Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Okay. We're gonna call the, Wednesday, 10/15/2025 planning and zoning commission meeting to order. Cecea, would you please call the roll?

Chair Clauson?

Here.

Vice chair Bone?

Here.

Alternate vice chair Dominguez?

Here. Commissioner Emerson? Here. Commissioner Holloway?

Here. Commissioner Hancabay? Commissioner Memmick? Commissioner Pumphrey?

Here.

Commissioner Wen?

Thank you. Commissioner Attendee, would you please join us for our pledges? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under god, one indivisible. Thank you.

Pursuant to Texas government code section five five one zero zero seven, which allows public for a total of three minutes on citizens communication. Do we have any? No. Okay. Seeing that, we will move forward. Item e one, approval for minutes. Commissioner, do I need to pull anything? Everybody good? Everybody chance to look at it? If there's no objections, can I have a motion?

Chairman, if there's no corrections, I'd like to approve the minutes from 10/01/2025.

I have a first. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay, item F1. So we're going to be presenting F1 and F2 together at the same time since it is both about one property. And then we will go to the public hearing for f one, the public hearing for f two, and and discussions to follow those. So, miss Hall.

Hi. Good evening.

I'm at it.

Alright. Hi, guys. My first time meeting you all. My name is Parker Hall. I'm with the Planning and Development Services Department and I'm going to be coming covering the next two agenda items F1 and F2. These are a Flum amendment and a rezoning of 2500 East Palm Valley. First of all, starting with the future land use map amendment. This tract is currently zoned PF3 or public facility high intensity, and the current future land use map designates it as public facilities. Their request is to amend the flum from public facilities to commercial. This property is located on the North side of East Palm Valley Boulevard and just west of the future Joe DiMaggio Boulevard extension.

With that upcoming extension, the site now meets the criteria for consideration of a commercial designation under Round Rock 2030. Round Rock 2030 encourages a commercial land use designation for parcels suitable for retail sales and services to the public. This area can support neighborhood, community and regional customers. A rezoning request to c one a or general commercial limited will be discussed in the following agenda item to support this amendment. Alright.

Going on to item f two, which is the rezoning request for 2500 East Palm Valley. This is a request to rezone approximately two acres from PF3, which is public facilities high intensity, to C1A General Commercial Limited. The church is the applicant for this rezoning request, and their intention is to create stability for their financial future by marketing the tract for commercial development. The zoning request complements the previous Flum amendment discussed in F1. The purpose of the C1A zoning district is to establish and preserve areas for low to medium intensity commercial uses.

These areas are designed for limited general commercial activity that supports the surrounding community. There's a limited comparison of the PF3 District and the C1A District. This rezoning will allow for flexibility for retail sales and service oriented development. In terms of development standards, both districts have similar requirements. There is an existing driveway stub on East Palm Valley that will be their lone access point on that road.

Any driveway on Joe DiMaggio will have to align with the planned driveway serving the Center At Palm Valley development, which is currently under construction. As with the Flume Amendment, notifications were sent via newspaper, mail, and on-site signage in accordance with city requirements. To summarize, both the Flume Amendment and rezoning requests are consistent with the intent of Round Rock 2030. The proposed C1A zoning better reflects the evolving context of the area, especially with the planned Joe DiMaggio Boulevard extension and surrounding commercial activity. Based on the compatibility with the comprehensive plan, staff recommends approval for both the future land use map amendment and the rezoning request of 2500 East Palm Valley Boulevard.

And that concludes this presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Hall. Does the applicant, owner, or agent, y'all have anything you'd like to come up and say? And if you do, please so come up, state your name and address, that'd be great.

Good evening commissioners. I'm Terry Haygood with Haygood Engineering. I'm the consulting engineer working with Palm Valley Lutheran Church and we have Duane Costiha who is a member of the church and he's here and I think he wants to come up and say a few words.

Yes, thank you. I'm a member of the property committee for Palm Valley Lutheran Church on Highway 79. We've been a member of the Round Rock community for a hundred and fifty five years. We celebrated our anniversary this year. We have about a 50 acre campus and we're requesting that we rezone approximately 3.2 acres on that Southeast corner for commercial development and just to help diversify our income stream for our church long term. That's the reason. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. So once again, we've heard both items. We're gonna treat each one separately. So we're gonna go to item f one. We're gonna open up. This is a public hearing. I will open up public hearing. Do we have anybody signed up to speak for or If against this you do, if you want to sign up, feel free. Yellow card in the back. Give it to Cecilia. None being signed up. Okay. I'm going to close the hearing and we will move to commission er discussion. Mr. Bohn?

