Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

K. We will call the Wednesday, December 17, twenty '25 planning and zoning meeting, zoning commission meeting order. Cecea, would you please call the roll?

Chair Claussen?

Present.

Vice chair Bone?

Here.

Alternate by chair Dominguez? Commissioner Emerson?

Here.

Commissioner Holloway. Here. Commissioner Huckabee. Here. Commissioner Mammack. Commissioner Pumphrey. Commissioner Wen.

Here. Thank you. Commissioner attendees, 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 and indivisible.

Thank you. To pursue Texas government code five five one zero zero seven for citizens communication. Cecilia, do we have anybody signed up?

No. Okay.

Oh. Oh, that's that's for yeah. The young lady right there with the party hat on. Commissioners, are there any amendments or revisions for the minutes? Need to pull anything? Anybody have any questions, concerns with the minutes? Anybody read them? If not, I will entertain a motion to approve.

I will make a motion to approve the minutes.

I have a first. I second. I got a second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Okay, motion carries. Consider public testimony regarding a recommendation concerning request filed by 2P Consultants LLC on behalf of the property owner CA Round Rock Holdings Inc. To rezone approximately 23.43 acres of land from the light industrial and the SF2 single family standard. Lot districts to a PUD plan unit development to be known as ERCO mechanical PUD generally located West Of South IH 35, South Of McNeil Road. Case number PUD2500010. Caitlin.

Just wait until you're done to do that. Good evening, chair and commission. Kate Russe, planning and development services. As mentioned, the acreage is 23.43 acres, and the subject track is located West Of South I 35 and South Of McNeil Road. The current zoning of the tract is light industrial and s f two single family standard lot.

The applicant's request is to rezone the tract to a PUD for the expansion of an existing light industrial use. The expansion would include additional warehousing and light manufacturing uses. The Round Rock 2030 feature land use map currently designates the entire subject track as four separate designations, residential, employment center, industrial, and commercial uses. The proposed PUD consolidates all of those land uses into a singular land use of industrial. The industrial land use category supports manufacturing, production, and processing of goods, and warehousing activities.

As you all know, PUDs function as customized zoning districts that are designed to establish specific land uses, development standards, and design criteria to ensure that things like compatibility, is taken into consideration with surrounding uses. The proposed development standards within the PUD, talk about an increased compatibility buffer to the residential development to the south. Our standard compatibility buffer is eight feet wide. The PUD proposes a 20 foot 25 foot wide landscape buffer. Additionally, our standard compatibility buffer includes one row of evergreen trees.

The PUD requires a minimum of two rows of evergreen trees. Additionally, those buffers have a restriction for no parking within the buffer as well as no storm water detention or drainage infrastructure. Loading docks are prohibited along the southern property line, so loading docks will need to face inward or to the north. And then freestanding lighting is limited to 20 feet in height within a 100 feet of the property. Our standard, LI zoning district would require anything within 25 feet of the property line to be reduced to a 20 foot maximum height, and then it could go to 30.

But within the PUD, they've increased that by an additional 75 feet to where it's a 100 feet away from the residential property line. The base zoning district utilized within the PUD is light industrial. So we've taken that into consideration, and the proposal includes prohibited uses outlined here. So things like auto body shops, car washes, waste related services, etcetera. Several notifications were made regarding this public hearing, one being the newspaper ad.

There was a mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet at the subject track boundary. There's a sign located on I 35. You can see in the photo. There was a courtesy email sent to the neighborhood contact that we have for the development to the south, and there was an applicant led neighborhood meeting. They could most likely speak to that during questioning, but they held that on their own accord with the neighbors.

Additionally, during that process, we did receive two inquiries. One, staff were able to answer any questions associated with that phone call, and then the second actually brought to light that there was some premature tree removal on the subject tract. So staff have been in in communication with the applicant. I've been on-site prior to the pre the pre removal. We had a tree survey.

We have since required the applicant to provide an updated tree survey. From what I can tell, the majority of the trees removed were non protected trees, so anything below eight inches or of a non protected species. Any trees that are removed that are considered protected so again, eight inches and above or are proposed to be removed at the time of site development will be required to go through tree mitigation. So that's either replacing it by tree caliber inches replanted or through a tree mitigation fee. So, that has been made aware to staff, and that was something that we've, taken a look at and accounted for.

And with that, staff recommends approval of the rezone from Light Industrial and SF two to a PUD. That concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer.

