Leander Planning and Zoning Commission denies Leander Springs PUD amendment after water, height and adjacency concerns

The City of Leander Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-1 to deny a proposed amendment to the Leander Springs planned unit development (PUD) that would have revised phasing rules, reduced overall apartment counts in some areas and allowed a lagoon and up to 1,200 apartment units on roughly 77.9 acres near the intersection of US 183A and RM 2243.

The denial followed a public hearing in which nearby residents warned the commission the development could strain local water supplies, remove established greenbelt buffers and introduce tall multifamily buildings adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. Vice Chair moved to deny the PUD amendment; the motion passed with four votes in favor and one dissent from Commissioner Morales.

Why it matters: The proposed amendment would have restored broader development entitlements tied historically to a previous PUD and its phasing rules and would have allowed a large vertical-mixed-use multifamily component and a lagoon amenity on the site. Opponents said the lagoon and multifamily elements raise water-supply, screening and compatibility questions that were not answered to the commission’s satisfaction.

What was proposed and the staff summary Michael Chanowski of the planning department summarized the request as an amendment to the Leander Springs PUD to update phasing and timing language, to permit a lagoon, to allow up to 1,200 apartment units in vertical mixed-use buildings, and to establish building-height limits of 35 feet along the southern and western boundaries (down from prior 60-foot allowances at those edges). The property was described by Williamson Central Appraisal District parcel numbers R403524 and R051592.

Chanowski explained the original PUD had included a deadline tied to a 380 economic development agreement that required the Crystal Lagoon certificate of completion by Dec. 31, 2023, to preserve certain entitlements. That deadline had expired under the earlier ordinance and the zoning reverted to conventional development rules; the current amendment proposed new phasing language and removed the prior 380-linked deadline.

Public comments and applicant remarks Three residents spoke during public comment. Clifford Hall, who said his property in Overlook Estates abuts the site, urged careful study of adjacency and height provisions, recommended that Tracts J and K be limited to two stories where they border existing homes, and asked for stronger buffering. Monica Pintado and Elizabeth Moore also objected to the scale of the lagoon and multifamily uses; Moore called a proposed four-acre lagoon “grotesque” given regional water shortages and urged commissioners to consider long-term water impacts.

Pete Conklin, representing Island Development Group and identifying himself as the applicant, addressed water concerns and the lagoon’s intended use. Conklin said the development had drilled a well on the property and described the water plan to the commission: "we would fill it one time with the city's water and then we'd use the well." He also said the lagoon was intended for swimming, kayaking and recreational features such as an obstacle course or surf park.

Commission discussion and decision Commissioners raised several substantive concerns during the discussion. Commissioner Landrip said she was not in favor of the multifamily and lagoon components because they “go against the current water ordinance” and expressed support for hotel and commercial uses with appropriate buffering to adjacent residences. Vice Chair stressed that if the lagoon portion were required in phase 1, the proposal might be unique and beneficial to the city; but several commissioners said unanswered water-supply, timing and readiness questions left them unconvinced.

Vice Chair moved to deny the proposed PUD amendment; the motion passed 4-1. The commission chair recorded the outcome as a denial of the PUD amendment and noted the applicant retains the option to develop under existing zoning that allows 35,000 square feet of commercial uses or to submit a revised zoning request.

Next steps Because the commission recommended denial, the matter will be forwarded to City Council for final action. Staff reminded the commission — and the public — that applicants may pursue development under the current zoning or return with a revised application.

Ending note Commissioners and residents repeatedly framed water availability and neighborhood compatibility as the central issues influencing the decision; commissioners said a more detailed presentation from the applicant addressing water sourcing, construction deadlines, and neighborhood buffering would be necessary for reconsideration.