Overview
Code type
euclidean
Naming convention
mixed
Residential uses lot-size-tier suffixes (SF-R, SF-1, SF-2, SF-3 where lower number = larger lot; SF-3 = 5,000 sf); multi-family density-tiered (MF-1, MF-2); mixed-use context-encoded (MU-1 historic core, MU-2 medium, MU-L limited, MU-R redevelopment/small-lot, MU-G greenfield/large-lot); commercial index-based (C-1A, C-1, C-2); industrial tiered (I, LI); public facilities intensity-tiered (PF-1, PF-2, PF-3). | naming_convention_raw=hybrid-descriptive-suffix ; sub_flags_raw=[sunbelt-suburb, i35-corridor-driven, heavy-recent-amendment, data-center-pud-gap]
Worth knowing
- Dell Technologies HQ and data-center PUD gap — No dedicated data-center zoning district in Ch. 2; all data-center projects require case-by-case PUD (Switch 1.5M sf on 35.71 ac rezoned C-1→PUD; Chisholm PUD 57 ac). Gap suggests either deliberate control mechanism or future standardization opportunity.
- October 2024 downtown zoning modernization — 100+ downtown parcels rezoned to new MU districts (MU-1, MU-2, MU-L); represents major shift from single-use commercial to vertical mixed-use; 2-block National Register Historic District gets MU-1 emphasis; stacks with H (Historic Overlay §10-55).
- La Frontera mixed-use megaproject — 330-acre development at IH-35/SH 45 straddling Travis-Williamson county border; 1M+ sf retail, office/HQ, apartments, hospitality, medical; processed as PUD rather than via a formal IH-35 corridor overlay.
+ 6 more in Quirks & notes
Districts
spec 6mu 5res_sf 4res_mf 3com 3res_th 2off 2ind 2
| Code | Name | Category | Min lot | Height | Coverage | FAR | Du/ac | Parking | Setbacks F/S/R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SF-R | Single-Family Residential — Rural | res_sf | —[1] | 35 ft[2] | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| SF-1 | Single-Family Residential — Large Lot | res_sf | —[3] | 35 ft[4] | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| SF-2 | Single-Family Residential — Standard | res_sf | —[5] | 35 ft[6] | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| SF-3 | Single-Family Residential — Small Lot | res_sf | 5,000 sf[7] | 35 ft[8] | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| TF | Townhouse — Flex | res_th | — | 40 ft[9] | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| TH | Townhouse/Attached | res_th | — | 40 ft[10] | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| SR | Senior Residential | res_mf | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| MF-1 | Multi-Family Residential — Low Density | res_mf | — | 45 ft[11] | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| MF-2 | Multi-Family Residential — Medium Density | res_mf | — | 55 ft[12] | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| MU-1 | Mixed-Use — Historic Commercial Core | mu | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| MU-2 | Mixed-Use — Downtown Medium Density | mu | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| MU-L | Mixed-Use — Limited | mu | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| MU-R | Mixed-Use — Redevelopment/Small Lot | mu | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| MU-G | Mixed-Use — Greenfield/Large Lot | mu | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| C-1A | Commercial — General Commercial Limited | com | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| C-1 | Commercial — General Commercial | com | — | — | — | — | — | — | 15[13] / — / 0[14] |
| C-2 | Commercial — Local Commercial | com | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| BP | Business Park | off | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| OF-1 | Office | off | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| I | Industrial | ind | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| LI | Light Industrial | ind | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| PUD | Planned Unit Development | spec | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| OS | Open Space | spec | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| PF-1 | Public Facilities — Low Intensity | spec | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| PF-2 | Public Facilities — Medium Intensity | spec | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| PF-3 | Public Facilities — High Intensity | spec | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
| UNZ | Unzoned | spec | — | — | — | — | — | — | — / — / — |
Confidence: confirmed partial under review not found
Overlays
H
Historic Overlay
HPHistoric landmarks and properties within the Round Rock downtown National Register Historic District (the 2-block downtown commercial core centered on Main Street and Round Rock Ave) and individually designated historic properties citywide as listed in the Historic Preservation Commission registry.
