[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6536571,"mediaKeyId","3769601-27e1dc6b121276bb0ed647e7b9603767","parentId",3769601,"title","Votes at a glance: Council adopts utility, public‑space and enforcement changes; sets transportation fee hearing","audioSeconds",9886,"startMs",321000,"endMs",10207000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3769601-27e1dc6b121276bb0ed647e7b9603767&start=321&end=10207","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3769601-27e1dc6b121276bb0ed647e7b9603767/thumbnail_321000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6536571/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Votes-at-a-glance-Council-adopts-utility-publicspace-and-enforcement-changes-sets-transportation-fee-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6536571-89467ebe7a1e1214bd4d7fcf1b62fcff/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098772&Signature=XqU8eqiKs7LEzRCuYb-dbZH78g8Z7MYpvIkarJKsba9Pwt4cQRO0XHmaxzDk1I3w66LdbzzvH9JzD6fCF4WE5xl7rwnODPPY0Q0RR2BYqbZ~8AwWXEIa5Tz-~brIwA6nAUUOdJbFh04yH5J6RacrwUuOdiAuzgMR1VJaU4OsxL1K2onhIAhiIBc6cX57YkADhvLl-U7dnKbzXEtY9RCnGM85D73KHA~aqX8GDeCjfVXK0wvgPHMDPJ1e2HvkXxNIcJvDpYPPZBvnOM1HxiBp9SRhVxSPaeOs~cWwRhyknMnciOIru5MuUN7toLFT-SnF4kvCRiygj1ShSdTrCIzaGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Georgetown","date","2025-06-10T00:00:00Z","article","A summary of formal actions the Georgetown City Council took at its June 10 meeting (motions and outcomes are taken from the council record):

Executive‑session outcomes
- Separation agreement (EEOC charge). Council approved terms and conditions of a separation agreement resolving claims related to EEOC charge number 451202500233. Mayor recorded the motion and the vote; the motion passed.
- Legal action on federal salamander listing. Council authorized joining Williamson County and the Williamson County Conservation Foundation in filing suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others regarding the final rule adopted Aug. 18, 2021, for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Motion passed.

Legislative and ordinance actions (readings and votes)
- Very large commercial & industrial electric service (rate rider): Council approved an ordinance amending the city’s very large commercial/industrial electric service class to repeal the binding energy forecast, cap the class at 51 MW, require monthly energy forecasts, and create a periodically adjusted energy rate rider to fund hedging for the class; existing credit support and prepayment requirements retained. Motion to approve ordinance passed.

- Peddler and solicitor exemptions (nonprofit removal): Council approved an ordinance removing “locally based nonprofit” from the permit‑exemption list for door‑to‑door and business‑to‑business solicitors. Nonprofits will be required to obtain a no‑cost permit so the city can track operators and address problematic solicitation tactics. Motion passed.

- Noise control exemptions (construction and lawn care): Council adopted an amendment to the noise control ordinance to exempt reasonable construction and lawn‑care activities from the existing numeric limits during expanded daytime hours (proposed 7 a.m.–8 p.m.) in recognition that common equipment can otherwise exceed ordinance thresholds; state law limitations on regulating specific equipment (for example, prohibiting bans on gas‑powered leaf blowers) were noted in staff briefings. Motion passed.

- Sidewalks, aggressive panhandling and sitting/lying in public: Council adopted amendments to the municipal code addressing sitting/lying/sleeping in certain public places (limited to downtown overlay), establishing a warning requirement prior to citation for repeat violations, and creating prohibitions on aggressive panhandling and solicitation tactics that threaten or block circulation. The ordinance includes affirmative defenses for disability and carve‑outs for festival/event queuing, permitted business queuing and public agency benches; public comment on this item was substantial, with speakers urging both careful enforcement and more community services. Motion passed.

- Park hours and amenity usage: Council updated park code to make it unlawful to remain in city parks outside posted hours and added a 2‑hour limit (per 24‑hour period) for occupancy of benches, picnic tables or pavilions unless a reservation is in place. The change responds to repeated occupation of Chautauqua Park amenities that prevented broader public use. Motion passed.

- Parking code technical updates: Council approved revisions to Chapter 10.16 to clarify no‑parking zones and sign spacing, to expand the downtown parking zone map, remove the unused hospitality parking permit program, and amend temporary parking and visitor permit language. Motion passed.

- Transportation impact fee: Council set a public hearing for July 22, 2025, on proposed transportation impact fee changes and scheduled a reading of the ordinance for Aug. 12, 2025 (staff revised earlier public notice to advance the hearing date). Motion to set the hearing passed.

Procedural notes and public input
- The sidewalk/solicitation and park‑use items drew the most public comment. Dozens of residents, business owners, faith‑based volunteers, and nonprofit volunteers spoke during the hearing. Speakers who provide regular meal distributions and outreach urged council to preserve the ability of nonprofits and faith groups to feed people and asked the city to coordinate with a local coalition on homelessness response before strict enforcement; the police chief and others framed the change as a tool to address repeat, safety‑affecting behavior while maintaining exemptions for lines, festivals and ADA‑protected activities.

