HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_P&Z_03.06.2018Notice of Meeting for the
Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Georgetown
March 6, 2018 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a sub ject that is pos ted on this agend a: Pleas e fill out a speaker regis tration form which c an b e found at the
Bo ard meeting. C learly p rint yo ur name, the letter o f the item o n which yo u wis h to s p eak, and present it to the
Staff Liais o n, p referab ly p rio r to the s tart of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board
cons id ers that item.
On a sub ject not pos ted on the agend a: Pers ons may add an item to a future Bo ard agenda b y filing a written
req uest with the S taff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he req uest mus t inc lude the
s p eaker's name and the s p ecific to p ic to b e ad d res s ed with sufficient information to info rm the b o ard and the
p ublic . For Board Liais on c o ntact info rmatio n, pleas e lo gon to
http://go vernment.georgetown.o rg/category/b o ard s -commissions /.
A As of th e d ea d lin e, n o p ersons were sign ed up to sp ea k on items oth er th a n th ose posted on th e agen d a .
Consent Agenda
The Statutory Cons ent Agenda inc ludes non-c o ntro versial and ro utine items that may be acted up o n with one
s ingle vo te. An item may b e pulled from the Cons ent Agenda in o rd er that it b e dis c us sed and acted up o n
individ ually as part of the Regular Agenda.
B Co nsideration and possible actio n o f the minutes of February 20, 2018. Karen F ro s t, Recording
Secretary
C Co nsideration and possible actio n o n an amend ment to a Preliminary Plat fo r the Wheeler Trac t generally
loc ated no rth of Wes tingho use Bo ulevard, and eas t of A.W. Grimes (PP-2017-014) Ro b yn Miga, Planner
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
D No mination and s elec tion of Vice-c hair and S ecretary fo r the 2018/19 C o mmis s io n. Karen F ro s t,
Recording S ec retary
E Dis cus s ion and review o f Bylaws and attend anc e polic y. Karen Frost, R ec ording Sec retary
F Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t to amend the Sad d lecreek Planned Unit Develo p ment
(PUD), for ap p ro ximately 353.084 acres out o f the William Ad d is o n Survey, Ab s trac t 21, and the
Stub b lefield Survey, Abstract 556, generally loc ated o n the no rth side of Sam Hous ton Ave, between
Page 1 of 93
Ro ckrid e Ln and S H 130 Toll (REZ-2017-027). And reina Dávila-Quintero , Current P lanning Manager.
Th is item w a s continued from th e February 20, 2018 P lannin g and Z onin g C ommission Meeting.
G Dis cus s ion and pos s ible d irectio n o n the annual review and list of General Amend ments to the Unified
Development C o d e for 2018. Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager
H Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o f a Hous ing Report. Sus an Watkins, AICP, Hous ing Co o rd inato r
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 93
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 6, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion of the minutes o f F eb ruary 20, 2018. Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing Secretary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Minutes _P&Z_02.20.2018 Backup Material
Page 3 of 93
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4
February 20, 2018
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building, located at 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Commissioners present: Josh Schroeder, Chair; Tim Bargainer; Ercel Brashear; Alex Fuller; John
Marler; Travis Perthuis, Alternate; and Kevin Pitts, Vice-Chair
Absent: Aaron Albright, Alternate; and Andy Webb.
Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Andreina Davila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager;
Nathan Jones-Meyer, Planner; Jordan Feldman, Planner; Robyn Miga, Planner; Susan Watkins,
Housing Coordinator; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
A. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Marler led the pledge of allegiance.
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.
• 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 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 and possible action of the minutes of February 6, 2018. Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
C. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat Amendment for the Kasper
Subdivision generally located north of Westinghouse Road, north and west of Higgs Road, west
of Rockride Road, and south of Sam Houston Avenue (PP-2017-015). Robyn Miga, Planner
Motion to approve the consent agenda by Marler, second by Bargainer. Approved 7 – 0 - 2. (Webb
and Albright absent.)
Legislative Regular Agenda
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request to amend the Saddlecreek Planned Unit
Development (PUD), for approximately 353.084 acres out of the William Addison Survey,
Abstract 21, and the Stubblefield Survey, Abstract 556, generally located on the north side of
Sam Houston Ave, between Rockride Ln and SH 130 Toll (REZ-2017-027). Andreina Dávila-
Quintero, Current Planning Manager.
Davila presented the staff report. The applicant has requested to amend the Saddlecreek
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to add a new section to the Development Plan titled
“Courtyard Product Fencing”. The purpose of this section is to include provisions for a new
Page 4 of 93
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
February 20, 2018
single-family housing type that will include a courtyard in the front yard between the detached
garage and the primary structure. This new housing type will be unique to the Saddlecreek
Subdivision as it is a housing type that is not permitted by right under current standards due to
the definition of the front yard and fence height limitations within the front yard.
The proposed amendment, should it be approved, would allow a portion of the front yard,
more specifically the area located between the detached garage and primary structure, to be
enclosed by a 6-foot tall privacy fence to create a courtyard area between both structures. Fences
enclosing the courtyard area would be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front lot line.
This will allow the Courtyard Product to maintain a 20-foot open area along the street
frontages, consistent with the residential developments in other neighborhoods. No other
changes are proposed to the PUD Development Plan. Staff reviewed the application and finds
that this application meets the criteria of the zoning district. And it provides a diversity of
housing types.
Brashear asked if the Fire Department reviewed this. Yes, and the types of the fencing would be
wood and masonry. The lot sizes range from 45 feet to 55 feet. No structure will be allowed to
be built in the front yard setback. The garage and gate to the back would be at the front of the
house, with the house and yard behind the garage. Pitts would prefer to see masonry and
wrought iron on the front fences, stating the wooden fence or gate will not look good in years to
come.
Mark Baker, SEC Planning, spoke for the developer. He explained that most likely the gate and
fence will be a variety of products. He also said this same product is being built in other areas
in central Texas so the fire issue has been addressed and he can bring back more information.
The two houses will be separated by two, ten foot rear setbacks. Total buildout is estimated at
1100 single-family products with an additional 500 multi-family units.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing and with no speakers coming forth, closed the
hearing.
Motion by Pitts to postpone this item to March 6 to allow the applicant to bring back items to
address the safety issues that were raised. Second by Fuller.
Brashear would like to see this product on the ground and hear from the fire department that
this is “safe”. Schroeder feels the Fire Reviewers will have reviewed this thoroughly. Bargainer
wants reassurance in the form of a statement.
Approved 4 –2 -2. Schroeder and Marler opposed. (Webb and Albright absent.)
E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a
Commercial Recreation use on 0.05 acres out of Lots 6 and 7, Block 41, City of Georgetown,
located at 215 W 8th St (SUP-2018-001). Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown
Planner
Thomas presented the staff report. The applicant has requested consideration of a Special Use
Permit (SUP) that would allow a Commercial Recreation Use, more specifically an Escape Room
to be located in the Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) district.
Page 5 of 93
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
February 20, 2018
The applicant proposes to provide approximately 1,606 square feet of indoor space to create two
game rooms (with potential for a third) in the rear of the building and one open area to
congregate in the front of the building. As described by the applicant, escape rooms are “live-
action team-based games where players discover clues, solve puzzles, and accomplish tasks in
one or more rooms in order to accomplish a specific goal (usually escaping from the room) in a
limited amount of time. Each room would typically hold 2-8 people and the game would last
approximately an hour. The business plans to be open to the public on weekends, with
weekday sessions for group events. Hours of operation would vary based on business needs.
Sales of beer/wine as well as merchandise would be accessory to the main use. Hours of sale for
wine and beer are between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. on every day but Sunday, with Sunday
hours being between 12:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. Alcohol sales are intended for the consumption
of Boomtown patrons. The proposed days of operation would be Monday through Sunday.
Staff finds that the proposed project supports the Downtown Master Plan’s goal of attracting
people downtown, beyond the square, facilitating adaptive reuse of historic buildings, and .
Staff finds that the UDC approval criteria, 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been met.
Marler asked about soundproofing for the adjacent offices. Mr. Nicholson, the owner applicant,
stated they fully intend to follow the noise ordinance requirements and aim to be a good
neighbor. They do not expect the games being used to be that loud. Brashear asked about the
potential of conflict with the neighbors having a good time and keeping it quiet. Nicholson says
during the week, the operations are only with private events and not open to the public. And
the walls in between the buildings are 12” of concrete which will buffer the noise.
Motion by Pitts to approve the request. Second by Marler. Approved 7 – 0.
F. Presentation and general discussion on the Planning Department's End of Year Report for 2017.
Nathan Jones, Planner, and Jordan Feldman, Planner.
Feldman and Jones showed the data. The average age of citizens in the city limits is 45 years
old. The average appraised value is $310,000 with 30% of the population being burdened by an
over 30% cost of housing. This is important going into the Comprehensive Plan update. They
reviewed population growth and new home starts. Brashear asks staff to review the ETJ growth
and the density of the ETJ. Nelson says they will bring back more information and maps.
Jones explained the number of applications. Feldman showed the department year in review;
completions, accomplishments and UDC amendments. Big projects identified PUDs, Natural
Grocers, Summit at Westinghouse, Bourne Development on Westinghouse, and the
Georgetown 120 Development at Inner Loop and Hwy 29.
This document will be published online soon.
G. Presentation and discussion of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. Nat Waggoner,
AICP, Long Range Planning Manager.
