HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_P&Z_11.18.2014Notice of Meeting for the
Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Georgetown
November 18, 2014 at 6:00 PM
at City Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, TX
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.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A 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/.
B - 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.
C Consideration of the Minutes from the November 4, 2014, Planning & Zoning Commission
meeting.
D Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 39.34 acres to be known as Sun City
Neighborhood 58. PP-2014-018 (Jordan Maddox)
Legislative Regular Agenda
E Public Hearing and possible action on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code
(“UDC”) relating to water quality standards for property located over the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone (“EARZ”) within the City limits and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (“ETJ”).
Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator, and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director.
F Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) District for 754.22 acres in the Perry, Thompson, Donagan,
Pulsifer and Stubblefield Surveys, known as Wolf Ranch Hillwood, generally located at West
University Avenue and Wolf Ranch Parkway. REZ-2014-032 (Jordan Maddox)
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Jessica Brettle, 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 __________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so
posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the Minutes from the November 4, 2014, Planning & Zoning Commission
meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Draft P&Z Minutes_November 4, 2014 Cover Memo
Page 1 of 4
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, November 4, 2014 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners: Bob Brent, Secretary; Andy Webb, Alex Fuller, Kaylah McCord, Kevin
Pitts & Scott Rankin, Vice-Chair
Commissioners in Training:
Commissioner(s) Absent: John Horne, Chair
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: John Marler, Josh Schroeder and Ben Watkins
Staff Present: Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director; Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner;
Jordan Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner; Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner, and Tammy
Glanville, Recording Secretary.
Vice-Chair Rankin called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Vice-Chair Rankin 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.
B. 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
The Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that the Commission may
act on with one single vote. A Commissioner or any member of the public may request that
any item from the Consent Agenda be pulled in order that the Commission discuss and act
upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda. The Planning and Zoning Commission's
approval of an item on the Consent Agenda will be consistent with the staff recommendation
described in the report, unless otherwise noted.
C. Consideration of the Minutes from the October 21, 2014, Planning & Zoning Commission
meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Fuller. Second by Commissioner Webb. Approved. (6-0)
Regular Agenda
D. Public Hearing and possible action on the rezoning of a 0.03 acre tract described as
Glasscock Addition, Block 10, Lot 4(PT), 0.03 acres, located at 209 East 8th Street, from the
Residential Single-family (RS) district to the Mixed Use – Downtown (MU-DT) district.
REZ-2014-030 Matt Synatschk
Page 2 of 4
Staff report given by Matt Synatschk. Matt Synatschk provided an overview of the
Rezoning request, description of project and recommend for approval.
Vice Chair Rankin invited the applicant to speak. The applicant was present, but did not
wish to address the Commission.
Vice Chair Rankin Opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward, the Public Hearing
was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Brent to recommend to City Council for approval of the
Rezoning of the 0.03 acres located at 209 East 8th Street from Residential Single-family (RS)
district to the Mixed Use – Downtown (MU-DT) district. Second by Commissioner Pitts.
Approved. (6-0)
E. Public Hearing and possible action on the rezoning of 75.415 acres in the D. Wright
Survey, located at 2101 Airport Road, from the Agriculture (AG) district to the General
Commercial (C-3) district. REZ-2014-033 (Valerie Kreger)
At this time Commissioner Brent recused himself from the dais.
Staff report given by Valerie Kreger. Valerie Kreger provided an overview of the Rezoning
request, description of project and recommend for approval.
Vice Chair Rankin invited the applicant to speak. The applicant was present, but did not
wish to address the Commission.
Commissioners questioned and staff responded there will be connectivity from Aviation to
IH 35 and 130 in the future.
Staff addressed concerns from Commissioners regarding the Employment Centers
planning designation touching nodes.
Vice Chair Rankin Opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward, the Public Hearing
was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Pitts to recommend to City Council for approval of the request
of the Rezoning of 75.415 acres in the D. Wright Survey, located at 2101 Airport Road, from
the Agriculture (AG) district to the General Commercial (C-3) district. Second by
Commissioner Fuller. Approved. (5-0)
F. Public Hearing Public Hearing and possible action on the rezoning of Georgetown H.E.B.
#2 Subdivision, Lot 1, located at 4500 Williams Drive, from the Local Commercial (C-1)
district to the General Commercial (C-3) district. REZ-2014-031 (Valerie Kreger)
Staff report given by Valerie Kreger. Valerie Kreger provided an overview of the Rezoning
request, description of project and recommend for approval.
Vice Chair Rankin invited the applicant to speak. The applicant was present, but did not
wish to address the Commission.
Vice Chair Rankin Opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward, the Public Hearing
was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Webb to approve the Rezoning from the Local Commercial (C-1)
district to the General Commercial (C-3) district for the H.E.B. #2 Subdivision, Lot 1,
located at 4500 Williams Drive. Second by Commissioner Pitts. Approved. (6-0)
Page 3 of 4
G. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a Consent Agreement associated with a proposed
Municipal Utility District (MUD) for 501.59 acres to be known as Parmer Ranch, located at
FM 2338 and Ronald Reagan Boulevard. DA-2013-003 (Jordan Maddox)
Staff report given by Jordan Maddox. Jordan Maddox provided an overview of the
Consent Agreement request, description of project and recommend for approval.
Commissioners questioned and staffed responded to the location, maintaining and who’s
building the offsite wastewater plant.
Commissioner Brent asked and staff stated questions regarding the calculation of the 8%
Master Development Fee collected by the city can be answered by the Finance Director.
Commissioner McCord questioned provisions for Tree Preservations and staff responded
that the developer will follow the city’s development codes and any deviation from that
will be stated.
Commissioner Webb asked and staff responded a Traffic Impact Study will be required
through the standard subdivision process.
Vice Chair Rankin invited the applicant to speak. The applicant was present, but did not
wish to address the Commission.
Vice Chair Rankin Opened the Public Hearing.
Matt Johnson, 10500 FM 2338 has concerns about traffic, water management, noise and
limitations to work schedule.
Sharon Johnson, 10500 Ranch Road 2338 has concerns with boundaries, fences, and being
able to feel secure and safe with 1,400 new residential houses coming in.
Vice Chair Rankin closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Brent to approve the Consent Agreement for the creation of a
Municipal Utility District (MUD) be known as Parmer Ranch. Second by Commissioner
Fuller. Approved. (6-0)
G. Discussion and possible action regarding the potential Planning and Zoning meeting
schedule for the 2015 calendar year.
Valerie Kreger, presented the proposed Planning & Zoning 2015 calendar for discussion to
cancel a meeting if needed.
Vice Chair Rankin Opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward, the Public Hearing
was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Fuller to adopt the Planning & Zoning 2015 schedule as
proposed by staff which includes the January 6, 2015 meeting be cancelled. Second by
Commissioner McCord. Approved. (6-0)
H. Update on the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee (UDCAC) Meetings.
(Chair Horne). 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
Page 4 of 4
Reminder of the November 18, 2014, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Adjourned at 6:44 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
John Horne, Chair Bob Brent, Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 39.34 acres to be known as Sun City
Neighborhood 58. PP-2014-018 (Jordan Maddox)
ITEM SUMMARY:
This preliminary plat follows a recently-approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning
approval that allows up to 150 Sun City standard single-family residential lots on approximately
39 acres. The plat lays out new streets, lots, and open space, in addition to memorializing tree
preservation. This plat is not located within the new Sun City expansion property; it is one of the
long-planned neighborhoods under the existing Sun City Development Agreement.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the Preliminary Plat
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time. The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan Maddox
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Backup Material
Exhibit A - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit B - Plat 58 Backup Material
Georgetown Department Staff Report
Planning and Zoning Commission
Sun City Neighborhood 58 Preliminary Plat Page 1 of 2
Meeting Date: November 18, 2014
File No: PP-2014-018
Project Planner: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner
Staff Recommended Motion
Approval of the Preliminary Plat for Sun City Neighborhood 58.
Item Description
Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 39.34 acres to be known as Sun City
Neighborhood 58.
