HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_P&Z_03.01.2016Notice of Meeting for the
Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Georgetown
March 1, 2016 at 6:00 PM
at 101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Chair
- Welcome and Meeting Procedures
Action from Executive Session
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be
found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak,
and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called
forward to speak when the Board considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a
written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request
must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to
inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
B As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the
agenda.
Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that may be acted upon
with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and
acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
Page 1 of 82
C Consideration of the Minutes from the February 2, 2016 and the February 16, 2016 P&Z meeting.
D Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat of 28.2711 acres out of the Greenlief Fisk
Survey, Abstract No. 5, located at 6660 West Highway 29, to be known as Slate Creek. PP-2015-
013 (Mike Elabarger)
E Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat of 353.084 acres out of the Addison and
Stubblefield Surveys, located on Rockride Lane, to be known as Saddlecreek. PP-2015-016
(Carolyn Horner, AICP)
Legislative Regular Agenda
F Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 46.225 acres of the Antonio Flores
Survey located along NE Inner Loop and Sudduth Drive from the Agriculture (AG), Industrial
(IN), General Commercial (C-3) and Local Commercial (C-1) Districts to Low Density
Multifamily (MF-1), High Density Multifamily (MF-2) and General Commercial (C-3) Districts.
REZ-2015-029 (Matt Synatschk)
G Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 42.5 acres of land in the C.
Stubblefield and Ruidosa Irrigation Company No. 207 Surveys located at 1100 Thousand Oaks
Blvd. and 1601 Leander Rd., known as Pickett Elementary School and James Tippit Middle
School, from the Residential Single-family (RS) District to the Public Facilities (PF) District.
REZ-2016-003 (Carolyn Horner, AICP)
H Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 34.21 acres of land in the W. Addison
Survey located at 1700 Laurel Street, known as Annie Purl Elementary School, from the
Residential Single-family (RS) District to the Public Facilities (PF) District. REZ-2016-008
(Carolyn Horner, AICP)
I Public Hearing and possible action on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to change
the future land use category of the subject site from Moderate Density Residential to the
Institutional category for 27.61 acres of the William Addison Survey, located at 3189 SE Inner
Loop. CPA-2016-001 (Juan Enriquez)
J Discussion and possible action regarding proposed updates and additions to the UDC General
Amendments List for the 2016 review period. (Valerie Kreger, AICP)
K Discussion Items:
Update on the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee (UDCAC) meetings.
(Commissioner Bargainer)
Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) meetings.
(Commissioner Rankin)
Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and matters
considered on this agenda.
Discussion regarding Planning & Zoning Commissioner training.
Reminder of the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on April 5, 2016 in the
Council Chambers located at 101 East 7th Street, starting at 6:00 pm.
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley Nowling, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this
Page 2 of 82
Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general
public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2016, at __________, and remained
so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 3 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 1, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the Minutes from the February 2, 2016 and the February 16, 2016 P&Z meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
February 2, 2016 Cover Memo
February 16, 2016 Cover Memo
Page 4 of 82
Page 1 of 4
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners: Josh Schroeder, Chair; Kevin Pitts, Vice-Chair, Scott Rankin, Secretary
Andy Webb, John Marler, Kaylah McCord and Alex Fuller
Commissioner(s) Absent:
Commissioners in Training: Jay Warren, Tim Bargainer
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent:
Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner; Juan
Enriquez, Planner and Tammy Glanville, Recording Secretary.
A. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Chair Schroeder stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in
a speaker form to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address
begins. Each speaker is permitted to address the Commission once for each item, for a
maximum of three (3) minutes, unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins.
B. As of the deadline for this agenda, no persons were signed up to speak on items
other than what was posted on the agenda.
Consent Agenda
C. Consideration of the minutes from January 19, 2016 meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Marler to approve the minutes from January 19, 2016
meeting. Second by Commissioner Pitts. Approved. 5-0
Legislative Regular Agenda
D. Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 1.227 acres of the
Wright Survey located at 4124 Williams Drive, from the Agriculture (AG) District
to the Local Commercial (C-1) District. (REZ-2015-026) Juan Enriquez, Planner
Juan Enriquez provided an overview of the Rezoning request, description of
project and recommended for approval.
Chair Schroeder invited the applicant to speak. The applicant stated he will be
glad to answer questions if needed.
Page 5 of 82
Page 2 of 4
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward the Public
Hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner McCord to recommend approval to City Council the
Rezoning of 1.227 acres of the Wright Survey located at 4124 Williams Drive,
from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Local Commercial (C-1) District.
Second by Commissioner Pitts. Approved. 5-0.
At this time Chair Schroeder recused himself from the dais.
E. Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 17.81 acres of the L.J.
Dyches Survey, located at 1000 FM 1460, from the Agriculture (AG) District to
the Low Density Multifamily (MF-1) District. (REZ-2015-023) Juan Enriquez,
Planner
Juan Enriquez provided an overview of the Rezoning request, description of
project and also stated Planning is only supporting the rezoning of the buildable
area and not the FEMA flood plain area.
Chair Schroeder invited the applicant to speak. Tim Haynie, representing the
applicant stated he will be glad to answer questions if needed.
Discussion between staff and Commission regarding the flood plain area.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing.
Those who signed up to speak on this item included Gene Stabeno, Robert Smith,
Tracy LaFane and Heather Kirkwood.
Concerns and comments voiced included the following
Concerned with flooding to adjacent lots due to a cement blockage built by the
owner.
Concerned with traffic
Concerned with security
Concerned with tenants looking into the neighbors’ backyard.
• Staff stated the application is a rezoning. Staff stated site plan will give more
information regarding the building. The applicant stated the cement blockage
will be torn down.
Chair Schroeder closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Marler to recommend approval to City Council the
Rezoning of 17.81 acres of the L.J. Dyches Survey, located at 1000 FM 1460, from
the Agriculture (AG) District to the Low Density Multifamily (MF-1) District.
Second by Commissioner McCord. Approved. 4-0
F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 1.66 acres of land
being Lot 5 of the Georgetown Technology Park subdivision located at 2 Sierra
Way from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Industrial (IN) District. (REZ-2015-
028) Juan Enriquez, Planner
Juan Enriquez provided an overview of the Rezone request, description of
project and recommended approval.
Chair Schroeder invited the applicant to speak. Applicant was not present.
Page 6 of 82
Page 3 of 4
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward, the Public
Hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Pitts to recommend to City Council the Rezoning of
1.66 acres of land being Lot 5 of the Georgetown Technology Park subdivision
located at 2 Sierra Way from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Industrial (IN)
District. Second by Commissioner Webb. Approved. 5-0.
G. Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Amend the Wolf Ranch
Hillwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) District (Ordinance 2014-102),
including 754.22 acres in the Perry, Thompson, Donagan, Pulsifer and
Stubblefield Surveys generally located at West University Avenue and Wolf
Ranch Parkway, to amend the High Density Multifamily (MF-2) District
development standards. (REZ-2015-030) Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
Mike Elabarger provided an overview of the Rezone request, description of
project.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward, the Public
Hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Pitts to recommend to City Council the Amend the
Wolf Ranch Hillwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) District (Ordinance
2014-102), including 754.22 acres in the Perry, Thompson, Donagan, Pulsifer and
Stubblefield Surveys generally located at West University Avenue and Wolf
Ranch Parkway, to amend the High Density Multifamily (MF-2) District
development standards. Second by Commissioner McCord. Approved. (5-0)
H. Public Hearing, presentation, and discussion on a request to Rezone 207.147
acres of land in the Addison Survey located at 2750 County Road 110, known as
the Kasper Tract, from the Agriculture (AG) District to a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) District with a base zoning of Residential Single-family (RS).
REZ-2016-001 (Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director)
Sofia Nelson provided an overview of the Rezone request and brief description
of project.
Chair Schroeder invited the applicant to speak. David Narin, representing the
applicant gave a brief introductory regarding the project and will be glad to
answer questions.
Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing.
Those who signed up to speak on this item included Ellen Hughes and Ross
Rost.
Page 7 of 82
Page 4 of 4
Concerns and comments voiced included the following
Dangerous situation regarding Traffic
Too many lots for the area of land
Project is a total disaster
Discussion between Commissioners and the applicant.
Commissioners stated they look forward to hearing more during the February
16, 2016 Planning and Zoning meeting.
H. Discussion Items:
• Update on the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee (UDCAC)
meetings. (Commissioner in Training Bargainer) N/A
• Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) meetings.
(Commissioner Rankin) N/A
• Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and
matters considered on this agenda. N/A
• Discussion regarding Planning & Zoning Commissioner training.
• Reminder of the February 16, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in
the Council Chambers located at 101 East 7th Street, starting at 6:00 pm.
Adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________
Josh Schroeder, Chair Scott Rankin, Secretary
Page 8 of 82
Page 1 of 4
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners: Kevin Pitts, Vice-Chair, Scott Rankin, Secretary, John Marler, Kaylah
McCord and Alex Fuller
Commissioner(s) Absent: Josh Schroeder, Chair and Andy Webb
Commissioners in Training: Jay Warren
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: Tim Bargainer
Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner, and
Tammy Glanville, Recording Secretary.
A. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Chair Schroeder stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in
a speaker form to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address
begins. Each speaker is permitted to address the Commission once for each item, for a
maximum of three (3) minutes, unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins.
B. As of the deadline for this agenda, no persons were signed up to speak on items
other than what was posted on the agenda.
Consent Agenda
At this time, Commissioner Marler requested item C be pulled from the consent agenda and
moved to the legislative regular agenda. Second by Commissioner Fuller. Approved (5-0)
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat of 76.889 acres in the
Francis A. Hudson Survey, Abstract No. 295, located in the Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown on the west side of FM 1460 north of
Westinghouse Road (CR 111), to be known as Teravista Section 401. PP-2015-012
(Mike Elabarger).
Mike Elabarger was unable to attend. Valerie Kreger provided an overview of
the Preliminary Plat request, description of project and recommended approval.
Chair Pitts invited the applicant to speak. The applicant stated he will be glad to
answer questions if needed.
Page 9 of 82
Page 2 of 4
Gregory Hall voiced his concern with location of roadway going through his
property.
Rainer Ficken with Teravista, explained they have had meetings with Gregory
Hall, city staff and city engineering department to discuss road connectivity.
Discussion between staff and Commission regarding roadway.
Motion by Commissioner Fuller to approve the a Preliminary Plat of 76.889 acres
in the Francis A. Hudson Survey, Abstract No. 295, located in the Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown on the west side of FM 1460 north of
Westinghouse Road (CR 111), to be known as Teravista Section 401. Second by
Commissioner McCord. Approved (5-0).
Valerie Kreger explained she will be discussing and presenting both Item D and Item E
together.
D. Consideration and possible action on a Subdivision Plat Waiver, pursuant to
Section 3.22 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), to Section 6.02.010.B of the
UDC related to frontage on a public street and Section 6.02.040.B related to Block
Length for the Highland Estates subdivision being 28.75 acres in the C. Joyner
and G. B. Mayhill Surveys located along the east side of CR 262. WAV-2016-001
(Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner)
Valerie Kreger provided an overview of the Subdivision Plat Waiver and
Preliminary Plat for Highland Estates.
Discussion between staff and Commission regarding access to CR 262 and
Highland Springs Lane. In addition to Emergency vehicle access into the gated
subdivision.
Chair Pitts invited the applicant to speak. The applicant stated he will be glad to
answer questions if needed.
Motion by Commissioner Marler to recommend approval to City Council the
Subdivision Plat Waiver, pursuant to Section 3.22 of the Unified Development
Code (UDC), to Section 6.02.010.B of the UDC related to frontage on a public
street and Section 6.02.040.B related to Block Length for the Highland Estates
subdivision being 28.75 acres in the C. Joyner and G. B. Mayhill Surveys located
along the east side of CR 262. Second by Commissioner Fuller. Approved. 5-0.
