Council hears large Heirloom development proposal: 620‑acre PUD, PID request, multimodal trails and water/wastewater constraints

Developers and city staff presented a high‑level plan for “Heirloom,” a proposed 620‑acre mixed‑use project at the northwest edge of Georgetown’s extraterritorial jurisdiction that would be annexed into the city if the council approves the PUD zoning and a public improvement district (PID) development agreement.

Project overview: Developer representatives described a master plan that includes about 48 acres of parkland, a planned loop trail of about four miles, a mix of housing types (including estate lots, single‑family front‑ and rear‑loaded lots, townhomes, courtyard product and multifamily), roughly 87 acres of commercial/C‑3 land, and an optioned maximum of approximately 1,350 multifamily units. The development team said infrastructure costs could be on the order of about $100 million and that annexation, zoning and the PID would be synchronized at a single council meeting if the council supports the concept.

PID and bond timing: Under the city’s PID policy, the maximum permitted assessment rate the developers requested would conform to the city’s 55¢ per $100 assessed‑value cap but they asked for two specific policy variances: a 15‑year maximum bond issuance period (staff policy is 10 years) and consideration for earlier construction of a collector road across the site. Staff said the city would need to consider the financing implications and risk of reimbursing more of the collector’s cost earlier through PID bonds — staff did not recommend immediate agreement without additional negotiation and modeling.

Parks, trails and public benefits: The developer proposed building a primary 3/4‑mile 10‑foot concrete trail (and staff reported the project contains more trail acreage than shown in the current PUD submittal) and to dedicate parkland beyond the UDC minimum. Staff said additional details on park programming and trail alignment will be documented in the PUD and development agreement; councilors asked for assurance about trail connectivity and the long‑term maintenance plan for those amenities.

Transportation planning: The site sits at the intersection of Ronald Reagan Boulevard, County Road 248 and Williams Drive. Developers said they will provide collector and connector roads that feed the regional nodes; staff noted these roads interact with Williamson County and TxDOT plans, and county schematic work on Ronald Reagan will determine access type for the regional intersection. Council and staff discussed whether the project should build the full collector connection earlier in the phasing to reduce traffic on Ronald Reagan; developers said earlier full‑collector construction increases their upfront cost and they sought PID support to fund some of that earlier work.

Water and wastewater constraints: Staff and developers explained there is not currently full downstream wastewater capacity for the entire build‑out. The parties proposed a 400 LUE (land‑use equivalent) cap on wastewater served until downstream capacity (the Northlands wastewater treatment plant or alternative capacity) is available. City staff said if the city cannot provide that capacity by Q3 2028, the developer should be allowed to pursue a temporary on‑site package‑plant solution (no discharge) to maintain project momentum.

Land use, housing mix and architecture: Planning staff outlined the PUD’s proposed character districts: a town‑center and special district with higher intensity (mixed‑use and urban multifamily), a traditional neighborhood with a range of lot widths, and an estate‑lot area. Staff noted the PUD currently proposes a 6,000‑square‑foot minimum estate lot and would allow front‑loaded single‑family lots at 4,500 square feet and rear‑loaded lots at 3,000 square feet; councilors debated whether to require a minimum number of 45‑foot lots in the traditional neighborhood and asked for clearer architectural/masonry requirements (staff said a customary target in prior special district approvals has been roughly an 85% masonry‑material appearance standard on primary facades).

Council feedback and next steps: Council members generally supported the concept of a mixed‑use node and strong trail connections but asked staff to refine the PID financial model and phasing language so residential and multifamily units do not outpace required commercial space and infrastructure. Staff and the developer agreed to continue working on a detailed PID term sheet, PUD standards for building types and materials, firm phasing and wastewater contingencies before the project is docketed for planning and zoning and formal council action.

No formal action was taken at the workshop; staff asked for council direction on key components (park and architectural standards, minimum commercial commitments, wastewater phasing and PID bond period) and will return with revised documents and additional fiscal modeling.