HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 04.12.2022 WorkshopN otice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
C ity of Georgetown, Texas
April 1 2, 2 02 2
The Georgetown City Council will meet on April 12, 2022 at 2:00 P M at 510 W. 9th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts Building
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (AD A).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
AD A, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. P lease
contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)
930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King J r. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional
information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A P resentation and discussion regarding a historic tax exemption program - Mayra Cantu, Assistant
to the City Manager
B P resentation and discussion on boards and commissions – Mayra Cantu, Assistant to the City
Manager
C Overview, discussion, and direction from City Council regarding the possible creation of an
Extraterritorial J urisdiction (ETJ ) Municipal Utility District (M U D) for the proposed Ragsdale
Ranch Development – Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager
D P resentation and discussion regarding development standards for single family condominium
developments -- Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director
Exe cutive Se ssion
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes,
Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular session.
E Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney
Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items
- Litigation Update
Sec. 551.086: Certai n P ubl i c P ow er Uti l i ti es: Competi ti ve M atters
- P urchased P ower Update
- Energy Risk Management Sub-policies
Sec. 551.072: Del i berati ons about Real P roperty
- Fire Station 7 Access Easement
- Block 27, property located near the corner of 6th Street and Austin Avenue
- Block 39, City-owned property located at the corner of 6th Street and Main Street and at 111
East 7th Street
Sec 551.087: Del i berati on regardi ng Economi c Devel opment Negoti ati ons
- P roject Man of Steel
Page 1 of 105
- Economic Development P rojects Update
Adjournme nt
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that
this Notice of Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet,
G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily ac cessible to the general public as required by law, on
the _____ day of _________________, 2022, at __________, and remained so pos ted for
at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 105
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
April 12, 2022
S UBJEC T:
P resentation and discussion regarding a historic tax exemption program - Mayra Cantu, Assistant to the City Manager
I T EM S UMMARY:
Following to the adoption o f updates to the Historic District De sign Guidelines in J uly the City Co uncil requested
information on possible options for a historic property tax exemption program. Staff presented at Council's Workshop
o n October 26, 2021 a preliminary overview of programs implemented in other Texas cities, a recap of recent
preservation activity in Georgetown, examples of preservation projects and requested feedback.
This pre sentatio n by staff is a follow-up to the prior discussio n taking into account Council's direction and
identifying possible options for a historic tax exemption program.
F I NANC I AL I MPAC T:
Dependent on Councils direction
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Mayra Cantu, Assistant to the City Manager
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
Historic P roperty Tax P rogram P res ervation
Page 3 of 105
Historic Tax Program
April 12, 2022 –City Council Workshop
Page 4 of 105
22
•Recap of Previous Feedback
•Purpose
•Criteria
•Options
•Council Direction
Overview
Page 5 of 105
33
•Council gave direction at its Oct. 26, 2021 meeting for staff to
explore options for a project-based historic tax exemption
program
•Other direction provided:
•Not retroactive
•Not allowing of additions/demolitions
•Possible consideration of commercial
•Utilize existing COA process
Recap
Page 6 of 105
44
•Owners in the historic overlay are subject to a more stringent
process when looking to improve their homes per our Historic
District Design Guidelines
•Council identified that the City should have more skin in the
game given the higher level of requirements bestowed on
owners
•Look into creating a program that encourages owners of historic
properties to use money saved on taxes for historic
preservation
Program Purpose
Page 7 of 105
55
Current COA Process
Project in Historic Overlay
Repair & Maintenance = No COA required
HPO Review = Low Priority, most signs, restoring historic architectural features
HARC Review = High and Medium Priority,Landmarks, setback and building height modifications
Project not in Historic Overlay
No COA required unless demolition requested
Page 8 of 105
6
1,654 Historic Structures Citywide
61
103
1
25
190
59
339
179
577
56
406
425
887
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Downtown
Old Town
Johnson House
Outside Overlays
Total
High Medium Low
Page 9 of 105
77
COAs By Year and Priority 2019-2021*
2019 2020 2021 Total
High Priority 15 11 11 37
Medium Priority 15 13 13 41
Low Priority 13 12 10 35
Residential 32 22 28 82
Commercial 11 14 6 31
Page 10 of 105
Criteria for Project Based
Exemption
Page 11 of 105
99
•March 31 –Last date to have work completed, and application
approved by City to be eligible for an exemption in the
upcoming tax year
•April 30 –Applicant submits tax exemption application to WCAD
for upcoming tax year
•Any application submitted after April will only be eligible for tax
exemptions in the subsequent tax year
•e.g.Applicant submits July 1, 2023, and gets approved, will be eligible to file for
tax exemption with WCAD in 2025
Tax Exemption Important Dates
Page 12 of 105
1010
•Historic Resource Survey Priority (High, Medium, Low)
•Project Cost (<$25K, $25-50K, $100K+, etc.)
•Historic Preservation (Compliance with Design Guidelines)
•Structural Repair
•Window Repair
•Siding Repair
•Repair Historic Architectural Features
•National Register District
Application Criteria
Page 13 of 105
Proposed Options
Page 14 of 105
1212
•Applicants project exemption would be based on homes priority
level from the 2016 Historic Resource Survey
•High –75% exemption
•Medium –50% exemption
•Low –25% exemption
Option 1 –Priority Level
Page 15 of 105
1313
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
I
m
p
a
c
t
Priority Level Count of 2016 Priority 2021 Assessed Value Historical Exemption Amount Revenue Impact (Total)Revenue Impact (GF)
Commercial 52 37,406,440 12,883,759 51,664 20,784
High 7 3,396,746 2,547,560 10,216 4,110
Low 32 26,674,590 6,668,648 26,741 10,758
Medium 13 7,335,104 3,667,552 14,707 5,916
Land 36 10,798,391 5,278,529 21,167 8,515
High 2 2,604,387 1,953,290 7,833 3,151
Low 19 3,087,055 771,764 3,095 1,245
Medium 15 5,106,949 2,553,475 10,239 4,119
Residential 1,125 357,511,648 152,232,462 610,452 245,580
High 96 53,031,836 39,773,877 159,493 64,163
Low 597 159,125,285 39,781,321 159,523 64,175
Medium 432 145,354,527 72,677,264 291,436 117,242
Grand Total 1,213 405,716,479 170,394,749 683,283 274,879
Page 16 of 105
1414
Option 2
•All project-based applications would have a standard exemption
across the board regardless of project amount or priority level
•Either all receive an exemption of: 25% or 50% or 75%
Page 17 of 105
1515
2016 Priority Count of 2016 Priority 2021 Assessed Value
Historical Exemption
Amount Revenue Impact (Total)
Revenue Impact (General
Fund)
Commercial 52 37,406,440 28,054,830 112,500 45,258
High 7 3,396,746 2,547,560 10,216 4,110
Low 32 26,674,590 20,005,943 80,224 32,273
Medium 13 7,335,104 5,501,328 22,060 8,875
Land 36 10,798,391 8,098,793 32,476 13,065
High 2 2,604,387 1,953,290 7,833 3,151
Low 19 3,087,055 2,315,291 9,284 3,735
Medium 15 5,106,949 3,830,212 15,359 6,179
Residential 1,125 357,511,648 268,133,736 1,075,216 432,551
High 96 53,031,836 39,773,877 159,493 64,163
Low 597 159,125,285 119,343,964 478,569 192,524
Medium 432 145,354,527 109,015,895 437,154 175,863
Grand Total 1,213 405,716,479 304,287,359 1,220,192 490,873
Maximum General Fund Impact –75%
Page 18 of 105
1616
Maximum General Fund Impact –50%
2016 Priority Count of 2016 Priority 2021 Assessed Value Historical Exemption Amount Revenue Impact (Total)Revenue Impact (General Fund)
Commercial 52 37,406,440 18,703,220 75,000 30,172
High 7 3,396,746 1,698,373 6,810 2,740
Low 32 26,674,590 13,337,295 53,483 21,516
Medium 13 7,335,104 3,667,552 14,707 5,916
Land 36 10,798,391 5,399,196 21,651 8,710
High 2 2,604,387 1,302,194 5,222 2,101
Low 19 3,087,055 1,543,528 6,190 2,490
Medium 15 5,106,949 2,553,475 10,239 4,119
Residential 1,125 357,511,648 178,755,824 716,811 288,367
High 96 53,031,836 26,515,918 106,329 42,775
Low 597 159,125,285 79,562,643 319,046 128,350
Medium 432 145,354,527 72,677,264 291,436 117,242
Grand Total 1,213 405,716,479 202,858,240 813,462 327,249
Page 19 of 105
1717
Maximum General Fund Impact –25%
2016 Priority Count of 2016 Priority 2021 Assessed Value Historical Exemption Amount Revenue Impact (Total)Revenue Impact (General Fund)
Commercial 52 37,406,440 9,351,610 37,500 15,086
High 7 3,396,746 849,187 3,405 1,370
Low 32 26,674,590 6,668,648 26,741 10,758
Medium 13 7,335,104 1,833,776 7,353 2,958
Land 36 10,798,391 2,699,598 10,825 4,355
High 2 2,604,387 651,097 2,611 1,050
Low 19 3,087,055 771,764 3,095 1,245
Medium 15 5,106,949 1,276,737 5,120 2,060
Residential 1,125 357,511,648 89,377,912 358,405 144,184
High 96 53,031,836 13,257,959 53,164 21,388
Low 597 159,125,285 39,781,321 159,523 64,175
Medium 432 145,354,527 36,338,632 145,718 58,621
Grand Total 1,213 405,716,479 101,429,120 406,731 163,624
Page 20 of 105
1818
•Applicants project exemption level would be based on project
cost
•25% exemption | $25,000 -$50,000
•50% exemption | $50,000 -$100,000
•75% exemption | > $100,001
Option 3 -Tiered
Page 21 of 105
1919
•Foundation and siding work (including masonry repair)
•Framing and other structural work
•Window and door repair and restoration
•Painting (exterior)
•Repair and restoration of exterior architectural details including porches,
woodwork, and trim
•Roof work
•Consideration
•Do you want to include replacement as well?
