Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the PUD Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies Stromberg PUD amendment after debate over industrial flexibility
Summary
After extended discussion about allowing a range of industrial/residential scenarios, the Hutto Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-2 on July 7 to deny Stromberg PUD Amendment No. 2; commissioners cited unpredictability for utilities, traffic and compatibility with the future land-use map and asked the developer to return with a clearer plan or seek council review.
The Hutto Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-2 July 7 to deny Stromberg PUD Amendment No. 2, a proposal that would have restored flexible scenario language allowing the applicant to choose among multiple development mixes — including full light industrial — without future land-use amendments.
Staff presented background, explaining the property covers about 372 acres near County Road 132 and the future Southeast Loop and that the amendment would restore earlier optionality between the 90/10, 50/50 and full-industrial scenarios. "Staff prefers that the PUD provide clarity as to the direction that they are going to go in, and the multiple scenarios creates a challenge for long term use predictability and planning around traffic, utilities, and so forth," Manny Hernandez told the commission. Staff noted property owners within 600 feet were notified; staff received two written objections included in the packet.
Holt Dunlop, a partner at Waymaker Ventures and the applicant, described the request as a cleanup to restore flexibility previously approved in 2024 and said the change would help recruit industrial users in response to market interest. "We are really just wanting to go back to the original PUD that you folks approved back in 2024," Dunlop said.
Commissioners expressed divided views: several said they could not support broad optionality without seeing a specific plan or stronger assurances about buffering, traffic, and what industrial uses might be permitted near planned residential areas. One commissioner said, "I can never be a 100% for industrial," citing environmental and water concerns; others urged that if the developer wants industrial-only, to present that option clearly.
Vice Chair Wirtz moved to deny the amendment and Commissioner Kennard seconded. Commissioners discussed whether to postpone to obtain Economic Development Corporation (EDC) input or require a date-certain postponement; the commission ultimately voted to deny the amendment, 4-2. The denial leaves the PUD as currently approved and requires the applicant to seek council action if they wish to pursue different zoning direction.
Next steps: the applicant may take the matter to city council or return to P&Z with a more specific proposal and additional coordination with EDC and city staff.