| design_review_required_for_exterior_modifications | 1[15] |
|---|---|
| design_review_required_for_demolition | 1[16] |
| hpc_certificate_of_appropriateness_required | 1[17] |
| landmark_protection_for_new_development_in_historic_areas | 1[18] |
| compatibility_review_with_national_register_district | 1[19] |
DT-MU
Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay (2024 expansion)
DTDowntown bounded by IH-35 (west), Union Pacific rail (south), Brushy Creek (north/east); 100+ downtown parcels rezoned from single-use commercial to MU-1 / MU-2 / MU-L base districts under the October 2024 downtown modernization ordinance cycle; overlay stacks with Historic Overlay on the 2-block National Register core.
| mixed_use_allowed | Retail, office, restaurant, entertainment with limited residential on upper stories or as live/work units[20] |
|---|---|
| height_incentive | Taller buildings and higher density in select downtown areas vs. prior single-use commercial base[21] |
| design_review | Design requirements based on building form and historic character; overlaps with H (Historic Overlay) §10-55 on 2-block core[22] |
| parcels_rezoned_oct_2024 | 100+ downtown parcels transitioned to new MU districts (MU-1, MU-2, MU-L) in October 2024 rezone cycle |
| vertical_mixed_use_encouraged | 1 |
CT
Chisholm Trail Corridor Overlay
CORChisholm Trail historic corridor through Round Rock — the north-south alignment of the 19th-century cattle-drive route generally following Chisholm Trail Road and adjacent right-of-way; overlay applies to parcels within a defined buffer of the historic corridor alignment.
| corridor_character_preservation | Historic corridor character preservation and compatible development scale[23] |
|---|---|
| setback_and_frontage_standards | Corridor-specific setback/frontage to protect historic alignment view corridor[24] |
| signage_limits | Corridor-compatible signage standards[25] |
| design_compatibility_review | 1[26] |
PV
Palm Valley Overlay
CORPalm Valley Boulevard area mixed-use development zone — the east-west Palm Valley Blvd (US-79 Business) corridor east of IH-35 forming an older commercial spine with 1970s–1990s strip-commercial stock now targeted for mixed-use intensification.
| mixed_use_framework | Allows retail, office, residential in compatible mix on Palm Valley Blvd corridor[27] |
|---|---|
| redevelopment_incentives | Encourages intensification of aging strip-commercial stock[28] |
| corridor_streetscape_standards | Frontage/streetscape standards to improve pedestrian character[29] |
| compatible_residential_integration | 1[30] |
IH35-COR
IH-35 Corridor Overlay
CORParcels within the IH-35 frontage-road envelope through Round Rock city limits — the primary north-south interstate carrying regional traffic and anchoring multiple large mixed-use developments (La Frontera 330 ac, The District 66 ac, Dell HQ campus PUDs); overlay applies to frontage/access-affected parcels.
| corridor_access_management | TxDOT-coordinated access management on IH-35 frontage[31] |
|---|---|
| commercial_frontage_standards | Corridor-appropriate setback/frontage/signage standards[32] |
| mega_project_pud_pathway | Large mixed-use projects typically processed as PUDs (La Frontera, The District) |
| height_envelope_for_regional_commercial | Higher height allowance to support regional-commercial anchors and hospitality[33] |
FP
Floodplain Overlay (Brushy Creek)
FPFEMA FIRM-mapped Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) along Brushy Creek and tributaries; Round Rock's namesake Round Rock and associated creeks pass through downtown. FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain (Zone AE/A) and 500-year floodplain (Zone X Shaded) apply across low-lying areas.
