Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 07.22.1986C C THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JULY 22, 1986 6:00 PM 6:00 Council/Staff Workshop 1. Tri -tract 2. Preliminary Budget Overview 7:00 Regular Council Meeting Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes 2. Bills over $5,000.00 3.. -Little Oak Park - Revised Final Plat 4. ,Spanish Arbor - Revised Preliminary Plat 5. vRiver Ridge Three A, B, and C Reinstatement of Final Plats 6. lWestwood Plaza PUD - Amended Site Plan 7. Riverview Estates - Variance - Subdivision Improvements Regular Agenda 8. Resolution - authorizing mayor to amend T.D.C.A. Budget - Barbara Raney 9. Award Lake Georgetown Water Treatment Plant - Underground Electrical Bid - Allyn Moore 10. LCRA Fuel Rebate & Charges - David Quick 11. Proposed Changes to Utility Deposit Ordinance - David Quick 12. Ordinance - Administrative Organization - 1st Reading - R. Gaylor Planning Agenda Items - Planning Staff 13. Public Hearing - Consideration of R -O District Amendment to Zoning Ordinance 14.Special Permit - Lot 6, Block 7, Quail Meadow Unit I, 701 Riverbend 15. Williamson Crossing - 2nd Revised Preliminary Plat, Ordinance Rezoning lots 1, 2, 3, 23, 24, Block 1 of San Gabriel Estates . from RS to C-1 District - 1st Reading 16. San Gabriel Village - Revised Preliminary Plat Misc. 1 - LITTLE OAR PARR—REVISED FINAL PLAT 1 Location Map Applicant: General Telephone Co. Box 1001-7602 San Angelo, Tx 76902 Owner: Capitol Area Builders, Inc. 2000 S. Mays, Suite 300 Round Rock, Tx 255-8605 Engineer: Glenn W. Schmidt 600 Forest Georgetown, Tx 863-4594 1"=2000' Little Oak 2 Request• Approval of Revised Final plat for Little Oak Park, 042 acre subdivision of a 4.72 acre tract situated in the David Wright Survey, Abstract #13 Williamson County, Texas, as recorded in Volume 487 page 916 Deed Records of Williamson County. The following variance is requested: 1. to waive the Stormwater Detention requirements Facts• Location: The northwest corner of the intersection of Cavu Rd with Airport Rd. It is inside the ETJ and on the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer. Surrounding Uses: Single family residential and undeveloped Proposed use: One lot which is for Phone Company Equipment i.e. residential switching unit). Development Plan: District 4E. Large lot residential use is recommended for this area by the Development Plan. Utilities: Proposed electric service is from City of Georgetown. Lot 1 will require no water or sewer service. History: Similar plats in the immediate vicinity were approved in early 1985 (ie. Air Country Estates Two, North Country Air Estates) Protest: Several indications of opposition to this proposal have been received by the Planning Department. Analysis• The intended use for this lot has been specified as required by the City of Georgetown Subdivision Ordinance Section 4.03. 4e, New Features Inside of Subdivision." While the proposed use does not strictly comply with the City'sDevelopmentPlan, it does provide a direct public service to the existing residential community and as such should be considered as legitimate ancillary use. Applicant has submitted a sketch of the proposed facility which indicates that in terms of materials and scale the proposed use will have a residential character. Little Oak 3 No street or utility improvements are required for this project. A request for variance form stormwater detention requirements has been submitted. The preliminary drainage report indicates that this request is within the guidelines established by ordinance. In order to make a final determination of the variance from detention, a more detailed site construction plan must be submitted for approval prior to issuance of electrical permit. Staff Recommendation: Approval of Revised Final plat conditional upon: 1. All ordinance requirements being met 2. Pursuant to Section 6.04 (1-3) a Detailed Development Plan shall be submitted for staff approval prior to recordation which demonstrates the use of landscaping to comply with drainage requirements, provide necessary security, and create a visual buffer from adjacent uses. 3. Pursuant to Section 4.01 a Concept Plan shall be submitted showing the perimeter of the 4.72 acre "parent" tract from which this lot is being subdivided. If no plans for the remainder of the tract are proposed, the items 6-7 and 8 of Section 4.01 will not be required. 4. Approval of the granting of a variance from the Aquifer Protection Rules by the County being secured. 5. Applicant shall establish restrictive covenants which prohibit the construction of towers and the like in excess of 35 feet in height. P&Z Recommendation: (4-0) July 1, 1986 Approval with the conditions above being met, and an additional comment to read: 6.) The subdivision name shall be changed to GTSW Airport RNS Subdivision". City Council Action Approved per consent 5-0) July 22, 1986 June 28, 1986 tlembars of the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Georgetown, Texas Lear pts. Pearce: We are residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed Little Oak Park subdivision at the corner of Airport Road and Cavu. We oppose any commercial use for this property, except the GTE relay switching station. We oppose commercial use for the following reasons: Most of us bought lots or houses here with the understanding that this area north of the airport would be a residential area only. ('There are de:,d restrictions, unrecorded, to this effect.) Commercial areas already exist along Airport Road adjacent to the air- port and near the intersection of 195 and I-35. It is more logical, both from a business viewpoint and for our neighborhoods, to keep com- mercial and residential development in the existing pattern, close tobutdistinctfromeachother. Georgetown is in the process of developing a comprehensive plan to guide our city's future growth. Apparently, commercial zoning for this pro- perty would not be in keeping with the Land -use patterns being consi- dered. Let's not contradict the plan before it's even finished! Commercial zoning would decrease the property value of the homes adjoin- ing this property. Commercial use would increase the traffic on M.rport Road more than resi- dential development would. Another major concern is water drainage north of this property. Duringheavyrains, water run-off originates on this property and flows north- ward across the yards at 5200 and 5204 Airport Road. County officialshavecleanedoutdrainageareasnorthofSanalomaDriveandaddedan additional culvert under Sanaloma Drive in an attempt to alleviate the problem. Still heavy rains create a back-up problem; on several occa- sions water has backed up to within 6 inches of entering the houses onthe5200and5204lots. Therefore, any additional water nm -off caused by development on the Little Oak Park property couldrhave-eQnse- quences. And the parking space needed for commerciawdt3lyY create more run-off than residential build:_ continued) page 2 Before th.! Planning & Zoning Commission's first hearing on this matter, May 6, some of us were told that.residential zoning would be requested, except for the GTE substation portion. Not only was the request changed to commercial, but no details of the type of commercial use anticipated have been given. We feel the Commission was fair in its handling of this matter and right to deny the request. We urge that the decision be up- held. Addresses) l XI/CAJ.dt [C n a27e Project name k7l" Name of respondent I am in f I object Comments OWNERS avor 7r z' 7u If you wish to submit written comment it will be read before the Planning and Zoning Commission at the above stated time and place. PLEASE REPLY TO: City of Georgetown c/o Planning Department P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409 OWNERS Project name p(,..c e Name of respondent As. Com„ I am in favor I object Comments If you wish to submit written comment it will be read before the Planning and Zoning Commission at the above stated time and place. PLEASE REPLY TO: City of Georgetown c/o Planning Department P.O. Box 409 ConrncF-mm Tcvac 7A 77-Fl4RQ SPANISH ARBOR - PRELIMINARY PLAT d.: SCHOOL \ 4 / Location Map Applicant: Charles Thomas 1103 D Williams Dr. Georgetown, Tx 78628 863-9837 Agent: Gilbreath, McDill Associates PO Box 1425 Georgetown, Tx 78626 863-9862 Request• 1"=1000' Approval of preliminary plat for Spanish Arbor, a 2.615 acre subdivision, situated in the David Wright Survey, Abstract No. A-13, Williamson County, Texas. The following variances are being requested: 1. wavier of stormwater detention requirements; and 2. wavier of preliminary plat fees. Spanish Arbor 2 Farts - Location: Abutting the west side of Serenada Drive, 600' from its intersection with Williams Drive (FM 2338). It is located within the Edward's Aquifer Recharge Zone and the ETJ. Surrounding Uses: The surrounding area is large lot single family residential and undeveloped lots of Serenada Country West Subdivision. Proposed Use: Single family residential with the smallest lot being 10,625 square feet and a gross density of 2.6 units per acre. Development Plan: Lies within Plan District 4d. The development plan recommends large lot single family residential use. Use substantially conforms. Protest: There have been no written responses to the notification, as of this writing. Department Review: The Building Inspector has recommended disapproval of this plat, due to street and lot layout problems. The Fire Marshall gave unconditional approval. The Police Chief gave approval conditional upon: 1. A stop sign being required at the intersection, and 2. The landscaping wall be removed to a minimum of 20' from Serenada Drive. Public Works had no comments at this writing. History: Spanish Arbor received Preliminary Plat approval from the Commission and City Council in May of 1985, but has since expired. The conditions of approval were as follows: I. Plat approval conditional upon: A. Plat meeting ordinance requirements B. Drainage requirements being met C. Utilities being adequate II. 5' street dedication and 15' radius at intersection is required along Serenada Drive. III.A Water Pollution Abatement Plan is required by T.D.W.R. Spanish Arbor 3 IV. Building permits shall not be issued until treatment plant is operational or acceptable alternate source is provided. V. Variance request to waive detention should be deferred to staff. It should be noted that Section Six of the Subdivision Ordinance may be applied to this project. Analysis• Overview - Of the previous conditions stated above, only the 5 foot dedication for street required plat revision. This has been shown and the other conditions still apply. Land Use - This project represents the second request to extend wastewater service into the Serenada area with the first being Serenada Oaks adjacent to the west. The land use proposed is very similar to Serenada Oaks and may be considered to be a transition use between the lots in Serenada Country West located adjacent and south of this project which are indicated as "commercial" on the recorded plat and those acre plus residential lots located adjacent north and east of the property. Even though this property has never been platted, this proposal is essentially a resubdivision of one of the larger Serenada lots. Thus, this project may be construed as a precedent for future requests of this type. Streets - The 15 foot radius shown on the 5 foot dedication for road widening is incorrect. Since the angle of centerline intersection exceeds five degrees from 90 degrees, either a re=alignment or request for variance from this requirement is necessary. Depending upon this choice, a 25 foot return may be required. The return should be shown on the 5 foot widening dedication. Additionally, a 25 foot building setback line for lot 1 and measured from the widening dedication should be indicated. Due to the location of the Spanish Arbor Drive R.O.W. against the property line, revision to the cul-de-sac or street is required to achieve the 50 foot radius required by ordinance. Drainage - According to the preliminary drainage report, the increase in run-off due to this development is within the range allowable for the requested variance from detention. However, before this variance is granted the applicant should Spanish Arbor 4 demonstrate by engineering data that no adverse downstream impact is being created. The scope of this study should be discussed with staff and submitted with the final plat. The combined 20 foot PUE and Drain Easement must be separated by function and conform to the requirements of the City Construction Specifications for uncurbed streets. Utilities - Water service will not be available for this project until the completion of the Lake Georgetown Water Treatment Facilities. The proposal for wastewater service is not connected to the system proposed for Serenada Oaks. In order to avoid excessive line depths this alternate routing may be required. No wastewater service will be available until improvements to the Reata Lift Station and Interceptor #7 downstream have been completed. This development will be required to participate in these improvements. Public Works has required several changes in the Utility Concept Plan, including the addition of a layout for electrical service. These changes must be indicated on a revised layout and submitted with the final plat. Miscellaneous- Under the provisions of the Section Six amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant should be required to submit with the final plat, a survey of existing trees on the site in order to determine the possibility of creating a buffer between this project and adjacent uses and to evaluate the site distance at the intersection being created. The proposed ornamental wall shown on the "Concept Plan" shall not be constructed in any street, drainage, or utility right-of-way. Provisions should be made for the long range maintenance of this structure and submitted with final plat. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the preliminary plat of Spanish Arbor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Revised preliminary plat shall be submitted for staff review which meets ordinance requirements prior to final plat submittal 2. A revised utility layout in conformance with the requirements of the Public Works Division shall be submitted with final plat 3. A drainage study as required to evaluate downstream impacts shall be submitted with the final plat Spanish Arbor 5 4. Utilities being adequate: a. The Water Availability note shall apply, b. Applicant shall participate in downstream wastewater improvements for Reata Lift Station and Interceptor #7 being developed by Public Works Division by payin a pro—rata share of the required improvements cost 5. A survey of existing vegetation shall be submitted with the final plat. 6. Waiver of detention requirements shall be deffered to staff in conjunction with construction plan review 7. Waiver of review fees not recommended P & Z Recommendation: (4-0) July 1, 1986 Approval with conditions as listed above. City Council Action: July 22, 1986 (5-0) Approved by consent RIVER RIDGE III A, B & C - REINSTATEMENT OF FINAL PLATS t ' Son 66brlel a e/pA/s River Ride ec. Tr:c I I River Ridge 1 Sec. 0 Rner Ridge- Sec.Three \ ' Within Georgetown I mi ETJ 1 GEOP ES 0%N Mo5 Location Map 1"=2000' Applicant: Sendero Real Estate Inc. 400 West 15th Street, Suite 419 Austin, Tx 78701 Agent: Kenneth Strange 12306 Burnet Road Austin, Tx 78727 512) 832-9141 Request: A variance as required by Section 4.03 Part 8 of the Subdivision Ordinance providing an extension of the final plat approval for River Ridge Section Three A, B, and C subdivisions, totaling 75.9 acres out of the J. Thompson Survey Abstract 608. (see copy of request letter attached). Facts: Location: West of IH -35 and River Ridge II A with 603' of frontage on the northside of RM 2243. River Ridge III A,B,C 2 Surrounding Uses: Land opposite 2243 to the south is largely undeveloped; to the east from the south are proposed 1 commercial lot, 1 four-plex lot and 6 normal single family lots; to the west is proposed normal single family residences. Proposed Use: 191 single family units at 2.76 units per acre, 4 four-plexes (16) units) and 24 duplexes (48 units) at 9.55 units per acre. Total number of units is 255 at a density of 3.36 units per acre. Development Plan: Normal residential is recommended by the plan. Multifamily use is not consistent with the plan. History: The preliminary plat of River Ridge III was approved on June 25, 1985 by the City Council. The final plat of Section "A" was approved September 10, 1986 and that of Section "B" & "C" approved on October 22, 1985. Section "A" was granted a three month extension on March 11, 1986 which expired on June 11, 1986. The area was annexed into the City in December 1985 and is to be served by City utilities. Analysis: The Subdivision Ordinance allows Council to grant an extension of final plat approval for up to twelve months beyond the initial six month expiration limit. Many reinstatements as requested have been granted in the past. The applicant has cited time delays regarding a change in ownership of the subdivision and the co-ordination of construction plans with the adjacent Riverview Estates development as reasons for the request. The construction plans have been substantially approved and all other requirements for recordation completed. Staff Recommendation: July, 1986 Granting of the variance as requested for a three month extension of plat approval subject to the conditions of original plat approval. New expiration date for this plat shall be October 22, 1986. City Council Action on July 22, 1986: Approved by consent e&manent associates 8 July 1986 Planning Department City of Georgetown P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78626 Gentlemen: e&ma ems__ Kenneth Strange, p.a., r.p.e. 12308 Bay ROedeAUOL., re.ee .n2-9+419 Re: River Ridge 3B and 3C Attached are the copies of the final plats for River Ridge Sections 3B and 3C for Williamson County and for your files. You have the record copies for River Ridge Section 3A. All three sections have final approval and the plans for all three sections are complete and have been submitted to the Department of Public Works with the final corrections. The project has new owners and the deed restrictions and covenants were not received and delivered to you in the six months approval period. These instruments should be finally approved by the new owners in the very near future. Please place River Ridge Sections 3A, 3B and 3C on the agenda for reinstatement for 90 days. If we can be of further service or answer any questions, please advise. Very truly yours, nnet N P n.r KBS/sjh Attachments 12306 Burnet Road a Austin. Texas 78727 MMMK MMMT (512]B32-9141 WESTWOOD PLAZA PUD - (WESTWOOD VILLAS) - AMENDED FINAL SITE PLAN REVISED) Location Map 1"=.43 miles Applicant: CMC Joint Venture Gregory A Clements 13200 Research Blvd Austin Tx 78750 331-8419 Agent: Steger & Bizzell PO Box 858 Georgetown, Tx 78628 863-4521 Request: Approval for an amended Final Site Development Plan of Westwood Plaza, PUD., a 8.98 acre Planned Unite Development situated in the Nicholas Porter Survey, Abstract No. A-497, City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas, as recorded in Cabinet G, Slide 239-240 County Official Records. A variance from Off-street Parking Requirements of Section 2.0802 of the Zoning Ordinance is requested to allow a reduction in the required number of spaces by six. Westwood Plaza PUD 2 Facts• Location: Northeast of Lakeaire Shopping Center, northwest of Golden Oaks Drive, and southwest of Westwood Lane. Surrounding Area: Commercial (C-1 District), single family and vacant undeveloped land surround this tract. Existing Site: Construction of required subdivision improvements is currently underway. Zoning is RP Residential Planned District. Proposed Use: A Planned Residential Retirement Community with 90 condominium units at a density of 10 d.u./ acre. Development Plan: District 4b. Designated for multi—family residential. Utilities: City of Georgetown History: Final plat for Westwood Plaza PUD was recorded September 9, 1985. The initial Amended Site Development Plan was tabled at the Commission meeting of June 3, 1986. Analysis• This analysis serves as an addendum to a previous report (see attached) submitted to the Commission for June 3, 1986. In keeping with the recommendation of the previous report, the applicant has reduced the number of dwelling units proposed by four, and provided off—street parking to be six spaces less than the required two spaces per unit. Also, applicant has agreed to revise the Homeowners Association Covenants to prohibit parking on the private street. The construction plans for landscaping, drainage, utilities, and streets must be revised to accommodate the new Site Development Plan and approved by City Consulting Engineer and staff prior to construction of subdivision improvements and issuance of any building permits. Westwood Plaza PUD 3 Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Amended Final Site Development Plan for Westwood Plaza PUD (Westwood Villas) with the following conditions: 1. All ordinance requirements shall be met 2. Utilities being adequate, applicant shall participate in downstream wastewater system improvements bein designed by Public Works Division by paying pro—rata share of improvements cost 3. Construction plans for streets, drainage, utilities and landscaping shall be revised to accommodate the new Site Plan and approved by Public Works Division 4. The variance request to allow a reduction in the number of required parking spaces by six shall be granted. P&Z Recommendation: (4-0) July 1, 1986 Approval conditional upon the above comments being met except that condition #2 shall be amended to read "Utilities being adequate." City Council Action: July 22, 1986 (5-0) Approved by consent P&Z PLANNING REPORT 6/3/86 WESTWOOD PLAZA PUD - (WESTWOOD VILLAS) - AMENDED FINAL SITE PLAN z Location Map 1"=.43 miles Applicant: CMC Joint Venture Gregory A Clements 13200 Research Blvd Austin Tx 78750 331-8419 Agent: Steger & Bizzell PO Box 858 Georgetown, Tx 78628 863-4521 Request• Approval for an amended Final Site Development Plan of Westwood Plaza, PUD., a 8.98 acre Planned Unite Development situated in the Nicholas Porter Survey, Abstract No. A-497, City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas, as recorded in Cabinet G, Slide 239-240 County Official Records. A variance from Off-street Parking Requirements of Section 2.0802 of the Zoning Ordinance is requested to allow a reduction in the required number of spaces from two spaces per unit to one space per unit. P&Z PLANNING REPORT 6/3/86 P&Z PLANNING REPORT 6/3/86 Westwood Plaza PUD — page 2 Far tc- Location: Northeast of Lakeaire Shopping Center, northwest of Golden Oaks Drive, and southwest of Westwood Lane. Surrounding Area: Commercial (C-1 District), single family and vacant undeveloped land surround this tract. Existing Site: Construction of required subdivision improvements is currently underway. Zoning is RP Residential Planned District. Proposed Use: A Planned Residential Retirement Community with 90 condominium units at a density of 10 d.u./ acre. Development Plan: District 4b. Designated for multi—family residential. Utilities: City of Georgetown History• Final plat for Westwood Plaza PUD recorded September 9, 1985. Analysis• Overview— The most significant change in this proposal as compared to the previously approved Final Site Development Plan is the elimination of all two—story units along the perimeter of the site and the addition of the Social Center and Walkway system as amenity features. Elimination of most two—story units is reflective of the market orientation toward a "retired" buyer. However, in order to: 1. Keep the same number of units, 2. Keep the same living area for each unit, 3. Add the Social Center, and 4. Reduce second story living space; simultaneous with trying to avoid increasing the amount of impervious cover or violating setback requirements, a trade—off has been made. This comes in the form of reducing from two car to one car the garages originally approved to meet the off—street parking requirement of two spaces per unit. For the Type 3 units and the Social Center P&Z PLANNING REPORT 6/3/86 P&Z PLANNING REPORT 6/3/86 Westwood Plaza PUD - page 3 located on the "island" inside the site no spaces have bee provided which meet the off-street" requirement for parking. Note: For reference see the following Ordinance sections: 2.0802 PUD Parking Regs. 6.106 Rules for Yards (General) 2.0804 and 2.0303-1.a. Rules for Yard 18.155 Definitions of Front Yard (District) Land Use - Conforms to that previously approved. Even though the current project is oriented to the retirment market, the project may be converted at a later date. Streets - Conforms to previous approvals including previously granted variance for reduction of centerline radii and R.O.W. width on private drive. The Police Department has indicated that a traffic signal is urgently needed at River Bend and Williams Drive. With this Westwood Villas) construction, it will be imperative. Traffic volume projections as required by PUD ordinance were not submitted. Due to the width of the 30' private drive, combined with the small centerline radius, the City Engineers have indicated that access by WB -50 fire equipment would be possible only if on street parking were prohibited. Drainage - Unless changes not shown on the site plan have occurred which would alter the detention system approved on construction plans dated January 31, 1486, drainage is satisfactory. However, applicant is advised to give thorough consideration to the maintenance implications of the proposed walkway system added to this area. A maintenance covenant should be required. Utilities - No revisions to the previously approved utility system have been proposed by applicant. However, the change in building type from basically a 4 plea: type to structures having six to twenty-eight units per building has changed the fire protection requirements. City Engineer has recommended that additional fire hydrants be installed to bring plan into compliance with City Standards. P&Z PLANNING REPORT 6/3/86 P&Z PLANNING REPORT 6/3/86 Westwood Plaza PUD — page 4 Miscellaneous — Several informational requirements required by the PUD Ordinance for Final Site Development Plan have not been shown on the plan submitted. This situation should be corrected on a revised plan submitted for staff review. Summary — The consensus of staff is that the parking situation proposed is not desireable because it will significantly increase the tendency for on—street parking in a situation where street widths are minimum or below standard. The tight curves of the private drive and the future collector status of River Bend Drive are of particular concern in this regard. Staff Recommendation: The Amended Final Site Development plan is not recommended for approval due to violation of parking requirements. P&Z Recommendation: (5-0) Table until parking issue has been resolved with staff. P&Z PLANNING REPORT 6/3/86 Recommend that the plan be revised to meet all informational requirements of the PUD Ordinance with the elimination of some of the residential accommodate one units and additional the addition vehicle per of common unit parking areas to behind the established front building set back line. P&Z Recommendation: (5-0) Table until parking issue has been resolved with staff. P&Z PLANNING REPORT 6/3/86 Revised 9/3/85 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission will meet at O'clock m. on the day of , 19 _ at its regular meeting place in the City Hall at 103 West 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed Plan/Plat for Subdivision located As one of the owners of adjacent property you are invited to be present at such meeting if you desire to discuss the proposed plan. SEE ATTACHED LOCATION MAP FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Dated: For further information phone the City Planning Department at 86 3x7274 OR 255-604 3 PROPERT OWN R /-30SCOMMENTr 6Projectnamee-st Joa !CLS Name of respondent ,TOE SYPEK 414 ? A)vkTy DDD A2 I am in favor I object Comments /9M C0WC PA D UE.Ql4/N If you wish to submit written comment it will be read before the Planning and Zoning Commission at the above stated time and place. PLEASE REPLY TO: City of Georgetown c/o Planning Department P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409 In response to citizens' comments in its last public hearing, the Commission made three substantive changes in the ordinance: 1. Reduced minimum required frontage on Williams Drive for an R-0 district from 500 feet to 350 feet. 2. Reduced the height of required screen walls or fences from eight feet to six feet. 3. Increased allowed sign area from 16 square feet to 32 square feet per 100 lineal feet of Williams Drive frontage. Any additional changes in the R-0 district provisions should be weighed in terms of their collective impact on the character of the R-0 district. RIVERVIEW ESTATES - VARIANCE - SECTION 3.05 OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Location Map Applicant: Manorwood Development Corporation PO Box 5308 Bryan, Tx 77805 409 776-6400 Owner: Philip J. Tremont PO Box 4104 Bryan, Tx 77805 Agent: Ren Manning 3306 Bee Caves Road Austin, Tx 78746 512) 328-4312 1"=2000' Riverview Estates - Variance 2 Request: The granting of a variance from Section 3.05 of City Subdivision Ordinance to allow the issuance of utility and/or building permits prior to completion of required improvements on the following lots: Block C Lots 4,5,6; Block D Lots 6,7; Block F Lots 19, 24; Block G Lots 16,17 of Riverview Estates, a 50.33 acre subdivision situated in the J. Thompson Survey, Abstract No. 608, Williamson County, Texas. FACTS: Location: Between Leander Road (FM 2243) and the South San Gabriel river, west of River Ridge Subdivision. The property is in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and just outside the City limit. Annexation has been requested. Surrounding Uses: Currently undeveloped land surrounds the property. River Ridge III, to the east, is an average lot residential subdivision which has been approved by the City. History: The plat is in the final stages of recordation. Reference: Section 3.05 of the Subdivision Ordinance reads: "The City of Georgetown will not furnish any City service temporary or permanent, or issue any plumbing, electric or building permits until all subdivision utility, street and drainage construction has been completed and accepted by the City of Georgetown." (No Exceptions) Section 5.10 Variances of the Subdivision Ordinance states that the City Council may approve a variance to the street enforcement of the Georgetown Subdivision Ordinance when in its opinion the variance will not substantially violate the legislative intent. ANAT.YRTR- The acceptance of surety agreements in lieu of completed construction is common practice for many Cities. Williamson County requires the posting of surety in conjunction with recordation for plats in the ETJ. This issue is also being considered by the Citizens Advisory Committee in the process of revising the City Subdivision Ordinance. Earlier this year, Council approved requests similar to this for University Park Subdivision, Raintree Subdivision, and Williamsburg Village Subdivision. Riverview Estates - Variance 3 Since neither of these projects is under the complete control of the applicant, the variance is requested in order that the marketing stage of this development can proceed while these off-site improvements are being completed. The Public Works Division has recommended that only four models be allowed instead of the nine requested, and that sewer service connections be withheld until the downstream system has been completed. The Building Official has requested that homes built in this subdivision conform to the City Electric Code even if Pedernales Electric Company provides service so that we have structures in compliance upon annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: July, 1986 Granting of the requested variance for four lots only, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following criteria will be met prior to issuance of a building permit: a. A performance bond issued to the City of Georgetown will guarantee the completion of all unfinished improvements necessary for City acceptance of subdivision. (Not to include Leander Road Storage Facility.) b. The public streets fronting the lots on which the model homes are to be built will be paved such that the lots will have access to existing public streets C. The City will not issue Certificates of Occupancy or permanent utility connections until all subdivision improvements have been completed and accepted by the City of Georgetown Public Works Department d. All other criteria the City of Georgetown has for issuance of building permits will be met. 2. Applicant agrees to covenant with City so as to assure that electrical installation conforms to City Electric Code. This shall be noted on the plat. CITY COUNCIL ACTION on July 22, 1986: Approved by consent Pr I MANORMW Development Corporation 3 July 1986 