Waggoner gave an update that will be presented to City Council next week. There are many
people working on this project and this process will include the commission and several boards
and commissions across the city. Major components of the plan elements are housing, growth
scenarios, Williams drive sub-area plan, gateways and the future land use plan. Council has
asked staff during the update to look at the commercial elements and items, using economic
Page 6 of 93
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4
February 20, 2018
development growth and commercial development patterns. The outcomes must have a
discrete list of annual projects, tied to a budget process and measurable.
Waggoner explained the goals and objectives to achieve council direction. To have a discrete
list of annual projects, a measurable implementation plan will be given and result in an annual
report. It must be tied to the budget process or have fiscal alignment wind will incorporate the
fiscal impact model, the economic development strategic plan, and the CIP budget with others.
Public involvement will be innovative and will have a steering committee and joint sessions
with city council and P&Z.
There was discussion of quantifying development and how that affects the city or the
developers. There was discussion that the cost of the commercial and industrial activity was
more beneficial to the city than affordable housing.
A general scope was developed and an RFP was pushed out in December. Interviews were
held in early February and staff is currently negotiating with the chosen consultant about
specific data and cost to acquire what the city wants and needs. Staff is developing an approach
that has a Steering Committee with representation by many entities within the city. The Mayor
will be the chair and is working with staff to appoint several citizens from the business
community, the chamber, developers, the school district and citizens at large.
Joint Council and P&Z meetings will be held an estimated three to four times to work on public
input and policy formation, for ultimate policy adoption.
Perthuis asked for presentations to be posted ahead of the meeting for better comprehension.
Nelson said that would be added to the staff timeline.
Motion by Brashear, second by Fuller to adjourn at 7:22 pm.
____________________________________ ____________________________________
Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Tim Bargainer
Page 7 of 93
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 6, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion on an amendment to a P reliminary Plat for the Wheeler Tract generally
lo cated no rth o f Wes tinghous e Boulevard, and eas t o f A.W. Grimes (PP-2017-014) Robyn Miga, Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
This Preliminary P lat Amendment is for an approximately 52.038 acre d evelo p ment c o mp ris ed of multip le
zo ning d is tric ts , inc luding C-1, C-3, MF-1, and MF -2. The P reliminary Plat is mad e up of 7 lo ts. The minor
changes from the o riginal P reliminary Plat, whic h was approved June 21, 2016, inc lude ad d ing a lo t and
ad justing the phas ing plan.
Staff's Analysis:
The p ro p o s ed Preliminary Plat meets all o f the requirements of the Unified Development Code and all staff
comments have b een ad d res s ed .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financ ial imp act. T he ap p licant has paid all required applic ation fees .
SUBMITTED BY:
Robyn Miga
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
PP-2017-014 - Staff Report Cover Memo
Attachment 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Attachment 2 - Preliminary Plat Exhibit Backup Material
Page 8 of 93
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Wheeler Tract – Preliminary Plat Page 1 of 2
Report Date: March 6, 2018
File No: PP-2017-014
Project Planner: Robyn Miga, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Wheeler Tract
Project Address: Generally located at the northeast corner
of Westinghouse Road and FM 1460
Total Acreage: 52.038 acres
Legal Description: 207.147 acres situated in the WM
Addison, Robertson, and J.S. Patterson
Surveys.
Plat Summary
Proposed Lots: 7 non-single family residential lots within 2 phases.
Site Information
This property is located on the north side of Westinghouse Road and east of FM 1460, see
Attachment 1. The property is currently undeveloped.
Background
The property was annexed in 2006 and then rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in
2007 consisting of approximately 29 acres of Local Comme rcial (C-1) zoning, and 26 acres of
Multifamily (MF) zoning. The property was then rezoned again in 2015 to a mix of Local
Commercial (C-1), General Commercial (C-3), Low Density Multifamily (MF-1), and High
Density Multifamily (MF-2). The applicant also was approved for a variance in 2017 through the
Zoning Board of Adjustments to allow the multifamily complex to have more than 24 dwelling
units under one roof.
The minor changes from the original Preliminary Plat, which was approved June 21, 2016,
include adding a lot and updating the phasing plan.
Utilities
Water and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown; electricity is provided by TXU
Energy.
Page 9 of 93
Planning Department Staff Report
Wheeler Tract – Preliminary Plat Page 2 of 2
Transportation
The access to this property will be provided by Westinghouse Road and FM 1460; exact locations
of driveways will be determined at the time of Site Development Plan review. It is also
anticipated that a primary access point will be via FM 1460 opposite Teravista Crossing, where a
median-break is planned. Where driveways are located without a median break, they will only
have access via a right turn in and out. Both Westinghouse Road and FM 1460 are classified as
Major Arterial roadways. Near this property, right -of-way widths reach 215’ for FM 1460 and
135’ for Westinghouse Road. A small amount of additional right-of-way is being provide
throught this plat for Westinghouse Road (County Road 111). Traffic impacts, as well as whether
a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required, will be determined at time of Site Development
Plan review.
Parkland Dedication
Fee in lieu will be required at the time of site development plan for the residential lots.
Staff Analysis
The proposed Preliminary Plat meets all of the requirements of the UDC and is presented for
approval.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Preliminary Plat
Page 10 of 93
§¨¦35
W e s ti n g h o u s e R d
S E I n n e r L o o p
")1460
")146 0
R
o
c
k
ri
d
e
L
n
Tera vi s t a X i n g
Teravista C l u b D r
W e s ti n g h o u s e R d
R
a
b
b
it
H
I
l
l
R
d
PP-2017-014Exhibit #1
Co o rdi nate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zo ne/N A D 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For Gener al Plann ing Pu rposes Only
¯
Location Map
Ronald Reagan Blvd
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 0.5 1Mi
C
R
2
5
5
Page 11 of 93
PRELIMINARY PLAT
AMENDMENT
(PP-2017-014)
AMENDMENT TO PP-2015-021
WHEELER TRACT
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
1 2OFSHEET
50780-03
WH
E
E
L
E
R
T
R
A
C
T
-
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
P
L
A
T
WHEELER TRACT
A U S T I N I S A N A N T O N I O I H O U S T O N I F O R T W O R T H I D A L L A S
T B P E F I RM R EG I S T RA TI O N #470 I TBP L S FI R M R E G IS TR AT I ON #10 0 2 8 8 0 1
22ÄÄ
Page 12 of 93
A
U
S
T
I
N
I
S
A
N
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
I
H
O
U
S
T
O
N
I
F
O
R
T
W
O
R
T
H
I
D
A
L
L
A
S
T
B
P
E
F
I
RM
R
EG
I
S
T
RA
TI
O
N
#470
I
TBP
L
S
FI
R
M
R
E
G
IS
TR
AT
I
ON
#100288
0
1
22ÄÄ
PLAT BOUNDARY
INTERIOR LOT LINES
SURVEY LINE
ADJOINER LINE
PROPOSED 16" WATERLINE
PROPOSED 8" WASTEWATER LINE
EXISTING 12" WATERLINE
EXISTING 8" WASTEWATER LINE
PHASING BOUNDARY
LEGEND
9*
'
'
.
'
4
6
4
#
%
6
2
4
'
.
+
/
+
0
#
4
;
2
.
#
6
24
'
.
+
/
+
0
#
4
;
2
.
#
6
QH
´³´
´´
³´
´´
´³´
´´
³´
´´
´´
³´
´³´
´
´´
³´
³´
´
´
³´
´
³´
´´
´³´
´´
³´
´´
³´
´
´
´
´³´
´
´
´
´
´
´
´´
´
TH
I
S
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
I
S
R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D
FO
R
I
N
T
E
R
I
M
R
E
V
I
E
W
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
ON
L
Y
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y
O
F
MI
K
E
S
.
F
I
S
H
E
R
,
P
.
E
.
#
8
7
7
0
4
DA
T
E
:
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
4
,
2
0
1
8
1
1
:
3
8
A
M
IT
I
S
N
O
T
T
O
B
E
U
S
E
D
F
O
R
BI
D
D
I
N
G
,
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
O
R
PE
R
M
I
T
T
I
N
G
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
,
P
E
R
T.
E
.
P
.
A
.
1
3
7
.
3
3
(
e
)
Page 13 of 93
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 6, 2018
SUBJECT:
Nomination and s electio n o f Vic e-chair and Sec retary for the 2018/19 Co mmis s ion. Karen Frost,
Rec o rd ing Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
Page 14 of 93
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 6, 2018
SUBJECT:
Disc ussion and review of Bylaws and attendanc e p o licy. Karen F ro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
P&Z Bylaws , approved 02.28.2017 Backup Material
Page 15 of 93
Page 16 of 93
Page 17 of 93
Page 18 of 93
Page 19 of 93
Page 20 of 93
Page 21 of 93
Page 22 of 93
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 6, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t to amend the Saddlec reek P lanned Unit Development
(PUD), for approximately 353.084 ac res out of the William Addison Survey, Abs tract 21, and the
Stubblefield S urvey, Ab s trac t 556, generally lo c ated on the north s id e of Sam Ho us to n Ave, b etween
Roc kride Ln and SH 130 To ll (REZ-2017-027). Andreina Dávila-Quintero , C urrent Planning Manager.
This item was con tin u ed from the Feb ruary 2 0 , 2 0 1 8 Pla n n ing a n d Zoning Commission Meetin g .