Item Details
Project Name: Sun City Neighborhood 58
Location: Pedernales Falls Drive near Old Blue Mountain Road
Total Acreage: 39.34 acres
Legal Description: 39.34 acres in the Frederick Foy Survey
Applicant: Roger Durden, AECOM
Property Owner: Pulte Homes (Brent Baker)
Existing Use: Vacant
Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential
Growth Tier: Tier 1A
Overview of Applicant’s Request
This preliminary plat follows a recently-approved Planned Unit Development zoning approval
that allows 150 Sun City standard single-family residential lots on approximately 39 acres. The
plat lays out new streets, lots, and open space, in addition to tree preservation. This plat is not
located within the new Sun City expansion property; it is one of the long-planned
neighborhoods under the existing Sun City Development Agreement.
Site Information
The 39-acre site is located in the northwestern portion of the Sun City development, east of the
existing Neighborhood 57 and directly south of the existing Neighborhood 56. The surrounding
Planning Department Staff Report
Sun City Neighborhood 49 Preliminary Plat Page 2 of 2
areas are all within the Sun City community, including single-family neighborhoods and golf
course open space.
Property History
The property was annexed in 2006. The development falls under the regulations of the 1999
Subdivision Regulations and the Sun City 9th Amended Concept Plan and 11th Amendment to
the Sun City Development Agreement. The zoning was approved by City Council on November
11, 2014.
Infrastructure
Wastewater, water and electric will be served by the City of Georgetown. The applicant is
currently addressing the utilities for the site and there are no anticipated issues regarding
capacity or improvements. Sun City has an approved Traffic Impact Analysis that accounts for
the amount of traffic this neighborhood will generate.
Future Application(s)
A Final Plat and Construction Plans will need to be approved prior to building permits.
Staff Analysis
Staff Recommendation and Basis:
Staff supports the preliminary plat based on the consistency with the applicable regulations and
conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Special Consideration:
None
Attachments
Exhibit A – Location Map
Exhibit B – Plat and Field Notes
CIT
Y
O
F
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
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
Georgetown
E
T
J
Geo
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
TR A V I S DR
PEDERNALES FALLS DR
ARMSTRONG DR
P R I S TINE LN
PIPE CR
E
E
K
L
N
OLDBLUE
MOUNT
AI
N
LN
R
A
N
G
E
R
PEAK
LN
T
B
D
1
C
A
N
Y
O
N
L
O
O
K
O
U
T
L
N
EGR
ETCV
TB
D
4
B A R T L E T T P E A K D R
S H U M A R D P E A K R D
S
T
A
R
M
O
U
N
T
AIN
L
N
TBD3
TBD2
MAJOR P E A K L N
PED E R N A L E S
FA L L S D R
N L A K E W O O D S D R
S
U
N
C
I
T
Y
B
L
V
D
SUMMER
RID
G
E
L
N
TBD5
C
O
L
E
T
O
C
R
EEKLN
D O M E P E A K L N
DAVIS
M
O
U
N
TAINCIR
D
A
V
I
S
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
C
I
R
COWAN C R E E K D R
MCKITTRICKRIDGERD
BEA
R
CR
E
E
K
L
N
D
U
C
K
C
R
E
E
K
L
N
TBD6
TB
D
6
P
O
T
T
E
R
L
N
C
A
T
H
E
D
R
AL
MO
UNTAIN
PA
S
S
POTTE
RLN
O
L
D
B
L
U
E
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
L
N
SANDPIPERCV
SLAKEWOODSDR
C A N Y O N O
A
K
L
O
O
P
PP-2014-018
PP-2014-018Exhibit A
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
D e l Web b Blvd
")2338
Site
City Limits
Street
Site ³
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS
10000 Metric Blvd, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78758
512.916.0224
www.mckimcreed.com
Exhibit B
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code
(“UDC”) relating to water quality standards for property located over the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone (“EARZ”) within the City limits and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (“ETJ”).
Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator, and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director.
ITEM SUMMARY:
On October 28, 2014, the Georgetown City Council approved Resolution 102814-D (Exhibit A) to
initiate an executive amendment to the Unified Development Code (“UDC”) to formally codify
certain water quality regulations, initially adopted via Ordinance 2013-59 on December 20, 2013.
The purpose of these regulations is to safeguard the stream and spring formations of the EARZ,
and protect water quality. These regulations are applicable to property located over the Edwards
Aquifer Recharge Zone (“EARZ”) within the City Limits and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
(“ETJ”).
The December 2013 Ordinance established no-disturbance and minimal disturbance zones around
identified Georgetown Salamander habitat sites, as well as buffer zones around all springs and
streams. In addition, it contributed to improving water quality by increasing the percentage of total
suspended solids removal from 80% to 85%. This Ordinance was premised on an understanding
that the species would not be listed as endangered or threatened if these measures were taken at the
local level.
On February 24, 2014, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) listed the
Georgetown Salamander as a threatened species. This listing precludes municipal enforcement of
the section of the December 2013 Ordinance pertaining to Occupied Sites due to the limitations on
government entities imposed by Chapter 83 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. Since the
species was not listed at the time the municipal ordinance was adopted, this was previously not a
legal issue.
In order to continue the City’s goal of protecting water quality, the City wishes to amend Chapters
2 and 11 of the UDC to formally codify the water quality standards established by Ordinance
2013-59 that do not affect an identified Occupied Site so as not to conflict with State Law. The
proposed amendments also establish an intake and review process to document compliance with
the City’s water quality regulations (Exhibit C), a variance process for the required stream and
spring buffers as a result of undue hardship, and exemption criteria for minor projects (mom and
pop type of developments) that would not be required to complete a Geologic Assessment (“GA”).
The proposed amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Development of property with an Occupied Site (Exhibit D) or within 984 feet of an Occupied Site
would be subject to the standards of a 4(d) special Rule proposed by the USFWS. It is the intent of
USFWS to incorporate the standards from the December 2013 Ordinance pertaining to the
identified Occupied Sites into the proposed 4(d) special Rule. This will provide stakeholders the
benefit of consistent and objective criteria for developing land in the EARZ without the need for
site-specific determinations by the USFWS.
Upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, these proposed UDC
amendments will proceed to the City Council's November 25th regular meeting for public hearing
and first reading of the ordinance.
Stakeholder Meeting:
On November 13, 2014, the City in partnership with the Williamson County Conservation
Foundation and USFWS hosted a meeting with the development community to discuss the City’s
water quality regulations, status of the proposed 4(d) special Rule, and changes to the development
process. More than 33 developers, builders, and property and business owners attended the
meeting. Stakeholders presented several questions on the applicability of the regulations,
particularly for projects that are underway or that have obtained preliminary approval(s) in the
development process. Overall, there was mutual consensus and understanding on the positive
impact these regulations has to development, as without these regulations stakeholders would be
required to coordinate directly with the USFWS when developing property over the EARZ.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No direct fiscal impact to the City’s general fund by adopting the Ordinance to amend the UDC.
There may be staffing and workload impact to the Planning Department and GUS Development
Engineer, as more projects west of Interstate 35 continue on land that is currently undeveloped.
SUBMITTED BY:
Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit A - Resolution 102814-D Resolution Letter
Exhibit B - Proposed UDC Amendment Exhibit
Exhibit C - Acknowledgement Forms Draft Exhibit
Exhibit D - Location Map of Occupied Sites Backup Material
Proposed UDC Amendment – Ch. 2 and 11
Added language is underline
Deleted language is strikethrough Page 1 of 10
Proposed UDC Amendment
Chapters 2 and 11
Chapter 2 Review Authority
Section 2.01 General
2.01.020 Summary of Review Authority
***
Table 2.01.020: Summary of Review Authority
Procedure
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Of
f
i
c
i
a
l
De
v
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
Ur
b
a
n
Fo
r
e
s
t
e
r
HAR
C
ZB
A
P&
Z
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
***
Planning and Zoning Commission
***
Variance [water quality regulations
(Section 11.07.003)] R <DM> A
R – Review or Recommendation DM – Decision Making Authority A – Appeal Authority
< > - Public Hearing
***
Section 2.05 Planning & Zoning Commission (Commission or P&Z)
2.05.010 Powers and Duties
The Planning and Zoning Commission has the following powers and duties as described in this
Code:
A. Final Action
***
6. Variance from the floodplain, water quality regulations (Section 11.07.003) and
stormwater regulations of this Code if the Variance is not contrary to the public interest
and, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of this ordinance would result in
Proposed UDC Amendment – Ch. 2 and 11
Added language is underline
Deleted language is strikethrough Page 2 of 10
unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial
justice is done.