Thank you, Caitlin. Does the applicant or owner or agent have anything like to add to the presentation? Want to say anything, Chip? If you want

to, you don't

have to. It's only up

to you. Okay. Okay, we will open up the public hearing for item F1. I believe we have citizens that have signed up. If you'd like to speak for or against this item and you're here, please fill out this yellow card, hand it to Cecilia. I have one card in my hand. I'm looking for a Jason Johnson Carey. If you'd like to come up, sir, please state your name and address. You've got three minutes to to speak.

Hello. My name is Jason Carney. I live at 506 Buffalo Pass. Thank you for hearing me, city council and rezoning committee. I'm here to speak about the rezoning of the property that's adjacent to ours.

We do have some concerns about it being rezoned to PUD as the impact of our property value. They've already bulldozed, like she was saying, about, all the beautiful trees in our fence line without permits, and they've left a giant pile of debris, dead trees behind the fence line that, we've been staring at since October. Since then as well, it has turned into a commercial parking lot with the dead pile of trees. There's also vans, in their commercial vehicles. So as it is, you know, they significantly so far, our property values have gone down.

We shared this with them, and they want to build like a 40 foot tall building currently directly on the other side of the fence. So, we do oppose this rezoning, and we have signed petition from everybody on Buffalo Pass, not everybody, but a significant number of people that support the changes to mitigating some of the impact that this will have if it does pass on our property. So we do request that the city does everything that it can to protect our homes, privacy, and property values. I don't know if it's alright. I do have the petition the neighbor has signed.

And if you're interested, I do have a photo of what I currently look at every day. If you would like to see that, I can leave that here for you. But thank you for hearing me. I appreciate it.

Thank you very much. If you'd like to leave it, that's fine.

It's all I

have to give it

to you?

Or just right here?

You can approach and bring it up here, sure. Thank you.

If you'd like to, it's totally up to you.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time. Okay, is there anybody else want to speak for or against this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and we will move to commissioner discussions. I will start with you. Commissioner Witt? No. No, you want me to go that way?

No, that's fine. Is there a concept plan? Is there a plan?

I don't have the plan here. That's gonna still be subject to review through the site development permit process, so I don't have the location of the proposed structures at this time.

Okay. And can you talk a little bit more about what's actually gonna go closest to the single family? So that's all

the South Padre South Padre. That's the South line.

That's the South property line of the subject track. And so they had to put two rows of evergreen trees. There's a 25 foot landscape buffer. So, so nothing goes in the 25 feet. Correct?

That's correct.

Okay. What's a what's a setback if the if this was single family, what would the, typical lot depth be, and what's the setback from the adjacent property?

So for so you're saying if it was single family to single family?

Well, it was single family zoning there. Correct? That's what we're Yes. That's what we're talking about. That's just the single family zoning. So if there was single family zoning and there was development there that was single family development, What's the setback on that?

Yeah. So currently, the tracks that are being absorbed into the greater tract don't have right of way access, but let's say that they did.

Right.

Depending on how the property would face where the right of way would be, it could be anywhere from a five foot setback to a 25 foot setback. Just depends on kind of the orientation of the of the lot in the house.

And is that a five foot landscape setback or that's a five foot building setback?

Building setback.

Okay. So in in the and you're right. I understand there's no access to that property

Mhmm.

To be developed as single family. But I guess what I'm getting to is if it was developed as single family, a house could be as close as 25 feet to the property line.

Correct.

Correct? Okay. There's no requirements for any sort of landscaping as a buffer?

Not for a single family. No. Residential, the residential typically don't require a compatibility buffer.

Okay. And then they're also restricted to use within that area. No loading docks. They can they can have passenger vehicles within the setback, but not in the 25 foot compatibility bug. Correct. Correct?

Yep.

K. So basically, again, what I was getting from this is within that area that's that's currently single family, what what can be developed within that strip of single family current currently single family zone land?

Currently, as it's zoned today

No. No. I mean, if if this if this goes through and the the PUDs allowed Mhmm. There's it looks like there's certain restrictions on what's currently the single family zoned property, and that was done on purpose.

Yes. So the increase in compatibility buffer there is to take into consideration that there is residential development to the the south of this. So the additional landscaping was factored in, so there'd be a a new growth essentially.

Correct. And and that's two rows of trees?

Yes. Typically, there would only be one.

Okay. So And then and then you can park within that area, but where where could you actually develop within that? So what how close to the property line would they actually be able to put a structure?

