[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6103819,"mediaKeyId","2793089-0563b8bd56958d6f2ec949fd3d0352ae","parentId",2793089,"title","Commission asks staff to refine duplex policy after heated public debate","audioSeconds",1935,"startMs",13897000,"endMs",15832000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2793089-0563b8bd56958d6f2ec949fd3d0352ae&start=13897&end=15832","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2793089-0563b8bd56958d6f2ec949fd3d0352ae/thumbnail_13897000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6103819/Bastrop/Bastrop-County/Texas/Commission-asks-staff-to-refine-duplex-policy-after-heated-public-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6103819-53308f5dc4bfde8cbc4a256f371c3132/orig.mp4?Expires=1771160021&Signature=mv-wK9sipd51Vz-C0nQcbaxUomxrDkaU8ZsMETrXh4Hp832E0dsZk53v8tiOlqJEv83WQDxcM9olYxkfbV1K-YLn0fgYkEsMKZvZWPbfqeRd2BZLS0Dnnr4ow5dOas9N8sznHXLddNlwi0Yiw5NmNfBJ~JPKML~-Vmnh9A~bZyJbFEzbfxzzdeqD9fkIk9XfPaBdlXrggS1prHkAiE5CX9LTUMoNySwuM6OICNsTmDtZMGp8XZ8K3~2Ce9ZTWE6i~NTozCKytT-F4-UUdOIZpfPVE5CsXJjajlbnHwmIu0SY~663LaW2Aql~oFMqvOzoRaauQpcdwg2Gtf0nOIOuvA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Bastrop","date","2025-02-17T00:00:00Z","article","The Planning & Zoning Commission on a majority vote sent staff back to draft refined options for how duplexes should be regulated in P‑2 and P‑3 residential areas after a long public debate and conflicting testimony.

Staff presented a proposed change that would remove duplexes from the list of permitted building types in P‑2 and P‑3; the intent was to protect single‑family neighborhood character and prevent a single‑lot clearing being replaced by multiple rental units or short‑term rentals. The proposal drew immediate response. Residents urged commissioners to preserve housing options and affordability — pointing to existing duplexes and deed‑restricted areas where duplexes already exist — while others said historic neighborhoods were vulnerable to wholesale redevelopment and that stricter limits were needed.

Commissioners and the public debated three core issues: (1) whether duplexes should be entirely banned in P‑2 and P‑3 or only restricted in certain subareas (for instance, older historic blocks), (2) whether lot‑size minimums and parking/setback standards could address the same concerns more surgically than an outright ban, and (3) whether developers would simply use ADUs or other mechanisms to achieve similar density if duplexes were prohibited.

After discussion, the commission voted to ask staff to return with alternative regulatory options rather than forwarding a blanket prohibition: staff was asked to draft geographically targeted limits (for example, carve out historic neighborhoods), parking and setback standards specific to duplexes, and lot‑size or driveway/parking minima that would reduce the chance of spillover curb‑parking on narrow streets. The commission asked staff to present those options at the next meeting for a clearer policy choice.

Next steps: staff will draft several options for the commission that could include targeted geographic restrictions, minimum lot sizes for duplexes, or parking/setback standards and will return for review before any final recommendation to council.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Bastrop Planning & Zoning Commission - February 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","After residents and speakers clashed over whether duplexes should remain permitted in P‑2 and P‑3 zones, the commission voted to send the issue back to staff for more options: possible geographic limits, parking/setback standards, or lot‑size thresholds to retain neighborhood character while preserving housing options.","taxTitle","Bastrop, Bastrop County, Texas","taxId",69403,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6103821,"Commission backs minimum lot sizes and built‑environment setbacks to guide infill",3389,9566000,12955000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2793089-0563b8bd56958d6f2ec949fd3d0352ae&start=9566&end=12955","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2793089-0563b8bd56958d6f2ec949fd3d0352ae/thumbnail_9566000.jpg","/articles/6103821/Bastrop/Bastrop-County/Texas/Commission-backs-minimum-lot-sizes-and-builtenvironment-setbacks-to-guide-infill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6103821-f401cb900d823a679ac3e777c7693e5c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771160021&Signature=BKyGCe6Y4g7~NPBx1uH4czjLSc0crnNEJ2VuoRGsLVAqtNS-NcYsMBW-vvrykugXr5MTGzsoVTjhO0DYo2pdRLjY7ANKl2ixXGCJyakru~d-E78K2AxADB9JIkDvkzoY9tp2wMMzHFHY4HRTN0dNdNCkgQkdTmOsGPlVHSlr~si41~gpeJGfazfrwJl~9EaFUQI8YVpNIrymyofmDmjAZ2rBPftuvnbyi2K0g9lzXlsS-ytFqFbZeUUEDRIK6nA~JuLSkSH~7Xi7iemhvRr9qUC~LeEUXF8NirVQzBZeG3SOyRtomk2IR37C8mtiaTLVdwqpMzgWbcrfSQ3qmdPEXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend code edits that set minimum lot sizes in residential place types and establish administrative rules so new houses match the existing built environment’s setbacks.

