City Council Meeting 12/4/25 Work Session Item #4 (Land Swap Proposal from Hines)

[Amanda Chavarria]

I want to speak clearly about why I believe this land exchange is a bad deal for the City of Lago Vista, especially since Hines hasn't been clear, forthcoming or even cooperative in previous negotiations with the city.

1. The city is not a private land broker. Our land along FM 1431 is held in trust for the public, not as inventory to be traded whenever a developer decides their site plan would work better a different way. We are being asked to give up scarce, strategically located frontage on a major corridor in exchange for land inside a private development, sandwiched between a shopping center and residents back yards. Even if the acreage we receive is technically larger, this is not a square-footage game. Location, leverage, and future options matter more than raw acreage.

Right now, we do not have a clearly defined, adopted, and funded public use for the 2 acres we would get. There is no specific park plan, no approved facility, no urgent infrastructure need that can’t be met another way. What we have is a general “nice to have” idea. You don’t trade away your front porch for someone else’s side yard and call it a win just because the side yard is a little bigger. That is not responsible stewardship.

2. We have to think very carefully about the precedent this sets. We have a Comprehensive Plan, PDDs, plats, and development agreements that are supposed to provide predictability for everyone: residents, staff, and developers. If, after the fact, we start moving City land around inside those projects to make things easier for the developer, we are essentially doing policy by exception.

Approving this says to every current and future developer: “If you don’t like the way your land lays out, come back later and the City might trade you some of ours.” That encourages poor upfront planning and shifts the mindset from “work within the adopted plans” to “we can always negotiate a swap later.” The next developer will not see this as an exception; they will see it as a template.

3. We have a fiduciary duty to protect public assets. Once we give up 1431 frontage, it’s gone. Future councils and future residents will not get that corridor back. If a future council ever wants to consider disposing of that land, it should be through a very clear, transparent process where the public benefit is unmistakable, and the value is maximized for the taxpayers, not as part of a one-off trade designed primarily to solve a private planning problem.

For all of these reasons, uncertain public benefit, likely undervaluation of a key City asset, the very dangerous precedent it sets as well as entry/exit way nightmare, I cannot support this land exchange with the information currently provided. From the provided proposal it appears that there is more than enough space for an entrance and that the developer is only asking for this swap to make the land more appealing to the buyers they intend to sell the property to.

Lastly, why on earth does Lago Vista need another (7th or 8th) Gas Station? Especially one with a liquor and vape store attached to it?

 

[Norma Owen]

Thank you for laying out your concerns so clearly, Councilwoman Chavarria. I want to add a few factual clarifications from the adopted documents that govern this parcel and the surrounding area.

The Tessera PDD and subsequent zoning actions have long designated this location for commercial use, and that designation has guided both staff and applicant expectations over multiple years. For example, page 14 of the December 14, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission packet shows this area within a commercial land-use allocation under the approved PDD framework. That packet is publicly available here:
https://www.lagovistatexas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3624/2023-12-14-pz-reg-agn-pak-PDF?bidId=

Additionally, both the FLUM and the official zoning map reflect this same commercial designation. Whether we personally prefer another type of business at this location, the fact remains that the zoning, PDD, and land-use maps all support a commercial use, including a convenience store, without the City taking action to change those entitlements.

Where I share concern, and believe we need further information, is on the proposed second egress onto FM 1431. Safety along that corridor is already a challenge, and your point about creating additional conflict points is well taken. I intend to ask staff for:

1. TIA-supported alternatives, including whether internal circulation or right-in/right-out approaches were explored;
2. TxDOT’s position on any additional ingress/egress on that segment; and
3. Any feasible modifications that maintain safety while meeting access requirements.

At this time, I am not in favor of approving the land-swap request because:

• We do not have TIA documentation or sufficient roadway-safety analysis;
• We have not identified a clear, defined public benefit that outweighs the loss of 1431 frontage; and
• The proposal does not yet demonstrate material advantage to the City, beyond solving a private-development layout issue.

I am open to continued discussion once we have the technical data in hand, but based on the current record, the criteria for approval are not met.

 

[Amanda Chavarria]

Thank you for laying out your concerns so clearly, Councilwoman Chavarria. I want to add a few factual clarifications from the adopted documents that govern this parcel and the surrounding area.

The Tessera PDD and subsequent zoning actions have long designated this location for commercial use, and that designation has guided both staff and applicant expectations over multiple years. For example, page 14 of the December 14, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission packet shows this area within a commercial land-use allocation under the approved PDD framework. That packet is publicly available here:
https://www.lagovistatexas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3624/2023-12-14-pz-reg-agn-pak-PDF?bidId=

Additionally, both the FLUM and the official zoning map reflect this same commercial designation. Whether we personally prefer another type of business at this location, the fact remains that the zoning, PDD, and land-use maps all support a commercial use, including a convenience store, without the City taking action to change those entitlements.