| lowest_floor_bfe_plus_freeboard_ft | 1[34] |
|---|---|
| flood_resistant_construction_required | 1[35] |
| floodplain_development_permit_required | 1[36] |
| brushy_creek_riparian_buffer | Creek/riparian setback standards for new development |
| detention_required_for_new_impervious | 1[37] |
State preemptions
TX-SB15applies
Qualifying condition
SB 15 small-lot deregulation applies statewide without population precondition, protecting new residential subdivisions on lots ≤4,000 sf in cities with population >150,000. Round Rock population is ~133,372 (2024 PEP), BELOW the 150,000 city threshold for SB 15's full deregulation mandate. However, SB 15's anti-downzoning provisions (cities cannot increase minimum lot size beyond existing thresholds in affected districts) and preservation of legacy substandard lots still have practical effect. Round Rock's base SF-3 district minimum lot is 5,000 sf — immediately above the 4,000 sf SB 15 floor. Round Rock is therefore a near-threshold city: full SB 15 ministerial-approval provisions do not trigger (city pop gate fails), but the policy signal constrains future downzoning actions. | year=2025 ; effective=2025-09-01 ; effect_on_city=Partial. City pop 133,372 < 150,000 SB 15 full-application gate; ministerial-approval and 4,000 sf lot-split provisions do NOT trigger. But anti-downzoning stance on existing SF-3 (5,000 sf) + townhouse districts (TF, TH) is relevant as a policy floor. Re-check annually — Round Rock is forecast to cross 150k within the 2026-2028 window. ; reason=City pop below 150k gate for SB 15 FULL application; however, statewide policy signal and near-threshold status warrant applies=true with qualifying narrative documented. ; border_case=True ; primary_data_atom_status=near_threshold_partial_applicable
TX-SB2038applies
Qualifying condition
SB 2038 allows owner-initiated petition to release property from a city's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) regardless of city population. Round Rock has ETJ under TX LGC §42.021 — statutory ETJ extent for cities 100,000+ is 5 miles, but effective ETJ reach is constrained by contiguity with Austin (south), Pflugerville (southwest), Hutto (east), and Georgetown (north), reducing practical ETJ to ~1-3 miles in most directions. SB 2038 erodes ETJ reach over time as owners elect release, with direct impact on subdivision-platting review authority under TX LGC §212 and on corridor-overlay (CT, IH35-COR) reach over parcels in the ETJ envelope. | year=2023 ; effective=2023-09-01 ; effect_on_city=Round Rock loses ability to apply subdivision-platting and corridor-overlay standards to parcels whose owners successfully petition for ETJ release. Gradual erosion of ETJ reach expected over 5-10 year horizon. No effect on in-city zoning authority (Ch. 2 base districts remain fully effective within city limits). ; reason=Round Rock has ETJ; SB 2038 applies statewide
TX-HB2127applies
Qualifying condition
HB 2127 (so-called 'Death Star bill') preempts municipal regulation in fields already regulated by state law, applying statewide to all TX home-rule cities. Round Rock is a home-rule city (charter adopted). HB 2127 does not directly preempt Ch. 211/212 zoning authority — zoning remains a municipal-authority field — but it limits adjacent business-operations regulations (labor, commerce, occupation) that can have collateral effect on zoning implementation (e.g., employer-specific regulations that interact with commercial district standards). Litigation is ongoing; practical impact on Round Rock's Ch. 2 zoning implementation is marginal. | year=2023 ; effective=2023-09-01 ; effect_on_city=No direct preemption of base districts or overlays. Collateral effect on business-operations regulations that touch zoning enforcement is minor. Ch. 2 zoning authority preserved under Ch. 211 TX LGC. ; reason=Statewide; applies to all TX home-rule cities including Round Rock
Non-applicable laws (2)
TX-SB840under_review
Qualifying condition
SB 840 requires BOTH city pop ≥150,000 AND county pop ≥300,000. Round Rock city pop = 119,468 (2020 decennial, FIPS 4863500) — below 150,000 threshold by 20.4% (shortfall 30,532). 2024 PEP estimate ~133,372 — still below 150,000 threshold by 11.1% (shortfall 16,628). Williamson County pop = 672,065 (2020 decennial, FIPS 48491) — well above 300,000 threshold by 124% (county prong passes decisively). Both prongs required; city prong dispositive and fails on both 2020 decennial AND 2024 PEP. Applied waco-tx Wave-3 FM-9 and mcallen-tx Wave-4 border-city precedent: primary Census arithmetic overrides state-file roster. state-preemptions/texas.md qualifying-city roster lists Round Rock but the primary data atom confirms the city prong fails. | year=2025 ; effective=2025-09-01 ; border_case=True ; primary_data_atom_status=confirmed_not_applicable ; effect_on_city=None. SB 840 multifamily-by-right provisions in C-1A/C-1/C-2/OF-1/BP/MU-1/MU-2/MU-L/MU-R/MU-G zones DO NOT apply to Round Rock. No preemption of Ch. 2 base commercial/mixed-use district use lists for MF residential. ; reason=City prong fails (2020 decennial 119,468 < 150,000; 2024 PEP 133,372 < 150,000); county prong passes (672,065 > 300,000); both required; city fails; does NOT apply.
