Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 06.11.19960 MEMORANDUM Date: June 10, 1996 From: Wendy Walsh, Senior Planner through Hildy L. Kingma, Chief Planner To: Mayor Leo Wood, City Council members, Bob Hart Subject: Consideration of Revising the Parking Standard for Quasi -Residential Uses The City of Georgetown Subdivision Regulations define hotel and motels as quasi - residential uses. The parking standard for such uses, as defined in Table 33052, is one (1) parking space for every 250 square feet of building area. Staff compared the City of Georgetown's parking standard for hotel and motel uses to those of other cities and the results indicate our standard is higher than all others to which it was compared. Georgetown's standard is higher because it is based on building square footage, which includes the number of guest rooms, plus offices and meeting rooms. As shown in Exhibit 1, the parking standards for quasi -residential uses in other cities are based on the number of rooms and factor in office, commercial and meeting space, and accessory structures such as a restaurant separately. The balance of this memo presents standards used by the Texas Hotel -Motel Association, the requirements of other cities throughout the United States and selected Texas cities with significant amounts of tourism. According to the Texas Hotel -Motel Association (THMA), most hotel and motel developers know they must provide one (1) space per room plus additional spaces for employees and any public areas, including restaurants, bars, meeting space, or recreational facilities. THMA notes, however, that hotel and motel developers often attempt to appeal the parking standards, by providing a traffic analysis based on a projection of the hourly parking requirements, which recognizes that the hotel guest, conferee and employees create peak demands on parking at different times of the day. THMA cautions that part of a hotel/motel's success can be attributed to sufficient and convenient parking. Therefore, the key objective should be to provide optimum but not excessive amounts of parking. Exhibit 2 outlines one (1) method of calculating the number of parking spaces needed for a 68 room hotel. Note that the number of parking spaces calculated for this sample project (22) is 32 percent of the total number of guest rooms provided and does not account for office, commercial or meeting space, or accessory uses which would attract additional visitors. Exhibit 3 shows THMA's ratio of parking spaces needed for different types of hotels and motels and facilities provided. An August 1983 Planning Advisory Service (PAS, published by the American Planning Association) report concluded that hotels and motels are among the most difficult uses for which to describe parking and travel characteristics, primarily because they combine at least three (3) uses - accommodations for overnight guests, conference facilities, and dining and entertainment facilities. Thus, it is likely that the hotel or motel guest will also be using the dining and entertainment facilities and will typically not require a vehicle to reach each destination. Therefore, the parking requirements of accessory structures do not reflect the sum of the parking required if the facility operates as a principal use. 0 In Montgomery County, Maryland, consultants identified the supply of parking spaces at existing hotels and motels. The ratio of parking spaces supplied to the number of rooms varied between 0.8 and 1.8. Consultants also conducted parking counts at selected locations, and observed a wide range of peak parking demand from 0.4 to 1.6 vehicles per room. According to the study, hotels located in central business districts tended to have parking demand in the low end of the range due to higher taxi, limousine and public transit use. Based on the consultant's field surveys, Montgomery County proposed 0.7 parking spaces for each guest room, plus 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of area used for ballrooms, meeting rooms and dining areas. According to the study, this requirement would result in a parking ratio of approximately 1.0 parking space per room for the typical hotel. Thus, larger amounts of office, commercial and meeting square footage would push the spaces per room higher, and smaller facilities would push it lower. Montgomery County also offers parking credits of approximately 30 percent for hotels and motels in central business districts. A May 1991 PAS report presenting the survey results of hotel and motel parking standards in eight (8) selected U.S. cities showed similar standards to Montgomery County, Maryland. As shown in Exhibit 4, these standards range from 0.75 space per unit in Honolulu, Hawaii, to one (1) space per room, plus space for employees, public meeting areas and accessory structures in Lake County, Illinois.. In five (5) of the cities surveyed, the parking requirements have been determined as one (1) per guest room, plus a ratio of some combination of commercial uses, meeting space and number of employees. Four (4) Texas cities with significant tourist activity were contacted to obtain information about their parking standards for motel and hotel uses as well as subjective comments about how well these standards meet parking demand. As shown in Exhibit 5, only two (2) cities surveyed (Arlington and South Padre Island) include accessory structures to hotels and motels in their parking standards. Furthermore, the additional parking spaces generated by accessory uses are factored in as a percentage of the spaces required, rather than calculating the requirement on the entire square footage of the accessory use. By using a percentage of the parking space demand generated by accessory structures, it is assumed that a significant amount of these customers will also be using the adjacent facilities such as a restaurant or conference center and thus not generating an additional vehicle trip to reach the site. All four (4) cities contacted indicated their parking standards for hotels and motels were sufficient or exceeded customer demand. Recommendation: Based on the parking requirements of other U.S. and Texas cities surveyed, staff recommends a revised parking requirement for hotel and motel uses as follows: - one (1) space per guest room - one (1) space per three (3) persons to the maximum capacity of each public meeting and/or banquet room - one (1) space for each three (3) employees - 50 percent of the current standard for restaurants per the Subdivision Regulations - 100 percent of the current standard for office space per Subdivision Regulations Applying these standards to FTB Commercial Number One, Lot 1 and using the assumptions of a 68 room hotel with 600 square feet of meeting space (a maximum capacity of 40 persons per Fire Services Division), a maximum of eight (8) employees per shift, zero square feet of restaurant use, and 784 square feet of office space, 88 parking spaces would be required. 68(1) + (40 person capacity/3) + (8 employees/3) + (0 square feet of restaurant use) + (784 square feet of office/200) _ 68 + 13 + 3 + 0 + 4 = 88 parking spaces EXHIBIT 1 Comparison of Parking Standards with Similar Cities SUBJECT PROJECT: Quality Suites Hotel FTB Commercial Number One, Lot 68 guest rooms Y= 600 square feet of meeting space 784 square feet of office space 41,565 total square feet building area 82 parking spaces proposed CITY PARKING STANDARD NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED FOR SUBJECT PROJECT Georgetown 1 space / 250 square feet door area 166 Cedar Park 1 space for each guest room + 1 space 71 /200 square feet commercial floor area (e.g., meeting rooms and restaurants) Round Rock 1 space / sleeping room + 1 space / 71 200 square feet commercial area McKinney Hotel 1 space / 2 sleeping rooms + 1 71 space / 200 square feet commercial floor area Motel 1 space / sleeping room + 1 space /200 square feet commercial floor area San Marcos 1 space for each sleeping room + 1 71 space /200 square feet of commercial floor area Orange 1 space for each sleeping room + 1 70 space / 400 square feet of office space Missouri City 0.9 space / bedroom + 0.25 / person x 83 maximum permitted occupancy in meeting room + 8 per 1,000 square feet of restaurant + 15 / 1,000 square feet of bar I EXHIBIT 2 Texas Hotel -Motel Association's (TCMA) Method of Calculating Parking Spaces Needed Part I The following steps describe an approach to calculating parking requirements based on the changing needs of the guest rooms and other hotel facilities throughout the day. The maximum parking demand in most properties is created not by the rooms but by the meeting and banquet space. The provision of parking must recognize the sum of the various components and the interrelationship of the peaks and valleys over a 24-hour period. Part II Determine the components of the parking requirement overnight guests, restaurant and bar patrons, meeting attendees, and other visitors (see part III). Part III Calculate the maximum number of cars that might be reasonably anticipated, planning to accommodate full demand on 80-85 percent of all days, but not peak demand for each component. The overnight guest calculation is illustrated by the following example: Number of rooms 68 Percent occupancy 85 People per room 1.4 Percent arriving by car 40 People per car 1.5 The equation for calculating the guests parking requirement is as follows: (Rooms) % occupancy(people/room) x (% by car) (People/car) Example: 68 x .85 x 1.4 x .40 = 22 cars 1.5 The calculation for the other components includes similar factors as appropriate, such as food and beverage covers, percentage of diners arriving by car and number of employees by shift. EXHIBIT 3 Parking Needed for Different Types of Hotels According to Spaces Per Room Downtown 0.4-0.8 Assumes limited function space Suburban 1.2-1.4 Heavy local meeting/banquet use Airport 0.6-1.0 Moderate rental car use Highway 1.0-1.2 Some local banquet/F&B use Resort centers 0.2-1.4 Varies by location and proximity to urban Convention 0.8-1.4 Regional convention hotels need higher Conference Center 1.0-1.3 If full house, minimum local use Residential 1.2-2.0 May need two spaces/condominium All -suite 0.8-1.2 Limited public functions Super -luxury 1.0-1.2 Limited public functions Mega -hotel 1.0-1.2 Limited local business; high rental car use Mixed -use 0.6-1.2 Highly variable depending on other activities Casino 0.8-2.0 Varies by location; for example: Atlantic City requires extensive bus parking EXHIBIT 4 Parking Space Requirements for Selected U.S. Cities Honolulu, Hawaii 0.75 space per unit Long Beach, California One (1) space per guest room, plus parking figured separately for banquet rooms, meeting rooms, and restuarant Bellevue, Washington 0.9 space per guest room Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 0.9 space for each room to be rented, plus one (1) additional parking space for each three (3) employees, plus 75 percent of the requirement for other uses associated with the establishment Plano, Texas One (1) space for each room, unit or guest accommodation, plus specified requirements for restaurants, meeting rooms, and related facilities Arlington, Massachusetts One (1) space for each sleeping room, plus one for each 400 square feet of public meeting area and restaurant space Lake County, Illinois One (1) space per room or suite, plus one (1) space per every three (3) employees on the largest work shift, plus one (1) space per three (3) persons to the maximum capacity of each public meeting and / or banquet room, plus 50 percent of the spaces otherwise required for accessory uses (e.g. restaurants and bars) Fairfax County, Virginia One (1) space per rental unit, plus four (4) spaces per 50 rental units, plus such spaces as are required for eating establishments, assembly rooms, and related facilities, as determined by the planning director i 1. EXHIBIT 5 Parking Standards in Selected Texas Cities with Significant Tourist Activity Arlington One (1) parking space per guest room up to 100 rooms; 0.75 parking space per guest room for more than 100 units. Fifty percent (50 %) of the parking spaces required may be used to satisfy the parking requirements of an accessory use (e.g. restaurant) Corpus Christi One (1) parking space for every two (2) guest rooms. In the bay front area, one (1) parking space for every three (3) guest rooms. Galveston One (1) parking space for every guest room. South Padre Island One (1) parking space for every guest room, plus fifty percent (50 %) of the parking requirements from the various accessory uses operated upon the property. liVig , 0iii L� � „�;�Ilu'III RIEEIR-ISTEII'd ATES.., ARCHITEC.'TURE TAT TT DriTr�'•. '71jite C, I rving, Te:.:zas I - (2 14" ". 9 I TE'7, ", RC H I TE,''TT-TF'.E R I E F, E 1,-I-'-'T E T N I. -Tr - T, .,.,T. T...T r T.,T it -I RIEEENSTEIN 1'-`.LRC'HITEC. Ir.xim.c, 7 C' NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF GEORGETO WN, TEXAS TUESDAY, June 11, 1996 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, will meet on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at the northeast corner of Seventh and Main Street in Georgetown, Texas. If you need accommodations for any type of disability, please advise in advance. Detailed explanatory information on the items listed below is compiled in an agenda packet which is distributed to the Mayor and each member of the Council. An agenda packet is also available at the Public Library, for the use of interested citizens. Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 5:00 p.m. A Discuss parking standards for hotels and motels B Discuss council travel policy C Answer questions on Consent Agenda Items listed specifically below under the Regular Session that will begin no sooner than 7:00 p.m. (for questions only, no action to be taken until Regular Session) Regular Session - to convene Executive Session Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session that follows. D Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney E Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property F Sec.551.075 conference with employee Regular Session to begin no earlier than 7:00 p.m. G Action on Executive Session Items H Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports Citizens wishing to address the Council City Council Agenda/June 11, 1996 Pagel of 3 Pages Consent Agenda The Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that council may act on with one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the consent agenda in order that the Council discuss and act upon it individually as part of the regular agenda. Please note that the following items may be discussed with no action taken during the Workshop at 5:00 p.m. J Consideration of approval of meeting minutes for the regular meeting of May 28,1996 -- Sandra Lee K Consideration of a vacation of the Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, located on SH29 East and Stonehedge Boulevard -- Hildy Kingma and Edward Barry L Consideration of bids and the awarding of contract for Tree Grant from Texas Forest Service and Small Business Administration -- Randy Morrow and Terry Jones M Consideration of a resolution to authorize a license to encroach into the drainage easement located along the north property line of Lot 25, Block B, Section 1, Parkview Estates, located at 107 Parque Vista Drive -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry N Consideration of a resolution to authorize a license to encroach in the public utility easement located along the east side property line of Berry Creek Subdivision , Section Six, Block B, Lot 14, located at 29010 Colonial Drive -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry O Consideration of a resolution to authorize a license to encroach into the public utility easement located along the north side property line of Serenada East Subdivision, Unit 5, Block 3, Lot 2, located at 4404 Cordoba Circle West -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry P Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City Attorney to issue a quit claim deed to be filed abandoning a portion of the platted Public Utility Easement (PUE) located along the rear lot line of River Ridge, Section One, Block N, Lot 18, located at 107 Riverwood Drive -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry Q Consideration of approval for a contract with The Management Connection for consulting services -- Teresa Hersh and Bob Hart R Consideration of a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a deed of trust for Lot 4 of the Georgetown Technology Park -- Bob Hart S Consideration and approval to use up to $29,000 from the Council Contingency Account to cover unbudgeted legal expenses -- Susan Morgan T Consideration of approval of bid from Griffin -Austin Company, Inc. of Manchaca, Texas, to build water improvements to serve the Indian Mound Subdivision in the amount of $186,175.00 - - Jim Briggs City Council Agenda/June 11, 1996 Page 2 of 3 Pages U Consideration of approval for the purchase of hardware and installation services for a fiber optic Wide Area Network from Memorex Telex in the amount of $162,175.00 -- Jeff Clausius and Elizabeth Gray Legislative Re ulg_ ar A eg nda Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: (Council may, at any time, recess the regular session to convene in executive session at the request of the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the City Manager.) V Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of F.T.B. Commercial Number One Subdivision, Lot 1, located on IH35 North; and requested variances to Subdivision Regulations -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry W Consideration and second reading of an ordinance to rezone Southwestern University from RP, Residential Planned with a Master Plan and C-1, Local Commercial to RP, Residential Planned, with an Amended Master Plan -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry X Consideration and first reading of an ordinance amending the 1995/96 Annual Operating Plan Element (budget) for various mid -year adjustments as outlined at the May 28, 1996 Mid -Year Review Report to Council -- Susan Morgan Y Consideration and first reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the City of approximately 81.181 acres in the David Wright Survey, located between Airport Road and IH35, north of Lakeway Drive -- Clyde von Rosenberg and Ed Barry Z Consideration of appointment of a three -member Council committee to evaluate proposals for the City's independent audit -- Susan Morgan and Bob Hart Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, , City Secretary of the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted on the day of , 1996, at a.m./p.m. Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary City Council Agenda/June 11, 1996 Page 3 of 3 Pages Council meeting date: June 11, 1996 Item No. WORKSHOP ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Workshop to discuss parking standards for hotels and motels ITEM SUMMARY At the City Council meeting of May 28 the Council considered a detailed development plan for the FTB Commercial Number 1 Subdivision. This application includes a request for a variance to the parking standards for quasi -residential uses (hotels and motels) contained in the Subdivision Regulations. The Council deferred consideration on this item to allow the staff to gather additional information about standards for this use. At the workshop, the staff will distribute a memo describing standards used throughout the state, and the effectiveness of those standards. Staff will also make a recommendation for revising the parking standard contained in the Subdivision Regulations for this use. ATTACHMENTS None Nubmitted by: Edward J. Aarry, AICP -birecto/'�� Division of Development Services Hildy L. kAngma, AICP Chief Planner Council meeting date: 6-11-96 SUBJECT Item No. QD WORKSHOP ITEM COVER SHEET Governance discussion on Council travel policy ITEM SUNEVIARY During the retreat, there was a discussion about revisions to the Council Travel Policy. There are a number of features to the travel policy which need to be updated, and the general environment on Council travel has changed substantially. Therefore, this is being placed on the Agenda for you to revise to the current needs. Also included is the new Travel Procedure that has been established for the City of Georgetown. ATTACHMENTS 1. Current Council Travel Policy 2. City Travel Procedure Subs Bob Hart, City Manager CITY OF GEORGETOWN POLICY ON COUNCIL TRAVEL Purpose: Continuing education for Mayor and Councilmembers Focused training on State/National issues, policy and governance Sharing of ideas for potential local application; therefore, training in teams of two or more is encouraged Mandatory Attendance 1. Annual Budget Retreat 2. council Orientation Session 3. Ethics Seminar Optional Attendance (no prior approval from Council required) 1. Texas Municipal League Annual Conference 2. Association of Mayors, Councilmembers and Commissioners Annual, Conference 3. Texas Municipal League Bi-annual Legislative Conference 4. Specialized training provided by the Texas Municipal League 5. Specialized training provided by the Texas Foundation for the Improvement of Local Government 6. Regional Texas Municipal League Meetings (quarterly) 7. Capital Area Planning Council Meetings 8. Association of Wholesale Customers Membership Meetings 9. Disaster Preparedness Seminar at the National Emergency Training Center Encouraged Attendance (prior Council approval required) 1. Texas Public Power Association Annual Conference 2. American Planning Association Chapter Conference (in State) 3. National League of Cities Annual Conference (preference to those held in Texas) 4. Texas Public Power Specialized Training 5. Workshops based upon State/Federal regulations, when focused upon role of Council. All other conferences and training sessions require Council approval prior to registration. Nothing in this policy should be construed to prevent Councilmembers from attending conferences/workshops at their own expense without prior Council approval. adopted by Resolution 910092/February 26, 1991 City of Georgetown Policy on Council Travel Page 1 of 1 Page 21 CITY OF GEORGETOWN TRAVEL POLICY 1. Purpose The City of Georgetown is a values -based organization. Therefore, we expect our employees to respect and support these ideas. As stewards of public funds, we are accountable to the community we represent, and we must conduct ourselves in a professional and responsible manner, realizing that our ethical behavior will serve as a positive role model for our community. In accordance with the procedures outlined below, the City will reimburse employees for reasonable and actual travel expenses incurred when traveling on approved City business. IL General 1. All travel requires the completion of a Trip Authorization Form. Overnight travel also requires the completion of a Travel Expense Report Form within five days after the trip completion. 2. Employees who fail to turn in an approved Travel Expense Report within thirty days following their return, will be subject to disallowance of any expenses. Reminder notices will be sent for all outstanding advances more than thirty days past due. 3. Use of the City designated travel agent to handle all out of town and overnight travel arrangements is encouraged. (City staff are in the process of securing the services of an agent. This is scheduled to be available by September 1996.) 4. In determining travel costs, consideration should be given for possible overtime reimbursement for staff travel time. Verification of FSLA rules should be made through Employee & Organizational Services. 5. Actual expenses will be reported under the applicable departmental expense category. When completing the travel expense report, the following information is required. A. Dates of departure and return for each trip. B. The names and locations of departure points and destinations or localities. C. The business reason for the travel or nature of the business benefit obtained or expected. D. A summary report sharing information and ideas from the trip may be requested by the Division Director. W. Required Authorization for Travel 1. The general nature of City business does not require a great deal of travel outside the City. Yet, management approval for all business travel is required. Approval levels required are as follows: A. Day trip for which reimbursement is requested - departmental supervisor B. Overnight within the state - Division Director C. Training classes/seminars - Division Director D. Out of state travel - City Manager verbal approval E. Association & professional conventions and seminars inside or outside the state - notify City Manager 2. Trip Authorization Forms and Travel Expense Reports are to be signed by the employee and approved for payment by the appropriate party(ies) within approved authorization limits. It is the approving party's direct responsibility to: A. Thoroughly review all expenditures to ensure they are appropriate and reasonable prior to submitting for reimbursement. B. Answer questions arising from the processing and auditing of expense accounts. IV. Travel Advances City employees may be issued a travel advance check for estimated expenses while on City business, by completing a Trip Authorization Form. 2. This form includes all relevant information for the trip, preapproved authorizations, and travel advance request. If the advance request is greater than $50, the form is sent to Accounting for processing. 3. Advance requests less than $50 are funded through the Division's Petty Cash fund. These expenses are recorded through petty cash reimbursement from information contained on the Trip Authorization Form. 4. Any funds remaining from an overnight travel advance must be remitted to the City within the five days. The receipt should be attached to the approved Travel Expense Report and then forwarded to the Accounting department for clearing. A. If travel expenses exceed the advance, a refund check to the employee will be processed from the completed and approved Travel Expense Report. B. If the refund is less than $50, petty cash may be used to reimburse the employee. In all cases, expense reports must have the supervisor's signature before the employee can be reimbursed. 2 V. Travel Expenses Meals The City reimburses employees on a per diem meal basis. No receipts are required if employees stay within per diem rates. If the daily per diem rate of $35 is exceeded, receipts are then required for reimbursement. The daily per diem rate of will include taxes, tips and room service delivery charges. Per diem rates will be prorated to correspond with actual travel times (e.g., if employee is out of town for half of the day they will not be eligible for a full day per diem). Per diem rates: Breakfast - $9 Lunch -$11 Dinner - $15 A. For day trips, approved meals will be reimbursed to the maximum allowable of applicable meal per diem rate, including tip. B. Meals provided as part of a business related meeting (e.g., breakfast or luncheon), will also be reimbursed at actual cost, not to exceed standard per diem rate as approved. C. Approved business related meals involving non employees will be reimbursed provided the circumstances are considered to be conducive to a business purpose. Receipt should include the name of business relationship, names of people in attendance, and a summary of business discussed. D. Per diem monies should not be used to purchase alcoholic beverages. The City will not reimburse alcoholic beverages for any purpose. *'* If a meal is included in conference or training costs, the per diem reimbursement should not be requested. 2. Lodging A. Commercial type accommodations and rates (or government rates, if available) are to be requested at all times. When making a reservation, the corporate rate should be requested. Room cost is a factor in hotel/motel selection, but the location of the hotel1motel in relation to the meeting site may affect overall cost. A hotel within walking distance of the meeting site may make a higher priced hotel/motel, less expensive overall. B. When guaranteed reservations have been made and plans change, the reservation should be canceled in time to avoid being charged for the room. C. When two or more employees of the same sex travel together, double occupancy of rooms may be required by the Division Director. **** As a reminder, we are accountable to the community we serve and therefore the most economical means of lodging available should have a high priority in this decision making process. 3. Transportation **** Loyalty to the community requires that we wisely utilize City resources, therefore in determining methods of transportation, employees should understand the need for economic efficiency. A. Automobile City Vehicles. A City vehicle should be used if available. The City of Georgetown purchases vehicles through an internal service fund which in turn leases them back to the using departments. As a result of this arrangement, the using departments do not own the vehicles they use. Therefore, any department or employee may utilize another department's vehicle(s) if available. 2. Employee Vehicle. Employees authorized to use their personal automobile when on City business will be reimbursed on a per mile basis in accordance with the current IRS allowable rate. If employee uses his own personal vehicle even when a City vehicle is available, reimbursement will be made at a reduced rate that will reimburse for gas expense. If more than one employee travels in the same automobile, only the employee responsible for the automobile will be reimbursed. If travel occurs outside normal business hours, only the driver of the automobile is possibly eligible for overtime rates. 3. Tolls and parking fees are reimbursable. 4. A rental automobile must be approved in advance by the Division Director and it is to be used only when other means of transportation are unavailable, more costly or impractical. 5. Reasonable actual expenses for taxi fares are reimbursable when their use is necessary. The most economical means of transportation would always be used (e.g., airport limousine service instead of a taxi). Reasonable tips will also be reimbursed. 6. Travel expenses incurred in traveling between the employee's home and other than the normal work locations will be reimbursed after deducting normal daily commuting expenses. B. Air Travel 1. Air travel should be arranged through the City's designated travel agent to ensure the best possible rates. 2. When both air and car travels are options, reimbursement will be at the lower of the two and employee must furnish comparison of the two. 3. The most economical accommodations (e.g., economy, coach, excursion, 4 discount and shuttle flights) consistent with the business schedule requirements are to be used. Upgrades can be taken at the employee's expense. 4. Inconvenience payments by airlines, car rental agencies or hotels may be retained by the employee, provided the City does not incur any additional expense. If inconvenience payment is voluntarily taken, any additional expenses of returning home must be paid by the employee. If involuntary, City will reimburse additional expenses. 5. Saturday night stays are encouraged when extra day(s) expenses do not exceed savings in airfare. Comparison should be available upon request. 4. Telephone Telephone expenses are reimbursable when incurred in connection with City business. This expense is normally supported by an entry on a hotel bill or by a copy of the employee's telephone or charge card bill. 5. Other A. Other types of expenses or situations not specifically addressed by these procedures must be approved by the appropriate authority before reimbursement will be made. B. Non -reimbursable items include snacks, sodas, in room movies and ATM charges. 9 Council meeting date: 6-11-96 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Meeting Minutes of the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 28, 1996. ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday, May 28, 1996 Submitted By: Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS TUESDAY, May 14, 1996 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor Leo Wood presiding. Council Present: Dick Vincent George Arroyos Lee Bain Susan Hoyt Ferd Tonn Shelley Davis Charles Burson Staff Present: Bob Hart, City Manager Marianne Banks, City Attorney Sandra Lee, City Secretary Susan Morgan, Director of Finance Ed Barry, Director of Development Svcs. Bill Shanklin, Fire Chief Hartley Sappington, Director of Community Svcs. Jim Briggs, Director of Community Owned Utilities Teresa Hersh, Dir. of Employee & Organizational Svcs. Larry Hesser, Police Chief Elizabeth Gray, Director of Information Resources Murray Blackman, Asst. to the City Manager Council Absent: None Hildy Kingma, Chief Planner Micki Rundell, Accounting Super Laura Nowiski, Admin. Asst. Sheila Henderson, Library Director Laurie Brewer, Staff Accountant Mary Lee Dobi, Recreation Superintendent Lee Sparks, Asst. Library Director Policy Development/Review WorkshoJ2 - Called to order at 5:10 p.m. A Discussion of the name of Chautauqua Park/Shelley Davis and Susan Hoyt It was determined that a survey of the neighborhood would be done, along with input from the Historical Society. That information would be taken to the Parks and Recreation Board for a recommendation to the Council. B Discussion of "ends" for Annexation Policy/Mayor Leo Wood and Bob Hart Council contributed issues important to consider prior to annexation. C Answer questions on Statutory Consent Agenda Items listed specifically below under the Regular Session that will begin no sooner than 7:00 p.m. (for questions only, no action to be taken until Regular Session) City Council Agenda/May 28, 1996 Page 1 of 10 Pages Item N - Tonn questioned whether the amount of the loan from the State would be changed, and was told that this would be a separate loan based on the fact that the City will have title to the building. Item O - Bain asked why there were so many complaints from the adjoining property owners. Kingma stated that she felt they just didn't want to see development in that area. Item P - Bain asked if Lot I would have direct access onto Williams Drive. Kingma said Lot I and Lot 1 in Park Meadow Two would share access with Lot IN and that no additional access points would be necessary. Item V - Bain asked about the concern of the adjoining property owners. Kingma replied that they had been concerned about additional traffic, but the currently proposed use is considered compatible to the zoning. Item Y - Bain inquired about two lots on the plat that should be marked "open." Item AA - Bain questioned the left -turn traffic flow issue for Albertson's. Kingma explained that the staff has recommended that the left turn be permitted for an interim period until the traffic light is placed at Morrow Street, but the left turn would not be permitted beyond that point. Item L - Davis asked how much the City originally budgeted from local funds and was told $40,000. He asked about the time frame and was told it would be in next year's budget. Sappington told Davis that the Texas Department of Commerce had moved the application deadline back, and he expected to hear sometime in August or September. Item M - Davis asked how the citizens had been notified about last year's grant. Gray replied that notices had been taken to all churches, community centers, the Lopez Grocery, the Mary Bailey Center, as well as advertising placed in the paper. Hoyt asked if the City could alter the five-year "forgiveness" stipulation and was told that it is a State guideline and the City has no authority to alter it. D Receipt of Mid -Year Financial Report/Susan Morgan and Bob Hart This item was deferred to later in the meeting in order to convene the Regular Session on time. Regular Session - to convene Executive Session Executive Session - Called to order at 6:50 p.m. In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session that follows. E Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney F Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property G Sec.551.075 conference with employee City Council Agenda/May 28, 1996 Page 2 of 10 Pages Regular Session called to order at 7:12 p.m. H Action on Executive Session Items There was no action taken from Executive Session. I Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports • Council Policy Governance Retreat, May 30 and 31, and June 1 Hart reminded Council that the Retreat would begin at 5.00 p.m. on Thursday at the Katy Lake Conference and Training Center on FM 971. Arroyos commended Chief Larry Hesser and Officer Lloyd Pearson for an outing with youth. Davis spoke of the visit of Olympic Gold Medalist Carl Lewis and Silver Medalist Kirk Baptiste to Georgetown last Friday. He spoke of the interaction with Georgetown youth and the City Parks and Police Departments. Wood recognized James Sirovy who represents Family Dollar Store in Georgetown. He complained about not being able to unload delivery trucks at the back of his store. Hart suggested that he contact Community Owned Utilities Director Jim Briggs. Wood recognized Mark Lavin, Area Real Estate Manager for Albertson's, who thanked the Council and the staff for their efforts to help bring Albertson's to Georgetown. He said they hoped to be open by early Spring of 1997. J Citizens wishing to address the Council • Presentation of $10,000 for ballfield construction from Del Webb Sun City Georgetown Wood recognized Rich Vandemere and Connie Watson of Del Webb who presented the second $102000 check to the City for the construction and maintenance of baseball fields. Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that council may act on with one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the consent agenda in order that the Council discuss and act upon it individually as part of the regular agenda. Please note that the following items may be discussed with no action taken during the Workshop at 5:00 p.m. K Consideration of approval of meeting minutes --Special Meeting of May 7 and Regular Meeting of May 14,1996/Sandra Lee L Consideration of approval of a resolution authorizing the submission of a HOME Grant Program Application to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA)/Hartley Sappington City Council Agenda/May 28, 1996 Page 3 of 10 Pages M Consideration of adoption of HOME Program Guidelines for submission with HOME Grant Application and authorization for the Mayor to sign and City Secretary to attest/Hartley Sappington N Consideration of approval of Change Order No. 2 to increase the cost of the Reedholm Instruments Building by $5,000/Hartley Sappington O Consideration of a Concept Plan of a 34.75 acre tract in the David Wright Survey to be known as Sunset Oaks West; located on Booty's Crossing road/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry P Consideration of a Short Form Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Park Meadow West, Lot l; located on Williams Drive southeast of Lakeway Drive/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry Q Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of City of Georgetown, Block 39, part of Lots 2 and 3, located at 109-113 East 7th Street; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry R Consideration of a Final Plat of the City of Georgetown, Block 39, parts of Lots 2 and 3; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located at 101, 109-113 East 7th Street/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry S Consideration of a Final Plat of a 76.46 acre tract in the Daniel Monroe, Isaac Jones, Abner Short, W. G. Wilkinson, and George Thompson, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Twelve -A, located northwest of Del Webb Boulevard/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry T Consideration of a Revised Final Plat of a 7.173 acre tract in the Daniel Monroe Survey, to be known as a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight-B, located southwest of the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and Sun City Boulevard/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry U Consideration of a Revised Final Plat of a 2.922 acre tract in the Daniel Monroe Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One -A, located southwest of the intersection of Del Webb and Sun City Boulevards/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry V Consideration of a Short Form Final Plat of a 3.986 acre tract in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, to be known as Bradstone Subdivision, located on Southfork Drive, north of Leander Road/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry W Consideration of a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Churchill Farms, Section Six, to be known as a Planned Unit Development of Churchill Farms, Section Six, Phase One, located at the Intersection of SH29 and Georgetown Inner Loop/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry City Council Agenda/May 28, 1996 Page 4 of 10 Pages X Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of a Resubdivision of Churchill Farms, Section Six, to be known as a Planned Unit Development of Churchill Farms, Section Six, Phase One, located at the intersection of SH29 and Georgetown Inner Loop/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry Y Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of a 7.91 acre subdivision situated in the David Wright Survey, to be known as River Bend V, Phase III, located on Booty's Crossing Road/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry Z Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of a 9.491 acre tract in the Nicholas Porter Survey to be known as 2338 Plaza, and variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located on Williams Drive and Park Meadow Boulevard/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry AA Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of Foster Square and variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located between Spring Street, Morrow Street, Austin Avenue, North Forest Street, IH35 and Old Lampasas Road/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry BB Consideration of a Vacation of the Riveroaks of Georgetown Office Park, located on the east IH3 5 Frontage Road north of SH29/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry CC Consideration of a declaration of public need for the construction of a water line for Tonkawa Subdivision (Indian Mound Road) and authorizing staff to negotiate a contract for the construction of this water line/Jim Briggs and Marianne Banks Vincent abstained from Item N. Arroyos spoke of having assisted to get support for the HOME Grant and commended Gray and Sappington for their hard work on the Program. Motion by Tonn, second by Arroyos to approve the Consent Agenda in its entirety. Approved 7-0. Legislative Re lar Agenda Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: (Council may, at any time, recess the regular session to convene in executive session at the request of the Mayor, a councilmember, or the City Manager.) DD Consideration and second reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance 96-09 to replace the 80.3 acre tract with a 2.821 acre tract/Marianne Banks Banks explained that this was the finalization of the annexation for Northwest Boulevard, and read the caption only on second reading. Motion by Tonn, second by Vincent to approve Ordinance 96- 15. Approved 7-0. EE Consideration and second reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for 1.94 acres in the City of Georgetown, Division A, Outlot 46, located at 1904 Railroad Street, from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Five/Clyde von Rosenberg and Ed Barry City Council Agenda/May 28, 1996 Page 5 of 10 Pages Kingma read the caption. Motion by Tonn, second by Hoyt to approve Ordinance 96-16. Approved 7-0. FF Consideration and second reading of an ordinance to rezone the 1.94 acres in the City of Georgetown, Division A, Outlot 46, located at 1904 Railroad Street, from RS, Residential Single Family to RM-2, Dense Multifamily/Clyde von Rosenberg and Ed Barry Kingma read the caption. Motion by Vincent, second by Davis to approve Ordinance 96-17. Approved 7-0. GG Consideration and second reading of an ordinance establishing a designated hazardous materials route/Bill Shanklin Shanklin read the caption. Motion by Tonn, second by Hoyt to approve Ordinance 96-18. Approved 7-0. HH Consideration and second reading of an ordinance establishing above -ground storage tanks/Bill Shanklin Shanklin read the caption. Motion by Tonn, second by Hoyt to approve Ordinance 96-19. Approved 7-0. II Consideration and second reading of an ordinance to modify Section 2.68.040 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown, Texas, relating to the appointment of members to the Georgetown Convention and Visitors Board/Hartley Sappington Sappington read the caption. Davis asked that the word "diverse" be added to the ordinance. Banks agreed that it would not be a substantive change and could therefore be allowed without an additional reading. Motion by Arroyos, second by Davis to approve that the word "diverse" be added to Sec. 2.68.040 A. Approved 7-0. Motion by Davis, second by Arroyos to approve Ordinance 96-20. Approved 7-0. JJ Consideration and first reading of an ordinance to rezone Southwestern University from RP, Residential Planned with a Master Plan and C-1, Local Commercial to RP, Residential Planned, with an Amended Master Plan/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry Kingma read the ordinance. Motion by Tonn, second by Bain to approve this ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0. KK Consideration and first reading of an ordinance rezoning a 2.18 acre tract in the Daniel Monroe Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One -A, Tract Z-2, from RP, Residential Planned to C-2A, Commercial First Height - Restricted, located southwest of the intersection of Del Webb and Sun City Boulevards/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry City Council Agenda/May 28, 1996 Page 6 of 10 Pages Kingma read the ordinance. Motion by Bain, second by Hoyt to approve this ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0. LL Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of F.T.B. Commercial Number One Subdivision, Lot 1, located on IH35 North; and requested variances to Subdivision Regulations/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry Kingma explained to Council that this subdivision is located just north of the Gabriels Funeral Home, and is being developed for a motel. Davis and Vincent inquired as to the number of parking spaces allotted for the site. Bain said he felt that basing the parking on the number of rooms rather than the square footage is good, but asked if that would be adequate. Architect Charles Rybenstein spoke, representing the owner, and told Council that a Quality Suites Motel would be constructed, which is considered to be a higher -standard motel, with most of their business derived from reservations. He said the Quality Suites Motel does not provide a restaurant or meeting space, and therefore would probably not require the same parking requirements as a motel such as La Quinta. Wood asked if there were national planning standards to consult. Hart explained that the staff felt that due to the type of motel and the expected usage, the parking spaces would be adequate. Tonn recommended that the applicant not be further delayed. Motion by Tonn, second by Hoyt to approve the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bain said he felt further information was needed. Wood asked if there were a possibility to change the design in order to incorporate more parking spaces. Rybenstein stated that due to other restrictions, any additional parking would have to be located further from the building which would present security and inconvenience problems, and would require another drive just to provide one more parking space. Arroyos asked that it be looked at from a policy governance standpoint, and recommended that the decision be deferred until next Council Meeting. Hart advised Council that if the standing motion were defeated, the issue could not be brought back before the Council for 90 days. Banks suggested tabling the motion. An informal poll of the Council was taken. It was determined that the motion should be withdrawn. Tonn and Hoyt withdrew their motion and second. Kingma asked Council for guidance on the additional information that would help the Council feel more comfortable. Motion by Vincent, second by Arroyos to defer the item until the next Council Meeting. Approved 7-0. Policy Development/Review Workshop At this time, Item D from the Workshop Agenda was presented to Council. D Receipt of Mid -Year Financial Report/Susan Morgan and Bob Hart Hart explained that from a Policy Governance standpoint, this mid -year review is considered to be a monitoring mechanism. Morgan told Council that this would be a look at the individual funds and City Council Agenda/May 28, 1996 Page 7 of 10 Pages how they have been affected so far this fiscal year. She told Council that budget targets and budget policies, such as investments and bonding, are checked at this time. She showed Council that the General Fund is in good condition with the increases from sales tax and property tax collections. She mentioned that growth and development fees have greatly increased. She added that the debt issuance for street projects has been postponed in order to combine it together with other bonds in the fall to get better rates. Morgan said that utility revenues were being projected well ahead of budgeted amounts due to the colder weather last fall and dry weather this spring and summer, adding that as customers are using more utilities, some of the increases are being offset by the additional uses of the City facilities. She said that sanitation revenue is being pressured by increased tipping fees, and stormwater revenues will come in slightly below projections due to readjusting some of the impervious cover amounts. Morgan recommended using excess revenues to offset bond issuances, rather than issuing additional debt. She recommended using excess fund balances to cash finance some capital improvements. She noted that the remodeling of the City offices has gone slightly over projected budget, but the funds are there to cover that overage. Hart gave a quick overview of each City division's accomplishments at the mid -year point, and recommended action to be requested of Council at the next Council Meeting to use approximately $357000 of the Council Contingency Fund, currently at a balance of $100,000. Bain asked and was told that excess funds would be at safe levels after using some to reduce debt. Tonn questioned not being able to fund the $160,000 to complete the 15th Street drainage construction, saying that the utility line relocation is slowing down the project. Morgan explained that the electric, water, and wastewater operating revenues are not a part of the General Fund which funds street improvements. Hart said the 15th Street project will be combined with the Country Club Drive project in order to save money, and will probably be bid in October. Motion by Arroyos, second by Bain to accept the Mid -Year Review. Approved 7-0. Recessed at 8:55 p.m. - Resumed at 9:05 p.m. MM Receipt of Report from Library Long -Range Planning Committee/Elizabeth Gray and Susan Hoyt Gray explained to Council that newly -hired Librarian, Sheila Henderson, was very dedicated and had driven from Brenham to attend the first Long -Range Planning Committee Meeting. Henderson recognized the members of the Long -Range Planning Committee in the audience, and showed Council the current and projected usage statistics and the plans of the Committee. Motion by Hoyt, second by Davis to accept the report of the Library Long -Range Planning Committee. Approved 7-0. City Council Agenda/May 28, 1996 Page 8 of 10 Pages NN Receipt of Report from Facilities and Services Plan Working Group/George Arroyos and Lee Bain Arroyos recognized the members of the Working Group in the audience and commended them for their efforts. He said they also received assistance from students at the LBJ School of Public Affairs. He reiterated three important points as provided in the Report, those being: 1) not to consider finances; 2) consider the input from division directors; and 3) be reflective of the community. Bain also commended the members of the Working Group, and explained that he and Arroyos tried to serve only as facilitators. Arroyos asked Kingma to provide some technical guidance as set out in the Century Plan. Arroyos pointed out that a public hearing was held on May 23 and that input would be recorded and provided to the Council. Arroyos introduced Chairman Gordon Baker who commended the Working Group members, thanked Arroyos and Bain, and also thanked Chief Planner Clyde von Rosenberg for being there and guiding them. He mentioned that the plan was not specific for a reason and was perhaps redundant due to the quick timeframe. He spoke of having worked with the City Division Directors who were very helpful. He said the City's largest problem is lack of sufficient space, and he explained that the Working Group addressed that issue, attempting to utilize facilities in the downtown area. Arroyos introduced Working Group Member Cal Wilkerson who emphasized priorities of public safety and community input, Rebecca Pfeister who spoke on other public issues like housing, health and human services, and intergovernmental relations; and Kathryn Stallard who spoke on Community Services issues, including the Municipal Airport, Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Animal Control, as well as Parks and Recreation, and Community Owned Utilities, and suggested that an even -more comprehensive plan be written for Community -Owned Utilities. She spoke of the Airport being covered by the Airport Master Plan, and the Parks and Recreation Division being covered by the Parks and Recreation Plan Element of the Century Plan. Motion by Davis, second by Vincent to accept the Report of the Facilities and Services Plan Working Group. Approved 7-0. 00 Receipt of Report of Georgetown Project/Bob Hart Wood introduced Dr. Barbara Brightwell who introduced Georgetown Project members Judy Atkins of the Williamson County Extension Service and Julia Howard of the Williams County and Cities Health District. She named other members and community leaders who provided input to the Georgetown Project, especially thanking Clyde von Rosenberg and Larry Hesser of the City of Georgetown. She provided Council with a list of assumptions based on community surveys, saying that parenting skills, and child care were found to be very important issues. She proposed forming a Central Human Service Delivery System that would receive data and funding from many different entities in the Williamson County area. She asked Council for $75,000 for a three-year period and provided them with a proposed budget. Board Appointments PP Consideration of appointment of three members to the Georgetown Convention and Visitors Bureau Board/Mayor Leo Wood City Council Agenda/May 28, 1996 Page 9 of 10 Pages Wood noted his recommendations. Davis suggested that this Board be diverse and reflect the entire community. He asked that Wood withdraw the suggested name for the Restaurant Representative, and suggested that Reuben Rose be appointed instead. Arroyos recommended diversity also and agreed with Davis' suggestion that Reuben Rose be appointed as the Restaurant Representative.. Wood told Davis and Arroyos that he would support their suggestion for all future appointments and recommended Rose. Motion by Arroyos, second by Davis to approve the Mayor's recommendations of Rose as Restaurant Representative, Kathie Frye as Bed and Breakfast Representative, and Randy Eliassen as Heritage Society Representative. Approved 7-0. QQ Consideration of appointment of one member to the Georgetown Housing Authority Board/Mayor Leo Wood Wood recommended Glenn Saterfield. Motion by Davis, second by Arroyos to approve the Mayor's recommendation. Approved 7-0. RR Consideration of appointment of one member to the Historic Preservation Commission/Mayor Leo Wood Wood recommended Barbara Shepley. Motion by Hoyt, second by Vincent to approve the Mayor's recommendation. Approved 7-0. Approved: Leo Wood, Mayor City Council Agenda/May 28, 1996 Page 10 of 10 Pages The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Attest: Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary Council meeting June 11, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Vacation of the Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, located on SH29 East and Stonehedge Boulevard ITEM SUMMARY: The final plat of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, was recorded in 1985. Public improvements were installed to support this subdivision, which was developed for multifamily development. In 1995 this property was resubdivided to Churchill Farms, Sections Four and Five. The new plats were recorded in January 1996 (Section Five) and April 1996 (Section Four). These are both single family residential subdivisions, which currently have housing construction underway. Official action must be taken to vacate the Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, given the new resubdivisions that have been recorded on the same property. Upon approval of this vacation by the City Council, the City's Legal Department will prepare a vacation instrument for recordation at the County Courthouse. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will authorize the City's Legal Department to prepare and record an instrument vacating the Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, plat. ATTACHMENTS: None. Submitted Bv: Edward J. Barry, AICP - Director Hildy L. Kingma, AICP Division of Development Services Chief Planner Council Meeting Date: June I I. 1996 Item No. LW AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Bids for Tree Grant from Texas Forest Service and Small Business Administration. ITEM SUMMARY The City of Georgetown was awarded a matching grant of $7,500.00 from the Texas Forest Service and Small Business Administration for trees along the Hike/Bike Trail and around the Pony Colt and Girls Softball Fields. Approximately 122 trees, at least 2" in diameter, will be planted by the contractor with cypress mulch and guaranteed for one year. Four bids were received, with two being no bids and the others from local vendors. Native Tree Farm $14,950.00 3302 Primrose Trail Georgetown, TX Native Resources $16,200.00 Rt. 1 Box 7 Georgetown, TX McIntire's Garden No Bid 303 Leander Road Georgetown, TX Frank's Evergreen No Bid 50313 Westinghouse Road Georgetown, TX SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS None FINANCIAL IMPACT Grant is $7,500.00 with a City match of $7,500.00 (Council Contingency) for a total grant of $15,000.00. COMMENTS Parks staff will water the trees once a week for the first year of growth. ATTACHMENTS none Subn i by: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation r:. Terry Jones, Purchasing Director Council meeting June 11, 1996 Item No. M AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the drainage easement located along the north property line of Lot 25, Block B, Section 1, Parkview Estates, located at 107 Parque Vista Drive. ITEM SUMMARY: All utility providers, including the Director of the Community Owned Utilities Division have agreed to allow a License to Encroach into the platted drainage easement for the construction of a six (6) foot tall privacy fence along the north property line, as illustrated in Exhibit A. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: None. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Resolution Submitted By: Edward J. arry, AICP - irector l; Division of Development Services Hildy inbma, AICP Chief Pla ner EXHIBIT A N 57 036 r 5 t,c go. 00 89_����� Bosis _ (PLAT) PROPOSED FENCE - - - -- ENCROACHMENT „�. 10'PUF 8 8c (PLAr7 1 r 1 Pal to w r 31. ca C N11 - co �- r -- 14 - TQRY RICK WOO' _ 4 ,6' to.s NO z 25' a L (PLAT ) JE W lJ R � CO Mr. wit PLAT - I07 PRRQvE" visrA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LICENSE AGREEMENT, BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND PAUL KNIGHT, PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF A PROPOSED FENCE INTO THE PLATTED DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 25, BLOCK B, SECTION 1 OF PARKVIEW ESTATES, AS RECORDED IN CABINET G, SLIDES 39-41 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED AT 107 PARQUE VISTA DRIVE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received an application for a license to encroach into the drainage easement; and WHEREAS, in order for a license to be granted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, the Council must make certain findings of fact; and WHEREAS, after hearing the application of Paul Knight to encroach into the drainage easement, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, finds the following facts: 1. That there are no utilities which would be interfered with by the utilization of the property in the proposed manner. 2. That there are no utilities which would interfere with the utilization of the property in the proposed manner. 3. That the construction will occur in such a manner that it would not be feasible to locate the fence outside the drainage easement. 4. That the land use in the neighborhood appears to be stable and the use to which this property is being put is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Council after hearing the application and finding the specific facts as stated above now concludes and finds that: 1. The fact that the proposed fence will be a temporary encroachment and that it is not feasible to safely locate the fence outside the drainage easement does constitute special circumstances and conditions affecting the property which, if not taken into consideration, would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property. Lot 25, Block B, Section 1, Parkview Estates License Resolution No. Page 1 of 3 2. The fact that the land use is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and that it is not economically feasible to safely locate the fence outside the drainage easement does provide a basis for granting the license necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. The fact that the use of the easement by the property owner does not interfere with the utilities or access to the utilities and is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property in the area; and WHEREAS, the applicant agrees to accept the terms of the license agreement as presented to them. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this resolution implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Development Plan Element: 1. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure that future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations;" and 2. Utilities/Energy Policy 2, which states: "The City will establish utility policies which take into consideration the needs of all citizens of the community and take necessary precautions to prevent harmful ecological impact to the environment;" and further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, and the City Secretary to attest thereto on behalf of the City of Georgetown a License Agreement with Paul Knight, pertaining to the encroachment of a proposed fence located on Lot 25, Block B, Section 1, Parkview Estates, commonly known as 107 Parque Vista Drive into the platted drainage easement on the north property line. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. Lot 25, Block B, Section 1, Parkview Estates License Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 RESOLVED this day of ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Lot 25, Block B, Section 1, Parkview Estates License Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 1996. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: LEO WOOD Mayor Council meeting June 11. 1996 Item No. hi AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution to authorize a license to encroach into the public utility easement located along the east side property line of Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Six, Block B, Lot 14, located at 29010 Colonial Drive. ITEM SUMMARY: The Director of Community Owned Utilities and all other utility providers have agreed to allow a license to encroach into the public utility easement as illustrated in Exhibit A. This request is being made to allow a portion of a driveway into a side entry garage to encroach into the easement. The deed restrictions in this subdivision require side entry garages and the house has been built to fill the buildable area. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will authorize the City's Legal Department to prepare and record a License to Encroach for this property. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Resolution Submitted By: Edward 7. Barry, AI-"P - D4ector Division of Development Services Hildy L. Wingma, AICP Chief Planner RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND PROSANJT AND ADITI GHOSH, PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF A PROPOSED DRIVEWAY INTO THE SIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 14, BLOCK B OF BERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION, SECTION SIX, AS RECORDED IN CABINET K, SLIDES 271-273 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED AT 29010 COLONIAL DRIVE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received an application for a license to encroach into the public utility easement; and WHEREAS, in order for a license to be granted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, the Council must make certain findings of fact; and WHEREAS, after hearing the application of Prosanjt and Aditi Ghosh to encroach into the public utility easement, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, finds the following facts: 1. That there are no utilities which would be interfered with by the utilization of the property in the proposed manner. 2. That there are no utilities which would interfere with the utilization of the property in the proposed manner. 3. That the proposed driveway is in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate it outside the public utility easement. 4. That the land use in the neighborhood appears to be stable and the use to which this property is being put is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Council after hearing the application and finding the specific facts as stated above now concludes and finds that: Lot 14, Block B, Berry Creek, Sec Six License Resolution No. Page 1 of 3 1. The fact that the proposed driveway is in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate it outside the public utility easement constitutes special circumstances and conditions affecting the property which if not taken into consideration would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property. 2. The fact that the land use is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and that it is not economically feasible to remove the part of the proposed driveway that encroaches into the public utility easement does provide a basis for granting the license necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. The fact that the use of the easement area by the property owner does not interfere with the utilities or access to the utilities and is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property in the area; and WHEREAS, the applicant agrees to accept the terms of the license agreement as presented to them. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this resolution implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Development Plan Element: 1. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure that future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations;" and 2. Utilities/Energy Policy 2, which states: "The City will establish utility policies which take into consideration the needs of all citizens of the community and take necessary precautions to prevent harmful ecological impact to the environment;" and further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. Lot 14, Block B, Berry Creek, Sec Six License Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, and the City Secretary to attest thereto on behalf of the City of Georgetown a License Agreement with Prosanjt and Aditi Ghosh, pertaining to the encroachment of a proposed driveway located on Lot 14, Block B, Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Six, commonly known as 29010 Colonial Drive into the public utility easement on the east property line. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of ATTEST: 1996. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee By: LEO WOOD City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Lot 14, Block B, Berry Creek, Sec Six License Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A SCALE: I = 20' °30'4_ 0-E 50.09' — — w l c�- 11 C{ m - 20.0' B. I� m - I- o I o I ENCROACHMENT lz %i Z (N 3'CONC AALK 565 ° 4i'30 "Vq 6-0 00' 1 ��► u� L utI" `I Y, s 6Pc)utv0 Ai PI&I C/e,S 29010 COLONIAL DRIVE Vic{ �02-cuM-D 4-T- Council meeting June 11, 1996 Item No. 0 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution to authorize a license to encroach into the public utility easement located along the north side property line of Serenada East Subdivision, Unit S, Block 3, Lot 2, located at 4404 Cordoba Circle West. ITEM SUMMARY: The Director of Community Owned Utilities and all other utility providers have agreed to allow a license to encroach into the public utility easement as illustrated in Exhibit A. This request is being made to allow a portion of a driveway into a side entry garage to encroach into the easement. The house has been moved to the far north side of the lot because of the location of a creek on the south side of the property. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will authorize the City's Legal Department to prepare and record a License to Encroach for this property. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Resolution Submitted Bv: Edward J.-Barry, AICP - Director Division of Development Services Hildy L. Kingma, AICV Chief Planner RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND ROBERT AND SHAWN SEAMAN, PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF A PROPOSED DRIVEWAY INTO THE SIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK 3 OF SERENADA EAST SUBDIVISION, UNIT 5, AS RECORDED IN CABINET F SLIDES 305-306 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED AT 4404 CORDOBA CIRCLE WEST; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received an application for a license to encroach into the public utility easement; and WHEREAS, in order for a license to be granted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, the Council must make certain findings of fact; and WHEREAS, after hearing the application of Robert and Shawn Seaman to encroach into the public utility easement, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, finds the following facts: 1. That there are no utilities which would be interfered with by the utilization of the property in the proposed manner. 2. That there are no utilities which would interfere with the utilization of the property in the proposed manner. 3. That the proposed driveway is in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate it outside the public utility easement. 4. That the land use in the neighborhood appears to be stable and the use to which this property is being put is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Council after hearing the application and finding the specific facts as stated above now concludes and finds that: Lot 2, Block 3, Serenada East, Unit 5 License Resolution No. Page 1 of 3 1. The fact that the proposed driveway is in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate it outside the public utility easement constitutes special circumstances and conditions affecting the property which if not taken into consideration would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property. 2. The fact that the land use is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and that it is not economically feasible to remove the part of the proposed driveway that encroaches into the public utility easement does provide a basis for granting the license necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. The fact that the use of the easement area by the property owner does not interfere with the utilities or access to the utilities and is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property in the area; and WHEREAS, the applicant agrees to accept the terms of the license agreement as presented to them. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this resolution implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Development Plan Element: l . Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure that future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations;" and 2. Utilities/Energy Policy 2, which states: "The City will establish utility policies which take into consideration the needs of all citizens of the community and take necessary precautions to prevent harmful ecological impact to the environment;" and further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. Lot 2, Block 3, Serenada East, Unit 5 License Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, and the City Secretary to attest thereto on behalf of the City of Georgetown a License Agreement with Robert and Shawn Seaman, pertaining to the encroachment of a proposed driveway located on Lot 2, Block 3, Serenada East Subdivision, Unit 5, commonly known as 4404 Cordoba Circle West into the public utility easement on the north property line. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of ATTEST: 1996. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee By: LEO WOOD City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Lot 2, Block 3, Serenada East, Unit 5 License Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 Council meeting June 11, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City Attorney to issue a quit claim deed to be filed abandoning a portion of the platted Public Utility Easement (PUE) located along the rear lot line of River Ridge, Section One, Block N, Lot 18, located at 107 Riverwood Drive. ITEM SUMMARY: This request is to abandon the five (5) feet of a ten (10) foot public utility easement located along the rear lot line of the subject property. The Director of Community Owned Utilities and other area utility providers have reviewed the application and agreed to abandon a portion of the subject PUE as illustrated in Exhibit A. This abandonment is requested because a swimming pool was built into the easement (prior to the applicants' ownership). SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Because only a portion of the platted easement is to be abandoned, the applicant will have to provide a metes and bounds description of that portion of the easement being abandoned in order to provide the proper legal description for the quit claim deed. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will authorize the City's Legal Department to prepare a quit claim deed for the requested abandonment. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Resolution Submitted By: Edward J'. Barry, AMP"' - Director Division of Development Sery ces 1-9 Hildy L. Kingma, AICP Chief Planner RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED TO VACATE AND ABANDON A PORTION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE REAR LOT LINE OF LOT 18, BLOCK N, RIVER RIDGE, SECTION ONE SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN THE PLAT RECORDS AT CABINET D, SLIDE 194 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND LOCATED AT 107 RIVERWOOD DRIVE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received an Application for the Vacation of a five (5) foot portion of a ten (10) foot wide Public Utility Easement located along the rear lot line of Lot 18, Block N, River Ridge, Section One Subdivision, as recorded in Cabinet D, Slide 194 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, and located at 107 Riverwood Drive; and WHEREAS, upon considering the Application and additional information pertaining to the Application, the City Council now finds that there are no utilities existing in the easements and that the utility companies serving the area including and surrounding the easements have determined that there exists no present or foreseeable need for the easements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council finds that this action implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan: 1. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states "The City will ensure that future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations; and 2. Utilities/Energy Policy 2, which states "The City will establish Utility policies which take into consideration the needs of all citizens of the community and take necessary precautions to prevent harmful ecological impact on the environment." The City Council has found that this action is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of Georgetown, a Quit Claim Deed abandoning a five (5) foot portion of the ten (10) foot wide Public Utility Easement located along the rear lot line of Lot 18, Block N, River Ridge, Section One Subdivision, as recorded in Cabinet D, Slide 194 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, and located at 107 Riverwood Drive, and the City Secretary to attest thereto on behalf of the City of Georgetown. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney 1996. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: Leo Wood Mayor Lot 18, Block N, River Ridge, Sec One Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 EXMIBR A LOT 19 0•41 fX 4306.41 F G,c fin *'I nr 1171 IS 43 0 08'w 95 oo't 107 RIVERWOOa bRtYE PLAT DMENSion ARE SHOJI �+� QaPfNlK�si3. LOT 17 95' OL (PLAT) F Council meeting date: June 11, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Approval of a contract with The Management Connection for consulting services. ITEM SUMMARY The Management Connection will complete an organizational assessment and conduct on- going group and one-on-one training with the City Manager and Division Directors to develop Personal Development Plans for all City Employees for the purpose of ensuring Continuity of the Governance model from Council level through front line staff as well as continued incorporation of principles of the employee values statement into day-to-day operations. FINANCIAL IMPACT Contract not to exceed $24,500. To be paid out of existing training/consultation budget approved during the 95-96 budget process. COMMENTS None ATTACHMENTS Contract Submitted By: eresa Hersh, Director of Employee & Or Organizational Services 9 Bob Hart, City Manager INVESTMENT 1. Consultation with City Council No Charge 2. Organizational Assessment and Follow -Up 4,200 3. City Manager Development Process 2,000 4. Development of Division Directors per Participant (10) 15,000 5. Miscellaneous Expenses (travel, administration) as needed 3,300 (approAmate) We request travel expenses, including mileage reimbursement of .31 per mile from Bryan - College Station to conference location. This will be billed upon completion of the training. Thank you, Joe M. Gonzales The Management Connection Accepted by, Leo wood, Mayor Bob Hart, City Manager Council meeting date: 6-11-96 SUBJECT Item No. /1? AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a deed of trust for Lot 4 of the Georgetown Technology Park ITEM SUNUvLkRY The City has been working with Reedholm Instruments to construct a building on their behalf with funds obtained from the Texas Capital Fund. The source of funds for the Texas Capital Fund are federal funds which are passed through the City as the sponsoring agency to build a building on their behalf. Since coming to Georgetown, the Reedholms have decided to build a larger building larger than originally intended. This leaves a gap between the funds available through the Capital Fund and the funds needed to complete the new facility. In order to close the gap, the Reedholms requested two loans: a $293,000 loan from Hartland Bank and $135,000 from the City. You have already approved the loan from the City. Security for that loan will be personal property. The $293,000 loan will be for the building; the Bank will have no claim on the personal property that is security for the $13 5,000 City loan. This agenda item seeks your authorization for the Mayor to execute the instruments necessary to permit the Bank to mortgage the building. The building is in the City's name because of federal grant requirements. This arrangement has been carefully structured to separate City funds and the equipment which it finances from the building which has been financed by federal money and Hartland Bank. This is an important feature in that there is a prohibition against the mortgaging of public property. The mortgage here is on public property, but it is only on that public property which has been financed by the federal government and is in the City's name only because of federal program rules. Georgetown Title will provide title insurance for the building and this type of loan arrangement. ' ATTACHMENTS Proposed resolution. UP'. A-0, Bob Hart, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A DEED OF TRUST FOR LOT 49 OF GEORGETOWN TECHNOLOGY PARK, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown, Texas, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation ("City"), has applied for and received a grant from the Texas Capital Fund, for economic development purposes; WHEREAS, the City has received the grant for the benefit of Reedholm Industries, Co., an Ohio corporation authorized to do business in Texas ("Reedholm"), in order to construct a business facility in Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas ("Reedholm Facility"); WHEREAS, the City has purchased Lot 4 of Georgetown Technology Park, Williamson County, Texas ("Property"), at the request of Reedholm, in order to construct the Reedholm Facility on the Property; WHEREAS, the location of the Reedholm Facility in Georgetown will benefit the City by the creation of jobs within the City; WHEREAS, under the Texas Capital Fund Program, the City is the only entity which may own the underlying real estate until the grant has been repaid to the State by Reedholm; WHEREAS, the grant is insufficient to fund the entire cost of the Reedholm Facility to be constructed on the Property; WHEREAS, Reedholm has secured additional funding from Hartland Bank for the construction of the Reedholm Facility; WHEREAS, in order to secure the debt being issued by Hartland Bank, the Bank has requested that a mortgage be placed on the Property owned by the City; WHEREAS, the City's ownership of the Property is solely for the administration of the Texas Capital Fund Grant Program, in order to pass through the federal funding to Reedholm for the creation of jobs; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the liening of the Property to the Bank for the development of the Reedholm facility is in the best interest of the City; Reedholm/Hartland Bank Lien Resolution No. Page 1 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this resolution implements the following policies of the Century Plan, Policy Plan: Economic Development Policy 1: "The City will encourage diversified growth and promote business opportunities to create jobs, broaden the tax base and minimize the impact of economic fluctuations." Econimic Development Policy 5: "The City will take the appropriate steips to have a self-sustaining economy." Finance Policy 1: "The City will conduct all municipal operations in an efficient business -like manner." The City Council further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the deed of trust and other loan documents to Hartland Bank for the costruction of the Reedholm Facility. The Mayor is futher authorized to execute such other closing documents related to the construction of the Reedholm Facility as may be required by Georgetown Title Company, Inc. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this 11th day of June, 1996. ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary Reedholm/Hartland Bank Lien Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: M LEO WOOD, Mayor Council Meeting Date: June 1 I 1996 Item No. us AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Approval to use up to $29,OOO from the Council Contingency Account to cover unbudgeted legal expenses. ITEM SUMMARY The 1995/96 Mid Year Review Report presented at the May 28, 1996 council meeting included the recommendation that Council allocate $29,000 of the Council Contingency Account for legal expenses. The request will pay for outside legal counsel to assist in uninsured legal matters that have arisen after the original budget was adopted. Any unused balance will remain in the account. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS none FINANCIAL IMPACT The Council Contingency Account currently has a balance of $100,000. The approval of this item and the budget amendment proposed later on this agenda will leave a balance of $65,000. COMMENTS none ATTACHMENTS none Submitted By: �Susan L. Morgan, Director of Fi�_a>>.t r' end Administration F AAGENDA\9G\LE GALFEE. CS Council Meeting Date: June 11, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Council approval of bid, from Griffin Austin Company, Inc., of Manchaca, Texas, to build water improvements to serve the Indian Mound Subdivision, in the amount of $18 6,1'7 5.0 0 . ITEM SU MARY : Due to the drought conditions which exist in Williamson County, the residents of the Indian .Mound Subdivision, have requested that the City of Georgetown construct 4650 linear feet of water line to their subdivision. These water lines will be constructed by Griffin -Austin Company, Inc., under the supervision of the City of Georgetown. The residents of the Indian Mound Subdivision will pay, up -front to the City of Georgetown, for the cost of the lines to serve their subdivision. Once the lines are completed, they will be donated to the City of Georgetown for system maintenance. Therefore, staff recommends Council approval of the bid, from Griffin -Austin Company, Inc. in the amount of $186,175.00. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS• This is an emergency water issue for the residents of the Indian Mound Subdivision. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Resident funded COMMENTS: The construction of these water lines is scheduled to begin June 12, 1996 and is to be substantially completed by July 31, 1996. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Bid tabulation /2. Map of subdivision, outlining ibcation of water lines S a Jim Briggs, Director Community Owned Utilities 1. 2. 3. 4. BID TABULATION 8-Inch and 6-Inch Water Lines Indian Mound Subdivision Bid Date: June 4, 1996 J.C. EVANS CONSTRUCTION $29211425.00 BORAH CONSTRUCTION $213,320.00 GRIFFIN-AUSTIN bid 1 $19310825.00 GRIFFIN-AUSTIN bid 2 $18610175.00* * Low bid A o;;o Z!::Eaz fN orr-�0 a 0 z I. Co ri v, j -< m D c 1 j r-az =0-<c C ri r, li i -� m X n 1 _----- ��O ` com O m Or::E m0 Z f� \` 0-1 0o -1 -DI m 2 ;a -_----- \� 0 ko I rTl l rn I ------------- E, , -- o F'' 1 O Z `7 ITI O r 300' PLOT DATE: MAY-30-1996 FILE: C:\DRAMNGS\TONKWAN2 Council meeting date: 6/11 /96 Item No. I& AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Approval of the purchase of hardware and installation services for a fiber optic Wide Area Network from, Memorex Telex in the amount of $ 162,175.00. ITEM SUMMARY A Wide Area Network (WAN) provides a mechanism to transmit data or voice over fiber optic or other type of.cable. A WAN is composed of central hardware (switches, routers, hubs and modems) and the transmission media (fiber optic cable, and leased phone circuits). Currently, City staff is housed in different facilities located around the city. The WAN will allow buildings to be linked so that all the City's computers can exchange information electronically. This exchange will allow for easier and quicker movement of information between departments and divisions, facilitating improved communication between staff particularly via e-mail. Examples of this information exchange include divisions checking the status of their budget using the financial software and the Library's Dynix system can run on the server located in the Computer Center. The system is sized so that it will be able to accommodate. the City's anticipated growth over then next 3 to 5 years. The WAN will also allow for more efficient use of the City's information resources through the sharing of servers and printers. The proposal includes installing the fiber optic cable between City icilities on City -owned poles, routers, switches and all components necessary to complete the System. Four proposals were received and evaluated. The evaluation criteria included not only the cost of hardware and installation, but also the vendor's record of customer support, and their experience with similar projects in the past. This proposal from Memorex Telex is the lowest proposal received after all negotiations. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS None FINANCIAL IMPACT Council budgeted for this project in the 1995/96 MIS Capital Replacement Fund. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: None ATTACHMENTS 1. Bid Tally Sheet 2. Map of fiber optic cable run Submitted By: Jeff Clausius, IS Directc \\�\o� Elizabeth Gray Director of Information Resources Wide Area Network Bid Tally Sheet Vendor Cost Memorex Telex 1621175 CompuNet 1657500 SabreData 180,675 ColCom 296,245 • • Y • V • • • 0 • • : rr* MARTIN LUTHER KING ST. • n F1 :. .. i o F1 • —• = FOREST ST. Q CD n r , v �* m , o : 'W � CD c m : - r+- _ ROCK ST. _ oo � • cn 003 AUSTIN AVE. ; _. — —' L-1 • F1 . ,..+, MAIN ST. o • T • ao : LZ 00 (c o _ • • c CHURCH ST. �-•.--•..................... ..... . CABLE ROUT 190 =1 F1 -� [:1 Council meeting June 11, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET V SUBJECT: Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of F.T.B. Commercial Number One Subdivision, Lot 1, located on IH35 North; and requested variances to Subdivision Regulations. ITEM SUMMARY: The proposed Detailed Development Plan for a 68 room hotel generally complies with the site design standards. The applicant is requesting variances to three (3) standards to develop the site as proposed in the DDP submitted. The variance requests are for encroachments into the side yard building setbacks, the number of parking spaces and driveway aisle width. The proposed DDP includes encroachments into both side yard setbacks. Parking spaces and a portion of the driveway aisle encroach into the ten (10) foot side yard setback along the south lot line and a driveway aisle encroaches into the ten (10) foot side yard setback along the north lot line for a distance of approximately 370 feet. The encroachment on the south side is approximately two (2) feet and the encroachment on the north side is approximately five (5) feet. The lot is approximately 195 feet wide. There are several Llternatives to the proposed design which would eliminate the encroachments and these are described in the staff report. The parking standard for quasi -residential uses is one (1) space for every 250 square feet of building area. The subject proposed building must have 166 parking spaces according to the standard. The applicant proposes 82 parking spaces. The staff has compared the City of Georgetown standard to other cities' standards and the results are indicated in the staff report. Based on this study, this variance may be appropriate. According to the standards, driveway aisles adjacent to 90 degree parking spaces must be at least 24 feet wide. The DDP proposes 22 foot wide driveway aisles. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Based on study of parking standards for quasi -residential uses, staff recommends that the City's standards be revised to use the number of guest rooms, plus non -guest room space as the basis for the standard. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its May 7, 1996, meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the proposed Detailed Development Plan for Lot 1, FTB Commercial Number One provided it is redesigned to comply with all design standards except for recommended variances and the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Approval of the requested variance to Table 33052 thereby permitting the requested 82 parking spaces, after making the required findings of fact. Denial of the requested variances to Section 34020 -G.2., thereby requiring that no impervious coverage encroach into the side yard building setbacks, and to Table 33057, thereby requiring the standard 24 foot wide driveway aisles where adjacent to 90 degree parking. A revised DDP that addresses Technical Issue #1 has been submitted to the City. Since the applicant is still requesting a variance to allow impervious coverage in the side yard building setback and a 22 foot wide driveway aisle, the DDP has not been revised to address the Technical Issue of redesigning the site to comply with the recommended denial of the variances. At their meeting of May 28, 1996, the City Council voted to deter consideration of this item in order to request that staff prepare additional information regarding parking standards for hotel and motel uses. This information will be presented to the City Council at a workshop session to be held at the June 11 agenda. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and DDP. Submitted Bv: Edward Barry, AI - Dir for Division of Development Services cpbl _��i -L- /,7, Hildy L. Kingma, AICP Chief Planner DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF F.T.B. COMMERCIAL NUMBER ONE, LOT 1; AND VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; LOCATED ON I1135, SOUTH OF NORTHWEST BOULEVARD OWNER: Mr. Kiran Bhakta 3706 Victorian Drive Temple, Texas 76502 817/760-5511 FAX: 817/771-2129 AGENT: Mr. Charles Reibenstein Reibenstein Associates 1231 Greenway Drive, Suite 1080 Irving, Texas 75038 214/580-8481 FAX:214/580-8481 REQUEST: Detailed Development Plan of F.T.B. Commercial Number One Subdivision, Lot 1, as recorded in Cabinet L, Slides 224- 225 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas; and requested variances to Subdivision Regulations. FACTS: Location: Located on west IH35 frontage road north of Gabriels Funeral Home. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Sites: Undeveloped tract with small existing structure previously used for a driving range and miniature golf course. Existing Zoning: C-2B, Commercial Second Height. Proposed Use: A hotel is proposed for this tract. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Texas Amateur Athletic Foundation office (C-2B) South: The Gabriels Funeral Home (C-213) East: IH-35 (RS) West: Gabriel Heights Subdivision, single family residential (RS) Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location as Intensity Detailed Development Plan - F.T.B. Commercial Number One June 4, 1996 DD-96-10/File:FTB.DDP Page 1 CM/CS Levels Five and Six. The proposed development can be permitted within the allowed intensity. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: On November 8, 1994, the City Council approved a Final Plat of F.T.B. Commercial Number One with the approval of variances to allow a lot width less than the required 150 foot minimum and allow a driveway having less than the required separation from adjacent driveways. The plat was recorded on December 14, 1994. ANALYSIS: The proposal is for a 68 room hotel that will include an approximately 600 square foot meeting room. The hotel will not include a restaurant or bar. All rooms of the hotel will be accessed by a central hallway and none will have separate entrances directly to the outside of the building. While the entire lot on which the hotel will be located is 4.02 acres, the hotel site encompasses only 2.36 acres. Therefore, the applicant has defined a development boundary and has based all site design standards on this area. For example, the amount of impervious coverage proposed is given as a percentage of 2.36 acres, not 4.02 acres. SEE EXHIBIT C The applicant states that the remaining 1.66 acres is reserved for future expansion of the hotel. The proposed Detailed Development Plan generally complies with the site design standards. The applicant is requesting variances to three (3) standards to develop the site as proposed in the DDP as submitted. VARIANCES: Section 34020 G.2., Structures in Side Yard Setbacks The proposed DDP includes encroachments into both side yard setbacks. Parking spaces and a portion of the driveway aisle encroach into the ten (10) foot side yard setback along the south lot line and a driveway aisle encroaches into the ten (10) foot side yard setback along the north lot line for a distance of approximately 370 feet. The encroachment on the south side is approximately two (2) feet and the encroachment on the north side is approximately five (5) feet. The lot is approximately 195 feet wide. There are several alternatives to the proposed design which includes the encroachments. Three (3) possible alternatives are examined below. Detailed Development Plan - F.T.B. Commercial Number One June 4, 1996 DD-96-10/File:FTB.DDP Page 2 CM/Cs The first alternative is to redesign the site such that the aisle and parking spaces are moved toward the building without affecting the location or size of the building. It appears that there is an adequate amount of space between the parking area and the building to accommodate the relocated parking areas. Another alternative is to reduce the building width by no more than seven (7) feet and move the parking spaces and aisle toward the building, but maintaining the same distance between the building and the parking areas. The guest suites in the proposed hotel are 12 feet by 32 feet and 12 feet by 34 feet. This is obviously larger than the average hotel room. The basic concept of the Quality Suites hotel chain is the larger guest rooms. Reducing the size of the rooms may cause the design of the building to be inconsistent with the standard size recommended by the Quality Suites chain. The final alternative is to relocate the parking near the south side of the building to the west of the building and expand the development boundary. Since there is an additional 1.66 acres it is possible to do such. It is also possible to move the proposed building to the west and place the parking area east of the building, between the building and the street. It is not an option to eliminate the driveway aisle in the rear that is labeled as a fire lane. The Fire Services Division states that the fire lane is necessary for the proposed use. However, given the two (2) alternatives proposed above, it is possible to comply with the design standards and provide such a fire lane. It should also be noted that the side yard setbacks were reduced in the platting of this lot from 20 feet to ten (10) feet since the adjacent properties were commercially zoned. Table 33052, Parking Requirements. The design standards of the Subdivision Regulations define hotels and motels as quasi -residential uses. The standard parking for such uses is one (1) space for every 250 square feet of building area. The subject proposed building must have 166 parking spaces according to the standard. The applicant proposes 82 parking spaces based on a calculation of one (1) per guest room (68), five (5) spaces for staff and nine (9) spaces for visitors. The staff has compared the City of Detailed Development Plan - F.T.B. Commercial Number One DD-96-10/File:FTB.DDP CM/Cs June 4, 1996 Page 3 Georgetown standard to other cities' standards and the results are indicated in Exhibit D. Generally, the City of Georgetown standard is higher than all others to which it was compared. The city whose standard comes the closest to the City of Georgetown is the City of Missouri .City. Its standard results in 83 parking spaces for a project with identical characteristics to the subject project. The major difference between the City of Georgetown parking standard for hotels and the other cities' standards is that Georgetown's is based on building square footage and the others are based on number of guest rooms. By factoring in the building area, parking is required for office space, meeting space, laundry area and hallways. All of the other standards examined calculate required parking for meeting space or office space separately; however, none of the other standards factor in hallway or laundry area. One reason for requiring that a site has an adequate amount of off-street parking spaces is to discourage parking of vehicles on public right-of- way. In this location, the nearest public right-of-way is the frontage road for IH35. It is doubtful that any motorist would attempt to park a vehicle along the frontage road; however, doing so may cause a greater hazard than parking a vehicle along most other roadways given the high volume and relatively fast speeds along the frontage road. Therefore, the City should take measures to discourage parking along the frontage road. The other reason for having a parking standard is to discourage spillover parking onto other business or residential sites. The business site closest to the subject hotel is The Gabriels Funeral Home. It is situated between the subject hotel and the La Quinta previously discussed. Given the parking inadequacies of the La Quinta site, The Gabriels Funeral Home is already experiencing spillover parking. Should a variance be granted to the subject DDP and the actual parking demand is higher, the funeral home may also receive the spillover effects. While it is extremely important that parking standards be established to ensure that one development's parking demand does not adversely impact either the public or adjacent properties, it is equally important to have parking standards that reasonably address the parking demands for a particular use. Based on the review of parking standards conducted Detailed Development Plan - F.T.B. Commercial Number One DD-96-10/File:FTB.DDP CM/Cs June 4, 1996 Page 4 by City staff (see EXHIBIT D), it may be reasonable to reexamine the City's parking standards for quasi -residential uses to ensure that they accurately reflect the parking demands for this land use. All the other cities studied have similar standards that result in a parking requirement for the subject use that is significantly lower than the City's standard. Therefore, it may be reasonable to approve the request for a variance to permit 82 parking spaces on this site. However, if this is considered a reasonable number of parking standards for this project, then the City's standard for quasi -residential uses should be reviewed for possible revision. Table 33057, Parking Facilities Design According to the standards, driveway aisles adjacent to 90 degree parking spaces must be at least 24 feet wide. The DDP proposes 22 foot wide driveway aisles. Taking into account the alternatives discussed above regarding the setback encroachments, the driveway aisles that are currently proposed as 22 feet wide can be widened to 24 feet and still be accommodated within the confines of the lot and the building setback lines. There does not appear to be any hardship which would necessitate a variance to the driveway aisle standard. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following finds of fact as required by the Subdivision Regulations: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature. " 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed Detailed Development Plan - F.T.B. Commercial Number One DD-96-10/File:FTB.DDP CM/CS June 4, 1996 Page 5 and substantial justice is done." The applicant's Documentation for Basis of Requested Variance form is attached. TECHNICAL ISSUES: The Subdivision Regulations require that the following Technical Issues are addressed prior to Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of this application. In order to assist the applicant, however, this application has been forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the completion of the Technical Issues. The Technical Issues must be addressed prior to the City Council consideration of this request. 1. The number of required parking spaces shall be corrected to indicate that 166 are required rather than 167. 2. The DDP shall be redesigned to accommodate any change resulting from action on the requested variances. This includes, but is not limited to delineating the project boundary, recalculating impervious coverage, recalculating landscaping or reassessing the detention and filtration needs. PRIOR TO SIGNING: An approved Water Pollution Abatement Plan shall be received by the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposed Detailed Development Plan for Lot 1, FTB Commercial Number One provided it is redesigned to comply with all design standards except for recommended variances and the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Approval of the requested variance to Table 33052 thereby permitting the requested 82 parking spaces, after making the required findings of fact. Denial of the requested variances to Section 34020 G.2. , thereby requiring that no impervious coverage encroach into the side yard building setbacks, and to Table 33057 thereby requiring the standard 24 foot wide driveway aisles where adjacent to 90 degree parking. P & Z ACTION: At its May 7, 1996, meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the proposed Detailed Development Plan for Lot 1, FTB Commercial Number One provided it Detailed Development Plan - F.T.B. Commercial Number One June 4, 1996 DD-96-10/File:FTB.DDP Page 6 CM/CS is redesigned to comply with all design standards except for recommended variances and the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Approval of the requested variance to Table 33052 thereby permitting the requested 82 parking spaces, after making the required findings of fact. Denial of the requested variances to Section 34020 G.2. , thereby requiring that no impervious coverage encroach into the side yard building setbacks, and to Table 33057, thereby requiring the standard 24 foot wide driveway aisles where adjacent to 90 degree parking. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: At their meeting of May 28, 1996, the City Council voted to defer consideration of this item until the next regular meeting in order to request staff to prepare additional information regarding parking standards for hotel and motel uses. Detailed Development Plan - F.T.B. Commercial Number One DD-96-10/File:FTB.DDP CM/CS June 4, 1996 Page 7 ��- EXHIBIT A F.T.B. COMMERCIAL NUMBER ONE f I i I I I / / �• � /, TFXACC? i i � • DAYS INN I EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. *DATE*: April 24, 1996 *PROJECT NAME*: P.A.F. Commercial Number One IH35 north of Williams Drive 2. *GIVEN* acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 1.68 acres of Intensity Level 5 0.68 acres of Intensity Level 6 2.36 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 18,413 5,376 294 6 14,348 4,080 272 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 32,761 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 9,456 Maximum Trip Ends: 566 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION UNITS -------------------------- --------- Detached SF ---------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- Large Lot 28 33 945 28 Average Lot 33 38 639 33 Zero Lot Line 33 38 639 33 Attached SF 50 54 521 50 Multifamily 62 61 249 61 Mobile Home 50 49 668 49 Lodging 171 155 408 1551 Institutional 95,513 102,783 673,008 95,513 Church -with day care 106,366 113,928 36,375 36,375 -w/o day care 176,133 189,120 786,111 176,133 Medical Office 78,752 84,429 175,395 78,752 General Office 90,002 103,912 221,961 90,002 Retail, Mixed 50,401 58,012 34,266 34,266 Retail, Restaurant 21,001 19,700 49,780 19,700 Retail, Store 100,802 107,455 117,868 100,802 Employment Centers 90,002 103,912 123,689 90,002 Warehouse 574,751 675,429 943,333 574,751 Mini -Warehouse ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8,190,200 9,456,000 2,176,923 2,176,923 ------------------- (c) (d) PER DEV DEVELOPMENT REGS I ALLOWED/UNIT 5� 17 23 34 67 1 5 housing units 17 housing units 23 housing units 50 housing units 61 housing units 49 housing units 155 rooms 95,513 square feet 36,375 square feet 176,133 square feet 78,752 square feet 90,002 square feet 34,266 square feet 19,700 square feet 100,802 square feet 90,002 square feet 574,751 square feet 2,176,923 square feel EXHIBIT C F.T.B. COMMERCIAL NUMBER ONE SUBDIVISION PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: F.T.B. Commercial Number One Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent: f 6 I am in favor: fy7 /:� I obj ect: ? If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 5/ 1 /967, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. ' MAY Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 -v `��v✓�\_ / f'�� ,�-v� ��-/ - -r - `ter =�� .'" ✓� / �� �jDJ �h""�` ez 9 C-Li.,c'.�Y✓ ;.���-ri��L C!/r�ty�� �i�Zt�i�-�JL-'L-f/X//% �%.� Council meeting June 11, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of the Second Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone Southwestern University from RP, Residential Planned with a Master Plan and C-1, Local Commercial to RP, Residential Planned, with an Amended Master Plan ITEM SUMMARY: This rezoning is an update to the entire facilities Master Plan in order to reflect the current plans for development and redevelopment on the campus. It also includes the rezoning of one parcel from C-1, Local Commercial to RP, Residential Planned. At the time the original rezoning to RP was conducted, this parcel was not owned by the University. A complete list of the revisions included in this rezoning is included in the staff report. The most significant revisions include the following: 1) a police and soccer building and parking lot is proposed to be located at the north end of Maple Street, across from the new student apartments; 2) the University Commons building, which was originally proposed to be removed and replaced by the new campus center, will remain; and 3) the Julie Howry Center will be built adjacent to the tennis courts to serve as a new golf pro shop and restrooms. The City Council initially approved the rezoning of Southwestern University from RS, Residential Single Family to RP, Residential Planned with a Master Plan in 1992. The Master Plan that was tied to the rezoning is the Facilities Master Plan adopted by Southwestern University in April 1992 to establish a framework for campus development through the year 2000. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of May 7, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning of Southwestern University from RP, Residential Planned with a Master Plan and C-1, Local Commercial, to RP, Residential Planned with an Amended Master Plan consistent with Exhibit A included in the staff report. The City Council approved this item on first reading on May 28, 1996. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and ordinance. Submitted Bv: Edward Barry, AI P - 41rector Hildy L. Kffigma, AICP Division of Development Services Chief Planner REZONING OF SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY FROM RP, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED WITH A MASTER PLAN AND C-1, LOCAL COMMERCIAL TO RP, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED, WITH AN AMENDED MASTER PLAN OWNER: Mr. Dan Bryant, Vice President of Fiscal Affairs Southwestern University P. O. Box 770 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0770 863-1471 AGENT: Mr. Robin Bruno Group Two Architecture 101 West 6th Street, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 478-6817 FAX: 479-0459 REQUEST: Rezoning of Southwestern University from RP, Residential Planned with a Master Plan and C-1, Local Commercial to RP, Residential Planned with an Amended Master Plan; said property is described as a 505 acre tract situated in William Addition and Antonio Flores Surveys and being conveyed by numerous deeds to Southwestern University in the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. FACTS: Location: The subject property is located north of SH29 and east of the MKT railroad tracks. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Use: Southwestern University. Existing Zoning: RP, Residential Planned with a Master Plan Proposed Use: The amendment to the Master Plan will address the following specific projects to make the entire developed portion of the campus more closely reflect current plans for development: 1. Police/soccer building and parking (new) 2. McCombs Campus Center (revised) 3. Fondren-Jones Science Hall (revised) Rezone -Southwestern University June 4, 1996 RZ96-08/ File: SU-AMPA.REZ Page 1 4. Alma Thomas Fine Arts Center (revised) 5. Physical plant warehouse (revised) 6. University Commons (revised) 7. McCullough Hall (remove) 8. Julie Puett Howry Center (new) 9. Lord Residential Center Commons (revised) 10. Robertson Center (revised) 11. Brown -Cody Residential Hall (revised) Surrounding Uses North: Single family residential, vacant land, IOOF and Zoning: Cemetery and City facilities (RS) South: Single family residences and church facilities (RS) East: Vacant land (out of City) West: Single family residences (RS) and Feed Store and Texas Driver's License Office (C-1) Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates the developed portion of the campus as Intensity Levels Three and Five. The undeveloped land owned by Southwestern University is Intensity Level Three. Given that the total of existing and proposed institutional buildings on campus is approximately 760,500 square feet, there is sufficient unused allowable demand on the campus to allow the development of 104 new student housing units. Proposed Zoning: RP, Residential Planned with Amended Master Plan Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: The City Council approved the rezoning of Southwestern University from RS, Residential Single Family to RP, Residential Planned with a Master Plan on July 14, 1992. Southwestern University adopted its Facilities Master Plan in April 1992 to establish a framework for campus development through the year 2000. That Master Plan was tied to the rezoning of the University's property. In that way, all development that occurs on the developed portion of the campus must be consistent with the Master Plan, or a rezoning must be sought to revise the Master Plan. The original Master Plan showed the University's property at Maple Street and Southwestern Boulevard would be developed with eighteen (18) townhome units. This was revised by City Council approval on Rezone -Southwestern University June 4, 1996 RZ96-08/ File: SU-AMPA.REZ Page 2 November 22, 1994, to allow the development of 104 new student housing apartment units. ANALYSIS: This rezoning is an update to the entire Facilities Master Plan in order to reflect the current plans for development and redevelopment on the campus. It also includes the rezoning of one parcel from C-1, Local Commercial to RP, Residential Planned. SEE EXHIBIT A At the. time the original rezoning to RP was conducted, this parcel was not owned by the University. They have subsequently purchased it and and worked with the City to abandon the portion of 8th Street east of the railroad tracks. These parcels will be combined with previously owned University property south of the former 8th Street to be used as part of a parking lot. The section on Proposed Use above indicates the differences between the current and proposed plans. The most significant differences include the following: 1. The police and soccer building and parking lot: these proposed new improvements are located at the north end of Maple Street, across from the new student apartments. A detailed development plan will be submitted for this project in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations and the Development Agreement between the City and Southwestern University. A portion of this area is being rezoned from C-1. 2. The University Commons building: this building was originally proposed to be removed and replaced by the new campus center. The current plan indicates that it will remain. 3. The Julie Howry Center: this is a small building that will be located adjacent to the tennis courts. It will serve as a new golf pro shop and restrooms. The existing golf pro shop will be converted to a golf cart storage facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Rezoning of Southwestern University from RP, Residential Planned with a Master Plan and C-1, Local Commercial, to RP, Residential Planned with an Amended Master Plan consistent with EXHIBIT A. P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of May 7, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Rezone -Southwestern University June 4, 1996 RZ96-08/ File: SU-AMPA.REZ Page 3 Rezone -Southwestern University rezoning of Southwestern University from RP, Residential Planned with a Master Plan and C-1, Local Commercial, to RP, Residential Planned with an Amended Master Plan consistent with Exhibit A included in the staff report. June 4, 1996 RZ96-08/ File: SU-AMPA.REZ Page 4 y, NFW AND o THE CPREVIOUSLY PROPOSFD PR0,FCTc IlPDATFTI RESIDENTIAL N NTIAL CEN7E P. rJ ° h BETTY LORD VV 1. POLICE SOCCER BUILDING k PARKING (NEVI) ' ° -- •: -.: 2 RED AND CHARUNE McCOMBS CAMPUS CENTER (REVISED FOOTPRINT) I B ° ATHLETIC FIELDS 3. FONDREN-JONES SCIENCE HALL EXPANSION (REVISED FOOTPRINT) °� i,. A. ALMA THOMAS FINE ARTS CENTER EXPANSION (REVISED FOOTPRINT) RUFUS E. EC) ( 5. PHYSICAL PLANT WAREHOUSE (REBUILD k MINOR EXPANSION) STUDIO ARTS BUILDING PHYSICAL PLANT 5 6. UNIVERSITY COMMONS (TO REMAIN) 1 O � l' ° ° 7. McCULLOUCH HALL (DEMOLISH AND REVEGETATE) JJUE RUM HOWRY CENTER (NEW) 1 \ I / OODY-$HEARN 9. THE GROGAN & BETTY LORD RESIDENTIAL CENTER COMMONS (REVISED FOOTPRINT) • I RESIDENCE HALL ' 10. CORBIN J. ROBERTSON CENTER (REVISED FOOTPRINT) I $OU THWF.STCRN BLVO. , 11. BROWN-COOY RESIDENCE MALL (REVISED FOOTPRINT) I I MARTIN RU - — - 1 Cu+RUS DUCE/ ESIDENCE HAL " I>OCCEP. BLO^ HE �6 ° R UNIVERSITY D 1LB,COMMONS • �� � YLE C. WHITE POTENTIAL FUTURE 7 I '�"^ I ICIOUS q ES TRACK AND FIELD' f� ROBER7$ON CENTER � n 1 LOIs O m m RKIN$ 10 ° v X OD O 10-RY CENTER �N cc JCC�Ppps L� � M% 1 D47A / N o _ 1 iN[7A CENTER FIELD B INC �AsTIJ' ® � OUSE eh g /PRESIDENT'S • � ' �''�/� HOME ' rc4CULA g RESIDENCODY 11 ° MCCOOK-CR� I HALL a TALk W BUILDQIN-G /. 1� 1 ° A. FRANK INE ARTS 4 ° �'J J7' I SMITH LIBRARY CENTER ERNEST L. KURTH CENTER RESIDENCE HALL oolma-JDN[ Vy RESIDENCE HALL / ROr h UWE 3 SaENCE NAIy ® 4 ULUN BLK 1 OD O O � ���� / THIS PLAN IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS ° i INTENDED TO REFLECT GENERAL MASTER PUNNING CONCEPTS FINAL BUILT CONDITIONS MAY VARY BASED ° O Q UPON FUTURE DESICK �i UNIVERSITY AVE (STATE HWY 29) �-. O w W W � Z S I J 3 I NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY U V OF A PUBLIC MEETING rFublic 3 0 IM Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its reg meeting of t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. This meeting will be held on the 7TH day of MAY , 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed: Rezoning a portion of Southwestern University from RS, Residential Single Family and C-1, Local Commercial to RP, Residential Planned and an Amendment to the Master Plan, located on University Avenue. 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 Exhibit A for more detail. Date: 4/23/96 City of Georgetown A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to the meeting described above. For further informati9n phone the Development Services Division at 930-3575. PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Southwestern University Name of Respondent: cr- Address of Respondent:_l3 1 8 I am in favor: I object: If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 5/ 1 /96 , it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE PASSED AND ADOPTED ON THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1968, AND AMENDING PART OF THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, TO CHANGE 505 ACRES OUT OF THE WILLIAM ADDISON AND ANTONIO FLORES SURVEYS, DESCRIBED BY VARIOUS DEED RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, SAID PROPERTY BEING KNOWN AS SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, FROM THE RP - RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DISTRICT WITH A MASTER PLAN AND THE C-1, LOCAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO THE RP, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DISTRICT WITH AN AMENDED MASTER PLAN ZONING CLASSIFICATION; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the subject property was rezoned to the RP, Residential Planned district with a Master Plan by Ordinance No. 92-15 and said rezoning included the Facilities Master Plan document prepared for Southwestern University; WHEREAS, an application has been made to the City Council for the purpose of amending the Master Plan layout tied to the RP zoning district classification and rezoning a parcel currently zoned C-1 to the RP zoning district classification for the following described real property ("the property") : 505 ACRES OUT OF THE WILLIAM ADDISON AND ANTONIO FLORES SURVEYS, DESCRIBED BY VARIOUS DEED RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, SAID PROPERTY BEING KNOWN AS SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, hereinafter referred to as "the property"; WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Base Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration in a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and WHEREAS, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days for 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 two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and SWU Amended Master Plan Rezoning Ordinance No. Page I of 3 WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property 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 such hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on May 7, 1996, recommended changing said zoning district classification of the above described property from the RP, Residential Planned with a Master Plan district and the C-1, Local Commercial district, to the RP, Residential Planned with an Amended Master Plan district zoning classification. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 'ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance implements the following Policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element: 1. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure that future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations"; and 2. Growth and Physical Development Policy 2, which states: "The City's regulatory actions will efficiently and effectively implement the Policy Statements and provide the opportunity to seek change with reasonable effort and expense"; and 3. Growth and Physical Development Policy 4, which states: "The City will encourage new development and infill redevelopment in the community"; and 4. Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 1, which states: "The City will take the steps necessary to protect the physical attributes that make Georgetown attractive"; and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. The Base Ordinance and the Zoning Map of the City, as well as the Zoning District for the Property shall be and the same is hereby changed from the RP, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED WITH A MASTER PLAN district and the C-1, LOCAL COMMERCIAL district to the RP, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED WITH AN AMENDED MASTER PLAN, in accordance with Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. This rezoning shall continue to include the Facilities Master Plan document as adopted by rezoning Ordinance No. 92-15 and as revised by rezoning Ordinance No. 94-46. SWU Amended Master Plan Rezoning Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10) ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 28th day of May, 1996. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of . 1996. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney SWU Amended Master Plan Rezoning Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 By: LEO WOOD Mayor �+`�U ' \ •/ O u .. - NEW AND DPPREVIOUSLY PROPDS'n PfM Ern tipn,LTID . Ll \THE CROCAN h BETTI LORD U RESIDENTIAL CENTEP (, 1. POLICE / SOCCER BUILDING k PARKING (NEW) SSPf/} RED AND CHARUNE McCOUBS CAA6pUS CENTER (REVISED FOOTPRINT) , O I ( (J ,.1 J. FONDREN-JONES SCIENCE HALL EXPANSION (REVISED FOOTPRINT) (D U ATHLETE Ft ELDS 2 � (. - - 4. ALMA THOMAS FINE ARTS CENTER EXPANSION (REVISED FOOTPRINT) h \ 3. PHYSICAL PLANT WAREHOUSE (REBUILD k MINOR EXPANSION) RUFUG E WARD,, 0 PHYSICAL STUDIO ARTS BUILDING OPLANT 3 - 6. UNIVERSITY COMMONS (TO REMAIN) 1 9 7. MCCULLOUGH HALL (DEMOUSH AND REVEGETATE) � IQ a JJUE PUETT HOWRY CENTER (NEW) COMPLETED AND/OR FITY APPROVED PRD,iCTS LIPOATFTI V \ 9. THE GROGAN k BETTY LORD RESIDENTIAL CENTER Y-SHEARN COMMONS (REVISED FOOTPRINT) RESIDENCE HALL I ' _ 10. CORBIN J. ROBERTSON CENTER (REVISED FOOTPRINT) • , 1 I � SOUTHWESTERN BIVD. I _ O � \ I• 11• BROWN -COOT RE 4DFNCE MALL (REVISED FOOTPRINT) I I MARTIN R0 U - `µPU' ESIDENCE HAL Q . 1 I SOCCEP, �g ~ UNIVERSITY COMMONS ®® rlE c. WHITE oO POTENTIAL FUTURE " ICdOU$ A ES ® 1TRACK AND FlE1D '. h u'N I cu f7. R / RO ERTSON CENTER Q c+" l 1 b Lols � RKINS 10 n PEL R ETT lP" GM p o NOVRIY CENi()t 1 DCI iA / <COMBS CAMP N O 1 I TNC7A CEN7ER F. OLIN FIELD B wC OU$E �y�9. O IR01 R k/ O 1 Jr 7 1 ® 0 PRESIDENT'S M CULLCLI g HOME RIDWELI ��w RESID 0 r 11 0 McCOpc-CRAtiwA NALL • ❑ THALMA OMAS �O OU BUILDING 0 1 / O A. FRANK CEN TER Q O % I SMITH R. ERNEST L. KURM QQ i r U CENTER RESIDENCE HALL , • ,� JE h LE 41ABEC � 3 DNOREN-,pHC! a-� RESIDE NCC HALL ROi a uWC soENCE "ul 4 VLLEN BLDc ®• I� o o I��-%,�" OOD I QJ OO O __ THIS PLAN IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS \� i INTENDED REFLECT GENERAL MASTER PLANNING i CONCEPTS FINAL BUILT CONDITIONS MAY VARY BASCO A UPON FUTURE DESICK J II UNIVERSITY AVE ($1AiC HWY 29) ��-. C) W 3 Council Meeting Date: June 11, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT An Ordinance amending the 1995/96 Annual Operating Plan Element (budget) for various mid year adjustments as outlined at the May 28, 1996 Mid Year Review Report to Council. First Reading. ITEM SUMMARY During the May 28, 1996 Mid Year Review Report from staff, various budget amendments to the 1995/96 Annual Operating Plan Element were proposed. These amendments are summarized in the attached "Recommended Action" excerpt from the Mid Year Review Report. The net increase in total budgeted expenditures for 1995/96 for the City of Georgetown is $497,050. The increase is funded from prior year fund balances, bond proceeds remaining from prior issuances, and grant proceeds. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Charter requires that a majority plus one must approve an amendment to the approved budget. FINANCIAL IMPACT The budget amendment will be incorporated with the previously approved budget. Minimum working capital/fund balance requirements for the City are not affected by this amendment. COMMENTS None ATTACHMENTS Excerpt from 1995/96 Mid Year Review Report Proposed Ordinance Submitted By: Susan L. Morgan, Dired; J� c-l; c=i;-Once and Administration ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AMENDING THE 1995/96 ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN ELEMENT (BUDGET) FOR VARIOUS MID YEAR ADJUSTMENTS AS OUTLINED AT THE MAY 28, 1996 MID YEAR REVIEW REPORT TO COUNCIL; APPROPRIATING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS THEREOF; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the need for these adjustments was known at the time the fiscal year 1995/96 budget was approved; and WI1EREAS, the City Charter allows for changes in the Annual Operating Plan by a Council majority plus one in emergency situations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance implements Finance Policy 1 of the Century Plan- Policy Plan Element, which states "The City will conduct all municipal operations in an efficient business -like manner" and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. The amendment to the 1995/96 Annual Operating Plan Element (Budget) of the revenues of the City of Georgetown and expenses of conducting the affairs thereof, is in all things adopted and approved as an addition to the previously approved budget of the current revenues and expenses as well as fixed charges against said City for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1995, and ending September 30, 1996. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 3. The total of $497,050 is hereby appropriated for payments of expenditures and payments of the funds and included in the Exhibit "A". SECTION 4 All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption of its second and final reading by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 1 lth day of June, 1996. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 25th day of June, 1996. ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Budget Amendment No, Page 2 of 2 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: Leo Wood Mayor EXHIBIT "A" LIBRARY: General Fund Expenditures: Library - Personnel $ 12,000 Information Resource Management - Operations (6,000) Water Fund: Expenditures: Council Contingency (6,000) Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0 Reclass previously appropriated budget for an additional staff person for the Library evening/weekend shift. FIRE STATION CONTSTRUCTION: Fire Station Captial Projects Fund Expenditures: Preconstruction expenditures $ 25,000 Fund balance prior year (25,000) Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0 Additional appropriation needed for architectural fees for the design of the Sun City station. Funded from Fire SIP fees. WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND: Wastewater Capital Projects Fund Expenditues: Serenada sewer extenstion project $ 174,000 Wastewater 95 Series TWDB Bond Fund Fund balance prior year (174,000) Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0 Additional appropriation needed for the Serenada sewer extension funded from previously issued TWDB bond proceeds. FACILITIES MAINTENANCE FUND: Facilities Maintenance Fund Expenditures: City office remodeling project $ 105,000 Water Capital Projects Fund Expenditures: Cancelation of SIP funded project (105,000) Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0 Reclass of previously appropriated funds from canceled Water CIP projects to fund cost overruns on City office remodeling. * Item increases overall budget. Total 1:;'35/St h'ar'get increase is $497,050. INFORMATION SERVICES FUND: Information Services Fund Revenues: Other revenues $ 200,000 General Fund Fund balance prior year (100,000) Electric Operating Fund Fund balance prior year (33,334) Wastewater Operating Fund Fund balance prior year (33,333) Water Operating Fund Fund balance prior year (33,333) Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0 Appropriation of 1994/95 ending fund balance to pay cash for major capital purchases instead of lease purchasing equipment. SBA/TREE GRANT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND: SBA/Tree Grant Special Revenue Fund Revenues: State grant reimbursement $ 7,500 Expenditures: Operations (15,000) Electric Operating Fund Expenditures: Council Contingency 7,500 Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0 Reclass of previously appropriated funds, as well as, additional appropriation needed for state reimbursed grant program. PARKS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND: Parks Special Revenue Fund, Revenues: Parkland dedication fees $ 21,000 Expenditures: Capital purchase - land Reata Trails (21,000) Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0 Additional budget authorization for park land purchase. Paid from existing parkland dedication fee balances. ADVANCED METAL SYSTEMS GRANT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND: Advanced Metal Systems Grant Special Revenue Fund Revenue: State grant reimbursement 269,550 Expenditures: Operations _ (269,550) Excess revenue over expenditures 0 Additional budget authority to expend funds associated with state reimburseed 9aa'1; * Item increases overall budget. Total 1995/96 budget increase is $497,050. Pam z')b '�' Council meeting June 11, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration and first reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the City of approximately 81.181 acres in the David Wright Survey, located between Airport Road and IH35, north of Lakeway Drive. ITEM SUMMARY: On April 9, 1996, the City Council passed a resolution to adopt the proposed service plans and set the public hearing dates for the annexation of this area. A sketch plan proposal for residential development of this area has been submitted to the City. Land uses in the immediate vicinity of this property include the Georgetown Municipal Airport and agricultural and industrial development. Two (2) public hearings were held, on April 23, 1996 and on May 14, 1996, as required by State law to describe and receive comments on the City's plans for providing services to the annexation areas. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Since the area proposed for annexation is contiguous with the existing City limits of Georgetown on two sides, the 1,000 foot width requirement does not apply. However, because the proposed annexation would cause an area to be entirely surrounded by the City limits of Georgetown, the City Council is required to make findings, before completing the annexation, that surrounding this area is in the public interest. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The service plan, which is to be adopted as a part of the annexation ordinance, describes the City services to be provided to the areas. COMMENTS: The property owners have agreed to voluntary annexation of this property. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance and exhibits. Submitted By. 1,6 Edward J. any, A1CP - Direct ','- Clyde von Rosenberg, AI P Division of Development Services Chief Planner, Long Range Planning ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AND THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE, CONSISTING OF: APPROXIMATELY 81.181 ACRES IN THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, LOCATED BETWEEN AIRPORT ROAD AND IH35, NORTH OF LAKEWAY DRIVE, WHICH SAID TERRITORY LIES ADJACENT TO AND ADJOINS THE PRESENT BOUNDARY LIMIT OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS AND NOT BEING A PART OF ANY INCORPORATED AREA; PROVIDING FOR SERVICE PLANS; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, may under the Charter of said City, Section 1.06, annex areas as allowed by State law; and WHEREAS, notices of two (2) public hearings were published according to law in a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Georgetown, Texas, and in the herein described territory to be annexed not more than twenty (20) days nor less than ten (10) days prior to those hearings; and WHEREAS, two public hearings by the City of Georgetown, Texas, where all interested persons were provided with an opportunity to be heard on the proposed annexation of certain tracts of land located in Williamson County, Texas, including the following tracts described in Exhibit A of this ordinance: APPROXIMATELY 81.181 ACRES IN THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, LOCATED BETWEEN AIRPORT ROAD AND I1135, NORTH OF LAKEWAY DRIVE; were held, the first being on the 23rd day of April, 1996, and the second being on the 14th day of May, 1996; and WHEREAS, at such public hearings, a proposed service plan was presented to and discussed by the Council and all interested persons; and WHEREAS, such public hearings were held not more than forty (40) nor fewer than twenty (20) days prior to the institution of these proceedings; and Annexation of approximately 81.181 acres between Airport Road and IH35 Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the total corporate area of the City of Georgetown, Texas, on the 1st day of January, 1996, was 15.8 square miles; and WHEREAS, the population of the City of Georgetown, Texas includes approximately 19,200 inhabitants; and WHEREAS, all of the herein -described property lies within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown, Texas; and WHEREAS, the herein -described property lies adjacent and contiguous to the City of Georgetown, Texas; and WHEREAS, all notices and other prerequisites of state law and the City Charter have been complied with; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element: 1. Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 1, which states: "The Physical attributes that make Georgetown attractive are protected"; and 2. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "Land use patterns within the City provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations"; and 3. Growth and Physical Development Policy 2, which states: "The City's regulations implement the policy statements and provide the opportunity to seek change with reasonable effort and expense"; and 4. Growth and Physical Development Policy 3, which states: "Annexations procedures and standards benefit the community"; and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. Annexation of approximately 81.181 acres between Airport Road and IH35 Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds this annexation, which causes an area not within the City limits to be entirely surrounded by the City limits, is in the public interest. SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Georgetown hereby annexes: APPROXIMATELY 81.181 ACRES IN THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, LOCATED BETWEEN AIRPORT ROAD AND IH35, NORTH OF LAKEWAY DRIVE, as described in Exhibit A of this ordinance, which contains maps, descriptions, and the service plans for the tracts. SECTION 4. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10) ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the I Ith day of June, 1996. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of , 1996. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney By: LEO WOOD Mayor Annexation of approximately 81.181 acres between Airport Road and IH35 Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A, Page I of 3 •` (362.15 Ac.) _SOAC- .SOAc. 264.33 A,- •+• +. o J._ •++=+ GEORGE W. TATLOR Er t .+•• 596/361 =. \ (157 62 Ac.) GAR. ROS�r e 7 A. 1 .6.OAc •sy °� %9/36 6 ti L •.66 Ac _ Q T` c cl) _ Q:" T. J. ROSSON •� •a>'� a O 1 512 / 450 .d _ (30.02 A c. ) 7.25 Ac_ ..• �+ S GAVANOE o " y 795/177 = e (I(22 AC o 6 •y \_ n 1TpCF- s. •h-1 1 1. � � M e -i ���� 1 c' I ` Llrl.t • • _ \ 1' `+• • M•a �F - �����\y S GAV4WE •• _ i+ A . to " • +a T► .s. esy e!?� ._ e9 2 / 2 95 . n I o 1s° N►` 'rs.• .ems -lam_.- m\�Z (.. 36 Ac-) eA •r•.r SO Ac d ' •+ Er , ��� s "!i:. a`a \ ��\ +�a•.. a a cn CYRIL IH3 5 ro°.a 10.1 1 CITY OF GEORGETOwN ALBERT EVANS, JR GEORGETOWN •49/1:0 6 E wlT iEaA 1 16.-3ac) �G 472 /133 F 60.•2Ac �s (l02 Sac) irk MUNICIPAL AIRPORT - LDAc 79.:44. I \ s T-t.1 JONN F LEFNER 3t9 / 6 S (32 3A.) 3 25 4C. F. F. GRIFF•- GRIFFIN �•• i ' •.• `t - GLCRA L LEFNER 1&0 /691 6� i W A� pR G .D.,. . 1 � A St LA •,. e •.e �. sa+cn ••••.. a. + sea, t •a+..at cam D..OUSTON _ ✓'� 9{ • O�JE - `•eJ'T• µl . • ' `� ± o 5A/371 _ �• • r OTT Of •r✓ J ` IAE�L •*a„t• 9.04 AC, "++ GEORGETOwN S.67 AC g 3 24 AC. e.• to GE, 1 OONALD C_ B LOULSE HOUSTON t•t 926/62S . HELEN T B GEORGE A, GOETNE .e•a ( 12.54 Ac) 6.R9AC 679 / S23 0 40 AC i (37.21 Ac ) t .O Ac 23.90 AC °. 1►I�t 111J s Io+ C• Ir I.ISI ,ilI .l L�L I „ I J•vI CITT 3.59 Ate, ••e . 3.2 AC 1.00 AC '• ►AEw 39 i 1 r+ART COCNE .1. .1. ,P 213/651 WILL ¢ JACA SUDOUTN ly 1 (36.22 AC 1 c t �, .. C 335 / 566 33732 AC (5a 56 Ac) I I_ 51 0. - I3""". APPROXIMATELY 81.181 ACRES h IN THE DAVID' WRIGHT SURVEY •Z' H J I � I/ ,.T '• hQ __� ti7 -CLEN GOCT-C I ti J n;/c31 -ILL 1 Q' m 24 7c AC c, ,• re I. 11 I �.� wART COCxE >. \ • . e� N..cam `T`;,• ""'1i 12 50 GO RACN • AC • ,.. `' EXHIBIT A, Page 2 of 3 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN APPROXIMATELY 81.181 ACRES IN THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, LOCATED BETWEEN AIRPORT ROAD AND IH35, NORTH OF LAKEWAY DRIVE Introduction This service plan has been prepared in accordance with Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 43 - Municipal Annexation. This requires that the service plan provide for the extension of full municipal services to the area to be annexed by any of the methods by which it extends services to any other area of the municipality. Police Protection Regular and routine patrolling of streets, responses to calls, and other police services will be provided upon the effective date of the annexation. Fire Protection and Code Enforcement Fire protection and prevention services are currently being provided to the area through an agreement with Williamson County. These services will continue to be provided to the area upon the effective date of the annexation. Upon the effective date of the annexation, the City Code Enforcement Officer will periodically patrol streets in the area to ensure that all properties are in conformance with City Code. Solid Waste Collection Solid waste collection and disposal services will be provided upon the effective date of the annexation, in accordance with the rates, terms and conditions contained in the City Code. Water Service Water lines will be extended in accordance with City policy. The City has a Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy, which is described in this service plan. Sewer Service Wastewater lines will be extended in accordance with City policy. The City has a Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy, which is described in this service plan. Maintenance of Roads, Streets, and Drainage Roads, streets and drainage facilities dedicated to the public will be maintained according to City Code and policy upon the effective date of the annexation. Street Lighting Street lighting will be made available upon the effective date of the annexation, upon request of the property owners, in accordance with City Code and policy. Annexation Service Plan, Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A, Page 3 of 3 Parks and Recreation Parks and recreation facilities dedicated to the public will be maintained according to City Code and policy upon the effective date of the annexation. Recreation services will be provided to all residents in accordance with the rates, terms and conditions contained in the City Code. Planning and Zoning Upon the effective date of the annexation, the planning and zoning jurisdiction of the City will extend to this area. The area will be zoned A (Agricultural), unless otherwise approved through regular procedures. Inspection Services All inspection services, including building, electrical, plumbing, etc., provided by the City will be extended to the area upon the effective date of the annexation. Library Services Library services will be provided to all residents in accordance with the rates, terms, and conditions contained in the City Code upon the effective date of the annexation. Other Services Other services provided by the City, such as animal control, court, and general administration, will be made available upon the effective date of the annexation, in accordance with the City Code and policies. Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy City Ordinance Number 900404, a Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy, guides the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of all utility system improvements, including water, wastewater and electrical service. Annexation Service Plan, Page 2 of 2 Council Meeting Date: June 110 1996 Item No. pwnmw_� AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Appoint a three -member Council committee to evaluate proposals for the City's independent audit. ITEM SUMMARY The independent audit of the City's financial statements is a critical part of the Council's monitoring role in the governance process and is the primary means of judging the financial integrity of the City. The City has solicited proposals to conduct an audit of the City's financial statements for the year ended September 301 1996 and up to four subsequent years. The City received seven proposals from qualified firms. The City Manager and Director of Finance have evaluated these proposals against the criteria outlined in the request for proposal (RFP) and recommend three firms for further evaluation. A Council Audit committee is needed to interview each of the finalists and evaluate the proposals. The committee will need to meet one day, from 12 - 6:00 p.m., to discuss evaluation criteria and interview firms. Staff requests that the Mayor appoint a three -member committee and set a day, preferably the week of June 17, to conduct interviews. Our goal is to have a final recommendation at the June 25, 1996 Council meeting. The Director of Finance will provide an information package with the proposals and background information to each committee member prior to the interview. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS - n/a FINANCIAL IMPACT - n/a COMMENTS - n/a ATTACHMENTS Proposed Interview Schedule Excerpt from RFP "Evaluation Criteria" Sample Interview Questions Submitted by: Susan L. Morgan, Director of Finance and Admir} ., , Lion Bob Hart, City Manager F:WGENDA1961AUD1TC0M.CS City of Georgetown Proposed Interview Schedule - Council Audit Committee Annual Financial Audit 12:00 - 1:30 pm Overview of Financial Audits (lunch will be provided). 1:30 - 2:30 pm Firm A* 3:00 - 4:00 pm Firm B* 4:30 - 5:30 pm Firm C* 5:30 - 6:00 pm Evaluation and Wrap -Up Each interview will consist of a 15 - 20 minute presentation and 40 - 45 minutes for questions. *Firms will be scheduled as soon as date is set. F:\ADMIN\MISC\AUDITEVL City of Georgetown Request for Proposals Annual Financial Audit C. Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be evaluated using three (3) sets of criteria: (1) Mandatory Elements; (2) Technical Qualification; and (3) Cost Fee Estimate. Firms meeting the mandatory criteria will have their proposals evaluated and scored for both technical qualifications and cost fee estimate. The following represent the principal selection criteria which will be considered during the evaluation process. 1. Mandatory Elements a. The audit firm is independent and licensed to practice in the State of Texas. b. The audit firm's professional personnel have received adequate continuing professional education within the preceding two (2) years to meet the Government Audit Standards, 1988 revision. C. The firm has no conflict of interest with regard to any other work performed by the firm for the City of Georgetown. d. The firm submits a copy of its most recent external quality control review report. e. The firm has a record of quality audit work. f. The firm has performed one or more audits of Texas municipalities in the past two (2) years. g. The firm has prepared one or more CAFRs which have received the GFOA's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. h. The firm adheres to the instructions in this request for proposals on preparing and submitting the proposal. 2. Technical Quality: (Maximum Points - 75) a. Expertise and Experience (Maximum Points - 45 Point.°. (1) The firm's past Experience and performance �. comparable government engagements. (20 Points) 20 City of Georgetown Request for Proposals Annual Financial Audit (2) The quality of the firm's professional personnel to' be assigned to the engagement and the quality of the firm's management support personnel to be available for technical consultation. (20 Points) (3) The firm's past experience and performance with Single Audits and tests of compliance with laws and regulations. (5 Points) b. Audit Approach (Maximum Points - 30 Points) (1) Comprehensiveness of audit work plan. (10 Points) (2) Adequacy of proposed staffing plan for various segments of the engagement and the quality of the firm's management support personnel to be available for technical consultation. (10 Points) (3) Adequacy of sampling techniques. (5 Points) (4) Adequacy of analytical and substantive procedures. (5 Points) 3. Cost Fee Estimate: (Maximum Points - 25 Points) COST WILL NOT BE THE PRIMARY FACTOR IN THE SELECTION OF AN AUDIT FIRM. D. Oral Presentations During the evaluation process, the Audit Selection Committee may, at its discretion, request anyone or all firms to make oral presentations. Such presentations will provide firms with an opportunity to answer any questions the Audit Selection Committee may have on a firm's proposal. Not all firms may be asked to make such oral presentations. E. Final Selection The City of Georgetown City Council will select a firm bases! upon the recommendation of the _udit Selection Committee; howev„r, City Council may select an firm other than the one recommenaec. 21 City of Georgetown Sample Interview Questions - Proposal Evaluation Annual Financial Audit The following questions are sample questions that need to be explored with each proposing firm. A more thorough list will be provided for selected committee members. The Governmental Accounting Standards Boards has numerous new pronouncements in process. Some will significantly impact our financial statements and reporting. Briefly explain the most significant of these changes and how your firm would assist the City in implementing these changes. 2. Explain your business philosophy and how you provide value to your customers through your audit services. (We are looking for a firm that sees themselves as part of our business team.) 3. Explain what the purpose and meaning of the audit opinion letter and the letter to management. 4. The City has requested a fund type audit instead of a fund level audit. Which level of audit would you recommend for the City of Georgetown and why? F:IADMIN\MISC\AUDITEVL