E. Public Hearing Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat of 28.75
acres in the C. Joyner and G. B. Mayhill Surveys located along the east side of CR
262 to be known as Highland Estates. PP-2015-014 (Valerie Kreger, AICP,
Principal Planner)
Page 10 of 82
Page 3 of 4
Motion by Commissioner Marler to recommend approval to City Council the
Preliminary Plat of 28.75 acres in the C. Joyner and G. B. Mayhill Surveys located
along the east side of CR 262 to be known as Highland Estates subject to the
approval of the Plat Waiver and the following conditions indicated on the
information sheet. Second by Commissioner McCord. Approved. 5-0
F. Action on a request to Rezone 207.147 acres of land in the Addison Survey
located at 2750 County Road 110, known as the Kasper Tract, from the
Agriculture (AG) District to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a
base zoning of Residential Single-family (RS). REZ-2016-001 (Sofia Nelson, CNU-
A, Planning Director)
Sofia Nelson provided an overview of the Rezone request, description of project.
Chair Pitts invited the applicant to speak.
Applicant Mark Baker with SEC Planning gave a presentation of the project and
discussed their provisions. He stated he will be glad to answer questions.
Discussion between staff, applicant and Commission regarding, driveway
spacing along residential collector roadways, right of way and traffic impact
analysis.
David Nairne, developer stated he will be glad to answer questions if needed.
Motion by Commissioner Fuller to recommend to City Council the Rezone
207.147 acres of land in the Addison Survey located at 2750 County Road 110,
known as the Kasper Tract, from the Agriculture (AG) District to a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) District with a base zoning of Residential Single-family (RS)
with the following conditions.
1. The applicant shall at a minimum reserve 110 feet of ROW and improve one-
half of the ultimate minor arterial roadway section within the boundary of the
Kasper development. Additional improvements may be required as a result of
the City’s review of a traffic impact analysis for the subdivision including
contribution to construction of the remaining one-half of the minor arterial
roadway section.
2. Up to 30 residential lots shall be allowed to face onto a residential collector
street with a driveway spacing of 50 feet measured from the center of the
driveway. All other driveways must meet the minimum spacing requirements
outlined in the UDC.
Page 11 of 82
Page 4 of 4
Second by Commissioner Marler. Approved. 5-0.
G. Discussion Items:
• Update on the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee (UDCAC)
meetings. (Commissioner in Training Bargainer) N/A
• Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) meetings.
(Commissioner Rankin) N/A
• Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and
matters considered on this agenda. N/A
• Discussion regarding Planning & Zoning Commissioner training.
Sofia mentioned the Planning & Zoning Commissioner training is scheduled for
Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. located at 406 W. 8th Street, large
conference room. One of the discussion items is road classification and how they
apply to zoning cases.
Sofia thanked Kaylah McCord for her leadership and time on Planning & Zoning
Board.
• Reminder of the March 1, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in the
Council Chambers located at 101 East 7th Street, starting at 6:00 pm.
Adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________
Josh Schroeder, Chair Scott Rankin, Secretary
Page 12 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 1, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat of 28.2711 acres out of the Greenlief Fisk
Survey, Abstract No. 5, located at 6660 West Highway 29, to be known as Slate Creek. PP-2015-
013 (Mike Elabarger)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant proposes to develop 28.2711 acres of undeveloped land in the Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ) into 16 residential lots, with 3 open space lots. A significant amount of right-of-
way is being dedicated to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). A total of 3,481.64
linear feet of new local streets (50’ right-of-way widths) is being created and dedicated with this
plat. Fees-in-lieu of land dedication for parkland will be provided at the time of Final Plat
recordation.
Public Comment:
Public notice is not requirement for a Preliminary Plat. As of the date of this report, no written
public comments have been received.
Recommended Motion:
Approval of the Preliminary Plat of 28.2711 acres in the Greenlief Fisk Survey, Abstract No. 5.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Proposed Preliminary Plat Backup Material
Page 13 of 82
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Slate Creek Preliminary Plat PP-2015-013 Page 1 of 2
Report Date: February 24, 2016
File No: PP-2015-013
Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Preliminary Plat of Slate Creek
Project Address: 6660 West Highway 29
Location: North side of Hwy 29, west of Cross Creek Road (see Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 28.2711 acres
Legal Description: 28.2711 acres in the Greenlief Fisk Survey, Abstract No.
Applicant/Contact: Kevin Sawtelle, P.E., Landdev Consulting, LLC.
Property Owner: 6660 West, LLC
Plat Summary
Proposed Lots: 16 Residential / 3 open space
Proposed Streets: 3,481.64 linear feet of new Local Streets,
Heritage Trees: Seven (7) Heritage Trees are identified for preservation.
Parkland dedication: Payment of fees in lieu of land dedication at the time of Final Plat recordation;
see Plat note 15.
Site Information
Location:
The property is located on the north side of State Highway 29, just west of Cross Creek Road, at the edge
of the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The property is contiguous to a number of smaller
properties, some developed with various uses. The Gabriel’s Overlook subdivision is generally across
Highway 29 from this subdivision, and the Ridge at Cross Creek and Cimarron Hills subdivisions
generally bound this property on the west and east, respectively.
Physical Characteristics:
The subject property is an inverted “J” shaped property. Two drainage ways traverse the property, with
approximately 3 acres of 100-year floodplain crossing the northernmost portion. Tree cover is heavy over
most of the property, but only seven (7) trees classified as Heritage size/species were identified. The plat
was designed in conjunction with the City Urban Forester to ensure buildable areas within each residential
lot that provide protection to the Heritage Trees.
History
A portion of the property forms the edge of the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) per agreement with
the City of Liberty Hill. No other history is known about the property. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan
designates this area as the Low Density Residential future land use category. This project is located within
Tier 3 (Long-term Growth Area) of the current City Growth Tier Map; infrastructure facilities will be the
responsibility of the developer to serve the property.
Utilities
The Georgetown Utility System (GUS) Western District (formerly Chisholm Trail Special Utility District)
will be providing water to the subdivision. On-site septic facilities (via permits through the Williams
County and Cities Health District) will provide wastewater service, and Pedernales Electric Cooperative
Page 14 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Slate Creek Preliminary Plat PP-2015-013 Page 2 of 2
(PEC) will provide electricity. Public utility easements are being dedicated with this plat according to the
City of Georgetown standards.
Transportation
This plat will create two named streets – Slate River Road and Slate Meadow Road – built to Local Street
standards with 50’ right-of-ways that will be dedicated to the County. The subdivision will take primary
access to Highway 29 via Slate River Road. Roadway stub connections to the property to the east are
proposed at two separate locations. As a means of traffic calming, a traffic island (around Block F, Lot 1)
was created that will break Slate River Road into two segments of approximately 1,000 linear feet each.
No Traffic Impact Analysis was required to investigate the traffic impacts of this subdivision.
Staff Analysis
The proposed Preliminary Plat meets all of the requirements of the City’s Unified Development Code and
is presented for approval.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Proposed Preliminary Plat (2 sheets)
Page 15 of 82
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
Georgeto
wn
ET
J
PP-2015-013
G
O
O
D
N
IGHTDR
WATER S O N G
P
A
R
K
P
L
A
C
E
DR
R O S E SPRING
O A K G R OVECV
W SH 29
C
R
O
S
S
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
PP-2015-013
Exhibit #1 Location Map
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 1,000 2,000Feet ¯
Legend
SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¬«29
R
onald
W
Reag
a
n
B
l
v
d Site
City Limits
Street
Site ³
Page 16 of 82
Page 17 of 82
Page 18 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 1, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat of 353.084 acres out of the Addison and
Stubblefield Surveys, located on Rockride Lane, to be known as Saddlecreek. PP-2015-016
(Carolyn Horner, AICP)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The Planned Unit Development guidelines for this area contain a mix of uses, including
residential, multi-family and commercial. The project is planned for 15 phases, beginning with the
single-family and parkland areas. The largest development type is single family residential lots,
including a mix of lot sizes and design. The multi-family lots are towards the edges of the
development, with access off the major arterial roads included in this plat. The commercial node is
located at the intersection of two arterial roadways.
Public Comment:
No public comment received.
Recommended Motion:
Approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Carolyn Horner, AICP and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 Backup Material
Preliminary Plat Backup Material
Page 19 of 82
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Saddlecreek, Preliminary Plat Page 1 of 2
Report Date: February 24, 2016
File No: PP-2015-016
Project Planner: Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Saddlecreek
Project Address: 2021 Rockride Lane
Location: Rockride Lane and Sam Houston Avenue
Total Acreage: 353.084 acres
Legal Description: 353 acres in the Addison and Stubblefield Surveys
Applicant: Dustin Goss, P.E., Pape-Dawson Engineers
Property Owner: Woodhull Ventures 2015, LP
Contact: Dustin Goss, P.E.
Plat Summary
Proposed Lots: 4 commercial lots, 3 multi-family lots, and 807 residential lots
Streets Proposed: 27 new streets
The Planned Unit Develop guidelines for this area contain a mix of uses, including residential, multi-
family and commercial. The largest development type is single family residential lots, including a mix
of lot sizes and design. The multi-family lots are towards the edges of the development, with access off
the major arterial roads included in this plat. The commercial node is located at the intersection of two
arterials. The project is planned for 15 phases, beginning with the single-family and parkland areas.
Parkland and open space cover approximately 31 acres of the overall site, as part of the Development
Agreement. The natural drainage feature that runs throughout the property will be enhanced with
ponds and trails. An amenity center lot is located adjacent to the greenbelt. Additional greenspace is
provided in a smaller natural feature on the eastern portion of the project.
Site Information
Location:
The property is located between Rockride Lane, Sam Houston Avenue, and Highway 130.
Physical Characteristics:
The overall site is undeveloped, with existing natural drainage features in the center of the development.
The area is relatively flat with few trees.
History and Zoning
The City annexed this property in 2006. In 2014, City Council approved an in-city Municipal Utility
District (MUD) for the property. Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning on the property was approved
by the City Council in 2015.
The 2030 Plan land use designation for the subject property is Employment Center and Mixed-Use
Community. This project is located within Growth Tier 1B.
Page 20 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Saddlecreek, Preliminary Plat Page 2 of 2
Utilities
Wastewater will be provided by Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS). Electric service is Oncor. Water is
provided by Jonah Special Utility District. 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.
Transportation
This development will be accessed from Rockride Lane, Bell Gin Road, Sam Houston Avenue, and a
future connection to Texas Highway 130. Right-of-way dedication is being provided in accordance with
the City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan and the Development Agreement for the property.
Staff Analysis
The proposed Preliminary Plat meets the requirements of the Unified Development Code and the Planned
Unit Development, and is presented for approval.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Preliminary Plat
Page 21 of 82
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
PP -2 01 5-0 16
C R 1 0 5
TBDRD
T
B
D
R
D
R
O
C
K
R
I
D
E
L
N
S A D D L E CREEKB L V D
T B D R D
TBDRD
M A T T H E W L N
P
I
N
N
A
C
L
E
DR
C A R L S O N C V
S A M H O U STON AVE
M A R V I N L E W I S L N
TBD RD
SH130SB
S
H
1
30
T
O
L
L
N
B
ENTR 417 NB
SH130TOLLSB
EXIT
417SB
LAWHON LN
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
C R 1 1 0
S E I N N E R L OOP
SH 130 NB
B
E
L
L
G
I
N
R
D
PP-20 15-016Exhibit #1
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/C entral Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y 0 2,000 4,000Fee t ¯
Le ge nd
SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
SE Inner Loop
S a m H o u s t o n Ave
S am HoustonAve
South
w
e
st
e
r
n
B
l
v
d
R
o
c
k
ri
d
e
L
n
Site
City Lim its
Str eet
Si te ³
13 0
Page 22 of 82
Page 23 of 82
Page 24 of 82
Page 25 of 82
Page 26 of 82
Page 27 of 82
Page 28 of 82
Page 29 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 1, 2016
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 46.225 acres of the Antonio Flores
Survey located along NE Inner Loop and Sudduth Drive from the Agriculture (AG), Industrial
(IN), General Commercial (C-3) and Local Commercial (C-1) Districts to Low Density
Multifamily (MF-1), High Density Multifamily (MF-2) and General Commercial (C-3) Districts.
REZ-2015-029 (Matt Synatschk)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant has requested to rezone 46.225 acres of primarily undeveloped land in the Antonio
Flores survey from Agriculture (AG), Industrial (IN), Local Commercial (C-1) and General
Commercial (C-3) Districts to High Density Multi-Family (MF-2), General Commercial (C-3),
and Low Density Residential (MF-1) Districts.
