Leander planning commission approves comprehensive plan change for Journey Parkway site; zoning decision postponed to council

The Leander Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve a comprehensive plan amendment that would change the future land-use designation for roughly 52.92 acres at the northwest corner of Journey Parkway and County Road 175 from "neighborhood center" to "neighborhood residential." The change was recorded at the commission meeting that began at 6:01 p.m.; the commission then declined to take action on the companion zoning request and forwarded the zoning matter to City Council.

Planning staff said the amendment is the first step required before any zoning change. Michael Chinoski of the planning department told the commission the applicant has also submitted an annexation request that the City Council will hear concurrently with the comprehensive plan and zoning requests. "Staff recommends option 2, which is to deny the proposed comprehensive plan amendment from neighborhood center to neighborhood residential based on the city council's decision following the development proposal back in September," Chinoski said during his presentation.

The property, described in staff materials as Williamson County Central Appraisal District parcels R338810, R407804 and R407805, is about 52.92 acres and lies at the northwest corner of Journey Parkway and County Road 175 in Leander, Williamson County, Texas. The application was filed as comprehensive plan case CPA-25-0017 and zoning case Z-25-0166; the zoning request would change the current interim SFR-1B (single-family rural) designation to a mix of single-family compact (SFC 2a), single-family urban (SFU 2a) and single-family suburban (SFS 2a) districts to allow a new single-family subdivision.

The applicant’s consulting planner, Ethan Harwell of Kimley‑Horn Associates, described the site as surrounded primarily by single-family subdivisions and civic uses, including schools. He told commissioners the developer, MI Homes, modified the proposal after neighborhood meetings to place larger 70-foot lots along the northern edge where existing homeowners had requested larger lots. "The area surrounding this property is completely residential," Harwell said. He also described plans for about 2.3 acres of parkland and a detention pond to work with the site’s topography and to preserve existing trees.

Dozens of nearby residents spoke during the public hearing and urged the commission to deny a move away from the neighborhood‑center designation, citing traffic near the three adjacent schools, concerns about noise and lighting, potential commercial nuisances and water supply limits. Anita Shumnovich, who spoke during public comment, argued the proposal "directly undermines the city's own water policy" and said the amendment would remove the neighborhood‑center buffer and set a precedent for piecemeal erosion of the future‑land‑use map.

Developer representatives and the applicant said they had engaged with neighbors, held multiple community meetings and revised the plan in response to feedback. MI Homes’ Royce Rippy said the design seeks to match surrounding neighborhoods and that the project timeline is phased to align with the city’s water‑capacity upgrades; he described preliminary sales and construction timing that would not bring homes online until after planned water‑capacity projects are completed.

Commissioners debated competing priorities: adherence to the adopted comprehensive plan and the council’s prior direction, water‑supply limits reflected in a city water resolution prioritizing low‑density zoning, traffic and school‑zone safety, and the city’s interest in a more diverse tax base. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to neighbors’ traffic and safety concerns and also worried about the city’s water resolution, but ultimately the commission approved the comprehensive plan amendment. "We’re going to be looking at the comp plan again," one commissioner said during the debate, noting a scheduled update.

The vote on the comprehensive plan amendment passed unanimously. The commission took no action on the requested zoning changes and left the zoning matter for City Council to decide; staff had recommended denial of the comprehensive plan amendment, and commissioners’ approval marks a divergence from staff’s position. If the comprehensive plan amendment remains in place after council review, the zoning request would still need to address limits in the city’s water resolution and any conditions imposed by council.

Next steps: the zoning request and the applicant’s annexation request will proceed to City Council for concurrent review and final decisions. The commission’s packet includes staff analysis, neighborhood meeting notes and the developer’s preliminary phasing and lot‑size plans.