HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_P&Z_01.19.2016Notice of Meeting for the
Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Georgetown
January 19, 2016 at 6:00 PM
at City Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Chair
- Welcome and Meeting Procedures
Action from Executive Session
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be
found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak,
and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called
forward to speak when the Board considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a
written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request
must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to
inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
A - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on
the agenda.
Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that may be acted upon
with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and
acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
B Consideration of the minutes from December 15, 2015 meeting.
C Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary/Final Plat of 2.63 acres out of the N. Porter
Survey, Abstract 497, located at 1502 Williams Drive, on the south side of Williams Drive just
Page 1 of 140
east of Rivery Boulevard in the City of Georgetown, to be known as Georgetown Alamo
Subdivision #1. (PFP-2015-002) Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
Legislative Regular Agenda
D Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to the
Public Facility (PF) District for 50.44 acres of land in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No.
21, located at 1601 Rockride Lane, known as GISD Mitchell Elementary School and New Middle
School #4. (REZ-2015-022) Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner
E Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to the
Residential Single Family (RS) District for 25.03 acres in the Perry Survey located at 650 FM 971.
(REZ-2015-012) Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner
F Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 17.406 acres of the Berry Survey,
located at 300 County Road 152 and to be known as Chisholm Park 2, from the Residential
Single-family (RS) District to the Low Density Multifamily (MF-1) District. (REZ-2015-019)
Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
G Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 1.84 acres of the L.J. Dyches Survey,
located at 1050 F.M. 1460, from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Residential Low Density
(RL) District. (REZ-2015-027) Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
H Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone Lots 1 & 2, Block 9, of the Glasscock
Addition, located at 224 E. 8th Street and known as The Union on Eighth, from the Mixed-Use
Downtown (MUDT) District with conditions to the Mixed-Use Downtown (MUDT) District
(without conditions). (REZ-2015-014) Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner
I Public Hearing and possible action on an amendment to a Special Use Permit at 224 E. 8th
Street, being Lots 1 & 2, Block 9, of the Glasscock Addition, for an event facility, known as The
Union on Eighth, in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MUDT) District. (SUP-2015-001) Valerie
Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner
J Discussion Items:
Update on the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee (UDCAC) meetings.
(Commissioner in Training Bargainer)
Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) meetings.
(Commissioner Rankin)
Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and matters
considered on this agenda.
Reminder of the February 2, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in the
Council Chambers located at 101 East 7th Street, starting at 6:00 pm.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley Nowling, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this
Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general
public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2016, at __________, and remained
so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 2 of 140
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
January 19, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the minutes from December 15, 2015 meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Draft P&Z Minutes_December 15, 2015 Cover Memo
Page 3 of 140
Page 1 of 4
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners: Josh Schroeder, Chair; Kevin Pitts, Vice-Chair; Scott Rankin,
Secretary and Kaylah McCord
Commissioner(s) Absent: Andy Webb, Alex Fuller, John Marler
Commissioners in Training: Jay Warren, Tim Bargainer
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent:
Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator;
Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Mike Elabarger,
Senior Planner; Carolyn Horner, Planner, Juan Enriquez, Planner; David Munk, Utility
Engineer Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst and Stephanie McNickle, Recording
Secretary.
Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Chair Schroeder stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in
a speaker form to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address
begins. Each speaker is permitted to address the Commission once for each item, for a
maximum of three (3) minutes, unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins.
A. As of the deadline for this agenda, no persons were signed up to speak on items
other than what was posted on the agenda.
Consent Agenda
B. Consideration of the minutes from December 1, 2015 meeting.
C. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat of 47.95 acres in the
Stubblefield Survey, Abstract No. 558, located along an extension of Wolf Ranch
Parkway south of State Highway 29 (West University Avenue), to be known as
Wolf Ranch West Section 1B.
D. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat of 36.105 acres in the
John Sutherland Survey, Abstract 554 and G.B. Mayhall Survey, Abstract 821, to
be known as Novak Preserve, located on the west side of Russell Park Road (C.R.
262).
Page 4 of 140
Page 2 of 4
E. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat of 117.83 acres in the
Burrell Eaves Survey, Abstract 126, to be known as Sun City Neighborhoods 81-
82.
Motion by Commissioner Rankin to approve the consent agenda including the
minutes from December 1, 2015 Planning and Zoning meeting. Second by
Commissioner Pitts. Approved. (4-0)
Legislative Regular Agenda
F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 113.16 acres of land
in the William Addison and J Robertson Surveys located at the northwest corner
of Westinghouse Road (County Road 111) and the future extension of Maple
Street, from Agriculture (AG) District to Residential Single-Family (RS) District,
known as Gattis Tract. REZ-2015-021 (Juan Enriquez, Planner and Sofia Nelson,
CNU-A, Planning Director) Staff report by Juan Enriquez and staff recommends
approval.
Chair Schroeder invited the applicant to speak. The applicant declined.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward the Public
Hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Pitts to recommend to City Council approval to
Rezone 113.16 acres of land in the William Addison and J Robertson Surveys
located at the northwest corner of Westinghouse Road (County Road 111) and
the future extension of Maple Street, from Agriculture (AG) District to
Residential Single-Family (RS) District, known as Gattis Tract. Second by
Commissioner McCord. Approved. (4-0)
G. Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 0.47 acres of Lot 7,
Block 1, Highland Park Addition Revised, located at 209 West 24th Street, from
Residential Single-Family (RS) District to Local Commercial (C-1) District. (REZ-
2015-024) Juan Enriquez, Planner
Application will be presented during the January 19, 2016 P&Z meeting.
H. Discussion and possible recommendation of approval of a Scope of Work for the
Williams Drive Study with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(CAMPO). - Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst, Transportation Services,
Andreina Davila-Quintero, Project Coordinator, City Manager's Office, Edward
G. Polasek, AICP, Director, Transportation Services.
Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst gave a presentation.
Question asked and staff stated TxDOT will be in charge of the money and
working with Federal Government. City of Georgetown will be in charge of the
land use.
Page 5 of 140
Page 3 of 4
Motion by Commissioner Rankin to recommend approval to City Council the
Scope of Work for the Williams Drive Study with the Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization as presented. Second by commissioner Pitts. Approved
(4-0)
I Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG)
District, to the Public Facility (PF) District for 50.44 acres of land in the William
Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21, located at 1601 Rockride Lane, known as GISD
Mitchell Elementary School and New Middle School #4. (REZ-2015-022) Carolyn
Horner, AICP, Planner
Application will be presented during the January 19, 2016 P&Z meeting.
J Public Hearing and possible action on a request to rezone Lots 1 & 2, Block 9, of
the Glasscock Addition, located at 224 E. 8th Street and known as The Union on
Eighth, from the Mixed-Use Downtown (MUDT) District with conditions to the
Mixed-Use Downtown (MUDT) District (without conditions). REZ-2015-014
(Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner, and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning
Director)
Application will be presented during the January 19, 2016 P&Z meeting.
K Public Hearing and possible action on an amendment to a Special Use Permit at
224 E. 8th Street, being Lots 1 & 2, Block 9, of the Glasscock Addition, for an
event facility, known as The Union on Eighth, in the Mixed-Use Downtown
(MUDT) District. SUP-2015-001 (Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner, and
Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director)
Application will be presented during the January 19, 2016 P&Z meeting.
H. Discussion Items:
• Update on the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee (UDCAC)
meetings. (Commissioner in Training Bargainer) N/A
• Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) meetings.
(Commissioner Rankin) N/A
• Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and
matters considered on this agenda. N/A
• Reminder of the January 19, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in
the Council Chambers located at 101 East 7th Street, starting at 6:00 pm.
Adjourned at 6:34 p.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________
Page 6 of 140
Page 4 of 4
Josh Schroeder, Chair Scott Rankin, Secretary
Page 7 of 140
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
January 19, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary/Final Plat of 2.63 acres out of the N. Porter
Survey, Abstract 497, located at 1502 Williams Drive, on the south side of Williams Drive just
east of Rivery Boulevard in the City of Georgetown, to be known as Georgetown Alamo
Subdivision #1. (PFP-2015-002) Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant requests to subdivide one 2.63 acre property into one (1) non-residential lot zoned
Local Commercial (C-1) District to facilitate future non-residential development of the property.
Public Comment:
Public notice is not requirement for a Preliminary/Final Plat. As of the date of this report, no
written public comments have been received.
Recommended Motion:
Approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat of 2.63 acres out of the N. Porter Survey, Abstract 497.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Aerial Map Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Proposed Preliminary Final Plat Backup Material
Page 8 of 140
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Georgetown Alamo Subdivision, 1502 Williams Drive - Preliminary/Final Plat Page 1 of 2
Report Date: January 13, 2016
File No: PFP-2015-002
Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Georgetown Alamo Subdivision #1
Project Address: 1502 Williams Drive
Location: South side of Williams Drive, east of Rivery Boulevard (See Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 2.63 acres
Legal Description: 2.63 acres in the N. Porter Survey, Abstract No. 497
Applicant: Steve Ihnen, P.E., Garrett-Ihnen Civil Engineers
Property Owners: Georgetown Alamo Investors, LLC
Contact: Steve Ihnen, P.E., Garrett-Ihnen Civil Engineers
Proposed Lots: One (1) non-residential lot
Streets Proposed: None
Parkland: None; fee-in-lieu of parkland dedication would be provided at time of Site Plan
approval should multifamily uses be developed
Heritage Trees: Four (4) Heritage Trees are noted on the plat
Existing Use: Undeveloped
Existing Zoning: Local Commercial District (C-1)
Growth Tier: Tier 1 (Developed/Redeveloping)
Applicant’s Request
The applicant requests to subdivide one 2.63 acre property into one (1) non-residential lot; see Exhibit 3.
Site Information/History
The proposed subdivision is located east of Rivery Boulevard. There are obvious remnants of
development on the property, but given the surrounding age and types of development, it was likely used
as a residence at some time during the last century. The property generally slopes away from Williams
Drive to a point where the property precipitiously drops in a steep slope to the San Gabriel River. Four (4)
identified Heritage Trees are noted on this plat. Annexation dates to 1954, and the zoning district (Local
Commercial) was approved in 2014 via Ordinance 2014-62.
2030 Plan Conformance
Staff has analyzed the proposed subdivision and taken into consideration the 2030 Future Land Use Plan.
This property is overlain with the Specialty Mixed Use Area (SMUA) future land use designation, which
calls for a mixture of uses and development types to create an innovative pedestrian-oriented environment.
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1, Developed or Redeveloping, and this site is
prepared for redevelopment.
Utilities
The property is within the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) electric, water, and wastewater service areas
and will be served by the City for all three utilities through the building permit process when each lot is
developed.
Page 9 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
Georgetown Alamo Subdivision, 1502 Williams Drive - Preliminary/Final Plat Page 2 of 2
Transportation/Access
The property fronts on Williams Drive only, but has a shared access driveway on its western boundary
with the Extraco Bank property on the corner of Williams and Rivery Boulevard. Driveway location
(spacing considerations) will be determined through the Site Plan review process, as well as possible inter-
parcel connections to the property to the east.
Future Application(s)
The Preliminiary/Final Plat is an application that allows for the combination of the Preliminary and Final
Plats where an administrative plat triggers a Preliminary Plat due only to the required dedication of utilities
or land (Williams Drive right-of-way in this instance). The combined application follows the procedure
for approval of a Preliminary Plat, but also receives Final Plat approval and may be recorded.
The following applications will be processed separately:
Building permits for construction on each residential lot.
Staff Analysis
Staff Recommendation and Basis:
The proposed Preliminary/Final Plat meets the requirements of the Unified Development Code and is
recommended for approval.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None
Public Comments
Public notice is not required for a preliminary plat application. There have been no public comments
received at the time of this report.
Proposed Meetings Schedule
January 19, 2016 – Planning and Zoning Commission
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Aerial Map (2015)
Exhibit 3 – Proposed Preliminary/Final Plat
Page 10 of 140
(River/
Strea
m
)
PFP-2015-002
HINTZRD
A D A M S S T
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
H I G H KNOLL
L
N
S H A N N O N L N
PARK
W
A
Y
S
T
RIV E R SID E D R
E JA
N
I
S
D
R
PARK LN
C O U N T R Y CLUBRD
WJANISDR
WILL
I
A
M
S
D
R
T
N
N
B
PARK
L
N
MORRI
S
D
R
M
E
S
Q
U
I
T
E
L
N
CEDA
R
D
R
W CENT
R A L D R
RIVERY B L V D
R IV E R Y B L V D
O
A
K
L
N
PFP-2015-002Exhibit #1 - Location Map
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 540 1,080Feet ¯
Legend
SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
§¨¦35
W
illia
msDr
Lakew ay DrBooty'sCrossingRd
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
NAustinAve
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
N A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
NColleg e StRiveryBlvd
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
WolfRanchPkw y EMorro w St
N
orth
w
estBlvd
Lakew ay Dr
Lake w ay Dr
Site
City Limits
Street
Site ³
Page 11 of 140
PFP-2015-002
E JA
N
I
S
D
R
A
D
A
M
S
S
T
PARKW
A
Y
S
T
HINTZ
R
D
RANC
H
R
D
COU
N
T
R
Y
C
L
U
B
R
D
M
E
S
Q
U
I
T
E
L
N
WOLF RANCH PKWY
HIGHKNOL
L
L
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
MCC
O
Y
L
N
S IH
3
5
S
B
EXIT
2
6
1
S
B
SHAN
N
O
N
L
N
RIVER
S
I
D
E
D
R
PARK LN
W JA
N
I
S
D
R
MORRI
S
D
R
WILL
I
A
M
S
D
R
T
N
N
B
CEDAR
D
R
W CEN
T
R
A
L
D
R
RIVE
R
Y
B
L
V
D
O
A
K
L
N
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
0 500 1,000
Feet
Exhibit #2-Aerial Map
PFP-2015-002-1502 Williams
§¨¦35
Willia
msDr
Lakew ay DrBooty'sCrossingRd
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
NAustinAve
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
NColleg e StRiveryBlvd
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
WolfRanchPkw y EMorro w St
N
orth
w
estBlvd
Lakew ay Dr
Site
City Limits
Street
Site ³
Page 12 of 140
Page 13 of 140
Page 14 of 140
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
January 19, 2016
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to the
Public Facility (PF) District for 50.44 acres of land in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No.
21, located at 1601 Rockride Lane, known as GISD Mitchell Elementary School and New Middle
School #4. (REZ-2015-022) Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant has requested a rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District, to the Public Facility
(PF) District. The intention is to build a new Middle School adjacent to the existing Mitchell
Elementary School. The rezoning would encompass both the existing and the proposed school
buildings and support structures. While schools are permitted in the AG zoning district, the
development standards of the PF district allow GISD the most flexibility when developing the site.
Public Comments:
A total of 10 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning.
Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on January 3, 2016. No public comments were
received at the time of this report.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend to the City Council Approval of the request to rezone the 50.44 acre tract to the PF
District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Carolyn Horner, AICP and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 Backup Material
Exhibit 3 Backup Material
Page 15 of 140
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
GISD‐Mitchell Elementary School and New Middle School #4
AG to PF Page 1 of 5
Report Date: December 28, 2015
File No: REZ‐2015‐022
Project Planner: Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Georgetown ISD – Mitchell Elementary School and Proposed New
Middle School #4
Location: 1601 Rockride Lane
Total Acreage: 50.44 acres
Legal Description: 50.44 acres of land in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21
Applicant: Huckabee & Associates, Inc.
Property Owner: Georgetown ISD
Contact: Crystal Vasquez, Huckabee & Associates, Inc.
Existing Use: Mitchell Elementary School, undeveloped
Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG)
Proposed Zoning: Public Facility (PF)
Future Land Use: Institutional
Growth Tier: Tier 1B
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested a rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District, to the Public
Facility (PF) District. The intention is to build a new Middle School adjacent to the existing
Mitchell Elementary School. The rezoning would encompass both the existing and the
proposed school buildings and support structures. While schools are permitted in the AG
zoning district, the development standards of the PF district allow GISD the most flexibility
when developing the site.
Site Information
Location: The existing Mitchell Elementary School is located on Rockride Lane, south of S.E.
Inner Loop. The proposed middle school will be on the same property, on the eastern side.
The schools will not share facilities, but they will share main access drives off Rockride Lane.
Physical Characteristics:
The property is currently partially developed as GISD Mitchell Elementary School, which
includes the primary School building, sport fields, and parking. The property is located on
Page 16 of 140
Planning & Development Staff Report
GISD‐Mitchell Elementary School and New Middle School #4
AG to PF Page 2 of 5
Rockride Lane, and has two entrance drives for the school property on Rockride.
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties include
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North Agriculture (AG) Mixed Use
Community Wireless Transmission Tower
South Agriculture (AG)
Mixed Use
Community and
Employment Center
Agriculture
East
Planned Unit
Development
(PUD)– residential
Mixed Use
Community Vacant
West
Local Commercial
(C‐1) and High‐
Density Multi‐
Family (MF‐2)
High Density
Residential Vacant
Page 17 of 140
Planning & Development Staff Report
GISD‐Mitchell Elementary School and New Middle School #4
AG to PF Page 3 of 5
Property History
The subject property was annexed into the City of Georgetown in November 2006. It was part
of a 248‐acre area which was granted Agriculture District zoning upon annexation.
Mitchell Elementary opened in 2008. The school expanded in 2009, adding additional
classrooms and required parking. GISD has long intended for a middle school to occupy this
site.