ITEM SUMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
The ap p licant has reques ted to amend the Saddlec reek Planned Unit Development (PUD) to ad d a new
s ectio n (Sec tio n J) to the Development Plan titled “Courtyard P ro d uc t Fenc ing” (Exhib it 4). The purp o s e
o f this s ection is to inc lude p ro visions for a new s ingle-family ho using type that will inc lude a c o urtyard in
the front yard between the d etac hed garage and the primary struc ture. This new hous ing type will b e unique
to the Sad d lec reek Sub d ivision as it is a hous ing typ e that is not permitted by right under current standard s
d ue to the definitio n o f the fro nt yard and fenc e height limitatio ns within the front yard.
Ac cording to S ec tio n 16.02 o f the Unified Develo p ment Co d e (UDC), a fro nt yard is d efined as the area
that lies between the es tab lis hed fro nt build ing line o f the p rinc ip al build ing (res id enc e) and the fro nt lot
line. Additio nally, p er UDC S ectio n 8.07.040.A, fences lo cated within the fro nt yard are limited to fo ur (4)
feet in height and s hall b e at least 50 p ercent trans parent. T he ap p licant is p ro p o s ing to develo p single-
family lo ts that inc lud e a d etac hed garage in the front yard with the primary s truc ture (res id enc e) set bac k
further towards the rear o f the p ro p erty and b ehind the garage. As a res ult, walls and fences lo cated within
this area would b e limited to the UDC's height and trans p arenc y limitatio ns for fenc es in the fro nt yard .
The p ro p o s ed amendment, sho uld it b e appro ved, wo uld allo w a portio n of the front yard, more
s p ecific ally the area loc ated b etween the detac hed garage and primary struc ture, to be enc lo s ed by a 6-foo t
tall p rivac y fenc e to create a courtyard area between both s tructures. Fenc es enc lo s ing the courtyard area
would be s et bac k a minimum o f 20 feet from the front lo t line. This will allo w the C o urtyard Product to
maintain a 20-fo o t o p en area along the street frontages , cons is tent with the res id ential develo p ments in
o ther neighb orho o d s .
No other changes are proposed to the PUD Develo p ment P lan.
Staff's Analysis:
Staff has reviewed the PUD amendment reques t and d etermined that the propos ed req uest meets the
criteria establis hed in UDC S ectio n 3.06.030 fo r zoning c hanges. In addition to the rezo ning criteria, s taff
has reviewed the P UD amend ment reques t and determined that the proposed reques t meets the c riteria and
o b jectives es tab lis hed in UDC Sec tion 3.06.040 for a P lanned Unit Develop ment, as outlined in the
attached Staff R ep o rt.
Public Comments:
As req uired by the Unified Development Cod e, all property o wners within a 200-foot radius of the sub ject
s ite that are lo c ated within City limits were no tified o f the rezo ning ap p lication (26 notices mailed ), a legal
Page 23 of 93
notice ad vertis ing the pub lic hearing was p lac ed in the Sun News p ap er (February 4, 2018) and s igns were
p o s ted o n-site. As o f the p ublic ation date of this rep o rt, staff has rec eived no written comments o n the
req uest.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting:
At their February 20, 2018 Meeting, the Planning and Zo ning Commission req ues ted additio nal information
regarding Fire Dep artment acc es s to the p rimary s truc ture (residence) in the event o f a fire or emergency,
and voted to c ontinue this item to the March 6, 2018 Meeting. The adopted Fire Code d o es no t inc lude
d es ign standard s for s ingle-family res id ential s truc tures . Ho wever, an enclos ed c o urtyard may p res ent
o p erational c hallenges for acc es s ing the s truc ture in c as e of an emergency. To ens ure ac cess to the
p ro p erty, prop erty owners may voluntarily join the res id ential Knox-b o x program to ens ure timely ac cess
to the property in c as e of an emergency. In c as es where a Kno x-box is not p ro vided, forc ed entry will be
req uired to ac c es s the property.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applic ant has paid the required ap p lic atio n fees .
SUBMITTED BY:
And reina Dávila-Quintero , Current Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
REZ-2017-027 - Staff Report Cover Memo
Attachment 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Attachment 2 - Future Land Us e Map Backup Material
Attachment 3 - Zoning Map Backup Material
Attachment 4 – Propos ed Amendment to the Saddlecreek PUD
Development Plan
Backup Material
Page 24 of 93
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: REZ-2017-027 Page 1 of 7
Report Date: March 2, 2018
Case No: REZ-2017-027
Project Planner: Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager
Item Details
Project Name: Saddlecreek Planned Unit Development
Location: Generally located on the north side of Sam Houston Ave, between Rockride Ln
and SH 130 Toll
Legal Description: 353.084 acres out of the William Addison Survey, Abstract 21, and the
Stubblefield Survey, Abstract 556
Total Acreage: 353.084 acres
Applicant: SEC Planning, LLC, c/o Mark Baker
Property Owner: Pacesetter Homes, c/o Ashley Filip
Future Land Use: Employment Center and Mixed Use Community
Growth Tier: Tier 2
Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) with Residential Single-Family (RS),
Townhouse (TH), Low Density Multi-Family (MF-1), High Density Multi-Family
(MF-2), Local Commercial (C-1) and Business Park (BP)
Request: Amendment to the Saddlecreek Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Case History: This is the second public hearing for this zoning case. This item is continued from
the February 20, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Page 25 of 93
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: REZ-2017-027 Page 2 of 7
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to amend the Saddlecreek Planned Unit Development (PUD) to add a new
section (Section J) to the Development Plan titled “Courtyard Product Fencing” (Exhibit 4). The purpose
of this section is to include provisions for a new single-family housing type that will include a courtyard
in the front yard between the detached garage and the primary structure. This new housing type will
be unique to the Saddlecreek Subdivision as it is a housing type that is not permitted by right under
current standards due to the definition of the front yard and fence height limitations within the front
yard.
According to Section 16.02 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), a front yard is defined as the area
that lies between the established front building line of the principal building (residence) and the front
lot line. Additionally, per UDC Section 8.07.040.A, fences located within the front yard are limited to
four (4) feet in height and shall be at least 50 percent transparent. The applicant is proposing to develop
single-family lots that include a detached garage in the front yard with the primary structure (residence)
set back further towards the rear of the property and behind the garage. As a result, walls and fences
located within this area would be limited to the UDC's height and transparency limitations for fences
in the front yard.
The proposed amendment, should it be approved, would allow a portion of the front yard, more
specifically the area located between the detached garage and primary structure, to be enclosed by a 6-
foot tall privacy fence to create a courtyard area between both structures. Fences enclosing the
courtyard area would be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front lot line. This will allow the
Courtyard Product to maintain a 20-foot open area along the street frontages, consistent with the
residential developments in other neighborhoods.
No other changes are proposed to the PUD Development
Plan.
Proposed Zoning Change:
The Saddlecreek PUD, created in 2015, outlines the lot and
product design standards, signage, parkland amenities, and
street design for the Saddlecreek Subdivision. Additionally,
the Saddlecreek PUD includes a variety of uses, housing types
and price levels, catering to different housing market needs.
Housing type products include alley loaded, with reduced lot
widths, zero-lot line, and clustered together on a single lot
with condominium ownership.
The proposed amendment will add an additional housing
type to the Saddlecreek development, consistent with the
purpose and intent of the PUD: Courtyard Product. The
courtyard would be enclosed by a 6-foot tall fence, and subject
to the following additional requirements (Exhibit 4, Page 12):
Page 26 of 93
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: REZ-2017-027 Page 3 of 7
• Fencing shall be a maximum of 6 feet in height.
• Fencing must be located a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line and 10 feet from a
street side corner property line.
• Fence materials shall consist of wood, masonry, or wrought iron or a combination of two or
more of these materials.
• If wood fencing is utilized, the finished side of the fence shall face the street or area visible to
the public. Wood fences shall be stained a consistent color throughout the neighborhood.
• Masonry columns shall be placed on the front street lot line between adjacent homes, and along
all street side corner lot lines.
• Fences located within the front yard between adjacent homes shall vary in depth by a minimum
of 5 feet, or provide plant beds in front of the fence.
• Iron gates shall be provided between the street/alley area and the courtyard.
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is generally located on the north side of Sam Houston Ave, between Rockride Ln
and SH 130 Toll. Rockride Lane will be the primary entrance for the Saddlecreek Subdivision, located
on the western edge of the subject property. The majority of the street frontage exists along Sam
Houston Avenue to the south with a connection to SH 130 at Lawhon Lane to the east.
Surrounding Properties:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North Public Facility (PF),
Agriculture (AG)
Institutional, Mixed Use
Community, Employment
Center
Single-family residence,
undeveloped property
South Agriculture (AG) Employment Center Undeveloped property
East Public Facility (PF),
Agriculture (AG)
Employment Center, Low
Density Residential
Single-family residence,
undeveloped property
West Public Facility (PF),
Agriculture (AG)
Institutional, Mixed Use
Community
School, single-family, ROCK
Ride Center for kids
Property History:
The property was annexed in 2006 via Ordinance 2016-123. In 2014, the City Council approved the
Consent Agreement for the creation of an in-city Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the Saddlecreek
development. A Preliminary Plat for the entire 353 acres was approved in 2016, which was last
amended in July 2017. To date, Phase 1 has been recorded.
Comprehensive Plan Guidance
Future Land Use:
The property is classified as Employment Center and Mixed-Use Community. The Employment Center
is planned primarily for employment-generating commercial and office uses, with supporting high-
density residential and retail. The Mixed-Use Community anticipates well-planned, cohesive residential
with multiple housing types and walkable personal services.