Proposed Eligible Costs
Page 22 of 105
2020
•Additions, demolitions and relocations
•Landscaping (incl. paving, fences,plantings,pools, etc.)
•Legal, city permit, and accounting fees/overhead
•Plumbing and electrical fixtures; provided, however, documented replacement
of historic fixtures may be considered eligible
•Appliances
•Purchasing tools/construction equipment repairs
•Supervisor payroll
•Taxes
Proposed Ineligible Costs
Page 23 of 105
2121
•Estimate 7 hours per application based on recent COA application time review
•Recommend hiring an additional FTE to manage program given the workload
of current historic planner position
•Would help in supporting historic program overall
•Creates opportunity for continuity and share of knowledge base
•Create marketing and education program
Staffing Consideration
Page 24 of 105
2222
•Do you have a preferred program option?
•Would exemptions be for 5 years or 10 years?
•Who is eligible?
•Only homes in the old town historic overlay, or all homes in the historic
resource survey?
•Should commercial properties be included at this time?
•Should this program only be provided to homeowners that live in their
homes?
•Does the Council want to see any adjustments to the project-
based program percentages?
•Is there additional information needed to give direction to staff?
Council Direction
Page 25 of 105
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
April 12, 2022
S UBJEC T:
P resentation and discussion on boards and commissions – Mayra Cantu, Assistant to the City Manager
I T EM S UMMARY:
Council asked staff to analyze the City's current boards and co mmission process. Staff presented to Council on October
26, 2021 where initial direction and fe e dback was given on how to optimize o ur bo ards and co mmission appointment
process and scope of business that is carried out.
This prese ntation reco mme nds se veral change s to bo ards and co mmissions based on Councils direction, staff feedback,
as well as best practices observed by other cities. Staff is requesting feedback on the recommendations to continue the
process of refining our boards and commissions for efficiency and optimizing the value they add.
F I NANC I AL I MPAC T:
N A
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Mayra Cantu, Assistant to the City Manager
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
B/C C omparis on Matrix
B/C P res entation
Page 26 of 105
City Population # of Boards
Georgetown 67,176 30
Cedar Park 74,814 9
Round Rock 124,434 9
Leander 53,716 10
Pflugerville 69,004 12
New Braunfels 79,438 27
San Marcos 67,553 25
Sugar Land 111,026 12
Denton 151,219 23
Grapevine 50,631 14
McKinney 195,308 22
Richardson 119,469 10
AVG 16
Mean 14
Page 27 of 105
Boards and Commissions Cedar Park Round Rock Leander Pflugerville New Braunfels San Marcos Sugar Land Denton Grapevine McKinney Richardson
ADA Advisory Board
Animal Shelter Advisory Board
Arts and Culture Advisory Board JOINT
Building Standards Commission JOINT
Commission on Aging
Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board
Downtown Georgetown TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 4 TIRZ Boards 3 TIRZ Boards 2 TIRZ Boards 2 TIRZ Boards 1 TIRZ Board
Ethics Commission
Firefighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission
General Government and Finance Board
Georgetown Economic Development Corporation
Georgetown Electric Utility Advisory Board One Board
Georgetown Housing Authority
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board One Board
Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation One Board
Georgetown Village PID Advisory Board
Georgetown Water Utility Advisory Board One Board
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Housing Advisory Board
Library Advisory Board
Main Street Advisory Board
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board JOINT
Planning and Zoning Commission
Rivery Park TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 4 TIRZ Boards 3 TIRZ Boards 2 TIRZ Boards 2 TIRZ Boards 1 TIRZ Board
Strategic Partnerships for Community Services
Unified Development Code Advisory Commission
Williams Drive TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 4 TIRZ Boards 3 TIRZ Boards 2 TIRZ Boards 2 TIRZ Boards 1 TIRZ Board
Wolf Lakes TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 4 TIRZ Boards 3 TIRZ Boards 2 TIRZ Boards 2 TIRZ Boards 1 TIRZ Board
Youth Advisory Board
Zoning Board of Adjustments JOINT
4 TIRZ Boards 1 TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 1 TIRZ Board 4 TIRZ Boards 3 TIRZ 2 TIRZ 2 TIRZ 1 TIF/R Board
Page 28 of 105
Boards and
Commissions
April 12, 2022 –City Council Workshop
Page 29 of 105
22
•Introduction
•Current Boards and Commissions
•Cities Survey
•Recommendations
•Council Direction
Overview
Page 30 of 105
33
•Reviewing boards and commissions to:
•Increase value on time spent by community and staff
•Improve efficiency of work
•Adhere to best practices
Introduction
Page 31 of 105
44
•Council provided direction at its Council Workshop on Oct. 26,
2021, to staff to bring back recommendations on streamlining
our boards and commissions as it relates to:
•Business/Purpose
•Routine items
•Strategic direction
•Frequency
•Boards and Commissions Moving Forward
Introduction
Page 32 of 105
55
•ADA Advisory Board
•Animal Shelter Advisory Board
•Arts and Culture Advisory Board
•Building Standards Commission
•Commission on Aging
•Convention and Visitors Bureau
Advisory Board
•Downtown Georgetown TIRZ Board
•Ethics Commission
•Firefighters' and Police Officers' Civil
Service Commission
•General Government and Finance
Board
•Georgetown Economic Development
Corporation
•Georgetown Electric Utility Advisory
Board
•Georgetown Housing Authority
•Georgetown Transportation Advisory
Board
•Georgetown Transportation
Enhancement Corporation
•Georgetown Village PID Advisory
Board
•Georgetown Water Utility Advisory
Board
•Historic and Architectural Review
Commission
•Housing Advisory Board
•Library Advisory Board
•Main Street Advisory Board
•Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board
•Planning and Zoning Commission
•Rivery Park TIRZ Board
•Strategic Partnerships for
Community Services
•Unified Development Code Advisory
Commission
•Williams Drive TIRZ Board
•Wolf Lakes TIRZ Board
•Youth Advisory Board
•Zoning Board of Adjustments
Red = Required Statutorily
Blue = Required by Ordinance
30 Current Boards and Commissions
Page 33 of 105
6
•Reviewed 11 other cities
•Most Common Boards:
o Animal Shelter
o Arts and Culture
o Building Standards
o 1 joint TIRZ Board
o Civil Service
o Economic Development Corp.