***
C. Additional Duties
***
3. Hear and decide an appeal that alleges error in an order, requirement, decision or
determination made by an Administrative Official in the enforcement of Section 11.07 of
this Code.
***
Chapter 11 Environmental Protection
***
Section 11.07 Water Quality Regulations for property located over the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone
11.07.001 Applicability
The regulations of this Section apply to all property within the corporate limits of the City and
its extraterritorial jurisdiction (“ETJ”), to the extent allowable by State law, located within the
recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer, as that term is defined in Title 30, Texas Administrative
Code §213.3 and §213.22. Property within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (“EARZ”) is
determined by the most current official map of the relevant zone located in the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality office for Region 11.
11.07.002 Definitions
The following words and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them in this subsection, except when the context otherwise requires:
Bank (of a stream). The ordinary high water mark of a stream, not the floodplain boundaries, as
determined by the appropriate authority.
Best Management Practices (BMPs). For this Section only, BMPs has that meaning ascribed to it
in Title 30, Texas Administrative Code §213.3(5), as may be amended and as further defined
herein.
Proposed UDC Amendment – Ch. 2 and 11
Added language is underline
Deleted language is strikethrough Page 3 of 10
Development Engineer. A professional engineer licensed by the State of Texas and designated
to serve in the capacity of the Development Engineer for duties specified in the City Code of
Ordinances and Unified Development Code.
Geologic Assessment. A report prepared by a geologist pursuant to Title 30, Texas
Administrative Code §213.5 and containing the additional information required by this Section .
Geologist. A licensed professional geoscientist who has training and experience in ground
water hydrology and related fields that enable that individual to make sound professional
judgments regarding the identification of sensitive features, such as springs and streams.
Licensed Professional Geoscientist. A geoscientist who maintains a current license through the
Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists in accordance with its requirements for professional
practice.
Occupied Site. Any spring identified as a critical habitat unit by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service for the Georgetown Salamander (Eurycea naufragia), and include the following:
Cobb Well, Cobb Springs, Cowen Creek Spring, Bat Well Cave, Walnut Spring, Twin Spring,
Hogg Hollow Spring, Cedar Hollow Spring, Knight (Crockett Garden) Spring, Cedar Breaks
Hiking Trail Spring, Water Tank Cave, Avant’s (Capitol Aggregates), Buford Hollow Springs,
Swinbank Spring, Shadow Canyon, San Gabriel Spring, and Garey Ranch Springs. The locations
of the Occupied Sites are shown on the map incorporated below.
[insert map]
Recharge Zone. That portion of the City and its ETJ that overlays the EARZ as defined in Title
30, Texas Administrative Code §213.3, as may be amended.
Regulated Activity. Shall have that meaning ascribed to it by Title 30, Texas Administrative
Code §213.3(28), as may be amended.
Spring. Any natural setting or location where ground water flows to the surface of the earth
from underground frequently enough to support spring associated vegetation such as ferns,
watercress and Texas sedge.
Stream. A flow of surface water sufficient to produce a defined natural channel or bed. A
defined natural channel or bed is an area that demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of
water.
11.07.003 Spring Buffer and Stream Buffer Protection
A. Spring Buffer
Proposed UDC Amendment – Ch. 2 and 11
Added language is underline
Deleted language is strikethrough Page 4 of 10
1. A Spring Buffer is established within 164 feet (or 50 meters) of the approximate center of
a Spring outlet in the EARZ that is identified in a Geologic Assessment. The Spring
Buffer shall not include preexisting development.
2. No Regulated Activities may be conducted within the Spring Buffer except for the
following and subject to the stated restrictions:
a. Properly permitted maintenance of existing improvements;
b. Scientific monitoring of water quality;
c. Fences above the normal high water mark of a Stream if such fences comply with
applicable floodplain regulations;
d. Subject to Stream Buffer limitations, below, parks and open space development
limited to trails, benches, trash cans and pet waste facilities; provided that trails shall
not be located within the ordinary high water mark of a stream and shall be limited
to trails for walking, jogging and nonmotorized biking; and
e. Wastewater infrastructure installed roughly parallel to a stream provided that such
infrastructure is installed on the side of the stream opposite the Spring and is
installed no closer than 25 feet from the Bank of the Stream; provided that
wastewater infrastructure shall not cross a Stream associated with a Spring within
the Spring Buffer.
B. Stream Buffer
1. A Stream Buffer is established for all Streams in the EARZ that is identified in a Geologic
Assessment. The boundaries of the Stream Buffer are as follows:
a. For Streams draining more than 64 acres and less than 320 acres, the boundaries of
the Stream Buffer coincide with the boundaries of the FEMA 1% floodplain or a
calculated 1% floodplain, whichever is smaller. In the absence of a FEMA floodplain
and a calculated floodplain, the Stream Buffer under this subsection (a) shall be a
minimum of 200 feet wide with at least 75 feet from the centerline of the Stream.
If a property owner only controls one side of a Stream, then the minimum buffer
shall be 100 feet from the centerline of a Stream, or along the FEMA 1% floodplain or
a calculated 1% floodplain, if available.
b. For Streams draining more than 320 acres but less than 640 acres, the boundaries of
the Stream Buffer coincide with the boundaries of the FEMA 1% floodplain or a
calculated 1% floodplain, whichever is smaller. In the absence of a FEMA floodplain
Proposed UDC Amendment – Ch. 2 and 11
Added language is underline
Deleted language is strikethrough Page 5 of 10
and a calculated floodplain, the Stream Buffer under this subsection (b) shall be a
minimum of 300 feet wide with at least 100 feet from the centerline of the stream.
If a property owner only controls one side of a Stream, then the minimum buffer
shall be 150 feet from the centerline of a Stream, or along the FEMA 1% floodplain or
a calculated 1% floodplain, if available.
c. For Streams draining 640 acres or more, the boundaries of the Stream Buffer coincide
with the boundaries of the FEMA 1% floodplain or a calculated 1% floodplain,
whichever is smaller. In the absence of a FEMA floodplain and a calculated
floodplain, the Stream Buffer under this subsection (c) shall be a minimum of 500
feet wide with at least 200 feet from the centerline of the stream.
If a property owner only controls one side of a Stream, then the minimum buffer
shall be 250 feet from the centerline of a Stream, or along the FEMA 1% floodplain or
a calculated 1% floodplain, if available.
2. No Regulated Activity may be conducted within the Stream Buffer other than:
a. Properly permitted maintenance of existing improvements;
b. Scientific monitoring of water quality;
c. Fences above the normal high water mark of a Stream if such fences comply with
applicable floodplain regulations; and
d. The construction of the following improvements, subject to the stated restrictions:
i. Wastewater facilities, provided that wastewater utilities shall not be located
below the normal high water elevation within the channel of a stream except at
crossings of a stream;
ii. Underground utilities other than wastewater facilities provided that such
underground utilities may only be installed at Stream crossings, or at intervals
no closer than 400 feet apart;
iii. Parks and open space development limited to trails, benches, trash cans and pet
waste facilities; provided that trails shall not be located within the ordinary high
water mark of a Stream and shall be limited to trails for walking, jogging and
nonmotorized biking.
Proposed UDC Amendment – Ch. 2 and 11
Added language is underline
Deleted language is strikethrough Page 6 of 10
iv. Water quality or flood control systems, provided that measures are taken in the
construction of such water quality or flood control systems to minimize the
impact to the Stream Buffer;
v. Public projects that enhance or recharge the Edwards Aquifer, provide flood
prevention, and similar capital improvements;
vi. Remediation of altered floodplain to its natural limits;
vii. Arterial, collector and local residential streets crossing a Stream provided that:
(A) A floodplain with a drainage area greater than 640 acres may only be crossed
by arterial streets;
(B) A floodplain with a drainage area between 320 acres and 640 acres may only
be crossed by arterial and collector streets;
(C) A floodplain with a drainage area up to 320 acres may be crossed by arterial,
collector, or local residential streets; and
(D) A street required for a secondary access, or as required by the currently
adopted fire code regulations, is exempt from this subsection.
C. All Spring and Stream Buffers, as described herein, shall be shown on all plats, Site Plan and
infrastructure construction plans, to include Stormwater Permits and Building Permits
when applicable.