Page 27 of 93
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: REZ-2017-027 Page 4 of 7
As part of the MUD negotiation, the City Council approved a determination by the Planning Director
that the land plan’s mix of Business Park, retail and multi-family served the goals of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and Employment Center designation, and did not require a land use plan
amendment. Most of this project would be classified as a Mixed-Use Community, due to its various
density and product types. Business commercial uses are planned along SH 130 Toll, taking advantage
of the regional traffic, access and visibility. Retail will be located near the main entrance of the project,
along Rockride Ln and Sam Houston Ave. Multi-family phases are in strategic locations along the larger
roadways but will remain integrated into the neighborhood.
Growth Tier:
The subject 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 City Council in 2014 make provisions for the appropriate
infrastructure for the project.
Transportation
The subject property is served by several major roadways, including Sam Houston Avenue and SH 130
Toll, both of which are classified as Freeways in the City’s Overall Thoroughfare Plan. The initial entry
to the project is Rockride Lane, a major collector, which needs improvements to serve the project. A
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was approved by the City of Georgetown, with specific improvements
and financial contributions identified.
In addition to the existing thoroughfares adjacent to the property, the Saddlecreek development
contains two proposed major collector roadways that are identified on the City's Overall Thoroughfare
Plan with the objective of connecting Sam Houston Ave, Inner Loop and SH 130 for regional traffic
movement. These two collectors are located almost exclusively within the boundaries of the land. City
staff and the developer have agreed to divert funding beyond the requirements from the TIA to
facilitate the construction improvements around Mitchell Elementary and the intersection of Inner
Loop/Rockride Lane.
Utilities
Wastewater will be provided by Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS). The subject property is located
within the Jonah Special Utility District for water, and within the Oncor service area for electric.
Wastewater improvements are detailed in the Consent Agreement for the MUD. The developer's
responsibilities include a significant portion of a gravity sewer line, a portion of the lift station and wet
well near the Dove Springs Plant, and a force main from the lift station.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
The proposed amendment was reviewed by the applicable City departments. All comments were
addressed by the applicant.
At their February 20, 2018 Meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission requested additional
information regarding Fire Department access to the primary structure (residence) in the event of a fire
or emergency, and voted to continue this item to the March 6, 2018 Meeting. The Fire Code does not
Page 28 of 93
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: REZ-2017-027 Page 5 of 7
include design standards for single-family residential structures. However, an enclosed courtyard may
present operational challenges when accessing the structure in case of an emergency. To ensure access
to the property, property owners may voluntarily join the residential Knox-box program to ensure
timely access to the property in case of an emergency. In cases where a Knox-box is not provided, forced
entry will be required to access the property.
Staff Analysis
Staff has reviewed the PUD amendment request and determined that the proposed request meets the
criteria established in UDC Section 3.06.030 for zoning changes:
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is
sufficient and correct enough to allow adequate review and final action.
Findings Complies
An application must provide the necessary information to review and make a knowledgeable
decision in order for staff to schedule an application for consideration by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council. This application was reviewed by staff and deemed to
be complete.
2. The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Complies
The proposed PUD amendment is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, to include the
designated Future Land Use designations. This amendment is to include additional standards
for a new housing type to be developed in the existing areas within the PUD designated for
single-family use. No changes are proposed to the size and distribution of the uses identified in
the Development Plan.
3. The zoning change promotes the health, safety or general welfare of the City and the safe
orderly, and healthful development of the City.
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the City, as well
as the safe orderly, and healthful development of the City by including a different housing
product that caters to a different market. The proposed Courtyard Product will be in addition
to the other housing types located within the Saddlecreek Subdivision.
4. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby
property and with the character of the neighborhood.
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment is compatible with the Saddlecreek PUD and associated
Development Plan. Currently, the Saddlecreek PUD allows for the development of different
housing types including traditional house with the garage next to the front door, and house
with a detached garage that is accessed from the rear (alley). The purpose of this amendment is
to provide additional standards for a new housing type to be developed in the single-family
sections of the development. This product type will be subject to the same residential standards
Page 29 of 93
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: REZ-2017-027 Page 6 of 7
for single-family, with the exception of allowance of an enclosed courtyard between the garage
and the primary structure (residence).
5. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the District that would be
applied by the proposed amendment.
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment is suitable for the single-family uses in the Saddlecreek PUD. This
amendment, should it be approved, will allow a number of single-family residences to include
an enclosed courtyard between the garage and primary structure in the front yard.
In addition to the rezoning criteria above, staff has reviewed the PUD amendment request and
determined that the proposed request meets the criteria and objectives established in UDC Section
3.06.040 for a Planned Unit Development:
1. A variety of housing types, employment opportunities, or commercial services to achieve a
balanced community.
Findings Complies
The Saddlecreek PUD allows for the development of different housing types including
traditional house with the garage next to the front door, and house with a detached garage that
is accessed from the rear (alley). The proposed amendment will allow for a new housing type
consisting of a house with a detached garage located at the front of the property and an enclosed
courtyard between the garage and the house (primary structure).
2. An orderly and creative arrangement of all land uses with respect to each other and to the
entire community.
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment is to include additional standards for a new housing type. No other
changes are proposed to the land uses established in the PUD.
3. A planned and integrated comprehensive transportation system providing for a separation
of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, to include facilities such as roadways, bicycle ways, and
pedestrian walkways.
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment is to include additional standards for a new housing type. No other
changes are proposed to the transportation system established in the PUD.
4. The provisions of cultural or recreational facilities for all segments of the community.
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment is to include additional standards for a new housing type. No other
changes are proposed to the transportation system established in the PUD.
5. The location of general building envelopes to take maximum advantage of the natural and
Page 30 of 93
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: REZ-2017-027 Page 7 of 7
manmade environment.
Findings Complies
The proposed privacy fence within the front yard does not limit buildings located at the rear of
the property from taking advantage of the environment. Additionally, to maintain high quality
development along the street frontages, privacy fences and courtyard entry gates will be subject
to additional standards relating to height, material and design as outlined in the proposed
Section J, Courtyard Fencing Product, of the proposed amended Development Plan.
6. The staging of development in a manner which can be accommodated by the timely
provision of public utilities, facilities, and services.
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment is to include additional standards for a new housing type. No
changes are proposed to the timely provision of public utilities, facilities and services as
established in the PUD.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200-foot radius of the
subject site that are located within City limits were notified of the rezoning application (26 notices
mailed), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (February 4,
2018) and signs were posted on-site. As of the publication date of this report, staff has received no
written comments on the request.
Meetings Schedule
February 20, 2018 – Planning and Zoning Commission
March 6, 2018 – Planning and Zoning Commission (continued item)
March 13, 2018 – City Council First Reading of the Ordinance
March 27, 2018 – City Council Second Reading of the Ordinance
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Future Land Use Map
Attachment 3 – Zoning Map
Attachment 4 – Proposed Amendment to the Saddlecreek PUD Development Plan
Page 31 of 93
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
W University Ave E University Ave
NAustinAve
Southw este
r
n
B
lv
d
E U n i v e r s it y A v e
NE
I
n
n
e
r
L
o
o
p
SE
I
n
n
e
r
L
o
o
p
NColleg e StRiveryBlvd
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
WolfRanchPkw y
Westingho
u
s
e
R
d
S a m H o u s t o n Ave
¬«29¬«130
¬«130
SE Inner Lo
o
p
SamHoustonAve
South
w
e
st
e
r
n
B
l
v
d
")1460
S
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
R
o
c
k
r
i
d
e
L
n
EMorro w St
")1460
R
o
c
k
r
i
d
e
L
n
Tera vis t a X ingR
a
b
b
it
H
I
ll
R
d
§¨¦35
REZ-2017-027Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 0.5 1Mi
Page 32 of 93
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
¬«130
R
O
C
K
R
I
D
E
L
N
SE INNER LOOP
SAM HOUSTON AVE
S A M H O U S T O N A V E
Coord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Plan ning Pu rposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Over all Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
RE Z-2017 -027
Leg en d
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Com mercial
Com munity Commercial
Emp loym ent Center
Low Density Residential
Min ing
Mixed Use Comm unity
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Mode rate Density Residential
Op en Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing F reeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Pro p osed Collector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p sed Frontage Road
Pro p osed M ajor Arterial
Pro p osed M inor Arterial
Pro p osed Railroad
Hig h Density Residential
0 ¼½Mi
Legend
Sit eParce lsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 33 of 93
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
¬«130
R
O
C
K
R
I
D
E
L
N
SE INNER LOOP
SAM HOUSTON AVE
S A M H O U S T O N A V E
Zoning InformationREZ-2017-027Exhibit #3
Co o rdi nate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zo ne/N A D 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For Gener al Plann ing Pu rposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 ¼½MiPage 34 of 93
SADDLECREEK
City of Georgetown, Texas
PUD Planned Unit Development
Amendment 1: February 2, 2018
Applicant: Sentinel Land Company, LLC
4910 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, CA
Prepared by: SEC Planning
4201 W. Parmer Lane
Building A, Suite 220
Austin, Tx 78727
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 35 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 2 of 25
Exhibit A
Saddlecreek Planned Unit Development
A. Purpose and Intent
The Saddlecreek PUD is composed of 353.084 acres, as described in Exhibit B (Field
Notes). The development of this property is planned as a high quality, mixed use
community with a blend of retail, office, business park and multiple residential
opportunities in a variety of lot sizes and configurations.
The contents of this PUD further explain and illustrate the overall appearance and
function desired for this community. The variety of product types and community
design vision differ in some ways from conventional suburban development. Due to
the variations in design, several modifications to the Georgetown Unified Development
Code will be necessary to implement the vision for the community.
