into it, but that's an important factor for me. And then, know, like some of these folks mentioned, you know, I came to Round Rock because it's beautiful. Downtown's beautiful.

We've got historic buildings that I just think are just gorgeous. I think that's what really gives Round Rock a true character. I appreciate that that during this process that we've taken the time to think about the historic overlay and what we're gonna do to protect that. And if looking at that map, it's kinda scattered. We've we've we've you guys have done, I think done a really nice job in protecting the historic components to to to downtown. Listen, it's hard. Everybody here has an opinion. It's really gonna be hard to make every single person happy in this town, especially the one downtown. Progress is inevitable. I feel like it's certainly needed growth in Round Rock.

Secret's out, Round Rock's not a secret anymore. And so the growth is necessary. I personally think you guys have done a great job, you know, with several components of this. I mentioned a couple of my concerns. The one with the manufacturing, the small manufacturing, I think is something I would appreciate just a tiny little bit more clarity on kind of what that really means. But again, I know this is difficult and I just appreciate you all's hard work and hearing everybody out.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Emerson.

Thank you. First of all, I want to say thanks, Brad, to your team and to the department for answering all my questions last week over the phone. I greatly appreciate that. I do have a couple of questions, but I think I'm gonna pass on those right now and talk about some of the questions that were brought up about the traffic. I know you probably can't really directly speak on some of these issues, like, a commissioner, I think, Mengus had talked about that he had brought up about the property tax burden as well. I think you did a great job of explaining that. But what about the traffic in some instance as well? Can you speak about that as well?

Yeah. I think, you know, in the big picture, something that I neglected to mention earlier is the city's roadway impact fee ordinance. So every new development or even a a change of use or conversion to something more intense or more dense will have to pay a roadway impact fee to the city. And so for a lot of these taller or more dense developments that that could be, you know, permitted in the future, they would have a very large roadway impact fee bill. The city would be able to use that money to make regional improvements to the roadway system to help accommodate this growth. That's just, you know, impact fees in general are one important way that we try and make sure that development pays for itself. So I apologize for not mentioning that earlier, but these developments will have to pay a hefty roadway impact fee that we could use towards improvements on Mays or Round Rock Avenue or other roadways as well.

Thank you, Ed.

Sorry about that. Thanks for your response. But another question, I know during the survey that I attended, they talked about poor lighting. Can we address that as well or not? And some of the areas Yeah.

That would just have to as well.

Sure. Yeah. That would just have to be part of a, know, an infrastructure improvement that city council would need to prioritize and and direct funding to. There are a number of of things or or, know, places and different components to infrastructure throughout downtown. So it'll be important, you know, for staff to be able to kinda summarize all those and and be able to have council to be able to prioritize that.

But lighting is a part of it. Whenever a new development comes in and there's not existing sidewalks or sidewalks are subpar, they would be required to upgrade the sidewalk in front of their property, especially if it's one of the larger developments. If there's a development that wants to come in and build it, you know, on a whole city block and build a tall building, they would be required to improve the sidewalks, make other streetscape improvements like street trees, you know, benches, and other landscaping to make sure it's a really truly pedestrian oriented and pedestrian friendly environment.

You very much. I'm a hold off on my other questions until now, and thank you. Commissioner Mimic.

Thank you. So maybe we should clarify some of the items that were asked of us from the audience. So first, I think it's important for everyone to understand that we all have to fill out conflict of interest form prior to any of these meetings. So if if we do have a personal conflict of interest with what we do in our profession and personal life, that we abstain ourselves from any kind of engagement. I think that's one of the more important topics to cover here tonight. So with all of us sitting here tonight, that means none of us have a personal conflict of interest of any kind.

Well, that's this prime example is exactly why mister Went has abstained from this particular item on the on the docket.

That's correct. And so that that was one item that I noted. We answered the question of property taxes, and I think that was a good one. Brad, maybe you could in relation to property taxes, I think there was a question about homestead exemptions as well with I I believe none none of that would change as well, correct, for residential residences?

Correct. Yeah. Anybody in their bona fide residence can claim the homestead exemption, and there are other exemptions as well that are available to people if they qualify, such as the the 65 disabled exemptions and others that could be applied to.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Okay. We'll move on to more of the varying topics that were covered and discussed as well. So during this analysis, do you believe that this recommendation brings us closer to the 2030 plan? Yes. Okay. Maybe for the edification of the audience, can we just at a high level discuss what that is?