Where I share concern, and believe we need further information, is on the proposed second egress onto FM 1431. Safety along that corridor is already a challenge, and your point about creating additional conflict points is well taken. I intend to ask staff for:

1. TIA-supported alternatives, including whether internal circulation or right-in/right-out approaches were explored;
2. TxDOT’s position on any additional ingress/egress on that segment; and
3. Any feasible modifications that maintain safety while meeting access requirements.

At this time, I am not in favor of approving the land-swap request because:

• We do not have TIA documentation or sufficient roadway-safety analysis;
• We have not identified a clear, defined public benefit that outweighs the loss of 1431 frontage; and
• The proposal does not yet demonstrate material advantage to the City, beyond solving a private-development layout issue.

I am open to continued discussion once we have the technical data in hand, but based on the current record, the criteria for approval are not met.

Thank you Norma for your reply. I am aware that the space has always been designated as commercial (C1A) and the PDD, FLUM etc reflects that. My concern has and will always be, what benefit does making this swap give to the city as a whole? The effluent excuse isn't flying with me as the cost to run irrigation and then having to maintain only two acres for effluent within a subdivision seems like a bad deal to me.

I have driven by several similarly designed establishments as is proposed in the packet (i.e. Snack Stop) and the only thing that resonates with me at the moment is that Hines is most likely asking for this 0.54 acres to allow access to a carwash on the property (in addition to the extended entrance access). Similar establishments like the QT on 1431 heading into Cedar Park have this layout as do numerous Snack Stop's throughout Travis and Williamson County. Otherwise, the currently platted space is sufficient to allow safe entry/exiting of a large commercial/retail space. I have walked and measured the distance myself with a measuring wheel and used a Stonex Trimble and GPS tools.

Since this is considered a "master-planned community" that prides itself on layout, I am dismayed to see this on the agenda and feel that if approved would set a terrible precedent. This isn't asking for a variance from P&Z or the BSC, this is asking for a land-swap to increase the marketability of their property to appeal to gas stations with additional "specialty shops". I am hopeful that the developer will explore other commercial opportunities that will better serve the community as a whole. As proposed, I cannot support this and look forward to hearing a very thorough explanation as to what other options were researched prior to submitting this request to council.

 

[Shane Saum]

Thank you, Councilor Chavarria and Mayor Pro Tem Owen, for laying this out so clearly. I agree with both of you that the proposed Tessera land swap in Item IX.4 is not a good deal for the City, and based on the information in the packet I would not support approving it. The City Manager stated since it was presented to him, it was needed to be brought before council so they could discuss it. I had asked for it to be removed as an action item and made a work session item, however the "Discussion and possible action" language accidentally remained, so it will be a good question for the City Attorney if action can be taken (hopefully to deny), even though it is in the work session section. Obviously, without having our Rules of Procedure discussion yet, we have not fully started our proposed agenda change of having the first meeting of every month be work shop items only, but I hope we get there early in 2026.

Our frontage on 1431 is a long term public asset, not something we should trade away to solve a private site planning problem. Even if the acreage numbers work out on paper, we would be giving up scarce, strategic frontage in exchange for interior land that does not provide the same leverage or options for future councils or residents. Location and future flexibility matter more than raw square footage.

I share the concern about precedent. If we start moving City land around inside private projects after the fact, we invite every future developer to ask for similar exceptions whenever their layout proves less marketable than they hoped. That undermines the predictability of our PDD, FLUM, zoning map, and development agreements, and blurs the line between public stewardship and private deal making.

I am also not persuaded that the effluent argument justifies this trade, particularly when it would leave us maintaining a small effluent area inside a subdivision that brings its own long term costs and complications. If we want to expand effluent capacity or storage, we should evaluate that as part of a broader utilities strategy, not as an add on to a land swap for a single commercial corner.

Finally, I share the safety concerns about adding another access point and another gas station at that location on 1431. That is already a challenging stretch of highway, and creating additional conflict points for turning movements into a high traffic convenience store or car wash is not something I am comfortable encouraging. Lago Vista does not need a seventh or eighth gas station at one of the more dangerous segments of our main corridor.

For all of those reasons, I am not in favor of the swap and do not see a clear public benefit that outweighs the loss of 1431 frontage. My hope is that we can keep the workshop discussion on this item fairly short, allow questions to be asked on the record, and then be clear with the applicant that Council is not inclined to proceed on these terms and hopefully do not put any extra work for our staff on this item.