A Concept Plan has been attached to this PUD, Exhibit C, to illustrate the design intent
for the property. The Concept Plan is intended to serve as a guide to illustrate the
general community vision and design concepts and is not intended to serve as a final
document. The Concept Plan depicts a mix of residential products, open space areas
and non-residential uses which are contemplated within the community.
B. Applicability and Base Zoning
All aspects regarding the development of this PUD shall comply with the version of the
Georgetown Unified Development Code (UDC) in effect at the date of PUD approval,
except as established in this PUD exhibit, titled Exhibit A.
For the purpose of complying with the UDC requirement of selecting a base zoning
district, the following base districts have been selected for the residential and non-
residential areas:
RS – Residential Single Family (for single family detached residential)
TH - Townhouse
MF-2 – Multi Family (for attached Multi Family)
MF-1 – Multi Family
C-1 – Local Commercial
BP – Business Park (for SH 130 fronting lands)
This PUD allows the definition of final lot boundaries during the platting process. Each
plat or site plan submitted to the City will identify the use at the time of City Submittal.
All neighborhoods within the PUD will comply with the modified development
standards of this PUD. In the case that this PUD does not address a specific City
requirement, the Georgetown Unified Development Code shall apply. In the event of a
conflict between this PUD and the base zoning district, this PUD shall control.
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 36 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 3 of 25
C. Concept Plan
Exhibit C attached is a conceptual development plan intended to visually convey the
design intent for the Saddlecreek community. The design of the community is not
final, and is subject to refinement during the platting and site planning stages. This
PUD zoning document does not constitute plat or site plan approval of the attached
plan.
The residential component of the project is comprised of a mix of various single family
detached products as well as townhomes, apartments and cluster single family condo
regime. Additionally, Saddlecreek will include a cohesive network of open spaces,
including parks, greenbelts, water quality areas, trails, and a resident’s amenity center.
The non-residential areas of Saddlecreek will be a mix of retail and business park
components oriented to SH 130 and Sam Houston Avenue. The design balances
visibility and access from major roads for non-residential uses with a mixed residential
community that is centered around the existing schools.
D. Allowable Uses
The uses allowed within the Saddlecreek PUD shall comply with the list of allowed and
prohibited uses defined in the Georgetown UDC Chapter 5 Zoning Use Regulations
with the addition of the following uses:
MF-1: Areas designated as MF-1 on Exhibit C shall allow the additional uses as listed
in the UDC for the following districts: TH-Townhouse, RS Residential Detached, RS
Residential Attached.
C-1: The parcel shown as C-1 located at the northwest corner of Bell Gin Road and
Sam Houston Avenue on Exhibit C shall allow the additional uses as listed in the UDC
for the following districts: MF-2 Multi Family Attached
E. Prohibited Uses
The following uses within the Saddlecreek PUD shall comply with the list of allowed
and prohibited uses defined in the Georgetown UDC Chapter 5 Zoning Use Regulations
with the addition of the following prohibited uses:
Utility Services Major, Manufacturing Processing and Assembly General
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 37 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 4 of 25
F. Lot Design Standards
Residential Areas:
Saddlecreek will include a variety of residential product types and sizes from detached
single family homes and single family cluster to townhomes and multi family. The
residential areas shall be developed according to the following regulations:
50’and wider lot width – Develop under Georgetown UDC regulations for RS
Zero Lotline – Develop under Georgetown UDC regulations for RS, Section C.3
Lot width narrower than 50’ with alleys – See Table F.1
Lot width narrower than 50’ without alleys – See Table F.1
Cluster Housing – Develop under Georgetown UDC regulations for MF-1
Townhouse – Develop under Georgetown UDC regulations for TH
Multi Family – Develop under Georgetown UDC regulations for MF-2
To ensure a variety and mix of residential product types within Saddlecreek, the
following unit count parameters have been established:
Maximum Residential Units
The requested residential total, including multi family will not exceed 1,600 units
Residential Product Type Requirements
1. Multi Family (MF-2)
Maximum of 350 units
2. Townhouse and Cluster Product (TH/MF-1)
Maximum of 475 units
3. Single Family Detached (RS)
Maximum of 1,100 units
Masonry Requirements: Lots 50’ and wider
At least 50% of the exterior surface area of all walls shall consist of brick, stone
or stucco. The remaining exterior wall surface shall be composed of the materials
listed above or cement based siding.
Masonry Requirements: Lots less than 50’
At least 25% of the exterior surface area of the front and side walls shall consist
of brick or stone. The remaining exterior wall surface shall be composed of brick,
stone, stucco or cement based siding.
Parking Requirement
Each single family detached housing unit shall provide 2 parking spaces. 2 car
garages shall count as two spaces.
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 38 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 5 of 25
Driveways
For detached residential lots, Georgetown UDC Section 12.03.010.c.3 shall be
modified as follows: On local streets, no driveway is permitted closer to a corner
than 40’ for lots 50’ and narrower. On local streets, no driveway is permitted
closer to a corner than 40’ for lots greater than 50’. Measurement shall be taken
from the right of way to the center of the driveway. For alley loaded product,
UDC Section 12.03.010.c.3 shall not apply.
Non Residential Areas – Employment Center (C-1, BP):
Saddlecreek will include employment center uses as indicated on the Georgetown 2030
Plan such as retail, commercial, office, multi-family and business park. The
employment center uses have been grouped into two non-residential categories, C-1
Local Commercial and BP Business Park. For the purpose of defining development
standards, the base zoning district regulations in the Georgetown Unified Development
Code for C-1 and BP shall apply.
A total of 66.5 acres shall be designated for non-residential uses within Saddlecreek.
The location of the C-1 Local Commercial shall be the north east corner of Rockride
Lane and Sam Houston Avenue as well as the northwest corner of Bell Gin and Sam
Houston Avenue. Attached Multi Family (MF-2) shall be allowed within the parcel
located on the northwest corner of Bell Gin and Sam Houston Avenue and shall be
limited to a maximum of 350 units on not more than 16.625 acres. The remainder of
the Employment Center designation on Exhibit C shall be Business Park uses.
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 39 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 6 of 25
The Saddlecreek development will comply with the Development Standards set forth in
Table F.1
Table F.1 – Development Standards
RESIDENTIAL USES
NON-
RESIDENTIAL
USES
DETACHED
50’ and wider
lots See Base
District RS
DETACHED
Narrower than
50 ft. lot no alley
DETACHED
narrower than
50 ft. lot with
alley
ATTACHED
See UDC for
Base Districts
TH,
MF-1, MF-2
See UDC for Base
Districts C-1 and BP
Impervious Cover
(maximum)
See UDC 11.02 See UDC 11.02
Lot Width
(minimum)
40 ft. 40 ft.
Front Setback
(minimum)
* 20 ft. 15/10’ ft.****
Side Setback
(minimum)
0/5 ft.** 0/5 ft.** 0/5 ft.**
Corner Setback
(minimum)
10 ft. 10 ft.
Rear Setback
(minimum)
10 ft. 15 ft.***
Building Height
(maximum)
35 ft 35 ft
Lot Area
(minimum)
4,400 s.f. 4,400 s.f.
Building
Separation
10’ MF-1
15’ MF-2
*Lots with side entry garage may reduce the front setback to 15’.
** Setbacks shall be measured from the outside of the brick. Eaves and
overhangs are permitted to encroach within the setbacks a maximum of 18
inches. Zero lotline product is allowed.
***Measured from the property line.
****Open Front porches can extend up to 10 feet from the property line, as
long as area is maintained for planting the required front yard tree outside of
the 10’ PUE.
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 40 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 7 of 25
G. Parkland/Trails/Open Space
Open space within Saddlecreek will create a network of trails and parkland that creates
distinct neighborhoods and provides pedestrian walkways throughout the community.
Per UDC Section 13.05.010, B, Formula for Calculating Area of Parkland, the acreage
contributed for parkland shall be pro-rated in an amount equal to one acre for each 50
new detached single family dwelling units. As illustrated on Exhibit D, Open Space
Summary, the Saddlecreek PUD Concept Plan illustrates approximately 32 acres of
parkland/open space; a mix of greenbelts, open space, trail corridors, parks and water
quality amenity lakes. A combination of parkland and parkland improvement expenses
shall be allowed as credit toward the parkland requirements for the detached single
family housing in Saddlecreek. Park elements and associated improvement costs, shall
be allowed as credit toward the parkland requirements. Elements that can be used as
credit shall include but not be limited to:
Playgrounds
Parking lots to serve parkland
8’ Concrete hike and bike trails
Open recreation fields
Public picnic pavilions
Turf and irrigation associated with play fields
Amenity ponds and fountains
Public restroom facility
The Townhouse, Cluster and Multi Family development parcels within Saddlecreek
shall independently address parkland requirements or be allowed to pay a fee in lieu of
parkland.
Pedestrian trails and circulation are planned to be vital components of the Saddlecreek
community. The following summary describes the location and approximate linear
footage of trail proposed within Saddlecreek:
5,400 linear feet of 8’ wide, concrete trail will be incorporated into a centralized
open space greenbelt and will connect parks, schools and neighborhoods.
1,800 linear feet of an expanded 8’ wide, concrete bike and walking trail will be
located along the south and west side of Bell Gin Road which extends through
the property in lieu of a typical sidewalk. The Bell Gin trail will connect the
central greenbelt trail with the City regional trail, which connects at Mitchell
Elementary School. No sidewalk will be required along the north and east side
of Bell Gin Road. The City may choose to construct a sidewalk along the
northern/eastern lanes of Bell Gin.