Yeah. Actually, I'll let Joe handle that one. He's our long range planning manager and, really the keeper of the comprehensive plan and the and the project leader

So we do have that policy in the comprehensive plan, that is a downtown specific policy that I mentioned, at the beginning of the presentation, which says that the goal is to manage and guide the revitalization of downtown as a safe and pedestrian friendly community destination for all. So we feel that these amendments uphold the intent of that policy. And as well, there was an implementation strategy included in the plan that talks about reevaluating the downtown mixed use districts now that it's been twelve years. So we're also doing that as part of meeting the implementation of the plan.

Thank you. One of the bigger changes that I saw was the increase of density along the corridor of May Street and Round Rock Avenue, along with the proposed new and expanded use of along Main And Georgetown Street. I would say those are probably the more impactful changes. Correct? Agree. What level of analysis was performed on infrastructure to outside of traffic to support a higher density and and larger buildings being developed in that corridor?

Sure. Yeah. We haven't done a comprehensive analysis of every block and every property in downtown to determine the utility capacity available to each and every one. We understand that if a taller building is gonna go in, that we would need to see how much water and water pressure is available to that, if they're gonna have to sprinkle the building and get water pressure all the way up to the top. And so, like I mentioned, there would need to be some, you know, other studies looking at the capacity of water, of wastewater, of drainage in those areas before we're really truly able to accommodate an influx of larger, more dense developments.

But, you know, as I mentioned at the kind of the beginning in my in my preamble, this is one one aspect, the land use aspect of the larger puzzle of downtown, and so infrastructure is vitally important. We're not gonna have the increased density and the taller buildings if the infrastructure can't handle it. And so that's something that we're going to be working with other city departments on and with city council as well so that we can prioritize some of those improvements.

Alright. Thank you for that. So it's a great segue into my next question, which which relates to water towers. Right? One of my favorite things to see in the city of Round Rock is our water tower, and I can see it all the way from my house.

I live close to the Forest Creek area, and so all all of us as commissioners live in the ETJ and Round Rock. So we are all volunteers on this body. We're here to help our community and represent the community and try to give back. So with with with that water tower that we have it is, I would say, one of the one of my favorite things to see, especially during the holidays. What protections are being put in place to preserve the skyline and corridor with the development that's being proposed with the Along Ground Rock and May Street?

Yeah. So the the water tower itself, like, to its its very peak is 138 plus feet, and then really kind of the the bulk of the water tower kinda starts really at 109, 110 feet going up to 138. So I think the the height limit that we have proposed in that corridor for the eight stories, that is a 110 feet. Is that correct, Steph? If we're oh, it is one forty.

Okay. Yes. So the tallest buildings that could be constructed along Round Rock Avenue and along Maze could potentially be about the same height as the water tower. So we have to acknowledge that from certain perspectives or certain angles that the water tower views would be obstructed. But given the the limited scope of where those corridors are, we're not gonna be blocking views of the water tower from everybody. And again, that is only under the assumption that everything is fully built out. Every property is built to its full height potential. Oh, sorry. I was corrected again. It was 110 feet. So even the eight story buildings that are could be constructed under this proposal along Mays And Round Rock Avenue would not be taller than or even as tall as the water tower.

Okay. That gives everyone good perspective on

Let me let me interject if I could just for a minute. I'm not trying to shut anybody down here, but let's make sure we understand what we're here to do, what this particular item is. This is a proposal to change the code itself, right? This isn't actually changing the zoning of anything. This is changing the code that gives us the authority to change the zone if we should. And there's a whole barrage of processes that still have to go through. It's got to go through development. It's got to go through planning. It's got to go through engineering. It's got to go through utilities and everything else of the woulda, coulda's, and shoulda of what can, what can be built, if it can be built.

All we're trying to do here is just to understand what we want the code to say for the possibilities of things to do. Not that your questions or anybody's questions here is any, you know, that is not relevant to what we're talking about. I just wanna make sure we maintain focus on what this particular item is for. Make sense?

Yeah, makes sense. I'm just trying to help No,

no, no. I'm It's an identification of the questions that we I totally agree. We kept we were talking about things where, well, what if this happens? This happens. That's great. Unfortunately, that's not what this particular item is here to be voted on. Does that make sense? So, whether it can or can't happen should not have a bearing on what our vote should be is my point.