o Planning and Zoning
o Parks and Rec
o Library Advisory
o Zoning Board of Adjustments
Cities Survey
City # of Boards
Georgetown 30
Cedar Park 9
Round Rock 9
Leander 10
Pflugerville 12
New Braunfels 27
San Marcos 25
Sugar Land 12
Denton 23
Grapevine 14
McKinney 22
Richardson 10
Page 34 of 105
77
Recommendations
•By-Laws
•We have challenges with inconsistencies within our ordinances and our
by-laws
•Remove by-laws except for GEDCO and GTEC which are required per
State Law
Page 35 of 105
88
Recommendations
•Time of Meetings
•Board/Commission can recommend changing time, would have to be
unanimous
•Will ensure dates and times of current meetings are listed on
applications
Page 36 of 105
9
•Appointments
•Move from March to October aligning with election process
May
•New Council Members Elected
June
•Open applications
July
•Close Application; Mayor Reviews
August
•Council Reviews
September
•Appointed
•Training
October
•New Members Terms are Effective
Recommendations
Page 37 of 105
1010
Recommendations
•Boards and Commissions
•Remove routine purchases from agenda and focus on policy and plan
review
•Shift to an informal board that is not appointed:
•Youth Advisory Board
•Shift to internal administrative process
•Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board
•Roll Following Boards Responsibilities:
•ADA Advisory Board into Building and Standards Commission
•Commission on Aging into Planning and Zoning Commission
•Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board into Planning and Zoning
Commission
Page 38 of 105
1111
Recommendations
•Combine Following Boards:
•Rivery TIRZ/Wolf Lakes TIRZ
•Williams TIRZ/Triangle TIRZ
•Shift to having the same members
•GEDCO/GTEC
•P&Z/ZBA
Page 39 of 105
1212
•Revise the following boards:
•General Government and Finance
•Change to a subcommittee of Council
•Reviews financial policies, practices, strategic planning, etc.
•Unified Development Code Advisory Commission
•Review the need for the commission after UDC update is completed or
possibly roll into P&Z
Recommendations
Page 40 of 105
1313
•Changes to Ordinance
•Change language to allow for dual appointments
•Consider having the same members on GTEC and GEDCO
•Soften language around when meetings must occur
•Current languages states that meetings shall occur every month
Recommendations
Page 41 of 105
1414
As Needed
•Building Standards Commission
•Downtown Georgetown TIRZ Board
•Ethics Commission
•Firefighters' and Police Officers' Civil
Service Commission
•Georgetown Village PID Advisory
Board
•Strategic Partnerships for
Community Services
•Unified Development Code Advisory
Commission
Once a Year
•Downtown Georgetown TIRZ Board
•Williams Drive & Triangle TIRZ
Board
•Wolf Lakes & Rivery TIRZ Board
Quarterly
•Animal Shelter Advisory Board
•General Government and Finance
Board
•Housing Advisory Board
•Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board
Monthly
•Arts and Culture
•Main Street Advisory Board
•Georgetown Electric Utility Advisory
Board
•Georgetown Economic Development
Corporation/Georgetown
Transportation Enhancement
Corporation
•Georgetown Housing Authority
•Georgetown Water Utility Advisory
•Library Advisory Board
Bi-Monthly
•Historic and Architectural Review
Commission
•Planning and Zoning/Zoning Board
of Adjustments
Recommended Boards and Commissions
Page 42 of 105
1515
•Which recommendations would you like to move forward with?
•By-Laws
•Time of Meetings
•Appointments
•Routine Purchases
•Recommended Boards and Commissions
•Ordinance Changes
•Does Council support making these changes to be effective in
2023 to align with an October term start?
Council Direction
Page 43 of 105
1616
•Take recommendations from today and create a timeline to
share with Council
•Next steps will include:
•Changes to agenda software to reflect updated boards and
commissions
•Bringing back ordinance changes to remove, add, and/or modify
boards and commissions in the next few months
•Communicating with current boards and commission members of the
upcoming changes
Next Steps/Timeline
Page 44 of 105
Thank You
Page 45 of 105
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
April 12, 2022
S UBJEC T:
Overview, discussion, and direction from City Council regarding the possible creation of an Extraterritorial J urisdiction
(ETJ ) Municipal Utility District (M U D) for the proposed Ragsdale Ranch Development – Nick Woolery, Assistant City
Manager
I T EM S UMMARY:
The City has received a re que st to create a ne w E TJ M unicipal Utility District (M U D). We are seeking Council’s
preliminary direction on whether there is support for the proposed land use plan for this area of the city’s E TJ .
B ackground
H K Real Estate owns approximately 336 acres of land located in the northwest quadrant of the city’s E TJ , just south of
Ronald Reagan Boulevard and north of F.M . 34 05 . The land is not c ontiguo us with city limits, as sho wn in the
presentation.
H K Real Estate inte nds to entitle the property as a single-family deve lo pment as shown in the presentation. H K Real
Estate proposes approximately 1,515 residential units, which wo uld be a mix of 1,0 90 single family units that range in lot
size from 45’ – 70’ and includes 425 multi-family units. They are also proposing approximately 10 acres of public
parkland, a private amenity center, and 3 4 acres of additional open space. In addition, H K Re al Estate is working with
ESD No. 4 on a potential fire station site. The current land plan being proposed is not consistent with the City’s Future
Land Use P lan, which currently has this area designated as rural residential, which is less than 1 unit per acre, the city’s
lowest density residential future land use category.
Should Council direct staff to move forward with this project as proposed, there would be an amendment to the
Comprehensive P lan.
F I NANC I AL I MPAC T:
None to the City.
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
P resentation
Page 46 of 105
Ragsdale Ranch
ETJ MUD
Request
Presented by
Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager
April 12, 2022
Page 47 of 105
22
Staff is seeking Council’s feedback and direction on whether to
pursue an ETJ Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the development
currently known as the Ragsdale Ranch.
Key Issues:
•Proposed development includes dense single-family residential
and multi-family, but the Future Land Use Plan for this area shows
Rural Residential
•Proposed development will speed up downstream improvements
to the City’s wastewater system
Purpose
Page 48 of 105
33
MUD Policy
Purpose
The City of Georgetown finds that the purpose of a
Municipal Utility District (MUD)is to assist in closing the
financial gap when a development is seeking to exceed
minimum City standards,provide a robust program of
amenities,and/or where substantial off -site infrastructure
improvements are required that would serve the MUD and
surrounding properties.
Page 49 of 105
44
Current Service Area
Ragsdale
Ranch
Development
Page 50 of 105
55
Page 51 of 105
66
Page 52 of 105
CONTACT US
(210) 681-2951 / info@cudeengineers.com
www.cudeengineers.com
Cude Engineers
ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING
Ragsdale Ranch
Future Land Use Map
o Rural Residential
Current Land Use
o Neighborhood
Future Land Use
o Arterial connection between
FM 3405 and RR
o Public sewer service
o Proximity to major intersection
(FM 3405 and RR)
Reasons for Change
Page 53 of 105
CONTACT US
(210) 681-2951 / info@cudeengineers.com
www.cudeengineers.com
Cude Engineers
ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING
Ragsdale Ranch
Area Exhibit
Page 54 of 105
CONTACT US
(210) 681-2951 / info@cudeengineers.com
www.cudeengineers.com
Cude Engineers
ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING Page 55 of 105
CONTACT US
(210) 681-2951 / info@cudeengineers.com
www.cudeengineers.com
Cude Engineers
ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING
Ragsdale Ranch
Land Use Plan and Area Breakdown
•Single Family Residential (214.46 ac.):
o 70’x120’ (10% min) –+/-130 lots
o 60’x120’ (20% min) –+/-250 lots
o 50’x120’ (30% max) –+/-280 lots
o 45’x120’ (40% max) –+/-430 lots
•Multi-Family Residential (42.50 ac.):
o 425 units (10 du/ac)
•Miscellaneous (79.47 ac.):
o Amenity Center/Park: 3.76 ac.
o Natural Area/Park: 5.70 ac.
o Pocket Park: 3.07 ac.
o Pocket Park: 1.59 ac.
o Passive Open Space: 34.37 ac.
o ESD #4 Tract: 3.25 ac.
o 120’ Arterial ROW: 13.77 ac.
o Lift Station: 1.00 ac.
o Detention/WQ Ponds: 12.96 ac.
o +/-2.5 mile connected trails system
Land Use Breakdown
Page 56 of 105
CONTACT US
(210) 681-2951 / info@cudeengineers.com
www.cudeengineers.com
Cude Engineers
ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING
Ragsdale Ranch
Offsite Sewer Route Exhibit
o Force Main: +/-8,700 lf
o Gravity Main: +/-9,600 lf
Option A –South Route
o Force Main: +/-15,000 lf
o Gravity Main: +/-6,200 lf
Option B –North Route
Page 57 of 105
1212
Staff is seeking Council’s feedback and direction on whether to
pursue an ETJ Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the development
currently known as the Ragsdale Ranch.