2,400 linear feet of 8’ wide, concrete bike and walking trail will be located on
the south side of the primary community entry road that connects to Rockride
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 41 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 8 of 25
Lane (Street “B”). No sidewalk will be required along the north side of Street
B.
Water quality ponds may be located along the central greenbelt of Saddlecreek and will
be designed as an amenity feature that enhances the adjoining residential
neighborhoods. The primary central park shall be built in the first phase and shall be
credited toward the community parkland requirement. The first phase of the parkland
is defined on Exhibit D.
All facilities utilized as credit toward parkland requirements shall be open to the public
and privately maintained by the Saddlecreek MUD and/or homeowner’s association.
H. Roadway Design
The Saddlecreek vehicular circulation pattern provides access to all parts of the project
from Rockride Lane, Bell Gin Road and SH 130. See Exhibit C for roadway
circulation and right of way classification.
The primary community entry will be from Rockride Lane on the western boundary of
Saddlecreek (Street “B” on Exhibit C). The primary roadway will serve as the entrance
for the residential areas of the community. The roadway may be median divided for a
segment of the entry experience adjacent to the retail center and transition to a 73’
residential collector right of way with 30’ of pavement. Where the roadway is median
divided, a minium of 20’ of pavement will be maintained on the inbound and outbound
portions of the roadway.
Street “B” shall intersect an internal collector loop road that will be a 65’ Residential
collector (Street “C”) to the north of the intersection and a 73’ collector roadway (Street
“D”) to the south of the intersection, as labeled on Exhibit C. The pavement width for
Streets “C” and “D” shall be 30 feet. Up to 10 residential lots shall be allowed to face
onto Street “C” with a driveway spacing of 60 feet measured from the center of the
driveway.
Internal local streets within Saddlecreek shall utilize a 50’ right of way with 27’ of
pavement measured from face of curb to face of curb. On street parking shall be
restricted to one side of the street. A sign will be placed at entries into residential
neighborhoods stating that parking is restricted to one (1) side of the street. Final sign
language to be determined and agreed to by the City and Applicant prior to installation.
Select neighborhoods within Saddlecreek may employ the use of rear loaded, alley
homes. If so desired by the City, the alley streets will be created as privately owned
and maintained access drives to the lots they serve. The alleys shall provide a right of
way width of 20 feet and a pavement width that is a minimum of 14 feet. Alleys may
be constructed of asphalt.
Where alley loaded product is developed, the local streets may be developed as 50’
right of way with 27’ of pavement width measured face of curb to face of curb. On
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 42 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 9 of 25
street parking shall be restricted to one side of the street, unless the pavement width is
increased in parking areas to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. A sign
will be placed at entries into residential neighborhoods stating that parking is restricted
to one (1) side of the street. Final sign language to be determined and agreed to by the
City and Applicant prior to installation.
Access from SH130 will be provided by a 73’ collector right of way that will ultimately
link SH130 to Bell Gin Road (Street “A” on Exhibit C). Saddlecreek shall dedicate the
full right of way width to the City and the development shall construct two lanes of the
collector roadway (30 feet of pavement), concurrent to the development of the adjacent
lands with either Residential or Employment Center uses. The additional 2 lanes will
be constructed as required by the City coincident to the future development of the
Employment Center uses adjacent thereto, if determined necessary.
Bell Gin Road is designated on the City Transportation Plan as a 73’ major collector
right of way that ultimately provides a connection between the SE Inner Loop and Sam
Houston Avenue. The Saddlecreek property does not control the northern or southern
connection points of the Bell Gin collector. As such, Saddlecreek will construct two
lanes of the proposed collector within the boundary of Saddlecreek. Right of way for
the ultimate development of the roadway will be dedicated to the City and reserved for
future completion of the additional lanes.
Mitchell Elementary School and a future Middle School are adjacent to the northwest
corner of Saddlecreek. In order to provide safe access and a student drop off area, a
pedestrian and vehicular access point will be provided along the Saddlecreek western
boundary. The access point will not physically connect to the school property unless
approved by the Georgetown Independent School District, but will provide safe access
for Saddlecreek residents to drop off children for school. The ultimate location of the
drop off area will be coordinated with the Georgetown ISD to ensure that the access
point is located in a logical location that is compatible with the school district site
design.
Landscape Islands: The Saddlecreek PUD allows the planting of trees and vegetation
in medians and public right-of-ways. The Developer or Homeowners Association is
responsible for landscape maintenance and irrigation within landscape lots and right of
way. Landscape within the right of way shall require a license agreement with the City.
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 43 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 10 of 25
Roadway design standards shall be governed by the Georgetown UDC, Section 12.03,
Streets unless modified within this PUD.
73’ Collector Road (Bell Gin Road and Street “A”) Construction Detail
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 44 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 11 of 25
I.Signage
Exhibit E illustrates the location of signage within the Saddlecreek community.
Subdivision Entry Signs (see Exhibit F)
Primary entry monument signs shall be located along Rockride Lane at Street “B”, at
the intersection of Bell Gin Road and Sam Houston Avenue and at the intersection of
Street “A” and SH 130. The conceptual design for the freestanding monument signs is
illustrated on Exhibit F. The sign scale and dimensions shall not exceed the
dimensions illustrated on Exhibit F. Exhibit F shall replace the size restrictions
described in Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Code. The signs shall be located
a minimum of 20’ from the right of way of Rockride Lane, Bell Gin Road, Sam
Houston Avenue and SH 130.
A minimum of 1,000 s.f. of landscape plant bed shall be provided around each
Subdivision Entry Sign. Plant material should be of a native and/or adapted species.
Plants should be selected from the booklet titled, Native and Adapted Landscape
Plants, an earthwise guide for Central Texas, 5th Edition, 2013, created by the Texas
Cooperative Extension, Grow Green and the Ladybird Johnson National Wildflower
Center.
Residential Neighborhood Monument Signs
Neighborhood signs may be located throughout the community as noted on Exhibit E
and illustrated on Exhibit F. The residential neighborhood signs shall not exceed the
dimensions illustrated on Exhibit F for Neighborhood Entry Monuments.
A minimum of 300 s.f. of landscape plant bed shall be provided around each
Residential Neighborhood Monument Sign. Plant material should be of a native and/or
adapted species. Plants should be selected from the booklet titled, Native and Adapted
Landscape Plants, an earthwise guide for Central Texas, 5th Edition, 2013, created by
the Texas Cooperative Extension, Grow Green and the Ladybird Johnson National
Wildflower Center.
Non-Residential Signs
Non-residential signs shall comply with the size restrictions described in Chapter 10 of
the Unified Development Code.
A minimum of 200 s.f. of landscape plant bed shall be provided around each Non-
Residential Sign. Plant material should be of a native and/or adapted species. Plants
should be selected from the booklet titled, Native and Adapted Landscape Plants, an
earthwise guide for Central Texas, 5th Edition, 2013, created by the Texas Cooperative
Extension, Grow Green and the Ladybird Johnson National Wildflower Center.
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 45 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 12 of 25
Typical Courtyard Product with detached,
street facing garage. Courtyard located
between the garage and the primary living area.
Fencing located between the garage and the
courtyard/primary living structure.
Masonry columns located between
garages. Fencing offset from adjacent lot.
J.Courtyard Product Fencing
Courtyard Product shall be defined as a single family residential home on an individual
lot with a detached garage and a courtyard open space located between the garage and
the primary living area of the home.
Fencing shall be allowed in the area between the front setback line and the primary
living structure, which is located behind the street façade/elevation of the detached
garage. The fencing shall meet the following criteria:
Fencing shall be a maximum of 6 feet in height.
Fencing must be located a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line and 10
feet from a street side corner property line.
Fence materials shall consist of wood, masonry, or wrought iron or a combination
of two or more of these materials.
If wood fencing is utilized, the finished side of the fence shall face the street or
area visible to the public. Wood fences shall be stained a consistent color
throughout the neighborhood.
Masonry columns shall be placed on the front street lot line between
adjacent homes, and along all street side corner lot lines.
Fences located within the front yard between adjacent homes shall vary in depth
by a minimum of 5 feet, or provide plant beds in front of the fence.
Iron gates shall be provided between the street/alley area and the courtyard.
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 46 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 13 of 25
Iron gate incorporated to allow access from
the street to the courtyard. Plant bed placed
in front of fence.
K. Miscellaneous Provisions
Amendments: Amendments to this PUD shall follow the amendment process outlined
in the UDC
Exhibits. All exhibits described herein and attached hereto are fully incorporated into
this Agreement by this reference for all purposes.
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 47 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 14 of 25
Exhibit B
Field Notes
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 48 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 15 of 25
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 49 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 16 of 25
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 50 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 17 of 25
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 51 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 18 of 25
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 52 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 19 of 25
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 53 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 20 of 25
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 54 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 21 of 25
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 55 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 22 of 25
Exhibit C
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 56 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 23 of 25
Exhibit D
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 57 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 24 of 25
Exhibit E
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 58 of 93
Saddlecreek - Planned Unit Development Page 25 of 25
Exhibit F
Conceptual Entry Monument Sign
Exhibit 4
Added language - underlined Page 59 of 93
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 6, 2018
SUBJECT:
Disc ussion and p o s s ib le direc tion on the annual review and lis t o f General Amendments to the Unified
Develo p ment Code fo r 2018. And reina Dávila-Quintero , Current Planning Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
In acc o rd anc e with Sec tion 3.05.020 o f the Unified Develo p ment Co d e (UDC), the UDC s hall b e reviewed
o n an annual bas is . The purp o s e of the review and amend ments proc es s is to es tab lis h and maintain s o und,
s table, and des irab le develo p ment within the City’s jurisdic tion, correc t errors in the text, o r due to
changing c o nd itions in the UDC. The list of amend ments to be reviewed on an annual b as is shall be
reviewed and ap p ro ved b y the City Co uncil (“General Amendments List”), after review and cons id eration
b y the Unified Development Code Ad visory Committee (UDCAC) and Planning and Zo ning Commission.