1713 Broadmoor Suite 100 CO. Box 5308 Bryan, Texas 77805 404) 770-6400 Mr. Randall Gaither City of Georgetown Planning Dept. P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409 RE: Riverview Estates Variance Request Dear Randall: Please allow this letter to serve as a formal request for Manorwood Development to be placed on the agenda for the July 22nd C.O.G.T. City Council meeting, in regards to the above referenced topic. As was discussed in our June 25th meeting, Manorwood respectfully requests a variance to the Georgetown Subdivision Ordinance, Section 3 Number 3.05, in an effort to begin limited model home construction. We make this request as a result of two delays that the project has incurred. The first delay was due to the City's requirement that we change the lot configuration on the final plat from the approved preliminary plat in order to dedicate 18 acres of the property to the City for parkland. Had this change not been required by the City, construction of this project would have started 90 days prior to the actual construction commencement date. The second delay, which we are currently experiencing is due to the lack of adequate off-site wastewater facilities to serve our property. We are engaged in negotiations with the Public Works Department and the owners of River Ridge III subdivision in an effort to re -execute an agreement that would permit construction to begin on these facilities. The off-site plans have been approved and construction will be complete within 90 days of construction commencement. Due to these delays our subdivision will incur a hardship if we are prevented from beginning model home construction prior to subdivision acceptance. As you are aware, all internal improvements for this project are scheduled for an August 1st completion. Although the subdivision is not in the city limits, we will be requesting complete City inspection services to insure quality control on home construction. Additionally, we are fully aware that no certtificates of occupancy would be issued until the subdivision is completed and accepted by the City of Georgetown. Mr. Randall Gaither 3 July 1986 Page Two Below is a list of the lots we will hope to use for model homes. Block C Lots 4, 5, 6 Block D Lots 6, 7 Block F Lots 19, 24 Block G Lots 16, 17 Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincer ly, en A. a i Project Man er KAM/glg t SPECIAL PERMIT - 701 RIVERBEND, QUAIL MEADOW LOT 6, BLOCK 7 - DAY CARE FACILITY Location Map Applicant: Harold S Parker 3021 Gabriel View Drive Georgetown Tx 78628 863-5395 Agent: Donald E Parker 2920 Gabriel View Georgetown Tx 78628 863-3887 Request• 1"=1000' Granting of a Special Permit to operate a day care facility for a maximum of 25 children within a single family residential zoning district, for Lot 6, Block 7 of Quail Meadow Unit 1, 701 Riverbend Drive. t 1% 701 Riverbend 2 Facts• Location: On the westernmost corner of the intersection of Riverbend Drive and Mesquite Lane. This lot lies within the boundaries of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and inside the City limits. Existing Site: Single family residential use. RS District. Surrounding Uses: The Georgetown Christian Church abuts this property to the north; to the east lies vacant property; the remaining property to the south and west is single family residential. Existing Zoning: (See Figure 1 attached) Applicant's property is RS (Residential Single Family district) as is the property to the south, west and immediate north. (just north of Georgetown Christian Church there is RM -1 Multiple Family District along Kimberly). To the northeast, across Mesquite Lane, lies a vacant C-1 Local Commercial District. Development Plan: District 4a. The Comprehensive Plan indicates multi—family for this area. Use proposed does not conform but provides logical support facility for this use. Reference: Zoning Ordinance Section _ allows for a specified number of uses which may be permitted in the RS district if approved by the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission as referenced below. After receiving an application for permit, the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, shall hold a public hearing to determine the effect of such proposed use upon the neighborhood character, traffic, public utilities, public health, public safety and general welfare. Such public hearing shall be given in accordance with State Statutes and the section of this ordinance regulating the rezoning of property." yw^ C r ;. ` ... rw M1y .'J Y.... tw r.•y' y r . i .; rte j _- , mow.. -• . • ARI moi .•'..^'--- Ifs 117:,. \• Q dl 0ra ers 130 XTkUr 1 x. OL 00 moo IODC- OfU QV TYTnn- l Y ` vt 1-1r arae rM- L 4040 rY'i/,L S`IZM - t law t vmgy3Tao g i,H aON tin I 1b rai .Iia ; t b 0 = ' j° `r x.''17171 y-d•t I pA ,` \ ; BILL -_ta ____ 1•Is.Ks t or -I: rfra La Aw frArl A.ML It Nis6- • 0 a i g a v -3 to 1 q • Cy p 1 . wo 1 j o l Irs . 3AAYCAM Q I..r .o. N tiro 1 - •. ta:IJI Aw or9 °p W w ; Appi-:va_ --/oor a_-)c_o'as—10700— A.M.. rcar_ A.M. 11,r ; •: '•r. w ' 1 11.1-I < Z ` at faaoav 1 a os a Jule ® OA 3A/da sl K d 3.Vd/V V- p10.a-•ft ro Y• s['-- _—rr._.ra x.—t.—AT __ _ s In 9). Bu n(af. INN' 702 ,:R,..: J3.•,:.1 1P,. 78OY8 512) 863.6094 (BO1) 328 0729 Present pupae. r.'. c Jwre 15, 1986 City of Georgetown ZoningPlanningand 'Coning Department _ Georgetown, U. 78627-0409 _ F Gentlemen: ., You have caught me with my shirt unbuttoned. Ile are on vacation during_ e_a4 July in Salt Lake visiting our children and doing family genealogy work. Ile are living at 125 E. 5th Ave., Salt Lake City, UT. 84103, phone given above. I would like to att^.nd the Planning meeting on July, but since I am una:,le to attend, I am submitting this sheet of information. 1. In the first place, this proposed location is inadequate for a Child Care Center. It seems to me that any sensible and informed person would not consider this as adequate. The outdoor playground space is lacking, as is parking and loading area. That particular pL:ce has drainage problems when it rains heavily. Other centers I have visited are far better equipped thusly. :•that are the city and state requirements for licencing? By any sta- ndards this place is inadequate and inappropriate,humsn child care. l.r 2. Our area is zoned for one -family, residential people. We purchased our tome for this reason, and wouid not have done this if a Child Care Center was twenty yards acrossthe road. The notice sent me says this will involve no change of zoning, but this would amount to a farse and fraud if a business were permitted to operate therein. "Special Permits" would be the method to evade the zoning laws. Mr. Parker, himself, built these 'homes and set the re- strictions. It seems now illogical for this turnabout. The laws are made for fairness to all, and not for the whims of business alone. 17e now have such a nice neighborhood. 3. River Bend already contains heavy traffic; the corner of River Bend and ttiesquite is one of the heaviest traffic areas in the town, the exact location of this Center. At some hours of the day hundreds of cars and vehicles pass t his point per hour. With this addition the early morning, and evening hours could be a disaster. This is a very dangerous corner. It is also a regular bus stop for school. For these reasons alone, one would think that no sane person would want to operate such a 6enter here. Two school buses pass each morning L p.m. 4. I discussed this with Mr. Parker and voiced my objections. He plans to push ahead with this project anyway. He does not want to live t;Are. He lived in the house for several months while his seculuded home was being built. He overbuilt the house ,fust to live there a short time; now he wants to pawn off this place on us neighbors as this house now is priced higher than ours. Mr. Parker has built and sold some 550 houses in this area, inclirling ours, file planned this hi ... self on our itreet for a zonded, residential area. Surely, he can sell this rouse to someone other than a business. Since he 's a builder, he couui build a Banter just across the street from his place, with adequate space and zonning, and the Parkers own the ground. Surely he could build a home in a zonned area that could be sold properly as such. 5. The value of our property will go down; it will depreciate. Ile proygoc`.ivu i•ty'r aou'd zona a C'u.ld Canter so close to his hoes on a busy street. 6. There are legal aspects here `_nvolved. Not only a violation of our zoning precepts, but with these children coming and going, mounting and dismounting, straying from supervision as children sometimes do, with school buses in the area stopping all cars before and aft, -- if one of those children are injured by my car, or even running on my property --several lejal penalties could result. 7. When I first heard about this possibility, I visited several other Child Centers. Surrounding neighbors were not happy with it, and two said it was a nuisance. I believe that this would be a constant source of irritation, bad public relations, and a nusisance. I think we would be 'opening a can of worms". S. We moved into this "quiet" ar.:a where a lower level of noise exists. II, have a won- derful neighborhood. Such a Child Center will greatly increa:+e the holes level. 9. It is simply unfair to "zone" River Bend for a Child Center. If thisdeal does go thru, I shall plan legal action. I plead with the Zoning and Planning Commission to investig::te This proposition thoro- ughly. Visit the area. Tabulate the traffic density. iieasure the playgrount'. space, look into water drainage and soil condition. Check school bus schedules. Look, into unloading; and marking zones and space. I trust this wi!1 not be unduly influenced by vested interests, big developer and construction. We have confidence in our pity government and have support- ed and sustained it at all times. tie feel confident that your decision will be rendered in a fair and impartial manner. ._ Sincerely,/I Eldon D. Brinley, 702'itiver Bend Drive WILLIAMSON CROSSING -REVISED PRELIMINARY RESUBDIVISION PLAT, REZONING FROM RS TO C-1 AND ANNEXATION REQUEST a ., - Cr Z'. I .•M _ AIRPORT 1 0 k• mile • i .; oma.- "' tea., • r: :-::' Location Map 1"=2000' Applicant: Joe Gilbreth & Company 2401 Bluebonnet Austin, Tx 78704 444-6666 Agent: Sanders Properties Development Corp. PO Box 1329 Athen, Tx 75751 214) 675-9375 Request: Approval for Revised Preliminary Plat of Williamson Crossing, a vacating and resubdivision of 19.826 acres, being lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, and 24 of San Gabriel Estates recorded in Cabinet A, slides 365-367. Also requested are annexation of existing lots 4 5 and rezoning of existing lots 1,2,3, 23 and 24 from RS to C-1. Variances have been requested to reduce the required number of parking spaces and to reduce the required centerline radius of the relocation of Booty's Crossing Road. The previous site plan indicated that the required parking could be accomplished on the site if these environmental features are disregarded. It is generally acknowledged that the actual demand parking ratio goes down as the size of a retail facility increases. Also that within a given center the mix of uses may be used to reduce peak parking demand by producing off peak demand in lieu. In this case the theater would be such an off peak generator. Therefore, given that a case has been made to provide adequate parking at Williamson Crossing - revised 4 Streets - The applicant has provided adequate ROW dedications for both the state and local needs. These include the realignment of Bootys Rd with Lakeway, and the widening of both Williams Drive and Bootys Rd. The applicant should be required to provide a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to determine the number of trips generated on the surrounding streets throughout the day and recommendations for traffic control devices or other improvements to facilitate traffic flow. Because the staff anticipates that the applicant's proposal will have a significant impact on traffic, applicant should improve Booty's Crossing Road to the south most entry into the site with a transition to existing section beginning at that pint working south. The County Commissioners for the area must approve any work within the existing ROW. Driveway access points have been more logically located but the previous request to reduce the number of access points to both FM 2338, and Booty's by one has not been followed. Of particular concern is the drive along the west side of lots 1 & 2 which could very easily lead to significant cut through traffic. The elimination of the drives near Out parcel #3 and Out parcel #1 on the site plan is suggested. A variance is requested to allow a reduction from 2000 ft. to 500 feet of the centerline radius of new Booty's Crossing Road. City engineer has recommended this request due to its proximity to the FM 2338 intersection and existing alignment constraints. Drainage- The City Engineer has recommended approval of the revised drainage report contingent upon the resolution of technical drainage issues. These issues involve volume, velocity and locational decisions that should be resolved in conjunction with both the site and construction plans. Filtration of stormwater run-off should be required. The present layout lends itself to the idea of using the landscaped areas for filtration purposes. The separation of the various functions within drainage, utility and landscape easements remains to be addressed. Utilities- A revised utility plan indicating off-site improvements is required to evaluate the site's utility improvements. The revised plan should be drawn to indicate all utility improvements Williamson Crossing - revised 5 including drainage, water, wastewater and electricity and to demonstrate the relationship between these utilities and landscaping, easements, required fire hydrants and rights of way. The final plat should not be approved until the Public Works Division has approved this plan. Applicant shall be required to participate in the downstream improvements to the Reata Lift Station and Interceptor #7. Summary- The site is heavily wooded and should retain as many of the existing trees as possible. Eight of the 21 large trees and 77 of the 161 mature trees are shown to remain. It appears that there are several smaller trees within the 20 foot setback area along the west edge of the project which could be used to create a more effective buffer for existing residential lots. Again coordination is needed. The proposed land use is reasonable for the site if it can be accomplished without excessive expanses of pavement and providing that sufficient buffering is provided to the residential property to the rear of this site. With the adjustment of the access locations, the street layout appears adequate for the City's needs. A TIA should be required to determine the impact of this project on surrounding roads. Revised drainage and utility information should be submitted for engineering review and approval prior to final plat approval. The applicant has requested both the annexation of Lots 4 & 5 and the rezoning of the tract to C-1. Staff has no objections to either of these requests provided that the final reading of the rezoning does not occur until the applicant has an approved site plan that meets all of the previously specified conditions, and a recorded plat. Annexation by January 1,1987 is recommended. Staff Recommendation: I. Approval of the preliminary vacating and resubdivision plat of Williamson Crossing with the following conditions: 1. All ordinance requirements being met. A revised site plan and plat meeting ordinance requirements shall be submitted in conjunction with the final plat. 2. Drainage requirements being met. 3. Utilities being adequate - A revised utility plan shall be submitted with the final plat, Water availability note shall apply. Applicant shall participate in downstream wastewater improvements for Williamson Crossing - revised 6 II. The requested annexation is recommended for approval. III. Approval of the rezoning of Lots 1,2,3,23 & 24 of Block 1 of San Gabriel Estates from R -S to C-1 conditioned on the recording of the Final Plat of Williamson Crossing. Second reading of the Zoning Ordinance shall not occur until an application for building permit has been approved. P&Z Recommendation: (4-0) July 1, 1986 Approval conditional upon the above comments being met, with the following amendments: 4b. shall read "indicates detailed landscpaing within all landscape areas and including a chain link fence and shrubs along the common line with residential property to the west." 4d. shall read "provides safe access to perimeter streets; the site shall have no more than three access points onto Williams Drive and two access points onto Booty's Crossing Road except that if TIA warrents additional approaches then may be allowed; these access points shall align with existing and proposed streets and driveways where ever possible." Resta Lift Station and Interceptor #7 being developed by Public Works Division by paying a pro -rate share of the required improvements cost. 4. The site plan shall be revised in conjunction with the final plat such that it: a, demonstrates compliance with the drainage ordinance and provide passive filtration b. indicates detailed landscaping within all landscape areas and along the common line with residential property to the west C. conserves existing trees in the parking area where possible in accordance with the landscaping ordinance; highest priority shall be given to the preservation of large trees d. provides safe access to perimeter streets; the site shall have no more than three access points onto Williams Drive and two access points onto Booty's Crossing Road; these access points shall align with existing and proposed streets and driveways where ever possible e. creates a uniform architectural theme 5. Rezoning to C-1 Local Commercial District being approved 6. A Detailed Development Plan shall be required per Section 6.06 of subdivision ordinance and shall be 7. included in the subdivision construction plans. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted with the final plat which indicates improvements required to accommodate this development. II. The requested annexation is recommended for approval. III. Approval of the rezoning of Lots 1,2,3,23 & 24 of Block 1 of San Gabriel Estates from R -S to C-1 conditioned on the recording of the Final Plat of Williamson Crossing. Second reading of the Zoning Ordinance shall not occur until an application for building permit has been approved. P&Z Recommendation: (4-0) July 1, 1986 Approval conditional upon the above comments being met, with the following amendments: 4b. shall read "indicates detailed landscpaing within all landscape areas and including a chain link fence and shrubs along the common line with residential property to the west." 4d. shall read "provides safe access to perimeter streets; the site shall have no more than three access points onto Williams Drive and two access points onto Booty's Crossing Road except that if TIA warrents additional approaches then may be allowed; these access points shall align with existing and proposed streets and driveways where ever possible." Williamson Crossing - revised 7 Also two additional comments to read: 8. Variance request to allow reduction of minimum centerline radius as shown shall be granted. 9. Variance to allow reduction of off-street parking requirements in conformance with ULI standards in order to conserve large trees shall be granted. City Council Action: (5-0) July 22, 1986 Approved conditional upon the above comments being met, with an additional comment to read: 10. Project shall use City electric service. 0 Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE "ZONING ORDINANCE" PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, ON THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 1968, AMENDING A PART OF THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. TO CHANGE THE PROPERTY OF Joe Gilbreth & Co. IN THE David Wright SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. AA-13 IN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, FROM RS (Residential single family) TO CC=1 Local Commercial DISTRICT ZONING CLASSIFICATION AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS: WHEREAS, as application has been made to the City Council for the purpose of changing the zoning district classification of the following described real estate: Lots 1,2,3,23,24 Block 1 of the San Gabriel Estates Subdivision as recorded in Cabinet A slides 365-367 Plat Records of Williamson County being more particularly described in attached plat and field notes — Exhibit An WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Zoning Ordinance to the City Planning and Zoning Commission for its recommendation and report; and WHEREAS, the City Council, before adopting this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, gave notice of such hearing by publishing same in a weekly newspaper in the City of Georgetown, Texas, which notice stated the time and place of hearing and which time was not earlier than fifteen days from the first day of such publication; and WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission, to all the owners of the lots within 200 feet of the above described property, as required by law; and WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property for which such change is applied such sign(s) as required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for said hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on July s 1986 recommended the changing of said Zoning District Classification as provided in the Zoning Ordinance on the above described property from a RS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY District to C-1 Local Commercial District Zoning Classification. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, that the Zoning Ordinance, and the Zoning Map of the City of Georgetown, as well as the Zoning District described above shall be and the same is hereby removed from the RS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY District to C-1 Local Commercial District Zoning Classification. READ, passed,and adopted this 22nd day of July 1986 . READ, passed, and adopted this day of 19 on the second reading. Jim Colbert, Mayor City of Georgetown ATTEST: Pat Cabellero City Secretary Approved as to form: Stump and Stump City Attorney J 811 I Notes For A 16.588 Acre Tra Being 16.588 acres of land and being all of those certain lots, tracts or parcels of land known as Lots One, Two , Three, iwr, Twenty-three and Twenty-four of the San Gabriel Estates Subdivision, situated in the D. Wright Survey, A-13, in Williamson County, Texas. The Final Plat of said Subdivision is filed for record in Cabinet A, Slides 365-367 in the County Clerk's Office of Williamson County, Texas and the 16.588 acre tract is more particularly described as follows: Commencing at I.A.M, #25 of the Texas Plane Coordinate System; Thence S 32° 53139" E 1,162.25 Feet to the Place Of Beginning of this tract, said Place Of Beginning being a concrete monument in the west line of FM 2338 (Williams Drive); Thence in a clockwise direction, the following bearings and distances; S 290 30105" W, 132.74 feet to a " iron rod found for a corner; Thence N 83° 51118" W, 992.70 feet to a 3'4" iron pipe found for a corner; Thence N 07° 04114" E, 563.0 feet to a 3/4" iron pipe found for a corner; Thence N 520 47148" W, 283.09 feet to a V iron bar found for a corner; Thence N 53° 18'05" E, 532.68 feet to a V iron rod found for a corner; Thence S 36° 56'55'• E, 1,300.03 feet to the Point Of Beginning containing 722,582.78 square feet or 16.588 acres. ge?ph if l PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENT Project Name San Gabrie Estates (Wi l hiamson Cros ng bno i/ng t ee;-nc e rj Name of Respondent %aas, I am in favor — I object PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENT 1 Project Name San Gabriel Estates (Williamson Crossing lShopping Centel) Name of Respondent J.; M L A d(P/ `bT (sr...c7 iwN (JG. 73(.2 I am in favor x S I object Comments G z7-' C v,2' a_T ol o . lVJ If/ec 4 %nc .sre T i5ase TX -e If you wish to submit written comment it will be read before the Planning and Zoning Commission at the above stated time and place. PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENT Project Name San Gabriel Estates (Williamson ernee;n., eh.,....:.,.. Name of Respondent I am in favor I object /1 Comments' Aga ES.oNSE To if/DT/F/CA 7 -/ CITY i!7 o or PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENT Project Name San Gabriel Estates (Williamson Crossing Shopping Center) orName of Respondent I am in favor E M If you wish to submit written comment it will be read before the Planning and Zoning Commission at the above stated time and place. PLEASE REPLY TO: City -of Georgetown f 2 c/o Planning Department - PO Box 409 Georgetown, Tx 78627-0409 r SAN GABRIEL VILLAGE - PRELIMINARY PLAT Location Map Owner: P&W Interests August Petersen, Trustee 1600 1st City Centre 816 Congress Austin, Tx 78701 Agent: Andy Miller P&W Interests 816 Congress Austin, Tx 78701 Request• 1"=2000` Approval of a Preliminary Plat for San Gabriel Village, 20.77 acres and 31.98 acres out of the Nicholas Porter Survey, Tracts 67 and 68. Variance is requested to allow 300 foot centerline radii on "First Street". San Gabriel Village 2 Facts: Location: This tract is bounded by IH -35, the North and South forks of the San Gabriel River and Austin Avenue (Hwy 81). Approximately 10 acres of the eastern portion lies within the City of Georgetown City Limits. This project is one of those projects designated as the Tri -Tract" projects. Surrounding Uses: To the west (across IH -35) lies the Rivery, a proposed multi -use development. The proposed River Oaks of Georgetown Office Park Subdivision borders it to the south. The North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River encompass the remainder of the tract eastward to Austin Avenue. Existing Zoning: Ten acres of the eastern portion of the site is zoned C-1 Local Commercial District, remainder is outside City Limits. Proposed Use: 6 acre Townhouse residential and 46.7 acre office/commercial. Development Plan: District 2. This area was designated for schools and parks, therefore it does not comply with the master plan. However, the approval of the IH -35 Joint Venture Utility Agreement implies more intense land use. Utilities: This applicant is participating in a joint utility development project with the City commonly referred to as the "Tri -Tract Agreement" for water and wastewater services. An approved concept plan is a requirement of that agreement. Applicant has indicated the electrical service is "to be determined". History: The concept plan was approved February 11, 1986 with the following conditions to be satisfied with future submittals: 1. The road through the site shall be designed as a local street which connects through to Riveroaks of Georgetown Office Park Subdivision, if the frontage road is not built, 2. The development shall be divided into a minimum of two phases with phase one being limited to that which will generate San Gabriel Village 3 traffic volumes commensurate with the on—site street capacity, as determined by the TIA, 3. The flood plain shall be removed from individual lots and designated as common open space to be maintained by a property owners association, with pedestrian and maintenance access provided, [this item is to be negotiated with staff before the preliminary plat stage], 4. An Environmental Impact Study shall be submitted with the preliminary plat indicating all site conditions necessary to evaluate the environmental impact of the proposed development including impact on scenic view corridors and Blue Hole/Imhoff Park, 5. A Detailed Development Plan shall be approved by P&Z and Council prior to application for building permits 6. A Water Pollution Abatement Plan being approved by T.W.C. 7. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted with the preliminary plat 8. All provisions of the IH -35 Joint Venture Utility Agreement shall be met, to reflect LUE conversions to 369 LUE's with LUE's to be defined as water flow only, rather than density. 9. A frontage road along IH -35 being completed prior to approval of phase two of development, or an acceptable alternative provided. 10. The intersection design of the access of Hwy 81 shall be approved by T.D.H.P.T. prior to City approval of preliminary plat 11. The street and utility layout being approved by Division of Public Works. Analysis• Much like the Rivery and the other Tri—Tract subdivisions along IH -35 and the San Gabriel River the site of San Gabriel Village is highly visible and environmentally sensitive. The following analysis will address the relationship of the previous conditions of approval to the preliminary plat as submitted. For a more general analysis of the site see staff report for Planning & Zoning Commission of February 4, 1986. Please refer to the "History" section of this report for the conditions of Concept Plan approval corresponding with each numbered response below: San Gabriel Village 4 1. The applicant has indicated opposition to the designation of a local street connecting to Riveroaks of Georgetown Office Park, believing that through traffic generated would quickly reach the upper limits of volume which could be tolerated in this area, thus curtailing the full build—out potential of the tract. They have hired a consultant to do a study exploring the possibilities of cost participation with the State Highway Dept. in the construction of the frontage road along IH -35. Applicant has agreed to provide a "Development Agreement" similar to that which the City entered into with the River Oaks Subdivision in the event that a frontage road is not built. 2. The applicant maintains a phasing plan is not necessary because the capacity of the proposed street is sufficient to accommodate full build—out traffic demand as long as no traffic from the south is generated. 3. Though the applicant is amenable to providing public access to the flood plain area with its pedestrian pathways etc., it was nevertheless his desire that the lots remain "intact" with the same areas indicated on the concept plan. Discussions with staff have occurred, but no proposal has been submitted. 4. An Environmental Impact Study was submitted. The plat does not reflect the development constraints/opportunities presented therein except a very rough approximation of the flood plain. Existing vegetation and areas with slope in excess of 20% should be shown. 5. A Detailed Development Plan yet to be submitted. Not required at this stage unless necessary to fulfill other conditions 6. Water Pollution Abatement Plan approval forthcoming before recordation of plat per standard procedure 7. TIA submitted, but did not address the following: a. impact on adjacent development on both the intersection at the IH -35 frontage road and Business Route 81. b. did not indicate when required traffic signal on Hwy 81 is to be installed and who is to pay for it. C. staging of construction of road until the frontage road is constructed. 8. Utility information, such as flow data and the justification for such data which could show the connections between land use and proposed LUE's was not submitted. Until the applicant is able to submit a Detailed Development Plan, he maintains that General Note #7 on the plat regarding maximum usage of 369 LUE's will have to suffice. 9. Since there is no Phase Two proposed in conformance with condition #2 above, this comment no longer applies except to the entire project. The previously mentions Development Agreement has been offered as the alternative. 10. The State Highway Department has indicated that they have no problem with the "concept" of the layout. 