I've looked through this and this meets the criteria for what I could see. I like the fact from the flume standpoint, going from mixed use to commercial to way across over to residential. I see the sensibility behind it. No questions.

Commissioner Pumphrey. I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Emerson.

I have one particular question on page 10. Ms. Hall, if you don't mind. You did a wonderful job. Don't want me to put you on the spot, but just for my own edification, I was wondering, is the criteria for number two and three met as well?

No, that'll be just the criteria for number one.

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

Vice chair Dominguez.

I also have no questions, but I do think this is a great fit. Thank you.

Commissioner Holloway.

No questions.

I too I I think this is a great idea for the church. I don't have any questions like it meets what we want. So with that being said, we will move to a motion. Do I have a motion?

I'd like to entertain to make a motion that we approve item f two as presented.

No. Second. Hang

on. Excuse me. Time out. We're on f one. This is the for the Sorry.

Was I've got it in front of me, not spoken correctly. I meant to say I motion item f one as presented.

I have a first. Do I have a second?

I second that, please.

I have a second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay. So we're going do the same thing for item F2. We will open up the public hearing. Do we have anybody anybody signed up to speak? No. Nope. Okay. I will close the public hearing. I'll just open up. We pretty much have gone through the list. Does anybody have anything they want to say about it? Everybody good? You good? I have nothing to say. I will entertain a motion to approve item item F2.

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve item number F2, the rezoning of the 3.2 acres.

I'll second.

I have a first and a second. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay. We will move on to item F3. Consider post public oh, we don't have a present oh, yes, we do have a presentation. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Myself.

I'm Lindsay Darden from the planning department. And the project in front of you is Homes at Windy Park PUD. For reference, the location is shown on the screen, and it's South of Gattis School Road on Windy Park Drive. Adjacent on the north side is Hillside Terrace Subdivision, and to the south is Saffa Valley Subdivision. Both of those are single family.

On the east side, there's like a shopping center and a day care that, abuts on that side. And then across Windy Park Drive, there is a single family lot and then a vacant lot that is part of a undeveloped subdivision. This is the zoning map and the existing zoning is s f two, single family two. This property is only 2.73 acres. It is very small and dimensionally narrow, which has made development into higher density under the SF2 standards very difficult.

The site just the subdivision just below it, Safa Valley Cove, was developed as SF2. And it is hard to tell from this picture, but the frontage of this particular lot, the subject property, is more narrow, which if you are aware of the dimensional requirements for minimum lot size and the need to serve those lots with a public street, it makes it very tight to be able to develop this, which is why a PUD is proposed. And the PUD would allow for detached single family homes on a common lot served with a private access drive. So there would not be individual lots. They would just be all on the same lot.

The Round Rock 2030 comp plan use designation for this property is residential, and residential is proposed, so it is compliant with that. There is a location criteria for residential, and it talks about minimizing conflict with nonresidential uses. As I mentioned, on the east side of the site, you can see the the site represented by the black star. And on the east side, the red area is that commercial area which includes the daycare and the, shopping center. And that is an existing nonresidential use.

And at the time that it developed, it provided a compatibility wall and landscape buffer which is customary for separating nonresidential and residential uses in the city. And, there is an existing single family home on the property. We do not anticipate that there'll be any additional conflicts with the PUD than there would be for the existing single family. Site access is proposed via private drive from Windy Park Drive. The approximate location is shown with the red arrow.

Although, the location of driveways and transportation improvements are always finalized at time of site development permit in conjunction with city standards. So, that could shift a little bit, but for now, that is where it's proposed. And this project will be subject to the city's roadway impact fee program. As I mentioned before, the proposed PUD would allow for single family residential development on common lot. The base district is the TH townhouse zoning district.

That is the base district that we've used for similar common lot, projects for PUD such as this. And the units would be established as condo units with the required homeowners association for the maintenance of private drives, required landscaping and irrigation, common open spaces and amenity features, any community signage, and walls and fencing. Each residential, detached unit would provide four parking spaces, two in the garage and two in the driveway, and the maximum building height is two and a half stories. The PUD does set, setbacks instead of utilizing the ones from the TH. And so, basically, around the perimeter on, all four sides would be a 10 foot setback and, 10 feet minimum building separation between units.