D. Exemptions.
1. The Spring Buffer and Stream Buffer requirements of Section 11.07.003 do not apply to
an Occupied Site as this term is defined in this Section. Regulated Activity on a tract of
land with an Occupied Site, or within 984 feet (or 300 meters) of an Occupied Site, shall
follow the rules and regulations of Section 17.43 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
2. In the event that the owner of property opts to request a variance from the conservation
measures of Section 17.43 of the Code of Federal Regulations to the Adaptive
Management Working Group, it shall be the responsibility of the owner of property to
submit to the City of Georgetown revised plans in accordance with the results of the
variance request;
E. Variances
Proposed UDC Amendment – Ch. 2 and 11
Added language is underline
Deleted language is strikethrough Page 7 of 10
1. An owner of property of a tract of land with a Spring or Stream may request a variance
from the spring and/or stream buffer requirements of this subsection to the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
2. The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider and take final action on a variance
request in accordance with the powers and duties in Section 2.05.010.A.6 of this Code.
F. Appeal
Any person aggrieved by an administrative decision pertaining to this subsection may
appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with Section 3.14 of this
Code.
11.07.004 Water Quality Best Management Practices
A. For all Regulated Activities within the Recharge Zone, the following regulations apply:
1. Permanent structural water quality controls for a project shall remove eightyfive
percent (85%) of total suspended solids for the entire project and shall be certified by a
licensed professional engineer.
2. No Regulated Activity shall cause any increase in the developed flow rate for the 2year,
3hour storm;
3. All development projects, including, but not limited to, individual home sites, shall
implement temporary BMPs to minimize sediment runoff.
4. New roadways or expansions to existing roadways that provide a capacity of 25,000
vehicles per day that are located on the Recharge Zone shall provide for spill
containment as described in the Optional Enhanced Measures of the Edwards Aquifer
Protection Program.
5. All permanent BMPs with an overt physical presence shall have signage that clearly
identifies the purpose of the permanent BMP and the party responsible for maintenance.
6. Maintenance plans for permanent BMPs shall be recorded in the Official Records of
Williamson County.
11.07.005 Geologic Assessment
A. The owner of property who submits a development application for a Regulated Activity on
a tract of land located over the EARZ shall submit a Geologic Assessment with the Plat
application.
Proposed UDC Amendment – Ch. 2 and 11
Added language is underline
Deleted language is strikethrough Page 8 of 10
B. In the event that the subject property was platted prior to [adoption date] or meets the Plat
exceptions of this Code, a Geologic Assessment shall be submitted with the first required
development application for the Regulated Activity. Development applications include
Construction Plans, Site/Construction Plans, Stormwater Permits, and Building Permits
(only singlefamily and twofamily residential on a tract of land that meets the Plat
exceptions of this Code).
C. No development application for property located over the EARZ may be approved until a
Geologic Assessment has been accepted by the Development Engineer or his designee.
D. The Geologic Assessment must contain all of that information required by Title 30, Texas
Administrative Code §213.5. Additionally, the Geologic Assessment must:
1. Identify all Springs and/or Streams on the subject property, or certify that no Springs or
Streams exist on the subject property;
2. Describe any Spring and/or Stream on the subject property, including determining the
location of any Spring outlet or Stream;
E. Subsequent applications required to develop the subject property will not require a new
Geologic Assessment provided the Regulated Activity, as submitted in the application, is
consistent with the accepted Geologic Assessment. Any deviations will result in the need to
submit an updated Geologic Assessment prior to final approval of the application.
F. Exemptions.
1. A Geologic Assessment shall not be required for Regulated Activity that meets all of the
following criteria:
a. Proposed development is singlefamily residential or twofamily residential; and
b. Subject property is located on an individual lot that is less than 5 acres; and
c. Subdivision (to include replat) is 5 lots or less, and no more than 5 gross acres; and
d. Subject property is located within a drainage area that is less than 64 acres.
2. Regulated Activity that meet all of the criteria above must submit with the required
development application a letter signed by a professional Engineer certifying the
drainage area and identifying any Springs on the subject property. In the event that
Springs exist, the project Engineer must identify applicable buffers on the plans.
Proposed UDC Amendment – Ch. 2 and 11
Added language is underline
Deleted language is strikethrough Page 9 of 10
11.07.006. Acknowledgement Form
A. The owner of property who submits a development application for a Regulated Activity on
a tract of land located over the EARZ shall submit an Acknowledgement Form in
accordance with the provisions of this subsection.
B. The owner of property shall through a completed Acknowledgement Form, acknowledge
and certify the following:
1. The Regulated Activity, as proposed, complies with the Water Quality Best Management
Practices regulations of this Section; and
2. The subject property has an Occupied Site, is located within 984 feet of an Occupied Site,
or has a Springs or Stream located more than 984 feet from an Occupied Site; and
3. The Regulated Activity, as submitted, complies with the rules and regulations of the
Code of Federal Regulations or this Section, as applicable.
C. A completed, signed and notarized Acknowledgement Form shall be submitted with the
Plat, Construction Plan, Site/Construction Plan, Stormwater Permit, and Building Permit
(singlefamily and twofamily residential on a tract of land that is exempt from the Plat
requirements of this Code) applications.
D. The development application to the City of Georgetown shall be deemed incomplete if the
Acknowledgement Form is not completed, signed and notarized.
E. After the completeness review (Section 3.02.040) of a development application subject to
subparagraph (A) above, the director or his/her designee shall provide a copy of the
Acknowledgement Form to the Williamson County Conservation Foundation Adaptive
Management Working Group.
11.07.007 Water Quality Management Plan
A. The City shall adopt a Water Quality Management Plan for all areas within the Recharge
Zone. Such management practices will include, but not be limited to, public education and
outreach, hazardous waste education, integrated pest management, illicit discharge
detection and elimination, constructionsite stormwater runoff control, postconstruction
stormwater management, and pollution prevention for municipal operations including
City and County maintenance activities in the ETJ.
B. The City’s adopted Storm Water Management Plan, as amended, shall serve as the Water
Quality Management Plan for purposes of this Section, unless stated otherwise.
Proposed UDC Amendment – Ch. 2 and 11
Added language is underline
Deleted language is strikethrough Page 10 of 10
11.07.008 Williamson County Conservation Foundation Adaptive Management Working
Group
An Adaptive Management Working Group has been established by the Williamson County
Conservation Foundation to review data on a regular basis and make recommendations for
specific changes in management directions related to the standards established in Section 17.43
of the Code of Federal Regulations. The City Manager will appoint two City employees with
appropriate technical expertise in the fields of planning and development and system
engineering as members to the Adaptive Management Working Group. The efforts of the
Adaptive Management Working Group will be led by the Williamson County Conservation
Foundation staff.
Water Quality Acknowledgement Form Page 1 of 2
Revised: November 13, 2014
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE
WATER QUALITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM
THE CITY’S WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY OVER THE EARZ
A signed and notarized copy of this form is required to be submitted with the a required development
application [Plat (Preliminary, Final, Minor, Amending and Replat); (Subdivision) Construction Plans,
Site/Construction Plan; or Stormwater Permit] for all Regulated Activity for property located over the
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (“EARZ”) within the City Limits and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
(“ETJ”). No application will be accepted without completing this form.
In addition, a Geologic Assessment shall be provided to the City with the application subject to this
form.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Property Address:
Legal Description:
City/ETJ: Acres:
PROJECT INFORMATION
Name of Project:
Application Type:
Proposed Use: No. of Lots:
PROPERTY OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION
Business Name:
Point of Contact:
Address:
Contact Information: Phone: Email:
PROPERTY OWNER’S CONSENT
I, , swear and affirm that I am the owner of
property at , as shown in the records of Williamson
County, Texas, which is the subject of this form.
I, , the owner of the property subject to this
form, authorize to submit this
acknowledgement form and serve as my representative for this reque st.