Proposed Zoning District
The PF District is intended to provide a location for government and other public or quasi‐
public facility operations. These may include schools, public parks, hospitals, airports,
government offices, churches and other related uses. Some uses allowed in this District might
generate heavy traffic volumes and high‐intensity operations. The PF District is subject to
non‐residential design and landscaping standards for compatibility.
2030 Plan Conformance
The proposed rezoning to Public Facilities is in conformance with the 2030 Plan land use
designation of Institutional. The Future Land Use Plan further describes this category as
individual or concentrations of government operations and uses, including government
adminstrative offices, libraries, police, fire and EMS services, airports, correctional facilities,
and infrastructure. Schools, university and college campuses, and similar eductional uses and
centers are also a part of this designation, as are community institutions that are privately or
semi‐privately owned, such as churches and major medical and health care facilities.
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation for this project is Tier 1B of the City’s Growth
Tier Plan. Tier 1B comprises portions of the city or Extra‐territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) that
are subject to development agreements, where growth and the provision of public facilities
are anticipated within the next 10 years.
Utilities
Electric service provided by TXU, water is served by Jonah Water, and wastewater served by
City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve this property.
Transportation
The site is located on Rockride Lane, a Major Collector on the City’s Overall Transportation
Plan.
Page 18 of 140
Planning & Development Staff Report
GISD‐Mitchell Elementary School and New Middle School #4
AG to PF Page 4 of 5
Future Application(s)
The following applications will be required for the development of this site:
Site and Construction plans will be processed administratively;
Building permits for construction; and,
Certificate of Occupancy for all new structures.
Staff Analysis
Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning to the PF district for the following reasons:
1. The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
designation of Institutional, which supports both institutional and civic uses, and
would be further supported by the PF district;
2. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning of nearby property – half of
the site is an existing public facility (Mitchell Elementary School) with C‐1 and MF‐2
Districts to the west that are currently undeveloped, the AG District to the north and
south include undeveloped land and wireless transmission towers. The Planned Unit
Development to the east was approved by the City Council in October of this year. The
school does not have direct access into the new neighborhood thereby minimizing
impacts on this residential neighborhood; and
3. The proposed Public Facility (PF) District is created to provide a location for
government and other public or quasi‐public facility operations that may include
schools. The proposed new school will be adjacent to the existing elementary school on
the property. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the zoning
district.
Staff is supportive of the proposed project as the site has appropriate access to a collector level
roadway, is compatible with surrounding uses, the 2030 Future Land Use Plan, and the intent
of the PF District.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None
Public Comments
A total of 10 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed
rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on January 3, 2016. No public
comments were received at the time of this report.
Page 19 of 140
Planning & Development Staff Report
GISD‐Mitchell Elementary School and New Middle School #4
AG to PF Page 5 of 5
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Meetings Schedule
January 19, 2016 – Planning and Zoning Commission
January 26, 2016 – City Council First Reading
February 9, 2016 – City Council Second Reading
Page 20 of 140
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
R EZ -2 01 5-0 2 2
C A R L S O N C V
ROCKRID
E
L
N
S E I N N E R L O O P
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
S A M H O U S T O N A V E
REZ-2 015-0 22
Exhibit #1
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S ta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 1,000 2,000Fee t ¯
Le ge n d
SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
SE Inner Loop
S a m H o u s t o n Ave
S amHoustonAve
South
w
est
e
r
n
B
l
v
d
R
o
c
k
ri
d
e
L
n
Site
City Limits
Str eet
Si te ³
Page 21 of 140
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
R EZ -2 01 5-0 2 2
C A R L S O N C V
ROCKRIDE
L
N
S A M H O U S T O N A V E
S E I N N E R L O O P
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tate Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Fut ure L an d Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2REZ-2 015-0 22
Lege nd
Th oro ughf are
Fu ture Land Use
Institut ional
Regional Commerc ial
Comm unity Commercial
Employm ent Center
Low Density Res idential
Mining
Mix ed Use Community
Mix ed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderat e Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rur al Residential
SE Inner Loop
S a m H o u s t o n Ave
S amHoustonAve
South
w
e
st
e
r
n
B
l
v
d
R
o
c
k
ri
d
e
L
n
S EInnerLoop
Site
³
City Lim its
Str eet
Si te
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Ar terial
Existing Minor Ar terial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed F reeway
Props ed Frontage Road
Proposed M ajor Arterial
Proposed M inor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
Page 22 of 140
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
R EZ -2 01 5-0 2 2
ROCKRID
E
L
N
C A R L S O N C V
S A M H O U S T O N A V E
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
S E I N N E R L O O P
Zon in g Inf orm a tio nREZ-2 015-0 22Exhibit #3
¯
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tate Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 1,000 2,000Feet
Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
SE Inner Loop
S a m H o u s t o n Ave
S amHoustonAve
South
w
e
st
e
r
n
B
l
v
d
R
o
c
k
ri
d
e
L
n ³
Site
City L imits
Stre et
Site
Page 23 of 140
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
January 19, 2016
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to the
Residential Single Family (RS) District for 25.03 acres in the Perry Survey located at 650 FM 971.
(REZ-2015-012) Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
This application is coming back before the Planning & Zoning Commission due to a notification
error. The City sent notices for the November 3rd P&Z meeting based on the Williamson County
Appraisal District ownership list, which was several months out of date. Once the City was made
aware of the error, City Staff scheduled a new P&Z meeting and sent out new notices, using an
updated ownership list.
The applicant’s original request, for MF-1 Low Density Multi-family zoning, came before the
Planning and Zoning Commission on November 3rd, 2015. The Commission recommend the
request for MF-1 at that meeting. At the City Council meeting on December 8th, 2015, after many
public comments expressing concern about the project, the City Council postponed voting on the
request until the January 26, 2016 regularly scheduled City Council meeting. The City Council
requested that the applicant hold meetings with the adjacent neighborhoods to discuss the
proposed project.
In December 2015 and January 2016 the applicant and developer held meetings with residents of
the adjacent neighborhoods. The residents had questions regarding traffic, permanent access across
the subject property to San Gabriel Park, and whether the development would be traditional
apartments or a condominium regime. The residents were also concerned with the density of an
apartment-style development. Staff attended one of those meetings and was available to answer
questions.
Shortly before the posting of the agenda and this cover sheet, the applicant contacted staff to
formally revise their zoning request. Instead of pursuing the MF-1 District, their request is now for
RS Residential Single-Family zoning for the entire site. The RS District restricts development to
traditional lot-and-block single-family development at a density of 3-6 units per acre, which is
consistent with the zoning of adjacent neighborhoods. The applicant and staff have engaged in
conversations about possibly doing a conservation subdivision on the site, which would ensure
significant open space set-aside and accentuate the unique natural features of the land.
Public Comment:
As of the writing of this report, 4 letters in opposition and 1 letter in support were received for the
original request.
Recommended Motion:
Staff is in support of the amended request to RS zoning, which is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and similar in density to the existing pattern of development. Staff’s
recommendation is for the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend to the City Council
Approval of the amended request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid the required fees.
Page 24 of 140
SUBMITTED BY:
Carolyn Horner, AICP and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 Backup Material
Exhibit 3 Backup Material
Letters Backup Material
Page 25 of 140
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
The Park on San Gabriel, E. Morrow and FM 971 ‐ Rezoning Page 1 of 5
From AG to MF‐1
Report Date: December 28, 2015
File No: REZ‐2015‐012
Project Planner: Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: The Park on San Gabriel
Location: Southeast of the intersection of FM 971 and East Morrow Street
Total Acreage: 25.034 acres
Legal Description: 25.034 acres in the Orville Perry Survey, Abstract 10
Applicant: Steven Crauford, P.E., Pape‐Dawson Engineers, Inc.
Property Owner: Thomas William Murray and Ronald Dee Fox
Contact: Steven Crauford, P.E.
Existing Use: Undeveloped, floodplain
Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG)
Proposed Zoning: Low Density Multi‐family (MF‐1)
Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential, Parks, Recreation and Protected Open‐
Space
Growth Tier: Tier 1A
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to rezone 25.034 acres of land from Agriculture District (AG) to
Low Density Multi‐family (MF‐1) zoning for future residential development of the property.
Site Information
Location:
This property is located southeast of the intersection of FM 971 and East Morrow Street.
Physical Characteristics:
The property is undeveloped, and is heavily treed in the southwestern floodplain portion. The
property is subject to the current Heritage Tree regulations, which require a tree survey at
time of platting.
Page 26 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Park on San Gabriel, E. Morrow and FM 971 ‐ Rezoning Page 2 of 5
From AG to MF‐1
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties include Agriculture (AG), Residential Single‐family (RS), and City
Park.
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North
Agriculture (AG),
Residential Single‐
family (RS)
Moderate Density
Residential
Single family
residential,
cemetery
South Agriculture (AG) Parks, Recreation and
Protected Open‐Space Former city landfill
East Residential Single‐
family (RS)
Moderate Density
Residential
Single family
residential
West Residential Single‐
family (RS)
Moderate Density
Residential City Park
Page 27 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Park on San Gabriel, E. Morrow and FM 971 ‐ Rezoning Page 3 of 5
From AG to MF‐1
Property History
In 1998, the City of Georgetown City Council adopted Ordinance 98‐76, annexing this
property, along with the adjacent property to the east, into the City of Georgetown. Since
annexation, the property has held Agriculture District (AG) zoning.
The property is across Morrow Street from San Gabriel Park, and adjacent to the Katy
Crossing Trail Park on the east. The Guadalupe Cemetery is across Morrow as well.
The City of Georgetown has several Scenic/Natural Gateways, as specified within the
Unified Development Code. FM 971 is a designated gateway. At time of development, the
applicant will incorporate the requirements of the Gateway into the design of the overall
development.
2030 Plan
The City of Georgetown 2030 Plan designates the majority of this property as Moderate
Density Residential, and the remaining portion as Parks, Recreation and Protected Open‐
Space. The Moderate Density Residential category comprises single family neighborhoods
that can be accommodated at a density ranging between 3.1 and 6 dwelling units per gross
acre, with housing types including small‐lot detached and attached single family dwellings.
The Parks, Recreation and Protected Open‐Space category applies to existing public parks,
golf courses and protected open spaces of city‐wide significance, which are expected to
remain as open space in perpetuity.
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A, that portion of the city where
infrastructure systems are in place, or can be economically provided and where the bulk of the
city’s growth should be guided over the near term.
Proposed Zoning District
The applicant has requested Low Density Multi‐family (MF‐1) zoning on this property. The
MF‐1 district is intended for attached and detached multi‐family residential development,
such as apartments, condominiums, triplexes, and fourplexes, at a density not to exceed 14
dwelling units per acre. The MF‐1 district may be appropriate in the Moderate Density
Residential area based on location, surrounding uses, and infrastructure impacts, and is
appropriate adjacent to both residential and non‐residential districts, serving as a transition
between single‐family districts and more intense, commercial uses.
Utilities
Electric, water, and wastewater are served by Georgetown Utility Services. It is anticipated
that there is adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer
participation in upgrades to infrastructure.
Page 28 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Park on San Gabriel, E. Morrow and FM 971 ‐ Rezoning Page 4 of 5
From AG to MF‐1
Transportation
The access to this project is provided via FM 971, East Morrow Street, and Bastian Lane.
Future Application(s)
The following applications will be required to be submitted:
Preliminary Plat to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission;
Final Plat is to be processed administratively;
Construction Plans will be processed administratively;
Site Plans for multi‐family uses will be processed administratively; and
Building permits for construction.
Staff Analysis
Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning for the following reasons:
1. The Future Land Use designation of Moderate Density Residential, and Parks,
Recreation and Protected Open‐Space, supports the residential zoning on this
property. The subject property includes a portion of floodplain, which will remain
undeveloped and can be integrated into the overall design of the remaining
property.
2. The existing zoning situation of the surrounding area is primarily Agriculture (AG)
and Residential Single‐family (RS), with an adjacent park and a cemetery across
Morrow Street. The limited density allowed in the MF‐1 zoning is appropriate
adjacent to both residential and non‐residential districts, serving as a transition
between single‐family districts and more intense, commercial uses. The applicant is
proposing additional parkland dedication, which would increase the buffer
between the adjacent developments.
3. The surrounding developed uses include residential to the north and east and
existing parkland on two sides. Access to the site will be from the major roadways,
with only emergency access into the existing residential neighborhoods. Based on
location, surrounding uses, and infrastructure impacts, the MF‐1 district would be a
transition between the adjacent developed uses. Development adjacent to the
parkland will include limited access to the existing parkland trails and amenities.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None
Page 29 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Park on San Gabriel, E. Morrow and FM 971 ‐ Rezoning Page 5 of 5
From AG to MF‐1
Public Comments
Original meeting schedule comments:
A total of 12 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed
rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on October 18, 2015. At the time of
the meeting, 1 letter in opposition and 1 letter in support were received.
Second meeting comments:
A total of 14 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed
rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on January 3, 2016. As of the
writing of this report, 4 letters in opposition and 1 letter in support were received.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Original Meetings Schedule
November 3, 2015 – Planning and Zoning Commission
November 24, 2015 – City Council First Reading
December 8, 2015 – City Council Second Reading
Revised Meetings Schedule
January 19, 2016 – Planning and Zoning Commission
January 26, 2016 – City Council First Reading
February 9, 2016 – City Council Second Reading
Page 30 of 140
CITY OF G E O R G ET O W N
(R i v e r /S t rea m )
Georgetow n ETJ
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
R EZ -2 01 5-0 12
H
A
V
E
R
L
A
N
D
D
R
P
E
C
ANVIS T A L N
F M 9 7 1
P A R Q U E V I S T A DR
PA R Q U E C T
D E E P C R E E K D RPARQUE C V
PARKVIEW
D
R
STEPHENLNPARQUE C I R
P
E
C
A
N
V
I
S
T
A
C
V
RIV E R P A R K C V
R I O V I S T A D R
TANNERCIR
R AN D Y S T
GANN ST
E M O R R O W S T
B A S T I A N L N
R I V E R P A R K LN
W
L
W
A
L
D
E
N
D
R
B E N C H M A R K S T
RIVERB LUFFCIR
RIVER HAVEN DR
N C O L L E G E S T
E M O RROWST
FRE D D I E D R
REZ-20 15-012
Exhibit #1
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/C entral Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y 0 1,000 2,000Fee t ¯
Le ge nd
SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
§¨¦
Site
City Lim its
Str eet
Si te ³
35 97 1
NAustinAve
Page 31 of 140
(R i v e r /S t r e a m )
Georgetow n ETJG
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
R EZ -2 01 5-0 12
KATY CR O S S I N G B L V D
F M 9 7 1
H
A
V
E
R
L
A
N
D
D
R
M A Y C V
PE C A N V I S T A L N
P A R Q U E VISTADR
PA R Q U E C T
D E E P C R E E K D RPARQUECVPARKVIEW DR
N AUSTIN AVE
STEPHENLNPARQUE C I R
E M O R R O W S T
RIVER P A R K C V
R I O V I S T A D R
RAN DY S T
L O W E R PAR
K
R
D
G
A
N
N
S
T
B A S TI A N L N
RIV E R P A R K LN
N C O L L E G E ST
B E N C H M A R K S T
RIVERBLUFFCIR
M E D A S T
RIVER HAVEN DR
TANNERC I R
W
L
W
A
L
D
E
N
D
R
FRE D D I E D R
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/Central Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y
¯
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Fut ure La nd Use / Ove rall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2REZ-20 15-012
Legen d
Th oro ug hfa re
Fu ture L an d Use
Institut ional
Regional Commercial
Comm unity Com mercial
Employm ent Cent er
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mix ed Us e Com munit y
Mix ed Us e Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mix ed Us e Area
Ag / Rural Resident ial
NEInnerLoop
")971
Site
³
City Lim its
Str eet
Si te
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Art erial
Existing Minor Art erial
Existing Ram p
Proposed Collect or
Proposed F reeway
Propsed F rontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Densit y Residential
§¨¦35
NAustinAve
Page 32 of 140
CITY OF G E O R G ET O W N
R EZ -2 01 5-0 12
(River/S tr e a m )
H
A
V
E
R
L
A
N
D
D
R
M A Y C V
P
E
CANVIS T A L N
E M O R R O W S T
P A R Q U E V I STA DR
PA R Q U E C T
D E E P C R E E K D RPARQUE C V
PARKVIE
W
D
R
STEPHENLNPARQUE C I R
P
E
C
A
N
V
I
S
T
A
C
V
RIV E R P A R K C V
F M 9 7 1
F M 9 7 1
R I O V I S T A D R
RAN D Y S T
G
A
N
N
S
T
B A S T I A N LN
M E D A S T
TANNERC I RRIVERPARKLN
N C O L L E G E S T
B E N C H M A R K S T
RIVERB LUFFCIR
RIVER HAVEN DR
W
L
W
A
L
D
E
N
D
R
E M ORROWST
N AUSTIN AVE
FRE D D I E D R
Zon in g I nfo rmati onREZ-20 15-012Exhibit #3
¯
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/Central Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y 0 1,000 2,000Feet
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
§¨¦35
³Site
City L imits
Stre et
Site
971
NAustinAve
Page 33 of 140
Page 34 of 140
Page 35 of 140
Page 36 of 140
Page 37 of 140
Page 38 of 140
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
January 19, 2016
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 17.406 acres of the Berry Survey,
located at 300 County Road 152 and to be known as Chisholm Park 2, from the Residential
Single-family (RS) District to the Low Density Multifamily (MF-1) District. (REZ-2015-019)
Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant has requested to rezone an unplatted tract of land from the Residential Single-family
district (RS) to the Low Density Multifamily (MF-1) district. The Future Land Use designation for
the property is split almost equally between Moderate Density Residential (MDR) and Parks,
Recreation, and Protected Open Space (Open Space, OS). The MDR category promotes residential
densities of between 3 and 6 dwelling units per acre, while the OS category aims to protect the
natural feature. The proposed District allows up to 14 dwelling units per acre, and such
multifamily development under this District processes via a Site Development Plan.