That's correct. It's our duty, though, to educate them.

I know. And again, I think you're great, and I just want to make sure we stay on task. That's all.

Absolutely. Final question. If infrastructure upgrades are required to accommodate the higher density, one of the questions we heard from the audience, and maybe we can expand on that a little bit, is the funding source for some of that. It relates to roads as well, but maybe you could expand on that.

Yeah. So typically, if a development is proposed for a property that doesn't have adequate infrastructure for it, whether it's a a water main that's undersized or a wastewater main that is kind of at its capacity and can't handle more, typically, that development is or that developer is responsible for pry providing those necessary upgrades. That's the way it would be in downtown as well. However, that's another thing that we could that could be proposed to city council as part of a larger slate of infrastructure improvements is larger scale or block by block improvements for the city to be proactive and to get that done to try and help spur some of that development.

K.

But, typically, the way that normal development process goes is that if if a development needs more than is available there, they're responsible for making those upgrades.

Thank you. No. That was not directed directly towards you, and that's probably something I should have said in the beginning because I could tell a lot of these questions that the that our citizens of Round Rock want to know are later on down the process line, but still are somewhat valid to what we're here for. Commissioner Humphrey.

Thank you. Well, one thing I'd like to say is this is there's a lot of work into this plan. I think you guys have handled a tough project and appreciate all the hard work you put in. I wanted to say something that go over something Brad said, summarize it. And there was a question made about whether the growth should pay for growth, and that's the impact fees we talked about. So you mentioned the road fees, but we didn't mention the water fees. So if there is a need, there is a funding source for those improvements. Is that correct?

That is correct. You know, so I did mention the roadway impact fee. We also have water and wastewater impact fees for newer development or whether it's infill development or development on a greenfield or an undeveloped lot elsewhere outside the city. Those developments are required to pay those impact fees. That helps the city keep up with water treatment capacity and wastewater treatment capacity and build out of the ultimate system for for the whole city.

Very good. I had a question, more of curiosity about the POPs, the public areas. So that'll be part of the the permitting process, what type of POP is. But who's responsible for maintaining that?

So the private developer would be responsible for maintaining that. Okay. It just has to be accessible to the public.

And I was going to say something about parking and traffic, but everybody else already has. Thank you very much.

Excuse me. Hang on. I'll get there. Commissioner Huckabay.

Yes. Thank you. The first question is kind of why we're here. Like, what prompted this change in the first place?

Yeah. A couple of years ago, staff was approached, with a development proposal for something that was taller and more dense than was currently allowed in downtown. And instead of asking or really forcing that developer to submit a development application for planned unit development and go through that process, we really thought it would be more appropriate to look take a step back and look at downtown as a whole. Going back to our comprehensive plan that we have in place with its emphasis on downtown, considering city council strategic goals for downtown, and knowing that we were a decade removed from the first time that we had created these mixed use zoning districts, we want to kind of go back and and see in this whole scale, you know, evaluation of downtown. Are the current development standards and and zoning standards that we have in place adequate for our ultimate goals for downtown?

Are they accomplishing the vision that city council has for downtown? And so instead of just trying to do a piecemeal approach to density saying maybe there and maybe there, but only as the property owner comes in and they each one have to get a rezoning, let's look at it all at once and take a more comprehensive and holistic approach to it. And so I approached city council at a pre retreat in 2023 with that idea. Let's just reevaluate all of downtown overall and kind of do this sort of all at once instead of trying a piecemeal approach, and they gave us the green light to go ahead and do that. So for the last, you know, year and a half or so, we've really been working hard to reach this point right now.

Perfect.

Thank you. And then one other question is some of the prohibited uses for the districts. Most of those are pretty easy to understand except for is there a definition for game rooms? Like, what does that exactly mean?

There's a state definition for gamer, so we're gonna look it up.

Generally, it's intended mostly for for the card halls, the poker rooms, not necessarily for, like a a place in establishment that just has some arcade games.

We have a separate definition for indoor entertainment, which is your movie theaters, bowling alleys, arcades. That's separate.