The proposed zoning districts are divided as follows:
Tract 1A – 22.616 acres of High Density Multi-family (MF-2)
Tract 1B – 6.861 acres of General Commercial (C-3)
Tract 2 – 7.763 acres of General Commercial (C-3)
Tract 3 – 8.986 acres of Low Density Residential (MF-1)
Public Comment:
As of the date of this report, no written public comments have been received.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend to the City Council approval of the request to rezone the 46.225 acre tract to the
General Commercial (C-3), Multi-Family 1 (MF-1) and Multi-Family 2 (MF-2) Districts.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner, and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
REZ-2015-029 Staff Report Backup Material
REZ-2015-029 Aerial Backup Material
REZ-2015-029 Future Land Use Backup Material
REZ-2015-029 Location Backup Material
REZ-2015-029 Zoning Map Backup Material
Page 30 of 82
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 46.225 acres Page 1 of 8
Rezoning from AG, IN, C‐1 and C‐3 to MF‐1, MF‐2 and C‐3
Report Date: February 15, 2016
File No: REZ‐2015‐029
Project Planner: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Pence Investments Rezoning
Location: Northeast Inner Loop and County Road 151
Total Acreage: 46.225 acres
Legal Description: Antonio Flores Survey 46.225 acres
Applicant: Jim Cummins, P.E.
Property Owner(s): Pence Investments, LTD
Contact: Jim Cummins, P.E.
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to rezone 46.225 acres of primarily undeveloped land in the
Antonio Flores survey from Agriculture (AG), Industrial (IN), Local Commercial (C‐1) and
General Commercial (C‐3) Districts to High Density Multi‐Family (MF‐2), General
Commercial (C‐3), and Low Density Residential (MF‐1) Districts.
The proposed zoning districts are divided as follows:
Tract 1A – 22.616 acres of High Density Multi‐family (MF‐2)
Tract 1B – 6.861 acres of General Commercial (C‐3)
Tract 2 – 7.763 acres of General Commercial (C‐3)
Tract 3 – 8.986 acres of Low Density Residential (MF‐1)
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is generally located on the north side of Stadium Drive, and divided
by Northeast Inner Loop and Sudduth Drive. See attached Exhibit 1.
Physical Characteristics:
The lot is primarily undeveloped with sparse tree coverage. The site previously included a
historic structure along Stadium Drive, recently demolished due to a fire. The project area
has approximately 1,000 feet of street frontage along Stadium Drive, approximately 2,200
feet of street frontage on both sides of Northeast Inner Loop and approximately 1,000 feet
Page 31 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 46.225 acres Page 2 of 8
Rezoning from AG, IN, C‐1 and C‐3 to MF‐1, MF‐2 and C‐3
of frontage on both sides of Sudduth Drive. The eastern edge of the property abuts a
residential development known as Crystall Knoll in the City of Georgetown’s extra
territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Two exisiting street stubs are located at the eastern edge of the
property adjacent to Crystal Knoll.
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties include a mix of zoning districts and ETJ (unzoned) land.
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North Industrial (IN)
Community
Commercial
Center, Industrial
Industrial
South Agriculture (AG) across Stadium
Drive Rural Residential Undeveloped
East No zoning designation Moderate Density
Residential
Single Family
Residence (ETJ)
West Local Commercial (C‐1)
Mixed Use
Neighborhood
Center,
Employment
Center
Undeveloped
Page 32 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 46.225 acres Page 3 of 8
Rezoning from AG, IN, C‐1 and C‐3 to MF‐1, MF‐2 and C‐3
Property History
The subject property was annexed into the City by Ordinance No. 2005‐97 and designated
with the default Agriculture Zoning District. Tract 1A and Tract 1B were rezoned
Agriculture (AG), Industrial (IN), Local Commercial (C‐1) and General Commercial (C‐3)
by Ordinance 2009‐61, but the property remains undeveloped. The intent of the multi‐
district zoning in 2009 was to facilitate an indoor/outdoor soccer complex, with accessory
retail and service sites. That project did not materialize and no further development
applications were sought until now. The only previous construction on the site was a
recently demolished historic structure, which had been damaged by a fire.
Utilities/Transportation
Electric, water, and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown. City Engineering staff
anticipate that there is adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity
or developer participation in future upgrades to infrastructure. Utility evaluations will be
required at the time of platting and site development plan to ensure sufficient capacity.
Transportation access to the subdivision will be from the following existing roadways:
Northeast Inner Loop, CR 151/Stadium Dr, and Sudduth Dr. The northern half of the
property is further divided by Sudduth Lane, which provides direct access to the industrial
park located along the northern edge of the property. Northeast Inner Loop is identified as
an existing Major Arterial, while Stadium Dr is identified as an exisiting Minor Arteral in
the 2035 Throughfare Plan. The subject property is also located within close proximity to
Austin Avenue and Interstate 35. TX DoT has developed plans for a realingment for a future
realignment of Austin Avenue, which would connect with Sudduth Drive and Northeast
Inner Loop, increasing the traffic flow.
2030 Plan
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan designates land use categories on this property of Moderate
Density Residential, Mixed Use Neighborhood Center, Employment Center and High
Density Residential, projecting both residential and commercial uses. The area in question
is generally planned for higher‐intensity uses in nature due to the proximity to IH‐35, three
roadways ultimately planned as arterials in the Transportation Plan, existing commercial
and industrial uses in the vicinity, and availablity of utilities.
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1B. Tier 1B areas are presently in the
City limits that are generally under‐served by infrastructure and where such service and
facilities will likely be needed to meet the growth needs of the City once Tier 1A approaches
buildout over the next ten years.
Page 33 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 46.225 acres Page 4 of 8
Rezoning from AG, IN, C‐1 and C‐3 to MF‐1, MF‐2 and C‐3
Additionally, the City’s Housing Advisory Board completed a study in 2013 that depicted
potential desired workforce multi‐family locations. These sites were recommended due to
their proximity to employment centers, existing or planned retail locations, sufficient utility
capacity and transportation access. A workforce multi‐family site that was selected by the
Housing Board includes the area of this rezoning. The below picture of their desired location
map shows a cut‐out of the area in around the affected site.
Proposed Zoning Districts
The applicant has requested Low Density Multi‐Family (MF‐1), High Density Multi‐Family
(MF‐2) and General Commercial (C‐3) zoning on this property. The following descriptions
summarize the proposed zoning district for each tract.
Tract 1A is proposed for MF‐2 zoning due to good access to the surrounding streets, which
include Northeast Inner Loop, and Stadium Drive. In addition, the proposed Austin Avenue
realignment will create a new northern boundary to the property, creating a parcel
surrounded on three sides by larger capacity streets. The volume of vehicular traffic creates
a site that’s not suitable for single family or two family residential uses; however, the
proposed MF‐2 use has sufficient street frontage for multiple entrances.
The High Density Multi‐family District (MF‐2) is intended for attached multi‐family
residential development, such as apartments and condominiums, at a density not to exceed
24 dwelling units per acre. The MF‐2 District is appropriate in areas designated on the
Future Land Use Plan as High Density Residential or one of the Mixed‐Use categories.
Properties zoned MF‐2 should have direct access to major thoroughfares and arterial streets
and should not route traffic through lower density residential areas. The MF District is
appropriate adjacent to both Residential and Non‐Residential Districts and may serve as a
transition between single‐family districts and more intense commercial districts.
Page 34 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 46.225 acres Page 5 of 8
Rezoning from AG, IN, C‐1 and C‐3 to MF‐1, MF‐2 and C‐3
Applicant‐Proposed Zoning Districts:
Tract 1B and Tract 2 are proposed for C‐3 zoning due to the sites current proximity to I‐35,
Northeast Inner Loop and Austin Avenue. In addition, the future realignment of Austin
Avenue will result in a major intersection at Sudduth Drive and Northeast Inner Loop,
resulting in an increase of vehicular traffic, driving a demand for higher density commercial
development.
The General Commercial District (C‐3) is intended to provide a location for general
commercial and retail activities that serve the entire community and its visitors. Uses may
be large in scale and generate substantial traffic, making the C‐3 District only appropriate
along freeways and major arterials.
Tract 3 is proposed for MF‐1 zoning due to the proximity to Sudduth Drive and the
industrial park to the north of the property. The industrial park related traffic makes
Sudduth Drive an inappropriate location for single family residential development. The
proposed MF‐1 district is a lower density multifamily district that provides a buffer between
the industrial traffic on Sudduth Drive and the single family residential neighborhood
Page 35 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 46.225 acres Page 6 of 8
Rezoning from AG, IN, C‐1 and C‐3 to MF‐1, MF‐2 and C‐3
adjacent to the eastern boundary of the parcel.
The Low Density Multi‐family District (MF‐1) is intended for attached and detached multi‐
family residential development, such as apartments, condominiums, triplexes, and
fourplexes, at a density not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre. The MF‐1 District is
appropriate in areas designated on the Future Land Use Plan as High Density Residential
or one of the Mixed‐Use categories, and may be appropriate in the Moderate Density
Residential area based on location, surrounding uses, and infrastructure impacts. Properties
zoned MF‐1 should have convenient access to major thoroughfares and arterial streets and
should not route traffic through lower density residential areas. The MF‐1 District is
appropriate adjacent to both residential and non‐residential districts and may serve as a
transition between single‐family districts and more intense multi‐family or commercial
districts.
Staff Analysis
1. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Element, Goal 1, states:
“Promote sound sustainable and compact development patterns with balanced land uses,
a variety of housing choices and well‐integrated transportation, public facilities and open
space amenities.”
The policies listed under this goal include “adjusting zoning provisions to provide greater
flexibility for mixed‐uses, multiple housing types, compact development and redevelopment,’
and also state “reserve and rezone land ideally suited for long‐term commercial and
employment uses…”
The subject property is located in an area of high growth and easy access to
transportation facilities. In addition, future changes to the transportation network
will establish a strong commercial corridor, supporting the requested C‐3 zoning
districts for Tract 1B and Tract 2. The policy also states “promote development of
community activity centers with complementary mixed uses (e.g. neighborhood oriented
retail, higher density residential, schools and other community facilities).” The placement
of the MF‐1 and MF‐2 districts immediately adjacent to the retail center accomplishes
this goal by reinforcing the creation of a neighborhood activity center.
The Future Land Use Plan supports the proposed MF‐1, MF‐2 and C‐3 zoning
districts for future residential and commercial uses.
2. The existing zoning situation of the surrounding area is Local Commercial (C‐1),
Page 36 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 46.225 acres Page 7 of 8
Rezoning from AG, IN, C‐1 and C‐3 to MF‐1, MF‐2 and C‐3
Industrial (IN) and Agriculture (AG) on all sides. The proposed rezone to MF‐1, MF‐
2 and C‐3 will allow development already anticipated by the Future Land Use Map
that is consistent with existing development patterns. The development in the area is
limited, with much of the surrounding areas zoned AG. Additionally, some of the
property in the area remains in the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction, limiting the
opportunities for development. The adjacent subdivision, Crystal Knoll, is located in
the ETJ, due to developer financing requirements when it was developed. The
neighborhood was ineligible for annexation at the time, although it can be annexed
now at the City’s discretion.
3. The surrounding developed uses include single‐family residence, industrial park and
undeveloped land. The proposed zoning districts provide for a mix of uses
compatible with the surrounding existing uses.
The proposed rezoning includes a mix of residential and commercial districts,
predicated on the surrounding uses, and developed infrastructure. Tract 3, proposed
for the MF‐1 district, is not appropriate for single family residential but would not
support commercial use due to compatibility concerns with the Crystall Knoll
subdivision. The proximity of the industrial use to the north, with the associated
vehicular traffic on Sudduth Drive and Northeast Inner Loop, suggest that a higher
residential density use in a compact site is the most appropriate use. Additionally,
the site drainage requirements of the northern two tracts will constrain the site
development plan, limiting the ability to create single family lots that conform to the
RS design requirements in the UDC. The MF‐1 district creates an effective buffer
between the larger commercial development and the existing single family
residential to the east.
The proposed MF‐2 abuts Northeast Inner Loop and County Road 151, identified as
a Major Arterial and a Minor Arterial, respectively. The adjacency of the major roads
creates easy access to a high density residential development and is a recommended
area from the Housing Board for a multi‐family area.