The portion of the property under the Open Space category is encumbered by floodplain and is
subject to the development regulations adopted (Ordinance 2013-59, codified in UDC Section
13.07) as a result of an endangered species listing. Staff has reviewed the request for rezoning and
has made the following findings:
The floodplain areas depicted on the Future Land Use Plan as protected open space promote
the protection of the community’s water quality and also flood prevention.
The City’s water quality regulations implement the goals of the Comprehensive Master Plan
and provides requirements on setbacks, buffer zones, and the use of the floodplain within
the City limits and ETJ.
The area of the subject property encumbered with floodplain cannot be developed upon for
the uses permitted in the proposed Low Density Multi-family district.
The rezoning of this entire property (as requested) could add approximately 238 dwelling
units to this property. The rezoning of only the portion of the property located outside the
floodplain (as recommended by staff) would result in approximately 126 units and results in
an actual overall density of 7-8 units per acre.
Public Comment:
As of the date of this report, no written public comments have been received.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend to the City Council approval of the portion of the property that lies within the
Moderate Density Residential future land use category - and not the portion within the Open Space
category, to rezone from the Residential Single-family district to the Low Density Multi-family
district.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Page 39 of 140
None. The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Future Land Use / Transportation Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Zoning Map Backup Material
Page 40 of 140
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Chisholm Park Section 2 - Rezoning Page 1 of 4
RS to MF-1
Report Date: January 13, 2016
File No: REZ-2015-019
Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Chisholm Park Section 2
Project Address: 300 CR 152
Location: East side of CR 152 south of Traildrivers Cove (See Exhibits 1 and 2)
Total Acreage: 17.35 acres
Legal Description: 17.35 acres out of J. Berry Survey
Applicant: Tom Watts
Property Owner: LOM Services Inc.
Contact: Tom Watts
Existing Use: Vacant, undeveloped
Existing Zoning: Residential Single-family (RS)
Proposed Zoning: Low Density Multifamily (MF-1)
Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential and Open Space
Growth Tier: Tier 1A
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to rezone an unplatted tract of land from the Residential Single-family district
(RS) to the Low Density Multifamily (MF-1) district. The Future Land Use designation for the property is
split almost equally between Moderate Density Residential (MDR) and Parks, Recreation, and Protected
Open Space (Open Space, OS). The MDR category promotes residential densities of between 3 and 6
dwelling units per acre, while the OS category aims to protect the natural feature. The proposed District
allows up to 14 dwelling units per acre, and such multifamily development under this District processes via
a Site Development Plan.
Site Information
Location:
This property is on the east side of CR 152, south of Trail Drivers Cove and Lonnie Thomas Drive. The
property is located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, which requires development to abide by
the City’s Water Quality Ordinance (contained in Unified Development Code Section 13.07), which
greatly regulates activities within designated floodplains.
Physical Characteristics:
The property is undeveloped and shows signs of past earthworks, but no discernable evidence of previous
development exists. It is generally clear of trees and large vegetation, except for portions within the
floodplain area on south side of the property.
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties include undeveloped land, highway right-of-way, and the Chisholm Park
Section 1 subdivision which consists of platted single-family attached residences. (See Exhibits 1 & 2)
Page 41 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
Chisholm Park Section 2 - Rezoning Page 2 of 4
RS to MF-1
Property History
The property was annexed into the City in 1999, and given the zoning designation of Agriculture (A)
district. In 2003 the property was rezoned to the Residential Single-family (RS) district.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use:
The City of Georgetown 2030 Plan designates approximately half of the property as Moderate Density
Residential, and half as Parks, Recreation, and Protected Open Space (“Open Space”).
The Moderate Density Residential category calls for densities of between 3.1 and 6 dwelling units per acre,
and supports attached single-family dwellings such as townhouses. It also describes the appropriateness of
in-fill development at greater densities where the property and associated aspects allow it. The proposed
Low Density Multifamily district allows the Specific Use of ‘Multifamily Detached and Attached Units’,
whereby individual structures can house anywhere from one to twelve units, at a density up to fourteen
units per acre.
The Parks, Recreation and Protected Open-Space category applies to existing public parks, golf courses
and protected open spaces of city-wide significance, which are expected to remain as open space in
perpetuity. All delineated floodplains within the City’s jurisdiction for future land use planning are
covered by this category.
Growth Tier:
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A, that portion of the city where infrastructure
systems are in place, or can be economically provided and where the bulk of the city’s growth should be
guided over the near term.
Proposed Zoning District
The Low Density Multifamily (MF-1) district is intended for attached and detached multi-family
residential development, such as apartments, condominiums, triplexes, and fourplexes. Development can
be comprised of individual structures housing between one and twelve units, but at a density not to exceed
14 dwelling units per acre. The building height maximum is thirty-five (35) feet, and the overall
impervious coverage maximum is 50% of the property. The MF-1 district can be appropriate in the
Moderate Density Residential future land use category based on the particular location, surrounding uses,
and infrastructure impacts. Convenient access to major roadways should be present, and the District can
Location Zoning Districts Future Land Use Category Existing Use
North
MF-2, High Density
Multifamily and AG,
Agriculture
Moderate Density Residential Two-family residences and
vacant undeveloped land
South AG, Agriculture and MH,
Manufactured Housing
Parks, Recreation, and
Protected Open Space
Heritage Baptist Church and
City of Georgetown parkland
East SH 130 Toll Road ROW Parks, Recreation, and
Protected Open Space SH 130 Toll Road ROW
West ETJ, Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction across CR 152
Moderate Density Residential
and Parks, Recreation, and
Protected Open Space
Vacant undeveloped land and
rural residences
Page 42 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
Chisholm Park Section 2 - Rezoning Page 3 of 4
RS to MF-1
be proximate to both residential and non-residential districts, with the ability to serve as a transition
between those two.
Utilities
The property lies within the service area of the Jonah Water Special Utility District (“Jonah SUD”), and
not the City of Georgetown. Electric service is provided by the Pedernales Electric Cooperate (PEC).
Wastewater service would be provided by the City. Currently, a 12” wastewater line in CR 152 fronts the
property; water lines from Jonah SUD are unknown.
The ability of Jonah to provide the required fire-flow for the type of development permitted under the
proposed MF-1 will need to be demonstrated at the next step(s) of development. Approval of zoning does
not trump or supersede Fire Code requirements. Because of the nature of the existing wastewater line and
non-City water provider, a formal Utility Evaluation was not required to be submitted and completed prior
to this rezoning request going to public meetings.
Transportation
The property is rectangular, with approximately 560 linear feet of frontage along CR 152. Future
driveways (based on driveway separation, roadway design speed, and site triangle considerations) or
interconnections with the property to the north and south would be determined at the time of platting
and/or site development plan review. CR 152 is a major collector roadway that will require right-of-way
dedication and improvements in order to meet the collector design requirements. Due to the size of the
subject property and the maximum density allowed by the requested District, development under the
requested District will not trigger a traffic impact analysis (TIA) and will not be subject to providing
improvements or financially contributing to the improvement of CR152.
Future Application(s)
The following applications will be required to be submitted and approved for development under the MF-1
District:
Subdivision including Preliminary and Final Plats (unless Legal Lot status is proven, exempting
the property was having to plat).
Site Development Plan for multifamily development would be processed administratively; and
Building permits for construction.
Staff Analysis
The subject property is located just east of I-35 and west of SH 130. The area development pattern is
predominately low to very low density residential and undeveloped property. Commercial development
within this area of the City is not present and access to the site is via a two lane County Road. As indicated
above, the subject property is encumbered by floodplain and is subject to the development regulations
adopted (Ordinance 2013-59, codified in UDC Section 13.07) as a result of an endangered species listing.
Staff has reviewed the request for rezoning and has made the following findings:
The floodplain areas depicted on the Future Land Use Plan as protected open space promote the
protection of the community’s water quality and also flood prevention.
The City’s water quality regulations implement the goals of the Comprehensive Master Plan and
provides requirements on setbacks, buffer zones, and the use of the floodplain within the City
Page 43 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
Chisholm Park Section 2 - Rezoning Page 4 of 4
RS to MF-1
limits and ETJ.
The area of the subject property encumbered with floodplain cannot be developed upon for the uses
permitted in the proposed Low Density Multi-family district.
The rezoning of this entire property (as requested) could add approximately 238 dwelling units to
this property. The rezoning of only the portion of the property located outside the floodplain (as
recommended by staff) would result in approximately 126 units and results in an actual overall
density of 7-8 units per acre.
Staff is supportive of rezoning only the portion of the property that lies within the Moderate Density
Residential category – and not the portion in the Open Space category – based on the following:
1. The Future Land Use designation of Moderate Density Residential, in this particular location,
supports the higher densities allowed by the MF-1 District. As described in Chapter 4 of the UDC, a
property’s location, the surrounding uses, and the potential development’s impact on the
infrastructure in the area define the appropriateness of the MF-1 District at a particular location.
Because of the nature of surrounding uses, the large highway corridor to the east, and limited
opportunities for development due to the existing floodplain, it’s felt that the MF-1 district provides
for a residential density meeting the intents of the land use category for the non-floodplain portion of
this property.
2. The existing zoning of the surrounding properties would be complimented by development under the
MF-1 District.
3. The surrounding (developed) uses would be complimented by development under the MF-1 District.
4. It is noted that utility provision, principally water service and fire-flow from the Jonah Water SUD,
is a critical factor in the development of the property, and development cannot occur unless that
required fire-flow is proven to exist and/or be provided.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None
Public Comments
A total of 30 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning within the
City of Georgetown. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on January 3rd, 2016. As of the
writing of this report, no written comments have been received.
Meetings Schedule
January 19, 2016 – Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
February 9, 2016 – City Council First Reading and Public Hearing
February 23, 2016 – City Council Second Reading
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 2 – Zoning Map
Page 44 of 140
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
REZ-2015-019
JEFFERSON
CAL
A
D
I
U
M
OSAGE CR 152
F M 9 7 1
C
A
RIB
O
U
B
A
R
B
E
R
R
Y
TRAILDR
I
V
E
R
S
DROVERS
WISTERIA
WOLVERINE
K A J O N
AZAL E A
C O U G A R
BISON
INNER LOOP
IRIS
S
H
1
3
0
J A S M I N E
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
CRYSTAL
KNOLL
EAST
JUNIPER
E L K
LONN
I
E
T
H
O
M
A
S
STADIUM
LA Z Y
S
H
1
3
0
E
N
T
R
4
1
3
S
H
1
3
0
E
X
I
T
4
1
3
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #1
REZ-2015-019
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Employment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
N A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
¬«130
")971
NEInnerLoop
§¨¦35
Site
³
City Limits
Street
Site
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
Page 45 of 140
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
REZ-2015-019
JEFFERSON LN
FM 971
OSAGE C
T
CALADIU M D R
C
A
L
A
D
I
U
M
C
T
C
A
R
I
B
O
U
D
R
B
A
R
B
E
R
R
Y
D
R
AZALEADR
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
S
B
DROVERS
C
V
WISTERIA
D
R
WOLVERINECV
C O U G A R D R
DRIV
E
W
A
Y
B I S O N D R
S
H
1
3
0
N
B
I RI S D R
CR 152
J A S M I N E T R L
CRYSTAL
KNO
L
L
B
L
V
D
S
H
1
3
0
S
B
EAST DR
JUNIPERDR
E L K D R
LONN
I
E
T
H
O
M
A
S
D
R
STADIUM D
R
E
X
I
T
4
1
3
S
B
L
A
Z
Y
R
D
NE INNER LOOP
E
N
T
R
4
1
3
S
B
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
N
B
Zoning InformationREZ-2015-019Exhibit #2
¯
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 1,000 2,000Feet
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
NAustinAve
N A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
NE
I
n
n
e
r
L
o
o
p
¬«130
")971 ³
Site
City Limits
Street
Site
N
E
Inner Loop
§¨¦35
Page 46 of 140
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
January 19, 2016
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 1.84 acres of the L.J. Dyches Survey,
located at 1050 F.M. 1460, from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Residential Low Density
(RL) District. (REZ-2015-027) Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant has requested to rezone the unplatted 1.84 acre tract from the Agriculture District
(AG) to the Residential Low Density District (RL), which would enable future subdivision and
development of additional residential lots. The property currently has one single-family residence
and several accessory structures, and has frontage on both FM 1460 and Pleasant Valley Drive.
The property lies within a Future Land Use category of Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
(MUNC), which is described in the 2030 Plan as being appropriate for smaller areas of mixed
commercial uses within existing and new neighborhoods.
Public Comment:
To date, there have been no public comments submitted to staff.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend to the City Council denial of the request to rezone 1.84 acres in the Dyches Survey
from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Residential Low Density (RL) District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Future Land Use / Transportation Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Zoning Map Backup Material
Page 47 of 140
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
1050 FM 1460 - Rezoning Page 1 of 5
AG to RL
Report Date: January 13, 2016
File No: REZ-2015-027
Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
Item Details
Project Name: 1050 FM 1460
Project Address: 1050 FM 1460
Location: West side of FM 1460 at corner with Pleasant Valley Drive (See Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 1.84 acres
Legal Description: 1.84 acres in the L.J. Dyches Survey
Applicant: Yuval Adi
Property Owner: Yuval Adi
Contact: Yuval Adi
Existing Use: Single family residence
Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG) District
Proposed Zoning: Residential Low Density (RL) District
Future Land Use: Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (See Exhibit 1)
Growth Tier: Tier 1A – Developed/redeveloping Growth Area
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to rezone a single unplatted parcel from the Agriculture (AG) District,
assigned at the time of annexation in 1997, to the Residential Low Density (RL) District. The property
currently is developed with a single residence.
Site Information
Location:
This property is located at the northwest corner of FM 1460 and Pleasant Valley Drive. (See Exhibits 1
and 2, and excerpt below)
Physical Characteristics:
The property is currently developed with one single-family residence and a detached garage. The property
has several trees but is generally maintained as a grass lawn. The property has 400 feet of frontage along
FM 1460 and 205 feet of frontage along Pleasant Valley Drive.
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties are mostly residential with some commercial across FM 1460. (See Exhibits 1
& 2, and aerial excerpt below)
Location Zoning District(s) Future Land Use Existing Use
North AG, Agriculture Mixed Use Neighborhood Ctr Single-family residence
South AG, Agriculture Mixed Use Neighborhood Ctr Single-family residence
East C-3, General Commercial,
and ETJ Mixed Use Neighborhood Ctr (across FM 1460) Commercial,
single-family residences
West RS, Residential Single-family Mixed Use Neighborhood Ctr Single-family residences
Page 48 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
1050 FM 1460 - Rezoning Page 2 of 5
AG to RL
Property History
The property was annexed into the City in 1997 (Ordinance 97-64), and assigned the current zoning. The
construction date of the residence currently on the property is unknown, but assumed to have been prior to
annexation and thus developed in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction or just the County. The Pleasant Valley
subdivision to the west was recorded in 1986, and indicates the subject property as existing as a 1.84 acre
property.
2030 Plan Conformance
Land Use:
The property lies within a Future Land Use category of Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUNC), which
is described in the 2030 Plan as being appropriate for smaller areas of mixed commercial uses within
existing and new neighborhoods. These areas primarily are adjacent to, or part of, larger residential
neighborhoods, abut roadway corridors, and act as gateways/entrances to the neighborhood(s) they serve.
They can provide compact and “walk-to” centers for the local customer base, while having minimal
impacts to those surrounding residential uses/areas. Mixed-use buildings or orientations of uses is
promoted, and can include some forms of higher density residential as a component of the mix of uses.
The MUNC category at this location is a pill-shaped area extending over the current (and future, see
Transportation section below) right-of-way of FM 1460 between Quail Valley Drive and Rabbit Hollow
Lane, which essentially encompasses all the intersecting roads that feed out to FM 1460 for north/south
Page 49 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
1050 FM 1460 - Rezoning Page 3 of 5
AG to RL
access. See Exhibit 1. It is meant to cover all parcels that front and gain principal access from FM 1460,
but not properties (lots) in the residential subdivision, for instance.
Growth Tier:
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A, that portion of the city where infrastructure
systems are in place, or can be economically provided and where the bulk of the City’s growth should be
guided over the near term.
Proposed Zoning District
The Residential Low Density (RL) District is intended for areas of low density single-family residences,
with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, and an impervious cover maximum of 45%. The pattern of
residential development and land use closely matches that of the Residential Single-family (RS) District.
Utilities
The property is currently served by on-site well and septic systems; City of Georgetown water and
wastewater are available to serve the property. The property is dual-certified for electricity between the
City and Oncor. At the time of subdivision, it will be determined as to whether or not the applicant will
need to provide a study of the utility lines that would serve any new development on the property. At that
time, the status of capacity and breadth of developer participation in upgrades to the infrastructure would
be determined.