Okay. Thank you. And I know there was a question about parking. Don't do we know if there's any plans in the future for additional parking garages or anything? I know there's, three in the downtown area. But

We don't have plans, excuse me, for any additional parking garages at the moment. There will be some additional surface parking put in in a couple different parts of downtown. I know for sure the city is at the very beginning stages of of design preliminary design for improvements along the length of Shepherd Street moving north from the library to Fannin Avenue and then kinda working away working over towards Veterans Park where the Heritage Trail will be connecting in there. And as part of those improvements, there the city has acquired a couple of lots up on Fannin that will be used for surface parking, but there are no other plans for public parking garages.

Thank you.

We have a tally of parking downtown also. So we have trying to decipher the table. Hold on one second. So total city managed parking spaces, 1,853 currently downtown. That doesn't include, those proposed lots that he was mentioning, but that does include the public parking garages as well as on street parking.

Perfect. Thank you.

And I think, you know, it's worth keeping in mind that just because for for many of our downtown uses that we're not requiring on-site parking, we're not prohibiting a developer from providing on-site parking for their tenants. And that's just a decision that we do have to leave in the hands of that property owner, and up to their what they perceive would be good for their business.

That's all I had. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Bone, you look like you've got some, further discussion you would like to unveil. Do you have some questions? No. I'll I'll I'll save the best for last.

You know, I've called Round Rock home for the past thirty one years. I'm a native Texan. I don't think any of us are from Los Angeles. And I've loved living in Round Rock because we have a unique history, we have a great history that makes Round Rock what it is. I also want to acknowledge the tremendous leadership we've had over the many years that has kept Round Rock not just vibrant, but also really relatively an affordable place to live, especially compared to our neighboring cities.

I'm not pointing fingers, but it is what it is. We've got one of the lowest tax rates in the area, and it's been careful stewardship that allows us to consider changes like this one really, really thoughtfully to keep our community both forward looking and welcoming and staying Round Rock. I grew up in Houston, I'm not gonna go into that, but when I came here to live and work and play, Round Rock welcomed me and my family. I take this very seriously because I do want to maintain what we have as a, we would want to call a small town feel, but we're not a small town. And there's a reason that there's growth going on here because this is a great place to live and work and play.

It's never easy. It's never easy to arrive at that balance. But this is what it's about, it's about balance. And I'm extremely sensitive to all areas of our wonderful city. I appreciate the fact that we have a historic overlay that allows us to maintain and keep the historic areas of our city the way they are.

And it's why I'm up here. I take this very seriously. I love being part of the process. That's all I wanted to say.

Very well spoken. Any other discussion, commissioner discussion? Anybody else good? A lot of questions, a lot of things talked about. The one that I did want to make sure I had a question, MU2, make sure I've got it right. Let me borrow the map there. Yep. Yeah. The MU two stuff that's got all the vacant lots that have been talked about. I think it was discussion about the vacant lots, the size, and somebody brought up a concern.

I don't know if we had this do we know how long those lots have been vacant? Did they ever had anything on them, any structure, any type of structure on them before?

I'm sure, you know, we could comb through various records and figure it out, but you don't have that handy.

But they've been vacant for as far as I could remember. So I was just curious what you know, if there was development around there. I think we kinda covered everybody's concerns, at least talking about what we what we can talk about and discuss as far as what we're voting on. I don't I think everything was covered. So with that, I will so no more discussion. I'll entertain a motion to, approve or disapprove item f one. Do I have a motion?

I feel like a motion's inevitable. So I just want to I would like to motion with the I have made the one suggestion regarding the small scale manufacturing and coming up with some way to measure retail. I know that's not a big ask and I'm not making big changes here, but my motion would include some specificity to what retail is in small scale manufacturing. Other than that, I would motion approval with that.

Well, you you you can't have both, unfortunately. You either got a motion for approval of what's on the deal. You can make a change.

Well, I I think, you know, I think we've heard that that it would be very important and helpful to anybody who might wanna open up that use in downtown for that to be a very clearly defined requirement. So that's something that I think we should be able to to modify and add to this before we get it to city council.

Without necessarily we could just board it

up Without with without a separate motion from the commission.

You good with that?

I'm gonna let somebody else be the motion, though.

Okay. That's fine. Do I have a motion for approval? I make

a motion we approve agenda item f one as presented, the zoning and development code amendment for the code of ordinances for the city of Round Rock.

I have a second?

Second.