The proposed C‐3 zoning supports a higher density commercial use, which is
appropriate for high traffic areas. The property is currently sited along major
arterials, with a planned realignment of Austin Avenue through the property, which
will support the higher density commercial use on that site.
The City Council shall review the following criteria for zoning changes:
Page 37 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 46.225 acres Page 8 of 8
Rezoning from AG, IN, C‐1 and C‐3 to MF‐1, MF‐2 and C‐3
The application is complete and the information
contained within the application is sufficient
and correct enough to allow adequate review
and final action
The application was reviewed by staff and
deemed to be complete.
The zoning change is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed zoning change is consistent with
the Future land Use element of the 2030 plan
and the Housing element of the 2030 Plan.
The zoning change promotes the health, safety
or general welfare of the City and the safe
orderly, and healthful development of the City
The zoning change supports orderly
development by utilizing multiple zoning
districts to accomplish the goals for the
community. Identifying multiple districts
allows the placement of compatible uses
adjacent to the existing uses.
The zoning change is compatible with the
present zoning and conforming uses of nearby
property and with the character of the
neighborhood
The proposed rezoning is compatible with the
surrounding zoning districts, current uses and
character of the area.
The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses
permitted by the District that would be applied
by the proposed amendment.
The proposed uses are consistent with the
Future land Use Map and the current
surrounding zoning districts.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning for the following reasons:
1. The proposed zoning districts are in conformance with the criteria in the UDC
2. Consistency with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius
of the subject property and within the city limits (23 notices mailed) were notified of the
rezoning application, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun
Newspaper and signs were posted on‐site. These notices included the public hearing
scheduled for City Council on March 22, 2016.
No written or verbal comments in support or against the applicant’s rezoning proposal have
been received by the Planning Department staff.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Page 38 of 82
REZ -2015-029
J E F F E R S O N LN
NIH35NB
H I C K O R Y T R E E D R
D
O
G
W
O
O
D
D
R
J A S M I N E T R L
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
N AUSTIN AVE
LAKEWAY DR
N IH 35 SB
O S A G E C T
M E D A S T
K
L
E
I
N
C
T
B
A
R
B
E
R
R
Y
D
R
W I S T E R I A D R
S T A D I U M D R
A
S
P
E
N
T
R
L
O
R
A
N
G
E
T
R
E
E
L
N
M
A
H
O
G
A
N
Y
L
N
JUNIPER
DR
O L D A I R P O R T R D
EXIT264SB
EXIT265NB
N IH 35 FWY NB
EXIT 262 SB
NIH35FWYSB
EXIT 264 NB
CRYSTALKNOLLBLVD
AZALEA DR
CALADIUMD R
I N D U S T R I A L P A R K C I R
SUDDUTHDR
E V E R G R E E N C I R
Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S ta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Exhibit #4
REZ-2 015-0 29
Lakeway D r
N Austin Ave
NEInnerLoop
Site
City Lim its
Str eet
Si te ³
§¨¦35
Page 39 of 82
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
R EZ -2 01 5-0 2 9
N IH 35 NB
D
O
G
W
O
O
D
D
R
J A S M I N E T R L
I R I S D R
NEINNERLOOP
N AUSTIN AVE
O S A G E C T
J E F F ERSON LN CRYSTALKNOLL B L V D
K
L
E
I
N
C
T
B
A
R
B
E
R
R
Y
D
R
A
Z
ALE A D R
W I S T E R I A D R
H I C K O R Y T R E E D R
L A K EWAYDR
DAVID FERRETTI DR
I N D U S T R I A L P A R K CIR
A
S
P
E
N
T
R
L
O
R
A
N
G
E
T
R
E
E
L
N
M
A
H
O
G
A
N
Y
L
N
JUNIPERDR
S T A D I U M D R
O L D A I R P O R T R D
SUDDUTHDR
N IH 35 SB
EXIT264SB
E V E R G R E EN CIR
N IH 35 FWY NB
EXIT 265 NB
N IH 35 FWY SB
EXIT 262 SB
EXIT264NB
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tate Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Fut ure L an d Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2REZ-2 015-0 29
Lege nd
Th oro ughf are
Fu ture Land Use
Institut ional
Regional Commerc ial
Comm unity Commercial
Employm ent Center
Low Density Res idential
Mining
Mix ed Use Community
Mix ed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderat e Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rur al Residential
Lakeway D r
NAustinAve
N Austin Ave
¬«130
")971
NEInnerLoop
A
i
r
p
o
rtRd
§¨¦35
Site ³City Lim its
Str eet
Si te
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Ar terial
Existing Minor Ar terial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed F reeway
Props ed Frontage Road
Proposed M ajor Arterial
Proposed M inor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
Page 40 of 82
C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N
G e o r g e t o w n E T JREZ-2 01 5-0 2 9
CRYSTALKNOLLBLVD
D
O
G
W
O
O
D
D
R
NEINNERLOOP
N AUSTIN AVE
O S A G E C T
J EFFERSON LN
K
L
E
I
N
C
T
B
A
R
B
E
R
R
Y
D
R
AZALEA DR
W I S T E R I A D R
H I C K O R Y T R E E D R
LAKEWAYDR
J A S M I N E T R L
I N D U S T R I A L P A R K C IRNIH35NB
O L D A I R P O R T R D
A
S
P
E
N
T
R
L
O
R
A
N
G
E
T
R
E
E
L
N
M
A
H
O
G
A
N
Y
L
N
N IH 35 SB
JUNIPERDR
S T A D I U M D R
EXIT264SB
SUDDUTHDR
E XIT264NB
N IH 35 FWY NB
E V E R G R E E N C IR
EXIT265NB
N IH 35 FWY SB
EXIT 262 SB
REZ-2 015-0 29
Exhibit #1
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S ta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 1,000 2,000Fee t ¯
Le ge n d
SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Lakeway D r
N Austin Ave
N
orth
w
estBlvd
§¨¦35A
i
r
p
o
rtRd
Site
City Limits
Str eet
Si te
³
Page 41 of 82
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
R EZ -2 01 5-0 2 9
NIH35NB
D
O
G
W
O
O
D
D
R
NEINNER LOOP
N AUSTIN AVE
O S A G E C T
J A S M I N E T R L
JEFFERSON LN
M E D A S T
K
L
E
I
N
C
T
B
A
R
B
E
R
R
Y
D
R
AZALEADR
W I S T E R I A D R
H I C K O R Y T R E E D R
L AKEWAY DR
CALADIUMD R
I N D U S T R I A L P A R K CIR
CRYSTALKNOLLBLVD
A
S
P
E
N
T
R
L
O
R
A
N
G
E
T
R
E
E
L
N
M
A
H
O
G
A
N
Y
L
N
JUNIPERDR
S T A D I U M D R
O L D A I R P O R T R D
S
U
D
D
U
TH
DR
EXIT264SB
N IH 35 SB
E V E R G R E E N CIR
EXIT 265 NB
EXIT 262 SB
E X I T 264NB
N IH 35 FWY SB N IH 35 FWY NB
Zon in g Inf orm a tio nREZ-2 015-0 29Exhibit #2
¯
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tate Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 1,000 2,000Feet
Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Lakeway D r
N Austin Ave
¬«130
³
Site
City L imits
Stre et
Site
§¨¦35
Page 42 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 1, 2016
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 42.5 acres of land in the C.
Stubblefield and Ruidosa Irrigation Company No. 207 Surveys located at 1100 Thousand Oaks
Blvd. and 1601 Leander Rd., known as Pickett Elementary School and James Tippit Middle
School, from the Residential Single-family (RS) District to the Public Facilities (PF) District.
REZ-2016-003 (Carolyn Horner, AICP)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant has requested a rezoning of 42.5 acres, from the Residential Single-family (RS)
District, to the Public Facility (PF) District. The intention is to renovate the existing Tippit Middle
School, which is adjacent to Pickett Elementary School. The rezoning would encompass school
buildings and support structures. While schools are permitted in the RS zoning district, the PF
district better supports the comprehensive plan and allows GISD the most flexibility when
renovating the site.
Public Comment:
As of the date of this report, no written comments have been received.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend to the City Council Approval of the request to rezone the 42.5 acre tract to the PF
District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid the fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Carolyn Horner, AICP and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit- Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit- Future Land Use Backup Material
Exhibit- Zoning Map Backup Material
Page 43 of 82
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
GISD‐Pickett Elementary School and Tippit Middle School 42.5 acres
Rezoning from RS to PF Page 1 of 5
Report Date: February 19, 2016
File No: REZ‐2016‐003
Project Planner: Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Georgetown ISD – Pickett Elementary School and Tippit Middle School
Location: 1100 Thousand Oaks Blvd. and 1601 Leander Road
Total Acreage: 42.5 acres
Legal Description: 42.5 acres of land in the Clements Stubblefield Survey and the Ruidosa
Irrigation Company Survey no. 207
Applicant: Huckabee & Associates, Inc.
Property Owner: Georgetown ISD
Contact: Crystal Vasquez, Huckabee & Associates, Inc.
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested a rezoning of 42.5 acres, from the Residential Single‐family (RS)
District, to the Public Facility (PF) District. The intention is to renovate the existing Tippit
Middle School, which is adjacent to Pickett Elementary School. The rezoning would
encompass school buildings and support structures. While schools are permitted in the RS
zoning district, the PF district better supports the comprehensive plan and allows GISD the
most flexibility when renovating the site.
Site Information
Location: Tippit Middle School is located on Leander Road, just west of Interstate 35. Pickett
Elementary School is located on Thousand Oaks Boulevard, south of Tippit Middle School.
Please see Exhibit 1 for details.
Physical Characteristics:
The property is currently developed as GISD Pickett Elementary School and Tippit Middle
School, with primary school buildings, sport fields, and parking. Tennis courts and a football
field with track facilities are on the western portion of the tract.
The site has single family development on two sides, residential and commercial on one side,
and undeveloped land to the west along Leander Road.
Page 44 of 82
Planning & Development Staff Report
GISD‐Pickett Elementary School and Tippit Middle School 42.5 acres
Rezoning from RS to PF Page 2 of 5
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties include:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North
Residential
Single‐family,
Two Family, and
Local Commercial
Moderate Density
Residential
River Ridge and San
Gabriel Heights
subdivisions, San Gabriel
Professional Condo
subdivision
South Residential
Single‐family
Moderate Density
Residential Sierra Vista subdivision
East Residential
Single‐family
Moderate Density
Residential Thousand Oaks subdivision
West Extra‐Territorial
Jurisdiction
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Center and Specialty
Mixed Use Area
One house
Page 45 of 82
Planning & Development Staff Report
GISD‐Pickett Elementary School and Tippit Middle School 42.5 acres
Rezoning from RS to PF Page 3 of 5
Property History
The subject property was annexed into the City of Georgetown in December 1982. At time of
annexation, the property was zoned Residential Single‐family (RS). Tippit Middle School was
constructed in 1981. In 1992 and 2007, additional classroom spaces were added to the site.
Pickett Elementary opened in 1992. Since then, the school has not added any additional
classroom or office spaces. The school has the capacity for 550 students.
Utilities/Transportation
Electrical service, water and wastewater are provided by the City of Georgetown. The City’s
Development Engineer finds that the existing services are adequate to meet both of the
school’s needs.
Tippit Middle School is located on Leander Road, a Major Arterial on the City’s Overall
Transportation Plan. The roadway is five lanes, without curbs, in front of the school.
The Pickett Elementary School site is located on Thousand Oaks Blvd, a Minor Collector on
the City’s Overall Transportation Plan.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
The 2030 Plan designates this site as Institutional. The Future Land Use Plan describes this
category as individual or concentrations of government operations and uses, including
government adminstrative offices, libraries, police, fire and EMS services, airports,
correctional facilities, and infrastructure. Schools, university and college campuses, and
similar eductional uses and centers are also a part of this designation, as are community
institutions that are privately or semi‐privately owned, such as churches and major medical
and health care facilities.
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation for this project is Tier 1A of the City’s Growth
Tier Plan. Tier 1A is that portion of the city where infrastructure systems are in place, or
can be economically provided and where the bulk of the city’s growth should be guided
over the near term.