Staff said Bastrop currently lacks citywide minimum lot size standards for many residential place types, which has allowed proposals that could subdivide older lots into very small parcels or permit multiple units on a single lot in areas not designed for dense infill. Using parcel data, staff reported average lot sizes in P‑2 (primarily more rural neighborhoods) and P‑3 (established residential neighborhoods), and proposed minimums intended to reflect the existing neighborhood fabric: a one‑acre minimum in much of P‑2 and approximately 0.33 acres (about one‑third acre) in P‑3. The intent is to provide predictability for neighbors and to avoid exacerbating stormwater, utility and parking impacts on streets and drainage systems built for larger lots.

The commission also recommended an administrative nonconforming‑lot provision that allows property owners on smaller lots to proceed with building consistent with the “built environment” on their block (an administrative review of two lots on either side and within 500 feet), so long as the new development is consistent with adjacent setbacks, lot lines and characteristics. Commissioners emphasized the proposal is not intended to ban redevelopment; rather, it aims to limit sudden, large density changes that could overburden local infrastructure.

Several residents and development stakeholders urged flexibility to preserve affordability and permitted tools such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and planned development districts for projects that need higher density; staff said the code already includes ADU provisions and that planned development and PD districts remain options for tailored, larger projects.

The commission approved the proposed minimums and asked staff to return with any revised language and graphics for a future meeting.

Next steps: staff will prepare ordinance language capturing the recommended minimum lot sizes and administrative nonconforming‑lot review and forward the text for council consideration.","To limit unexpected dense infill, the commission recommended establishing minimum lot sizes (proposed 0.33 acres in P‑3 and 1 acre in P‑2) and administrative setbacks tied to adjacent lots so new construction better matches the surrounding neighborhood.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6103826,"Commission backs removing mandatory gridded‑street overlay outside downtown",3650,4446000,8096000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2793089-0563b8bd56958d6f2ec949fd3d0352ae&start=4446&end=8096","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2793089-0563b8bd56958d6f2ec949fd3d0352ae/thumbnail_4446000.jpg","/articles/6103826/Bastrop/Bastrop-County/Texas/Commission-backs-removing-mandatory-griddedstreet-overlay-outside-downtown","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6103826-aa3de0fc8570c72476bbb635fe27a77c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771160021&Signature=AR-3HOnB8UPEpRwNLnhcI9e6zOdw1LXmMLZnpDFDWX~WD6BarAkZvRePOLjvNheiZ5IfMsGDctVVY~MZVhFaJsNuKeNpelj62X4cbndmmQJONPpSZqekyvHJDNWYXEYJAzqoAiipnNeB9DTmpYohjaSlfd5Zb70KYvGLl0OgtWi~r4EEGZdufRrworiaMUEbn8v9EOAzylJgsD5Lzk1SSAjqxM5-4Wn-SDXIoW3CL0udnapGyN7BZ1KbloTwWd44wSy4zlJ8xcdpgb77sz5WvxarFob4yTf4Up0eDZw7AwjqthEnqQIi2sdw5vk1Y21Bv192HJJ-sIr1nPMD1kLjkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend that the city restore the previous thoroughfare map (adopted in February 2017) and remove the mandatory gridded‑street overlay that was added in 2019 with the B‑3 code.

