Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_P&Z_10.21.2014Notice of Meeting for the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown October 21, 2014 at 6:00 PM at City Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, TX The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Chair - Welcome and Meeting Procedures Action from Executive Session Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/. B - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda. Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. C Consideration of the Minutes from the October 7, 2014, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. D Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat, being processed as a Preliminary/Final Plat, of 4.47 acres in the David Wright Survey, Abstract No. 13, located at 5120 Airport Road in the Extra-territorial Jurisdiction, known as Robert Madden Industries. PFP-2014-005 Legislative Regular Agenda E Public Hearing and possible action on a Final Plat of Oak Crest Homestead, a Replat of Oak Crest Ranchettes, Unit II, Lot 15 (pt), located at 330 Evans Road. FP-2014-042 (Carla J. Benton) F Public Hearing and possible action on a Consent Agreement associated with a proposed Municipal Utility District (MUD) for 284.62 acres to be known as Crescent Bluff, located on SH 29 West near Cedar Hollow Road. G Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Use Permit for Rivery Park II, Block B, Lot 6, to permit the use of Multi-family, Attached Dwelling Units, located at 516 Wolf Ranch Parkway. SUP-2014-003 (action required) H Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning of Booty and Lasueur Addition, Lot 2, from the Office (OF) District to the Residential Single-family (RS) District, located at 1304 Hart Street. REZ-2014-027 I Public Hearing and possible action on the rezoning of a 3.2 acre tract described as Royal Oaks Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2, from Office District (OF), to High Density Multifamily District (MF- 2), located at 206 Royal Drive. REZ-2014-028 --Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director J Discussion Items: Update on the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee (UDCAC) meetings. (Chair Horne) Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) meetings. (Commissioner Rankin) Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and matters considered on this agenda. Reminder of the November 4, 2014, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Consideration of the Minutes from the October 7, 2014, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat, being processed as a Preliminary/Final Plat, of 4.47 acres in the David Wright Survey, Abstract No. 13, located at 5120 Airport Road in the Extra-territorial Jurisdiction, known as Robert Madden Industries. PFP-2014-005 ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant proposes to plat the entire 4.47 acre property as one non-residential lot in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Right-of-way along Airport Road is be dedicated with the plat, which triggers the processing of the plat to be a Preliminary/Final Plat, though it also meets the criteria for an administratively approved Minor Plat. This plat will be that which is recorded with Williamson County. A Stormwater Permit (SWP-2014-007) for this lot is under review that contemplates the development of a 30,000 square foot office and warehouse building, with associated driveways, parking, and stormwater facilities, for a warehousing/distribution use. Public Comment: Public notice is not required for a preliminary plat application. There have been no public comments received at the time of this report. Recommended Motion: Approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat for 4.47 acres in the David Wright Survey, Abstract No. 13, located at 5120 Airport Road. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant paid the required fee. SUBMITTED BY: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use / Transportation Map Backup Material Exhibit 3 - Proposed Preliminary/Final Plat Backup Material Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Robert Madden Industries, Preliminary/Final Plat Page 1 of 3 Report Date: October 15, 2014 File No: PFP-2014-005 Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner Item Details Project Name: Preliminary/Final Plat of Robert Madden Industries Project Address: 5120 Airport Road Location: Northwest corner Cavu Road and Airport Road, north of Georgetown Airport (see Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 4.47 acres Legal Description: 4.47 acres in the David Wright Survey Applicant: Mark T. Taylor, Red Hawk Contracting Property Owner: West Texas Commercial Properties, Ltd. Contact: Justin Lieck, P.E., MODECO LLC Proposed Lots: One non-residential lot Streets Proposed: None Parkland: None Heritage Trees: There are 3 Heritage Trees located on