Proposed Zoning District
The applicant has requested Public Facilities (PF) zoning on the property. The PF District is
intended to provide a location for government and other public or quasi‐public facility
operations. These may include schools, public parks, hospitals, airports, government offices,
churches and other related uses. Some uses allowed in this District might generate heavy
traffic volumes and high‐intensity operations. The PF District is subject to non‐residential
design and landscaping standards for compatibility, such as parking lot landscaping and
outdoor lighting standards.
Page 46 of 82
Planning & Development Staff Report
GISD‐Pickett Elementary School and Tippit Middle School 42.5 acres
Rezoning from RS to PF Page 4 of 5
Staff Analysis
1. The Future Land Use Plan designation of Institutional supports the Public Facilities
(PF) district. The Institutional category is described as individual or concentrations of
government operations and uses, including government adminstrative offices,
libraries, police, fire and EMS services, airports, correctional facilities, and
infrastructure. Schools, university and college campuses, and similar eductional uses
and centers are also a part of this designation
2. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning of nearby property. The PF
district shall contain uses that are allowed in both residential and non‐residential
districts, and is subject to non‐residential design and landscaping standards. The site
contains existing public facilities (Tippit Middle School and Pickett Elementary School)
with Residential Single‐family (RS) Districts to the east and south that are currently
developed, residential and commercial zoning to the north, and the undeveloped land
to the west in the ETJ.
3. The proposed Public Facility (PF) District is created to provide a location for
government and other public or quasi‐public facility operations that may include
schools. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the zoning
district. A public school has been in operation on this property since 1981. Georgetown
Independent School District has stated that the site will be renovated and school uses
will continue on the property.
4. The existing school on the property is an allowed use, and meets UDC Section
5.03.020.A.2 requirement that the principal vehicular entrance and exit shall be located
on a collector‐level street or higher (except as otherwise approved by the Development
Engineer). Tippit Middle School’s main entrance is located on Leander Road, a major
arterial roadway on the City’s Overall Transportation Plan. Pickett Elementary’s main
entrance is on Thousand Oaks Boulevard, a residential collector roadway on the City’s
Overall Transportation Plan.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request for the following reasons:
1. The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
designation of Institutional, which supports both institutional and civic uses, and
would be further supported by the PF district;
2. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning of nearby property –the site
contains two existing public facilities (Pickett Elementary School and Tippit Middle
School) with RS Districts to the north, south and east that are currently developed, and
the undeveloped land in the ETJ to the west; and
Page 47 of 82
Planning & Development Staff Report
GISD‐Pickett Elementary School and Tippit Middle School 42.5 acres
Rezoning from RS to PF Page 5 of 5
3. The proposed Public Facility (PF) District is created to provide a location for
government and other public or quasi‐public facility operations that may include
schools. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the zoning
district.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200‐foot radius
of the subject property and within the city limits were notified (74 notices mailed) of the
rezoning application, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun
Newspaper and signs were posted on‐site. These notices included the public hearing
scheduled for City Council on March 22, 2016.
Zero written comments in support or against the applicant’s rezoning proposal have been
received by the Planning Department staff. Eight verbal questions regarding the applicant’s
rezoning proposal have been received by the Planning Department staff, but none of the
callers expressed their support or opposition on the call.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Page 48 of 82
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
(R i v e r /Strea
m
)
GeorgetownETJ
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
REZ-2016-003
L U T H E R DR
I
N
N
W
OOD D R
RIVE
R
D
O
W
N
R
D
L E A N D E R R D
R
I
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
D
E
E
P
W
O
O
D
D
R
S
U
S
A
N
A
C
T
M
A
R
I
A
C
T
TANZA CT
LINDA CT
D E B O R A D R
TAMARA CT
RIVER BOWDR
T H O U S A N D O A K S B LV D
S
A
N
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
B
L
V
D
NORWOODDR
RIDGE OAK DR
W O O D V I E W D R
G R E E N L E E D R
ROCKMOORDR
G R E E N W O O D D R
N
O
R
W
O
O
D
W
E
ST
FRIEND S W O O D DR
S
H
A
D
Y
O
A
K
D
R
LITTLE BEND DR
RIV
E
R
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
L I V E OAK D R
W
O
O
D
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GREE N W O O D C T
S
O
U
T
H
R
I
DGE C IR
K
R
I
S
T
I
N
A
D
R
TAM A R A D R
S U S A N A D R
R
O
C
K
C
R
E
S
T D
R
T
ALLWOODD
R
W
O
O
D
M
O
N
T
D
R
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
RIVER W OOD DR
B
U
R
N
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
D
R
P
I
N
O
A
K
D
R
L
U
T
H
E
R
D
R
TI P PITDV
SPANISH O A K C I R
REZ-2016-003
Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 1,000 2,000Feet
¯
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Leander R d
SiteCity Limits
Street
Site
³
Location Map
Page 49 of 82
(R i v e r /Strea
m
)
GeorgetownETJ
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
REZ-2016-003
L U T H E R D R
RIV
E
R
D
O
W
N
RD
L E A N D E R R D
D
E
B
O
R
A C
T
S
U
S
A
N
A
C
T
M
A
R
I
A
C
T
TANZA CT
LINDA CT
D E B O R A D R
INNWOO D D R
TAMARA CT
RIVER BOWDR
T H O U S A N D O A K S B LV D
NORWOODDR
RIDGEWOODDR
D
E
E
P
W
O
O
D
D
R
RIDGE OAK DR
S
A
N
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
B
L
V
D
W O O D V I E W D R
G R E E N L E E D R
ROCKMOOR DR
G R E E N W O O D D R
N
O
R
W
O
O
D
WEST
FRIENDS W O O D D R
S
H
A
D
Y
O
A
K
D
R
LITTLE BEND DR
RIVER
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
LIVE O A K D R
R E D O A KC
T
W
O
O
D
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GREE N W O O D C T
S
O
U
T
H
R
I
D
GE CIR
K
R
I
S
T
I
N
A
D
R
T A M A R A D R
S U S A N A D R
R
O
C
K
C
R
E
S
T
D
R
T
ALLWOODD
R
W
O
O
D
M
O
N
T
D
R
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
R IVER W OOD DR
B
U
R
N
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
D
R
P
I
N
O
A
K
D
R
TIPP I T DV
SPA NISHOAKCI R
0 1,000 2,000Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2REZ-2016-003
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Comm unity Commercial
Employm ent Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rur al Residential
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Leander R d
SAustinAve
Site ³City Lim its
Street
Site
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing M ajor Arterial
Existing M inor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Fr eeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed M ajor Arterial
Proposed M inor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
Page 50 of 82
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N
REZ-2016-003
(River/Stream)
RIV
E
R
D
O
W
N
R
D
L E A N D E R R D
S
U
S
A
N
A
C
T
M
A
R
I
A
C
T
TANZA CT
LINDA CT
D E B O R A D R
TAMARA CT
RIVERBOW
DR
T H O U S A N D O A K S B LV D
I
N
N
WOOD D R
NORWOODDR
RIDGE OAK DR
S
A
N
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
B
L
V
D
RIVER RIDGE DR
W O O D V I E W D R
D
E
E
P
W
O
O
D
D
R
G R E E N L E E D R
R
O
CKMOORDR
G R E E N W O O D D R
N
O
R
W
O
O
D
W
EST
FRIEN D S W O O D DR
S
H
A
D
Y
O
A
K
D
R
L U T H E R D R
LITTLE BEND DR
LIVE O A K D R
W
O
O
D
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GREEN W O O D C T
R
I
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
S
O
U
T
H
R
IDGE CIR
K
R
I
S
T
I
N
A
D
RTAMARADR
S U S A N A D R
R
O
C
K
C
R
E
S
T D
R
T
ALLWOOD
D
R
W
O
O
D
M
O
N
T
D
R
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
RIVER W OOD DR
B
U
R
N
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
D
R
P
I
N
O
A
K
D
R
TIP PITDV
SPANISHO A K C I R
Zoning InformationREZ-2016-003Exhibit #3
¯
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 1,000 2,000Feet
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Leander R d
³Sit e City Lim its
Street
Site
Page 51 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 1, 2016
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 34.21 acres of land in the W. Addison
Survey located at 1700 Laurel Street, known as Annie Purl Elementary School, from the
Residential Single-family (RS) District to the Public Facilities (PF) District. REZ-2016-008
(Carolyn Horner, AICP)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant has requested a rezoning 34.21 acres from the Residential Single-family (RS)
District, to the Public Facility (PF) District. The intention is to construct a new elementary school
on the site, and then demolish the existing school buildings. The rezoning would encompass the
school buildings and adjacent soccer fields. While schools are permitted in the RS zoning district,
the PF district better supports the comprehensive plan and allows GISD the most flexibility when
renovating the site.
Public Comment:
As of the date of this report, one written comment in support of this request has been received.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend to the City Council Approval of the request to rezone the 34.21 acre tract to the PF
District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid the fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Carolyn Horner, AICP and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit- Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit- Future Land Use Map Backup Material
Exhibit-Zoning Backup Material
Comment Response Backup Material
Page 52 of 82
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
GISD‐Annie Purl Elementary School 34.21
Rezoning from RS to PF Page 1 of 5
Report Date: February 19, 2016
File No: REZ‐2016‐008
Project Planner: Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Georgetown ISD – Annie Purl Elementary School
Location: 1700 Laurel Street
Total Acreage: 34.21 acres
Legal Description: 34.21 acres of land in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21
Applicant: Huckabee & Associates, Inc.
Property Owner: Georgetown ISD
Contact: Crystal Vasquez, Huckabee & Associates, Inc.
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested a rezoning 34.21 acres from the Residential Single‐family (RS)
District, to the Public Facility (PF) District. The intention is to construct a new elementary
school on the site, and then demolish the existing school buildings. The rezoning would
encompass the school buildings and adjacent soccer fields. While schools are permitted in the
RS zoning district, the PF district better supports the comprehensive plan and allows GISD the
most flexibility when renovating the site.
Site Information
Location: The school’s main entrance is on Laurel Street, with other points of access onto the
site. Please see Exhibit 1 for details.
Physical Characteristics:
The property is currently developed as an elementary school, including the primary school
buildings, parking, and sport fields on the southern portion of the property. The site has
single family development on three sides, with outdoor playing fields to the south.
Page 53 of 82
Planning Dept. Staff Report
GISD‐Annie Purl Elementary School 34.21 acres
Rezoning from RS to PF Page 2 of 5
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties include:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North Residential
Single‐family (RS)
Moderate Density
Residential
Residential single family
subdivision
South Residential
Single‐family (RS)
Moderate Density
Residential Sport fields
East Residential
Single‐family (RS)
Moderate Density
Residential
Residential single family
subdivision
West Residential
Single‐family (RS)
Moderate Density
Residential
Residential single family
subdivision
Page 54 of 82
Planning Dept. Staff Report
GISD‐Annie Purl Elementary School 34.21 acres
Rezoning from RS to PF Page 3 of 5
Property History
The northern portion of the subject property was annexed into the City of Georgetown in
1915. The southern portion of the property, currently used as sport fields, was annexed into
the City in 1987. No available ordinances were found to establish when the current zoning of
Residential Single‐family (RS) was placed on the property.
Annie Purl Elementary opened in 1953. The school expanded in 1986 with the addition of a
Gymnasium building, and again in 1993 with a classroom addition. Throughout the period
1953‐2007, various portable classroom buildings were added to the property, adding
additional classroom space, and a new school bus loop.
Utilities/Transportation
Electrical service, water and wastewater are provided by the City of Georgetown. The City’s
Development Engineer finds that the existing services are adequate to meet the school’s needs.
Annie Purl Elementary School’s main entrance is located on Maple Street, a Collector‐level
roadway on the City’s Overall Transportation Plan. Currently, the site can also be accessed off
Laurel Street, a residential street.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
The 2030 Plan designates this site as Moderate Density Residential. This category comprises
single‐family neighborhoods that can be accommodated at a density up to 6 dwelling units
Page 55 of 82
Planning Dept. Staff Report
GISD‐Annie Purl Elementary School 34.21 acres
Rezoning from RS to PF Page 4 of 5
per gross acre. Moderate Density Residential may also support complementary non‐
residential uses, such as instritutional and civic uses, neighborhood‐serving retail and office
uses.
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation for this project is Tier 1A of the City’s Growth
Tier Plan. Tier 1A is that portion of the city where infrastructure systems are in place, or can
be economically provided and where the bulk of the city’s growth should be guided over the
near term.