Okay. So

I'm sorry. Then I

Yeah. Yeah. Just making sure I was following you. So the setback's gonna depend on the type of fence utilized. If they're gonna do a six foot tall masonry wall, then they can they they're required to be a 100 feet away from the residential property line to the south. If they choose to do an eight foot tall compatibility wall, then they can be as close as 80 feet with the, proposed structures.

80 feet?

80 feet. Yes, sir. So nothing within so no structures, no infrastructure can be within that 25 foot landscape buffer. It is restricted to passenger vehicles essentially within that buffer, that setback from the landscape edge of the landscape buffer to the new structure.

So if they put so they're they're required to put a masonry wall up.

Mhmm.

Okay. It can be either six feet or it can be eight feet. Let's say it's six feet. No. Let's say it's eight feet because that's with eight feet, you would have a 25 foot landscape buffer with two rows of trees. And then you would have, I'm sorry, my math five feet 55 feet. 55 feet before you could have a structure.

Yes.

Okay. Because that would be the 80 feet. And then how high can the structure be?

So, I believe it's two stories

Okay.

For for light industrial based district.

The two stories is generally 25 feet, maybe?

Yeah. Typically, we don't define how tall a story is.

Could two story building commercial building, the same height as a two story residential building?

No. Typically, they're taller. But once they hit 30 feet, they're required to factor in aerial access for fire. So, that triggers a whole another set of requirements of additional, you know, access required for those fire trucks and things like that. So Okay. That'll, again, all be reviewed during the site development process, but that is a factor that could be limiting here as well.

Okay. Thank you.

Very good questions. Commissioner Emerson.

No questions at this time. Commissioner Huckabay.

Yeah. Sorry. Just had one more kind of piggybacking off that. There was some talk about some existing trees that have already been removed, and you said that they would have to replace those

that were what was

the word? So there has been some premature clearing prior to obtaining a permit. Through that permitting process, they're going to be required to mitigate for any trees removed that are considered protected. So that's anything of our designated list, so things like live oak, cedar elms, etcetera, that are eight inches and above. So the tree survey that they've submitted to us that we've required as an update indicated that the majority of those protected trees remain. Now if they choose to remove those with the development, they'll be required to mitigate for that, and that's calculated per per inch, of tree removal. So depending on the size, there's different levels.

So they have to replant, like, the the same type of tree that was removed? Or just

like Not necessarily.

No. It's like the buffer count towards that, or is that complete? Okay.

Yep. So, they can either choose to replant or they can choose to mitigate through a fee. This landscape buffer is going to be required regardless. So any additional trees planted could go towards that tree credit for that mitigation, but they could also mitigate through a fee as well.

Can you explain how the fee works? I don't know what that process looks like.

Yeah. So, let's say you remove a 15 caliber inch tree that's considered protected over eight inches. So that tree would be calculated at a 150 per caliper inch removed. So that tree, I'm not good at math. So don't don't quote my math on that, but, they would be required to pay for that tree if they were not able to replant that same amount of inches. And when they replant, they're required to plant at a minimum of three caliper inches per base code in the landscaping ordinance. So it just depends, you know, if there's space available. There are they're gonna be required to put tree islands in, so there will be some trees coming in there as a requirement as well. So it's a it's a balancing game, but that's how those work.

So that's just the fee that goes straight to the city, essentially?

It goes to the tree mitigation fund. Yes. And then that fund is used to pay for trees in Old Settlers Park and and other parks projects.

And then clearing without a permit, is there, like, any repercussions for that? Or

So not directly. We do have some violation, associated with that, but they will be required to mitigate regardless. So there are some trees that were indicated on that tree survey. They'll be required to mitigate for that.

Understood. That's it. Thank you.

Vice chair Bone?

Very good questions. I don't have any to add to that right now.

Commissioner Holloway. So the masonry fence that they're gonna be required, will that be on their their side of the new trees they have to plant or will it back straight up to the wooden fences of the

resident property? It's my understanding that the residents have, during their meeting with the applicant, have requested to essentially push that wall on the northern side of the 25 foot landscape buffer. The PUD kind of allows some flexibility for that to allow that. Typically, would require it on the southern side because we don't wanna create kind of the snake pit effect that if you have two fences that are very close together could potentially create. But since it's 25 feet, that's been taken into consideration. So that is flexible and a possibility that that could be on the north side. So they would be able to see the trees directly.

Yeah. So and then on the new trees, is there a size or height requirement for the trees they have to plant for those two rows?

