Council approves annexation and PUD zoning for 147.3-acre Gateway Georgetown on I‑35

The Georgetown City Council unanimously approved an ordinance to annex and zone approximately 147.3 acres north of the city as a planned unit development called Gateway Georgetown, setting base zoning of General Commercial (C3) for about 2.9 acres and Industrial (IN) for the remainder.

Travis Baird, assistant planning director, told the council the property lies at the far north end of the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and would be the first annexation on the east side of I‑35 in that area. Baird described the PUD as targeting nonresidential uses consistent with the city’s regional center and employment center future land-use categories. “This is item 202049 PUD. This is Gateway Georgetown,” Baird said in opening the presentation.

Under the approved plan, commercial uses are concentrated along I‑35 while most of the site is zoned for industrial uses that city staff said are intended to support the municipality’s targeted employment industries. The PUD authorizes certain deviations from standard architectural articulation for large industrial buildings while retaining higher standards for the C3 portion.

To address nearby residential concerns, the developer has set building faces toward the residential area, added a 30‑foot additional setback from the property line, and included an enhanced landscape buffer. Staff noted that truck docks and the truck court would be shielded by the building and located approximately 400 feet from the nearest property line. Baird said the council’s staff review found approximately 12 residential units within 500 linear feet of the proposed truck‑dock area; staff described mitigation measures intended to minimize impacts on those units. Planning staff also said the PUD would relocate County Road 142 (sometimes referenced as County Road 143 on materials) to better align with the future bridge connection at I‑35.

The application called for trails and other on‑site amenities; staff said those trails would be on private property and primarily serve employees rather than be open to the general public. Baird advised the plan complied with the city’s Unified Development Code and with the comprehensive plan’s policies for gateway and employment areas, while noting the cultural/recreation‑facility criterion was less applicable for an employment‑center development.

The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7‑0 to recommend approval at its June 3 meeting. Staff mailed notice to 15 property owners within a 300‑foot buffer and reported receiving no written comments either in favor or opposition before the hearing. With no public speakers at the council hearing, Councilmember French moved approval and Councilmember Hood seconded; the motion carried unanimously.