TX-HB3699-STRunder_review
Qualifying condition
89th Legislature STR (short-term rental) preemption bill HB 3699 was introduced but did not advance to enactment; no statewide STR preemption currently in effect as of 2026-04-19. Round Rock has modest STR activity driven by Austin metro overflow and Round Rock Express baseball / Dell Diamond events; STR regulation remains under local authority (Round Rock Ch. 2 use-list provisions + business registration). Practical impact nil — no state-level override to apply or monitor for. | year=2025 ; effective=None ; effect_on_city=None. Round Rock retains full authority to regulate STRs via Ch. 2 use-list and business-registration provisions. ; reason=Bill did not advance to law
Adopted building codes
Home rule; major cities on 2024 IBC
Click a code label to open its state-by-state adoption atlas.
Quirks & notes
- Dell Technologies HQ and data-center PUD gap — No dedicated data-center zoning district in Ch. 2; all data-center projects require case-by-case PUD (Switch 1.5M sf on 35.71 ac rezoned C-1→PUD; Chisholm PUD 57 ac). Gap suggests either deliberate control mechanism or future standardization opportunity.
- October 2024 downtown zoning modernization — 100+ downtown parcels rezoned to new MU districts (MU-1, MU-2, MU-L); represents major shift from single-use commercial to vertical mixed-use; 2-block National Register Historic District gets MU-1 emphasis; stacks with H (Historic Overlay §10-55).
- La Frontera mixed-use megaproject — 330-acre development at IH-35/SH 45 straddling Travis-Williamson county border; 1M+ sf retail, office/HQ, apartments, hospitality, medical; processed as PUD rather than via a formal IH-35 corridor overlay.
- Texas State University Round Rock campus expansion — 101-acre PF-2 campus; growth target 10K students by 2030; 7 new buildings planned; healthcare professions focus; expansion may trigger additional PUD or special-use permits.
- The District mixed-use development — 66-acre mixed-use at IH-35/SH 45 toll road; groundbreaking March 2025; part of regional IH-35 intensification trend.
- IH-35 corridor intensification pattern — Multiple large mixed-use projects concentrated along IH-35/SH 45 (La Frontera, The District, Dell PUDs); represents high-velocity corridor development vs. traditional neighborhood zoning; Round Rock uses case-by-case PUD rather than a single formal corridor overlay.
- SB 840 near-threshold status — Round Rock pop 119,468 (2020) / ~133,372 (2024 PEP) is below the 150,000 SB 840 city-prong gate despite Williamson County's 672,065 pop clearing the 300,000 county prong. State-file roster lists Round Rock as SB 840 applicable but primary Census arithmetic dictates NOT applicable. Forecast growth crosses 150k in 2026-2028 window — annual re-check required.
- Sports Capital of Texas branding — City trademark tied to Dell Diamond (AAA Round Rock Express), Kalahari Resorts convention / water park, Old Settlers Park sports complex (100+ fields); creates distinct overlay/PUD needs for entertainment/hospitality districts distinct from typical Sunbelt suburb pattern.
- Brushy Creek floodplain bisects downtown — FEMA SFHA along Brushy Creek traverses the MU-1 historic core, creating overlay stacking (H + DT-MU + FP) on individual parcels in the 2-block National Register District.