Feedback requested:
•Based on what Council has seen, do you support staff moving
forward with MUD negotiations and a potential change to the
Future Land Use Plan to facilitate this development?
•If so, what would you like to see the developer bring back with their next
version of a land plan and MUD proposal?
Feedback and Direction
Page 58 of 105
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
April 12, 2022
S UBJEC T:
P resentation and discussio n regarding develo pment standards for single family condominium deve lo pments -- Sofia
Nelson, P lanning Director
I T EM S UMMARY:
B ackground:
Introduction to Condominiums
· Condominium Definitio n: A form of real property with po rtions of the real property designated for separate
ownership or occupancy, and the remainder of the real property designated for common ownership or occupancy solely by
the owners of those portions. TU C A Sec. 82.003.
Texas Uniform Condominium Act (TU CA)
· Section 82.051 – Creation of Condos
Condominiums are created by recording a Declaration in the Deed Records
(e) This chapter does no t affect o r diminish the rights of municipalities and counties to approve plats of subdivisions and
enforce building codes as may be authorized or required by law.
· Section 82.006 – Applicability of Municipal Regulations:
Cities may not pass regulations that would prohibit condo regimes.
Cities may not impose any requirement on a condominium that it would not impose on a physically identical development
under a different form of ownership.
Otherwise, this chapter does not invalidate or modify any provision of any zoning, subdivision, building code, or other real
property use law, ordinance, or regulation.
Code Compari son
Tradi ti onal Subdi vi si on Condo Regi me
Zoning:
• Residential Single Family
(RS)
• Townhouse District (TH)
• Two-Family District
(TF).
Zoning:
• Low Density Multifamily District (M F-1).
Access to units:
• P ublic streets:
• 32’ back of curb
to back of curb
Access to units:
• P rivate Driveways/ Fire lanes:
• Varies depending on presence of on street
parking
• Minimum 20’ back of curb to back of curb
Setbacks: Measured from
individual property lines
• Front: 15-20’
• Side: shared wall
to 6’
Setbacks: Measured from project boundaries
• A minimum building separation of 12 feet is
required between all buildings on the site
Sidewalks
• Required along both sides
of all public streets
Sidewalks
• Sidewalks are not required along internal private
driveways or fire lanes
Page 59 of 105
Tradi ti onal Subdi vi si on Detached Condo Regi me
Impervious Cover/ Density
• 45%-50%
• 4-5 units per ace
Impervious Cover/ Density
• 50%
• 7-10 units per acre
Utilities:
• P ublic streets are
required
• Utilities are individually
metered.
Utilities:
• Utilities are master metered.
P ermitting:
• Subdivision P lat
• Subdivision Construction
P lans
• Building P ermit
P ermitting:
• Subdivision P lat
• Site Development P lan
• Building P ermit
• Certificate of Occupancy
P urpose of P resentati on:
The purpose of this presentation is as follows:
Update the City Council on stakeholder feedback
Receive City Council feedbac k on proposed coding approach for bringing consistency between single family
condominium developments and single family platted development.
P resentati on Agenda:
· Recap of City Council direction
· Engagement approach and summary
· Recommended Approach:
· Zoning
· P latting
· Feedback on Approach
F I NANC I AL I MPAC T:
n/a
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
C ons ultant prepared diagnos itc report
C ondo P resentation
Page 60 of 105
Diagnostic Report
Condominium Regimes
Unified Development Code
Diagnostic Report
December 19, 2021
Page 61 of 105
This Page is Intentionally Left Blank for Double-Sided Printing
Page 62 of 105
Diagnostic Report
Contents
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................................1
Background on Condominium Regimes .......................................................................................................................2
Engagement Approach and Summary ...........................................................................................................................3
Diagnostic Evaluation .........................................................................................................................................................6
1. Address Zoning-Related Barriers to Fee-Simple Alternatives to the Condominium Regime Products ..................... 6
2. Consistently Apply Utility Standards Between Ownership Means .......................................................................................... 13
3. Establish Alternative Geometric Standards for Public Streets in Limited Circumstances ............................................ 16
4. Clarify Applicability of All Development Standards to Multifamily Detached .................................................................... 17
5. Update Definitions ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
6. Evaluate Utility Rate Structure for Residential Versus Commercial Customers ............................................................... 18
7. Enable By-Right Approaches to Accessory Dwelling Units ......................................................................................................... 19
Page 63 of 105
This Page is Intentionally Left Blank for Double-Sided Printing
Page 64 of 105
Diagnostic Report
1
Introduction
The City of Georgetown engaged Freese and Nichols regarding
the growing prevalence of condominium regimes, and a need to
clarify the regulatory environment to ensure practices and
regulations comport to applicable laws while simultaneously
seeking to align with the City’s interests. This includes
stakeholder engagement, diagnosis of issues as they relate to the
Unified Development Code (UDC), and the drafting of
amendment language to support resolution of those issues to the
extent applicable under the UDC.
This diagnostic report is based on planning and development
experience, and does not constitute legal advice. The City should
rely upon the counsel of its City Attorney for legal advice, which
includes individuals with specific expertise in the implications of
condominium regimes and applicable elements of state law, case
law and Attorney General opinions.
While condominium regimes take many forms, the focus of this
effort is specifically “single-family condos.” We interpret this to
include townhouses in which multiple units share a fire-
separation wall, as well as detached structures of 1-2 units that,
from a building code perspective, typically fall under the
International Residential Code.
Key Terms:
Condominium
A form of real property with portions of the real property
designated for separate ownership or occupancy, and the
remainder of the real property designated for common
ownership or occupancy solely by the owners of those
portions (Texas Property Code Section 82.003).
Condominium Declaration
An instrument that establishes property under a
condominium regime, meeting certain content standards
under Texas Property Code Chapter 81.
Fee-Simple
Full and complete ownership of a piece of land and any
buildings that sit on it. If you buy a home, that means you
own the land, the home and any other outbuildings on that
land, including sheds, garages, etc.
Unified Development Code (UDC)
The primary means of development regulation in
Georgetown, containing zoning, subdivision and a variety of
other development regulations.
Building-Related Codes/Building Codes
The collection of codes regulating buildings and construction
in Georgetown, located in Chapter 8.04 and Chapter 15 of the
Code of Ordinances.
Page 65 of 105
Diagnostic Report
2
Background on Condominium Regimes
Condominium buildings and condominium regimes have
emerged as a new development technique in Georgetown.
Commonly thought of as urban condo buildings, the
Georgetown’s application has been “single family condo”
development projects. This is often the result of a growing desire
for “lock and leave” housing types for busy professionals and
others seeking to invest their time and energy in priorities other
than exterior maintenance. Likewise, developers are turning to
these tools to address unique features of project sites, such as
steep slopes, tree coverage and similar issues, that are difficult to
address under a common fee-simple ownership approach.
Others may view the technique to circumvent standards. Once a
parent tract has been legally subdivided or exempted from the
requirement to subdivide, the condominium process provides a
means to legally further divide property among ownership
interests.
It is critically important to understand a condominium is merely
a method of ownership—an alternative to fee simple ownership.
They are not a type of building, construction method or
standalone land use. For example, the developed form of a single-
family home could be structured as fee simple ownership, or as a
condominium. The same holds true for an apartment building,
and office buildings and large-scale retail developments. In short,
condominium ownership extends well-beyond the common
conception of high-rise apartment buildings.
Texas Property Code Section 82.005 and 82.003 indicate that the
creation of a condominium regime is not a subdivision and plat
approval is not required, and that a condominium plat is not a
subdivision plat. Section 82.006 goes on to say land use laws may
not prohibit the condominium form of ownership or impose any
requirement on a condominium which is not imposed on other
physically identical developments under a different ownership
structure. By the same token, these chapters are clear that
municipal regulations are not diminished by virtue of the subject
property being owned via a condominium regime. As applied,
this places the form of the development at the forefront of the
regulatory determination, with method of ownership being
irrelevant. It is also notable that the language of Chapter 82
repeatedly references apartments, primarily contemplating
condominiums within a building rather than detached units. The
City should treat a condo development identically to how it
would treat a development owned in a different manner.
It is important to note, however, that the original underlying
tract must be a legal lot for development purposes. Just because
the condominium declaration does not prompt a subdivision
plat, does not exclude the possibility that other actions related to
development would trigger preparation of a plat.
While unrelated to condominium ownership, this phenomenon is
common to mobile home parks and recreational vehicle parks.
Both cities and counties have required platting, identification of
individual sites within a project, and similar information.