I have a second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay. We will move on to the items, the zoning items at hand. Again, just real quick, I'm gonna read all three items of of what they are. We're gonna have a presentation on all three items at one time, and then we will go back and have a public testimony, a public hearing for each individual item separately and a voting separately and a discussion separately. However, since it's been about two hours, do y'all wanna take a quick break?

A little ten minute break? Okay. Alright. We're gonna close the meeting for about ten minutes to resume back at I guess, we'll just call it 803. So you might be banging my hammer now.

Alright. Let's go back to go back to work 08:04. And, again, we're gonna present items g one, g two, and g three, and then, as a whole, and then we'll come back and have public discussion public I'll get with there in a minute. Yeah. Hearing on each one and vote separately. Joel.

So I'm not gonna read this, but this is the definition of downtown that is in the amendments that you just adopted as a definition for downtown, and the rezonings that are proposed all fall within this area. So as I mentioned earlier this evening, there's three mixed use districts downtown MU 1, the Historic Commercial Core, MU 2, downtown, medium mixed density, and MUL, mixed use limited. Those are proposed to stay, within the downtown, but there are some event, some rezonings proposed. Additionally, as has been mentioned tonight, there are many historic designated properties downtown. There's the one hundred and two hundred blocks of East Main Street that are a national register historic district containing 24 designated historic structures, and there's also 31 other local landmarks designated downtown, predominantly in the eastern part of downtown.

None of these landmarks which are designated by historic overlay zoning are proposed to change. So if there's a change to the base zoning, the historic overlay would stay, with the parcel. This is the current zoning map. So you see the MU one in the historic commercial core, MU 2 in the Southwest downtown and Northern area, North of downtown, and MUL in the East End. The black outline that's shown here is that area that's defined as downtown.

You also see the historic zoning overlay with the gray hatching. So the goals of these rezoning amendments are to, define and expand that area known as downtown, to expand mixed use zoning to particular parcels downtown, and we've done an assessment of current mixed use district classification, so there are some changes proposed from one mixed use zoning classification to another. This is the overall proposal. You may have seen this before. We also showed this particular map at our open house or I'm sorry, at our office hours that we had at the July and it's been posted online for a while as well.

I'm going to go through the proposed changes from west to east downtown. So there are parcels along I-thirty 5 that are currently zoned, predominantly commercial c one, that are proposed, to go to MU 2 with that maximum of 12 stories that we talked about. There are, parcels north of Round Rock Avenue that are not currently zoned mixed use that are proposed. So Memorial Park is to the northwest there that is proposed to go to open space. And then there are a variety of parcels zoned, single family office, and p f one that are proposed to go to MU 2.

That's the area that's a maximum four stories. The corridors, Round Rock Avenue and Mays, are currently a variety of different zoning districts and are proposed, to go to M U 2. Some are already M U 2, some are also M U 1 that are proposed to go to M U 2 along the corridor. The area around the water tower, which is the town green park that's currently under development, is proposed to go to open space around the water tower. Moving to the east, up to the north along Pecan, there's parcels on the South side that are proposed to go to MU2 fronting on Pecan.

And there are a, some single family parcels, three that are just west of the Trinity Lutheran home and then Circle Avenue and, one parcel on Georgetown Street that are single family currently that are proposed to go to MUL mixed use limited. The corridor identified as East Main and Georgetown Street is identified on this map. MUL, it's currently MUL but it's just being identified because there's some changes to those uses proposed for MUL. And then the parcels that are along the McNeil extension, many of which are vacant, are proposed to go from their existing zoning of MUL to MU2 with a maximum of three stories. So this is what the new proposed zoning map would look like.

So you see the expansion of MU 2 along, the I 35 frontage and also North of Round Rock Avenue. I see those changes to the parcels, along McNeil, and you also see the changes to MUL in the eastern part of downtown. Again, the H overlay stays on all those parcels for the historic marks. So as with any process that involves public hearings, we mailed notices to all property owners and as well as physical addresses within the downtown boundary plus, the abutting properties as required by law. City Hall and newspaper notices were posted as required.

We did a courtesy email to Harder Round Rock Neighborhood Association downtown, and, we posted, again, those, 19 signs that I mentioned before, identifying the upcoming public hearing. Here's those again in the 19 locations. So staff recommends approval. There's a 114 parcels within the downtown that are proposed for rezoning. Those are over those three agenda items, g one through g three.