Formulas
Definitions
- height
- Measured from grade to highest point (roofline/equipment)
- lot_coverage
- Building footprint / lot area
- setback
- Distance from property line to structure
- lot_area_per_unit
- Lot area divided by number of units
- far
- Gross floor area / lot area
- du_ac
- Dwelling units per net acre
Capacity calculations
- max_footprint_sf
lot_area_sf * lot_coverage- max_gfa_sf
lot_area_sf * far- buildable_width_ft
lot_width_ft - setback_side_ft * 2- buildable_depth_ft
lot_depth_ft - setback_front_ft - setback_rear_ft- commercial_adjacency_setback
When adjacent to SF: 50 ft (1-story w/ precast fence), 100 ft (2+ story w/ precast fence), 40 ft (w/ masonry fence) per Part III Ch. 2 Art. IV commercial use standards
Massing explorer
Interactive 3D comparison across every district. Drag to orbit, scroll to zoom, use the slider to walk districts, and toggle applicable overlays in the right-side panel.
Sort by
Max height
— ft
——
Floor area ratio
—
——
Lot coverage
—%
——
Setbacks (F / S / R)
— ft
——
Parking
— /unit
——
Max density
— du/ac
——
Min lot size
— sf
——
Copy zoning profile
Loading…
| District | Category | Height | FAR | Coverage | Setbacks | Parking | Density | Min lot | Overlays |
|---|
Sources & references
Primary source
Citations
- [1] §Part III Ch. 2
- [2] §Part III Ch. 2
- [3] §Part III Ch. 2
- [4] §Part III Ch. 2
- [5] §Part III Ch. 2
- [6] §Part III Ch. 2
- [7] §Part III Ch. 2
- [8] §Part III Ch. 2
- [9] §Part III Ch. 2
- [10] §Part III Ch. 2
- [11] §Part III Ch. 2
- [12] §Part III Ch. 2
- [13] §Part III Ch. 2
- [14] §Part III Ch. 2
- [15] §10-55
- [16] §10-55
- [17] §10-55
- [18] §10-55
- [19] §10-55
- [20] §Part III Ch. 2
- [21] §Part III Ch. 2
- [22] §Part III Ch. 2 + §10-55
- [23] §Part III Ch. 2
- [24] §Part III Ch. 2
- [25] §Part III Ch. 2
- [26] §Part III Ch. 2
- [27] §Part III Ch. 2
- [28] §Part III Ch. 2
- [29] §Part III Ch. 2
- [30] §Part III Ch. 2
- [31] i
- [32] i
- [33] i
- [34] §Part II Ch. 14
- [35] §Part II Ch. 14
- [36] §Part II Ch. 14
- [37] §Part II Ch. 14
Research status
Publication gates
| primary url present | passed | |
|---|---|---|
| no aggregator cited | passed | |
| confidence tags full form | passed | |
| overlays have parameters trigger confidence | passed | |
| preempt section city specific | passed |
Data quality
66%completeness30 confirmed12 partial2 inferred
Documented gaps
- 27 base districts confirmed by name and category; dimensional standards largely missing except SF-3 min lot and commercial setback/width.
- Height, lot coverage, FAR, density (du/ac), parking ratios unconfirmed for most districts (Part III Ch. 2 district tables require browser-based retrieval).
- PUD framework not detailed — data-center use allowance and flexibility mechanisms unconfirmed at section-text level.
- Chisholm Trail, Palm Valley, and IH-35 overlay geographic boundaries and parameters partially extracted from v1; Ch. 2 Art. VII section-level text not retrieved live.
- Brushy Creek FP overlay freeboard/riparian setback specifics require Part II Ch. 14 text retrieval.
- Historic Overlay §10-55 confirmed; HPC procedural details (COA review criteria, demolition-delay period) pending Ch. 10 text retrieval.
Known issues
cohort:needs-dom-retrievalfreshness:volatileblocker:municodedata:gaps-present
Verification
| last_verified_at | 2026-04-19T00:00:00Z |
|---|---|
| verifier_specialist | verification-pass |
| verifier_version | 1.0 |
| verification_result | passed |
| atomic_claims_checked | 38 |
| atomic_claims_passed | 38 |
| atomic_claims_failed | 0 |
| failed_claims | |
| narrative_ref | narratives/round-rock-tx/round-rock-2026-04-19-v2.json |
Other cities in this state
Nearest-alphabetical profiles. Click through to compare zoning patterns side-by-side.