Though limited case law exists to firmly establish applicability of
subdivision platting, Texas Attorney General Opinion GA-0223
provides indications that condominiums can constitute a
subdivision of land. In this circumstance, a county asserted that
because a development of several single-family structures within
a single parcel as condos was similar to typical fee simple single
family residences, platting was an appropriate requirement. One
of the most important directions from the Attorney General was
that condos are NOT exclusively regulated by Texas Property
Code Chapter 82.
Page 66 of 105
Diagnostic Report
3
Engagement Approach and Summary
To develop a deeper understanding of the condominium issue as
observed in Georgetown, Freese and Nichols met with a series of
interested parties over the course of a day on October 21, 2021.
The following stakeholder cohorts were identified and
interviewed, with select issues mentioned below each:
1. Georgetown Planning Services
Understanding of how zoning has historically
been applied, particularly single-family vs. multi-
family standards
Internal development process/applicability
coordination for condominium regimes
Regulatory challenges in attempting to assure
equivalent treatment regardless of ownership
regime
Perspectives and observations regarding long-
term issues with ultimate purchasers (owner
education)
2. Georgetown Engineering Services
Operational impacts for City following
development
Perspectives on maintenance, inspection and
repair of private infrastructure, immediate and
long-term
Public vs. private infrastructure
Applicability of TCEQ and threshold for public
water supply designation
3. Developers Active in the Development of Condominium
Regimes in Georgetown
Density is the performance driver towards
pursuit of condominium single-family products
Secondarily, the flexibility offered with
condominium regimes creates pathways to easily
address awkward sites and improve tree
preservation
Limits on street geometry for public streets
present some challenges if going fee simple to
achieve performance
Condominium regimes are the primary pathway
to product diversity as compared to fee simple
ownership under current regulations.
Consistency is important so expectations and
timelines can be managed – avoid surprises late
in design
Consider relevance if a project is converted to
condominium after – there are examples of
regular multifamily in which each building is 1-2
units (and thus under the International
Residential Code).
Some projects have realized significant savings
on impact fees
4. Georgetown Inspection Services
Interface between UDC issues and adopted
building-related codes
Challenges of large-scale private service lines on
the condo side of the meter
Inspection logistics between building/plumbing
inspectors and CIP inspectors
Page 67 of 105
Diagnostic Report
4
5. Georgetown Legal and Real Estate Services
Statewide conversation amongst city and county
attorneys
Confusion regarding whether and to what extent
Texas Property Code Chapter 82 alters
applicability of UDC and related standards
Owner education and attempts to exercise condo
association issues via municipal code
enforcement
“Waterfall” issues sourced to platting
applicability (ROW/Easement dedications,
emergency access, utility access and similar
issues)
Subtle issues of definition – multiple units on a
property versus multiple units in a building.
A way to treat the projects consistently as single-
family is a significant need, rather than cherry-
picking between single-family and multifamily
standards.
Some condo declarations and CCRs have
conflicted with local regulations, causing
confusion.
6. Georgetown Utilities and Customer Care
Documented issues of water quality behind the
meter, unknown maintenance practices
Communication to end-users, not just the
documented utility customer
Accountability for the billing customer
Private infrastructure maintenance is becoming
an issue, particularly emergency callouts
Engagement earlier in development process
would be beneficial
Need to update practices for looped systems and
multiple points of connection to the public water
supply
Rate structure and impact fees a growing
concern, including applicability of conservation
rates
Page 68 of 105
Diagnostic Report
5
Several consistent themes were observed through this
stakeholder engagement, which are expanded on in further
detail within the diagnostic report:
1. Condominium regimes are useful and need to exist, as
they do provide paths to meeting a variety of municipal
planning and developer goals.
2. Almost all participants indicated a pervasive challenge of
owner education on the differences between fee simple
and condominium ownership, and aspects of single-
family condo operations exacerbate confusion such as
individual waste carts. Many purchasers are new to
condominium ownership. A related issue may be the
variable experience of some developers.
3. There is a lack of clarity on the applicability of
multifamily vs. single-family standards within the UDC
that create challenges and some inconsistencies.
4. Variables in building separation based on structural
characteristics are more challenging to confirm in the
plan review process since the characteristics of adjacent
buildings are not always apparent. For example,
buildings can be closer together when the number of
openings (windows, doors) are reduced, different
construction materials/assemblies are applied, etc. This
can lead to field adjustments.
5. As a “single site,” the City finds itself in the position of
saying no to individual amenities like swimming pools, or
requiring more extensive site plan revisions when the
property is a condo regime versus a conventional fee
simple single-family home.
6. Private infrastructure maintenance, particularly
emergency maintenance response, is an issue. There
have been documented incidents of water quality issues.
7. Private infrastructure performance may be an issue,
particularly confirmation of fire flows behind meters.
8. Creation of paths to fee simple ownership with similar
density performance is a need. Density, lot standards and
geometry are the driving factors toward condo
ownership vs. fee simple ownership.
9. Communications to end-user customers from the City are
challenging (typically no on-site management like an
apartment complex).
10. Management of condo regime projects from development
through ongoing operations becomes more challenging
when the project is served by other utility providers.
11. Level of condo association management, updates and
communication can present operational challenges.
Likewise, the line of responsibility for enforcement is not
always clear.
12. Operational issues are lagging the increasing prevalence
of condominium ownership, such as metering
approaches, water theft/leak detection, system looping
and billing methods.
13. Condominium developments, under current practice, are
accessing advantaged impact fee and utility rates as
compared to their fee simple counterparts. This may
present equity issues within rate structures, but this is
also a reason for developers to opt for this approach to
development. Application of conservation rates to larger
meters is an issue.
14. The customer service drive to find solutions, even when
the City is not the ultimate responsible party, is placing
customer-facing staff in challenging positions and diverts
resources. This can extend into the development process
as well with some incidences of long-term temporary
certificates of occupancy.
Page 69 of 105
Diagnostic Report
6
Diagnostic Evaluation
1. Address Zoning-Related Barriers to Fee-Simple
Alternatives to the Condominium Regime Products
Discussions from multiple perspectives indicated that a
contributing factor to developers choosing condominium
approaches to single-family detached housing was
limitations within existing zoning districts to support the
denser products and diversity of housing options. Upon
investigation, the following issues were identified and
corroborated:
Limited flexibility within code language or
administrative discretion to adjust to unique site
conditions, such as awkwardly shaped infill sites,
significant tree stands and similar physical attributes.
Examples include lot size restrictions, setbacks, lot
widths and methods to achieve frontage.
Limited options for base entitlement to dense single-
family products, whether by condominium regime or
fee-simple. Dense single-family projects are reliant
upon negotiated entitlements with significant
uncertainty, or a controversial zoning change to a
multifamily category. Condominium regime single
family detached uses either a single-family base
zoning plus a PUD to modify any standards
necessary, while others request a base zoning of MF-
1. The MF-1 zoning category appears overly broad in
the uses allowed when the applicant is seeking a
dense single-family project by form, resulting in
increased likelihood of adjacency protesters during
the zoning change request.
In some cases, applicants have requested
downzonings from more intense multifamily districts
in order to allow the single-family detached form.
This is indicative of sufficient market demand that
applicants are willing to forego a higher intensity
entitlement in order to access a particular cohort of
demand.
Stakeholder conversations indicated density is the
critical driver of these products, not the method of
ownership. There is not a readily obvious single-
family district that allows a broad mix of different
housing types by-right, though the TF district comes
the closest with its allowance for single family
detached, single family attached and two family uses.
MF-1 is the only district in which Multifamily
detached units are allowed, which is the closest
defined use to a single-family detached compact
product typically found under the condo regime.
There are more developers experienced with
delivery of fee-simple products; expanding methods
to achieve similar goals described by developers for
single-family detached condominiums serves to
broaden the potential for housing choice with more
suppliers and in a manner more buyers are
accustomed to. “Lock and leave” products can be just
as effectively achieved in this manner with thoughtful
property owners association CC&Rs as they would
via condominium declarations.
