Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Granbury council approves annexation, comp-plan amendment and PD zoning tied to Highway 377 development

5781681 · September 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Granbury City Council approved three measures Sept. 9 that advance commercial development along the East U.S. Highway 377 corridor, including a comprehensive‑plan amendment and a planned‑development zoning change for property at 4107 E. U.S. Highway 377 and a separate voluntary annexation ordinance for about 67.113 acres.

Granbury City Council approved three related measures on Sept. 9 that advance two development matters: a voluntary annexation ordinance and a comp‑plan amendment and zoning change for property at 4107 East U.S. Highway 377.

Planning and Zoning Commission President Rita Kaye opened a public hearing and city planning staff presented the request from Texas Surveying and Engineering to amend the future land‑use map from medium‑density residential to commercial and to change zoning from Interim Holding and Light Commercial to a Planned Development (PD) with a Light Commercial base for the 4107 E. U.S. Highway 377 site. City staff recommended approval with conditions. The staff presentation noted the site context is commercial and vacant land; the proposal would place one lot under PD standards and keep four front lots in Light Commercial for later development.

The applicant’s representatives — Jordan Bishop of Texas Surveying and Engineering and Mike Roby of Collett and Associates — told commissioners the team would withdraw the monument‑sign variance after staff clarified the measurement method, and they formally asked to reduce a requested minimum‑lot‑width variance from 30 feet to 25 feet for the single lot that contains the two planned tenant spaces. Bishop said the monument‑sign variance was no longer needed after staff explanation: “I incorrectly interpreted that 200 foot value as a total signage,” and he asked to remove that item from the variance table.

Staff and the applicant described key PD modifications and conditions: a request for greater flexibility on wall signage (applicant initially requested allowance tied to a 900‑square‑foot cap), a maximum building height increase from 40 to 45 feet, a proposed single 12x30 loading dock per tenant (staff noted the full code requirement was not shown on the site plan), and a lot‑width exception for the interior lot to be 25 feet in the plan. Staff said the elevations submitted would meet façade articulation standards (columns or bump‑outs) and required screening of rooftop and mechanical equipment. The staff report noted public notice was mailed to 10 property owners within 200 feet and published; staff reported no comments for or against the application.

At the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, Commissioner Hayes moved to recommend approval of the comprehensive‑plan amendment and Commissioner Moore seconded; the motion carried. The commission also recommended the zoning change to PD with the conditions discussed.

At the City Council meeting later the same evening the council approved three ordinances related to these items. Ordinance No. 25‑57 approved a voluntary annexation petition by Dr. Gerry Lancaster for roughly 67.113 acres (various survey abstracts were listed in the ordinance language). Council members moved and seconded the annexation motion (Councilmember O'Bareer moved; Councilmember Wylie seconded) and the council approved the annexation by voice vote with no recorded nays.

The council then approved Ordinance No. 25‑58, which adopted the comprehensive‑plan amendment, and Ordinance No. 25‑59, which approved the requested zoning change to a Planned Development base Light Commercial for 4107 E. U.S. Highway 377. Council motions on those items were made and seconded (motions by Councilmember Wadley and others on the comp‑plan item; Councilmember Rodriguez moved the zoning approval and Councilmember Corrigan seconded) and both ordinances carried with no opposing votes.

Votes at a glance - Ordinance No. 25‑57 (voluntary annexation petition — Dr. Gerry Lancaster, approx. 67.113 acres): passed, voice vote (council recorded as passing with no nays). Motion: moved by Councilmember O'Bareer; seconded by Councilmember Wylie. - Ordinance No. 25‑58 (comprehensive‑plan amendment — Texas Surveying and Engineering; medium‑density residential → commercial for 4107 E. U.S. Highway 377): passed, voice vote. Motion: moved by Councilmember Wadley; seconded by another councilmember. - Ordinance No. 25‑59 (zoning change to Planned Development base Light Commercial for 4107 E. U.S. Highway 377): passed, voice vote. Motion: moved by Councilmember Rodriguez; seconded by Councilmember Corrigan.

The council’s approval of the Lancaster annexation was described in open session as conditional on a developer agreement: if the closing specified in that agreement does not occur by the agreed date, the city will disannex the property and reverse the related approvals before year end. City staff said the annexation and related developer agreement were discussed in executive session; the council reported no action taken in closed session.

Why it matters The approvals clear procedural and zoning hurdles for commercial development along the East U.S. 377 corridor, including site‑specific PD standards that cover signage, articulation, rooftop screening and limited lot‑width and loading exceptions. The annexation ordinance approved the formal addition of a separate 67‑acre tract to the city, but council and staff emphasized that the annexation is contingent on a developer agreement and closing date set in that agreement.

What’s next Staff will process building permits and final plats under the approved PD conditions; items such as outdoor display or cargo container uses would require a separate Specific Use Permit under the PD framework and return to public hearing, staff said. The annexation will take effect or be rescinded according to the developer agreement’s closing condition.