Lago Vista planning commission delays recommendation on draft comprehensive plan, forms subcommittees

The Planning and Zoning Commission on Sept. 25 voted unanimously not to forward the current draft comprehensive plan to the City Council and directed staff to return with a process to form subcommittees to revise the draft. The motion also called for a separate subcommittee to work with staff on a more detailed future land use map (the "flume") before the commission completes a recommendation.

The vote came after the commission's CPAC subcommittee chair, Rachel Rich, said the subcommittee lacked necessary data and staff engagement to make fully informed recommendations. "We are now only in a position to offer general high level recommendations rather than definitive conclusions," Rich said, summarizing the group's findings and concerns about the draft.

Rich and other commissioners listed several substantive concerns about the draft plan's alignment with public input, land-use compatibility, and clarity on parks, density and housing terminology. The subcommittee recommended specific density guidance be reflected in the plan's future land use guidance: rural residential minimums of about 3 acres (approximately 0.33 dwelling units per acre); estate residential 2–3 acres (about 0.5 du/acre); low density 1–4 du/acre; medium density 4–8 du/acre; and mixed-use communities 8–18 du/acre. Rich also asked that the plan remove language that labeled stand-alone apartments as "not desirable," calling that phrasing overly restrictive.

Commissioner Frank Robbins raised multiple mapping and designation concerns on the draft future land use map, citing areas west of Lohman Ford, shoreline parcels, the area south of the airport, and the Faroes Ranch area as examples where the map's land-use labels did not match existing plats, zoning or infrastructure. "I've actually walked across that property and all of it. Most of it's flat pasture," Robbins said when describing one parcel he believes needs fine-tuning on the map.

Several commissioners said the draft appeared to reflect the priorities of a small group of contributors rather than the broader CPAC and public input. One commissioner who had participated in the CPAC open houses said residents had been clear that public parks should primarily serve Lago Vista residents and criticized language that, in their view, could expand access beyond the city's residents. The draft's discussion of a public boat ramp drew repeated comment; commissioners said the boat-ramp narrative appeared driven by a small set of opinions rather than community consensus.

City staff and liaisons acknowledged gaps in the materials the commission requested. City staff liaison (Mr. West) told the commission he was working with GIS contractors and would provide more detailed parcel- and street-level mapping. "If you're not getting what you need from staff, I just need to know what you're not getting from staff, and I will ensure that you get it," he said.

On procedure, the commission clarified that it must place subcommittee appointments on its next agenda for formal selection; the motion directs the commission to propose subcommittees at the next meeting and to continue work until members are comfortable forwarding a recommendation to council. Commissioner Dave Schneider made the motion to withhold the current draft from council and form subcommittees; another commissioner seconded. The commission adopted the motion by a unanimous voice vote.

Commissioners also noted several process items that remain unresolved: lack of up‑to‑date mapping of existing entitlements, incomplete linkage between elements in the draft (for example, references to tree or other ordinances not yet adopted), and the need to pin numeric density definitions so that approvals are applied consistently. Several commissioners suggested breaking the work into subcommittees (one to focus on the future land use map and others to review text and policy language) and asked staff to provide the detailed GIS layers necessary to complete that work.

The commission did not set a deadline for completion; members said they preferred to take the time needed to address the concerns rather than rush the recommendation. After affirming the motion and volunteers to assist in follow-up work, the commission adjourned at approximately 6:45 p.m.

What this means locally: the draft comprehensive plan will not be forwarded to City Council in its current form. The commission intends to refine technical mapping and policy language with staff input and through subcommittees before making a formal recommendation.