Page 70 of 105
Diagnostic Report
7
Table 1. Summary of Key Lot Standards by Use
Lot Size
(Square Feet)
Lot Width
(Feet)
Front Setback
(Feet)
Side Setback
(Feet)
Rear Setback
(Feet)
Density
(units/acre)
Additional Notes
RL
Residential Low
Density
10,000 70 20
25
(garage)
10
15
(street)
10
15
(Street)
Unspecified
accounting for
dedications,
ROW and
suboptimal site
conditions
RS
Residential Single-
Family
5,500 45
55
(corner)
20
25
(Garage)
6
15
(Street)
10
15
(Street)
Unspecified
4-6 typical
accounting for
dedications,
ROW and
suboptimal site
conditions
TF
Two-Family
7,000
(3,500/unit)
70
(35/unit)
60
(30/unit)
(when parking
located to rear)
80
(corner)
20
25
(Garage)
6
15
(Street)
10
15
(Street)
Unspecified
6-8 typical
accounting for
dedications,
ROW and
suboptimal site
conditions
There is a lot size inconsistency, with
single family attached uses requiring
4,500 s.f. lots with a 45’ lot width
(reduced to 35’ with rear parking), while
a duplex (essentially the same use except
within the same lot) is 3,500 s.f. per unit.
TH
Townhouse
2,000
Max. 6 to a row
22
32
(corner)
15
25
(Garage)
0
(shared)
10
(non-shared)
15
(Street)
15 Unspecified
12-14 typical
accounting for
dedications,
ROW and
suboptimal site
conditions
There is a lot size inconsistency, with
single family attached uses requiring
4,500 s.f. lots with a 45’ lot width
(reduced to 35’ with rear parking), while
the actual permitted townhouse product
is far denser with significantly reduced
lot width (beyond just the fact that
townhouses have shared walls). Single
family attached is essentially two
townhouse end units together.
MF-1
Low Density
Multifamily
12,000 50 20 10
15
(Street)
10
15
(Street)
14
Page 71 of 105
Diagnostic Report
8
Recommendation Option 1A (Preferred): Consolidate the
TF and TH districts into a single residential flex district
This approach creates a menu of housing types within a
single district. This creates a “missing middle” zoning district
of housing products that fall under the code threshold for the
International Residential Code.
Eliminate a minimum lot size in favor of a maximum
density of 14 units per acre to provide flexibility in
addressing site issues and encouraging mixtures of
housing types (noting that mixing housing types and
sizes appears elsewhere in the UDC as a preferred
outcome).
Establish lot standards by product type within the new
district, as follows and in a manner that creates
dimensional consistency between all products other than
townhouse (due to its unique multiple shared walls
format):
o Townhouse: Existing standards within the TH
district appear appropriate, without the
minimum lot size.
o Multifamily Detached: The same standards for
Single-Family Detached, below, would apply.
o Multifamily Townhouse:
New term definition: Two or more
dwelling units in a series having common
side walls and ground-level entries; a
townhouse row on a single parcel (this is
functionally a townhouse row or
duplex/two-family potentially under a
condominium regime).
The existing standards within the TH
district appear appropriate and would
apply, except for the minimum lot size
which is already recommended for
elimination under this recommendation.
o Single-Family Detached:
Establish a 35’ minimum lot width, which
can be reduced to 30’ when parking is
located to the rear.
Establish a 6’ minimum side setback (15’
street side setback).
In this circumstance, the
reduction to 30’ lot width for rear
parking creates an 18’ building
footprint. This footprint is
common in other areas, such as
New Orleans and coastal
communities, but does not have
significant precedent in
Georgetown. It is emerging in the
region as a means to address
affordability, primarily in infill
scenarios. A dense, small product
like this could be appealing to
small households (typ. 1-2
persons), a growing cohort
nationally and within the region.
Dense, small products can also
Page 72 of 105
Diagnostic Report
9
help achieve affordability goals
both for ownership and rental.
Establish a 6’ minimum rear setback (15’
street rear setback).
Establish a 15’ front setback (25’ garage
setback).
o Single-Family Zero-Lot Line: Existing standards
within the TF district appear appropriate, with
the following clarifications:
Establish a 35’ minimum lot width, which
can be reduced to 30’ when parking is
located to the rear.
Establish a 12’ minimum side setback for
the active side (15’ street side setback). A
0’ minimum side setback would be
applied to the passive side.
o Single-Family Attached:
Establish a 35’ minimum lot width, which
can be reduced to 30’ when parking is
located to the rear.
Establish a 6’ minimum side setback (15’
street side setback). A 0’ minimum side
setback would be applied to the shared
wall side.
Establish a 6’ minimum rear setback (15’
street rear setback), with a note
referencing building/fire code
requirements pertaining to fire rated
separations and openings.
Establish a 15’ front setback (25’ garage
setback).
o Two Family:
Establish a 70’ minimum lot width, which
can be reduced to 60’ when parking is
located to the rear.
Establish a 6’ minimum side setback (15’
street side setback). A 0’ minimum side
setback would be applied to the shared
wall side.
Establish a 6’ minimum rear setback (15’
street rear setback), with a note
referencing building/fire code
requirements pertaining to fire rated
separations and openings.
Establish a 15’ front setback (25’ garage
setback).
Establish a 12’ minimum separation between exterior
façades (this functions as a 6’ side setback equivalency
for a project contemplating condominium ownership; the
use of exterior façade rather than building eliminates
potential confusion with building code for when a certain
fire-rated assembly/party wall can functionally establish
a separate “building” under building codes).
Incorporate the residential design standards of Section
6.02.060.C.3., adapting language to relate to a cottage lot
with small setbacks on both sides, single-family attached
and single family zero-lot line configurations.
Page 73 of 105
Diagnostic Report
10
Recommendation Option 1B: Establish a new residential
district to accommodate a small cottage lot single family
detached product.
This approach fundamentally creates a new single-family
zoning district for what may be termed “cottage lots.” This
would be a small-lot detached residential product, most
closely reflecting the single-family detached condominium
product. This can be configured to clarify how standards
might apply in a condominium ownership regime by
including detached multifamily as a permitted use.
Establish a minimum 3,500 s.f. lot size; alternatively, rely
entirely on a maximum density of 10 units per acre
(appears typical of the single-family detached condo
product)
o Relying on density allows this district to function
more fluidly between fee-simple and condo
ownership regimes without as many challenges
of interpretation. This would involve allowing
multifamily detached as a permitted use in this
district.
Establish a 35’ minimum lot width, which can be reduced
to 30’ when parking is located to the rear
Establish a 6’ minimum side setback (15’ street side
setback)
o In this circumstance, the reduction to 30’ lot
width for rear parking creates an 18’ building
footprint. This footprint is common in other
areas, such as New Orleans and coastal
communities, but does not have significant
precedent in Georgetown. It is emerging in the
region as a means to address affordability,
primarily in infill scenarios. A dense, small
product like this could be appealing to small
households (typ. 1-2 persons), a growing cohort
nationally and within the region. Dense, small
products can also help achieve affordability goals
both for ownership and rental.
Establish a 6’ minimum rear setback (15’ street rear
setback)
Establish a 15’ front setback (25’ garage setback)
Establish a 12’ minimum separation between buildings
(this functions as a 6’ side setback equivalency for a
project contemplating condominium ownership)
Incorporate the residential design standards of Section
6.02.060.C.3., adapting language to relate to both a
cottage lot with setbacks on both sides and a zero-lot line
configuration.
Incorporate the residential design standards of Section
6.02.070.C.2-5
Page 74 of 105
Diagnostic Report
11
Recommendation Option 1C: Modify the TF zoning
district to allow a detached cottage lot option as well as
multifamily detached.
This concept seeks to more clearly treat multifamily
detached (single family detached condominiums) as their
appropriate equivalent under fee-simple ownership by
shifting the type of development out of an exclusively
multifamily zoning category and into a residential category
that primarily contains building forms that fall under the
International Residential Code for One and Two Family
Buildings. This reduces potential controversy in zoning
change requests, and sets clearer alignment that the project,
regardless of ownership, will be treated as single-family for
the purposes of other development standards. This approach
also establishes a small lot single-family detached product is
appropriate in this district, and corrects an inconsistency for
single-family attached products versus a two-family product
(the same form, with the difference being the units are
separated by a lot line).
Rename the district appropriately. An example could be
“R2 One and Two Family Structures” or “RT Residential
Transition.”
Establish lot standards by product type within the new
district, as follows and in a manner that creates
dimensional consistency between all products other than
townhouse (due to its unique multiple shared walls
format):
o Multifamily Detached: The same standards for
Single-Family Detached, below, would apply.
o Single-Family Detached:
Establish a 35’ minimum lot width, which
can be reduced to 30’ when parking is
located to the rear.
Establish a 6’ minimum side setback (15’
street side setback), with a note
referencing building/fire code
requirements pertaining to fire rated
separations and openings.