And for each of these, I have the agenda language written here and then followed by the map of which parcels by exhibit. So I can leave this up for the first one.

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I'm I apologize. I was writing something down. So that's presentation for all three items, one one through three. Correct?

Correct. And then each of these has the agenda item listed here and then the map associated with that agenda item. This is the first one for G1.

Okay. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Is there more presentation for g

That'll be the only presentation for the proposed rezonings g one, g two, and g three.

Got you.

So now you'll go through each one

of your weekly for

public hearings

and discussion. I I did not read each item, but I'll I'll read it as we go along in open testimony. So item g one is gonna be considered to public testimony recommendation to rezone certain parcels of land located in the area defined as downtown to m u two mixed use downtown medium density district. Said parcels being listed on exhibit a and being shown on an accompanying map. We have citizens who have signed up.

If you wish to speak for or against any of these items, please make sure you fill out a yellow card, hand us to see you, and we'll get you up here. When you do come up and I call your name, please, give us your name and address for the record. And, with that, we will open up the public hearing for item g one, and I will start with Estella Herrera. And let me clarify, Ms. Herrera, just that's a very good point Mr. Bone brought up. Item are you here to talk about, G1, G2, or G3?

Downtown in general. Doesn't matter to me which one you want to put

it on. Are we does it matter since we're presenting? Can she present on each one since it was presented as a whole? I I just wanna make sure to let legal know.

There's not is there there's not a particular district that you wanna talk about? The MU 2, I the MU l

have no idea. I live on Lewis Street. What section are we talking about?

Right now, we're talking about MU 2 only. That's what this public hearing is for.

Oh, well, then that must be what I'm gonna speak about.

Okay. You're here to speak

about MU 2. I'm hoping. But let me just tell you what my concern is Okay. And then you can classify it.

Okay. Go ahead and give us your name and

address Estella for Herrera, 511 North Lewis Street. Miss Ella Mercer, all of these people live in my neighborhood. My concern is you're putting the chicken before the egg or whatever it is. When you do something, you want to have infrastructure in place before any things get done. And that's not the way the city or whoever I spoke to this nice young lady, and I didn't want to make a comment then, because if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything nice is what I've been taught.

But I probably won't be here when all this is accomplished, and I thank God for that. Because the Round Rock I grew up in seventy eight years ago is not what we have now.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate it. Okay. Is there any anybody else signed up for item g one? Okay. I will close the public hearing, and I will open the discussion, to the commissioners. Alternate vice chair Dominguez, would you like to start us off?

I don't think I have anything right now. Okay.

Commissioner Emerson. Sorry about that, but no comment.

Commissioner Mimic? No comment. Commissioner Humphrey? No comment. Vice chair Bone?

No comments on g one. Thank you.

Commissioner Wynn?

Well, since I've had to abstain all night, I've got a lot to say. I'm just joking. I'd like to say in general, I think this plan is overall a very good plan. I know there's questions about infrastructure and all that. I think and I think Brad's addressed this already, but I think the plan is for any infrastructure that's required as much as possible that the people that developing the property will pay for it and the city will take care of anything else that needs to happen.

I think all these things that we've been talking about tonight are things that will likely happen in the future and and like this is Stella, I I probably won't be around to see it but a lot of things will have to happen in the market and in the community for any of this to even happen, but I think it's a great step in the right direction. That's all I have to say.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Huckabay.

No questions. Thank you.

Really don't have any comment. Again, I did not earlier, meant to, great job staff. Thanks for the city for all their input, for everybody being here about all the departments. I it's gonna be you know, been a long night. But like I said, just as far as what was brought up, infrastructure was discussed earlier. As infrastructure as things come about and get built, that's what our impact fees are for. So other than that, anybody else, any other comments? If not, I will see a motion, to approve.

Motion that we approve item G1 as presented.

I have a first. Do I have a second?

I

have a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Item G2, consider public testimony and recommendation on rezone certain parcels of land located in the area defined as Downtown MUL Mixed Use Limited District, said parcels being listed on Exhibit B and being shown on an accompanying map. This is a public testimony. Do we have anybody that has signed up for this particular item? No. Okay. So I'll open public hearing. Sorry. Didn't open it. We do not have any presenting. I'll close public hearing, and

I'll open up for discussion. Vice chair Bone? One question I do have because miss Carter brought it up earlier on that item of 624 Circle Avenue. Is that a typo that is being called MU two when it should be called MUL?