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
Water Quality Acknowledgement Form Page 2 of 2
Revised: November 13, 2014
AFFIDAVIT
My name is , and I am the owner or authorized
representative of the property that is subject of this request to the City of Georgetown, Texas.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury the following:
1. The Regulated Activity, as proposed, is in compliance with the City’s Water Quality Best
Management Practices; and
2. The subject property has an Occupied Site, or is located within 984 feet of an Occupied Site; and
The Regulated Activity, as submitted, complies with the rules and regulations of Section 17.43 of the
Code of Federal Regulations; or
The Regulated Activity, as submitted, does not comply with the rules and regulations of Section
17.43 of the Code of Federal Regulations. A variance request has been submitted to the Williamson
County Conservation Foundation Adaptive Management Working Group; or
The owner of property will coordinate directly with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; or
3. The subject property has a Spring and/or Stream located more than 984 feet from an Occupied Site,
and the Regulated Activity, as submitted, complies with Section 11.07 of the Unified Development
Code. In addition,
A Geologic Assessment for the subject property was completed in accordance with this Section and
is made part of the development application; or
The project, as proposed:
Does not meet the definition of a Regulated Activity; or
Meets all of the following criteria:
Proposed development is Single-Family Residential or Two-Family Residential; and
Subject property is located on an individual lot that is less than 5 acres; and
Subdivision (to include replat) is 5 lots or less, and no more than 5 gross acres; and
Subject property is located within a drainage area that is less than 64 acres.
NOTE: A letter signed by an Engineer certifying the drainage area and identifying any springs on the
subject property must be submitted with the required application.
Thus, no Geologic Assessment is required with this application.
Signed this day of , 20
Signature:
STATE OF TEXAS {
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON {
Sworn and subscribed before me by on this day of
in the year , to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
My Commission expires on:
Water Quality Acknowledgement Form Page 1 of 2
Issued: November 13, 2014
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE
WATER QUALITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM
THE CITY’S WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY OVER THE EARZ
This form does not apply to new Single-Family Residential (“SFR”) and Two-Family Residential
(“TFR”) within a platted subdivision and where all public improvements were completed and accepted
by the City of Georgetown, provided the proposed development, as submitted, is in accordance with the
approved Water Pollution Abatement Plan of the Subdivision.
A signed and notarized copy of this form is required to be submitted with an application for Building
Permit for all new SFR and TFR on property located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (“EARZ”)
within the City Limits and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (“ETJ”), when applicable, except as noted above.
In addition, Geologic Assessment, when required, shall be provided to the City with the application subject
to this form.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Property Address:
Legal Description:
City/ETJ: Acres:
PROJECT INFORMATION
Name of Project:
Proposed Use:
PROPERTY OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION
Business Name:
Point of Contact:
Address:
Contact Information: Phone: Email:
PROPERTY OWNER’S CONSENT
I, , swear and affirm that I am the owner of
property at , as shown in the records of Williamson
County, Texas, which is the subject of this form.
I, , the owner of the property subject to this
form, authorize to submit this
acknowledgement form and serve as my representative for this request.
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
Water Quality Acknowledgement Form Page 2 of 2
Issued: November 13, 2014
AFFIDAVIT
My name is , and I am the owner or authorized
representative of the property that is subject of this request to the City of Georgetown, Texas.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury the following:
1. The Regulated Activity, as proposed, is in compliance with the City’s Water Quality Best
Management Practices; and
2. The subject property has an Occupied Site, or is located within 984 feet of an Occupied Site; and
The Regulated Activity, as submitted, complies with the rules and regulations of Section 17.43 of the
Code of Federal Regulations; or
The Regulated Activity, as submitted, does not comply with the rules and regulations of Section
17.43 of the Code of Federal Regulations. A variance request has been submitted to the Williamson
County Conservation Foundation Adaptive Management Working Group; or
The owner of property will coordinate directly with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; or
3. The subject property has a Spring and/or Stream located more than 984 feet from an Occupied Site,
and the Regulated Activity, as submitted, complies with Section 11.07 of the Unified Development
Code. In addition,
A Geologic Assessment for the subject property was completed in accordance with this Section and
is made part of the development application; or
The project, as proposed:
Does not meet the definition of a Regulated Activity; or
Meets all of the following criteria:
Proposed development is Single-Family Residential or Two-Family Residential; and
Subject property is located on an individual lot that is less than 5 acres; and
Subdivision (to include replat) is 5 lots or less, and no more than 5 gross acres; and
Subject property is located within a drainage area that is less than 64 acres.
NOTE: A letter signed by an Engineer certifying the drainage area and identifying any springs on the
subject property must be submitted with the required application.
Thus, no Geologic Assessment is required with this application.
Signed this day of , 20
Signature:
STATE OF TEXAS {
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON {
Sworn and subscribed before me by on this day of
in the year , to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
My Commission expires on:
Georgetown Salamander
μ
01230.5
Miles
Legend
Surface Critical Habitat Unit
Subsurface Critical Habitat Unit
Georgetown City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zones
Contributing Zone
Recharge Zone
Transition Zone
November 13, 2014
Map maintained by:
City of Georgetown, Texas
Management Services
300 Industrial Ave
P.O. Box 1458
Georgetown, Texas 78627
City of Georgetown, Texas
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) District for 754.22 acres in the Perry, Thompson, Donagan,
Pulsifer and Stubblefield Surveys, known as Wolf Ranch Hillwood, generally located at West
University Avenue and Wolf Ranch Parkway. REZ-2014-032 (Jordan Maddox)
ITEM SUMMARY:
The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Wolf Ranch residential development
follows a development agreement and Municipal Utility District (MUD) consent agreement and
recent annexation actions by City Council. The zoning consideration would memorialize the land
uses and development standards that were approved with the agreement, with only slight
modification. Many substantive items from the development agreement such as infrastructure
provisions, civic use locations, and financial consideration, are not found in this document. The
purpose of the PUD is solely to describe the variations from the standard Unified Development
Code needed to facilitate the vision set forth in the development agreement.
The PUD document consists of a "development plan" that describes and summarizes the attributes
of the PUD and the corresponding exhibits that comprise most of the zoning document. These
exhibits were mostly developed during the negotiation of the MUD agreement and are included
here nearly as approved through that process, except for the addition of a new tree preservation
plan. Exhibit H-7 details a new tree preservation that was necessitated by a large number of
Heritage Trees found through the initial tree survey on a portion of the land. It is similar to a
flexible tree preservation plan that was discussed by staff and the developer during the MUD
agreement process and provides for protection of medium-sized native tree species in addition to
other mitigation actions when Heritage Trees cannot be preserved.
The attached staff report summarizes the context of the deal and the exhibits in addition to
background and analysis of certain issues. Exhibits F contain roadways standards and
requirements; Exhibits H1 through H7 contain the items that vary from the City's development
code, including allowed and prohibited land uses; Exhibit I is that master sign plan for the project
build-out. (there is no Exhibit G)
Staff recommends approval of the PUD for the Wolf Ranch residential development.
Recommendation Motion
Recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning to PUD for Wolf Ranch.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time. The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan Maddox
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Backup Material
Location Map Backup Material
Aerial Map Backup Material
Future Land Use Backup Material
Existing Zoning Map Backup Material
Exhibit A - Location Map Ordinance
Exhibit B - Legal Description Ordinance
Exhibit C - Development Plan Ordinance
Exhibit D - Concept Plan Ordinance
Exhibit E - Impervious Cover Plan Ordinance
Exhibits F1-F6 - Roadways Ordinance
Exhibits H1-H7 - Development Standards Ordinance
Exhibit I - Signage Plan Ordinance
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Wolf Ranch Hillwood PUD Page 1 of 4
Report Date: November 10, 2014
File No: REZ-2014-032
Project Planner: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Wolf Ranch Residential(Hillwood)
Location: SH 29 West near Wolf Ranch Parkway
Total Acreage: 754 acres
Legal Description: 754 acres in the Perry, Thompson, Donagan, Pulsifer and Stubblefield
Surveys
Applicant: Hillwood Enterprises, L.P.
Property Owner: Wolf Legacy L.P. and Hillwood Enterprises
Contact: Brian Carlock, Hillwood
Existing Use: Limited residential uses, mostly agricultural/vacant use
Zoning: AG, Agriculture
Future Land Use: Low Density Residential, Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center, Regional
Commercial, Moderate Density Residential, High-Density Residential
Growth Tier: Tier 2
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Wolf Ranch residential
development follows a development agreement and Municipal Utility District (MUD)
agreement and recent annexation actions by City Council. The zoning consideration would
memorialize the land uses and development standards that were approved with the
agreement, with only slight modification. Many substantive items from the development
agreement such as infrastructure provisions, civic use locations, and financial
consideration, are not found in this document. The purpose of the PUD is solely to
describe the variations from the base development code needed to facilitate the vision set
forth in the development agreement.