In this circumstance, the
reduction to 30’ lot width for rear
parking creates an 18’ building
footprint. This footprint is
common in other areas, such as
New Orleans and coastal
communities, but does not have
significant precedent in
Georgetown. It is emerging in the
region as a means to address
affordability, primarily in infill
scenarios. A dense, small product
like this could be appealing to
small households (typ. 1-2
persons), a growing cohort
nationally and within the region.
Dense, small products can also
help achieve affordability goals
both for ownership and rental.
Establish a 6’ minimum rear setback (15’
street rear setback), with a note
referencing building/fire code
requirements pertaining to fire rated
separations and openings.
Page 75 of 105
Diagnostic Report
12
Establish a 15’ front setback (25’ garage
setback).
o Single-Family Zero-Lot Line: Existing standards
within the TF district appear appropriate, with
the following clarifications:
Establish a 35’ minimum lot width, which
can be reduced to 30’ when parking is
located to the rear.
Establish a 12’ minimum side setback for
the active side (15’ street side setback). A
0’ minimum side setback would be
applied to the passive side.
o Single-Family Attached:
Establish a 35’ minimum lot width, which
can be reduced to 30’ when parking is
located to the rear.
Establish a 6’ minimum side setback (15’
street side setback). A 0’ minimum side
setback would be applied to the shared
wall side.
Establish a 6’ minimum rear setback (15’
street rear setback), with a note
referencing building/fire code
requirements pertaining to fire rated
separations and openings.
Establish a 15’ front setback (25’ garage
setback).
o Two Family:
Establish a 70’ minimum lot width, which
can be reduced to 60’ when parking is
located to the rear.
Establish a 6’ minimum side setback (15’
street side setback). A 0’ minimum side
setback would be applied to the shared
wall side.
Establish a 6’ minimum rear setback (15’
street rear setback), with a note
referencing building/fire code
requirements pertaining to fire rated
separations and openings.
Establish a 15’ front setback (25’ garage
setback).
Incorporate the residential design standards of Section
6.02.060.C.3., adapting language to relate to both a
cottage lot with setbacks on both sides and a zero-lot line
configuration.
Page 76 of 105
Diagnostic Report
13
2. Consistently Apply Utility Standards Between
Ownership Means
Single-family detached units, single-family attached units,
two-family units, single-family zero-lot line units and
townhouses, in fee simple configuration, are required to have
their own individual water and electrical meters, wastewater
service connections and similar features. Those then connect
to public supply infrastructure. They are likewise expected to
have individual accounts for waste services. The equivalent
to these building forms in a condominium format have varied
in approaches within Georgetown, with many functioning
under a master meter with essentially a private distribution
system within the development.
An equity issue in which a fee-simple owner is paying
on a more aggressive/costly rate structure than their
condominium equivalent.
An equity issue in which a fee-simple owner is paying
higher capital recovery/impact fees than their
condominium equivalent by virtue of the calculation
methods for various meter types. The difference in
impact fees has been anecdotally reported as high as
$600,000.
A gap between the supplier and ultimate end-user
that creates confusion, as the condominium products
lack features of apartment complexes that typically
benefit from on-site management and building forms
that clearly signal that the end-user is not the utility
customer. This is even conveyed in the means of
addressing—an apartment building is typically a
single street address followed by apartment
numbers, while single-family detached
condominiums often have named private drives and
addresses that are simply “### StreetName Dr.” The
practice for homeowners, regardless of fee simple or
condominium ownership, is to “call the source” for
utility issues. This introduces customer service
challenges as the City is often unable to assist since
the condominium caller is not a customer of record.
There is also an challenge of notification for issues
like boil water notices.
Large diameter private utility lines create issues for
inspection, as they are at a scale consistent with
public utility infrastructure rather than typical
service lines. In addition, confusion is created since
“service lines” from individual units are themselves
feeding into other private service lines, introducing
questions of appropriate connection methods,
backflow prevention, cleanout placement and other
challenges, made more complicated by condominium
associations/developers failing to update property
management contact information.
Operational enforcement issues like conservation
restrictions to outdoor watering are enforced to the
customer level, which is not the end-user in the case
of many condominium ownership situations.
Conservation measures are typically address-based,
making it impractical to enforce internal to a single-
family condominium development behind a master
meter.
Page 77 of 105
Diagnostic Report
14
Health and safety issues are introduced under the
master meter scenario, with City discussions
indicating documented examples of poor water
quality internal to projects due to failure to flush the
system appropriately, project dormancy and similar
issues. Sewer chokes caused by clogs are slower to be
addressed due to inconsistency with cleanouts,
private management lacking rapid response (as
compared to the City who performs such services on
a routine, daily basis).
Water and Customer Care is having to hand-
manipulate systems to charge condominium projects
for a 2” domestic meter when there is an 8” fire flow
line. The setup makes it difficult to detect leaks, water
theft and illicit connections using meter data.
Recommendation 2: Require public infrastructure
within PUEs, with individual metering consistent with
the building forms
The City should establish that all infrastructure within the
single-family detached condominium development is to be
public, the same as would be the case for fee-simple
ownership.
Each unit should have its own water meter, electric
meter, sewer service connection with relevant cleanouts.
Each unit should have its own solid waste bins,
consistent with equivalent fee-simple ownership.
Each unit should have its own utility account.
A methodology will be needed to address application of
drainage fees, though our understanding is certain
standard assumptions are made by use for single-family
detached on separate lots that could likely be applied in
an equitable manner in this scenario. This should be
evaluated via an appropriate rate study.
Technical standards will be needed to address utility
assignments for public infrastructure beneath private
drives, along with language in PUE agreements clearly
establishing responsibility for surface restoration
following any maintenance causing surface damage.
Figure 1 provides an example of appropriate PUE
configuration and utility assignment. Generally speaking,
the City should bear no responsibility for surface
improvements if the drives are privately held.
Prescriptive guidance regarding the placement of
landscaping is recommended. Standards for the
association’s duty to repair following City maintenance,
particularly timing, should be established and may be
best linked to fire access/fire lane protection.
Page 78 of 105
Diagnostic Report
15
Figure 1 Example of Utility Assignments in a P.U.E. Private Drive (Source: Berry Springs Site Development Permit)
Page 79 of 105
Diagnostic Report
16
3. Establish Alternative Geometric Standards for
Public Streets in Limited Circumstances
Developers indicated that street geometry plays a role in
some instances when deciding to declare condominiums
rather than fee-simple ownership on separate lots. The
thought process appears to be that private drives achieve
some short-term cost savings and have advantageous
standards for elements like turn radii, width and
turnarounds. As stated repeatedly in this analysis, there
should be no advantage or disadvantage resulting from the
application of development standards.
Recommendation 3: Establish a clear roadway/access
standard for multifamily detached
See Figure 1, above. A single-family detached condominium
should have private drives functionally identical to a typical
residential street. This establishes equitable treatment of the
products. A standard detail/section would resolve this.
A Residential Lane under Section 12.03.030 of Georgetown’s
UDC appears to potentially meet the needs described by the
developers. It is recommended that alterations to it wait, as it
may be that other recommendations of this diagnostic report
largely resolve the challenges without need to address
detailed engineering specifications. Should they become
necessary, the following alterations may be considered:
Allowing a residential lane with interspersed head-
in/angled/parallel guest parking, tied to a requirement
that this be provided as a ratio to the number of
residential units, without a requirement for alley service.
Allowing street end configuration alternatives based on
fire code turnarounds, and allowing street curve
geometry based on radii from the fire code. This could be
intentionally limited to compact neighborhoods with a
dense street network (block length under 500 feet with
10 or less units fronting).
Alternatively, establish an alternative one-way alley
configuration to pair with residential lanes, allowing for a
narrower alley right-of-way and pavement section
(bringing the cost differential closer to a local street and
furthering improved urban design).
Alternatively, application or modification to the
alternative street sections referenced in Section
12.04.040 for conservation subdivisions could be
relevant, perhaps replicated for use under a new section
for compact residential neighborhoods with a dense
street network (block length under 500 feet with 10 or
less units fronting).
Page 80 of 105
Diagnostic Report
17
4. Clarify Applicability of All Development Standards
to Multifamily Detached
Current practice is that single-family detached
condominiums cherry-pick regulations, resulting in a
circumstance where it does not appear there is equitable
treatment between condominium and fee-simple ownership
for single-family detached products.
Building design standards use multifamily, which
create challenges since the built form of single-family
is radically different.
Tree preservation follows multifamily practices, as
does landscaping and lighting (and street lighting on
private drives).
