Item 25: Annexation and Development Agreement for 379.84 acres of land Near Harris Hill Road

Status
Not open for further replies.

COSM_Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Receive a staff presentation and hold a Public Hearing to receive comments for or against Resolution 2021-142R, approving a Development Agreement with Harris Hill Residential Land Holdings, Ltd., providing for annexation and regulating the development of approximately 379.84 acres of land in the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction generally located between Harris Hill Road and future FM 110 North of Harris Hill Road; authorizing the City Manager, or is designee, to execute said agreement on behalf of the City; and providing an effective date
 

MBaker

Council Member
As part of this development agreement could we ask for sustainable features?

What level of risk are these people in as it relates to fire, EMS, or police emergencies? Is this not a good spot for another fire station to be paid for as part of this development?

Since this is low intensity are CD-3 and EC preferred?
 

MDerrick

CoSM Members
1. This is just a general question, but why doesn't this item or item 24 include the single family preservation analysis that is required to accompany any property owner requested zoning request? Is it because in both cases there are no homes located within 200 feet of the subject property? Also its listed as "200 feet" in our LDC on 4:7 and I thought we'd increased that to 400 feet, or was that the notification are? This has always been part of staff's analysis with the inclusion of the "disclaimer" regarding the fact that we've not completed neighborhood character or small area plans yet.

2. As requested in the work session item, can we please get a staff analysis of cost/benefit of annexing this property - how much increase in services are required (fire, ems, police, road & sewage maintenance, library etc ) vs estimated property taxed to be paid to the city over the next 10-15 years?

Thanks!
 

JHughson

CoSM Members
What is the status of this: "Utility provisions clarifying that Maxwell Special Utility District is the water service provider and that the Owner will request to opt in to the City’s water CCN." Have they made application yet?
Document shows : "Permitted variations in development standards currently established in the Development Code which are intended to mirror the development within the Whisper North Planned Development District (PDD).
Specifically: ...
o Removal of front porch standards;"
Removal from what? Our LDC? The Whisper North plan? Other?

A reminder to all would be helpful that the Whisper Dev Agreement was approved BEFORE we finalized our LDC.

Instead of allowing MF in EC zoning, which is a precedent I've rather not set, why don't we require them to get the zoning corrected now, in the Dev Agr, and on their applications for zoning which is coming soon?
 

COSM_Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Response to Council Member Baker's question provided by Chase Stapp, Director of Public Safety:
What level of risk are these people in as it relates to fire, EMS, or police emergencies? Is this not a good spot for another fire station to be paid for as part of this development?
Response times by the fire department to this area are the highest we see across the city because of the proximity to the nearest fire station and the road miles it takes to get there. For reference, we are averaging 15 to 16 minutes to Blanco Vista. There is currently a plot of land slated for donation to the City for the construction of a future fire station in the Whisper development. That station would serve this area and also improve response times to Blanco Vista. However, that station is likely a few years away from being constructed. This information is pertinent to EMS responses as well. Police response is a different animal because the responding units are normally mobile within their assigned beat or area. Response times for police to this area are going to depend on where the officer(s) is at the time of dispatch and whether the primary district officer is available at the time of the call for service or tied up on another call.
 
Last edited:

COSM_Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Responses to CM Baker provided by Amanda Hernandez, Assistant Director of Planning:

As part of this development agreement could we ask for sustainable features?
This was not specifically called out by the sub-committee, however Council has the discretion to request additional commitments from the developer, subject to the consent of the developer. All new construction will need to meet the requirements of the City’s current building codes, as well as the updated landscaping / turf grass requirements in Chapter 7 of the Development Code which are intended to improve water conservation in single-family residential homes by limiting turf grass to 50% of the total provided landscaped area.


What level of risk are these people in as it relates to fire, EMS, or police emergencies? Is this not a good spot for another fire station to be paid for as part of this development?
The Fire Department indicated a preference for a station closer to Yarrington. This same developer is also proposing a separate agreement for “Whisper East” at Harris Hill & Yarrington , and dedication for land for a fire station has been discussed for inclusion in that development.


Since this is low intensity are CD-3 and EC preferred?

Per Tables 4.1 and 4.6 in the Land Development Code, CD-3 is “ Considered” and the EC (“Employment Center”) district is “Not Preferred” in Low Intensity areas. Not preferred does not mean they cannot ask, it means each request is reviewed on a case by case basis to determine if the area is appropriate for the district.
 

Attachments

  • PDA-21-02 Maps.pdf
    3.7 MB · Views: 164
Last edited:

COSM_Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Response to CM Derrick, provided by Amanda Hernandez, Assistant Director of Planning:
1. This is just a general question, but why doesn't this item or item 24 include the single family preservation analysis that is required to accompany any property owner requested zoning request? Is it because in both cases there are no homes located within 200 feet of the subject property? Also its listed as "200 feet" in our LDC on 4:7 and I thought we'd increased that to 400 feet, or was that the notification are? This has always been part of staff's analysis with the inclusion of the "disclaimer" regarding the fact that we've not completed neighborhood character or small area plans yet.
The preservation buffer does not apply at the time of development agreement (this item) – it would potentially come into play with the upcoming zoning request for Whisper.
For item #24, there is no SF zoning within 200 feet so the map would have resulted in a “null” response and was not prepared for the packet.
400 ft. is the notification buffer (increased from 200 ft), however the preservation buffer takes into consideration properties in a closer proximity to the change. Staff looks at this in zoning changes, but does not create a map if there is no SF in the area.


2. As requested in the work session item, can we please get a staff analysis of cost/benefit of annexing this property - how much increase in services are required (fire, ems, police, road & sewage maintenance, library etc ) vs estimated property taxed to be paid to the city over the next 10-15 years?
Staff does not have a formula for preparing this number yet.

Response to Mayor Hughson, provided by Amanda Hernandez, Assistant Director of Planning:

What is the status of this: "Utility provisions clarifying that Maxwell Special Utility District is the water service provider and that the Owner will request to opt in to the City’s water CCN." Have they made application yet?
Yes, a letter was provided requesting opt-in for the area outside the City’s Water CCN per the Public Improvement District Term Sheet. The area covered by the Development Agreement is fully within Maxwell SUD.

Document shows : "Permitted variations in development standards currently established in the Development Code which are intended to mirror the development within the Whisper North Planned Development District (PDD).
Specifically: ...
o Removal of front porch standards;"
Removal from what? Our LDC? The Whisper North plan? Other?
Porch standards were not applicable at the time of the Whisper North PDD – in order to ‘mirror’ the PDD this standard would not be applicable to the Whisper South development. That is the purpose of this statement.

A reminder to all would be helpful that the Whisper Dev Agreement was approved BEFORE we finalized our LDC. Noted.

Instead of allowing MF in EC zoning, which is a precedent I've rather not set, why don't we require them to get the zoning corrected now, in the Dev Agr, and on their applications for zoning which is coming soon?
This was another attempt to mirror the Whisper North PDD where multifamily was permitted in the commercial areas so long as it followed the ‘old’ multifamily design standards. There is not a multifamily only district available for them to select for zoning leaving character districts as their only option. Staff felt the commercial / multifamily mix would be appropriate and would best mirror the PDD.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top