11. Public Works department has not responded to request for review of this submittal. San Gabriel Village 5 In addition to the above status of previous conditions of approval, the following Subdivision Ordinance Requirements are discussed: Section 5.06 - 2 Easements. - The ten (10') foot PUE on all rear lot lines and five (5') foot PUE on each side of all side lot lines should follow the 100 year flood plain limit where same exists. Section 4.03 - 4 b. Greenbelts. - Proposed open space should be designated by location, description and name. This designation to be in conjunction with comment number three above. Section 6.05 1.b.4. Density. - Height, bulk, density, and impervious coverage is not indicated. These to be shown on Detailed Development Plan. Section 6.05 l.d. Traffic Impact Analysis - No indication of applicants provision of required improvements submitted. Zoning Ordinance Part 6.303 Landscaping - All "Large" and Mature" trees are to be shown on preliminary plats. These to be shown on Detailed Development Plan. Staff Recommendation: Approval of Preliminary plat of San Gabriel Village with the following conditions: 1. Ordinance requirements being met 2. Utilities being adequate 3. All provisions of the Agreement Regarding Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services shall be met 4. The following shall be addressed with the submittal of the Final Plat: a. Justification for the variance from detention per City Engineer's comments b. W. First Street shall be renamed and an access easement provided to this street from the D.A.V. lot C. Revised utility layout per City engineers comments to include a layout for electric service and an easement for a sewer line shall be provided along the 40 foot drainage easement of lot C-1 d. The detailed alignment and configuration of the Subdivisions's roadway extension to Hwy 81 e. A realistic phasing sequence for the build out of the project. (Applicants "best guess") 5. Development Agreement" regarding future extension of roadway to south being approved by City Attorney prior to approval of final plat 6. Approval of Water Pollution Abatement Plan by T.W.C. prior to final plat approval s San Gabriel Village 7. An instrument ready to file shall be presented with the final plat which dedicates for public use of and provides pedestrian and maintenance access to the area shown on the preliminary plat as "Drainage Easement" along the San Gabriel River flood plain 8. A Detailed Development Plan which reflects the tenets of the Environmental Impact Study and Traffic Impact Analysis being submitted for Commission and Council review for each lot 9. The request for variance to allow a reduction in the centerline radii of "First Street" from 800 feet to 300 feet should be granted. P & Z Recommendation: (4-0) July 1, 1986 Approval with conditions as listed above except that in condition 7 the word "dedicates" shall be amended to read "designates", and additionally, that plat note #6 shall be allowed to be omitted from the plat. City Council Action: July 22, 1986 (5-0) A. Approved the granting of a variance allowing a reduction in the minimum center line radii of "First Street" from 800 feet to 300 feet subject to the condition that the applicant shall agree to use City of Georgetown utilities (Water, wastewater and electrical service). B. Approval of the Preliminary Plat with the conditions one through nine listed above, except that condition eight shall be amended to read: 8. Either a Detailed Development Plan which reflects the tenets of the Environmental Impact Study and Traffic Impact Analysis being submitted for Commission and Council review or at the option of the applicant, a request for voluntary annexation shall be submitted and the type of zoning agreed to (between City and applicant) prior to final plat approval may be substituted in lieu of the portion of this condition requiring public hearing, but staff review shall not be waived. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Counci PPROV _ .. ^"AC m / WITHDRAWS AT TUE REQ122T OF Tvc N -r -the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 22th day of July, 1986. s cl,— e L S.- Mayor, City of Georgetown Project name & #: Little Oak Park - Revised Final Plat Applicant: General Telephone Co. Owner: Capitol Area Builders, Inc. Request: Approval of Revised Final plat for Little Oak Park. The following variance is requested: to waive the Stormwater Detention requirements. Approval of Revised Final plat conditional upon: 1. All ordinance requirements being met 2. Pursuant to Section 6.04 (1-3) a Detailed Development Plan shall be submitted for staff approval prior to recordation which demonstrates the use of landscaping to comply with drainage requirements, provide necessary security, and create a visual buffer from adjacent uses. 3. Pursuant to Section 4.01 a Concept Plan shall be submitted showing the perimeter of the 4.72 acre "parent" tract from which this lot is being subdivided. If no plans for the remainder of the tract are proposed, the items 6-7 and 8 of Section 4.01 will not be required. 4. Approval of the granting of a variance from the Aquifer Protection Rules by the County being secured. 5. Applicant shall establish restrictive covenants which prohibit the construction of towers and the like in excess of 35 feet in height. 6. The subdivision name shall be changed to "GTSW Airport RNS Subdivision". CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council APPTCADDDn iFc /mAar aa/ the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 22nd day of July, 1986. Mayor, City of Georgetown Project name & #: Westwood Plaza PUD — Amended Site Plan Applicant: CMC Joint Venture Owner: Request: Approval for an amended Final Site Development Plan of Westwood Plaza, PUD. A variance from Off—street Parking Requirements of Section 2.0802 of the Zoning Ordinance is requested to allow a reduction in the required number of spaces by six. Approval of the Amended Final Site Development Plan for Westwood Plaza PUD (Westwood Villas) with the following conditions: 1. All ordinance requirements shall be met 2. Utilities being adequate 3. Construction plans for streets, drainage, utilities and landscaping shall be revised to accommodate the new Site Plan and approved by Public Works Division 4. The variance request to allow a reduction in the number of required parking spaces by six shall be granted. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council APPR'" " "" zns'S/ request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 22th day of July, 1986. Mayor, City of Georgetown Project name & #: Spanish Arbor — Revised Preliminary Plat Applicant: Charles Thomas Owner: same Request: Approval of preliminary plat for Spanish Arbor, a 2.615 acre subdivision, situated in the David Wright Survey, Abstract No. A-13, Williamson County, Texas. The following variances are being requested: 1. wavier of stormwater detention requirements; and 2. wavier of preliminary plat fees. Approval of the preliminary plat of Spanish Arbor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Revised preliminary plat shall be submitted for staff review which meets ordinance requirements prior to final plat submittal 2. A revised utility layout in conformance with the requirements of the Public Works Division shall be submitted with final plat 3. A drainage study as required to evaluate downstream impacts shall be submitted with the final plat 4. Utilities being adequate: a. The Water Availability note shall apply, b. Applicant shall participate in downstream wastewater improvements for Reata Lift Station and Interceptor #7 being developed by Public Works Division by payin a pro—rata share of the required improvements cost 5. A survey of existing vegetation shall be submitted with the final plat. 6. Waiver of detention requirements shall be deffered to staff in conjunction with construction plan review 7. Waiver of review fees not recommended CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Counci' / WITHDRAWS AT THE REQUEST OF THE the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 22nd day of July, 1986. Mayor, City of Georgetown Project name & #: River Ridge Three A, B, and C — Reinstatement of Final Plat Applicant: Sendero Real Estate Inc Owner: same Request: A variance as required by Section 4.03 Part 8 of the Subdivision Ordinance providing an extension of the final plat approval for River Ridge Section Three A, B, and C subdivisions. Granting of the variance as requested for a three month extension of plat approval subject to the conditions of original plat approval. New expiration date for this plat shall be October 22, 1986. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GEORGETOWN i .nn/ nnnnn 7Y To.nnD/1{iFC /TA TOC/ The City of Georgetown City Counci nrrtcvrn .,n. ,._..-.,..... WITHDRAWS AT—T4E-49QUEST OF THE ikPPh16*ffT the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 22nd day of July, 1986. Mayor, City of Georgetown Project name & #: Riverview Estates — Variance — Subdivision Improvements Applicant: Manorwood Development Corporation Owner: Philip J. Tremont Request: The granting of a variance from Section 3.05 of City Subdivision Ordinance to allow the issuance of utility and or building permits prior to completion of required improvements on the following lots: Block C Lots 4,5,6; Block D Lots 6,7; Block F Lots 19, 24; Block G Lots 16,17 of Riverview Estates. Granting of the requested variance for four lots only, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following criteria will be met prior to issuance of a building permit: a. A performance bond issued to the City of Georgetown will guarantee the completion of all unfinished improvements necessary for City acceptance of subdivision. (Not to include Leander Road Storage Facility.) b. The public streets fronting the lots on which the model homes are to be built will be paved such that the lots will have access to existing public streets C. The City will not issue Certificates of Occupancy or permanent utility connections until all subdivision improvements have been completed and accepted by the City of Georgetown Public Works Department d. All other criteria the City of Georgetown has for issuance of building permits will be met. 2. Applicant agrees to covenant with City so as to assure that electrical installation conforms to City Electric Code. This shall be noted on the plat. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council ISAPPROVES 71J41 WITHDRtWS AT—rNf-ttl UHST- OF THE the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 22nd day of July, 1986. II eaLL 7— 1 W` Mayor, City of Georgetown Project name & #: Lot 6 Block 7 Quail Meadow Unit I, 701 Riverbend Applicant: Harold S Parker Owner: same Request: Granting of a Special Permit to operate a day care facility for a maximum of 25 children within a single family residential zoning district, for Lot 6, Block 7 of Quail Meadow Unit 1, 701 Riverbend Drive. Granting of requested special permit with the following conditions of approval: 1. Use of the front yard as play area is not allowed. 2. Maximum of twenty-five children be allowed. 3. No parking be allowed on Riverbend Drive; drive through for side entry be completed on Mesquite side of lot, with delivery and pick up of children to be restricted there. 4. A study of traffic conditions being conducted by the Police Division in conjunction with the Parking and Traffic Safety Committee and the Department of Public Works, to consider possible controls (stop signs) for that intersection. 5. If the ownership changes (after prospective buyers purchase the property), or a valid Department of Human Service Day Care License does not exist, then the special permit use will cease. 6. A site plan shall be required prior to issuance of occupant' permits. 7. A yearly review shall be conducted to insure compliance with the above. 8. One (1) sign no larger than four (4) square feet to be affixed to the fence. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council APPR. ,O"vnS / WiTHD the request listed below.. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 22nd day of July, 1986. Mayor, City of Georgetown Project name & #: Williamson Crossing Applicant: Joe Gilbreth & Company Owner: same Request: Approval for Revised Preliminary Plat of Williamson Crossing, a vacating and resubdivision of 19.826 acres, being lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, and 24 of San Gabriel Estates recorded in Cabinet A, slides 365-367. Also requested are annexation of existing lots 4 & 5 and rezoning of existing lots 1,2,3, 23 and 24 from RS to C-1. Variances have been requested to reduce the required number of parking spaces and to reduce the required centerline radius of the relocation of Booty's Crossing Road. I. Approval of the preliminary vacating and resubdivision plat of Williamson Crossing with the following conditions: 1. All ordinance requirements being met. A revised site plan and plat meeting ordinance requirements shall be submitted in conjunction with the final plat. 2. Drainage requirements being met. 3. Utilities being adequate - A revised utility plan shall be submitted with the final plat, Water availability note shall apply. Applicant shall participate in downstream wastewater improvements for Reata Lift Station and Interceptor #7 being developed by Public Works Division by paying a pro -rate share of the required improvements cost. 4. The site plan shall be revised in conjunction with the final plat such that it: a. demonstrates compliance with the drainage ordinance and provide passive filtration b. indicates detailed landscaping within all landscape areas including a chain link fence and shrubs along the common line with residential property to the west ll o srn• x r C 4 a. eQ,;s -aa C. conserves existing trees in the parking area where possible in accordance with the landscaping ordinance; highest priority shall be given to the preservation of large trees d. provides safe access to perimeter streets; the site shall have no more than three access points onto Williams Drive and two access points onto Booty's Crossing Road except that if TIA warrents additional approaches then may be allowed; these access points shall align with existing and proposed streets and driveways where ever possible e. creates a uniform architectural theme 5. Rezoning to C-1 Local Commercial District being approved 6. A Detailed Development Plan shall be required per Section 6.06 of subdivision ordinance and shall be included in the subdivision construction plans. 7. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted with the final plat which indicates improvements required to accommodate this development. 8. Variance request to allow reduction of minimum centerline radius as shown shall be granted. 9. Variance to allow reduction of off-street parking requirements in conformance with ULI standards in order to conserve large trees shall be granted. 10. Project shall use City electric service. II. The requested annexation is recommended for approval. III. Approval of the rezoning of Lots 1,2,3,23 & 24 of Block 1 of San Gabriel Estates from R -S to C-1 conditioned on the recording of the Final Plat of Williamson Crossing. Second reading of the Zoning Ordinance shall not occur until an application for building permit has been approved. San Gabriel Village — conditions of approval 7/22/86 rvTA-i-&e CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council APPROVES nTc nnnnvnn /m.nr the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 22nd day of July, 1986. J I V Mayor, City of Georgetown Project name & #: San Gabriel Village — Revised Preliminary Plat Applicant: P&W Interests Owner: same Request: Approval of a Preliminary Plat for San Gabriel Village, 20.77 acres and 31.98 acres out of the Nicholas Porter Survey, Tracts 67 and 68. Variance is requested to allow 300 foot centerline radii on First Street". A. Approved the granting of a variance allowing a reduction in the minimum center line radii of "First Street" from 800 feet to 300 feet subject to the condition that the applicant shall agree to use City of Georgetown utilities (water, wastewater and electrical service). B. Approval of Preliminary plat with the conditions listed below: 1. Ordinance requirements being met 2. Utilities being adequate 3. All provisions of the Agreement Regarding Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services shall be met 4. The following shall be addressed with the submittal of the Final Plat: a. Justification for the variance from detention per City Engineer's comments b. W. First Street shall be renamed and an access easement provided to this street from the D.A.V. lot C. Revised utility layout per City engineers comments to include a layout for electric service and an easement for a sewer line shall be provided along the 40 foot drainage easement of lot C-1 d. The detailed alignment and configuration of the Subdivisions's roadway extension to Hwy 81 e. A realistic phasing sequence for the build out of the project. (Applicants "best guess") 5. "Development Agreement" regarding future extension of roadway to south being approved by City Attorney prior to approval of final plat San Gabriel Village — conditions of approval 7/22/86 continued 6. Approval of Water Pollution Abatement Plan by T.W.C. prior to final plat approval 7. An instrument ready to file shall be presented with the final plat which dedicates for public use of and provides pedestrian and maintenance access to the area shown on the preliminary plat as "Drainage Easement" along the San Gabriel River flood plain 8. Either a Detailed Development Plan which reflects the tenets of the Environmental Impact Study and Traffic Impact Analysis being submitted for Commission and Council review or at the option of the applicant, a request for voluntary annexation shall be submitted and the type of zoning shall be agreed to between City and applicant) prior to final plat approval. The latter option may be substituted in lieu of the former portion of this condition requiring public hearing for Detailed Development Plan approval, but staff review shall not be waived. 