Cedar Park City Council OKs comprehensive plan update

Before the final vote City Council members approved amendments to the plan recommended by the Cedar Park Planning and Zoning Commission on Oct. 6. City Council members also proposed and approved additional amendments to the comprehensive plan, including:

1. Replacing uses of the acronym "BHAG," for "big hairy audacious goal," with the term "breakthrough goals"
2. Clarifying a reference to the city's goal of recruiting employers with about 1,000 jobs each, and adding a reference to the city's "focus on middle- or high-skilled employment"

Mayor Matt Powell said the city's Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee fulfilled city leaders' hopes for local engagement and thoughtful alignment with the city's vision. The group took its responsibilities seriously, Powell said, including giving pushback to the city when necessary.

"This is the end of a long process but the beginning of another," Powell said.

Committee members began meeting with consultant firm Freese & Nichols Inc. in February 2013. Members held an online survey and took a bus tour of undeveloped sites in the city. The city revealed the first draft of the updated comprehensive plan during community meetings in July.

Debating the land-use map

The updated comprehensive plan includes a land-use map that shows the city's vision for current and future land uses, including office, residential and retail properties.

The land-use map does not determine a property's zoning. That leaves members of the Cedar Park Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council free to follow the map or make exceptions for zoning applicants on a case-by-case basis, City Council members said.

During City Council's Nov. 6 meeting, council members discussed the map at length in light of critiques from some local stakeholders. During that council meeting David Johnson, a member of the local group Citizens for Sensible Growth, told City Council his group had hired Charles Heimsath, president of Austin-based Capitol Market Research, to overview the map and offer feedback.

"They were concerned that the city's future land-use plan was overly weighted toward office and retail land uses in particular, at the exclusion of residential use," Heimsath said Oct. 30.

On Oct. 9, Heimsath told City Council the map appeared to overestimate demand for office and retail properties in Central Texas. Heimsath said the map could put Cedar Park at risk of having land zoned for business go undeveloped. He recommended city leaders consider alternate uses such as single-family or multi-family housing especially on less-trafficked roads or intersections.

Johnson said supporters of his view own about $75 million worth of land in Cedar Park. He asked City Council members to respect Heimsath's findings and individuals' property rights when making future zoning decisions. Johnson also asked City Council to pull the land-use map from the updated comprehensive plan to allow more time for discussion.

Place 1 Councilman Stephen Thomas cautioned against viewing the comprehensive plan or land-use map as a set of rigid detailed standards rather than an overall vision for growth.

"You're going to have to make adjustments as the market dictates," Thomas said. "We need to make sure that we don't get bogged down in some of those [details] when we know it could be a good plan."

Place 5 Councilman Jon Lux said City Council has previously deviated from the land-use map because of market demands, such as when city leaders switched from their original walkable mixed-use concept for Cedar Park Town Center and allowed Costco and other retailers to build there instead. Place 4 Councilman Lowell Moore said City Council had originally planned a city park northwest of East New Hope Drive and Toll 183A, but was open to a proposed entertainment center on the site instead. The land is now home to the Cedar Park Center that opened in September 2009.

Place 6 Councilman Don Tracy, who invited Heimsath to present his findings at City Council's Oct. 9 work session, said he would prefer more discussion about the land-use map.

"Maybe we are designating too much land for commercial uses versus residential uses," Tracy said. "Those who request a zoning change have [to reach] a pretty high bar. Why is the burden solely on the property owner to prove why they should be able to do what they would like to do with the property? We might ought to consider what burden lies with us as well."

Place 3 Councilman Lyle Grimes said he believes the council will consider landowners' rights.

"I personally believe that the land-use map is reflective of a very long arduous journey for our city, and I think that it's a very good work for our citizens," Grimes said. "And I think that while it is a good plan, it is flexible, and we do make exceptions."

Powell suggested council members could further discuss how city leaders can implement the vision of the comprehensive plan and land-use map during City Council's upcoming council retreat in January.

Editor's note: An earlier version of this story stated City Council approved motions to add to the comprehensive plan a reference to "bicycle connectivity" and change the word "designate" to "protect" regarding vacant land. City Council members discussed but did not include these items in the final motion for approval.