Site Information
Location:
Along West University Avenue (SH 29) near the intersections of Wolf Ranch Parkway and
DB Wood, extending from the Middle Gabriel to the South San Gabriel Rivers.
Planning Department Staff Report
Wolf Ranch Hillwood PUD Page 2 of 4
Physical Characteristics:
Contains significant tree cover in spots, environmental features, Middle San Gabriel River,
South San Gabriel River, significant ravines and drainageways, and some steep slopes.
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties include a wide variety of uses, most of which are in the ETJ.
Note: The typical staff report table is not practical due to the sprawling geographical
configuration of the land.
Nearby subdivisions include the low-density Oak Crest Ranchettes to the north of the
Middle Gabriel property, Wood Ranch along DB Wood, and Legend Oaks near the Wolf
Ranch Parkway extension. Other adjacent tracts include the Wolf Ranch Town Center,
First Baptist Church, and the Church of Christ on West University.
Property History
In 2008, the City Council approved six annexation agreements with the current property
owner, delaying the full-purpose annexation of the property for a conditional term not to
exceed 15 years. These agreements contemplated annexation once development is
imminent. As of October 28th, those agreements have been terminated due to full-purpose
annexation of the land by the City of Georgetown.
2030 Plan Conformance
The property is classified as Low and Moderate Density Residential, Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Center, Regional Commercial and High-Density Residential, per a land use
amendment approved in August.
The property is currently classified as Growth Tier 2 on the City’s Growth Tier Plan,
meaning that utilities and infrastructure are planned for this area between 10-20 years,
although provisions in several agreements approved by Council in August make
provisions for the appropriate infrastructure for the project.
Proposed PUD
The PUD document consists of a "development plan" that describes and summarizes the
attributes of the PUD and the corresponding exhibits that comprise most of the zoning
document. These exhibits were mostly developed during the negotiation of the MUD
agreement and are included here nearly as approved through that process, except for the
addition of a new tree preservation plan. Exhibits F contain roadways standards and
requirements; Exhibits H1 through H7 contain the items that vary from the City's
development code, including allowed and prohibited land uses; Exhibit I is that master
sign plan for the project build-out. (there is no Exhibit G)
Planning Department Staff Report
Wolf Ranch Hillwood PUD Page 3 of 4
Exhibit H-7 details a new tree preservation that was necessitated by a large number of
Heritage Trees found through the initial tree survey on a portion of the land. It is similar to
a flexible tree preservation plan that was discussed by staff and the developer during the
MUD agreement process and provides for protection of medium-sized native tree species
in addition to other mitigation actions when Heritage Trees simply cannot be saved.
Utilities
Water and wastewater will be provided by Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS). A special
sewer capital recovery fee will be applied per residential unit for any necessary off-site
improvement, but beyond that standard impact fee costs and local improvements will
apply. Electric service provider is Georgetown for the majority of the land and Pedernales
Electric Co-op (PEC) for a small portion of the property south of University.
Transportation
The project is served by several major roadways, included Highway 29 (University
Avenue), Wolf Ranch Parkway, the future Southwest Bypass and a series of planned
residential collectors. The previous agreements describe the obligations of the City and the
developer with respect to certain segments of the regional roadways and some of the
provisions speak to timing and reimbursements that are also part of the infrastructure
reimbursement arrangement. The PUD details the cross-sections of those roadways and
related elements of design. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required for the entirety of
the project at submittal of the first plat phase of development.
Future Application(s)
Preliminary and Final Plats will be necessary for each phase of development, per UDC
regulations, with a TIA for the property being submitted at the first phase preliminary
plat. Site Plans would be required for non-residential development. Building permits will
be required for all building construction.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the PUD zoning.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None
Public Comments
A total of 22 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed
project. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on November 2, 2014.
There have no comments received as of the writing of this report.
Planning Department Staff Report
Wolf Ranch Hillwood PUD Page 4 of 4
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map (2012)
PUD Exhibits (A through I)
C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N
(River/Stream)
(R iver/Stream)
(R iv
e
r
/
S
tream)
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
GeorgetownETJ
S
C
E
N
IC D R
RAILROAD AVE
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
L E A N D E R R D
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
W UNIVERSITY AVE
WOLFRANC H P K W Y
SIH35FWYSB
REZ-2 014-032
REZ-2014-032
Exhibit #1
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 3,500 7,000Feet ¯
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
R
ive
ryBlvd
No
rthw
e
st
Blv
d
W Univ ers ity Av e
Booty'sCrossingRd
S Austin Ave
S Austin Ave
NorthwestBlv
d
§¨¦35
DBWood
R
d
Site
City Lim its
Street
Site ³
REZ-2014-032
MEMORIAL DR S
IM
ON
R
D
C O U N T R Y C L U B R D
D E B O R A D R
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
EXIT 261 NB
W
O
L
F
R
D
WOOD CT
WOLF RANCH PKWY
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
QUAIL LN
N
O
R
W
O
O
D
W
E
S
T
C
A
S
S
I
D
Y
D
R
S U N S H I N E D R
L
U
T
H
E
R
D
R
SUNSET DR
L I V E O A K D R
MASON CT
R
I
V
E
R
C
H
A
S
E
B
L
V
D
FA
W
N LN
RIVERY DRIVEWAY
S
K
Y
LI
N
E
R
D
SOUTH RIDGE CIR
RIVERY BLVD
W
O
O
D
W
A
Y
D
R
T A M A R A D RSUSANA D R
L E A N D E R R D
R
O
C
K
C
R
E
S
T
D
R
T
A
L
L
W
O
O
D
D
R
P A R K W A Y S T
W
O
O
D
M
O
N
T
D
R
RED OAK CT
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
W UNIVERSITY AVE
P
I
N
O
A
K
D
R
RIVER HILLS DR
R
I
D
G
E
R
U
N
D
R
R
I
O
B
R
A
V
O
R
D
O A K L A N D D R
LA MESA LN
TI P P I T D V
RIDGEWOOD DR
E
N
T
R
2
6
0
N
B
ASHWOOD LN
W S H 2 9
EXIT 261A NB
EXIT 260 SB
S
T
A
R
V
I
E
W
L
N
O A K R I D G E R D
ENTR 262 SB
TANKSLEY CIR
E
N
T
R
2
6
1
S
B
W
EIR R
A
N
C
H R
D
W
O
O
D R
A
N
C
H R
D
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
0 3,500 7,000Feet
Exhibit #4
REZ-2014-032
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
W Uni vers ity Av e
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
SEInner Loop
Site
City Lim its
Street
Site
³
(Riv e r /S t r e am)
(River/Stream)
(R i ve
r
/
S
t
ream)
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
Georgetown
ETJ
Georgetown
ETJ
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
L E A N D E R R D
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
W UNIVERSITY AV E
S IH 35 FWY SB
S
I
H
3
5
FWY
NB
W O L F R A N C HPKWY
W S H 2 9
R
E
Z
-
2
0
1
4
-
0
3
2
0 3,500 7,000Feet
Co ordinate 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 #2REZ-2014-032
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Com mercial
Community Com mercial
Employment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Com munity
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
SE I n n e r L o o p
SAustinAve
DBWo
o
d
R
d
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Site³
City Lim its
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
CIT Y O F G E O R G E T O W NCITY 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
CITYOFGEO R G E T O W N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY OF G E O R G E T O W N
REZ-2 014-032
(River/Stream)
(River/Stream)
(Ri v e r /Strea
m
)
HINTZRD
L E A N D E R R D
L E A N D E R R D
ADA
M
S
ST
M E M O R I AL DR
W UNIVERSITY AVE W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
STARVIEW DR
R
I
V
E
RRIDGEDR
SCENICD
R
R
I
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
D
R
K
R
I
S
T
I
N
A
D
R
INNWOO
D
D
R
T H O U S A N D O A K S B L V D
E
X
IT
261
NB
W
O
L
F
R
D
SPRINGVALLE Y RD
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
T
BRIDGE ST
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
G R E E N L E E D R
RIVER HI L L S DR
SOUT
H
RID G E
C
I
R
C
A
S
S
I
D
Y
D
R
S U N S H I N E D R
W
I
L
L
O
W
L
N
RID
G
ECRE ST
R
D
S
K
Y
LIN
E
R
D
WOODWAY
DR
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
E
N
T
R
25
9
SB
RIVERYDRIV
E
W
A
Y
E
X
I
T
2
5
9
N
B
O A K RID G E R D
E
X
I
T
260
SB
STAR
V
I
E
W
L
N
E
N
T
R
2
6
1
S
B
W
O
O
D
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
W O L F R A NCHPKWY
LUTHERDR
R I V E R DOWNR
D
S
IH35FWYNB
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
RIVERYBLVD
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
S
C
E
N
I
C
D
R
W
O
L
F
R
D
TA M A R ADR
RIDGEWOOD D R
S
H
A
D
Y
O
A
K
D
R
S U S A N A D R
D
E
E
P
W
O
O
D
D
R
R
I
O
B
R
A
V
O
R
D
SIH35FWYSB
T
I
PPITDV
WEIR
R
A
N
C
H
RD
Zoning InformationREZ-2014-032Exhibit #3
¯
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 3,500 7,000
Feet
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
W Univ ers ity Av eS
A
us
tin
Ave
W U n i v e r s i t y Ave
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
§¨¦35³
Site
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
Wo
l
f
R
a
n
c
h
P
k
w
y
Ri
v
e
r
y
B
l
v
d
South Fork San G
a
b
r
i
e
l
R
i
v
e
r
N
o
r
t
h
F
o
r
k
S
a
n
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
R
i
v
e
r
Hwy 29 / W University Ave
Wolf Ranch
Town Center
Wolf Ra
n
c
h
P
k
w
y
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
B
y
p
a
s
s
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
D
r
Middle Fork San Gabriel River
Downtown
Georgetown
S
W
3
Au
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
Wolf Ranch
Wolf
Ranch
Wolf
RanchWolf
Ranch
750 30001500
SCALE : 1" = 3000'
0
NORTHDATE : 11-05-2014
All information furnished regarding this property is from sources deemed reliable.However, RVi has not made an
independent investigation of these sources and no warranty or representation is made by RVi as to the accuracy thereof and
same is submitted subject to errors, omissions, land plan changes, or other conditions.This land plan is conceptual in nature
and does not represent any regulatory approval.Land plan is subject to change. The developer has reserved the right, without
notice,to make changes to this map and other aspects of the development to comply with governmental requirements and to
fulfill its marketing objective.