9. Plat note #6 shall be allowed to be omitted from the plat. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Counci < PPROVES / LITT APR A61Q AT TAF RP(ITT PQT ()P Tun Anna iG44;T the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 day of August, 1986. Mayor, City of Georgetown Project name & #: Brangus Ranch Section 2 - Extension of Final Plat Project #00177 Applicant: James Quinn Owner: same Request: A variance as required by Section 4.04 Part 15 of the Subdivision Ordinance, to allow an extension of the Final Plat approval for Brangus Ranch, Section 2. Granting of request and extending Final Plat approval to November 12, 1986. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council ISAPPROVES e request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 day of August, 1986. Mayor, City of Georgetown Project name & #: 105 North IH -35 - Variance - Non -Conforming Use and Sign Height rCr_ 'c,{ " vo$'3a Applicant: Scotty Stroupe J Owner: same Request: Variance from Zoning Ordinance SEction 4.1 Non -Conforming Uses and Section 2.0401 (14) C-1 Local Commercial District Rgulations to allow a non -conforming sign to be reconstructed above the permitted height. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Counci PPRO `-1 "."Q;;&6 mg ANQggs;he request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 day of August, 1986. r.4 Mayor, City of Georgetown Project name & #: Lots 22 & 23, Block B, San Gabriel Heights Section 5 — Variance — Abandonment of Two Five Foot Public Utility Easements. Project #00525 Applicant: Carl Luzius Owner: same Request: Request for abandonment of 2 five foot public utility easements on Lots 22 & 23, Block b, San Gabriel Heights, Section 5. 1. Approval of Ordinance by City Attorney 2. Electric service to Lots 22 & 23 shall be limited to 200 amps unless the owner agrees to pay for any required improvements to increase service. 3. The use of Lots 22 & 23 being restricted to one single family residence total BRANGUS RANCH SECTION TWO - VARIANCE - EXTENSION OF PLAT APPROVAL. Project #00177 Location Map: Applicant: James Quinn PO Box 411 Georgetown, Tx 78627 863-8525 Agent: G.W. Schmidt and Company 600 Forest Street Georgetown, Tx 78626 863-4594 Request: A variance as required by Section 4.04 Part 15 of the Subdivision Ordinance, to allow an extension of the Final Plat approval for Brangus Ranch, Section 2. Final Plat approval expired August 11, 1986. Analysis: Brangus Ranch Section 2 is location within the Georgetown ETJ and the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Electric service is provided by Pedernales Electric Co-op. Inc., sewage disposal by septic tank, and will use private Brangus Ranch 2 well water for the water supply. Additional approval time is requested by the applicant to complete requirements of the Williamson County Health Department and the Texas Water Commission, relative to the Water Pollution Abatement Plan for the Recharge Zone of the Edwards Aquifer. Staff Recommendation: (August 12, 1986) Granting of request and extending Final Plat approval for three months, which shall be November 12, 1986. City Council Action: August 12, 1986 5-0) Granting of variance by consent as recommended above ale , 8hMfz4X j(;cl Z G.W. SCHMIDT & CO. CONSULTING ENGINEERS July 29, 1986 Mr. Ed Barry, Director Division of Community Development and Planning City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409 RE: Quinland Estates/Brangus Ranch, Section 2 Dear Mr. Barry, 600 Forest Street Georgetown, TR 78626 512) 863-4594 On behalf of the owner, we request a variance to extend the appro- val of the Preliminary/Final Plat for this proposed subdivision. This additional time is necessary to complete the requirements of the Williamson County Health Department and the Texas Water Commis- sion relative to the approval of the Water Pollution Abatement Plan for the Recharge Zone of the Edwards Aquifer. If additional information is needed, please call. Respectfully Submitt Glenn W. Schmidt, P.E. GWS/Jo r xc: Mr. James E. Quinn s Job No. 002785 Z r 105 NORTH IH -35 - VARIANCE - NON -CONFORMING USE AND SIGN HEIGHT. PROJECT $00534 Rly£R /EW AL SOOTHWES PLAZA/ Location Map 1"1000' Applicant: Scotty Stroupe (Chuckwagon Cafe) 105 North IH -35 Georgetown, Tx 78626 255-2407 Request: Variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 4.1 Non -Conforming Uses and Section 2.0401 (14) C-1 Local Commercial District Regulations to allow a non -conforming sign to be reconstructed above the permitted height. see copy of Ordinance attached) Facts: Location: 105 North IH -35, corner of Williams Drive and IH -35. Surrounding Area: Predominately commercial uses, C-1 zoning surrounds the site. Existing Site: The Chuckwagon Cafe (formerly Archies Restaurant). Zoning District is C-1 Local Commercial. 105 N.IH-35 2 History: The Chuckwagon Cafe, wishes to utilize a pole sign mount that was left vacated by Archies Restaurant when sold. The sign that used to be in place upon this vacated sign mount was removed by Archies Restaurant about seven years ago. The sign, however, was not restored to its original position on the sign mount within two years of its removal, thereby losing its legal non=conforming status and necessitating a variance in order to reconstruct it to it's original height. References: See attached excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance. Analysis: The Zoning Ordinance Section 2.0401 (14) states that in a C-1 zoning district, signs for advertising may be built to a height no greater than any building on the premises. The existing sign mount is perhaps 35-40 feet higher than the building. Section 4.103 of the Zoning Ordinance required that any non -conforming use which is discontinued for two years must conform to ordinance requirements. Section 4.104 of the ordinance prohibits the reconstruction of non -conforming uses. The granting of the variance as requested would contribute to the proliferation of substandard signs along the IH -35 corridor and impede any future program to direct such signs towards ordinance compliance. Planning Staff Recommendation: (August 12,1986) Denial of requested variance. City Council Action: (August 12, 1986) 5-0) Denial of request LOTS 22 AND 23, BLOCK B, SAN GABRIEL HEIGHTS SECTION 5 — VARIANCE — ABANDONMENT OF TWO FIVE FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS. Project #00525 Location Map Applicant: Carl Luzius PO Box 866 Georgetown, Tx 78627 I". 1000, Request: Request for abandonment of two five foot public utility easements on Lots 22 and 23, Block B, San Gabriel Heights, Section 5. Facts: Location: Inwood Drive in the San Gabriel Heights Subdivision, outside the City Limits Existing Site: Vacant, proposed single family residence Analysis: The subject easements contain no GTE, Lone Star Gas, Williamson County Cablevision, or City of Georgetown facilities. The purpose of the request is to build one single family residence upon both lots. See Exhibit "A" of the ordinance attached. San Gabriel 5, Lots 22,23 2 Staff Recommendation: (August 12, 1986) Approval of request to abandon the easements conditional upon: 1. Approval of Ordinance by City Attorney 2. Electric service to Lots 22 & 23 shall be limited to 200 amps 3. The use of Lots 22 & 23 being restricted to one single family residence total City Council Action: (August 12, 1986) 5-0) Approval of request subject toconditions listed above with the amendment that condition 2 be amended to read: Electric service to Lots 22 & 23 shall be limited to 200 amps unless the owner agrees to pay for any required improvements to increase service. " Job Ilk?. SURVEY PERFORMED FOR -r.:u:: IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF LXrr5— 22fi L'%, F%-cL:-- OF RECURU IN CABINET SLIUES `?.'.'X-1 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF W"L-( .-j COUNTY, TEXAS. Legend: iron pin found o Iron pin set b R I V E I W W w 0,9 D uei t 5'P.u.e t Pu,E. P&c 4-es7'cd fo 06ane%nik 1, ,Jaecerr, ,fir, Registered Public Surveyor, do hereby certify that the above plat correctly' represents the property as determined by an on -the -ground survey performed under my supervision and direction on the R day of July , 19W; The property platted hereon is correct and there are no apparent discr—epancies, conflicts, shortages in area, boundary line conflicts, encroachments, overlapping of improvements, visible utility lines or roads In place, except as shown hereon, and said property has access to and from a dedicated roadway, as shown hereon. 1 hereby certify that the property within the boundaries shown hereon id not within a special flood hazard area as Identified by the Federal Insurance Administration of the U.S. Department of lousing and Urban Development, Community Panel HO.4W6&06 Cd,' effective date Pa0:j01977, or other flood hazard determination ass sloZ ereon. It -5 X14161T "A —A bandonrhen+ o -P two 5 - Pu611G I F1cse,er i's on ?.„ loi'23,131ou't3' San rabr>r. e l}'t G_W,__SCHMIDT & CO._ R_ MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Randall Gaither, Chief Planner C rre t Planning Section Date: August 4, 1986 Re: Contract with International Aerial Mapping Company This memorandum represents a request for authorization to enter into a contract for services with International Aerial Mapping Company of San Antonio, Texas to expand the City's existing map system. The required funds for this proposal are included in the 1985-86 City Budget. The map sheets being considered for purchase, along with the 82 existing sheets which were purchased in 1982 are used extensively by the Planning Department as informational resource in the evaluation of subdivision plats, site development plans, variance requests, etc. Furthermore, it is anticipated that additional use of these maps will be necessary during the data collection phase of the Comprehensive Plan preparation. Copies made from these maps are also used by the Public Works and Fire Departments to inventory utility lines and fire hydrants, etc. Finally, the Planning Department sells prints, made from these maps to the public for a multitude of reasons. Attached is a copy of that portion of the proposed contract for services which lists the various items to be purchased with a price breakout for each (Exhibit "A"). Also attached are two exhibits which serve as examples of the type of maps being considered. Exhibit 1 is a partial copy of a map currently used by the Planning Department. Maps considered under part "A" of the contract will be similar to this and represent an extension of the mapped coverage by 21 sheets or approximately 2900 acres. Exhibit 2 is a partial copy of a map provided by International Aerial Mapping Company as an example of those maps considered under Parts "B" & "C" of the contract. The City does not currently have maps with this level of detail. The 16 sheets listed under Part "B" represent an extension of this level of detail to the existing map coverage of the general area bounded by the San Gabriel River, IH -35, the South and East City limit. As indicated on Exhibit "A", a sum of $7,860 represents a credit currently on account with International Map co. which will be used to pay a portion of the $25,840 total cost. It should also be noted that applicants for subdivision approval are charged a Map Development fee" of $100 plus $5 per acre for each preliminary plat submitted to the Planning Department. This fee was originally earmarked for the expansion of the City's map system. This proposal represents the first expenditure of funds under phis program. The funds required for this proposal are budgeted and available. The contract is currenity being'reviewed by both the City Attorney and Purchasing Agent. EXHIBIT "A" The 23 new sheets will be reduced to 1"=400', paneled into their respective positions relative to other sheets and.a new set of 1"=400' composite sheets will be printed. Our fees for the services described herein are: A. Topographic map sheet preparation, scale 1"=100' with two foot contours - 21 new sheets @ $505.00 per sheet: Sheets: E-12, E-13, E-14 D-17, D-18, D-19, D-20 F-12, F-13, F-14 I-8 J-19, J-20, J-21, J-22, J-23, J-24 K-13, K-14, K-23, K-24 B. Topographic map sheet preparation, scale 1"=100' with two foot contours - 16 sheets with additional planimetric detail: 3 Sheets @ $575.00 per sheet Sheets: G-11, G-12, G-13 13 Sheets @ $760.00 per sheets Sheets: H-11, H-12, H-13, H-14, H-15, H-16 I-11, I-12, I-13, I-14, I-15 J-12, J-13 C. Topographic map sheet preparation, scale 1"=100' with two foot contours - 2 new sheets requiring complete planimetric detail @ $1,080.00 per sheet ($505.00 + 575.00): Sheets: H-8, H-9 D. One set of 23 new sheets (1"=100') printed with the map detail screened 509) @ $25.00 per sheet E. One set of 23 new sheets at 1"=400' Individual sheets) at $20 per sheet F. One set of four 1"=400' (Composite sheets) upon which 23 new sheets have been added Total Less previous City of Georgetown payment Less credit from previous contract TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE 10,605.00 1,725.00 2,160.00 575.00 460.00 895.00 26,300.00 7,000.00 860.00 18,440.00 I' 6 ! IIS 10 .. 7 1.0,. I 713.1 24.3 I 0 +, 1 J 1 I fits rrn rn 116 X t - 732.8 733 8 r 724 C+i 730 733.5 EXHIBIT I EXAMPLE OF I"= 100` SCALE PARTIAL PHOTOMETRIC TOPO MAP 51 EXHIBIT 2 EXAMPLE OF 1I,= 1001 SCALE FULL PHOTOMETRIC TOPO MAP Lots 13 and 14 Oak Crest Estates, Spring Valley Unit—Partial Vacating and Amending of Plat. Project #00515 J Location Map OAKCREST EST RIV gEl Applicant: Tim Miller 9811 Anderson Mill Road #3 Austin, Texas 78750 331-7650 J 1 IMS 1"= 1000' Request: Approval for a partial vacating andamended plat for Lots 13 and 14, Oak Crest Estates, Spring Valley Unit, as recorded in Cabinet B", Slide 306, of the Williamson County, Texas plat records, in order to shift the common lot line to correct an existing encroachment. Facts: Location: On the southside of Spring Valley Road, between Southcross Road and Randolph Street, within the city limits. Surrounding Area: Is predominantly single—family residential with homes already built, although lots to also be developed as single—family residential remain vacant. Oak Crest -Spring Valley Unit 2 Existing Site: Lot 14 remains vacant,and Lot 13 contains a single large lot residential dwelling unit. The subject property lies within a R -S zoning district. Proposed Use: Two single-family residential lots. Development Plan: Development Plan district 3b, which recommends large lot residential use for this area. Use conforms to the plan. Utilities: Applicant is requesting City provision of water, wastewater, and electrical services. History: The existing home on Lot 13, when constructed upon this lot, was placed upon a public utility easement, due to an incorrect survey siting of the platted property line between Lots 13 and 14. The applicant owns both lots and desires to eliminate the PUE encroachment by amending and vacating the platted property boundary between Lots 13 and 14 in a manner that will remove the encroachment. The City Council granted a variance on June 24, 1986, to allow for PUE encroachment. The prospective owner of Lot 13, however, did not consider this an acceptable solution. Analysis: The only issue issue relative to this case is the new location of the common property line between Lots 13 and 14, due to the fact that the current PUE contains no utilities. The placement of the proposed PUE will correspond to the amended property line in a parallel manner. The amendment of this plat will have no current or future impact on streets, drainage, or utilities. Staff Recommendation: (August 5, 1986) Approval of the vacated and amended plat for Lots 13 and 14 of Oak Crest Estates, Spring Valley Unit conditional upon: 1. All ordinance requirements being 2. Utilities being adequate, and 3. The previously granted variance 13 to encroach into the building Easement shall no longer apply. met, allowing the structure on Lot setback and Public Utility P&Z Recommendation: (August 5, 1986) (5-0) Approved wig onditions as listed above City CouncilAction: August 26, 1986 (5-0) Approved by consent with the conditions listed above. MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Randall Gaither Date: August 18, 1986 RE: San Gabriel Heights Five — Ordinance — Abandoning Two Five Foot P.U.E.'s on Lots 22 & 23, Block "B" Attached is a copy of the referenced Ordinance as presented for First Reading on August 12, 1986. The First Reading was approved subject to: 1. Electric Service for Lots 22 & 23 being limited to 200 amps unless owner agrees to pay for improvements required to increase service, 2. The use of both lots being restricted to one single family residence total. All other requirements have been completed. Job No. OISABCO SURVEY PERFORMED FOR C; RL- L.UziUS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF LOrs 22 2f-', FALcc:K"6° !F FAW 6746F21E L- HEIGI-IT3 - SEG1YaJ n\'E OF RECORD IN CABINET c SLIDES THE PLAT RECORDS OF WLLIA COUNTY, TEXAS. Legend: iron pin found o iron pin set r,P.I Ve I N N W 0,9 D 1, 1 e c f&. y,Jk, Registered Public Surveyor, do hereby certify that the above pla correy cfiyreprepresents the property as determined by an on -the -ground survey performed under my supervision and direction on the 9 day of Juy , IW; The property platted hereon Is correct and there are no apparentt scireppaancien, conflicts, shortages In area, boundary line conflicts, encroachments, overlapping of improvements, visible utility lines or roads in place, except as shown hereon, and said property has access to and from a dedicated roadway, as shown hereon. 