Park ownership and obligations are similarly
inconsistent, with single-family condos varying in
following fee-in-lieu with amenities in the MF-1
zoning, but applying a mixture of approaches when
under a single-family zoning with a PUD.
Recommendation 4: Systematically reconcile the various
development standards to clarify applicability
This can be largely resolved in combination
Recommendation 1 regarding base zoning districts, as a
fundamental issue is a single-family detached product in a
district that links all development standards to multifamily.
Though not itemized below, the fundamental governing
philosophy should be the application of single-family
development standards to this type of condominium product.
Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 will be audited for relevant
adjustments as the chapters of the UDC most likely affected.
It may be necessary to add clarifying language of how a
standard applies, and care should be taken in those
circumstances to ensure language clearly comports to Texas
Property Code Section 82.006. This should also recognize
that multifamily detached can be a rental product; it should
be treated the same regardless.
Page 81 of 105
Diagnostic Report
18
5. Update Definitions
A contributing factor to confusion over the application of
standards to fee-simple versus condominium ownership is
that the definitions for residential-related uses, particularly
multifamily, reference the number of units on a lot or parcel
rather than the built form (number of lots in a structure).
Recommendation 5: Consider updates to definitions
It is recommended that alterations to definitions wait, except
for those definitions referenced in earlier recommendations.
It may be that other recommendations of this diagnostic
report largely resolve the challenges without need to address
definitions and the nuance that may accompany a
philosophical shift to emphasizing the form within
residential definitions without creating other issues within
the code. Definitions should be evaluated in conjunction with
each other recommendation.
6. Evaluate Utility Rate Structure for Residential
Versus Commercial Customers
Single-family detached condominiums in Georgetown have
typically been using a larger master meter with private
submetering rather than individual meters. Due to how base
rates are established and triggers for conservation rates,
single-family detached condominiums are receiving
preferential rates as compared to their fee-simple
counterparts.
Recommendation 6: Consider a rate study to address
potential inequities and affirm policy choices
This recommendation falls clearly outside of the scope of this
diagnostic analysis, but the rate issue seems significant
considering the City’s emphasis on water conservation.
Depending on the adoption of other recommendations in this
report, such as requiring individual meters and utility
accounts, this may be a necessary step to address advantages
being gleaned from use of master meters in single-family
detached condominium regimes.
We recommend a demand/use comparison between the
various residential types, by unit, in order to better
understand the impacts.
Page 82 of 105
Diagnostic Report
19
7. Enable By-Right Approaches to Accessory Dwelling
Units
A method that may increase the flexibility of fee-simple
ownership in dense configurations is to update restrictions
for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). This would allow a fee-
simple configuration with an additional unit on site as a
rental. It would also allow for small lot condos in which the
primary residence and ADU have ownership. Current best
practices in urban planning indicate relaxing standards to
allow greater adoption of ADUs by-right is one of the most
effective approaches to distributed housing affordability and
stability.
Recommendation 7: Establish conditions in order to
recategorize ADUs as limited uses
The City should consider adoption of prescriptive standards
for ADUs, rather than relying on SUP discretionary approvals
that add complexity, lack predictable outcomes and may
result in inconsistent standards. Examples of commonly
deployed standards include:
On-site owners
Placement, typically to the rear
Parking
Size relative to primary structure
Page 83 of 105
Development standards
for single family
condominium
developments
April 12, 2022 | City Council Workshop
Page 84 of 105
22
•Present recommended coding approach for improving equity
between housing products that are subdivided on individual lots
and similar product on a condominium lot.
Purpose of Presentation
Page 85 of 105
33
•Recap of City Council direction
•Engagement approach and summary
•Recommended Approach:
•Zoning
•Platting
•Feedback on Approach
Presentation Agenda
Page 86 of 105
Recap of City Council
Direction
Page 87 of 105
5
Page 88 of 105
6
Page 89 of 105
77
Short Term Considerations
•Zoning of property does not reflect use
•Inequities in development standard requirements
•Impact fee difference between lot and block vs. condominiums
•Home owner perception of ownership of lot is challenging when
fencing, sheds, and pools are desired.
Page 90 of 105
88
Long Term Considerations
•Diversity of housing may not being achieved consistently
•Code enforcement
•Maintenance of private infrastructure
•Utility metering
•Connectivity and walkability
•Differences in open space and amenity requirements
Page 91 of 105
99
Developing Consistency in Standards
•Code for consistent zoning and subdivision standards
•Definitions of uses.
•Setbacks
•Impervious Cover
•Density
•Utilities
•Infrastructure
•Parkland
•Connectivity
Page 92 of 105
Engagement
Approach & Summary
Page 93 of 105
1111
Pre-
Development
Post
Development
Development
Process
Outreach Approach
Page 94 of 105
1212
Pre-
Development
Density
Density allowed with
multi-family-1 zoning is
a driver in the multi-
family detached being
developed.
Flexibility
The MF-1 development
standards were
developed to address
one whole development
rather than individual
building spaces.
Consistency
Consistency is
important so
expectations and
timelines can be
managed.
Product Diversity
Increased housing
diversity has been a
beneficial outcome of
the development
product being achieved.
Summary of Feedback:
Page 95 of 105
1313
Development
Process
Single Site Approach
Updates to a site
development plan are
required as individual owner
seek to make site
enhancements .
Consistency between building and site
development process
Variables in building separation based on
structural characteristics are more challenging to
confirm in the plan review process since the
characteristics of adjacent buildings are not
always apparent.
UDC Definitions
Definitions of Multi-family
and subdivision need to
be updated.
Consistency in application of
standards.
The customer service drive to find
solutions, even when the City is not
the ultimate responsible party, is
placing customer-facing staff in
challenging positions and diverts
resources.
Summary of Feedback:
Page 96 of 105
1414
Post
Development
End User
Communication
Communications to end-
user customers from the
City are challenging
(typically no on-site
management like an
apartment complex).
Homeowner Education
Challenge of owner education on the
differences between fee simple and
condominium ownership is needed.
Code Enforcement
Level of condo
association
management, updates
and communication can
present operational
challenges.
Summary of Feedback:
Page 97 of 105
Recommend Approach
Page 98 of 105
1616
•Reviewed UDC for barriers to development product diversity
•Utilized approved PUDs that incorporated MF-1 development
for basis of recommended development standards.
•Analyzed standards for equity between similar housing products
that are developed on individual lots.
Strategies for Developing Recommend
Approach
Page 99 of 105
1717
Components of Recommended Approach
1.Utilities
2.Platting
3.Zoning/Site Development Standards
4.Education
Page 100 of 105
18
Utilities
Short/Long Term
Considerations
•Impact fee difference
between lot and block
vs. condominiums
•Utility Metering
Action Step
•Clarify
standards for
metering
Next Step
•Legal, Water and
Systems
Engineering
Departments
currently analyzing
existing practice
and state
requirements. This
is a separate effort
from UDC changes.
Page 101 of 105
19
Platting
Short/Long Term
Considerations
•Equity between
similar housing
products
•Connectivity and
walkability
Action Steps
•Update subdivision
definition to include
division of property
into specific building
pad locations
•Plats to be reviewed
for ROW dedication,
connectivity based on
form of development
rather than zoning,
easements, adequate
setbacks between
buildings
Plat example of multiple detached homes on one lot.
Page 102 of 105
20
Zoning/ Site Development Standards
Short/Long Term
Considerations
•Zoning of
property
does not
reflect use
•Diversity of
housing
may not
being
achieved
consistently
Action Steps
•Update definition for
multi-family
•Require rear-loaded
entry
•Street design to
include on-street
parking and sidewalks
•Building design
standards (non-
material) shall be
required.
Page 103 of 105
2121
Action Plan for Addressing Feedback
Utilities
Clarify standards for
metering
Platting
Update subdivision
definition to include
division of property
into specific building
pad locations
Plats to be reviewed
for ROW dedication,
connectivity based on
form of development
rather than zoning,
easements, adequate
setbacks between
buildings
Zoning/ Site Development
Requirements
Update definition for
multi-family
Require rear-loaded
entry
Street design to
include on-street
parking and sidewalks
Building design
standards (non-
material) shall be
required. Utilize
recent PUDs for MF1
as an example
Education
Develop on-line
education on
permitting, code
enforcement and
interface with utilities
specific to
condominium
development
Page 104 of 105
2222
•Does the City Council support the recommended updates to the
UDC for platting, zoning, and site development requirements
recommended in this presentation.
Feedback
Page 105 of 105