Transportation
The property currently has a single driveway off of FM 1460 to serve the existing residence. If subdivided
for additional residential lots in the future, the minimum lot size would be 10,000 square feet, and any new
driveways would be determined according to the regulations in the Unified Development Code.
FM 1460 is currently undergoing a major relocation of the roadway approximatley 600 feet to the east
(groundbreaking occurred in the fall of 2015), replacing the current roadway with a new north/south Major
Arterial roadway. The current roadway has been redesignated as an existing Collector on the
Thoroughfare Plan, and no expansion from its current state is expected; the roadway will have cul-de-sacs
at the north and south ends, with some reconfigured means of access to the east to connect to the new
roadway facility. The impact of this project is that the current roadway will no longer serve as a narrow
two-lane through-way for traffic between Georgetown and Round Rock, but principally as a Collector
roadway for the properties fronting it and those to the west, like the Pleasant Valley subdivision.
Future Application(s)
If subdivision of the property to create mulitple lots is sought, the following applications will be required
to be submitted:
Preliminary Plat to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission;
Final Plat is to be processed administratively;
Construction Plans (if necessary, for public infrastructure) to be processed administratively;
Building permits for residential construction of each lot.
Staff Analysis
The subject property is located along a major thoroughfare (FM 1460) that has experienced a large
increase in the number of trips per day as traditional ‘farm to market’ roadway to a Major Arterial
Page 50 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
1050 FM 1460 - Rezoning Page 4 of 5
AG to RL
roadway. As indicated above, this roadway will transition once again from a Major Arterial roadway down
to a commercial Collector. A Collector is a street that is intended to distribute traffic from lower
classification streets to higher capactity arterials. A Collector can vary widely in design, however it is
generally intended to distribute traffic, have limited access, allow higher design speeds, and include
signalized intersections. As a roadway transitions in use or design, so does the appropriateness of certain
uses fronting or accessing it. Staff has reviewed the request and has made the following findings:
Per the intent of the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center future land use designation, the
Comprehensive Master Plan envisions this area to transform with a mix of uses and increased
intensity from its current level. Properties along this roadway are expected to develop or redevelop
with land uses that support or compliment the residential neighborhood, not that match the use and
intensity of the neighborhood.
Despite the roadway changes that are to occur, it is expected that traffic volumes will still be
significant along the portion of the current 1460, as High Tech Drive will be the primary access
point in and out (to the ‘new’ FM 1460 alignment) for homes and businesses in this area until
future development should provide additional access.
The minimum lot size in the current AG zoning is 2 acres, however, the current 1.84 acre lot is
legal nonconforming (“grandfathered”) and can remain in perpetuity along with the residence.
The rezoning of the subject property to RL would allow further subdivision of the property, as the
minimum lot size would reduce to 10,000 square feet. Based on the linear configuration of this property
along FM 1460, further residential subdivision would be difficult. Residential driveways are prohibited on
Major Arterials (the current function of FM 1460 at this location) as well as Collectors (the future
designation of FM 1460 at this location) and subdivision would thus require the construction of a public
street, most likely a cul-de-sac, on this property. This would be costly for the property owner and would
not meet the desires of the City. Rezoning the property to RL could thus present a false expectation for
further development.
Based on the above findings, the Future Land Use designations, adjacent roadway designations, and
the configuration of the property, Staff supports a greater land use intensity than would be provided
by a single family residenital district like the Low Density Residential district being requested.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None
Public Comments
A total of 18 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public
notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on January 3, 2016. As of the writing of this report, no written
comments have been received.
Meetings Schedule
January 19, 2016 – Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
February 9, 2016 – City Council Public Hearing and First Reading
February 23, 2016 – City Council Second Reading
Page 51 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
1050 FM 1460 - Rezoning Page 5 of 5
AG to RL
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 2 – Zoning Map
Page 52 of 140
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
Georgetow
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
R
E
Z
-
2
0
1
5
-
0
2
7
VALLEY O
A
K
S
L
O
O
P
G
E
O
R
G
I
A
N
D
R
T
E
X
S
T
A
R
D
R
S
U
N
R
I
S
E
V
A
L
L
E
Y
L
N
T H U N D E R V A L L E Y T R L
P L E A S A N T V A L L E Y D R
FM
1460
BRAYDEN
C
V
C
L
O
V
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
L
N
VALLEY D
R
T
O
W
E
R
D
R
S
I
L
V
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
L
N
B
L
U
E
B
O
N
N
E
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
D
R
H I G H T E C H D R
Q U A I L V A L L E Y D R
0 500 1,000
Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #1
REZ-2015-027
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Employment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
SE Inner Lo
o
p
")1460
")1460
SAustinAve
S EInnerLoopSite
³City Limits
Street
Site
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
Page 53 of 140
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
REZ-2015-027
T
E
X
S
T
A
R
D
R
G
E
O
R
G
I
A
N
D
R
S
U
N
R
I
S
E
V
A
L
L
E
Y
L
N
F
M
1
4
6
0
P L E A S A N T V A L L E Y D R
T H U N D E R V A L L E Y T R L
BRAYDEN
C
V
C
L
O
V
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
L
N
VALLEY D
R
VALLEY O
A
K
S
L
O
O
P
S
I
L
V
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
L
N
B
L
U
E
B
O
N
N
E
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
D
R
H I G H T E C H D R
Q U A I L V A L L E Y D R
T
O
W
E
R
D
R
Zoning InformationREZ-2015-027Exhibit #2
¯
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 500 1,000Feet
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
§¨¦35
SE Inner L
o
o
p
")1460
S
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
")1460
³
Site
City Limits
Street
Site
SAustinAve
Page 54 of 140
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
January 19, 2016
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone Lots 1 & 2, Block 9, of the Glasscock
Addition, located at 224 E. 8th Street and known as The Union on Eighth, from the Mixed-Use
Downtown (MUDT) District with conditions to the Mixed-Use Downtown (MUDT) District
(without conditions). (REZ-2015-014) Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The subject property is located at the eastern edge of the City’s downtown area and has a
conditional Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoning district, first established in 1992. In
accordance with the imposed conditions on this zoning district, use of the property is restricted to
automotive transmission repair and other automotive related uses, office up to 2,000 square feet,
and single-family residential and other residential related uses (see Exhibit 5). The purpose of this
conditional zoning district was to bring the zoning into conformance with the former use of the
property (auto repair). Since the adoption of this zoning, the circumstances of the subject property
as well as the downtown and surrounding areas have evolved making this conditional zoning no
longer viable for the subject property or the area. Because of this, the applicant is requesting to
remove the conditions of the current base zoning district to allow continued use of the subject
property in accordance with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan.
Public Comment:
A total of 19 notices were sent out to the owners of property within 200 feet of the subject
property. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on November 1, 2015, November 29,
2015, and January 3, 2016. As of the date of this report, the city has received 13 written comments
from the public, 11 opposed and 2 in favor.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend to the City Council Approval of the request to rezone 224 E. 8th Street to the Mixed-
Use Downtown (MUDT) District (without conditions).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibits 1-4 - Maps Backup Material
Exhibit 5 - Ordinance 92-4 Backup Material
Exhibit 6 - Public Comments Backup Material
Page 55 of 140
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – REZ-2015-014 Page 1 of 7
From MU-DT with conditions to MU-DT (without conditions)
Report Date: January 14, 2016
File No.: REZ-2015-014
Project Planner: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner
Item Details
Project Name: The Union on Eighth
Project Address: 224 East 8th Street
Location: Southwest Corner of 8th and Myrtle Streets (Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 0.3306 acres
Legal Description: Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lots 1 & 2
Applicant: Justin Bohls
Property Owner: RNJ Bohls Family Enterprises, LLC
Contact: Justin Bohls
Existing Use: Event Facility
Existing Zoning: Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) with conditions / Downtown Overlay
District (Exhibit 3)
Proposed Zoning: Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) (without conditions)
Future Land Use: Special Area Mixed Use (Exhibit 2)
Growth Tier: Tier 1A
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The subject property is located at the eastern edge of the City’s downtown area and has a conditional
Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoning district, first established in 1992. In accordance with the
imposed conditions on this zoning district, use of the property is restricted to automotive
transmission repair and other automotive related uses, office up to 2,000 square feet, and single-
family residential and other residential related uses (see Exhibit 5). The purpose of this conditional
zoning district was to bring the zoning into conformance with the former use of the property (auto
repair). Since the adoption of this zoning, the circumstances of the subject property as well as the
downtown and surrounding areas have evolved making this conditional zoning no longer viable for
the subject property or the area. Because of this, the applicant is requesting to remove the conditions
of the current base zoning district to allow continued use of the subject property in accordance with
the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan.
Property History
The current structure was built in 1928 as a blacksmith shop. The site was used for automobile
repair, Conway Transmission, until its recent purchase by the current property owner. The building is
in its original configuration with little to no exterior changes over the years.
In 1968, the City adopted its first Zoning Ordinance and Map, designating the subject property as
Residential Single-Family District (RS) zoning. A rezoning was later approved in 1992 changing the
zoning district to Commercial First Height District (C2-A) with conditions to bring the zoning into
Page 56 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – REZ-2015-014 Page 2 of 7
From MU-DT with conditions to MU-DT (without conditions)
conformance with the use, and enable the applicant at the time to obtain a small business loan and
purchase the property. The C2-A district allowed auto repair, auto sales, bottling, testing laboratories,
outdoor commercial recreational activities, lumber yards, and drive-in theaters, in addition to all of
the uses allowed in the more restrictive commercial districts (retail, offices, personal services, hotels,
vet clinics, hospitals, etc.). There were objections from some of the neighboring property owners,
thus the Planning and Zoning Commission directed staff, the applicant and neighborhood
representatives to facilitate a solution. The rezoning was eventually approved with conditions as
follows:
1. The use of the property for the existing automotive transmission repair business may be
continued, but the non-conforming status of the property shall be discontinued, except that
the existing building may be converted to other automotive related activities as listed below;
or to office use with a maximum floor area not to exceed 2,000 square feet within the current
structure;
2. All RS-Residential Single Family uses are allowed-by-right and shall be approved in
accordance with normal City procedures;
3. Any other use permitted by C-2A Commercial First Height zoning and except as allowed by
RS-Residential Single Family zoning must first be approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council prior to its establishment;
4. In the even of total demolition or removal of the current structure on the property a new
automotive repair garage for the uses identified below may be established with the floor area
not to exceed 4,200 square feet or office uses not to exceed a maximum area of 2,000 square
feet. As defined above, reasonable uses consisting of automobile related service and repair
shall be contained within the structure. However, these allowable uses shall not include paint
and body or salvage type operation, as well as those considered noxious due to noise, fumes,
vibration, odor and glare; and
5. Any conversion of the existing building to office use or reconstruction on the site other than
for RS-Residential Single Family uses allowed by right shall first receive design approval by
the Planning and Zoning Commission as to design and compatibility of the project with the
surrounding residential neighborhood. This will involve a design review process which
allows for public review and comment through a hearing before the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
With the adoption of the UDC in 2003, the C2-A zoning district within the Downtown Overlay
district converted to the Downtown Commercial (C-2) zoning district. The name of the C-2 district
was later changed to Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT). At the time of this conversion, standards and
land uses were also updated with the change, removing any of the more intense uses such as auto
repair. However, specifically to the subject property, the conditions of the 1992 C2-A zoning district
remain in effect, thus limiting the use of the property to those uses listed in the ordinance.
In 2012, the current property owner purchased the property, and proceeded to renovate it for an event
facility. As part of this process and in conformance with the existing zoning conditions, in 2013, the
City Council approved the proposed site changes, as well as use of the property for the Event Facility
in accordance with the 1992 C2-A zoning ordinance as it was not an automotive, office, or
Page 57 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – REZ-2015-014 Page 3 of 7
From MU-DT with conditions to MU-DT (without conditions)
residential use. City Council also approved a Special Use Permit (SUP) at that time to allow the
Event Facility use on the subject property with conditions to reduce the impact this use may have on
the adjacent residential properties and general public.
Site Information
Location:
The approximately 0.33-acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of East 8th Street and
Myrtle Street. The property falls just within the eastern edge of the Downtown Overlay District, two
blocks east of the town square.
Physical Characteristics:
The subject property measures approximately 120 feet by 120 feet, and consists of an approximate
4,200-square foot building and a walled courtyard (Exhibit 4). The property is flat with one tree
located in the courtyard, and a row of ornamental trees located along the south property line.
The existing building is located approximately 50 feet from the south property line and 60 feet from
the west property line. Approximately ⅓ of the property appears to be covered by the building. The
building is in its original configuration; however, it has undergone major interior renovations to
accommodate the existing event facility use while maintining some of its historic architectural
features.
The south 50 feet of the subject property, surrounded by a 6-foot masonry wall, remains as an open
space. No on-site parking exists on the property. There are six (6) marked on-street head-in parking
spaces directly in front of the subject property along East 8th Street, and a smaller, unmarked on-
street paved area along Myrtle Street.
Surrounding Properties:
The subject property is located on the eastern edge of the Downtown Overlay District. That boundary
line continues directly north for a block and a half, and moves west half a block south of the
property. Adjacent properties that are not part of the Downtown Overlay District are part of the Old
Town Overlay District. The surrounding uses include both residential and non-residential uses as
follows:
Utilities:
Water, wastewater, and electric are currently served by the City of Georgetown.
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North Mixed Use Downtown (MU-
DT) Special Area Mixed Use
First Presbyterian Church,
print shop and other
commercial uses
South Residential Single-Family
(RS)
Moderate Density
Residential Single-Family Residences
East Residential Single-Family
(RS)
Moderate Density
Residential Single-Family Residences
West Mixed Use Downtown (MU-
DT) Special Area Mixed Use Restaurant
Page 58 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – REZ-2015-014 Page 4 of 7
From MU-DT with conditions to MU-DT (without conditions)
Transportation:
There is no vehicle access point onto the site as there is no on-site parking. Both East 8th Street and
Myrtle Street are classified as local streets adjacent to this property with a speed limit of 30 miles per
hour. Head-in on-street parking is located on both sides of 8th Street at this location.
Master Plan Guidance
2030 Comprehensive Plan:
This property is designated as a Specialty Mixed-Use Area on the 2030 Plan Future Land Use Map,
due to its location within the Downtown Overlay District. Per the Plan, downtown should be a
regional desitination for business, retail, service, entertainment, cultural and civic uses. The Plan
promotes a true mix and intensity of uses uniquely suited to the activity, scale and historic charm of
downtown. The area should be a center of activity not only in the day, but also at night and on
weekends, accomplished by promoting a mix of commercial, entertainment, residential, and civic
uses as well as cultural activities and events. Additionally, the Plan promotes re-investment and re-
use in Georgetown’s older developed areas, including downtown, and states the City should remove
impediments to such redevelopment.
Downtown Master Plan:
The Downtown Master Plan encourages the intensive use of land and structures, along with public
parking and pedestrian-friendly design, to provide an active live/work environment. The Plan
indicates the intensity of uses outside the square, in outlying areas, should be built up. Based on the
community’s need for space for performance art and conferences, the Plan sees opportunity for
cultural uses, including additional arts spaces and meeting facilities.
The 2014 Downtown Master Plan Update categorizes the downtown into four major character areas
to promote a concentration of uses and special features within a certain area. The subject property is
located within the Downtown Core character area, described as the retail, dining and entertainment
destination of Georgetown and Williamson County. Because of this, the Plan encourages specialty
retail, dining and entertainment venues within this area to position the downtown core as an exciting
place distinct from regional suburban shopping centers. Recommended projects within the
Downtown Core include retail store rehabilitations, adaptive reuse of historic buildings and
redevelopment of vacant lots, promote dining and special retail businesses, and development of more
cultural facilities and entertainment venues, among other.
In addition to the above, the subject property is located within the Master Plan’s Transition Area,
which extends throughout the entire edge of downtown where it immediately abuts residential areas.
The Transition Area was created to encourage unique design solutions for development to be
compatible in design and scale with abutting residential uses. Compatible building designs that draw
upon residential forms, vary in mass, and maintain view opportunities and pedestrian circulation are
encouraged. Recommended projects and uses include residential development in various density (i.e.
multi-family and townhomes), professional offices, neighborhood-based services and other light
commercial uses, and small parks, plazas and courtyards.
In both the Downtown Core character area and Transition Area, the Plan encourages pedestrian
circulation and enhances streescape to be enjoyed by both downtown users and adjacent residents.
Page 59 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – REZ-2015-014 Page 5 of 7
From MU-DT with conditions to MU-DT (without conditions)
Zoning Districts
Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) Zoning District:
The Mixed Use Downtown District (MU-DT) is intended to provide a location for a mix of land uses
including general commercial and retail activities, and office, as well as single-family and multi-
family in an urban-style setting. Developments in the MU-DT district are typically smaller in size
and scope, although there may be occasionally heavy traffic. The MU-DT district is only appropriate
in the traditional downtown area of Georgetown within the Downtown Overlay District. Properties in
MU-DT shall meet the design requirements of the Downtown Overlay District and Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines.
The MU-DT district permits a range of land uses by right including single-family residences,
restaurants, personal services and banks and some uses by right subject to limitations, including
churches, bed and breakfasts (including those with events), micro-breweries and wineries, general
offices and general retail. Additionally, some uses may be allowed through approval of a Special Use
Permit by City Council such as apartments, day cares, hospitals, hotels, event facilities, drive-
through restaurants, bars/taverns/pubs, medical clinics, and restricted personal services.