The p urpose of this item is to s tart the p ro ces s of reviewing and revis ing the UDC General Amend ments
List that the C ity will wo rk o n fo r the year 2018. The General Amend ments Lis t has been includ ed as
Attac hment I.
Every year City S taff and the UDCAC revis e a lis t of items in the UDC that need to b e replac ed or updated
d ue to d ifficulties with the language or o utdated provis io ns. Items identified as Priority 1 in the attac hed
General Amend ments Lis t are those items that s taff and the UDCAC have id entified s ho uld b e reviewed in
this next round of amendments. S o me of thes e may b e determined b y City C o uncil to b e on a d ifferent
time frame, s uc h as items to b e c o nsidered outs ide the Annual Review proc es s and that would no t b e
reviewed by the UDC AC.
The General Amendments List will be presented to City Council for discussion at their April 10, 2018
Workshop session, and consideration at their April 24, 2018 Regular Meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
And reina Dávila-Quintero , Current Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Attachment 1 - General Amendments List Backup Material
Page 60 of 93
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 1 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Land Uses 1 1
Acknowledge mobile food trailers as
a use within the UDC and outline
appropriate regulations governing.
Mobile food trailers have increased in popularity and the
city’s codes should be updated to address them.CoG Staff In Review 2018 Ch 3 and 5
Historic Districts 1 2
Review the standards pertaining to
historic districts and structures based
on the revised Historic Resource
Survey
The 2016 Historic Resource Survey makes recommendations
pertaining to the review and definition of historic structures.
This amendment is to revise the UDC consistent with the
recommendations in the survey.CoG Staff In Review 2018
Sec 3.13 & Sec
16.02
Parkland 1 3
Update provisions governing
parkland dedication based on
forthcoming recommendations by
the Parks & Recreation Board
subcommittee review.
A subcommittee of the Parks & Recreation Board has been
created that is tasked with reviewing and providing
recommended changes regarding the city’s parkland
provisions and policies.CoG Staff In Review 2018 Sec 13.08
Nonresidential Standards 1 4
Consider revising the minimum
district size for the BP zoning district.
Currently, the UDC requires a minimum district size for the
BP zoning district of 20 acres. However, this appears to
have created challenges for properties less than 20 acres in
size. Additionally, recent development shows Business Parks
in 10-15 acre tracts. Staff would like to review this
requirement through the public review process.Public In Review 2018 Sec 7.02
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 5
Create a process to address requests
for vesting determinations.
Vesting claims have been presented to the city occasionally
over the past few years, but with no defined procedures for
addressing. These requests will likely increase over the next
few years as the city has adopted new regulations that will
apply to some existing developments.CoG Staff 2018 Ch 3
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 6
Create a process to address requests
for appeals.
The UDC does not clearly address the appeal process of an
administrative or board decision, to include the intake, basis
for appeal and findings processes. CoG Staff 2018 Sec 3.14
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 7 Administrative/legal clean-ups
Review inconsistencies, errors and conflicting
references/sections.CoG Staff 2018 All
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 8
Expand development agreement
language establishing clear
requirements and processes.
Upcoming policies for procedures and consideration of
special districts and development agreements are
anticipated and would require UDC amendments to
implement.CoG Staff 2018
Sec 3.20 & Sec
13.10
Page 61 of 93
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 2 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 9
Clarify wastewater connection
requirements for property in the ETJ
Currently, the UDC requires all development to connect to
the City's wastewater system when located within 1/2 mile.
The proposed amendment will clarify that this provision
only applies to property located in city limits.CoG Staff 2018 Sec 13.05
Definitions 1 10
Revise various definitions for clarity
or add new definitions as needed.
Staff has come across several definitions that need clarity or
definitions that are needed to provide clarity in other
sections of the UDC. Examples include clarification of
street yard definition and consideration of the current
contractor services, limited definition. In addition this
would include any revisions to definitions needed for other
revisions made to the UDC.CoG Staff Ongoing Sec 16.02
Land Uses 1 11
Consider updating the list of Specific
Uses in Chapter 5 to include various
uses that are not currently listed.
Over time new uses are presented to staff that are not
specifically addressed in the UDC. Examples include self-
service machines (ice) and storage yards.CoG Staff 2018 Ch 5
Land Uses 1 12
Consider changes to the zoning
districts various Specific Uses may be
permitted in.
Staff is regularly presented with questions regarding the
possibility of allowing different uses in districts they are not
otherwise allowed in and would like to address some of
these through the public process in the next round of
updates to the UDC. Examples include whether
recreational vehicles (RVs) should be allowed as primary
quarters in the Agriculture district.CoG Staff 2018 Ch 5
Land Uses 1 13
Consider changes to the zoning
districts various Specific Uses may be
permitted in.
Reconsider allowing "Contractor Services Limited",
"Contractor Services General", and "Office Warehouse"
Specific Uses in the C-3 zoning district.Public 2018 Ch 5
Nonresidential Standards 1 14
Review the maximum number of
units required per building for MF
districts
The current standards limit the number of units per
structure to balance the building size and massing with the
property and surrounding area. Staff has found that this
may be addressed through additional architectural and
building design standards as seen in recent cases. Staff
recommends reviewing this requirement to determine
applicability.CoG Staff 2018 Sec 6.02
Page 62 of 93
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 3 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Residential Standards 1 15
Consider masonry requirements for
single-family and two-family
structures
Consider adding masonry requirements for single-family
and two-family structures, which do not exist today.CoG Staff 2018 Ch 6
Transportation 1 16
Clarify what triggers the requirement
for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and
when an appeal may be made and
review the improvements that are
considered or required."
The City needs to ensure we are adequately preparing for
future roadways with plats, dedications and reservations.
Clarification is needed regarding when Traffic Impact
Analyses are required and appealed, and how right-of-way
is being planned to implement the City’s Overall
Transportation Plan, for example, adequate intersection
right-of-way.CoG Staff 2018 Sec 12.09
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 17
Review rezoning public review
requirements to require
neighborhood meetings for rezoning
cases.
Currently, City staff recommends applicants for rezoning
requests to meet with the neighborhood and adjacent
property owners to explain the proposed project and
proactively address any concerns. Staff recommends
including this practice as a requirement in the UDC in a tier
approach.CoG Staff 2018 Sec 3.06
Signs 1 18
Review the UDC's definition for
Portable Signs, as well as signage for
bus stops
Currently, portable signs include any advertisement signs
on vehicles. Additionally, with the City's new fixed route
system, City staff is recommending to revise the sign
standards for bus stops.CoG Staff 2018
Sec 10.03 and
Sec 16.02
Downtown/Old Town 2 19
Consider adding limitations to certain
uses to create a "transition zone"
between the Downtown and Old
Town Overlays districts.
Consider adding limitations to certain uses along the edge
of the Downtown Overlay that are adjacent to residential
uses outside the overlay to create a "transition zone"
between the Downtown and Old Town overlays.Public Ch 4
Land Uses 2 20
Add or amend standard conditions of
approval for Special Use Permits
required for specific uses.
Staff proposes adding standard conditions of approval to
Special Use Permits that currently do not have any and
possibly refining some of the conditions for those that do in
order to provide better direction to applicants.CoG Staff Sec 3.07
Page 63 of 93
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 4 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Landscaping 2 21
Review and update the current
regulations regarding trash
receptacle screening
The current provisions regulating screening of trash
dumpsters do not take into account recycling and are often
too small for the needs of the facility. Additionally, the UDC
does not address locational requirements such as those
affecting service truck access.CoG Staff Ch 8
Zoning/ Overlay Districts 2 22
Reconsider how the current Gateway
Overlay districts are being used.
Currently, the Gateway Overlay districts only provide for
additional landscaping along the frontages of these roads.
Staff would like to explore utilizing these districts to address
other issues that have presented over the last couple of
years such as land uses or design.CoG Staff Sec 4.11
Signs 2 23
Reconsider allowing electronic
signage
In 2009 the City considered revisions to the UDC that would
allow electronic signage in the City. However, the
proposed amendment was turned down by both P&Z and
City Council. Since that time, staff has continued to get
numerous requests from the public to reconsider allowing
electronic signage. This item would bring the topic back to
discussion.Public Ch 10
Alternative Energy/ Green
Building Provisions 3 24
Update codes to provide provisions
for green building strategies and
ensure regulations do not
unintentionally prohibit such
strategies
The UDC should be reviewed to ensure there are not
unintentional barriers to utilization of sustainable energy,
such as requiring solar energy panels to be screened.
Public/CoG
Staff
Downtown/Old Town 3 25
Consider creating additional design
standards for residential infill
construction in the Old Town Overlay
District
When the most recent update to the Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines were approved City Council in
2012, Council requested staff bring back options for
additional standards and review of new residential
construction in the historic overlay districts. In August of
2014, City Council held a workshop on residential infill
design standards and directed staff to place the topic on
the UDC Amendment List for review. The goal is to create
a set of standards for design of new residential structures
that would preserve the character of the Old Town Overlay
District.City Council Sec 4.08
Page 64 of 93
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 5 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Landscaping 3 26
Clarify application and calculation of
landscaping requirements.