Assistant City Manager Andre Esporoz and staff presented maps showing the 2019 gridded overlay and alternatives. Staff said the overlay could require the city to accept and maintain many small public streets inside new developments (for example, streets running through apartment complexes) and that paving and long‑term maintenance costs for additional public alleys and streets are significant. They showed an example where the overlay required a public street through an apartment site, which staff said made private development design and long‑term municipal maintenance impractical.

Commissioners debated balancing walkability and street connectivity with fiscal sustainability and emergency access. Commissioners and some residents urged keeping the downtown grid and other areas where traditional blocks are appropriate; staff said the change under consideration preserves the downtown grid but removes the mandatory requirement across the rest of the city, making the grid an option rather than a requirement for new development.

The commission made three linked recommendations: (1) replace the current Chapter 5 thoroughfare plan with the earlier adopted plan (2017) without the city‑wide gridded overlay, (2) remove references to the mandatory street network in the B‑3 technical manual, and (3) amend the B‑3 code text to remove mandatory gridded‑network language (leaving the downtown grid as an option). Staff said the amendments will allow more flexible designs for topographically constrained sites and reduce the number of city‑maintained streets built through private developments.

The commission approved the recommended changes and the motions to forward the technical manual and B‑3 code edits to city council with staff’s revised language.","Planning commissioners voted to return the transportation map to the earlier (2017) thoroughfare plan that does not mandate a bridal/grid street network outside downtown, citing maintenance costs and topographic constraints that make a city‑wide grid impractical.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6103831,"Planning commission backs parkland dedication changes and a new park‑enrichment fee",372,2534000,2906000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2793089-0563b8bd56958d6f2ec949fd3d0352ae&start=2534&end=2906","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2793089-0563b8bd56958d6f2ec949fd3d0352ae/thumbnail_2534000.jpg","/articles/6103831/Bastrop/Bastrop-County/Texas/Planning-commission-backs-parkland-dedication-changes-and-a-new-parkenrichment-fee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6103831-579fbdf551a1ca47c0a109a588c1e1d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771160021&Signature=RjP-Y0UN9ae~OdjFS8jP~26GIMrQ5CKRML6HeZoJsh0gt8SjG~OXBROJiTKJkU5Y16-ZxvDWPXHEvlQ1WOG5SGlbLobcQ-OoFsKLhbZBu501EHbSDKFhwoVUL9~J-JyiK-gBwApUzSUBmkpJEcm6LyO3arKCMcgIZ69SGLxjsXYrLL0snYdqtrGT4TFzRjijBHc2VLN~Y2ynKvwJx9ZCMAgVA2nH0r-PyWxk2dc2ZElO9eak~CrUHGO~EaE8G66JpLCjm2zt3hmbM6MYMTBSUd9RkpXp1eujBceEpH~v5GRooEgsOEyVCrjKWM11Iobxuw4vnjkH2PFHwgtLhs8s9A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Bastrop Planning & Zoning Commission on a recommendation supported an amendment to city ordinances to clarify parkland dedication rules and create a new park‑enrichment fee intended to fund park improvements and land acquisition.

Staff told the commission the revision responds to gaps created by the 2019 B‑3 code’s “civic space” approach, which sometimes let developers dedicate marginal floodplain and detention basins as parkland. The proposed changes would (1) require dedicated parkland parcels to meet minimum size and continuity standards (a minimum of one acre when land is dedicated for park purposes in most multifamily/commercial contexts), (2) limit the amount of detention/retention areas that can count as parkland, and (3) divide the city into north/south development quadrants (bisected by Highway 71) so fees collected in one quadrant are prioritized for nearby needs.

Importantly, the commission recommended the city adopt a $250 per‑dwelling “park‑enrichment fee” in addition to existing dedication or fee‑in‑lieu options. Staff showed examples from other Texas cities where similar fees are used to retrofit existing parks (for example: upgrade a splash pad to a recirculating system) and noted the city will maintain accounts for fees and return unused funds to developers if not expended within 10 years, in keeping with common practice cited by staff.

Commissioners and residents questioned how the fee level affects housing costs; staff pointed to sample rates in other cities (one cited at $1,000/unit elsewhere) and said the city’s $250/unit proposal was intended as a modest, initial step. Commissioners also discussed ensuring funds are spent citywide and that fees not be captured by developers in ways that provide little public benefit. The commission voted to forward the draft ordinance and the park enrichment approach to council.

