Lago Vista commission postpones Firefly Cove PDD amendment after residents raise access, traffic and easement concerns

The Lago Vista Planning and Zoning Commission postponed consideration of a proposed amendment to the Firefly Cove Planned Development District (PDD) on a 4'to
2 vote, after residents and commissioners raised questions about public access, traffic and easement rights.

The amendment would replace Exhibit C of the original PDD ordinance (Ordinance No. 21090201) to align the PDD's concept and detailed plans with provisions that appear in a later municipal utility district (MUD) consent agreement, according to Development Services staff. "This item is a request to amend the original exhibit of the PDD to match what was agreed on in the MUD consent agreement," staff said during the hearing, adding that the requested change does not alter ordinance text, density or land uses but does update acreage, right-of-way and how amenities are distributed.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the revised exhibit lists several lakeside and neighborhood amenity parcels as publicly accessible and shows relocated pickleball courts and trail connections that were not called out in mailed notices to property owners. Draper's Cove residents testified that some parcels are deeded for private use and are served by narrow private roads that cannot safely handle additional public traffic.

Residents pressed multiple technical and legal points. Several speakers, including homeowners who said their deeds show "East and West beaches for residents and guests only," asked for documentation proving a transfer of private access to public use. Others described narrow driveways, floodplain conditions and noise concerns from pickleball courts.

The applicant and counsel said the exhibit swap responds to council direction captured in the MUD consent agreement and that the PDD language and consent agreement together allow amenity areas to be used by others under an agreement between the owner and others. "All we are doing now is coming up with a way to distribute the amenities throughout the subdivision," an applicant representative said, adding the change "does not change density." Applicant counsel told commissioners the amendment replaces the exhibit only and does not alter PDD text or intensities.

What commissioners asked for: Commission members and staff identified a set of documents and determinations they want before forwarding a recommendation to council. The commission's motion to postpone requires, by the next Planning & Zoning hearing, that the applicant provide: a DRC (development review committee) determination (engineering, fire marshal, parks and public works) per Chapter 10; a determination that the portion of the property located in the former Austin extraterritorial jurisdiction meets applicable ETJ-release standards (City Code 3.16); documentation of parkland calculations and any substitution of amenities for required parkland (City Code Sec. 5); and revisions to the exhibit so the detailed plan meets Section 10-20-c requirements (stamped survey, FEMA flood-plain depiction, easement locations and any deviations). The commission also asked for an updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) before the item goes to council.

Public safety and property questions: Commissioners repeatedly flagged traffic and emergency-access concerns tied to the proposed locations of public amenities. One commissioner said the 2021 TIA likely does not reflect the traffic that would be generated by formally public amenities and pickleball courts, recommending a new TIA. Residents and the Old Farm Property Owners Association requested that engineering and flood-study materials underlying applicants' statements be stamped and included in the record.

The motion and next steps: The commission's motion to postpone the PDD amendment to the August 13 Planning & Zoning meeting, with the conditions noted above, passed by a 4'to
2 vote (one commissioner opposed). Staff and the applicant said they will return with the requested documentation; council will receive the commission's recommendation after the commission acts.

The hearing record: Dozens of residents spoke during a lengthy public comment period; common themes included protection of deeded easement rights, the impact of public lake access on private roads, and noise from proposed pickleball courts. Several residents urged keeping specific parcels private (particularly a 5.5-acre flag lot described by residents as subject to an easement), and asked for clarity about who will maintain publicly accessible amenities (applicant representatives said the HOA or MUD would likely maintain many facilities, and that public access would be governed by an access instrument or agreement).

What remains unresolved: The commission's action delays final recommendation but does not reject the amendment. Key unresolved items that will determine the project's path are: the updated TIA, DRC signoffs showing code compliance (including parkland and floodplain standards), an updated master development plan/survey-level exhibits, and any legal clarifications about easements and what the consent agreement permits. The commission left open the option to recommend approval with conditions or to recommend denial if required documentation is not provided.

The commission adjourned the PDD hearing and will consider the item again on the August 13 agenda, after staff and the applicant submit the DRC findings, revised exhibits and supporting engineering reports.