Minimum of three caliber inches at the time of planting, and they have to be an evergreen species. So, if the applicant chooses to install larger trees at that point, that's up to them, but our minimum requirement is three inches.

Okay. That's all for now. Thank you.

I'm I'm sorry. What did you you said three inches, and then you said something right after that, and I didn't understand what you said.

If the applicant chooses to purchase larger trees to plant, so let's say they choose to purchase a six inch caliber tree, that's of their own volition essentially, but our minimum requirement at the time of planting is three inches.

Okay. Thank you.

No. You're fine. Good questions. Just curious under development, you know, whatever they said they used the the the, eight foot tall and they're 55 feet, if my if I get my math correct. What about lights on the backside, light pollution?

So as I mentioned

that goes through development, but I'm just curious. I'm just gonna be a question that I'm sure the citizens are concerned with.

Yeah. So if this was a a standard LI zoning district, they could install lights as tall as 30 feet in height from bottom to top of fixture. The setback requirement to the residential property line that would lower that requirement to 20 feet would only be would only be 25 feet. In this case, that setback requirement essentially for those taller lights has been increased to a 100 feet. So kind of falling in line setback with the building. All of our lights have compatibility requirements. They have to be downward facing. They have to be shielded. And there are foot candle requirements, so no essentially no foot candle allowance at the property line for property.

And, Craig, if I'm wrong, during development, there's a photometric study that'll get done that'll develop all that stuff and get approved through to verify that. Correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Parking. Train. Nope. Everybody got all mine. Everybody good? Any other questions, concerns? Nope. Yeah. One more. Oh.

I just wanna say

Hang on. Got one ahead of

you. I'll

go first.

Go ahead. Well, go ahead. You go. Okay.

So just to to talk through the lighting, if I'm understanding you correctly. So the 20 foot pole height and so everybody else is saying that would be asphalt to is it top of the pole or where the light is actually mounted on the pole?

Top of fixture.

Okay. Top of fixture. And that's required for a 100 feet setback from the residential lot. And what you're saying is if they build the probably almost either way that if we have the 80 or the 100 foot setback, depending on how tall of a fence they'd be, that would contain most any parking lot lighting on the South side of this property that's closest to the residential.

Correct. So they couldn't exceed that 20 foot height allowance, within that 100 feet. So even parking for passenger vehicles on that south side, it'd be a maximum 20 feet. Now outside of that to the north, they could go as tall as 30 feet. And then base code.

Just just for the record, what is the foot candle requirement at the property line?

It varies depending on if you're at the right of way. I think it's two foot candles. If you're at a nonresidential property line, I think it's one. And if you're at a residential property line, it's not exceeding 0.5.

0.5.

Zero, but we require that to be proven up with the photometric plan, that we review.

And just so that the to throw in fun facts, the 0.5 puts you right at about what full moonlight level is. So it's not a whole lot. And if you've ever seen a full moon, that's more light than the city of Round Rock is allowing at that proper Thank you, guys.

I did have one other question I wanna make sure, and I wanna make sure my I'm thinking correctly because looking at the property, I went and visited and looking at Google Earth, and and I don't know this can be answered, but I cannot find any way possible to access this property from any other direction.

Currently, the access is limited to the two accesses on South I 35. They do have an emergency access on the North Side that is through the railroad. That is an easement. That is an issue they're gonna need to work out if additional access is required for fire.

By the property owner if he deems that he wants to. But right now, my point being the residential area, somebody can go build houses on there, but they couldn't get to them.

Correct.

There's no way to physically get to this property. Correct?

The these three kind of subject tracks here, that is being replatted into the larger lot currently do not have right of way access. So they would need to acquire that if they were to develop that property.

And and, basically, they're gonna go through either go through ERCO or go talk the railroad, which that ain't gonna happen.

Correct.

And I know that's an assumption, by the way. So okay. I'm good. Everybody good? Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. You did have something. You did a great job with

these questions. Thank you so much. Yes.

Great job, Caitlin. Yes, very well. Seeing no more discussions, I will entertain a motion to approve item F1.

I'll make a motion to approve item f one.

I have a first. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I have a second. All in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Caitlin. Items f two and f three will be presented together. Now there are gonna be two public hearings. We're gonna hear both items at the same time, and then we're gonna have two separate public hearings for each item. But as of right now, we're gonna listen to both items, f one and f two. Should I read what they're about? Or go ahead. Okay. So we got item f two is public testimony regarding a recommendation concern request filed by Andy Heard and Vinyl Menehar. I hope I pronounced that correct.