- Several staff presentations emphasized legal limits (state law constraints on equipment bans, constitutional limits on panhandling regulations) and the city’s intent to use warning and outreach before formal enforcement.

Why it matters: The ordinance package clarifies enforcement authority for public‑space management and large‑customer electric service while directing staff to pursue a public hearing and additional outreach on transportation impact fees. Council and staff repeatedly characterized the homelessness/solicitation changes as part of a broader community problem that will require coordinated, long‑term services and partnerships in addition to code changes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Georgetown - City Council Meetings - Jun 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Council approved a package of ordinances and procedural actions on June 10, including changes to utility rates, solicitation exemptions, noise and park rules, parking code updates, and a new public hearing date for transportation impact fees.","taxTitle","Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas","taxId",2823,"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},6536575,"City Council reverses HARC denial, approves facade alteration for 817 S. Austin Ave. with plaque condition",3938,5135000,9073000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3769601-27e1dc6b121276bb0ed647e7b9603767&start=5135&end=9073","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3769601-27e1dc6b121276bb0ed647e7b9603767/thumbnail_5135000.jpg","/articles/6536575/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/City-Council-reverses-HARC-denial-approves-facade-alteration-for-817-S-Austin-Ave-with-plaque-condition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6536575-0de78162ed55ce926013e6f99cded814/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098772&Signature=U9OERGmz3rBp9Q3YNbM1ekr2FVVSsPYmkXMpWH8tOWeVxW3zuZ3pO1C9sd8EMbsFzCdXCziHxI1JKkk8hK2Da2LKopEl17z2emFJcLTBdxkiYrfOyrP5Y~LaeSM3YmuOp0WA~qZg3FJDYDdKF6QWZQbn232MJHUUTOzzrvlgnHJpoMdn~HyYXex7KZD1LW0YLl3bPl850-m8Yatkfu~TXBAyV0WeFl53wDPFqzV48e8nvy7s~1Atzi9EqjTq40SaL9rmk~dMu4dn-GkN08U82724DPxP2W~MSoY6TyfKVWzaDrdQP~dbgFdziS04BvEGq3U90HCRFdmkGBpbqUnYdA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Georgetown City Council on June 10 reversed a denial by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission and approved a certificate of appropriateness for an altered street‑facing facade at 817 South Austin Avenue, subject to an added condition that the owner install a plaque recognizing the site’s historic use and name.

Staff presented the appeal of HARC’s March 2025 denial. Planning staff had concluded the application was generally compliant with the Unified Development Code design standards and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation, in part because the applicant proposes to remove a later stucco facade to reveal and restore an original double‑gable roof and truss system and to clean and repair Palmer brick. HARC, however, denied the request after finding the proposed exposure of the double gable and the lack of a historically typical parapet conflicted with downtown design guidelines on mass, form and storefront character. HARC’s earlier votes were 4–2 (August 2024) and 5–2 (March 2025) to deny iterations of the request.

The applicant, owner Adam Star and architecture team LRK, argued the project preserves and celebrates interior structural features — including large clear‑span trusses — and that the proposed elevation would activate a relatively underused block and engage pedestrians. Supporters from the public called the trusses historically significant and said the design would improve the gateway into the courthouse square. Opponents said the exposed gables and modern glazing were out of character for the square and urged preservation of the building’s rectangular, parapeted commercial form.

During council discussion several members said they respected HARC’s role and the difficulty of its decision but also noted staff found broad compliance with design guidelines. Councilmember Sean Hood offered a motion to add a plaque recognizing the site’s historic name (Lyndall Peterson and Company hardware and implements) and give staff authority to work with the owner on appropriate wording and placement; the amendment passed. The council then approved the COA as presented by the applicant, as amended. Councilmember Butler recorded a dissenting vote; the motion otherwise passed.

What happens next: The COA approval as amended allows the applicant to proceed with building plans and permits consistent with the approved facade. Staff will coordinate plaque wording and placement with the owner. HARC and staff materials cited the applicable guidelines (storefront restoration preference when original design evidence exists; vertical proportion and parapet considerations); those design standards will be applied in building permit review.