Based on experience with the provisions, staff has
recognized the need to clarify the application of the street
yard landscaping requirements to projects located a great
distance from the street as well as phased projects since, as
written street yard landscaping applies to yards defined by
buildings, not areas. Additionally, clarification is needed
regarding what areas are to be included or not included in
various landscape calculations.CoG Staff Ch 8
Landscaping 3 27
Review current nonresidential
landscaping requirements with
regard to the city’s water
conservation efforts.
Consider updates to the nonresidential landscaping
requirements to address the ongoing drought conditions
and incorporate provisions to address water conservation
efforts.CoG Staff Ch 8
Nonconforming 3 28
Refine the UDC regulations regarding
abandonment of a nonconforming
situation.
Based on experiences with the provisions, staff would like to
provide better clarity regarding the determination of
abandonment.CoG Staff Ch 14
Nonconforming 3 29
Define process for determining
nonconforming status and consider if
there are additional existing
situations to exempt.
Staff currently receives requests for determination of
nonconforming status, particularly abandonment status,
and the process for this determination should be clarified
and included in the UDC.CoG Staff Ch 14
Nonresidential Standards 3 30
Review the masonry requirements for
multifamily and commercial buildings
Review existing masonry requirements for multifamily and
commercial buildings to ensure appropriate, sustainable,
and visually- appealing materials are being used in the
appropriate locations.CoG Staff 2018 Ch 7
Residential Standards 3 31
Review and update Conservation
Subdivision standards to encourage
usage.
Update conservation subdivision section to relax restrictions
and incentivize its use. Consider in light of salamander
listing and water conservation ordinance standards.CoG Staff Sec 11.06
Signs 3 32
Review temporary banner regulations
to consider subdivision banners
Review temporary banner regulations to consider internal
subdivision banners.CoG Staff Ch 10
Page 65 of 93
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 6 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Signs 3 33
Reconsider maximum height for
monument signs when landscaping is
incorporated.
Consider allowing an increase in maximum height
permitted for monument signs when landscaping is
incorporated at the base.CoG Staff Ch 10
Zoning/ Overlay Districts 3 34
Review Courthouse View Protection
Overlay district requirements for
clarity and completeness.
The Courthouse View Overlay provisions should be
reviewed to make sure they are complete, that there are no
missing steps, and that the specifics of how to apply this
overlay are clear.CoG Staff Sec 4.10
Application Processes and
Requirements R 35
Review the Special Use Permit (SUP)
Conceptual Site Plan requirements
for review.
There is a very detailed list of items to be included on the
Conceptual Site Plan required for consideration of an SUP.
Not all of these details are needed or applicable to all types
of SUPs. Staff proposes we look at this list and consider
whether all are needed or appropriate.CoG Staff Sec 3.07
Land Uses R 36
Provide better clarification regarding
when a use is considered an
accessory use and when it is
considered an additional primary use.
There has been some question in the past when more than
one use is proposed on the same property or with the
same business as to whether the use should be treated as
an accessory use to the primary use or whether it should be
handled as another primary use on the property. Also,
clarity with regards to the standards that the accessory use
must adhere to should be provided as well.CoG Staff Ch 5
Land Uses R 37
Clarify the definition and application
of the "Live Music or Entertainment"
specific use
Clarification is needed regarding the intent of the "Live
Music or Entertainment" specific use in Chapter 5 as well as
the limitations associated with the use, including the
definition of outdoor entertainment.CoG Staff Sec 5.04
Land Uses R 38
Review and update outdoor display
and storage regulations
Review regulations pertaining to outdoor display and
storage of merchandise, materials, and equipment. The
existing regulations have presented challenges in some
situations and are somewhat unclear in others.CoG Staff Sec 5.09
Landscaping R 39
Review current requirements for
screening of mechanical equipment
for options or exceptions.
There are difficulties in applying the screening requirements
in every situation. More exemptions or options are needed.CoG Staff Ch 8
* The UDC Chapter or Section referenced in this column provides the regulation subject to this amendment. However, please note that other sections may need to be amended to address any conflicts and ensure consistency throughout the document.
Page 66 of 93
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 6, 2018
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion of a Ho using Rep o rt. S us an Watkins , AICP, Ho us ing Coordinator
ITEM SUMMARY:
Staff will pres ent exis ting hous ing c o nditio ns as well as selec t regional and ec ono mic characteris tic s of
hous ing.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sus an Watkins , AICP, Hous ing Co o rd inator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Attachment 1 - Hous ing Report Pres entation
Page 67 of 93
Housing Report
March 6, 2018
Page 68 of 93
Purpose
•Respond to request for information from
2/6/2018 P&Z meeting
•Discuss data related to the Housing
Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
•Primer for 2030 Update
2Page 69 of 93
Direction/Feedback
•Is there any additional housing data you
are seeking as we embark on the
comprehensive plan?
•Is there any housing information you wish
you had when evaluating development
requests?
3Page 70 of 93
Agenda
•Existing and planned housing units
•Regional housing characteristics
•Economic characteristics of housing
•Housing Element of comprehensive plan
•Areas of future research
4Page 71 of 93
Existing and planned
housing units
Page 72 of 93
Existing units
24,031, 83%
4,965, 17%
Single family units Multi family units
Source: City of Georgetown Development Pipeline, 03/2017Page 73 of 93
New Housing Units since 2010
•4,969 Single family building permits 2010-2017
•2,236 Multifamily units added since 2010
Source: City of Georgetown Demographic RecordsPage 74 of 93
New Housing Units since 2010
•3,894 homes under construction
•9,085 homes planned
•310 LIHTC units approved in 2016, built by
2018
Source: City of Georgetown Development Pipeline, 03/2017Page 75 of 93
9Page 76 of 93
Year structure built
Source: 2012-2016 ACS 5 Year Estimate Table B25034
1960 or
earlier
9%1970 to
1979
7%
1980 to 1989
12%
1990 to 1999
26%
2000 to 2009
36%
2010 or later
10%
Page 77 of 93
Types of Multi-Family Housing
11
Target Population Existing
To be
built Total
Senior (non-rent restricted)476 122 598
Senior & Low Income 301 122 423
Low Income/Non-Senior 1,335 188 1,523
Workforce (Class C -non-rent
restricted)469 192 661
Source: City of Georgetown Apartment InventoryPage 78 of 93
2016 Household Income by Age of Householder
Age of
Householder
Median
Income
Percent of
Households
15 to 24 years $ 24,753 3.4%
25 to 44 years $ 69,444 24.1%
45 to 64 years $ 81,241 28.7%
65 years and older $ 57,963 43.8%
Source: 2012-2016 ACS 5 Year Estimate Table S1903Page 79 of 93
Regional housing characteristics
Page 80 of 93
Regional Housing Mix (SF v. MF)
Single Family Multi-family
Hutto 99%1%
Salado 94%6%
Leander 93%7%
Pflugerville 87%13%
Kyle 87%13%
Georgetown 85%15%
Jarrell 80%20%
Cedar Park 77%23%
Round Rock 73%27%
Austin 56%44%
San Marcos 41%59%
Source: ACS 2016 5 yr. estimate –Table B25024
Page 81 of 93
Average & Median Sales Price
Average Price Median Price
Kyle $ 215,407 $ 209,526
Hutto $ 219,130 $ 215,000
San Marcos $ 237,028 $ 219,900
Pflugerville $ 254,732 $ 244,500
Round Rock $ 275,892 $ 250,000
Georgetown $ 297,369 $ 265,000
Leander $ 315,257 $ 275,000
Cedar Park $ 321,551 $ 292,000
Austin $ 422,445 $ 340,000
Source: 2017 Annual Housing Activity, Texas A&M Real Estate Center
Page 82 of 93
Economic characteristics of
housing
Page 83 of 93
January 2018 Sales Price Data
•$262,500 Median Sales Price
•$306,921 Average Sales Price
Source: Texas A&M Real Estate Center Housing Activity for Local Service Area Georgetown
(Austin BoR) January 2018
Page 84 of 93
Change between 2011-2016
18,246
$61,636
$176,000
23,460
$64,256
$265,000
Number of Households Median Income Median Home Price
2011 2016
Source: ACS 2012-2016 5 year estimates Table S1903
Page 85 of 93
$100K -$200K
Price Distribution of Homes 2011-2016
Source: Price Distribution of Housing Activity Georgetown,
Texas A&M Real Estate Center
17%
59%15%
41%$250K -$400K
20162011
Page 86 of 93
Home Inventory under $200K
•$50-$200K home inventory is limited.
20
8
31
141
$50K-100K $101-150K $151-200K
Number of Properties
Source: Market Analysis Summary, MLS data as of 10/2017
Page 87 of 93
Cost Burdened Households
•Almost 1/3 of all households paying more
than 30% of their income for housing
Source: CHAS 2010-2014
Page 88 of 93
Housing Element of
Comprehensive Plan
Page 89 of 93
Housing Element
•Housing Inventory
•Market study of units needed for projected
growth
•Findings incorporated into Future Land
Use Plan
•Recommendations on product types
Page 90 of 93
Future Research
Page 91 of 93
Cost of Delivery/Units
•Impact fees
Page 92 of 93
Direction/Feedback
•Is there any additional housing data you
are seeking as we embark on the
comprehensive plan?
•Is there any housing information you wish
you had when evaluating development
requests?
26Page 93 of 93