this plat Existing Use: Undeveloped land Existing Zoning: N/A, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Growth Tier: Tier 2 – Intermediate Area Applicant’s Request The applicant proposes to develop the entire 4.47 acre property as one non-residential lot. A Stormwater Permit (SWP-2014-007) is under review that contemplates the development of a 30,000 square foot office and warehouse building, with associated driveways, parking, and stormwater facilities, for a warehousing/distribution use. Site Information Location: The property is located on the west side of Airport Road, north of the airport, fronting on Cavu Road. The property is unplatted land adjacent the Harmony Forest and North County Air Estates subdivisions. Cavu Road is an entry road into the large Serenada East residential subdivision. All of these noted subdivisions are in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Physical Characteristics: The tract is generally flat, undeveloped land, with 3 Heritage trees. The subsequent development of the lot, as contemplated in SWP-2014-007, was designed in conjunction with the City Urban Forester to ensure that the Heritage Trees would be protected in perpetuity. An existing cellular communications facility lies in a separate parcel of land toward the southwest corner of the lot. History The property is unplatted, but at one time was contemplated as “Air Country Estates”, which is still referenced as part of the Legal Description by the Williamson Central Appraisal District (WCAD). There is no evidence of any previous development. Planning Department Staff Report Robert Madden Industries, Preliminary/Final Plat Page 2 of 3 2030 Plan Conformance Per the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use map, the property is mostly within the Moderate Density Residential (MDR) category, with the northeast portion covered by a portion of the ‘node’ of the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUNC) category that centers on the intersection of Airport Road and Sanaloma Drive. The proposed Preliminary Plat is in general conformance with these land use designations. The MDR primarily promotes single family neighborhoods at a density ranging between 3.1 and 6 dwelling units per gross acre, but also supports non-residential uses (like this 4+ acre lot could generate) when adjacent arterial roadways (Airport Road is classified as a Minor Arterial). The MUNC category supports smaller areas of mixed commercial uses within or near residential areas, abutting key roadway corridors or neighborhood gateways. Given the location in the ETJ, fulfillment of land use compliance with the Plan cannot be required due to the absence of zoning regulations dictating permitted uses and the associated building standards (setbacks, maximum heights, architectural requirements, landscaping, etc.). Plan compliance in the ETJ is limited to regional roadways noted on the Overall Transportation Plan (OTP). Utilities The City of Georgetown will be providing water for domestic and fire-flow purposes. An on-site septic system, permitted through the Williamson County and Cities Health District (WCCHD), will serve the eventual development. Electricity is provided by the Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC). Public utility easements are being dedicated with this plat according to the City of Georgetown standards. Planning Department Staff Report Robert Madden Industries, Preliminary/Final Plat Page 3 of 3 Transportation This development will be accessed from Cavu Road, which is classified as a 50’ ROW local street. Airport Road is classified as an existing Minor Arterial on the City’s Overall Transportation Plan, which typically maintain 110’ fee of right-of-way, contain four twelve-foot-wide lanes with medians, 82’ of pavement, design speeds of 35-45 miles per hour, with the capacity of 12,500 average daily trips. This plat dedicates Right-of-way of approximately 20 feet (a total of approximately 12,671 square feet) along Airport Road in accordance with the Plan. Future Application(s) In order to proceed with development on this site, this Preliminary/Final Plat will need to be recorded with Williamson County. Being in the ETJ, a Stormwater Permit must then be approved for site development, and associated Plumbing permits from the Inspections Services department executed due to water provision by the City. Staff Analysis Staff Recommendation and Basis: Staff supports the Preliminary Plat as it meets all of the requirements of the City’s Unified Development Code. Interdepartmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments Public notice is not required for a preliminary plat application. There have been no public comments received at the time of this report. Proposed Meetings Schedule October 21, 2014 – Planning and Zoning Commission Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use/Transportation Map Exhibit 3 - Staff Approved