Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Georgetown planners propose mixed‑use zoning and tougher PUD standards; council debates net vs. gross density
Summary
Planning staff presented zoning-text amendments to permit neighborhood commercial uses in multi‑family districts, add residential above small‑scale commercial, and rewrite PUD rules to require larger usable open space and stronger recorded commitments. Council debated changing density calculations from net to gross acreage, a change staff said could reclaim roughly 18% of development potential currently lost when right-of-way is dedicated.
Georgetown planning staff presented a major package of zoning-text amendments on June 22 that would expand neighborhood mixed‑use options and tighten expectations for planned-unit developments (PUDs), while prompting a substantive council debate about how density should be calculated on new developments.
Planning staff said ZODA 2025‑02 would allow neighborhood commercial uses (small grocery, personal services, professional offices) to be integrated into R2 and R3 multi‑family districts through the PUD process, and would add controlled residential components to the city’s B1 and B4 commercial zones when developments meet design and review standards. Senior planner Elise Kats and staff emphasized that the change would not alter single‑family zoning and that mixed‑use allowances would still require development-plan approvals and design controls.
The ordinance package also proposes a substantial rewrite of PUD rules (ZODA 2025‑04) to make community benefits explicit. Under the draft, PUDs would be expected to deliver 20% total open space (up from a typical 10% target), at least 65% of which must be 'usable' (no floodplain or sinkholes), with minimum contiguous park sizes and connectivity standards, recorded concept plans tied to deeds, higher canopy‑coverage expectations (a 30% target across mixed developments), and phasing rules that require amenities to be built concurrent with housing occupancy.
The council’s central technical debate focused on whether to compute residential density on a net basis (site area minus public right‑of‑way) or a gross basis (total acreage). Planning staff argued that the net method effectively penalizes single‑family developers who must dedicate roads and rights‑of‑way — reducing realized unit counts by about 18% in sampled communities — while multi‑family projects that retain private internal streets do not suffer the same reduction. Staff and the mayor framed a gross calculation as more transparent for landowners, neighbors and the administration. Council members asked clarifying questions about how lot sizes, setbacks and parking requirements would interact with any density recalculation; planning staff answered that minimum lot/dimensional standards and setbacks would remain unchanged and that density alone would not override those requirements.
Several council members and staff said they would like more time to see numeric examples and model outcomes for typical local parcels before committing to a different density formula. Planning staff agreed to provide more detailed comparisons and to circulate the draft PUD language; staff also asked council members to consider sponsoring first readings of the broader text-amendment package in the near term.
Why it matters: the package would ease limited neighborhood commercial services close to residents, formalize open-space and connectivity expectations for new developments, and — if the council adopts gross density — change the accounting for how many units can be realized on new subdivisions. The changes could influence housing layout, street design, and where small businesses might locate in Georgetown.