Fi
l
e
:
L:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
3
9
3
3
\
P
U
D
\
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
\
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
\
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
_
A
.
d
w
g
EXHIBIT A
Wolf Ranch Tracts
Existing Roadway
Proposed Roadway
Legend
Georgetown, Texas
Wolf Ranch plann ing Ê la nd scap e archite cture
712 Congress Avenue, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: (512) 480-0032 Fax: (512) 480-0617
www.rviplanning.comLOCATION MAP
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Page 1
1560.018\43311.3
Wolf Ranch Residential Planned Unit Development
Development Plan
A. Property
This Development Plan covers 754.2 acres in the Orville Perry Survey, Joseph Thompson
Survey and Isaac Donagan Survey, to be known as Wolf Ranch Planned Unit Development. A
location map is provided as Exhibit A.
B. Purpose
In accordance with the Unified Development Code Section 4.06.010.D "Development Plan", the
following is a summary of the site development and design standards for the Wolf Ranch PUD.
The standards are consistent with those outlined in the approved Wolf Ranch Development
Agreement between Wolf Legacy, L.P. and the City of Georgetown effective August 12, 2014,
including the Wolf Ranch Concept Plan and other specific development standards attached
hereto. The Wolf Ranch Concept Plan envisions a development that consists of residential
dwellings; commercial uses; parks, trails and open space; amenity centers; and an elementary
school site.
C. Development Plan
The development within the PUD will be consistent with the districts in the following table, as
reflected in Exhibit D:
Category Name Base District (1) Allowed Uses (1)
Residential RS RS, MU
HD-Residential MF2 MF2, MF1, MU, TH, TF, RS
Commercial C-3 C-3, C-1, CN, OF, BP, MU
Elementary School RS RS, MU
Amenity Center RS RS, MU
Parkland RS RS, MF-2, MU
(1) Abbreviations in the table correspond to the City’s zoning districts and the uses allowed
in each district as shown in Exhibit H2.
Land within a land use category is permitted to be developed in accordance with the regulations
applicable to each zoning district shown in such category.
The Wolf Ranch PUD will contain approximately 1,500-1,700 single-family homes, 550-775
multi-family units, two-family dwellings and townhouses, and 20 acres of commercial
development. The layout of the proposed uses can be found on the Wolf Ranch PUD Concept
Plan attached as Exhibit D. All locations of boundaries, land uses, and roads shown on the
Concept Plan are approximate and subject to change.
Exhibit C
Page 2
1560.018\43311.3
D. Development Standards
1. Residential Lot Dimensions and Density. Residential lot dimensions and density within
the Wolf Ranch PUD will be consistent with the UDC, except as shown on Exhibit H3.
2. Nonresidential Lot Dimensions and Density. Nonresidential minimum district sizes and
lot dimensions within the Wolf Ranch PUD will be consistent with the CN, C-1, C-3, OF
and BP regulations, except as shown on Exhibit H4.
3. Residential Setbacks and Building Heights. Residential setbacks and building heights
within the Wolf Ranch PUD will be consistent with the RS, TF, TH, and MF2
regulations, except as shown on Exhibit H3.
4. Nonresidential Setbacks and Building Heights. Nonresidential setbacks and building
heights within the Wolf Ranch PUD will be consistent with the CN, C-1, C-3, OF and BP
regulations, except as shown on Exhibit H4.
5. Other Modifications to UDC. Modifications to Chapter 5 (Zoning Use Regulations),
Chapter 6 (Residential and Agriculture Zoning Districts; Lot Dimensional and Design
Standards), Chapter 12 (Pedestrian and Vehicle Circulation), and Ordinance No. 2013-59,
as amended, shown in Exhibits H1, H5 and H6 shall apply to the Wolf Ranch PUD.
6. Parking. Wolf Ranch PUD meets the parking requirements set out in Section 9.02.030 of
the UDC.
7. Signage Plan. The Wolf Ranch PUD will be subject to the Master Sign Plan attached as
Exhibit I.
8. Uses. Uses permitted in RS Residential Single-family, TF Two-Family, TH Townhouse,
MF2 Multi-family, MU Mixed Use, CN Neighborhood Commercial, C-1 Local
Commercial, C-3 General Commercial, OF Office, and BP Business Park will be
permitted within the Wolf Ranch PUD, except as modified by Exhibit H2.
9. Impervious Cover. Impervious cover standards for the Wolf Ranch PUD will be
consistent with the UDC, except as shown on Exhibits H3 and H4 and the Impervious
Cover Parcel Plan attached as Exhibit E.
10. Open Space, Trails and Parkland. The project will provide 20 acres of dedicated
parkland with regional trail connection, as shown on the Park & Trail Improvements Plan
attached as Exhibit G1 and further described in Exhibit G2. Dedication of park land and
construction of facilities described in Section 5.6 of the Development Agreement shall
constitute full compliance with all City requirements for dedication of park land,
construction of park improvements and payment of park fees.
Exhibit C
Page 3
1560.018\43311.3
11. Streets and Circulation. Roads will be constructed in accordance with the roadway plan
and roadway sections depicted in Exhibit F1-F6.
12. Tree Preservation. Tree preservation standards for the Wolf Ranch PUD will be
consistent with the UDC, except as shown on Exhibit H7.
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
Wo
l
f
R
a
n
c
h
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Ri
v
e
r
y
B
l
v
d
South
F
o
r
k
S
a
n
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
R
i
v
e
r
Wolf Ran
c
h
P
a
r
k
North Fo
r
k
S
a
n
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
R
i
v
e
r
AMENITY
CENTER
AMENITY
CENTER
AMENITY
CENTER
Hwy 29 / W University Ave
Wolf Ranch
Town Center
RESIDENTIAL HD -
RESIDENTIAL
HD -
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
Wolf R
a
n
c
h
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
OPEN SPACE
(TYPICAL)
PARKLAND
DEDICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL
FEATURE (TYPICAL)
ENVIRONMENTAL
FEATURE (TYPICAL)
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
B
y
p
a
s
s
OPEN SPACE
(TYPICAL)
COMMERCIAL
OPEN SPACE
(TYPICAL)
RESIDENTIAL
ELEM.