On behalf of the property owner, Old Settlers Association for amendment to the Round Rock 2030 comprehensive plan designated for commercial use, approximately 3.86 acres of land, generally located North Of East Palm Valley and East of Joe DiMaggio case number, CPF 25. Oh, there it is. C 25Dash00004. And then we also have public testimony regarding the request filed by Andy Heard and Vinyl man Manahar Manahar. Excuse me, on behalf of property owner Old Settlers Association to rezone approximately 3.86 acres of land from the OS Open Space District to a C1A General Commercial Limited District, generally located, North Of East Palm Valley and East of Joe DiMaggio.

Case number 0N2500007.

Have a head. Alrighty.

Hi, I'm Parker Hall with the Planning and Development Services Department, and I'll be covering the next two items, both F2 and F3, which is a Flume Amendment and then the rezoning of 3002 And 60 East Palm Valley Boulevard. First, starting off with the Flume Amendment. The first, so the future land use map amendment for the 3260 East Palm Valley Boulevard, it is currently designated as open space in the future land use and zoned as open space. The request is to amend the flume from open space to commercial. With the existing commercial use to the south of the tract, the site meets the criteria, for consideration of a commercial designation under Round Rock 2030.

Additionally, the tract is in close proximity to the Herald Parkway and East Palm Valley intersection, placing it at one of the busiest parts of town. Round Rock 2030 encourages 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. As required, notification for this amendment was provided through newspaper publication, mailed notices to neighboring property owners, and on-site signage.

The next item, f three, is the rezoning request for the same property. So this is a request to rezone approximately 3.86 acres from open space to c one a commercial limited. This zoning request complements the previous item. The purpose of the C 1 A 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 support the surrounding community.

A comparison of the allowed uses under OS open space, it's really only going to be parks, public safety facilities, golf course, country club, and limited community and government services. C1A has a much broader list of available uses, including hotels, retail sales and services, offices, and places of worship. The rezoning will allow flexibility for a hotel or other commercial development. The OS District has very limited development standards with only two of note, one being that screening is required if the development is less than 200 feet from a public right of way or residential district, and that outdoor storage and display are only permitted in metropolitan and regional parks. C1A has more rigorous development standards, including a maximum building height of five stories, building design standards, and minimum setbacks from row and rear.

The rezoning request was also given public notice through newspaper mailed notice to neighboring properties and signage. Both the flume amendment and rezoning requests are consistent with the intent of Round twenty thirty, and the proposed c one a zoning will enable redevelopment to a much higher and better use than the RV park currently there. It will serve visitors to Old Settlers Park, Del Diamond, and Kalahari. Based on those reasons and compatibility with the comprehensive plan, staff recommends approval for both the future land use map amendment and the rezoning request for 3260 East Palm Valley Boulevard. And that concludes the presentation.

Thank you, Parker. Appreciate it. Does the owner development or developer agent wish to add anything to the presentation? Good evening. You would state your name and address for the record.

Sure. Hi there. Andy Heard. Address is 1418 Preston Avenue in Austin, Texas 78703. I don't actually have a whole lot to add to to what staff already presented to you guys, but just wanted to put a face to a name and let you know that we've been working with the old settlers association for last, you know, handful of months, probably six months or so to bring what should be another, you know, extended stay hotel to the area to take advantage not only of all of the programming that's already there.

The Old Settlers Association tends to, at some point in the future, part of their future plan, expand their palm mansion and make a wedding venue of it. So we've worked kind of hand in hand with them to provide an outlet both for that, all the programming, the soccer, the sports, all the stuff that happens over there, and really just play to the need for additional hotel rooms to kind of support the future growth, only of Old Settlers, but just everything that's planned for Round Rock in general. I also have with me today Buddy and Randy Minchia from the Old Settlers Association to show their support for it, but certainly if there's questions that you'd like to ask them or myself, we're certainly available.

Thanks Andy. I'm sure we're gonna have some. Okay, this is a public hearing for item f two. I will open up the public hearing if anybody wish to speak for against. Everybody signed up? No. Okay. I will close the public hearing for item f two, and I'll move to commissioner discussions. Vice chair Bohm.

Very familiar with this property, and looking at what is being proposed, this to me makes a whole lot of sense, as far as proximity to not only the Wholesalers Park, but also to the stadium and everything that's surrounding there. Looks pretty straightforward to me. No questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Holloway. It was

a great presentation. No, I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Witt?