Preliminary/Final Plat CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OFGEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETOWN GeorgetownETJ Georgetown ETJ G e o r g e t o w n E T J Georgetown ETJ C IMARRONLN AIRPORT RD P A L O D U R O C T S I E R R A D R SANALOMA D R VORTAC LN C A V U R D PFP-201 4-005 PFP-2014-005 Exhibit #1 Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 500 1,000Feet ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ NEI nn er L o o p AirportRd §¨¦35 L a k e w a y A ir p o rt R d Site City Lim its Street Site ³ CITYOFGEORGETOWN C I T Y O FGEORGETO W N CITYOF GEORGETOWN CITY OFGEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETOWN Georgetown ETJ Ge o rg e t ow n ET J Georgetown ETJ Georgetown ETJ C A V U R D S I E R R A D R AIRPORT RD CIMARRONLN P A L O D U R O C T SANALOMA DR VORTAC LN PFP-201 4-005 0 500 1,000Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2PFP-2014-005 Legend Thoroughfare Future Land Use Institutional Regional Com mercial Community Com mercial Employment Center HIgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Com munity Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Ag / Rural Residential AirportRd §¨¦35 Site ³ City Lim its Street Site Existing Collector Existing Freeway Existing Major Arterial Existing Minor Arterial Existing Ramp Proposed Collector Proposed Freeway Propsed Frontage Road Proposed Major Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial Proposed Railroad 130 City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a Final Plat of Oak Crest Homestead, a Replat of Oak Crest Ranchettes, Unit II, Lot 15 (pt), located at 330 Evans Road. FP-2014-042 (Carla J. Benton) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant proposes to Replat Oak Crest Ranchettes, Unit II, Lot 15(pt) to allow the creation of one (1) additional residential lot by dividing 2.67 acres into two (2) lots. The existing residence will retain 1.63 acres (Lot 15-B) and the newly created lot will contain 1.04 acres (Lot 15A). Public Comments: A total of 9 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the original platted lots. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on October 5th, 2014. As of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received. Recommended Motion: Approval of a Final Plat Oak Crest Homestead, a Replat of Oak Crest Ranchettes, Unit II, Lot 15 (pt), located at 330 Evans Road. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Carla J. Benton ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Report Exhibit 1 Backup Material Report Exhibit 2 Backup Material Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Oak Crest Ranchettes, Lot 15 Replat Page 1 of 3 FP-2014-042 Report Date: October 8, 2014 File No: FP-2014-042 Project Planner: Carla Benton, Planner Item Details Project Name: Oak Crest Homestead a Replat of Oak Crest Ranchettes, Unit II, Lot 15 (pt) Project Address: 330 Evans Road Location: Evans Road and Oak Ridge Road, east of D.B. Wood Rd. (See Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 2.67 acres Legal Description: Oak Crest Ranchettes, Unit II, Lot 15 (pt) Applicant: Kathy Heideman, Forest Surveying Property Owner: Daniel and Marlene Mansour Contact: Kathy Heideman, Forest Surveying Proposed Lots: 1 existing residentially developed lot Streets Proposed: None Parkland: Parkland requirements are not applicable Heritage Trees: There are three (3) Heritage Trees on this plat Existing Use: Residential lot Existing Zoning: Located in the extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ); no zoning Growth Tier: Tier 2 Applicant’s Request The applicant proposes to Replat Oak Crest Ranchettes, Unit II, Lot 15(pt) to allow the creation of one (1) additional residential lot by dividing 2.67 acres into two (2) lots. The existing residence will retain 1.63 acres (Lot 15-B) and the newly created lot will contain 1.04 acres (Lot 15A). Site Information Location: The property is located on Evans Road at the intersection with Oakridge Road and Skyline Road, east of D.B. Wood Road. (See Exhibit 1) Physical Characteristics: The tract is developed with one residence, located in the Extra-territorial Jurisdiction of the city. There are three (3) Heritage Trees on this plat. History: Oak Crest Ranchettes, Unit II subdivision was recorded in the Official Plat documents of Williamson Planning Department Staff Report Oak Crest Ranchettes, Lot 15 Replat Page 2 of 3 FP-2014-042 County on March 29, 1971, Document # 1971009207. 