It is not. It is proposed for MU 2.

Okay. Can you expand on that? I wanna make sure I'm looking at the right prop piece of property.

The property's Oh.

It's the one at the corner of Circle And Pecan Avenue, and we've put that or are proposing, I should say, to put that into the MU 2 zoning district because of its frontage on Pecan.

I see. Okay. On the on the the listing, on the the exhibit that has a 114 properties, it just looks like it's all smack dab in the middle of all the other MULs. Okay. I appreciate the clarification. That's all I got.

Commissioner Wendt? Commissioner Wendt? Oh, sorry. Sorry. Yeah. I didn't have my mic on. My apologies.

I don't have any comments. Thank you. Commissioner Huckabay?

No questions.

Thank you. Alter Vice Chair Dominguez? Nothing for me. Commissioner Emerson?

Just like a follow-up, if you don't mind. Based on what commissioner Bond had just asked about that particular property owned by Carter, since it is an MU two, it will have no impact to her property or it won't change the character of it or anything of that nature.

The property that we are proposing here to be, rezoned to m u two, I should say, with with item g one, would be the same zoning classification as miss Carter's property.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mimic? No comment. Commissioner Pumbrin?

No comment.

Okay. I don't have any comments. With that, I will entertain a motion.

Make a motion that we approve item g two.

Be g two, yes, I'll second that. Have a first and I have a second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed? Item g two carries. Okay. Item g three, consider public testimony and recommendation to rezone certain parcels of land located in the area defined as downtown to the Open Space OS, Open Space District. Said parcels being listed on exhibit c and being shown on an accompanying map. Okay. This is a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing to see if we have anybody signed up, for item g three. No. Anybody here wish to speak for against item g three? Okay.

We're good. I will close public hearing. I'll open for discussions. Alternate vice chair Dominguez.

Might be a silly question, but is there anything other than open space that could we put in the open space? I mean, can can you provide me some details on what is open space?

It's effectively a zoning district for city parks. So it's really not we would we wouldn't consider it as available for private development. If any private development was considered for those properties, it would have to be rezoned to enable that.

Got it. Thank you for the clarity.

Commissioner Emerson. No comments, but thank you.

Commissioner Mimic?

Just a quick clarifying point. Is that the existing zoning on MU 1, is that being proposed to to convert to OS? On and specifically around the the water tower there on Round Rock

There's a there's a combination of zoning there all already. There's unzoned area, which was the former right away around Rock Avenue.

Okay.

It was abandoned, and then, existing M E 1. So that's proposed to go to OS for that town green around the water.

Gotcha. And it get then it gives you the flexibility as Brad was talking about. Correct? I

mean, as the city, we can kinda put a park wherever we want to, but this is just kinda bringing that into compliance. Okay. Our own development, our own proposed development into compliance with the zoning that we're proposing.

Thanks for clarifying.

Commissioner Humphrey. No comments.

Vice chair Bohn? No comment. Thank you. Commissioner Witt?

No comments or questions. Thanks.

Commissioner Huckabee?

I wanted a question for Tyler, but I don't have anything to that's it.

I have a question for Ed. Does Ed have anything do with open spaces? No. I'm just kidding. Well, my only thing was, again, just to make sure we understand, all we're doing is just reorganizing this stuff and calling it a certain thing. That's really all we're doing is just kinda reorganizing. It's primarily like here where the down there on Brushy Creek where it's got multiple districts. We're just calling now our Park Space Open Space. That's the designation for our park. Is that correct?

With this one, open space, yes.

Gotcha. Okay. Very good. Anybody else? No more discussions? I'll entertain a motion. I'll motion. I have a first. Do I have a second?

Second. Oh,

I got a second. Who is that? He was faster. Huckabay is up. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Item g three carries. Okay. And I guess we'll move on to oh, staff report. Yep. No? Yep. Yes. Staff report.

Last week, the city council approved the planned unit development proposal that came before the commission about a month ago for an affordable multifamily up on Sunrise Road that was unanimously approved. That's all.

Ed, you sure you don't want anything to say? Speak now if ever hold your peace. Good? Alright. Well, thanks again, guys. I'll go ahead and we'll adjourn for the evening. Great job.