And then to make sure that there's enough room for driveway parking, there would be a 20 foot garage setback from the private drive. Perimeter fencing on the north and south will consist of six foot tall wood fencing. And as I mentioned before, when talking about the comp plan, there is an existing fence creek compatibility wall on the east side that would serve as perimeter fencing. And this PUD has determined the fencing along Windy Park to vary depending on how the residential units are oriented, which we will know at time of site development permitting, Where side side or rear yards face Windy Park, a masonry or precast concrete panel fence shall be required. And where the front facades of residential structures face Windy Park, ornamental picket view fencing can be used.

If the rear, of homes are facing Windy Park Drive On the 2nd Story, just to make sure we have, nice views from the street, they would be required to choose a window enhancement and a design feature, and there's a list of those that they can choose from in the PUD. So there's kind of like variety of options. And due to the small parcel size, one amenity is proposed, and it would be, a park area with a minimum size of 3,500 square feet with no minimum dimension less than 25 feet, and it shall include picnic tables and grills, playground equipment, or other amenities approved by the zoning administrator to give some flexibility. Landscaping. Any, residential structure facing the private drive would need to provide foundation treatment, and each residential unit, would provide two three inch caliper shade trees.

And because, there are no individual lots, for this because it's a common lot product, we just specify that those would be, you know, planted throughout the development wherever the space allows to make sure that there's spacing appropriate from buildings and other constraints. And streetscape plantings are proposed in the PUD, and they will include both trees and shrub or ornamental grass plantings to basically, offer something that is above and beyond for the PUD. SF two would not have that requirement. And we did the normal notifications with newspaper, mailed notice, and signage. Generally, we notify any neighboring HOAs but there are no active HOAs that we were able to find within the buffer distance for this project.

And that concludes my presentation. Staff recommends approval of the PUD. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer.

Thank you very much. I I counsel, I didn't read. Am I do I need to go ahead and read this officially? Yeah. You can go ahead

and read it this time.

I apologize. I I got out of sequence. This consider public testimony regarding a recommendation concerning the request filed by Waltz and Preet Inc. On behalf of the property owner, Zeam Realty LLC, to rezone approximately 2.73 acres of land from the SF two single family standard lot district to a PUD plan unit development to be known as homes at Wendy Park PUD, generally located East Side of Wendy Park, South Gaddis School Road. Number PUD25Dash00004. Sorry about that.

It's okay.

Tony, you got anything you wanna talk about, bring up?

I was just gonna introduce myself just to make sure. So Tony Preet. I'm the civil engineer for the project. My address is 211 North A W Graham, Round Rock, Texas. I'm here to answer any technical questions you may have. I don't have a formal presentation. Everything is covered with what Lindsay said.

Thanks, Tony.

Okay. This is a public hearing. I will look for the public hearing. Do we have anybody that has signed up? If you wanna speak for against this item, please fill out a yellow card. Give it to Cecilia. Cecilia, excuse me. Do we have anybody? No. Nope. Okay. So seeing none, I will close the public hearing and we will move to discussion. Commissioner Emerson.

I have one particular question for Tony or for Lindsey. It's a really simple question. You said it's going to be a two story project, right?

It's a maximum of two and a half stories.

Just two and a half stories. How many units are we talking about?

There is not a unit cap for this because of the small land area, the constraints such as the setbacks and the private access drive and other things will kind of self limit the number of units. So there's not a cap. It's basically going to be whatever will fit Okay. With the site

Thank you very much.

Alternate Vice Chair Dominguez.

Don't go far, Lindsay. I got another one for you. You'd be surprised that it's about trees. So you mentioned something about that we weren't gonna dictate where the they could be planted. You said, I just was trying to follow something about in between the structures, you know, we don't really care where they go, that kind of thing.

So generally, we have the the tree planting requirement for residential lots. Yep. But this is a PUD that's gonna be a common lot product. So since there aren't individual residential lots, they would just be throughout the development. They could be in front or backyard areas, although it's kind of hard to specify exactly where that is because there's not lots. It's all common lots. So they'll be based on, you know, where they can fit, you know, probably around the edges, maybe some in the front just but an average of two per unit. So let's say if there's 10 units, there would be 20 shade trees required.