Downtown Overlay District:
Adopted in 2001, the Downtown Overlay District is intended to protect the aesthetic and visual
character of downtown Georgetown.
Staff Analysis
Staff has reviewed this application with regard to the 2030 Plan, the Downtown Master Plan, and the
provisions of the UDC and finds the following:
• The 2030 Plan emphasizes the desire for the downtown area to be a destination and activity
area. To accomplish this, the Plan directs the City to support a mix of service, retail, and
entertainment venues and to promote re-use and re-investment. Staff finds that the current
conditions encourage an automotive use downtown and hinder re-use and re-development of
the site. Removal of the conditions from the base zoning district further enables re-use of an
existing commercial site in the downtown area and supports diversification of the types of
uses available to this site and therefore downtown.
• The 2014 Downtown Master Plan Update encourages the extension of the traditional urban
form and atmosphere of the town square into the surrounding blocks to strengthen the
downtown’s role as a regional shopping center, living place and destination. To accomplish
this, the Plan directs the City to promote higher density residential, specialty retail, dining,
entertainment, and other commercial uses with enhanced pedestrian circulation and
streetscape within the Downtown Core Area, which includes the subject property.
Additionally, while the Plan recognizes the needs to protect the residential areas adjacent to
downtown, it promotes the use of unique design solutions for development to be compatible
in scale and mass, while encouraging the development of both residential and non-residential
uses. The current conditional zoning enourages the use of the subject property for automotive
related uses, which is no longer consistent with the Downtown Master Plan or appropriate for
the downtown and adjacent residential area. Thus, removal of the conditions will encourage
Page 60 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – REZ-2015-014 Page 6 of 7
From MU-DT with conditions to MU-DT (without conditions)
the redevelopment of the subject property with commercial and other residential uses that
will positively support the downtown and surrounding area.
• The MU-DT district is designed to provide a mix of uses. The applicable zoning district has
changed over time from the original C2-A district and the uses that are allowed within the
MU-DT are specifically tailored to the downtown area. The C2-A district allowed auto
repair, auto sales, bottling, testing laboratories, outdoor commercial recreational activities,
lumber yards, and drive-in theaters in addition to all of the uses allowed in the more
restrictive commercial districts (retail, offices, personal services, hotels, vet clinics, hospitals,
etc.). The uses permited within the current MU-DT district are less automotive focused and
more activity focused, which supports the desires of the 2030 Plan and the Downtown Master
Plan for this area.
• The conditions assign design approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which
provided a process for public review and comment. The City now has the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission (HARC) in place to review design changes, providing for
the public review and comment process that was desired at the time. Additionally, certain
uses that may not always be appropriate downtown in all circumstances require consideration
of a Special Use Permit that involves public review and comment before the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff supports the request to remove the conditions attached to the existing MU-DT zoning district
by Ordinance 92-4.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None.
Related Application(s)
The applicant also submitted a request to amend the existing Special Use Permit (Ordinance 2013-
15), which is being processed concurrently with this rezoning request. Any proposed changes to the
subject property will require administrative approval and may include a Certificate of
Appropriateness and Site Development Plan.
Public Comments
A total of 19 notices were sent out to the owners of property within 200 feet of the subject property.
Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on November 1, 2015, November 29, 2015, and
January 3, 2016. As of the date of this report, the City has received 11 written comments in
opposition and 2 in favor of the request (Exhibit 6).
Meetings Schedule
December 15, 2015 – Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2016 – City Council 1st Reading (pending)
January 26, 2016 – City Council 2nd Reading (pending)
Page 61 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – REZ-2015-014 Page 7 of 7
From MU-DT with conditions to MU-DT (without conditions)
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map
Exhibit 5 – Ordinance 92-4
Exhibit 6 – Public Comment(s) Received
Page 62 of 140
R EZ -2 01 5-0 14 E
L
M
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
TS
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 6 T H S T
W 7 T H S T
W 8 T H S T
W 9 T H S T
W 1 0 T H S T
E 6 T H S T
E 7 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
REZ-20 15-014
Exhibit #1
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/C entral Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y 0 300 600Fee t ¯
Le ge nd
SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
§¨¦35
W U n i v e r s i ty A v e E U n i v e r s i t y A v e
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
NColleg e St
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
S A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
Site
City Lim its
Str eet
Si te ³
Page 63 of 140
R
EZ
-2
01
5-0
14
E
L
M
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
TS
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 6 T H S T
W 7 T H S T
W 8 T H S T
W 9 T H S T
W 1 0 T H S T
E 6 T H S T
E 7 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
0 250 500
Feet
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/Central Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y
¯
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Fut ure La nd Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
REZ-20 15-014
Legen d
Th oro ug hfa re
Fu ture L an d Use
Institut ional
Regional Commercial
Comm unity Com mercial
Employm ent Cent er
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mix ed Us e Com munit y
Mix ed Us e Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mix ed Us e Area
Ag / Rural Resident ial
§¨¦35
W U n i v e r s i t y A v e E U n i v e r s i t y Av e
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
NColle g e St
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
S A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
Site
³
City Lim its
Str eet
Si te
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Art erial
Existing Minor Art erial
Existing Ram p
Proposed Collect or
Proposed F reeway
Propsed F rontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Densit y Residential
Page 64 of 140
R EZ -2 01 5-0 14
A
S
H
S
T
E
L
M
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 6 T H S T
W 7 T H S T
W 8 T H S T
W 9 T H S T
W 1 0 T H S T
E 6 T H S T
E 7 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
E 11 T H S T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
Zon in g I nfo rmati onREZ-20 15-014Exhibit #3
¯
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/Central Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y 0 300 600Feet
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
§¨¦35
W U n i v e r s i t y A v e E U n i v e r s i t y A v e
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
NColle g e St
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
S A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
³
Site
City L imits
Stre et
Site
Page 65 of 140
REZ-2015-014
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
E
L
M
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 8 T H S T
E 7 T H S T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/Central Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y
¯
0 200 400
Feet
Exhibit #4
REZ-20 15-014
§¨¦35
W U n i v e r s it y A v e E U n i v e r s i t y A v e
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
NColleg e St
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
S A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
Site
City Lim its
Str eet
Si te
³
Page 66 of 140
Page 67 of 140
Page 68 of 140
Page 69 of 140
Page 70 of 140
Page 71 of 140
Page 72 of 140
Page 73 of 140
Page 74 of 140
Page 75 of 140
Page 76 of 140
Page 77 of 140
Page 78 of 140
Comments from Bill Stump, Jr., Manager, Stump Properties, LLC, owner, 711, 903, 904, and 907 S.
Myrtle and the residents in those properties with respect to Project Case Number SUP‐2015‐001.
I own 4 properties on Myrtle St., within shouting distance of the Union at 8th. One property, 711 Myrtle
is a duplex directly across the intersection at Myrtle and 8th, three others are a block away, between 9th
and 10th St., 907, 903, and 904 Myrtle. All are rental properties with long‐term tenants. I also grew up
on Myrtle and had a lifetime of interactions with the Anderson family and Mr. Conway when they
operated what is now the Union at 8th. I count the Bohles family as friends and rent construction
equipment from them regularly.
Given the request to rezone and to revise the rules of operation, I asked my tenants for their experience
over the last few years with the Union at 8th, both positive and negative. See the following for their
direct responses.
Concerning rezoning, we do not object. This property has been effectively if not officially commercial
for at least 100 years. The special conditions on types of commercial use do not seem particularly
practical or effective anyway.
Concerning the rules of operations, we do object to some changes. A more accurate statement might
be that we are concerned that some of the proposed changes might result in more noise and more
parking problems. As you can see from the comments below, except for some concerns about traffic
and trash, no one has specific complaints about noise at present. They can hear music, etc., but it is not
causing troubles. There is concern about increasing the decibels. If opening the doors with music in
particular increases the noise, this is a problem. Perhaps with regular decibel control, open doors could
still work. The implementation may be more important here than the rule. The rules in use have been
working though. Increased occupancy is also a concern, though it was not clear this is being requested.
Parking rule changes that result in more neighborhood parking are also a concern. This is not just due to
the Union at 8th. The other businesses, church, and City festivals all park up the neighborhood at times.
Some solution here not specific to the Union at 8th might help. A residential parking zone has been
suggested. Just more no parking areas where difficulties occur might help. Note that all my properties
have off street parking for multiple cars, but they still have to be able to get out of the driveway.
Another idea would be to try some of these rule changes on a temporary basis. There are many other
communities that have faced these problems. Other solutions are surely there.
In particular, we do not object to what the Union wants to put in its backyard. For much of my youth
that area was a real live junkyard with 20 rusting cars. The present is a great improvement.
Responses from Tenants
711B Myrtle – closest property to Union at 8th‐ directly across intersection
“When cars are parked on 8th street it is very difficult to get out of my house without hitting the car that is
parked directly behind my driveway. In the past when I see an event setting up I will either A. park in the
street B. have to make a very sharp turn/hit the curb to get out. Most of the time I can maneuver out of the
driveway or get people to pull up their cars/leave a small space for me. The only time it really bothers me
is when I am going out of town Friday/Saturday night. It's dark and it's too hard to see the cars. I get very
nervous I'm going to hit someone's car.
Page 79 of 140
The current noise level does not effect me. The only time I hear noise is when people are exiting the
building (usually at an appropriate time). However, I am not in favor of them leaving the large
turquoise doors open while the events are going on. My bedroom is adjacent to the doors and it would
most likely effect me.”
711A Myrtle – also pretty close
Oral response – “I can hear them at night. It does not bother me.” “Sometimes they leave cars idling in
front of my house” (It is a no parking zone).
904 Myrtle – one block away
“They have multiple trucks delivering supplies, equipment and etc at all hours. The trucks OFTEN park
blocking a full lane of Myrtle making it dangerous to pass. And also truck noise early and late.
There is often multiple trash carts with loose bags of trash piled on top on the Myrtle side of the building. I have
seen the same trash sit there more than 2 weeks. Longterm uncontained trash is not just an eyesore, it us
attractive to rats, raccoons and other critters. Adding 75 people to increase that is definitely not a good
outcome for the neighbors.
Music noise has not been unbearable but raising the decibel limit will be uncomfortable for us. The paperwork
states that other businesses in the neighborhood do not have the residential limit on them and they have no
complaints. If I am in my house with doors and windows closed I still hear the outside patio guests at the 600
Degree Pizza. That is just voices not music. I haven't complained because I feel the City places more value on
the businesses and our concerns will go nowhere. With the pizza place expanding and the venue adding
decibels and outside speakers, the noise will be concerning.
There has been a definite increase in parking on nearby streets. We sometimes walk downtown on 9th
Street. Since the sidewalk is not continuous we sometimes have to walk on the street. That becomes more
and more dangerous for me with kids or me with David in his wheelchair. I don't know how much the increase
is directly attributable to the venue. If they are allowed unrestricted parking AND a 75 person increase I am
certain we will be negatively impacted. We need to park the wheelchair van at the curb at the end of our
sidewalk to deploy the ramp. If Myrtle becomes a parking zone for downtown businesses and their commercial
delivery vehicles, I fear we will constantly battle to have our van access.
As far as building a storage shed inside their property: I don't care what they store or build within their enclosed
yard as long as it doesn't make noise or draw rodents to the block. It would seem more appropriate to park
their airstream on their property than taking up multiple spaces in the City lot as they do now.”
907 Myrtle – 1 ½ blocks away
“As it is now, we can't hear them and their events do not interfere with our ability to get in or out of the
neighborhood or park in front of our house. However, I still have concern for those neighbors that are/may be
effected. I would like to see life on Myrtle St remain peaceful for all who live here.”
Tresa and I are far enough down the road, so we don't have any issues
Page 80 of 140
Page 81 of 140
Page 82 of 140
Page 83 of 140
Page 84 of 140
Page 85 of 140
Page 86 of 140
Page 87 of 140
3]TEXAS
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Comments From Neighboring Property Owners
You are being notified as a requirement of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances. You are
invited to express your views or concerns regarding the - described petition by returning this
comment form and/or by attending one or both of the scheduled public hearings on the matter.
Project Name: Public Hearing and possible action on a request to rezone Lots 1 & 2/ Block 9/ of
the Glasscock Addition/ located at 224 E. 8th Street and known as The Union on Eighth/ from the
Mixed-Use Downtown (MUDT) District with conditions to the Mixed-Use Downtown (MUDT)
District (without conditions). REZ-2015-OU (Valerie Kreger/ A1CP/ Principal Planner/ and Sofia
Nelson/ CNU-A/ Planning Director)
Project Case Number: REZ-2015-014 P&Z Date: December 15, 2015 Case Manager: Valerie Kreger
Name of Respondent:(^ ^^
(Please print naj
Signahire of Respondent:
Address of Respondent:
(Sigaiture required fo^rotest)
26oul ^c^&Se
I am in FAVOR:
(Address required for protest)
I OBJECT:
Additional Comments;
Written comments may be sent to City of Georgetown Planning Department/ P. 0. Box 1458
Georgetown/ Texas 78627. Emailed comments may be sent to planning@georgetown.org. Any
such comments may be presented to the Commission.
Page 3 of 3Page 88 of 140
Page 89 of 140
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
January 19, 2016
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on an amendment to a Special Use Permit at 224 E. 8th Street,
being Lots 1 & 2, Block 9, of the Glasscock Addition, for an event facility, known as The Union on
Eighth, in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MUDT) District. (SUP-2015-001) Valerie Kreger, AICP,
Principal Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
In April 2013, the City Council approved a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow an Event Facility use
on the subject property (Ordinance #2013-15, Exhibit 5). This SUP was approved with a set of
conditions to reduce the impact the use may have on the adjacent area, particularly the residential
properties to the south and east.
Since the adoption of this SUP and opening of the event facility in 2013, the applicant has operated
under the restrictions of the SUP and based on those experiences would like to amend several items
related to parking, owner representation, building entry, and noise. Additionally, the applicant
would like to amend the Conceptual Site Layout for the SUP adding two structures to the site – an
approximately 8-ft tall storage building and an 18-foot Airstream trailer, for an additional 294
square foot of gross floor area.
The specific requested changes to the current SUP conditions, to include staff’s recommendation
for each item, are detailed below:
Summary of Existing Conditions, Applicant’s Request, and Staff’s Recommendations
Original SUP Condition Applicant’s Request Staff Recommendation
1 Events shall be limited to a
maximum of 225 guests
No changes requested No changes recommended
2 Events shall start no earlier
than 9:00 a.m., and shall end
by 10:00 p.m. Sunday through
Thursday and by 11:00 p.m.
on Fridays and Saturdays
No changes requested No changes recommended
3 Music and entertainment shall
discontinue by 9:45 p.m.
Sunday through Thursdays
and by 10:45 p.m. on Fridays
and Saturdays
No changes requested No changes recommended
4 Alcoholic beverages shall not
be served after 9:30 p.m.
Sunday through Thursday and
10:30 p.m. on Fridays and
Saturdays
No changes requested No changes recommended
5 Events at the facility shall be Remove Alternative:
Page 90 of 140
subject to the sound decibel
restrictions established for
residential properties
(Applicant requests to
comply with standard
commercial sound decibel
restrictions)
No person shall cause, suffer,
allow or permit the making of
noise which exceeds 63 decibels
during the daytime or 56 decibels
during the nighttime when
measured from a point beyond the
south and east property lines, and
70 decibels during the daytime
and 63 decibels during the
nighttime when measured from a
point beyond the north and west
property lines. The methods of
measurement shall be in
accordance with Chapter 8.16 of
the City Code, as amended.
6 Any amplification, speaker or
music source shall be required
to be located entirely within
the building
Remove Alternative:
Any electronic music source or
amplification shall be located
entirely within the building. For
events conducted within the
“Ceremony Area”, no electronic
amplification shall be permitted
except for a spokesperson.
7 Noise dampening materials
shall be installed inside the
structure
Remove Remove
8 An automated sound meter
that controls decibel levels
shall be utilized by the facility
Remove Remove
9 A facility owner shall be
required to be present on-site
during all events
Amend:
Applicant requests to
change to owner or manager
Amend:
The facility owner, or authorized
representative, must be present
during an event, to include any
set-up and/or clean-up time
related to the event.
10 A minimum of one security
officer shall be required at any
event where alcohol is to be
served that exceeds 50 guests,
with two required at an event
that exceeds 100 guests
No changes requested No changes recommended
11 Inside dance lighting, such as
a strobe light, shall not be
visible from outside the
building
No changes requested
(removed from request)
No changes recommended
12 Events serving alcohol shall
require a state-licensed and
certified bartender
No changes requested Combine with Condition #4
13 No direct retail sales of
alcohol to the general public is
No changes requested Combine with Condition #4
Page 91 of 140
permitted
14 Primary entry to the building
will be on the north side of the
property for guests, vendors,
and office usage
Remove Alternative:
The primary entrance to the
building, as defined in the UDC,
will be on the north side of the
property for all guests and
patrons.
15 The proposed 30-foot wide
door shall remain closed when
there is music or amplification
or may be replaced with a
stationary glass wall and a
standard width glass door
Remove Remove
16 No parking related to the
event or office usage will be
allowed on Myrtle Street and
the adjacent residential area
Remove Alternative:
No vehicles shall be parked by
the Valet Parking Service on
Myrtle Street or the adjacent
residential area.