I think it makes a lot of sense too. I'm just curious, you'd mentioned a hotel. Is that do you expect the entire track to be developed for a hotel? Is there going to be retail associated with it?

No. The site itself is given all of the beautiful heritage trees that are there, it really only lends itself to the hotel use. I mean, we'll have restaurant stuff within the hotel footprint typically like you would find, but no, you know, standalone extraneous retail.

But you so you think this is going to be a, I guess, for lack of a better word, kind of an upscale hotel would have a restaurant and

Yeah. Absolutely.

That kind of thing

in it? Okay.

Yeah. We we wanna be able to be good stewards to what their future land use plans are for the, you know, the expansion of the turning to a wedding venue and obviously capitalize on all that happens in the Greater Old Settler Association. So, absolutely.

Okay. Thank you. I don't have any other questions.

Commissioner Emerson.

I had a couple questions if you don't mind. Sure. And good afternoon.

Thank you.

In terms of development, when would this take place?

It's you know, obviously, we have to go through the site development approval process. So this is probably, you know, if I had a magic wand, latter part of 2026.

2026? Okay. Second question is pertaining to I drove by there today, I'm very familiar with that area. In terms of the RVs, did we receive any notice from them or Yeah, well, they're obviously, they've got a relationship with Buddy

and Randy, but they could we will make sure that they are certainly unnoticed and you know there's obviously additional land there that maybe there is a workaround, but certainly we're not looking to you know randomly display someone on a moment's notice.

Yeah. Because looking at some of those RVs, they have like a front porches and so like they've been there for a while. Yeah. And so they settled in. So I just wanna make sure that they were notified. That's all the questions I have at this time. Yeah. Thank you.

Commissioner Shakabe.

Thank you. Any idea on number of rooms, like how big a hotel is?

Yeah. I I the flag itself, we're we're still working through the different brands of what we're gonna go with, but we're expecting about a 120 room hotel.

120. Okay.

That's the

only question I had. Thank you.

Also, no, I think it's a great place. Great, great idea. So I have nothing else to add. If that, nobody has anything else. I'll entertain a motion to approve item F2.

I'll make a motion to approve item f two. Second.

I got a first and a second and I'll give it to Paul. Paul? I like you. Paul's Paul's good. Paul's good. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Motion carries.

Thank you, gentlemen.

We will move to public hearing for item f.

I do wanna say something. Oh. The RV park. I'm with y'all I'm with y'all sellers. They all know that this is gonna be happening. 100% guaranteeing it, but they know that something is gonna be moving in. And so I do address you. Yes. I have done that part because I've seen our own sellers, and I don't want to kick people out in the last second. So they all very much aware of it. And I was home with another RV park on the other side. So a lot of those people, as they free up, they're going over there. So so I am doing that part. So a lot of these guys are a lot of those guys are gonna be in a job and cater at the same time plan. Right.

So once that's done, they'll free up a couple of spaces. So I will let y'all know. And then aesthetically, we've worked with them for quite a while on this to ensure that it keeps the old seller's persona like it is

out there. And so that's where we're at.

Thank you all. Thank you. Okay. Item f three. We will open up public hearing for Item F-three. We got anybody signed up? No. I will bang the gavel again. We'll close Item F-three. We'll move to discussion. Anybody? Anybody opened up? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to approve item f three.

Motion to approve item number f three, the rezoning of the property.

Second. C one a.

Got a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. And we will move to consider update of council related planning zoning items.

At the city council meeting two weeks ago, there are few items that came through this commission a couple or last month. The first of those was the PUD rezoning for the Skybox Data Center. After some considerable public input and a lot of discussion, city council voted unanimously to approve that on first reading. However, they did not dispense with the second reading. In the meantime so this is gonna come back around in February back to city council for second reading.

And in the meantime, the developer's gonna be working with city staff and with the adjacent neighborhoods on some compatibility measures and working out some other things, finding some areas of compromise before it can go back for the final reading and the final vote at city council, hopefully, in February. Additionally, it was the they approved the two text amendments that were brought to the commission. One was regarding driveway spacing, just making our code consistent with the transportation design and construction standards, and additionally, the amendment to bring our code in alignment with state law regarding new requirements for protest petitions for certain zoning applications. That's all.

Very good. Well, I wish everybody a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and we urge you. Good luck to the ag.