Proposed Zoning District
The applicant has requested Public Facilities (PF) zoning on the property. The PF District is
intended to provide a location for government and other public or quasi‐public facility
operations. These may include schools, public parks, hospitals, airports, government offices,
churches and other related uses. Some uses allowed in this District might generate heavy
traffic volumes and high‐intensity operations. The PF District is subject to non‐residential
design and landscaping standards for compatibility, such as parking lot landscaping and
outdoor lighting standards.
Staff Analysis
1. The Future Land Use Plan designation of Moderate Density Residential supports the
Public Facilities (PF) District. Moderate Density Residential may support
complementary non‐residential uses, such as instritutional and civic uses,
neighborhood‐serving retail and office uses The PF district shall contain uses that are
allowed in both residential and non‐residential districts, and is subject to non‐
residential design and landscaping standards.
2. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning of nearby property. The site
contains existing public facilities (Annie Purl Elementary School) with Residential
Single‐family (RS) Districts to the north, east, and west that are currently developed,
and the undeveloped land to the south; and
3. The proposed Public Facility (PF) District is created to provide a location for
government and other public or quasi‐public facility operations that may include
schools. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the zoning
district. A public school has been in operation on this property since 1953. Georgetown
Independent School District has stated that the site will be renovated and school uses
will continue on the property.
4. The existing school on the property is an allowed use, and meets UDC Section
5.03.020.A.2 requirement that the principal vehicular entrance and exit shall be located
on a collector‐level street or higher (except as otherwise approved by the Development
Engineer).
Page 56 of 82
Planning Dept. Staff Report
GISD‐Annie Purl Elementary School 34.21 acres
Rezoning from RS to PF Page 5 of 5
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request rezoning for the following reasons:
1. The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
designation of Moderate Density Residential, which supports complementary non‐
residential uses, such as institutional and civic uses, neighborhood‐serving retail and
office uses;
2. The existing elementary school on the property is an allowed use, and meets UDC
Section 5.03.020.A.2 requirement that the principal vehicular entrance and exit shall be
located on a collector‐level street or higher (except as otherwise approved by the
Development Engineer). The school’s main entrance is located on Maple Street, a
collector‐level roadway on the City’s Overall Transportation Plan.
3. The proposed Public Facilities (PF) District zoning is intended to provide a location for
government and other public or quasi‐public facitity operations. These may include
schools and public parks. The elementary school is an existing and long‐term public
operation; and
4. The surrounding property is developed with single family residences on three sides,
and sport fields to the south. A public school has been in operation on this property
since 1953. Georgetown Independent School District has stated that the site will be
renovated and school uses will continue on the property.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200‐foot radius
of the subject property and within the city limits were notified (81 notices mailed) of the
rezoning application, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun
Newspaper and signs were posted on‐site. These notices included the public hearing
scheduled for City Council on March 22, 2016.
One written comment in support of the applicant’s rezoning proposal has been received by
the Planning Department staff. Seven verbal questions regarding the applicant’s rezoning
proposal have been received by the Planning Department staff, but none of the callers
expressed their support or opposition on the call.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Page 57 of 82
§¨¦35
W U n i v e r s i t y A v e E U n i v e r s i t y A v e
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
E U n i v e r s it y A v e
SE Inner Loop
S E I n n e r L o o p
SamHoustonAve
South
w
e
st
e
r
n
B
l
v
d
S
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
R
o
c
k
ri
d
e
L
n
")1460
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
(
R
i
ver /S t r eam)
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
REZ-2016-008Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 0.5 1Miles
¯
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Location Map
Page 58 of 82
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
W U n i v e r s i t y A v e E U n i v e r s i t y A v e
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
Av
e
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
Av
e
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
E U n i v e r s it y A v e
SE Inner Loop
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
Av
eWolfRanchPkwy
S a m H o u s t o n Ave
S E I n n e r L o o p
S am HoustonAve
South
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
B
l
v
d
S
A
u
st
i
n
Av
e
R
o
c
k
ri
d
e
L
n
")1460
(Rive r /Stre
a
m
)
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
REZ-2016 -008
LegendSiteParcelsCity Lim itsGeorgetown ETJ
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Em ployment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
0 0.5 1MilesPage 59 of 82
§¨¦35
W U n i v e r s i t y A v e E U n i v e r s i t y A v e
N
A
us
ti
n Av
e
N
A
us
ti
n Av
e
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
E U n i v e r s it y A v e
SE Inner Loop
N
A
us
ti
n Av
e
SamHoustonAve
South
w
e
st
e
r
n
B
l
v
d
S Au
s
t
i
n
Av
e
R
o
c
k
ri
d
e
L
n
")1460 CITYOFGEORGETOWN
CITY
OF
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
(
R
i
v
e
r
/
Stre a m )
Zoning InformationREZ-2016-008Exhibit #3
¯
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
0 0.5 1
Miles
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 60 of 82
Page 61 of 82
Page 62 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 1, 2016
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to change
the future land use category of the subject site from Moderate Density Residential to the
Institutional category for 27.61 acres of the William Addison Survey, located at 3189 SE Inner
Loop. CPA-2016-001 (Juan Enriquez)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant has requested to change the Future Land Use category for 27.61 acres from the
Moderate Density Residential category to the Institutional category for the purpose of rezoning
this site to the Public Facility (PF) district. The PF district proposed in a pending rezoning case
(REZ-2016-007) under review by staff is not consistent with the current future land use category
of Moderate Density Residential. Therefore, the applicant is submitting this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) to facilitate that zoning request.
The CPA application will precede consideration of the associated rezoning application so that the
Commission can fully vet and determine the appropriateness of this future land use category on
this site. If the Commission should vote to not support this application, the subsequent rezoning
request should also not be supported.
Public Comment(s):
To date, staff has received one email requesting general information about the project. No written
or verbal comments in support or against the applicant’s proposal have been received by staff.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend to the City Council Approval of the request to change the Future Land Use category
from Moderate Density Residential to Institutional.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is a memorandum of understanding between Williamson County ("County") and the City of
Georgetown ("City") that states that in lieu of cash payment, the City will credit the County for all
permitting, impact and other fees due to the City from the County related to the construction of
any new buildings within the City of Georgetown city limits and its extraterritorial jurisdiction
constructed by the County up to an amount totaling $129,000. The County is expected to pay any
additional amounts due over the credit of $129,000 upon notification of the need for additional
payment.
SUBMITTED BY:
Juan Enriquez, Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Page 63 of 82
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Backup Material
Page 64 of 82
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Wilco North Campus – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 1 of 5
Moderate Density Residential to Institutional for 27.61 acres
Report Date: February 24, 2016
File No: CPA-2016-001
Project Planner: Juan Enriquez, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Williamson County North Campus
Project Address: 3189 SE Inner Loop
Location: SE Inner Loop between Southwestern Blvd and E. University Ave
Total Acreage: 27.61 acres (Three lots)
Legal Description: 27.61 acres of the William Addison Survey
Applicant: Robert B. Daigh, P.E.
Property Owner: Williamson County
Contact: Robert B. Daigh, P.E.
Existing Use: Vacant/Undeveloped Land
Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential
Proposed Future
Land Use: Institutional
Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG)
Proposed Zoning: (Three lots) Public Facility designation (REZ-2016-007)
Growth Tier: Tier 1B
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to change the Future Land Use category for 27.61 acres from the
Moderate Density Residential category to the Institutional category for the purpose of rezoning
this site to the Public Facility (PF) district. The PF district proposed in a pending rezoning case
(REZ-2016-007) under review by staff is not consistent with the current future land use category
of Moderate Density Residential. Therefore, the applicant is submitting this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) to facilitate that zoning request.
The CPA application will precede consideration of the associated rezoning application so that the
Commission can fully vet and determine the appropriateness of this future land use category on
this site. If the Commission should vote to not support this application, the subsequent rezoning
request should also not be supported.
Site Information
Location:
The subject site is located on SE Inner Loop and is comprised of three separate properties (7.44-
acres; 10.16-acres; 10.01-acres).
Page 65 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Wilco North Campus – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 2 of 5
Moderate Density Residential to Institutional for 27.61 acres
Physical Characteristics:
The property is approximately a 1,344’ x 948’ rectangle with few trees and shrubs. It is generally
flat and devoid of any discernible natural features. The primary means of access to the subject
site is from SE Inner Loop. Additionally there are two residential street stubs along the north
property line (Mottey Street and Tulle Lane) within Highcrest Meadows subdivision that are
currently fenced off.
Surrounding Properties:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North (RS) Single-Family Residential Moderate Density
Residential Single-Family Residences
South (AG) Agriculture Institutional Williamson Co. Facility
East (RS) Single-Family Residential Moderate Density
Residential Single-Family Residences
West (AG) Agriculture Moderate Density
Residential Undeveloped AG land
Property History
The three properties were annexed into the City on August 8, 1995 (Annexation Ordinance 1995-
34) as part of a larger annexation which totaled approximately 135.61 acres of land in the William
Addison Survey adjacent to the Churchill Farms subdivision and designated with the default
Agriculture District. The subject site was and remains zoned Agriculture (AG).
Transportation
The subject site’s inbound and outbound access is on SE Inner Loop. There are two residential
street stubs along the north property line (Mottey Street and Tulle Lane) that are currently
fenced and do not allow access to the new residential subdivision (“Highcrest Meadow”).
The 27.61 acre site is considered a legal lot and therefore does not require platting for any future
proposed development. Platting would require extension of the street stubs to the north
residential subdivision that include Mottey Street and Tulle Lane. The connection to these
residential street stubs will not be required by the City since the applicant is not required to plat.
Future development of the site will continue to have access to SE Inner Loop.
Utilities
Electric, water and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that there
is adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer participation
in upgrades to infrastructure. City staff determined that an Institutional future land use category
would demand less utilities compared to the existing Moderate Density Residential and therefore
did not require a Utility Evaluation.
Page 66 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Wilco North Campus – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 3 of 5
Moderate Density Residential to Institutional for 27.61 acres
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use:
The 2030 Future Land Use category for this property is Moderate Density Residential. This land
use category comprises single family neighborhoods that can be accomodated at a density
ranging between 3.1 and 6 dwelling units per acre with housing types including small-lot
detached and attached single-family dwellings (such as townhomes).
Growth Tier:
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1B (Developing). Tier 1B areas are presently
in the City limits that are generally under-served by infrastructure and where such service and
facilities will likely be needed to meet the growth needs of the City once Tier 1A approaches
buildout over the next ten years.
Proposed Future Land Use Category
As shown in Exhibit 4, the applicant is seeking to change the Future Land Use category for the
27.61 acre portion of the property from Moderate Density Residential to Institutional in order to
facilitate the accompanying rezoning request (REZ-2016-007) for the Public Facility (PF) district.
The Institutional category is described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as:
Staff Analysis
The applicant is requesting this CPA in order to facilitate the accompaning rezoning request for
the Public Facility (PF) District, which could not be requested under the Moderate Density
Residential (MDR) category as that zoning is not consistent with the existing category. The MDR
designation restricts the County owned land by preventing the development of public safety and
government facilities.
The applicant’s objective is to expand Williamson County government uses currently in
operation on the lot to the south and consolidate other County government type uses from other
properties to keep up with rapid population growth. A Public Facility district will facilitate their
ultimate goal of consolidating County uses on the subject site which may include government
and other public or quasi-public facility operations, libraries, public parks, etc. The applicant has
Page 67 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Wilco North Campus – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 4 of 5
Moderate Density Residential to Institutional for 27.61 acres
chosen to request the CPA for Institutional category and Public Facility zoning district.
Findings
Based on the entire record before the Planning & Zoning Commission and all written and verbal
evidence presented, staff has made the following findings:
1. The proposed amendment will be compatible with the existing uses and development
patterns of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood. The Future Land
Use designation of Institutional on the three lots would be a carry-over from the 48-acre
county owned property to the south where Williamson County already operates
government related land uses.
2. The implications of the CPA is that it will make the entire County owned land consistent
with one future land use designation and allow the County to rezone the entire site from
Agriculture (AG) to Public Facility (PF) to expand and provide public safety services to City
and County residents.