17 Valet parking is required for
events of 75 or more adult
guests
No changes requested Amend with Condition #19:
Valet parking, subject to the
approval and regulations of
Section 12.05 of the City Code, as
amended, shall be provided and
maintained for events of 75 or
more adult guests. A shared
parking agreement shall be
maintained with the valet parking
permit to address the parking
demands of larger events. For
purposes of this SUP, larger
events shall be defined as events
with 75 or more adult guests. The
parking agreement shall be for a
minimum of 37 parking spaces.
18 A low level landscape buffer
shall be planted and
maintained along the southern
property line
No changes requested No changes recommended
19 The applicant shall acquire a
shared parking agreement, as
outlined in the UDC, to
address the parking demands
of larger events prior to
issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy
No changes requested Amend with Condition #17:
Valet parking, subject to the
approval and regulations of
Section 12.05 of the City Code, as
amended, shall be provided and
maintained for events of 75 or
more adult guests. A shared
parking agreement shall be
maintained with the valet parking
permit to address the parking
demands of larger events. For
purposes of this SUP, larger
Page 92 of 140
Public Comment:
A total of 19 notices were sent out to the owners of property within 200 feet of the subject property.
Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on November 1, 2015, November 29, 2015, and
January 3, 2016. As of the date of this report, the City has received 12 written comments in
opposition and 1 in favor of the request.
events shall be defined as events
with 75 or more adult guests. The
parking agreement shall be for a
minimum of 37 parking spaces.
Additional Items
Original SUP Condition Applicant’s Request Staff Recommendation
N/A Permission to build a 150
sq. ft. storage building
behind the masonry wall to
allow for storage of supplies
and items used to operate
the event facility business.
Approval
N/A Permission to permanently
park and occupy an 18-foot
Airstream trailer behind the
masonry wall to create a
space for both the facility’s
clients and staff to relax
during events.
Approval
N/A (Conceptual Site Layout) Add new condition to clarify the
permitted uses/activities allowed
within the south 50 feet of the
subject property:
The following activities are
permitted within the “Outdoor
Private Event Space” identified in
Exhibit A (south 50 feet of the
Property): temporary storage
during events, and additional or
overflow seating, standing or
eating areas. No outdoor live
musing or entertainment area
shall be allowed. For purposes of
this SUP, “entertainment area”
shall be defined as an area where
entertainment, either passive or
active, is provided for the
pleasure of the patrons. Such
entertainment includes, but is not
limited to, vocal and instrumental
music, dancing, karaoke, comedy,
and acting.
Page 93 of 140
Recommended Motion:
See above table for staff's recommendation on each condition.
For the revised Conceptual Site Layout:
Recommend to the City Council Approval of the revised Conceptual Site Layout as shown in
Exhibit 7.
For the revised Conditions:
Should the Planning and Zoning Commission support the request, staff recommends the following
motion:
Recommend to the City Council Approval of changes to conditions number [list
condition number as identified above] as proposed by the applicant.
And/or
Recommend to the City Council Approval of changes to conditions number [list
condition number as identified above] as proposed by city staff.
Should the Planning and Zoning Commission not support the request, staff recommends the
following motion:
Recommend to the City Council Denial of the proposed changes to conditions number
[list condition number as identified above].
Should the Planning and Zoning Commission wish to make an alternative recommendation, staff
recommends the following motion:
Recommend to City Council the following:
[list recommended conditions i.e. that condition #X is revised to state…; or that the a new
condition be added stating…]
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibits 1-4 - Maps Backup Material
Exhibit 5 - Ordinance 2013-15 Backup Material
Exhibit 6 - Applicant's Statement of Justification Backup Material
Exhibit 7 - Conceptual Site Layout Backup Material
Exhibit 8 - Public Comments Backup Material
Page 94 of 140
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 1 of 14
Report Date: January 14, 2016
File No.: SUP-2015-001
Project Planner: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner
Item Details
Project Name: The Union on Eighth
Project Address: 224 East 8th Street
Location: Southwest Corner of 8th and Myrtle Streets (Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 0.3306 acres
Legal Description: Glasscock Addition, Block 9, Lots 1 & 2
Applicant: Justin Bohls
Property Owner: RNJ Bohls Family Enterprises, LLC
Contact: Justin Bohls
Existing Use: Event Facility
Existing Zoning: Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) with conditions / Downtown Overlay
District (Exhibit 3)
Future Land Use: Special Area Mixed Use (Exhibit 2)
Growth Tier: Tier 1A
Overview of Applicant’s Request
In April 2013, the City Council approved a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow an Event Facility use
on the subject property (Ordinance #2013-15, Exhibit 5). This SUP was approved with a set of
conditions to reduce the impact the use may have on the adjacent area, particularly the residential
properties to the south and east. Since the adoption of this SUP and opening of the event facility in
2013, the applicant has operated under the restrictions of the SUP and based on those experiences
would like to amend several items related to parking, owner representation, building entry, and noise.
Additionally, the applicant would like to amend the Conceptual Site Layout for the SUP adding two
structures to the site – an approximately 8-ft tall storage building and an 18-foot Airstream trailer, for
an additional 294 square foot of gross floor area.
Background
Property History:
The current structure was built in 1928 as a blacksmith shop. The site was used for automobile
repair, Conway Transmission, until its recent purchase by the current property owner. The building is
in its original configuration with little to no exterior changes over the years.
In 1968, the City adopted its first Zoning Ordinance and Map, designating the subject property as
Residential Single-Family District (RS) zoning. A rezoning was later approved in 1992 changing the
zoning district to Commercial First Height District (C2-A) with conditions to bring the zoning into
conformance with the use, and enable the applicant at the time to obtain a small business loan and
Page 95 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 2 of 14
purchase the property. The 1992 C2-A conditional zoning district limited the permitted-by-right uses
on the subject property to auto repair/transmission shop and other automotive related uses, office use
(not to exceed 2,000 square feet), and all uses permitted in the RS zoning district. All other uses
permitted in the C2-A zoning district require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council. A condition requiring approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission on certain
building and site improvements for all uses, except those permitted by right in the RS zoning district,
was also imposed with the rezoning. Concurrently with this request, the applicant has applied for a
rezoning of the property to remove the conditions from the base zoning district.
In 2012, the current property owner purchased the property, and proceeded to renovate it for an event
facility. As part of this process and in conformance with the existing zoning conditions, in 2013, the
City Council approved the proposed site changes as well as use of the property for the Event Facility
as it was not an automotive, office, or residential use. City Council also approved the current Special
Use Permit (SUP) at that time to allow the Event Facility use on the subject property with the
conditions the applicant is currently requesting to amend (Exhibit 5).
Current Special Use Permit and Conditions:
The SUP approved in April 2013, in effect to date, allows operation of an Event Facility at 224 East
8th Street, in the Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) district. The Conceptual Site Layout approved
with the current SUP includes the original 4,200 square foot metal building located at the northeast
corner of the property (intersection of Myrtle and 8th Streets), and a 3,000 square foot outdoor
courtyard adjacent to the west wall of the building surrounded by an eight (8) foot high masonry
perimeter wall (Approved Conceptual Site Layout, Exhibit 7). No on-site parking is included with
the Conceptual Site Layout. In an effort to address the concerns of the neighborhood and adjacent
properties, and limit the intensity of the facility to an appropriate level for the location, 19 conditions
were added to the SUP ordinance as follows:
1. Events shall be limited to a maximum of 225 guests;
2. Events shall start no earlier than 9:00 a.m., and shall end by 10:00 p.m. Sunday through
Thursday and by 11:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays;
3. Music and entertainment shall discontinue by 9:45 p.m. Sunday through Thursdays and by
10:45 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays;
4. Alcoholic beverages shall not be served after 9:30 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 10:30
p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays;
5. Events at the facility shall be subject to the sound decibel restrictions established for
residential properties;
6. Any amplification, speaker or music source shall be required to be located entirely within the
building;
7. Noise dampening materials shall be installed inside the structure;
8. An automated sound meter that controls decibel levels shall be utilized by the facility;
9. A facility owner shall be required to be present on-site during all events;
10. A minimum of one security officer shall be required at any event where alcohol is to be
served that exceeds 50 guests, with two required at an event that exceeds 100 guests;
11. Inside dance lighting, such as a strobe light, shall not be visible from outside the building;
12. Events serving alcohol shall require a state-licensed and certified bartender;
13. No direct retail sales of alcohol to the general public is permitted;
Page 96 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 3 of 14
14. Primary entry to the building will be on the north side of the property for guests, vendors, and
office usage;
15. The proposed 30-foot wide door shall remain closed when there is music or amplification or
may be replaced with a stationary glass wall and a standard width glass door;
16. No parking related to the event or office usage will be allowed on Myrtle Street and the
adjacent residential area;
17. Valet parking is required for events of 75 or more adult guests;
18. A low level landscape buffer shall be planted and maintained along the southern property
line; and
19. The applicant shall acquire a shared parking agreement, as outlined in the UDC, to address
the parking demands of larger events prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Applicant’s Requested Changes to the SUP
After completing site and building improvements, the first event was held at The Union on Eighth in
December of 2013. The applicant has now hosted over 60 events over the last two years under the
conditions of the existing SUP. Based on those experiences, the applicant is requesting modifications
to the existing conditions as follows:
• Remove SUP Condition #16 prohibiting parking related to the event on Myrtle Street
and the adjacent residential area.
The applicant would like to allow their patrons to park in all areas where parking is allowed
for other businesses. The additional activity related to restaurants and other new
developments along 8th Street has resulted in customers for other businesses parking on 8th
Street east of Myrtle. The applicant does not have the authority or responsibility to police the
parking for all commercial entities in the vicinity. However, the applicant feels that the valet
service for events over 75 guests, as required by the SUP, has worked well and estimates
70% of guests utilize valet when available. As the applicant can control where the valeted
cars are parked, the applicant is requesting to remove Condition #16, leave the valet
requirement for events over 75, and allow his facility to only monitor where the valet runners
park cars.
• Amend SUP Condition #9 requiring a facility owner to be present on-site during all
events.
As a small company with only a couple of owners, the applicant feels this requirement is not
always feasible and that a qualified manager could run the events in the same manner as an
owner. Therefore, the applicant requests that this condition be amended to say that an owner
or manager must be on site during events.
• Remove SUP Conditions related to noise including #5 limiting events to residential
noise levels, #6 requiring any amplification, speaker, or music source to be located
entirely within the building, #7 requiring installation of noise dampening materials, #8
requiring the facility to use an automated sound meter that controls decibel levels, and
# 15 that requires the 30-foot wide door to remain closed when there is music or
amplification.
Page 97 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 4 of 14
The applicant would like to remove the five restrictions related to noise and instead allow the
facility to follow the existing noise regulations in place for other commercial properties per
the City Noise Ordinance. The combination of five separate requirements makes ensuring
conformance confusing. The applicant feels strongly that if the maximum noise levels are
adhered to, the method used to ensure the compliance should not matter. For example, if a
door is open, the event music sound level would just be decreased to stay within the allowed
levels. The applicant has a decibel meter on site that is used during events and would
continue to use it to monitor events. The applicant has also installed a sound system at the
facility that is calibrated so that at its maximum output it still falls within the noise
limitations – according to the applicant, many of the facility’s clients are opting to utilize this
system.
• Remove SUP Condition #11 requiring that inside dance lighting, such as strobe lights,
not be visible from outside the building.
The applicant has withdrawn the request to change this item since the last submittal to the
City.
• Remove SUP Condition #14 requiring primary entry to the building to be from the
north side of the property for guests and vendors.
According to the applicant, this condition provides confusion on what is considered
“primary” and whether this condition prohibits the use of other points of entry into the
building. Additionally, the applicant has expressed concerns relating to the applicability of
this condition to event facility staff and vendors. As such, the applicant is requesting removal
of this condition or modification to have a clear understanding of the restriction.
In addition to the changes to the existing conditions, the applicant requests to add the following to
the facility as shown on the proposed Conceptual Site Layout (Exhibit 7):
• Storage Building. The applicant is requesting to add a 10’ x 15’ (150 sq. ft.) storage
building to the southwestern portion of the property, at least 20 feet from the southern
property line, screened from the roadway and adjacent properties by an existing 6-foot tall
masonry wall. The applicant explains that in efforts during renovation to keep the main
structure as close to original as possible, little storage was added. The new storage building
would store supplies, tables and chairs that currently have to be transferred to another
location when not used for an event.
• Airstream Trailer. The applicant would also like to permanently park and occupy an 18-
foot vintage Airstream travel trailer (144 sq. ft.) in the southern half of the property, again at
least 20 feet from the southern property line. As with the proposed storage building, the
trailer is proposed to be screened from the roadway and adjacent properties by the existing 6-
foot tall masonry wall. The trailer would be used as 1) an additional area for clients to change
and relax during an event and take photos in front of; and 2) in the evenings, it would
provide the owners and staff a retreat. The applicant explains just the top of the 8-foot high
trailer would be seen from the street (due to the height of the masonry wall) and the trailer
will produce no sound and very little light (which cannot be seen because of the curtains).
Page 98 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 5 of 14
Site Information
Physical Characteristics:
The subject property measures approximately 120 feet by 120 feet, and consists of an approximate
4,200-square foot building and a walled courtyard (Exhibit 4). The property is flat with one tree
located in the courtyard, and a row of ornamental trees located along the south property line.
The existing building is located approximately 50 feet from the south property line and 60 feet from
the west property line. Approximately ⅓ of the property appears to be covered by the building. The
building is in its original configuration; however, it has undergone major interior renovations to
accommodate the existing event facility use while maintining some of its historic architectural
features.
The south 50 feet of the subject property, surrounded by a 6-foot masonry wall, remains as an open
space. No on-site parking exists on the property. There are six (6) marked on-street head-in parking
spaces directly in front of the subject property along East 8th Street, and a smaller, unmarked on-
street paved area along Myrtle Street.
Surrounding Properties:
The subject property is located on the eastern edge of the Downtown Overlay District. That boundary
line continues directly north for a block and a half, and moves west half a block south of the
property. Adjacent properties that are not part of the Downtown Overlay District are part of the Old
Town Overlay District. The surrounding uses include both residential and non-residential uses as
follows:
Transportation:
There is no vehicle access point onto the site as there is no on-site parking. Both East 8th Street and
Myrtle Street are classified as local streets adjacent to this property with a speed limit of 30 miles per
hour. Head-in on-street parking is located on both sides of 8th Street at this location.
Master Plan Guidance
This property is subject to the guidance of the the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown
Master Plan. The 2030 plan provides guidance on the future land use and growth patterns of the City
and ETJ. As the overall guide for future growth, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan provides the
following guidance:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North Mixed Use Downtown (MU-
DT) Special Area Mixed Use
First Presbyterian Church,
print shop and other
commercial uses
South Residential Single-Family
(RS)
Moderate Density
Residential Single-Family Residences
East Residential Single-Family
(RS)
Moderate Density
Residential Single-Family Residences
West Mixed Use Downtown (MU-
DT) Special Area Mixed Use Restaurant
Page 99 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 6 of 14
• This property is designated as a Specialty Mixed-Use Area on the 2030 Plan Future Land Use
Map, due to its location within the Downtown Overlay District.
• The Plan promotes a true mix and intensity of uses uniquely suited to the activity, scale and
historic charm of downtown. The area should be a center of activity not only in the day, but
also at night and on weekends, accomplished by promoting a mix of commercial,
entertainment, residential, and civic uses as well as cultural activities and events.
• The Plan promotes re-investment and re-use in Georgetown’s older developed areas,
including downtown, and states the City should remove impediments to such redevelopment.
The Downtown Master Plan provides the framework for guiding growth and redevelopment in
Downtown Georgetown. As part of the Downtown Master Plan, four character areas are established
to promte a concentration of uses and special features. Additionally, a transition area has been
established to guide commercial development near the residential edge of the downtown. The
following guidance is provided in the Downtown Master Plan:
• The Downtown Master Plan encourages the intensive use of land and structures, along with
public parking and pedestrian-friendly design, to provide an active live/work environment.
• The Plan encourages pedestrian circulation and enhancements to downtown streescapes to be
enjoyed by both downtown users and adjacent residents.
• The Plan indicates the intensity of uses outside the square, in outlying areas, should be built
up. Based on the community’s need for space for performance art and conferences, the Plan
sees opportunity for cultural uses, including additional arts spaces and meeting facilities.
• The subject property is located within the Downtown Core character area, described as the
retail, dining and entertainment destination of Georgetown and Williamson County.
• The Plan encourages specialty retail, dining and entertainment venues within this area to
position the downtown core as an exciting place distinct from regional suburban shopping
centers.
• Recommended projects within the Downtown Core include retail store rehabilitations,
adaptive reuse of historic buildings and redevelopment of vacant lots, promote dining and
special retail businesses, and development of more cultural facilities and entertainment
venues, among others.
• Recommended projects and uses include residential development in various density (i.e.
multi-family and townhomes), professional offices, neighborhood-based services and other
light commercial uses, and small parks, plazas and courtyards.
Unified Development Code
Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) Zoning District:
The Mixed Use Downtown District (MU-DT) is intended to provide a location for a mix of land uses
including general commercial and retail activities, and office, as well as single-family and
multifamily in an urban-style setting. Developments in the MU-DT district are typically smaller in
size and scope, although there may be occasionally heavy traffic. Properties in MU-DT shall meet the
design requirements of the Downtown Overlay District and Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines.