1 hereby certify that the property within the boundaries shown hereon 6 not within a special flood hazard area as Identified by the Federal Insurance Administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Panel No.4:30C2920f7 07, effective date I +I B, 11377, or other flood hazard determination as sRo—wn lereon. EXJiI IT Aa - A%and4n.nerlt_o'_{-uje 54._Publ;4 UNi alyGnEr-,_Lois ZZ 23 8166 *B son- Ciabri _I----- J.6_su lo» FNS - G.W. SCHMIDT & CO_ CONSULTING ENGINEERS too Fw Wt 9trn t 0.. pV. nwn.T.... 78625 v,.... u. •,eta,vee-es WILLIAM R. STUMP RANDALL O. STUMP DONNA L. STUMP LAW OFFICES STUMP SC STUMP 803 MAIN ST. - P. O. HOX 286 GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78627 August 18, 1986 Hutchinson, Price, Boyle and Brooks Attention: John Boyle 1700 Pacific Avenue 3900 First City Centre Dallas, Texas 75201 L .. FOR YOUR INFORMATION RE: City of Georgetown, Capital Recover Fee Credit Agreement with Tri -Tract Group Dear John: TP.I.P.PHONP.: 812) 803-6884 Pursuant to our phone conversation today, please find enclosed herewith our draft dated August 18, 1986, of the "Agreement Regarding Capital Recovery Fee Credits For The Construction of Water and Wastewater Facilities" (CRF Credit Agreement). As an exhibit to that CRF Credit Agreement, please also find enclosed herewith an earlier agreement executed in 1984 between the City and the Tri -Tract participants entitled "Agreement Regarding Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services" ("Previous Agreement"). I am also attaching as an exhibit to the CRF Credit Agreement Exhibit 8, Cost Schedule. It is my understanding that such schedule shall be revised to also include the methodology. Also find enclosed the developer's proposed buildout schedule (Bld Sch). Please note the corresponding figures in Bld Sch & CRF Credit Agreement. In addition, as an illustration of what has been previously submitted to us by the developers in this case, I am including their version of the CRF Credit Agreement dated 8-11-86. I am also enclosing a copy of the credits methodology they had submitted for that agreement. I. Previous Agreement For a little background, the City and the Tri -Tract group entered into the Previous Agreement in 1984, for the construction of certain water and wastewater facilities by the developers. As part of that agreement, the developers agreed to oversize the system to be constructed based upon the City's agreement to reimburse oversizing costs through an agreement concerning CRF fees in the future. Our CRF Credit Agreement is intended to meet that need. II. CRF Credit Agreement It is my belief that the CRF Credit Agreement will more clearly explain what the City was trying to do when it issued its CRF policy statement early this January. As I indicated to you previously, I am relying on your opinion that this type of credit arrangement is permissible. We would appreciate your reviewing our CRF Credit Agreement at your earliest convenience. There are several items of interest that I would like to bring to your attention in that agreement. First, it appears to me that the Previous Agreement lacked a successors and assigns clause. Therefore, I have attempted to clearly state who the successors were to those original participants in the Previous Agreement. U. t IItis s.. In addition, we want to make it clear in our CRF Credit Agreement that the sole method for developer reimbursement for City required oversizing of facilities, is through CRF Credits and no other method. Therefore, I am attempting to negate any future suit trying to set aside this CRF Credit Agreement or the credit system, which could potentially make the City liable for up to $945,000.00. I also ask you to note the limitations provisions included in the CRF Credit Agreement, on page 2, under Subparagraph 4. First, the City wants to limit its liability to a cap of $945,000.00. Second, the beginning time limitations period will be the earlier of either the completion of all of the projects under the Previous Agreement, or July 1, 1987, whichever comes first. As you may tell by this Agreement, the City want to treat the entire Tri -Tract group as one entity for purposes of CRF Credit. In turn, this makes it difficult to coordinate time limits for the three (3) major projects contemplated by the Previous Agreement. Thus, I concluded the time limit provision included might be the best method available. If you have other suggestions, feel free to comment. Hopefully, the rest of the contract is somewhat self explanatory. I do, however, want to point out the limitations of credit use provision found on page 4 of the CRF Credit Agreement. If you remember I discussed with you previously about the City's police powers and their future interference with the developers use of CRF Credits for reimbursement of oversizing. For example, it is intended that this area will be annexed within the next year, after the utilities have been installed. We have taken the position, concurrent with yours, that the City cannot bargain away its police powers in making such decisions. However, as to a moratorium, we have agreed a reasonable extension of time for such CRF Credit use. However, the developers attorney believes we can make a reasonable limitation on the police powers, and has submitted a memo to that effect. Please find a copy.of this memo attached hereto for your review. Otherwise, I realize that this is a great deal of material for your absorption. If you have any questions in connection with it, please feel free to call either myself, our City Manager (Bob Gaylor) or our Planning Director Ed Barry) at your earliest convenience. We would greatly appreciate your review and verbal discussion within the next day or two, if at all possible. Further, we greatly appreciate your help in this matter, and look forward to working with you in the future. Yours very truly, Randy Stump Enclosures RCS:jj cc: Bob Gaylor/" Ed Barry TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS MARK WHITE Governor August 6, 1986 Mr. Edward J. Barry, AICP Director, Division of Community Development and Planning City of Georgetown Post Office Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627-0409 Dear Mr. Barry: BOB D. WILLIAMS Acting Executive Director I regret to inform you that the circumstances cited in your letter of June 30, 1986, and the supplement of July 16, 1986 do not constitute grounds for a waiver of the performance thresholds for the 1986 Texas Community Development Program competition. State program rules (10 T.A.C. 9.1(k)) require that such waiver requests be based upon "compelling circumstances beyond the control of the local government" and my staff's review indicates that the circumstances relating to your project do not meet these criteria. As such, your 1986 Texas Community Development Program application has been disqualified. I appreciate your interest in the Texas Community Development Program. If you should have further concerns or questions in this matter, please contact Bill Pluta, Director of the Community Development and Housing Division at 512) 834-6030. BW:jbw cc: Bill Pluta Sincerely, Bob Williams Acting Executive Director 1836-1986 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 8317 CROSS PARK DRIVE * PHONE: (512)834-6000 or 1.800.252-9642 * BOX 13166, CAPITOL STA. AUSTIN, TX 78754-5124 AUSTIN, TX 78711.3166 p ALV 1 syr i 1 1836-1986 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 8317 CROSS PARK DRIVE * PHONE: (512)834-6000 or 1.800.252-9642 * BOX 13166, CAPITOL STA. AUSTIN, TX 78754-5124 AUSTIN, TX 78711.3166 GROWTH TRENDS REPORT #3 200 198 198 197 Estimates for Cities, Counties, and Special Districts (1988); Revised 1990 Forecasts; Trends Assessment (1980-1985) III C4A GCM FD) Capital Area Planning Council Capital Area Growth Trends Assessment Program 91 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Capital Area Planning Region which includes the counties of Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee, Llano, Travis, and Williamson, has increased its population in the 1980s at a rate of 5.208 annually. This represents an increase of approximately 222,833 persons. This is the highest rate of growth of any planning region in the state. It compares with the Houston -Galveston Area - 3.08, Alamo Area (San Antonio) - 2.88, North Central Texas (Dallas -Fort Worth) - 3.378, West Texas (E1 Paso) - 2.58. Statewide population growth has been at a rate of 2.78 annually since 1980. In terms of real numbers only the much larger Houston -Galveston area and North Central Texas Area have seen larger increases than the Capital Area. The growth rate of the region did slow down in 1985 to 5.538 from 6.788 in 1984, yet it remains above the average for the decade, and above that of any other region in the state. The revised 1990 forecast for the region is 1,070,160, almost 145,000 higher than the original Growth Trends Report #1 projection. This forecast represents an extension of January 1980 -January 1986 compounded annual growth rates to January 1990. As such, it reflects the 1985 "slow down" 1.258). If the slowing trend continues and/or accelerates in 1986, the 1990 forecast will be revised downward in 1987. The tables, graphs and maps, which follow in this section depict changing conditions in the region as a whole. For more detail the reader is referred to the respective county sections. About 878 of the population increase in the Capital Area occurred in the three central MSA counties of Hays, Travis, and Williamson. The MSA grew at a rate of 5.408 annually while the western subregion consisting of Blanco, Burnet, and Llano Counties grew at a rate of 4.568 and the eastern subregion consisting of Bastrop, Caldwell, Fayette, and Lee Counties grew at a rate of 4.038 (Figure 1). (Actual numbers by region are shown in Figure 2.) Each county's growth rate is shown in Figure 3. Bastrop, Hays, and Williamson Counties grew faster than the region as a whole. Figure 4 shows the growth in actual numbers by county. APUIri3 `u ;JGcm r Capital Area Growth Trends Capital .Area Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t Program I i11 R it I E I I I 11 I I 4 Major centers of growth include the following areas: along I.H. 35 from just north of Georgetown to the Hays-Comal County line, along U.S. 183 from north Austin to Leander, the area in Williamson County between Cedar Park and Round Rock, south to Travis County line, the area in Hays County north of Onion Creek between Dripping Springs and Buda, the western half of Bastrop County, and along the Highland Lakes. The ten fastest growing cities in the region are shown in Figure 5. Fight are within the three county MSA, while three are on the Highland Lakes (Lakeway is in both area's). Among cities with a population of more than 2,000 in 1980, the results are similar (Figure 6). Map 2 shows the growth rate of all cities in the region and those areas which are growing faster than the region as a whole. Of the forty-one (41)* school districts located in the Capital State Planning Region (Map 3) ten are shown on Figure 7 as having compounded annual rates of growth in inrollment (from 1980-86) of over 8.4%. For the most part, these districts contain the fastest growing cities of the region as well. Rates of growth and estimates of population are shown on the summary table which follows. Municipal Utility Districts (MUDS) providing information for Growth Trends Report #3 are listed on the table which follows. Map 4 shows the general location of each. The largest of these, Williamson MUD #1 contains over 10,000 residents. As more information is provided by the MUD's in the future, additional listings will be included as will forecasted figures for district build -out". I* Information on the new Wimberley ISD was not available. WUP M UGc r Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Area Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t Program 5 CAPITAL AREA PLANNING COUNCIL Summary Table of Population Estimates Capital Area Compound G/T Assessment Program Annual Report #1 April Revised 1985 Growth Rate Projection PLACE 1980 1/1/85 1/1/86 Growth Rate 1980-1985 1990 BASTROP COUNTY 24726 32676 34974 7.03% 6.19% 44471 Bastrop 3789 4017 4158 3.51% 1.69% 4446 Elgin 4535 5314 5565 4.72% 3.63% 6418 Smithville 3470 3778 3748 0.78% 1.48% 3975 BLANCO COUNTY 4681 5525 5732 3.75% 3.58% 6599 Blanco 1179 1305 1357 3.97% 2.47% 1420 Johnson City 872 1002 1025 2.37% 2.82% 1097 BURNET COUNTY 17803 22043 23425 6.27% 4.83% 28075 Bertram 824 978 1003 2.57% 3.41% 1147 Burnet 3410 3823 3946 3.22%. 2.51% 4274 Granite Shoals 634 839 875 4.27% 5.66% 1210 Marble Falls 3252 4110 4940 20.18% 7.26% 6538 Meadowlakes NA NA 372 NA NA NA CALDWELL COUNTY 23637 26818 27738 3.43% 2.77% 30941 Lockhart 7953 9192 9702 5.55% 3.40% 11090 Luling 5039 5059 5050 0.19% 0.00% 5377 Martindale 947 1024 1030 0.58% 1.45% 1091 FAYETTE COUNTY 18832 20812 21298 2.33% 2.15% 23190 Carmine 239 247 249 0.75% 0.73% 264 Fayetteville 356 369 371 0.49% 0.71% 382 Flatonia 1070 1158 1166 0.63% 1.55% 1240 La Grange 3768 4165 4243 1.88% 2.11% 4613 Round Top 87 90 90 0.15% 0.62% 92 Schulenburg 2469 2519 22531 0.50% 0.55% 2680 HAYS COUNTY 40594 55542 62022 11.67% 7.43% 82613 Buda 597 923 1201 30.09% 12.62% 1932 Dripping Springs 606 933 1200 28.56% 12.32% 1910 Hays 286 298 301 1.01% 0.98% 313 Kyle 2093 2927 2992 2.21% 6.45% 3842 Mountain City NA 308 356 15.58% NA 635 San Marcos 23420 31863 33260 4.39% 6.23% 42356 Uhland NA NA 262 NA NA NA Woodcreek 285 560 590 5.36% 13.49% 833 LEE COUNTY 10952 1652 14157 3.69% 4.67% 16063 Giddings 3950 5135 5178 0.83% 4.89% 6242 Lexington 1065 1145 1116 2.58% 1.06% 1164 LLANO COUNTY 10144 12666 13191 4.13% 4.54% 13735 Kingsland (CDP) 2241 3011 3270 8.61% 6.47% 4202 Llano 3071 3218 3215 0.11% 0.73% 3310 Sunrise Beach 420 497 537 7.94% 4.36% 666 Revised 1990 Forecast No 1990 projection in Growth Trends Report #1 W6- 110911 Capital Area Growth Trends capital \«•a Planning. council Assessment Program 7 6 CAPITAL AREA PLANNING COUNCIL Summary Table of Population Estimates I F I REGION TOTALS 647451 824650 870284 5.53% 5.20% 1070160 * Revised 1990 Forecast No 1990 projection in Growth Trends Report #1 GApW"o " Capital Area Growth Trends 11 Capital Area Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t P r o g r a m Compound G/T Annual Report #1 April Revised 1985 Growth Rate Projection PLACE 1980 1/1/85 1/1/86 Growth Rate 1981-1985 1990 TRAVIS COUNTY 419575 521493 543608 4.5211 4.527 648759 Austin 345890 439672 467224 6.27% 5.31% 574650 Briarcliff NA 200 200 NA NA NA Creedmoor 188 214 225 5.14% 3.23% 256 Garfield NA NA 1000 NA NA NA q Jonestown NA 1986 1986 NA NA NA Lago Vista NA 22200 2200 NA NA NA Lakeway 790 1117 1151 3.08% 7.10%. 1514 Manor 1044 1146 1184 3.27% 2.13% 1236 Mustang Ridge NA NA 314 NA NA NA Pflugerville 745 2464 3090 25.45% 28.31% 52247 Rollingwood 1027 1285 1351 5.12% 4.98% 1641 San Leanna 290 322 331 2.62% 22.30% 363 Sunset Valley 420 460 470 2.00% 1.96% 508 West Lake Hills 2166 3306 3534 6.90% 9.06% 5000 WILLIAMSON COUNTY 76507 113423 124139 9.45% 8.76% 173694 Bartlett 1567 1616 1639 1.44% 0.78% 1691 Cedar Park 3474 4823 5245 8.75% 7.27% 6945 Florence 744 1339 888 5.88% 3.01% 1047 Georgetown 9465 12011 13456 12.03% 6.17% 17177 A Granger 1236 1263 1298 2.78% 0.84% 1342 Hutto 659 666 689 3.45% 0.75% 710 Leander 2179 2988 3419 14.41% 7.90% 4634 Round Rock 12740 24810 29440 18.67% 15.62% 47150 Taylor 10619 11747 12424 5.76% 2.73% 13837 Thrall 573 584 586 0.68% 0.40% 597 I F I REGION TOTALS 647451 824650 870284 5.53% 5.20% 1070160 * Revised 1990 Forecast No 1990 projection in Growth Trends Report #1 GApW"o " Capital Area Growth Trends 11 Capital Area Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t P r o g r a m 7 FIGURE 1 GROWTH RATES BY REGION & SUBREGION 6 r—.._— 1 980— 1985 4 OA O.E 0.; 0.6 c 0.5 i O.a 0.3 0.2 0.1 O 2 1 D NINAL (MSA) NON -MSA REGION FIGURE 2 GROWTH IN ACTUAL NUMBERS BY REGION ANn I KAL (MSA) NON—MSA REGION 1980 POP. ® ADDED SINCE 1980 1 l;l p Capital Area Growth Trendsm Capital Area Planning Councilil Assessment Program 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I FIGURE 3 GROWTH RATES BY COUNTY 1980-1985 LAST. BLANC.BURN. CALD. FAY. HAYS LEE LLANO TRAV. WMSN.REGION FIGURE 4 GROWTH IN ACTUAL NUMBERS BY COUNT'y 1980-1986 1 0.9 8702E4 0.8- 0.7- 0.6 80. 