SCHOOL
500 20001000
SCALE : 1" = 2000'
0
NORTHDATE : 11-11-2014
All information furnished regarding this property is from sources deemed reliable.However, RVi has not made an
independent investigation of these sources and no warranty or representation is made by RVi as to the accuracy thereof and
same is submitted subject to errors, omissions, land plan changes, or other conditions.This land plan is conceptual in nature
and does not represent any regulatory approval.Land plan is subject to change. The developer has reserved the right, without
notice,to make changes to this map and other aspects of the development to comply with governmental requirements and to
fulfill its marketing objective.
Fi
l
e
:
L:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
3
9
3
3
\
P
U
D
\
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
\
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
P
l
a
n
\
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
EXHIBIT D
TOTAL
Acres
Residential
HD - Residential
Commercial
Elementary School
Amenity Centers
Parkland Dedication
640.2 Ac.
47.9 Ac.
20.8 Ac.
14.9 Ac.
10.4 Ac.
20.0 Ac.
Wolf Ranch
Land Use Summary
754.2 Ac.
- All locations of boundaries, land uses, and roads are approximate and subject to change.
Note:
Base District
RS
MF-2
C-3
RS
RS
RS
Permitted Uses
RS, MU
RS, TF, TH, MF-1, MF-2, MU
CN, C-1, C-3, OF, BP, MU
RS, MU
RS, MU
RS, MF-2, MU
Georgetown, Texas
Wolf Ranch plann ing Ê la nd scap e archite cture
712 Congress Avenue, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: (512) 480-0032 Fax: (512) 480-0617
www.rviplanning.comCONCEPT PLAN
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
Wo
l
f
R
a
n
c
h
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Ri
v
e
r
y
B
l
v
d
South
F
o
r
k
S
a
n
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
R
i
v
e
r
Wolf Ran
c
h
P
a
r
k
North Fo
r
k
S
a
n
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
R
i
v
e
r
Hwy 29 / W University Ave
Wolf Ranch
Town Center
Wolf R
a
n
c
h
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
B
y
p
a
s
s
WEST
45% Max Gross
Impervious Cover
CENTRAL
50% Max Gross
Impervious Cover
NORTH
45% Max Gross
Impervious
Cover
500 20001000
SCALE : 1" = 2000'
0
NORTHDATE : 11-05-2014
All information furnished regarding this property is from sources deemed reliable.However, RVi has not made an
independent investigation of these sources and no warranty or representation is made by RVi as to the accuracy thereof and
same is submitted subject to errors, omissions, land plan changes, or other conditions.This land plan is conceptual in nature
and does not represent any regulatory approval.Land plan is subject to change. The developer has reserved the right, without
notice,to make changes to this map and other aspects of the development to comply with governmental requirements and to
fulfill its marketing objective.
Fi
l
e
:
L:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
3
9
3
3
\
P
U
D
\
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
\
I
C
P
a
r
c
e
l
P
l
a
n
\
I
C
P
a
r
c
e
l
P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
TOTAL
Acres
North
Central
West
257.0 Ac.
301.6 Ac.
195.6 Ac.
Legend
Parcel
754.2 Ac.
EXHIBIT E
Georgetown, Texas
Wolf Ranch plann ing Ê la nd scap e archite cture
712 Congress Avenue, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: (512) 480-0032 Fax: (512) 480-0617
www.rviplanning.comIMPERVIOUS COVER PARCEL PLAN
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
Wo
l
f
R
a
n
c
h
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
(E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
O
W
U
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
)
Ri
v
e
r
y
B
l
v
d
South
F
o
r
k
S
a
n
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
R
i
v
e
r
North Fo
r
k
S
a
n
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
R
i
v
e
r
Hwy 29 / W University Ave
Wolf Ranch
Town Center
Wolf R
a
n
c
h
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
B
y
p
a
s
s
Roadway classification
change at intersection
of DB Wood Road &
Wolf Ranch Parkway
A
B
C
D
500 20001000
SCALE : 1" = 2000'
0
NORTHDATE : 11-05-2014
All information furnished regarding this property is from sources deemed reliable.However, RVi has not made an
independent investigation of these sources and no warranty or representation is made by RVi as to the accuracy thereof and
same is submitted subject to errors, omissions, land plan changes, or other conditions.This land plan is conceptual in nature
and does not represent any regulatory approval.Land plan is subject to change. The developer has reserved the right, without
notice,to make changes to this map and other aspects of the development to comply with governmental requirements and to
fulfill its marketing objective.
Fi
l
e
:
L:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
3
9
3
3
\
P
U
D
\
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
\
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
\
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
Segment A - Existing ROW
Segment B - Major Collector
Segment C - Minor Arterial
Segment D - Minor Arterial
Legend
Roadway
EXHIBIT F-1
Georgetown, Texas
Wolf Ranch plann ing Ê la nd scap e archite cture
712 Congress Avenue, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: (512) 480-0032 Fax: (512) 480-0617
www.rviplanning.comFUTURE ROADWAY PLAN
Exhibit H‐7
Page 1 of 1
Date: 11/6/2014
Wolf Ranch Tree Preservation Guidelines
Tree preservation and removal guidelines will be consistent with the UDC regulations except as shown
on this exhibit.
1. A Tree Plan will be created for each plat. The Tree Plan will be submitted and reviewed during
the preliminary and final platting of a single‐family residential tract, and during the site plan
submittal for a commercial or multi‐family tract. The Tree Plan will state:
a. Trees to remove
b. Trees to remain
c. A calculation of mitigation requirements for trees removed
d. A calculation for credits earned for preserving Credit Trees
2. For all property within the PUD, the applicant will be allowed to remove the following amount of
trees within a Tree Plan subject to the mitigation requirements contained in Paragraph 3:
a. Heritage Trees with a DBH of 26‐inches or greater in all land use types
i. 20% of these trees can be removed within a Tree Plan without any further
approval from the City. Preservation priority will be given to single trunk
heritage trees.
b. Protected Trees with a DBH of 12‐inches or greater in commercial and multi‐family uses
i. 80% of these trees can be removed within a Tree Plan without any further
approval from the City
c. In the event the Tree Plan shows the removal of trees in excess of the amounts allowed
hereunder, the Urban Forester may grant administrative approval for such removal. If
the Urban Forester does not grant administrative approval, the applicant may appeal to
City Council for approval. It is understood that for any amount of trees removed in
excess of the limits stated within these guidelines, no Credit Trees will be counted
towards the mitigation requirements.
d. Protected Trees with a DBH of 12‐inches or greater in single and two‐family residential
uses
i. No preservation requirements, as currently prescribed in the UDC
3. The following mitigation ratios will apply:
a. Trees removed with a DBH less than 26‐inches in single‐family residential districts: No
mitigation
Exhibit H‐7
Page 2 of 1
b. Protected Trees removed for mullti‐family and commercial uses: Mitigation shall be
provided at a 1:1 inch basis for 40% of the total diameter inches of Protected Trees
removed, measured at DBH
c. Heritage Trees removed with a DBH of 26‐inches or greater: Mitigation shall be provided
at a 3:1 inch basis for the total diameter inches of Heritage Trees removed, measured at
DBH
4. Credit Trees
a. Existing single‐trunk trees with a DBH between 18 and 26 inches and located in the
following areas will also be counted as Credit Trees:
i. Residential lot street yards
ii. Medians
iii. Parkways
iv. Parks or public amenities
v. Within the Wolf Ranch Parkway or DB Wood ROW
b. Credit Trees preserved may be used for mitigation requirements within the Tree Plan as
follows:
i. Credit Trees with a DBH between 18 and 26 inches can be applied towards a
maximum of 50% of the required mitigation inches for Heritage Tree removal
within the overall Tree Plan for the applicable plat
ii. Credit Trees can be applied towards a maximum of 75% of the required
mitigation inches for Protected Tree removal within the overall Tree Plan for the
applicable plat (as currently allowed by the existing UDC)
5. Major collector, arterial, or higher level classification of roadways are exempt from Heritage
Tree preservation requirements, and any trees removed shall not be included in the percentages
listed above.
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan
Exhibit I - Sign Plan