3. Comprehensive Plan Section 1.4 (E) Public Safety states that Georgetown strives to be the
standard for public safety through innovative and strategic planning, the utilization of
viable emerging technologies, and the effective and efficient use of staffing, resources, and
facilities. The CPA will accomplish this goal by allowing the expansion of public safety
services with the future development of the site.
4. The proposed amendment promotes the health, safety, or general welfare of the City and
County by providing facilities to ensure that the County’s EMS and law enforcement
officials have access to adequate training facilities, equipment and resources.
5. There is a need for the proposed CPA to allow the expansion and consolidation of public
safety county operations to keep up with rapid population growth.
6. An Institutional future land use category on the subject site requires less demand on City
utilities compared to the existing Moderate Density Residential.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the above-mentioned findings, and the information contained in the administrative
record for this project, staff does hereby recommend approval of the applicant’s request to
amend the Comprehensive Plan for the 27.61-acre subject site from the Moderate Density
Residential category to the Institutional category.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of
the subject property and within City jurisdiction (11 notices mailed) were notified of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment application, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was
Page 68 of 82
Planning Department Staff Report
Wilco North Campus – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 5 of 5
Moderate Density Residential to Institutional for 27.61 acres
placed in the Sun Newspaper and signs were posted on-site. These notices included the public
hearings scheduled for City Council on March 22, 2016 and April 12, 2016. To date, staff has
received one email requesting general information about the project. No written or verbal
comments in support or against the applicant’s proposal have been received by staff.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Existing Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Page 69 of 82
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
D E D I N A DR
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 7 T H S T E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E
NE
INNER
L
O
O
P
F
M
1
4
6
0
R
O
C
K
R
I
D
E
L
N
S A M H O U S T O N A V E
S M I T H C R E E K R D
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
LL
N
BS
H
130SB
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
S
B
S
H
1
3
0
N
B
CPA-2016-001Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 0.5 1Miles
¯
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Location Map
CPA-2016-001
Page 70 of 82
S
O
UT
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
LVD
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
G e o r g e t o w n ET J
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/N AD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
CPA-2016-001
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Employment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
0 0.5 1Mile
Page 71 of 82
S
O
UT
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
LVD
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E
N
E
I
N
N
ER
L
O
O
P
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N
CITYOFGEORGETOWN
CI
T
Y O
F G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
TOWN
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N
Zoning InformationCPA-2016-001Exhibit #3
¯
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
0 0.5 1
Miles
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
CPA-2016-001
Page 72 of 82
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
March 1, 2016
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible action regarding proposed updates and additions to the UDC General
Amendments List for the 2016 review period. (Valerie Kreger, AICP)
ITEM SUMMARY:
The UDC amendment process sets out that the General Amendments List will be reviewed and
adopted by City Council annually, after review and consideration by the UDC Advisory
Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The UDC Advisory Committee reviewed
and recommended approval of the list on November 3rd, 2015.
The items added to the list this year include:
Reconsideration of subdivision plat extensions and reinstatements;
Clarification of the definition and application of the "Live Music or Entertainment: specific
use;
Review and update of outdoor display and storage regulations;
Consideration of residential off-street parking requirements including garage setbacks in
relation to street design;
Consideration of masonry requirements for single-family and two-family structures;
Review of the masonry requirements for nultifamily and commercial buildings;
Review and update of the current regulations regarding trash receptacle screening;
Consideration of tandem parking;
Clarification of the vehicle stacking area requirements for various uses; and
Reconsideration of electronic signage.
Since November 3rd, staff has reviewed the list of proposed amendments recommended for
approval by the UDC Advisory Committee and given each item a priority level of 1, 2, or 3 to
provide staff and the Committee direction moving forward. The prioritization is based on the
urgency of the amendment, the extent of work needed or remaining on the amendment, and its
relation to other amendments. At the last UDC Advisory Committee meeting, a citizen voiced
concern on the timing of item 43 on the list regarding a transition zone along the edge of the
Downtown Overlay District adjacent to residential uses in the Old Town Overlay District. Staff
has given this item a priority level of 3 due to the limited focus of the request. Staff feels this topic
needs to include a larger scope related to uses within both districts along the edges and potentially
falls under the review of the UDC related to the Downtown Master Plan, which is a separate item
on the list.
The draft General Amendments List for the 2016 review period is attached for the Commission's
review and consideration. Additionally, a status list is attached that shows which amendments
were completed during the last review period, which amendments were completed but are still
pending approval, which items are proposed to be removed from the list, which items were not
completed and are being carried forward from the last review period, and which items are new to
the list.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Page 73 of 82
None studied.
SUBMITTED BY:
Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Proposed Updates to the General Amendments List Backup Material
UDC General Amendments List for the 2016 Review Period Backup Material
Page 74 of 82
General Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester
Update the requirements of the Pre-application Process to reflect
updates in current practice.Update the requirements of the Pre-application Process to reflect updates in current practice. Staff
Update the provisions related to the Development Manual process
to reflect updates in current practice.Update the provisions related to the Development Manual process to reflect updates in current practice. Staff
Review the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan
requirements for review.
There is a very detailed list of items to be included in the Development Plan required for consideration of a PUD. Not all of these
details are always needed or applicable. Staff proposes we look at this list and consider whether all are needed or appropriate.Staff
Create a UDC section acknowledging the city’s current annexation
process.Formalize existing process, in keeping with State Law and the City Charter. Staff
Reconsider the current three acre minimum PUD size requirement. Consider smaller PUDs in certain circumstances or consider various levels of requirements and/or scrutiny based on size. Staff
Reconsider the 25,000 square foot building limitation for retail and medical uses in the C-1 zoning district. UDCAC
Consider reducing the required setbacks in the Industrial District. UDCAC
Reconsider the residential fence street setback requirements
and/or consider grandfathering allowances for replacement of
existing fences.
The street setback requirement for residential fences has created issues in existing neighborhoods where fence lines are not
consistent and locational conflicts when replacing existing fences.Staff
Parking Consider additional alternative parking space design options.
Consider updating the parking space design options to allow for alternative designs that have been considered since the last update
to this section.Staff
Utilities Remove the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board from the
approval process for allowing septic systems.
Currently, a request to utilize a septic system in lieu of tying on to a public wastewater system must go to the Georgetown Utility
System Advisory Board for recommendation prior to City Council consideration. This amendment would remove this recommendation
step and instead send these requests directly to City Council.
Staff
Review the criteria for approval used when evaluating rezoning
requests.
Assist P&Z and City Council with consistent approval criteria lessen subjectivity and potential for challenge of arbitrary or
unreasonable findings.Staff
Consider withholding or limiting approval on applications when the
property owner has unresolved City Code violations.
Existing language in Chapter 15 is unclear if additional entitlements may be withheld for violations of City Code, even when there is a
serious life, health, safey violation on a property.Staff
Land Uses
Review provisions and definitions related to Sexually Oriented
Businesses (SOB) for consistency with the City’s Code of
Ordinances.
The City Code of Ordinances has provisions governing SOBs in addition to the UDC’s provisions. Some of the regulations within each
document are inconsistent with each other and need clarification and revision.Staff
Status of Requested General Amendments - Changes for 2016 Review Period
Completed Items to be Removed from the New 2016 List
Application
Processes and
Requirements
Update the Site Plan provisions to provide clarity regarding
revisions and to reflect updates in the process.
Update the Site Plan provisions to provide clarity regarding revisions, as there is some confusion regarding when something should be
handle as an Amendment to a Site Plan or a Minor Site Plan, and to reflect updates in the process including Site Plans incorporating
Construction Plans.
Staff
Land Uses Reconsider some of the limitations applied to specific uses.
Based on experience applying certain limitations listed within Chapter 5, some need further clarification or need to be reconsidered.
These include civic use street access restrictions and building size limitations for retail and medical uses.
Zoning/ Overlay
Districts Consider whether the minimum acreage size for Industrial and
Business Park zoning should be lessened.
The existing minimum acreage sizes for Industrial and Business Park present challenges in certain areas where the zoning would be
appropriate. Reconsider when and if the minimum size is appropriate.Staff
Staff
Nonresidential
Standards
Review the list of features currently allowed within the setbacks on
residentially zoned properties to determine if additional features
should be allowed.
Reconsider setback features, including certain patios in front yards which many homeowners are seeking. Also, consider features in
light of water conservation requirements. Clarification of driveway placement in setbacks, including circular drives.Staff
Nonresidential
Standards
Clarify applicability of and consider expanding exemptions to
building design standards.
Review the applicability of the nonresidential building design requirements for clarity and reconsider exemptions to the section,
including revising the exemption related to industrial uses in the Industrial District.Staff
Review required setbacks for districts and consider expanding
what may be allowed in the setbacks, particularly regarding
parking.
Review required setbacks for nonresidential district to determine if they are still appropriate in all cases, particularly when adjacent to
other nonresidential districts or within the same development. Also consider expanding what features may be allowed in the setbacks
and when, particularly regarding parking.
Staff
Fences
Items to Remove from Consideration - Remove from New 2016 List
Application
Processes and
Requirements
Consider additional exceptions to fence height and assign
Administrative Exception action to the Building Official.
Expand the built-in exceptions for fence height to additional circumstances to allow more flexibility for residential fences. Additionally,
the Building Official should be authority on further exceptions to fence standards as permits for fences are handled directly through
the Inspections Department.
Staff
Page 1 of 5Page 75 of 82
General Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester
Parking Review the paved surfaces currently approved for parking lots and
consider additional surfaces.
Consider an updated review of the materials or products that may be acceptable to meet the requirements for paved surfaces for
parking lots.Staff
Update UDC regarding temporary signs for open house and model
homes as may be necessary now that they are being enforced.
Updates to the regulations governing Temporary Off-Premise Signs for Open Houses and Model Homes may be necessary to address
any changes in current city operations since the regulations were written.Staff
Impervious
Coverage
Consider bonuses for rain collection and other non-runoff
alternatives.Explore new alternatives and waivers for residential and non-residential for rain collection, etc. Staff
Nonconforming Refine the UDC regulations regarding expansion of a
nonconforming structure.
Consider refining provisions applicable to the expansion of buildings that do not conform to current requirements for clarification and
flexibility.Staff
Zucker Systems
Study
Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based
on a pending recommendations from the consultant’s study of city
operations.
Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based on a pending recommendations from the consultant’s study of city
operations.Staff
Land Uses Review the current accessory dwelling unit regulations regarding
garage apartment rental.
Accessory dwelling units have become more and more popular and accepted in other cities around the area and country. Staff has
been approached many times by citizens interested in having a garage apartment either for personal reasons such as elder care or for
rental purposes. Clarification is needed regarding what may constitute rental as well as a fresh look at the concerns or challenges of
the rental of accessory dwelling units.
Staff
Consider expanding the roadway types on which high profile
monument signs may be located.
High Profile Monument signs are currently allowed only on I-35, 195 and 130. Other regional roadways that will be high-speed with
expanded rights-of-way (e.g. 29 west, 1460, Bypass/Sam Houston) may also warrant taller, architecturally sound identification
signage.
Staff
Clarify application of maximum sign area in Table 10.06.010.The current language in Table 10.06.010 has caused some applicants to believe the maximum sign area is per sign, with no limit on
the number of signs.Staff
Consider increasing Subdivision Entry Sign size and height on
major thoroughfares
The City’s subdivision entry sign regulations require small entry signs. On high-speed major thoroughfares (SH 29, 2243, 195, etc.)
large residential subdivisions are asking for taller and larger signage for identification.Staff
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.
Staff
Subdivision/
Platting
Review current exemptions to platting requirements for clarity.Update subdivision language to reflect case law, attorney general opinions and correct confusion between 3.08.020 and 3.08.010 E
relative to division of land for the purposes sale versus division of land for development.Staff
Application
Processes and
Requirements
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.
Staff
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.Staff
StaffReview and update Preliminary Plat phasing provisions based on
experience.
For larger tracts, consider a preliminary process such as a concept plan that creates long-term expectations for utilities,
transportation, public facilities, parks, etc. without requiring plat-level engineering and detail. Consider minimum acreage sizes for
preliminary plats and/or concept plans. Protect street connectivity between subdivisions by having more global plans.
Amendment Items to Carry Over for 2016 Review Period
Items Completed in 2015 but Still Pending Approvals
Items to Remove from Consideration - Remove from New 2016 List, Cont'd.