70.6 n 543608 C O.5 v 0.4 0.3 0.2 124139 O.1 62022 4974 2342527738212985732 1415713191 i 1':1T r7'71 BAST. BLANC.BURN. CALD. FAY. HAYS LEE LLANO TRAV. WMSN.REGION 1980 POP. ® ADDED SINCE 1980 fiff a '"" CAGC" P Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Area Planning Council Assessment Program E MAP 1 COUNTY GROWTH RATES 1980 - 1985 CAPITAL STATE PLANNING REGION GAFUi M CAG"M Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Area Planning Council Assessment Program 530 35- 30, 8.31X 25 tj 20 WUKwa. 15- 510510- 5 n AA WUIrWQ. 10 FIGURE 5 FASTEST GROWING CITIES IN CAPCO REGION 1980-1985 15.62X 12.62%12..32% 9.06% 7.90% 7.27X 7.26% 7.10% F"//J /1 rrr 6.4711 own UK.SF'H. W.L.H. LEAND.CED.PK.MAR.F. LAKEW. KINGS. FIGURE 6 FASTEST GROWING CITIES OVER 2000 IN 20 CAPCO REGION 1980-1985 19 18 17 16 5.62% 15- 14 13 121 10 9.O6X 9 8 7.90% 7.27% 7.26% 7- 6.47% 6.45X 6.23X 6.17% 6 5.3131 1 F773 a 3 2 10 -_ M F// K.KwK W.L.H. LEAND.CED.PK. MAR.F. KINGS. KYLE SAAR. GTOWN. AUST GAPf&o CAGNPp Capital .Area Planning Council Capital Area Growth Trends Assessment Program O LLANO BURNET WE CHIGH GROWTH CLUSTER M 11 MAP 2 CITY GROWTH RATES 1980 - 1985 0- 2% 2 - 4% WILLIAMSON \ 1 ® 4 - 6% 0ax OVER 6% JYYIVA S '\ LEE BASTROP 0./ CALDWELL FAYETTE CAPITAL STATE PLANNING REGION 101, GAPf.Y a r e Ddp Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Area Planning Council Assessment Program zzwvtrWa 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 O 12 FIGURE 7 ENROLLMENT RATES OF SELECTED ISD'S 1980-1986 L. TRAV.PFLUG. EANESDR.SPR. HAYS COUP. R.ROCKL.VISTA BAST. LEAND. ANA- "" `UGl MP Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Arca Planning Council Assessment Program 13 MAP 3 SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARII nvV tftlalVN School district boundaries and -data for Hays County do notreflectchangesmadesinceestablishmentoftheWimberley ISD. GAFU a lT' Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Area Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t Program 1 CAPITAL AREA PLANNING COUNCIL Summary Table of Ind. School District Population Estimates ussszaav arzusas:asx r_aaasss as sas:z a ees ss azauzzzze_: zazax oxzsv ozxzz^-xcza m as x_zzzurza----z_-zza s_r_ea zzax--zaas- 7 Compound Compound Annual Annual April Growth Rate April Growth Rate KEY DISTRICT 1980 1/1/86 1980-1985 KEY DISTRICT 1980 1/1/86 1980-1985 3ASTROP COUNTY LEE COUNTY 1 Bastrop ISO 11299 21268 11,501 20 Dime Boz ISD 940 1139 3.831 2 Elgin ISO 7367 10053 5.33% 21 Giddings ISO 7057 9536 5.6313McDadeISO73510357.12% 22 Lexington ISO 2993 3931 5.27145vthvilleISO566178596,331 LLANO COUNTY BLANCO COUNTY 23 Llano ISD 8623 11569 4.661 7 5 Blanca ISO 2763 3567 4.64% 6 Johnson City ISD 2363 2811 3.011 TRAVIS COUNTY BUANET COUNTY 24 Austin ISO 345666 422061 3.48X7BurnetCons. ISO 10512 13123 3.771 25 Del Valle ISO 17274 22625 4,72184arbleFallsISO8938145678,69% 26 Eanes ISD 11519 23349 13.52% 27 Lago Vista ISO 1690 3271 11.981CALDWELLCOUNTY28LakeTravisISO42981126917.96% 29 Manor ISD 15501 22438 6.3619Lockhart15013644160922,751 30 Pflugerville ISO 11577 50314 18.16% 10 Luling ISO 6559 8178 3,851 11 Prairie Lea iSD 1011 1002 0.68% WILLIAMSON COUNTY FAYETTE COUNTY 31 Coapland ISO 497 961 12.641 32 Florence ISO 2145 2645 3,68112FayettevilleISO177814992.701 33 Georgetown ISD 15;85 23024 7.101 13 Flatonia ISD 2472 2989 3,382 34 Granger ISD 2113 2585 2.73% 14 La Grange ISO B422 11434 5.36% 35 Hutto ISD 1744 2413 5.88215uundTop -Carmine !S0 1569 2057 5.241 36 Jarrel ISO 1662 2196 5.22116Schulenburg150440150002.241 57 Leander ISO 9854 16076 8.80% 30 Liberty Hill ISO 2292 3579 7.921WAYSCOUNTY39RoundRackISO363217077312.351 40 Taylor I05 12619 13433 3.23217DrippingBpringsISO275565113.341 41 Thrall ISO 2047 2464 3,43110HaysCons. ISO 10344 20773 12.74% 19 San Marcos ISD 30684 59386 4,071 7 anG Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Area Planning Council Assessment Program 15 CAPITAL AREA PLANNING COUNCIL Municipal Utility District Population Estimates WU- UGCN Capital Area Growth Trends Capital area Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t Program POPULATION KEY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS AS OF 1/l/86 1 Davenport MUD 293 2 Hurst Creek: MUD 87 Lakeway MUD 2922 4 Lost Creek MUD 2210 S North Star- MUD 3582 6 NW Travis Co. MUD 1 1247 7 NW Travis Co. MUD 2 681 e Shady Hollow MUD 943 9 Tanglewood Forest MUD 3181 10 Travis Co. MUD #1 2846 it Wells Branch MUD 5198 1<^ Milwood MUD 1410 13 Springwood MUD 2472 14 Williamson MUD #1 10412 15 Williamson MUD #2 3295 16 w111lamsom MUD 03 2255 WU- UGCN Capital Area Growth Trends Capital area Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t Program 16 MAP 4 SELECTED MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS 16 15 o 14 13 0 10 7 © 11 C° O 0 00 ? Q 0., O3 2 ti9 , l mno \"s Co 290 LJ NORTH MfiO all IM UG F— Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Area Planning Council Assessment Program 17 FACTORS AFFECTING THE GROWTH OF THE REGION There are many factors which have been significant in the region's recent high rate of growth. Educational and employment opportunities have been good compared to other parts of the state and nation. The locat Technology Corporation Austin's position as a c technologically advanced universities guarantees force for this and other ion of Microelectronics and Computer MCC) in Austin in 1984 symbolizes enter for both research and production of products. The presence of several fine research facilities and a trained work industries. However, the semiconductor industry as well as the petroleum industry slowed in 1985, as did the real estate market. Residential construction activity declined from 1984 levels in most parts of the region while commercial construction increased, particularly in Travis and Williamson Counties. Retail sales were higher in 1985 than in 1984 in every county in the region, but the increase was lower than in recent years. Unemployment increased regionwide, but remains lower than the state and national average. Mria ,Mr ` AG tY ;1 p Capital Area Growth Trends Capital .Area Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t Program 62 WILLIAMSON COUNTY qHays 0s Lee Bastrop Caldwell Fayette • Florence Bartlett W I L L I A M S O N • Granger Georgetown • Taylor • Leander Round • Thral Rock •Hutto Cedar • Park POPULATION 1' 4444 . •' . 4444. , CEDAR PARK 0 BARTLETT 0. GRANGER o% 4111............ MRALL...............:.... THRALL1 t G4GIWP,Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Area Planning Council Assessment Program 63 WILLIAMSON COUNTY This MSA county has grown at the rapid rate of 8.76% anually thus far in the 1980s due in large part to a spillover of Austin's growth. It is the fastest growing county in the region, increasing by 638 over the five year period. Most of the growth has occurred in the south central part of the county, particularly along U.S. Highway 183 and Interstate 35 as well as the area between these major roadways. The unincorporated areas of the county are growing slightly faster than the cities, at an annual rate of 9.928. At the current rate of growth, Williamson County will reach a population of 173,000 by 1990. County officials feel that the estimate is high. They feel that the current population is between 110,000 and 115,000. They feel as does CAPCO that a population of 173,000 by 1990 is a high case estimate depending upon a strong economy. The low case CAPCO projection is 150,000. 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 O WILLIAMSON COUNTY GROWTH BY COUNTY, CITY 1980-1986 24139 I xoz 29440 13456 12424 5245 888 1296 689 3419 588 U- UcuJK. rLUK. GIOWN.GRANG. HUTT0 LEAND.R.ROCKTAYLORTHRALL 1980 POP. © ADDED SINCE 1980 WU- UGA Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Area Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t Program 64 WILLIAMSON COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES CAPITAL AREA PLANNING COUNCIL Compound G/T Annual Report N1 April Revised 1985 Growth Rate Projection 1980 1/1/85 1/1/86 Growth Rate 1980-1985 1990 WILLIAMSON COUNTY 76507 113423 124139 9.45% 8.76% 173694 INCORPORATED CITIES Bartlett 1567 1616 1639 1.44% 0.78% 1691 Cedar Park 3474 4823 5245 8.75% 7.27% 6945 Florence 744 839 888 5.BB% 3.01% 1047 Georgetown 9468 12011 13456 12.03% 6.17% 17177 Granger 1236 1263 1298 2.78% 0.84% 1342 Hutto 659 666 689 3.45% 0.75%. 710 s Leander 2179 2988 3419 14.41% 7.90% 4634 w Round Rock 12740 24830 29440 18.67% 15.62% 47150 Taylor 10619 11747 12424 5.76% 2.73% 13837 Thrall 573 564 588 0.68% 0.40% 597 UNINCORPORATED 33944 51808 58289 12.51% 9.92% 8509.3 SCHOOL DISTRICTS Coupland ISD 497 925 961 3.87% 12.64% NA Florence ISD 2145 2520 2645 4.96% 3.68% NA Georgetown ISD 15385 21371 2.3024 7.74% 7.18% NA 1 Granger SSD 2113 2458 2585 5.16% 2.73% NA Hutto ISD 1744 2276 2413 5.99% 5.88% NA larrel ISD 1662 2061 2196 6.53% 5.22% NA Leander ISD 9854 14779 16076 8.77% 8.80% NA Liberty Hill ISD 2292 3359 3579 6.57% 7.92% NA Round RGCk 160 36321 63695 70775 11.17% 12.55X NA Taylor ISD 12695 14825 15435 4.11% 3.23% NA Thrall ISD 2047 2210 2464 11.48% 3.43% NA Revised Forecast I, No 1990 projection in Growth Trends Report #1 AM- ism 1G 9;lP Capital Area Growth Trends Capital .Area Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t Program 65 r Revised Forecast No 1990 projection in Growth Trends Report #1 APLG - r c 1G° Capital Arca Growth Trends Capital :arca Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t Program Compound G/T April 1980 Revised 1/1/85 1/1/86 1985 Growth Rate Annual Growth Rate 1980-1985 Report #1 Projection 1990 MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS Milwood MUD NA NA 1410 NA NA NA Springwood MUD NA NA 2472 NA NA NA Williamson MUD #1 NA NA 10412 NA NA NA Williamson MUD #2 NA NA 3295 NA NA NA Williamson MUD #3 NA NA 2255 NA NA NA r Revised Forecast No 1990 projection in Growth Trends Report #1 APLG - r c 1G° Capital Arca Growth Trends Capital :arca Planning Council A s s e s s m e n t Program M The City of Cedar Park has grown at an annual rate of 7.278, increasing its rate of growth each year. The city is now over 5,000 and shows signs of continued growth, including a wastewater plant with a capacity of four million gallons per day under construction. However, its rate of growth thus far has been far below CAPCO's projected growth rate. without aggressive annexation, the city's 1990 population will be near 7,000. The City of Florence, located in the far northwestern corner of the county, is only beginning to experience significant growth. Its 10.098 rate of growth in 1984 and 5.888 in 1985 is a sign that rapid development may be approaching shortly. If the overall annual rate of 3.018 is maintained, the current 1990 projection will prove to be on target. City officials agreed with the estimate. Florence ISD has grown at a slightly higher rate of 3.688 annually. School officials agreed with the estimates. Georgetown, the county seat, has grown at a rate of 6.178 annually. The rate of growth increased dramatically in 1984 and 1985. If the overall rate of 6.178 continues, Georgetown will reach CAPCO's 1990 projection on schedule. The area immediately around the city has developed at a rapid rate as well, with an increase of 4,000 residents in the city's utilities service area outside the city limit since 1980. Its location on Interstate 35 makes Georgetown's prospects for continued growth likely. Recent development has been heaviest in the northwest section of the city. City officials agreed with the estimate. Georgetown ISD has grown at a rate of 7.188 slightly faster than the city. The City of Granger has been largely unaffected by the growth occurring to its south. This farming community has had a stable population so far during the decade. The prospects are that Granger will remain stable throughout the decade. Despite the low rate of growth experienced by Granger in the 1980s, it has already surpassed CAPCO's 1990 projection for the city. The revised 1990 projection is 1,342. City officials agreed with the estimates. Granger ISD has grown at a modest rate of 2.738 per year. The City of Hutto, located between Round Rock and Taylor, has had a stable population since 1980. Its annual growth rate of 0.758 suggests that the city has yet to experience significant growth. Some construction activity has occurred in the northeastern section of the city. Thus far in the 1980s, Hutto has grown more slowly than CAPCO has projected. Based on this trend the 1990 projection has been revised to 710. Hutto ISD has grown at a rate of 5.888. School officials agreed with the estimate. Capital Area Planning Council Capital Area Growth Trends Assessment Program 3 The City of Leander has grown at a rate of 7.90% annually. Most of the residential construction has been in the northwestern section of the city. Although the current rate of growth is below the CAPCO projected growth rate, the City of Leander appears to be on the edge of more rapid growth in the near future. Its sewage plant is now on line and has a 36" loop around the city. With this capacity, and plentiful water supplies, Leander is in a position to continue to absorb rapid growth. The city is projected to reach 6,000 by 1990. City officials feel the estimate is conservative. Leander ISD has experienced an annual population growth rate of 8.808 and is now near 16,000. School officials agreed with the estimate. The City of Round Rock has grown at a phenomenal rate of 15.628 annually with its growth rate almost reaching 338 in 1984. The total population has more than doubled since the 1980 census was taken, accounting for nearly 308 of Williamson County'sgrowthduringthisperiod. Its proximity to Austin on Interstate 35 has had a substantial effect on the city's development. Round Rock exceeded CAPCO's 1990 projection for the city in 1985. If the current growth rate continues Round Rock will have a population of 52,000 by 1990. City planning officials agreed with the estimate. Residential construction activity has been heaviest in the northeast and southeast sections of the city. Round Rock ISD has grown 12.55% annually to a population of over 70,000. If population increases at the current rate, the district will contain 112,000 persons by 1990. Round Rock ISD includes in addition to the Round Rock vicinity, the Anderson Mill area and a strip in northern Travis County from Interstate 35 westward to FM 620. The City of Taylor in eastern Williamson County has experienced a modest growth rate of 2.738, but the rate of growth has been increasing since 1983, reaching 5.768 in 1985. It has already exceeded CAPCO's 1990 projection for the city. A revised1990projectionof13, 837 is in order. Residential construction activity has been concentrated in the northwestern section of the city. Taylor ISD has grown at a slightly higher rate than the city and now contains an estimated 15,435 persons. The estimate indicates that two-thirds of the district's growth in population has occurred inside the City of Taylor. iAP A ukcsc1p Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Area Planning Council Assessment Program M The City of Thrall has experienced very little population growth in the 1980s. Its location in the far eastern end of the county has kept the city unaffected by the Austin area population boom. Its current rate of growth and the state of agricultural industries warrants a revised 1990 projection of 597. Thrall ISD has grown at an annual rate of 3.43%. School officials agreed with the estimates. Coupland ISD, south of Taylor, has increased its enrollment by 12.648 since 1980, a modest increase in real numbers but a healthy sign for the future of the district. Most of the growth occurred during the period of 1980-1982. Jarrell ISD, north of Georgetown, has increased at a rate of 5.228 annually, a healthy growth rate for a rural school district. Liberty Hill ISD, west of Georgetown and north of Leander, has grown at a rate of 7.608. Aah fivao N UGMp Capital Area Growth Trends Capital Area Planning Council Assessment Program