Page 100 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 7 of 14
The MU-DT district permits a range of land uses by right including single-family residences,
restaurants, personal services and banks and some uses by right subject to limitations, including
churches, bed and breakfasts (including those with events), micro-breweries and wineries, general
offices and general retail. Additionally, some uses may be allowed through approval of a Special Use
Permit by City Council such as apartments, day cares, hospitals, hotels, event facilities, drive-
through restaurants, bars/taverns/pubs, medical clinics, and restricted personal services.
Downtown Overlay District:
Adopted in 2001, the Downtown Overlay District is intended to protect the aesthetic and visual
character of downtown Georgetown.
Special Use Permits:
Special Use Permits (SUP) allow for City Council approval of uses with unique or widely varying
operating characteristics or unusual site development features, where individual review of their
location, design, and intensity, for example, is necessary. Different uses may have specific
requirements attached to them depending on the underlying zoning district. City Council may impose
any additional conditions or limitations deemed appropriate for the requested use. SUPs run with the
property, and not the property owner, renter, or lessee.
In the MU-DT district, Event Facilities are only allowed with City Council approval of an SUP. In
addition, an Event Facility in the MU-DT district requires 1) any outdoor live music or entertainment
area be shown on a Site Plan and be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the property line of a
residentially zoned property; and 2) any live music or entertainment in association with an event be
subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.16 “Noise” of the Georgetown Municipal Code.
The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following when
reviewing a Special Use Permit:
1. The proposed use should not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the
surrounding neighborhood or its occupants.
2. The proposed Conceptual Site Layout, circulation plan, and design should be harmonious
with the character of the surrounding area.
3. The proposed use should not negatively impact existing uses in the area and in the City
through impacts on public infrastructure such as roads, parking facilities and water and sewer
systems, and on public services such as police and fire protection and solid waste collection,
and the ability of existing infrastructure and services to adequately provide services.
4. The proposed use should not negatively impact existing uses in the area and in the City
through the creation of noise, glare, fumes, dust, smoke, vibration, fire hazard, or other
injurious or noxious impact.
Staff Analysis
Staff has reviewed this application with regard to the 2030 Plan, the Downtown Master Plan, and the
provisions of the UDC. The following is a summary of the request made by the applicant and staff’s
recommendation for each aspect of the request. Below the following findings staff has provided a
summary table of the request for a review of the SUP conditions at a glance.
Page 101 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 8 of 14
Staff is supportive of the requested changes to the Conceptual Site Layout including the
addition of 294 square feet consisting of a 150 sq. ft. storage building and an 18-foot
Airstream trailer (144 sq. ft.).
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s requested changes to the following conditions:
• Amending SUP Condition #9 requiring a facility owner to be present on-site during all
events. Staff is supportive of amending this requirement to include a manager as
requested by the applicant. Staff agrees that requiring a property owner to be on-site at
each event is unnecessarily burdensome and the desired outcome can be accomplished
via an authorized representative. However, due to varying hours of clean-up and set-up,
staff recommends language be added to clarify the time includes set-up and clean-up of
an event.
Recommended condition language: The facility owner, or authorized representative,
must be present during an event, to include any set-up and/or clean-up time related to the
event.
Staff is conditionally supportive or recommends alternatives, as described, to the following
of the applicant’s requested changes:
• Removal of SUP Condition #16 prohibiting parking related to the event on Myrtle Street
and the adjacent residential area. While staff is not in support of removing the language
completely, staff is supportive of changing the restriction to apply to only the valet
service as mentioned by the applicant. Currently, the City does not have parking
restrictions along Myrtle Street or the adjacent residential area. Because of this, public
parking in this area is permitted for the nearby businesses and all downtown users. This
has created confusion and enforcement issues due to patrons of other downtown
businesses opting to park along Myrtle Street and the surrounding area, and the inability
to privately control where the public may park without taking additional measures (i.e.
placing “no parking” signs, which only the City may do). Because of this, staff
recommends clarifying that the condition only be applicable to vehicles parked by the
valet service, as this may be enforced by the property owner.
Recommended condition language: No vehicles shall be parked by the Valet Parking
Service on Myrtle Street or the adjacent residential area.
• Removal of SUP Conditions related to noise including #5 limiting events to residential
noise levels, #6 requiring any amplification, speaker, or music source to be located
entirely within the building, #7 requiring installation of noise dampening materials, #8
requiring the facility to use an automated sound meter that controls decibel levels, and
#15 that requires the 30-foot wide door to remain closed when there is music or
amplification.
Staff is supportive of removing some of the conditions including #7 requiring installation
of noise dampening materials, #8 requiring the facility to use an automated sound meter
that controls decibel levels, and #15 that requires the 30-foot wide door to remain closed
when there is music or amplification. These particular restrictions, based on on-site
inspections, do not significantly contribute to the desired outcome.
Page 102 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 9 of 14
Relating to condition #5, staff recommends revising this condition to specify the actual
decibel number applicable to the use. While the City has received numerous complaints
relating to excess noise on the subject property, the property owner has been able to
demonstrate compliance with the required decibel levels per the SUP, or immediately
address any violations when applicable. Additionally, as experienced by staff during a
site visit, noise is easily carried from the subject and adjacent properties into the
surrounding area, making it difficult to apply different decibel requirements to the same
point on certain property lines. Because of this, it is recommended that the residential
decibel number (63 decibels during the daytime and 56 decibels during the nighttime)
apply only to the south and east property lines as these are the sides that abut a residential
area. The commercial decibel levels (70 decibels during the daytime and 63 decibels
during the nighttime) may apply to the north and west property lines adjacent to a
commercial area/zoned properties. This change is consistent with the City’s Noise
Ordinance standards for commercial zoned properties and residential areas. Call out
noise ordinance regulations. Summarize Code Enforcement. Additionally, staff
recommends clarifying in the SUP that measurements of noise emanating from private
property shall be taken from a point beyond the real property line of the property from
which the noise is being generated, in accordance with the City Code. The recommended
revisions to this condition will clarify the applicability of the actual decibel restriction
along each property line that may be easily applied and enforced by the property owner
and the City.
Relating to Condition #6 requiring any amplification, speaker, or music source to be
located entirely within the building, staff recommends that electronic amplification may
be allowed within the courtyard only for an officiant or spokesperson. Musical
instruments that provide sound through acoustic means with no electronic amplifiers
would be allowed in the courtyard. All other electronic amplification would be required
to be located entirely within the building. While some of the other sound conditions were
found to not significantly contribute to the compliance with noise levels, staff does
believe that limiting amplified music to the building does significantly impact the noise
levels of the site. Additionally, the applicant has stated that the system within the
building has a mechanism limiting the maximum output and has been calibrated to not
exceed the noise limitation levels. A system in the courtyard provided by an outside
source would not be calibrated for this site specifically in the same manner. With the
removal of the condition restricting the 30-foot wide door to remain closed while there is
electronic amplification within the building, the event facility may provide background
music during ceremonies and other events held in the courtyard as desired by the
applicant.
Recommended condition language:
1) No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the making of noise which exceeds 63
decibels during the daytime or 56 decibels during the nighttime when measured from a
point beyond the south and east property lines, and 70 decibels during the daytime and 63
decibels during the nighttime when measured from a point beyond the north and west
property lines. The methods of measurement shall be in accordance with Chapter 8.16 of
the City Code, as amended.
Page 103 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 10 of 14
2) Any electronic music source or amplification shall be located entirely within the
building. For events conducted within the “Ceremony Area” identified in Exhibit “A,” no
electronic amplification shall be permitted except for a spokesperson.
• Removal of SUP Condition #14 requiring primary entry to the building to be from the
north side of the property for guests and vendors. Staff recommends revising this
condition to be consistent with the UDC’s definition of a primary entrance. The proposed
revision will clarify that the intent of a primary entrance is to define the side of the
building that will serve as the primary entrance for patrons and guests, as well as clarify
that facility staff and vendors are not restricted to the north side entrance.
Recommended condition language: The primary entrance to the building, as defined in
the UDC, will be on the north side of the property for all guests and patrons.
Additionally, staff recommends the following changes to the SUP:
• Amend and combine SUP Condition #17 related to valet parking requirements for events
of 75 or more adult guests and SUP Condition #19 related to shared parking agreements
required for larger events. The current conditions relating to parking require the
property/business owner to provide valet parking service for events of 75 or more adult
guests, as well as a parking agreement for “larger” events. These two conditions were
imposed for the same purpose of addressing the heavy traffic volume and parking
concerns caused by events of a particular size. Additionally, the current condition does
not define “larger events,” causing confusion and uncertainty of when a parking
agreement is required and for what number of spaces. The City Code standards for valet
parking service requires a parking agreement for any off-site parking space to be used by
the valet parking service. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that there is adequate
parking spaces available for the service. Because of this, staff recommends combining
the two conditions to be dependent and complimentary to each other by requiring the
parking agreement to be included and subject to the valet parking provisions in
accordance with the City Code.
Recommended condition language: Valet parking, subject to the approval and
regulations of Section 12.05 of the City Code, as amended, shall be provided and
maintained for events of 75 or more adult guests. A shared parking agreement shall be
maintained with the valet parking permit to address the parking demands of larger events.
For purposes of this SUP, larger events shall be defined as events with 75 or more adult
guests. The parking agreement shall be for a minimum of 37 parking spaces.
• Add new condition related to outdoor live music and entertainment. Due to the proposed
storage building and airstream trailer on the south 50 feet of the subject property, and the
property owner’s desire to use this portion for photos, staff recommends clarifying the
permitted uses/activities allowed within this portion of the subject property. Permitted
uses include temporary storage during events, and additional or overflow seating,
standing or eating areas. In accordance with the UDC, no outdoor live musing or
entertainment area shall be allowed. For purposes of this SUP, “entertainment area” shall
be defined as an area where entertainment, either passive or active, is provided for the
Page 104 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 11 of 14
pleasure of the patrons. Such entertainment includes, but is not limited to, vocal and
instrumental music, dancing, karaoke, comedy, and acting.
Recommended condition language: The following activities are permitted within the
“Outdoor Private Event Space” identified in Exhibit A (south 50 feet of the Property):
temporary storage during events, and additional or overflow seating, standing or eating
areas. No outdoor live musing or entertainment area shall be allowed. For purposes of
this SUP, “entertainment area” shall be defined as an area where entertainment, either
passive or active, is provided for the pleasure of the patrons. Such entertainment
includes, but is not limited to, vocal and instrumental music, dancing, karaoke, comedy,
and acting.
SummSummSummSummary of Existing Conditions, Applicant’s Request, and Staff’s Recommendationsary of Existing Conditions, Applicant’s Request, and Staff’s Recommendationsary of Existing Conditions, Applicant’s Request, and Staff’s Recommendationsary of Existing Conditions, Applicant’s Request, and Staff’s Recommendations
Original SUP ConditionOriginal SUP ConditionOriginal SUP ConditionOriginal SUP Condition Applicant’s RequestApplicant’s RequestApplicant’s RequestApplicant’s Request Staff RecommendationStaff RecommendationStaff RecommendationStaff Recommendation
1 Events shall be limited to a
maximum of 225 guests
No changes requested No changes recommended
2 Events shall start no earlier than
9:00 a.m., and shall end by 10:00
p.m. Sunday through Thursday and
by 11:00 p.m. on Fridays and
Saturdays
No changes requested No changes recommended
3 Music and entertainment shall
discontinue by 9:45 p.m. Sunday
through Thursdays and by 10:45
p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays
No changes requested No changes recommended
4 Alcoholic beverages shall not be
served after 9:30 p.m. Sunday
through Thursday and 10:30 p.m.
on Fridays and Saturdays
No changes requested No changes recommended
5 Events at the facility shall be
subject to the sound decibel
restrictions established for
residential properties
Remove
(Applicant requests to comply
with standard commercial
sound decibel restrictions)
Alternative:
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or
permit the making of noise which
exceeds 63 decibels during the
daytime or 56 decibels during the
nighttime when measured from a point
beyond the south and east property
lines, and 70 decibels during the
daytime and 63 decibels during the
nighttime when measured from a point
beyond the north and west property
lines. The methods of measurement
shall be in accordance with Chapter
8.16 of the City Code, as amended.
6 Any amplification, speaker or music
source shall be required to be
located entirely within the building
Remove Alternative:
Any electronic music source or
amplification shall be located entirely
within the building. For events
conducted within the “Ceremony Area”,
no electronic amplification shall be
permitted except for a spokesperson.
7 Noise dampening materials shall be
installed inside the structure
Remove Remove
8 An automated sound meter that
controls decibel levels shall be
utilized by the facility
Remove Remove
Page 105 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 12 of 14
9 A facility owner shall be required to
be present on-site during all events
Amend:
Applicant requests to change to
owner or manager
Amend:
The facility owner, or authorized
representative, must be present during
an event, to include any set-up and/or
clean-up time related to the event.
10 A minimum of one security officer
shall be required at any event
where alcohol is to be served that
exceeds 50 guests, with two
required at an event that exceeds
100 guests
No changes requested No changes recommended
11 Inside dance lighting, such as a
strobe light, shall not be visible from
outside the building
No changes requested
(removed from request)
No changes recommended
12 Events serving alcohol shall require
a state-licensed and certified
bartender
No changes requested Combine with Condition #4
13 No direct retail sales of alcohol to
the general public is permitted
No changes requested Combine with Condition #4
14 Primary entry to the building will be
on the north side of the property for
guests, vendors, and office usage
Remove Alternative:
The primary entrance to the building,
as defined in the UDC, will be on the
north side of the property for all guests
and patrons.
15 The proposed 30-foot wide door
shall remain closed when there is
music or amplification or may be
replaced with a stationary glass wall
and a standard width glass door
Remove Remove
16 No parking related to the event or
office usage will be allowed on
Myrtle Street and the adjacent
residential area
Remove Alternative:
No vehicles shall be parked by the
Valet Parking Service on Myrtle Street
or the adjacent residential area.
17 Valet parking is required for events
of 75 or more adult guests
No changes requested Amend with Condition #19:
Valet parking, subject to the approval
and regulations of Section 12.05 of the
City Code, as amended, shall be
provided and maintained for events of
75 or more adult guests. A shared
parking agreement shall be maintained
with the valet parking permit to
address the parking demands of larger
events. For purposes of this SUP,
larger events shall be defined as
events with 75 or more adult guests.
The parking agreement shall be for a
minimum of 37 parking spaces.
18 A low level landscape buffer shall
be planted and maintained along
the southern property line
No changes requested No changes recommended
Page 106 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 13 of 14
19 The applicant shall acquire a
shared parking agreement, as
outlined in the UDC, to address the
parking demands of larger events
prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy
No changes requested Amend with Condition #17:
Valet parking, subject to the approval
and regulations of Section 12.05 of the
City Code, as amended, shall be
provided and maintained for events of
75 or more adult guests. A shared
parking agreement shall be maintained
with the valet parking permit to
address the parking demands of larger
events. For purposes of this SUP,
larger events shall be defined as
events with 75 or more adult guests.
The parking agreement shall be for a
minimum of 37 parking spaces.
Additional ItemsAdditional ItemsAdditional ItemsAdditional Items
Original SUP ConditionOriginal SUP ConditionOriginal SUP ConditionOriginal SUP Condition Applicant’s RequestApplicant’s RequestApplicant’s RequestApplicant’s Request Staff RecommendationStaff RecommendationStaff RecommendationStaff Recommendation
N/A Permission to build a 150 sq. ft.
storage building behind the
masonry wall to allow for
storage of supplies and items
used to operate the event
facility business.
Approval
N/A Permission to permanently park
and occupy an 18-foot
Airstream trailer behind the
masonry wall to create a space
for both the facility’s clients and
staff to relax during events.
Approval
N/A (Conceptual Site Layout) Add new condition to clarify the
permitted uses/activities allowed within
the south 50 feet of the subject
property:
The following activities are permitted
within the “Outdoor Private Event
Space” identified in Exhibit A (south 50
feet of the Property): temporary
storage during events, and additional
or overflow seating, standing or eating
areas. No outdoor live musing or
entertainment area shall be allowed.
For purposes of this SUP,
“entertainment area” shall be defined
as an area where entertainment, either
passive or active, is provided for the
pleasure of the patrons. Such
entertainment includes, but is not
limited to, vocal and instrumental
music, dancing, karaoke, comedy, and
acting.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
Additional comments may be provided by the Fire Department and the Building Inspections
Department during review of the permits for the additional structures.
Page 107 of 140
Planning Department Staff Report
The Union on Eighth – SUP-2015-001 Page 14 of 14
Related Application(s)
Valet Parking Permits are reviewed and approved administratively. Any proposed changes to the
subject property will require administrative approval and may include a Certificate of
Appropriateness and Site Development Plan.
Public Comments
A total of 19 notices were sent out to the owners of property within 200 feet of the subject property.
Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on November 1, 2015, November 29, 2015, and
January 3, 2016. As of the date of this report, the City has received 12 written comments in
opposition and 1 in favor of the request (Exhibit 8).