2030 Plan Conformance The proposed Final Plat is in conformance with the 2030 Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. This land use category comprises single-family neighborhoods that can be accommodated at a density ranging between 1.1 and 3 dwelling units per gross acre. This project is located within Tier 2 of the City’s Growth Tier Plan. Tier 2 lies outside the city but within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). This area likely will be needed to serve the city’s growth needs over the next 10-20 years. Utilities Utilities will be provided by Pedernales Electric, City of Georgetown for water and septic is provided on-site. Public utility easements are being provided according to City standards. Transportation These lots are accessed via Oak Ridge Road via D.B. Wood Road. Future Application(s) Additional applications with the City of Georgetown will be required only for plumbing permits for the residential development of Lot 15A. Staff Analysis The tract proposes to divide 2.67 acres into two (2) lots. The existing residence will retain 1.63 acres (Lot 15B) and the newly created lot will contain 1.04 acres (Lot 15A). Planning Department Staff Report Oak Crest Ranchettes, Lot 15 Replat Page 3 of 3 FP-2014-042 Staff Recommendation and Basis: Staff supports the Final Plat as it meets the requirements of the City’s Unified Development Code. 1. The Future Land Use designation of Low Density Residential supports the proposed development as it remains within the design criteria for Low Density Residential. 2. The protection of Heritage Trees is maintained by this plat. 3. The proposed Replat meets the requirements of the Unified Development Code. Special Consideration: None Interdepartmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of 9 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the original platted lots. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on October 5th, 2014. As of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received. Proposed Meetings Schedule October 21, 2014 – Planning and Zoning Commission Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Final Plat C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OFGEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OFGEORGETOWN G e o r g e t o w n E T J Georgetown ETJ G e o r g e t o w n E T J G e o r g e t o w n E T J SKYLINE RD RIVERC H A S E B L V D D B W O O D R D O A K R I D G E R D EVANS RD FP-2 014-042 FP-2014-042 Exhibit #1 Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 500 1,000Feet ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ D B W o o d R d Lake Georgetown DBWood R d Site City Lim its Street Site ³ Boot y's C r o s s i n g R d City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a Consent Agreement associated with a proposed Municipal Utility District (MUD) for 284.62 acres to be known as Crescent Bluff, located on SH 29 West near Cedar Hollow Road. ITEM SUMMARY: The proposed Municipal Utility District (MUD) covers 284 acres west of the Water Oak subdivision. The purpose of the Consent Agreement is to accept a request for a MUD finance district in order to fund mostly on-site improvements. The MUD will build the extension of the San Gabriel River South Fork Trail and part of the regional sewer interceptor. The project will follow the UDC, with minor exceptions and enhancements. The land use plan for the MUD establishes predominantly single-family residential uses with a small retail area. History: In August 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a plat for a 106-acre development outside of the city limits. Shortly thereafter, the developer requested reimbursement for funds contributed towards the South Fork Interceptor in a previous contract with the Water Oak developers. Conversations then turned toward the possibility of a MUD, with contributions available for further wastewater improvements, allocations towards the Water Oak bridge, and construction of a portion of the planned South Fork trail. The property owner of the land platted on the 106 acres then contracted with the owner of 178 acres to the west, at the City's urging, to increase the size of the proposed district. The City also benefits from sewered development on the additional land area, instead of septic development that had been contemplated in discussions with previous applicants. The City Council adopted a new policy for planning and administering MUD requests on September 23, 2014 however this request was initiated prior to Council adoption of the new MUD policy. MUDs initiated after adoption of the new MUD policy will be held to the standards of the new policy. Highlights: Staff is asking the Commission to make a recommendation on planning-related items only. These items include aspects of the physical development and standards that would otherwise be applied through the zoning code. Legal, financial and utility specifics will not be presented for discussion, except as summarized in the Financial Impact section of this report (below). The items included in this discussion are as follows: * Extension of South San Gabriel interceptor * Funds to augment the construction costs of the planned Water Oak Parkway Bridge * Construction of South Fork hike/bike trail along the River * Internal trail and open space connectivity * Protection of future SH 29 right of