Signs
Review temporary banner regulations to update event banner
provisions and address temporary banner approval.
Review temporary banner regulations to update event banner provisions as they are no longer allowed across streets and to address
temporary banner approval downtown.Staff
Residential
Standards
Review the current accessory structure requirements for clarity and
consider adding exceptions.
Staff has run into some challenges applying and interpreting the residential accessory structure requirements, particularly with regard
to the height and size limitations.Staff
Signs
Consider updates to address whether various attention seeking
devices or structures are signage, including subdivision entry
features.
Provide some clarification as to when certain features or devices should be considered signage and to what extent. More and more
residential subdivisions (and some non-residential) are seeking to identify their development through architectural features and
monuments (e.g. stone towers, windmills, cisterns, walls, etc.). Additionally, there are regularly new methods of attracting attention to
a location that have been presented to staff that need clarification within the code as to whether it is signage or not.
Staff
Revise Housing Diversity standards and separate attainability
(affordability) separate from diversity.
Allow development standard alternatives that will incentivize work force housing without requiring a variety of housing types and
expand incentives to include multifamily housing.Staff
Page 2 of 5Page 76 of 82
General Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester
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.Staff
Reconsider allowing "Contractor Services Limited", "Contractor Services General", and "Office Warehouse" Specific Uses in the C-3
zoning district.Public
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. Staff
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.
Staff
Residential
Standards
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.Staff
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. Staff
Review temporary banner regulations to consider subdivision
banners Review temporary banner regulations to consider internal subdivision banners. Staff
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. Staff
Update the UDC based on the pending updates to the Overall
Transportation Plan.Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based on pending updates to the Overall Transportation Plan. Staff
Amendment Items to Carry Over for 2016 Review Period, Cont'd.
Transportation
Signs
Land Uses
Staff
Staff
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.Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Zoning/ Overlay
Districts
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.
Consider changes to the zoning districts various Specific Uses may
be permitted in.
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.
Landscaping 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.
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.
Staff
Staff
Review and consider updates to the City’s provisions related to
connectivity (subdivision access points) between neighboring
developments.
Connectivity (subdivision access points) is extremely important to the function of our public safety and transportation network. In
process, design, and implementation, the City has not received adequate connection points and homeowners complain when streets
are connected. We need to globally reconsider the ratio, design, locations, and exemption process to protect traffic movement, public
safety access and ability to use street facilities as planned.
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.
Consider updates to street standards to address current and
pending inconsistencies between different agencies and
documents.
Staff
When implementing new OTP (pending) and Fire Code (approved), consider new standard, alternative and contextual street cross
sections that account for public safety needs, traffic requirements and needs of private property in relation to public streets. Also,
there are current inconsistencies between current OTP design standards and the current UDC design standards. Additionally, the city’s
standards should be reviewed against Williamson County’s standards to address inconsistencies, especially related to any HB 1445
Agreement issues or potential updates.
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 allowing stand-alone medical offices in the Industrial district and whether recreational vehicles (RVs) should be allowed as
primary quarters in the Agriculture district.
Consider updating the list of Specific Uses in Chapter 5 to include
various uses that are not currently listed.
Page 3 of 5Page 77 of 82
General Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester
Review access requirements on numbered county roads. Review access requirements on numbered county roads to determine if any additional provisions should be considered. Staff
Address naming policies related to private streets and drives
internal to multi-tract developments.
Consider applying the city’s street naming requirements for public streets to private driveways/streets that serve more than one
internal tract in order to address 911 issues identifying emergency locations.Staff
Special Districts Review special district procedures and approval criteria
The City is currently reconsidering its policy on special districts in light of an overwhelming number of requests and unique situations.
Update 13.10 to reflect new policies and procedures.Staff
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.Staff
Alternative Energy/
Green Building
Provisions
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.Staff
Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based
on updates to the Downtown Master Plan.Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based on updates to the Downtown Master Plan. Staff
Consider adding limitations to certain uses to create a "transition
zone" between the Downtown and Old Town overlays.
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
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
Reconsider subdivision plat extensions and reinstatements
Consider removing or scaling back administrative extensions and reinstatements of subdivisions plats. The City extended the lifespan
of subdivision plats in 2012 and provided flexibility on phasing of larger projects. Extensions and reinstatements are no longer
necessary for subdivisions.
Staff
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.Staff
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.Staff
Consider residential off-street parking requirements including
garage setbacks in relation to street design
Staff is working on amendments to the transportation section of the UDC, particularly street parking and street design. Considerations
regarding minimum street widths and fire service needs for residential subdvisions will warrant study of off-street parking and garage
setback requirements.
Staff
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. Staff
Review the masonry requirements for multifamily and commercial
buildings
Review existing masonry requirements for multifamily and commercial buildings to ensure appropriate, sustainable, and visually-
appealling materials are being used in the appropriate locations.Staff
Review and update the current regulations regarding trash
receptical 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.Staff
Transportation,
Cont'd.
Amendment Items to Carry Over for 2016 Review Period, Cont'd.
Downtown /Old
Town
Definitions 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.
Staff
Nonconforming Define process for determining nonconforming status and consider
if there are additional existing situations to exempt.
Utilities Review and update of Chapter 13 provisions related to water and
wastewater improvements and extension requirements.
General review of language regarding utility improvements which have not been updated in some time, including extension policy for
plats and site plans. Review for updates, clarification of current policy and terminology. Includes Rural Residential Subdivision criteria
and standards.
Staff
Staff
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.
Parkland
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.
Staff
Staff
Review sidewalk extension and design provisions.Review sidewalk extension and design provisions and consider updates as may be necessary regarding upcoming Sidewalk Master
Plan and Public Facility Access Audit. Additionally, the residential sidewalk fund provisions should be reviewed.
New Items to be Added to List for 2016 Review Period
Page 4 of 5Page 78 of 82
General Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester
Consider allowing tandem parking Consider adding language allowing tandem parking in certain situations. The UDC currently does not contemplate tandem parking and
more builders are starting to ask for its inclusion.Staff
Clarify vehicle stacking area requirements for various uses
The UDC outlines the minimum vehicle stacking spaces required for certain land uses such as drive-throughs, gas stations, and
banks. However, how that is to be measured is not clear in all instances. Additionally, the number of spaces required should be
reviewed and potentially updated.
Staff
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
New Items to be Added to List for 2016 Review Period, Cont'd.
Page 5 of 5Page 79 of 82
Requested General Amendments for the 2016 Review Period
General Topic Priority Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester
3 1 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.
Staff
1 6 Reconsider subdivision plat extensions and reinstatements
Consider removing or scaling back administrative extensions and reinstatements of subdivisions plats. The City extended the lifespan
of subdivision plats in 2012 and provided flexibility on phasing of larger projects. Extensions and reinstatements are no longer
necessary for subdivisions.
Staff
18Reconsider 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.Staff
Reconsider allowing "Contractor Services Limited", "Contractor Services General", and "Office Warehouse" Specific Uses in the C-3
zoning district.Public
312Acknowledge 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. Staff
213Provide 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.
Staff
214Clarify 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.Staff
2 15 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.Staff
316Review 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.Staff
117Consider 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. Staff
118Consider residential off-street parking requirements including
garage setbacks in relation to street design
Staff is working on amendments to the transportation section of the UDC, particularly street parking and street design. Considerations
regarding minimum street widths and fire service needs for residential subdvisions will warrant study of off-street parking and garage
setback requirements.
Staff
1
1
3
2
2
2
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
StaffAdd 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.
Residential
Standards
10 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 allowing stand-alone medical offices in the Industrial district and whether recreational vehicles (RVs) should be allowed as
primary quarters in the Agriculture district.
Land Uses
9 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.
11
Zoning/ Overlay
Districts
7 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.
5 Review and update Preliminary Plat phasing provisions based on
experience.
For larger tracts, consider a preliminary process such as a concept plan that creates long-term expectations for utilities,
transportation, public facilities, parks, etc. without requiring plat-level engineering and detail. Consider minimum acreage sizes for
preliminary plats and/or concept plans. Protect street connectivity between subdivisions by having more global plans.
Subdivision/
Platting
4 Review current exemptions to platting requirements for clarity.Update subdivision language to reflect case law, attorney general opinions and correct confusion between 3.08.020 and 3.08.010 E
relative to division of land for the purposes sale versus division of land for development.
3 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.
Requested General Amendments
Application
Processes and
Requirements 2 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.
3
1
Staff
Staff
Page 1 of 3Page 80 of 82
General Topic Priority Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester
Nonresidential
Standards 119Review the masonry requirements for multifamily and commercial
buildings
Review existing masonry requirements for multifamily and commercial buildings to ensure appropriate, sustainable, and visually-
appealling materials are being used in the appropriate locations.Staff
120Review 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. Staff
223Review and update the current regulations regarding trash
receptical 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.Staff
2 24 Clarify vehicle stacking area requirements for various uses
The UDC outlines the minimum vehicle stacking spaces required for certain land uses such as drive-throughs, gas stations, and
banks. However, how that is to be measured is not clear in all instances. Additionally, the number of spaces required should be
reviewed and potentially updated.
Staff
2 25 Consider allowing tandem parking
Consider adding language allowing tandem parking in certain situations. The UDC currently does not contemplate tandem parking and
more builders are starting to ask for its inclusion.Staff
326Review temporary banner regulations to consider subdivision
banners Review temporary banner regulations to consider internal subdivision banners. Staff
327Reconsider 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. Staff
3 28 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
129Update the UDC based on the pending updates to the Overall
Transportation Plan.Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based on pending updates to the Overall Transportation Plan. Staff
1 33 Review access requirements on numbered county roads. Review access requirements on numbered county roads to determine if any additional provisions should be considered. Staff
134Address naming policies related to private streets and drives
internal to multi-tract developments.
Consider applying the city’s street naming requirements for public streets to private driveways/streets that serve more than one
internal tract in order to address 911 issues identifying emergency locations.Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
Staff
Staff
Staff
When implementing new OTP (pending) and Fire Code (approved), consider new standard, alternative and contextual street cross
sections that account for public safety needs, traffic requirements and needs of private property in relation to public streets. Also,
there are current inconsistencies between current OTP design standards and the current UDC design standards. Additionally, the city’s
standards should be reviewed against Williamson County’s standards to address inconsistencies, especially related to any HB 1445
Agreement issues or potential updates.
Utilities 37 Review and update of Chapter 13 provisions related to water and
wastewater improvements and extension requirements.
General review of language regarding utility improvements which have not been updated in some time, including extension policy for
plats and site plans. Review for updates, clarification of current policy and terminology. Includes Rural Residential Subdivision criteria
and standards. Also, update any regulations affecting provision of water in order to implement any changes that may result from the
potential merger with Chisholm Trail Special Utility District.
Parkland 36
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.
31
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.
Parking
Signs
Transportation
30
Review and consider updates to the City’s provisions related to
connectivity (subdivision access points) between neighboring
developments.
Connectivity (subdivision access points) is extremely important to the function of our public safety and transportation network. In
process, design, and implementation, the City has not received adequate connection points and homeowners complain when streets
are connected. We need to globally reconsider the ratio, design, locations, and exemption process to protect traffic movement, public
safety access and ability to use street facilities as planned.
35 Review sidewalk extension and design provisions.
Review sidewalk extension and design provisions and consider updates as may be necessary regarding upcoming Sidewalk Master
Plan and Public Facility Access Audit. Additionally, the residential sidewalk fund provisions should be reviewed.
32
Consider updates to street standards to address current and
pending inconsistencies between different agencies and
documents.
22 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.
Landscaping
21 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.
Page 2 of 3Page 81 of 82
General Topic Priority Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester
Special Districts 1 38 Review special district procedures and approval criteria
The City is currently reconsidering its policy on special districts in light of an overwhelming number of requests and unique situations.
Update 13.10 to reflect new policies and procedures.Staff
339Refine 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.Staff
242Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based
on updates to the Downtown Master Plan.Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based on updates to the Downtown Master Plan. Staff
343Consider adding limitations to certain uses to create a "transition
zone" between the Downtown and Old Town overlays.
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
244Consider 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
Alternative Energy/
Green Building
Provisions
345
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/Staff
Staff
Staff
3
1
Downtown/Old
Town
Definitions 41
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.
Nonconforming
40 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.
Page 3 of 3Page 82 of 82