Got it. Yeah, because I think so with a single family residence, we essentially dictate what's in the front, what's in the back.

Yes.

Here, we're not doing that. Just given how it will be designed, don't really know where they'll be. But we are keeping the requirement in place, which I think is good. And I think I saw that's the I have it pulled up here. What type of what are the requirements for the size of the trees?

They would be a three inch caliper

shade

tree. One of the reasons why I proposed, having the flexibility of the location in this is because oftentimes whenever you have these common lot projects, especially particularly in the front going toward the access drive, you have a lot of utility constraints and other things like that. And what we don't want is scenarios where you literally can't put a tree in the prescribed location because of all the conflicts. So having that flexibility gives us more leeway in where they can fit.

Right. Okay. That's all I have. Thanks.

Commissioner Holloway.

Is two and a half stories defined in a height above ground anywhere?

We don't have dimensional standards for the number of stories.

Okay. Thank you. That's all.

Vice chair Bone.

Couple questions. Thank you, Lindsey. Kinda tagging on to the the max building height. Comparing townhome to S F 2, what's the maximum building height for S F 2?

It's the same.

Same? K. That's good. Also, same question having to do with minimum setback. I know in in townhome, the setback from the exterior property line is 10 feet for the townhome. Curious on S F 2, what that minimum setback is on S F 2. I'm thinking about consistency among the neighboring properties. I'm just

I don't have that information at the moment, but I can look it up for you.

I think it's either 15 feet or 20 feet because we have the S F 2 zoning district, but we also have the newer S F 3 zoning district, which provides for a mixture of lot sizes. And so on some of those smaller lots, it does have a smaller rear setback, particularly. Townhome zoning district, usually, you would expect that to have higher density. So there are smaller setbacks usually on all sides, but especially the rear.

Understood. Understood. Okay. But same height restrictions between s f two and townhome. That's all I had. Thank you.

Commissioner. I don't have any questions. It's pretty good presentation. Thank you.

Yeah. Great presentation, Lindsey. I have no questions. Looks like it's all all good. With that being said, I will entertain a motion to approve item f three.

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve item f three on the approval of the proposed PUD.

I have a first. Do I have a second?

I'd to second that, please.

I have a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item f three is approved. And with that, we will go to staff report update regarding council action items.

There were no planning and zoning items considered at last week's council meeting. At next week's council meeting on October 23 is when the downtown zoning amendments and some of rezoning associated with that will be considered. And I do wanna point out that we due to some, I guess, late developments in the downtown bar scene, after lots of discussion with city management and with legal staff, we are proposing a prohibition on new bars in the M U 1 Zoning District as part of the package of amendments going forward to city council. So as it is right now, there's a cap of 11 bars in downtown, but there have been some some changes and some developments going on that would open up effectively more bars that could be open downtown. But, really, at this city level, at the staff level, we feel like kind of what we have is sufficient.

We want a broad mixture of of uses downtown for all family, you know, family, all ages, all times a day. We don't wanna become, you know, a bar district necessarily. So this would effectively lock in place the locations that currently have a bar. They would be able to keep having a bar. They would just not allow bars at new locations where bars don't currently exist or have that entitlement. So that's a proposal that we are taking forward to to city council next week as kind of an added thing that was not considered by the commission.

This was the when we did the big inner city, the whole city re redistricting. Correct?

Yes. Okay. Downtown.

Just our downtown. Yes. Thank you.

Can I ask a question real quick?

Oh, go ahead.

On on that on so that's not as, like, a zoning, thing that we that the commission would have to weigh in on?

Under a normal circumstance, if it was being considered on its own, this is a question I posed to Stephanie Sandri, the city attorney. If it was just a standalone amendment, then it's something that would definitely have to come back through this body. But since it's sort of part of a larger slate of amendments, then it's something that we do have the discretion of being able to add. Also, was kind of something that just due to some changes that had been occurring since the time of p and z to now. And so we did have the actual the legal leeway to be able to do that.

And I was trying to follow, you you know, you said that the the I know the cap's 11, but are you saying that it's gonna there's gonna be another number that's suggested?

So the cap will actually be abolished and the regulation will prohibit new bars from being established.

I understand. Got it.

Thanks. Very good. Everybody else good? Okay. We will adjourn.