Why it matters: The decision highlights tension between restoring historically hidden building fabric and preserving prevailing visual rhythms on the courthouse square. The council decision permits a contemporary intervention that reveals original structure while requiring a contextual historic acknowledgement on the building.","After hearing competing views on preserving a parapeted storefront versus exposing historic double‑gable trusses, council reversed the Historic and Architectural Review Commission’s denial and approved a certificate of appropriateness for 817 South Austin Avenue with a council‑added plaque recognizing historic use.",{"_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},6536580,"Georgetown council denies rezoning for planned-unit development at 903 River Haven Drive",4175,478000,4653000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3769601-27e1dc6b121276bb0ed647e7b9603767&start=478&end=4653","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3769601-27e1dc6b121276bb0ed647e7b9603767/thumbnail_478000.jpg","/articles/6536580/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Georgetown-council-denies-rezoning-for-planned-unit-development-at-903-River-Haven-Drive","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6536580-f190ce9416b4ea33623f239c15dd83d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098772&Signature=d8lsqSJ0uqc8H2BcARhSNH0glW7MeU-uUYhR1NCZRJCKinyWFBuTThAnfXI-4VA5VXoYR2oi8gpXoNp~Hf6rvEfgvZfD~h0YlR3pIQWimtWtzFTGd1qYd5ZIIQFW5-JgFT90BBfxYZNCvfb05BhvYKU~vG6WGUKIpS~QSaZy7OCYR9xMI~QuWWJerMrKMETJarmrvjMGVTTZuaHygY27AdPA7Vkuk5KrE1ORBVFpvEhmDP64eh5o4rtNd5FfElmWiv8lmAoeFGUqOsixoxflCvAiaRhHUhHu9TFSJhxiXLggiohbWQSxhtZYsEjVTXCXIHSo5A4lzhIQ38PfOiiVDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Georgetown City Council on June 10 denied a request to rezone 8.705 acres at 903 River Haven Drive to a planned unit development with a base of low‑density multifamily (MF‑1) and local commercial (C1).

The proposal, presented by city planning staff and the applicant team, would have converted land currently zoned residential single‑family to approximately 4.29 acres of MF‑1 and about 1.7 acres of C1 commercial, with the remainder in transportation reservations and drainage. Staff told council the application did not demonstrate consistency with the city’s comprehensive plan guidance for a community‑center node, in part because it lacked measurable, developable commercial and reserved rather than dedicated right‑of‑way for a Parkview Drive extension. Planning staff also flagged a requested parking deviation (a flat 1 space per 300 sq. ft. for commercial areas) and several PUD standards that differed from the Unified Development Code.

Supporters, including the applicant team represented by Rachel Louder and development representatives, said the planned product would provide townhome‑style condominiums, a condo governance regime, a 20‑foot vegetative buffer and a privacy fence adjacent to the cemetery, and a mix of small neighborhood commercial uses. Louder told council the project had been four years in collaboration with staff and that the team limited home sizes and architectural standards to support workforce and entry‑level homeownership. The applicant said the design accounts for a future transportation plan that adds the Parkview Drive right‑of‑way and that some connectivity and access will be determined during the site‑development stage.

Opponents — homeowners, the Parkview Estates Homeowners Association liaison and residents who said they live near San Gabriel Park — urged the council to keep the location oriented toward commercial uses as the comprehensive plan’s community‑center designation envisioned. Parkview and neighborhood speakers said the node already contains substantial multifamily development and that the node’s 80%‑nonresidential aim would be undermined by a predominantly residential PUD. Multiple speakers asked the council to preserve the park edge, the scenic corridor, and heritage trees. One speaker said 186 letters of opposition had been filed; staff noted protest letters carried forward from prior public notices triggered a super‑majority rule for final action.

Council members repeatedly questioned whether the proposal would actually deliver commercial uses, whether reserving rather than dedicating right‑of‑way would delay construction of Parkview Drive, and whether the PUD adequately met the city’s vertical mixed‑use and gateway policies for that corridor. Staff and the applicant agreed the reservation means the right‑of‑way would not be constructed as part of the PUD and that the timing for construction and any credits toward traffic or impact fees required further engineering review. Planning staff noted the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 4–3 vote but concluded the application did not substantially comply with parts of the UDC and the comprehensive plan.

Councilmember motioned to deny the rezoning and the motion carried; council recorded the outcome as denial. The council vote was described as unanimous.

What happens next: With the denial, the property remains in its current residential single‑family zoning. The applicant may choose to revise the application and resubmit, pursue a different entitlement path, or appeal through any procedures allowed by city ordinance.

Why it matters: The site sits on the edge of San Gabriel Park and in a designated community‑center node where the comprehensive plan encourages a higher share of nonresidential, vertical mixed‑use development. Council’s decision preserves the existing zoning and leaves open future conversations about how to balance neighborhood concerns, commercial activation and access as the city updates transportation plans.","After a lengthy public hearing and debate about access, right‑of‑way reservations and commercial mix, Georgetown City Council voted unanimously to deny a rezoning request that would have rezoned 8.705 acres at 903 River Haven Drive to a PUD with MF‑1 and C1 base districts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Council adopts utility, public‑space and enforcement changes; sets transportation fee hearing

City Council reverses HARC denial, approves facade alteration for 817 S. Austin Ave. with plaque condition

Georgetown council denies rezoning for planned-unit development at 903 River Haven Drive