Meetings Schedule
December 15, 2015 – Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2016 – City Council 1st Reading (pending)
January 26, 2016 – City Council 2nd Reading (pending)
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map
Exhibit 5 – Ordinance 2013-15
Exhibit 6 – Applicant’s Statement of Justification
Exhibit 7 – Conceptual Site Layout
Exhibit 8 – Public Comment Received
Page 108 of 140
SU P -2 01 5-0 01 E
L
M
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 8 T H S T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 7 T H S T
SU P-20 15-001
Exhibit #1
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/C entral Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y 0 250 500Fee t ¯
Le ge nd
SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
W U n i v e r s i ty A v e E U n i v e r s i t y A v e
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
NColleg e St
N A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
W olfRanchPkw y
S A
u
s
t
in
Av
e
Site
City Lim its
Str eet
Si te ³
Page 109 of 140
SU
P
-2
01
5-0
01
E
L
M
S
TS
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 8 T H S T
E 7 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
E 1 0 T H S T
0 200 400
Feet
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/Central Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y
¯
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Fut ure La nd Use / Ove rall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2SUP-20 15-001
Legen d
Th oro ug hfa re
Fu ture L an d Use
Institut ional
Regional Commercial
Comm unity Com mercial
Employm ent Cent er
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mix ed Us e Com munit y
Mix ed Us e Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mix ed Us e Area
Ag / Rural Resident ial
§¨¦35
W U ni v er si t y A v e E U n i ve rs it y A v e
N A
us
ti
n Av
e
N A
us
ti
n Av
e
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
NColleg e St
N A
us
ti
n Av
e
S A
us
t
in
Av
e
EMorro w St
Site
³
City Lim its
Str eet
Si te
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Art erial
Existing Minor Art erial
Existing Ram p
Proposed Collect or
Proposed F reeway
Propsed F rontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Densit y Residential
Page 110 of 140
SU P -2 01 5-0 01 E
L
M
S
TS
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 8 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
E 7 T H S T
E 1 0 T H S T
Zon in g I nfo rmati onSUP-20 15-001Exhibit #3
¯
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/Central Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y 0 200 400Feet
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
W U ni v er si t y A ve E U n i ve rs i ty A v e
N A
us
ti
n
Av
e
N A
us
ti
n
Av
e
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
NColleg e St
N A
us
ti
n
Av
e
W olfRanchPkw y
S A
us
t
in
Av
e
EMorro w St
³
Site
City L imits
Stre et
Site
Page 111 of 140
SUP-2015-001
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
E
L
M
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 8 T H S T
E 7 T H S T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 9 T H S T
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/Central Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y
¯
0 200 400
Feet
Exhibit #4
SU P-20 15-001
§¨¦35
W U n i v e r s i t y A v e E U n i ve r s it y A v e
N A
us
ti
n Av
e
N A
us
ti
n Av
e
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
NColleg e St
N A
us
ti
n Av
e
S A
us
t
in
Av
e
Site
City Lim its
Str eet
Si te ³
Page 112 of 140
Page 113 of 140
Page 114 of 140
Page 115 of 140
Page 116 of 140
Statement of Justification: The Union on Eighth
03-18-15
Over the past year, The Union on Eighth is proud to announce that we have hosted over 45
weddings, along with 15 other events including High School Booster Clubs, non-profit groups, a major
Automotive Company, and other corporate parties. We have brought over 10,000 people into our lovely
Downtown, and are expecting to double the amount of people we bring in this year. We have had
guests represented from 18 different states, including Alaska, and while the Automotive Company was
here, we had guests from as far away as China in Downtown Georgetown.
Many of our Downtown and community businesses have seen business from our clients.
Wildfire, Eats on 8th, 600 Degrees, CJ’s, Best Western, Sweet Lemon Inn, San Gabriel House, Holiday Inn,
just to name a few.
And we are even more proud to say that we were able to accomplish this and still provide a safe
environment for our neighboring businesses and residents. Cars kept out the neighborhood, we’ve
done it. Noise complaints kept to a very minimum. Of the few complaints over the year and a half we
have been opened, we were found to be in compliance with the City’s noise ordinance every time.
We’ve had no cases of our client’s and their guests disturbing the neighboring properties. We have
proudly run a tight ship.
The Union on Eighth is an asset to Downtown, creating an event space that brings many new
visitors to the Square which benefits the local economy, from florists, to restaurants, hotels, and shops.
It creates another gathering place for the City to use during its spectacular events, as well as contributes
to the revitalization of the Downtown District. Since we have taken the eyesore that our building was
and transformed it into one of Texas’ premiere event spaces (including being a finalist for the
President’s Award for best rehab of a historic structure), a lot has changed in our Eastern block. Two
thriving restaurants have moved in, an Inn around the corner with another Inn planned to begin
construction, and another historic building right outside our front door being rezoned from residential
to commercial (sitting right next to the Robert’s Printing building). I invite you to come down to the East
8th block on a Saturday evening and see the progress. Witness people dining outside. People waiting to
get into restaurants. An event happening in our space. It’s vibrant. Exciting.
Currently our property is zoned Mix-Use Downtown (MU-DT). According to the Unified
Development Code (UDC) this zoning district is intended to be used for a variety of uses, to include
those that may have heavy traffic at times which our project clearly does. Other similar uses currently
allowed by right in the MU-DT district are restaurants, microbreweries and community centers. All
these uses have similar hours and similar uses as our proposed project, yet our project will only have
heavy usage a couple times per week during the busiest seasons of the year, and each event will only
last generally from 5-11 p.m.
Page 117 of 140
The Downtown Master Plan calls for the Downtown area to be a center of retail, dining, and
entertainment venues for the public to enjoy. It calls for a renaissance to include a mix of uses,
including high-density residential, commercial, and cultural attractions. It urges us to bring in visitors
from across the region and state to come to the downtown area for special events, for retail
experiences, and attractions. We are one of these. We bring in visitors from across the state, the
country even, to enjoy the beauty of our Downtown. To shop here. Stay here.
With that we’ve learned over the past year, we would like to ask for your consideration in
modifying some of the requirements of our SUP as follows:
Parking: we have partnered with Central Texas Valet which provides valet service for all our events over
75 guests. This has worked well, and many of our client’s guests do utilize this service (on average 70%),
helping to manage where people park. We would continue to offer this service, but would like you to
consider removing the requirement that we keep all cars from parking in the neighborhood. This is
becoming increasingly difficult to accomplish with 2 thriving restaurants next door whose patrons
regularly park in the neighborhood making it difficult for us to request that our client’s guests not park
there. In other words, our clients don’t understand us when we go up to them and say, “We are sorry
but if you are coming to an event, you can’t park here” when there are no, no parking signs present and
other cars are parked there. I’ll say this several times, but here, too, that it is hard for us to be the only
business in Georgetown that has to patrol parking. We would request that the City either put up no
parking signs in the neighborhood, or allow our patrons to park just as the patrons of other businesses.
While we can’t control where our client’s guests park, we can control where our valet runners do. What
we would suggest is to remove the parking requirement, leave the valet requirement for events over 75,
and let us control where the valet runners park cars (see attached map for suggested parking areas).
Owner Representation: Currently an owner has to be present on site during events. Being a small
company with only a couple owners, there are going to arise times when we can’t always be there (we
just had our first child on May 22nd). As with all other companies in town, businesses can elect to hire
qualified managers that abide by the company’s rules. We are asking for the same. We want our
company to run efficiently and correctly and feel that under our guidance that a qualified manager could
run the events the same way we do. Katy and I live in town. In fact, we live 2 minutes away from the
space, and if there ever were a problem to arise, we could be on site within a short period of time. All
the rules that go along with the SUP would still be enforced. In fact, we have a cheat sheet, if you will,
that reminds of all the conditions that is easy to follow. We have created a good team of valets and off
duty officers that helps assist us with following all the rules and making sure everyone is safe. We ask
that you amend the requirement to say that an owner or manager must be on site during events.
Sound Restrictions: We currently have a number of sound restrictions that go along with our SUP, from
the ability to have doors open to having to have certain sound equipment, to having to abide by the
residential noise ordinance set forth by the City. We understand the importance of adhering to certain
rules and regs to create an environment that works for everyone. But we also feel it is important to
protect ourselves and our business.
Page 118 of 140
Currently we are required to have a decibel meter on site to measure sound during events. We agree
this is a good tool, and would continue to use it to monitor events. We also are required to have a
sound limiter on site. We would keep it. In addition we have installed our own in-house sound system
that many of our clients are starting to use. It is calibrated so that, even at its max output, it still falls
within the noise limitations.
What we would ask to change are the following:
We would ask to be able to run our business at the commercial decibel level like the other surrounding
businesses and like our building existed for over 30 years. We would also ask the noise restrictions to be
condensed down into one, easy to follow, restriction in which we would just have to abide by the noise
ordinance. In our opinion, it shouldn’t matter if a door is open or closed, if music is played inside or out,
but that the noise ordinance is followed. Common sense tells us that if music is played outside, or if a
door is opened, that the sound has to be limited so not to break the decibel level at the property line.
So, if our clients would like to play music louder, it must be done inside with the overhead door closed.
All this would be monitored using our decibel meter which we have tested against the Georgetown
Police Departments and are confident in saying that ours falls within 2-3 decibels of theirs, so we do get
accurate readings from ours.
Many of our neighboring properties are now commercial businesses that are able to operate under the
commercial sound ordinances. The two restaurants that are next to us are both able to do so, and both
also share boundaries with residential properties. We are just asking to do the same. Our residential
neighbor to the South has 2 speakers attached to the outside of his home. We are just asking to be
allowed to do the same.
We will operate under the noise ordinance that the City already has in effect. We simply ask to be
allowed to condense all the restrictions into one, easy to follow, restriction that everyone has to equally
abide by.
Storage: Currently, because we tried to restore the building to its original character, and keeping with
the Texas Historic Commission’s requirements to keep as much of the original structure intact, there
was very limited storage within the structure. As part of our business, we house 8’ farm tables and 225
bistro chairs. But there is nowhere to keep the excess from smaller events so we currently have to haul
them to our rental company across town. We are requesting you allow us a storage building to be
housed behind our beautiful 6’ masonry wall. This would be used for storage of tables and chairs, along
with landscaping tools and other things needed for the company. (See attached site plan for positioning)
Vintage Airstream: We currently own an 18’ refurbished Airstream (see attached pictures). It has been
completely gutted to just include hardwood floors, lounge furniture, and a table lamp. It emits no sound
and just light from the table lamp. There are curtains in the windows. We are asking to be allowed to
permanently park this Airstream within the 6’ masonry wall of our property (see attached site plan for
positioning). As you can see from the photos, when parked within this wall, just the very top of the
trailer can be seen from the street. And according to Code, businesses are allowed to park trailers upon
Page 119 of 140
their property as long as the business is the owner of the trailer and the property, which is the case for
us. The Airstream would serve a couple of functions. During the day it would allow our clients to have
an additional area to change and relax, take photos in front of, and then in the evenings, it would allow
us and our staff a retreat instead of standing in front of the property as we do now, because again, there
are very few hiding places because the space was kept to its historic character. Again, because it creates
no sound and very little light (which can’t be seen because of the curtains), it would not create a burden
on the neighboring properties. In fact, one resident just a block away on Church Street has a larger
trailer parked in their back yard neighboring 2 properties without cause of concern or complaint. We
are simply asking to be allowed to do what the Code already allows.
In summary, we understand that rules should be in place to operate any business within the City. We
are just asking, after being in business over a year without incident, to make modifications to the rules
that will ease the pressure on City staff, Code Enforcement, and the Police Department, while allowing
us to run our operation effectively and efficiently.
Changes to SUP we are requesting:
Remove the requirement to allow our clients to park in all areas where parking is allowed
Remove the requirement to allow a manager or owner to be present during events
Remove the lighting requirement and replace with what is required by the UDC.
Remove the primary entrance requirement.
Remove many of the requirements that relate to sound and replace them with one, easy to follow,
sound requirement in line with the existing City Noise Ordinance. In addition, we request the ability
to operate under the Commercial Noise Ordinance as our property did for over 30 years and as the
other commercial properties around us do.
We ask for permission to build a storage building behind our masonry wall to allow for storage of
supplies and items used to operate our business.
We ask for permission to permanently house an Aistream behind the same masonry wall to create a
space for both our clients and our staff to relax during events.
Page 120 of 140
Page 121 of 140
Page 122 of 140
Page 123 of 140
Page 124 of 140
Page 125 of 140
Page 126 of 140
Page 127 of 140
Comments from Bill Stump, Jr., Manager, Stump Properties, LLC, owner, 711, 903, 904, and 907 S.
Myrtle and the residents in those properties with respect to Project Case Number SUP‐2015‐001.
I own 4 properties on Myrtle St., within shouting distance of the Union at 8th. One property, 711 Myrtle
is a duplex directly across the intersection at Myrtle and 8th, three others are a block away, between 9th
and 10th St., 907, 903, and 904 Myrtle. All are rental properties with long‐term tenants. I also grew up
on Myrtle and had a lifetime of interactions with the Anderson family and Mr. Conway when they
operated what is now the Union at 8th. I count the Bohles family as friends and rent construction
equipment from them regularly.
Given the request to rezone and to revise the rules of operation, I asked my tenants for their experience
over the last few years with the Union at 8th, both positive and negative. See the following for their
direct responses.
Concerning rezoning, we do not object. This property has been effectively if not officially commercial
for at least 100 years. The special conditions on types of commercial use do not seem particularly
practical or effective anyway.
Concerning the rules of operations, we do object to some changes. A more accurate statement might
be that we are concerned that some of the proposed changes might result in more noise and more
parking problems. As you can see from the comments below, except for some concerns about traffic
and trash, no one has specific complaints about noise at present. They can hear music, etc., but it is not
causing troubles. There is concern about increasing the decibels. If opening the doors with music in
particular increases the noise, this is a problem. Perhaps with regular decibel control, open doors could
still work. The implementation may be more important here than the rule. The rules in use have been
working though. Increased occupancy is also a concern, though it was not clear this is being requested.
Parking rule changes that result in more neighborhood parking are also a concern. This is not just due to
the Union at 8th. The other businesses, church, and City festivals all park up the neighborhood at times.
Some solution here not specific to the Union at 8th might help. A residential parking zone has been
suggested. Just more no parking areas where difficulties occur might help. Note that all my properties
have off street parking for multiple cars, but they still have to be able to get out of the driveway.
Another idea would be to try some of these rule changes on a temporary basis. There are many other
communities that have faced these problems. Other solutions are surely there.
In particular, we do not object to what the Union wants to put in its backyard. For much of my youth
that area was a real live junkyard with 20 rusting cars. The present is a great improvement.
Responses from Tenants
711B Myrtle – closest property to Union at 8th‐ directly across intersection
“When cars are parked on 8th street it is very difficult to get out of my house without hitting the car that is
parked directly behind my driveway. In the past when I see an event setting up I will either A. park in the
street B. have to make a very sharp turn/hit the curb to get out. Most of the time I can maneuver out of the
driveway or get people to pull up their cars/leave a small space for me. The only time it really bothers me
is when I am going out of town Friday/Saturday night. It's dark and it's too hard to see the cars. I get very
nervous I'm going to hit someone's car.
Page 128 of 140
The current noise level does not effect me. The only time I hear noise is when people are exiting the
building (usually at an appropriate time). However, I am not in favor of them leaving the large
turquoise doors open while the events are going on. My bedroom is adjacent to the doors and it would
most likely effect me.”
711A Myrtle – also pretty close
Oral response – “I can hear them at night. It does not bother me.” “Sometimes they leave cars idling in
front of my house” (It is a no parking zone).
904 Myrtle – one block away
“They have multiple trucks delivering supplies, equipment and etc at all hours. The trucks OFTEN park
blocking a full lane of Myrtle making it dangerous to pass. And also truck noise early and late.
There is often multiple trash carts with loose bags of trash piled on top on the Myrtle side of the building. I have
seen the same trash sit there more than 2 weeks. Longterm uncontained trash is not just an eyesore, it us
attractive to rats, raccoons and other critters. Adding 75 people to increase that is definitely not a good
outcome for the neighbors.
Music noise has not been unbearable but raising the decibel limit will be uncomfortable for us. The paperwork
states that other businesses in the neighborhood do not have the residential limit on them and they have no
complaints. If I am in my house with doors and windows closed I still hear the outside patio guests at the 600
Degree Pizza. That is just voices not music. I haven't complained because I feel the City places more value on
the businesses and our concerns will go nowhere. With the pizza place expanding and the venue adding
decibels and outside speakers, the noise will be concerning.
There has been a definite increase in parking on nearby streets. We sometimes walk downtown on 9th
Street. Since the sidewalk is not continuous we sometimes have to walk on the street. That becomes more
and more dangerous for me with kids or me with David in his wheelchair. I don't know how much the increase
is directly attributable to the venue. If they are allowed unrestricted parking AND a 75 person increase I am
certain we will be negatively impacted. We need to park the wheelchair van at the curb at the end of our
sidewalk to deploy the ramp. If Myrtle becomes a parking zone for downtown businesses and their commercial
delivery vehicles, I fear we will constantly battle to have our van access.
As far as building a storage shed inside their property: I don't care what they store or build within their enclosed
yard as long as it doesn't make noise or draw rodents to the block. It would seem more appropriate to park
their airstream on their property than taking up multiple spaces in the City lot as they do now.”
907 Myrtle – 1 ½ blocks away
“As it is now, we can't hear them and their events do not interfere with our ability to get in or out of the
neighborhood or park in front of our house. However, I still have concern for those neighbors that are/may be
effected. I would like to see life on Myrtle St remain peaceful for all who live here.”
Tresa and I are far enough down the road, so we don't have any issues
Page 129 of 140
Page 130 of 140
Page 131 of 140
Page 132 of 140
Page 133 of 140
Page 134 of 140
Page 135 of 140
Page 136 of 140
Page 137 of 140
Page 138 of 140
Page 139 of 140
Page 140 of 140