Next steps: staff said they will finalize ordinance language and the fee schedule and present the recommendation to city council.","Commissioners recommended code changes to require larger, continuous park dedications, create a fee‑in‑lieu structure split by development quadrants, and start a $250 per‑dwelling park‑enrichment fee to fund citywide park improvements.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6103836,"Planning commission recommends tougher tree-protection penalties, sends package to council",2514,0,2514000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2793089-0563b8bd56958d6f2ec949fd3d0352ae&start=0&end=2514","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2793089-0563b8bd56958d6f2ec949fd3d0352ae/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6103836/Bastrop/Bastrop-County/Texas/Planning-commission-recommends-tougher-tree-protection-penalties-sends-package-to-council","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6103836-025bf95f082054514b02112396fc0b21/orig.mp4?Expires=1771160021&Signature=NyNFwYr~bbUnWRjNuSq6fwOiLdA1rr4VhcwR35fORQu17IygBvr79luvvqQ0oo4IEGZygasLiZSwQQm~k~pCU~2ljY2M77CAVYqsUjk6HicdZ9lxcYyDHBuIiQK5S-vK-PiYS45Otmzi6g0p~6tksxDK2lWIGAvmpJXUBnqfL70ZZlsjc5OvV9sKOtlD-aAxrNCmIaoBs0TK9HAnRX6zqa1XAQBp-BTkbKo3zssI62YyxdKGqvyfA2EliuIww2RvomjVB8sS9gEgAWZGm-GVqgv1d8~44AYViJ3Y8gVJG2SLRJugXlfsGxABzUlELXymgp9jlmvDIbPrU7ueenbMMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Bastrop Planning & Zoning Commission on a recommendation vote asked city staff to send amended tree-protection rules to city council that would raise the per‑inch penalty for cutting protected trees and impose daily penalties until replacement trees are planted.

The action follows public testimony about the Pearl River development, where commissioners and residents said contractors cleared large protected trees over a single weekend. Commissioners and speakers told the commission they wanted stronger tools to deter so‑called “bad‑actor” developers.

Staff explained the proposed approach at the hearing: lower the protected‑tree threshold to 10 inches (aligning with the state standard), require an arborist tree survey earlier in the permitting process, and tighten enforcement by withholding site development or utility approvals when violations occur. Under the recommendation discussed, a base replacement fee would be assessed per inch of trunk diameter, plus an escalating $1,000 per day civil penalty for each un‑replaced tree, and a one‑time administrative penalty; staff also said legal counsel would research whether a criminal penalty option could be added for the city’s toolbox.

Speakers repeatedly cited Pearl River as the motivation. Staff said Pearl River’s tree survey and mitigation had been handled later in the permitting chain, which allowed trees to be removed between site review and building permits; the proposed code moves tree surveys to an earlier stage so they must be submitted and verified before developers proceed. Staff and several commissioners also emphasized public‑education and faster on‑site review to catch illegal clearing that occurs over weekends.

Residents asked how collected fines would be spent; staff answered that funds would be deposited in a tree‑enrichment or parkland fund and used to plant public trees in parks, rights‑of‑way or other public spaces. Commissioners also discussed differentiating penalties between individual homeowners and commercial developers, and restricting exemptions in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) where state law limits local authority.

The commission voted to forward the recommended changes to council with the request that staff return with revised ordinance text and legal clarification about whether the $1,000 civil penalty under state law could be applied “per tree” or only “per violation.”

Next steps: staff said they will redraft ordinance language to reflect the commission recommendations, consult the city attorney on statutory limits (Local Government Code §54.017 was cited during the hearing) and return to the commission before sending a formal ordinance to council.","After months of public complaints about the Pearl River clearing, Bastrop’s Planning & Zoning Commission recommended higher per-inch fines, daily penalties and a possible criminal penalty be forwarded to city council for consideration; staff said enforcement changes and front‑loading the tree survey process aim to prevent repeat incidents.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission asks staff to refine duplex policy after heated public debate

Commission backs minimum lot sizes and built‑environment setbacks to guide infill

Commission backs removing mandatory gridded‑street overlay outside downtown

Planning commission backs parkland dedication changes and a new park‑enrichment fee

Planning commission recommends tougher tree-protection penalties, sends package to council