Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Georgetown council denies rezoning for planned-unit development at 903 River Haven Drive
Summary
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.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
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.