way, to allow for future expansion * Water and fire flow provided through Georgetown Utility Western District The development of this project will be an ETJ MUD and will not be considered for annexation until the debt is retired to a level deemed manageable from a financial standpoint. The City will provide utility service and permit review, but no public safety service, road maintenance or code enforcement until and unless the property is annexed for full-purpose at some time in the future. Attached are Sections 6-8 of the draft Consent Agreement which detail issues related to land development, parks, and roadways, plus related exhibits. Staff Recommended Motion Approval of the Consent Agreement for a Municipal Utility District to be known as Crescent Bluff FINANCIAL IMPACT: * This project is an ETJ MUD that is expected to issue $46M in MUD bonds under terms prescribed by the City, including 20 year bonds issues within a 10 year window from the first bond issue. * This development will not require street or police services until annexation, which is estimated to be beyond 2046. The MUD Tax rate is set at $0.95 which is the market rate for the area. * The City will receive an 8% Master Development Fee (MDF) to offset any potential property tax revenue for any City services used by the residents. The $3M MDF includes a $1M payment to help fund the Water Oak bridge to improve connectivity for public health safety, as well as, a $500,000 credit related to previous contributions for Wastewater infrastructure. The net amount (approximately $1.4M) will be paid to the City's General Fund. * Additionally, the MUD will pay property taxes to ESD #8 for fire protection services, and $630 per unit Fire SIP fee to the City for contributions toward costs associated with the construction of the Water Oak Fire Station. * Crescent Bluff residents will be City water (through the Western District) and sewer customers, not GUS electric. As part of this agreement, the developer will be required to extend the South San Gabriel Wastewater Interceptor, thus extending sewer services westward, with no costs to the City * As approved by Parks Board on October 9th, the MUD will construct the extension of the South San Gabriel River trail with a corresponding public parking lot and trails throughout the development connecting to the river. SUBMITTED BY: Jordan Maddox ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Location Map Backup Material Future Land Use Backup Material Aerial Backup Material Agreement Sections 6-8 Exhibit Exhibit A - Survey Exhibit Exhibit B - Survey Sketch Exhibit Exhibit C - Finance Plan Exhibit Exhibit D - Land Plan Exhibit Exhibit E - Land Development Standards Exhibit Parks/Open Space exhibits Exhibit (R i v e r /Stream) W SH 29 LEANING O A K L N C E D A R H O L L O W R D H I G H L A N D R I D G E R D M O R N I N G V I E W R D R A N C H O B UENODR TBD 21 E L R A N C H E R O R D TBD 23 CANTERAW AY C H A P A R R A L R D C U T S T O N E P A S S I N D I G O L N O X B O WCV W OODWAY BND TER R A C E V I E W D R FAWN GLEN Q U A R R Y H I L L D R G A B R I E L F O R E S T VISTAHE I G H T S D R V I S T A H EIGHT S D R B A R R E L B E N D LAZY OAKSDR AMBLING TRL WATEROAKPKWY CIBOLO RIDGEDR E S T A N C I A W A Y O L D C R E EKSIDERD DA-2014-003 Exhibit #1 Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 2,500 5,000Feet ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ L e a n d e r R d ¬«29 Site City Lim its Street Site ³ DA-2014-003 (R iv e r/ S t r e a m ) W SH 29 LEANING O A K L N FAIROAKS DR LONG S H A D O W L N H I G H L A N D R I D G E R D TBD 21 TBD 23 CANTERAWA Y TBD C H A P A R R A L R D C U T S T O N E P A S S TBD 24 CLEA RRIDGEC V C E D A R H O L L O W R D Q U A R R Y H I L L D R R A N C H O B U E N O DR G A B R I E L F O R E S T V I S TA HEIG H T S D R CIBOLO RIDGEDR TER R A C E V I E W D R WATEROAKPKWY E S TA N C I A W A Y O L D C R E EKSIDERD 0 2,000 4,000Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2 DA-2014-003 Legend Thoroughfare Future Land Use Institutional Regional Com mercial Community Com mercial Employment Center Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Com munity Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Ag / Rural Residential Lea n d e r R d ")2243 ¬«29 ¬«29 Site ³ City Lim its Street Site Existing Collector Existing Freeway Existing Major Arterial Existing Minor Arterial Existing Ramp Proposed Collector Proposed Freeway Propsed Frontage Road Proposed Major Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial Proposed Railroad High Density Residential DA-2014-003 E L R A N C H E R O R D HIG H W AT E R D R L E A N I N G O A K L N FAIR OAKS DR W I N D I N G W A Y D R W SH 29 TBD 23 T B D 2 7 TURNING LEAF TRL LAZY OAKS DR CROSS MOUNTAIN TRL L O N G F I E L D D R H I G H L A N D R I D G E R D CANTERA WAY TBD 21 CIBOLO RIDGE DR TBD C H A P A R R A L R D C U T S T O N E P A S S O X B O W C V T E R R A C E V I E W D R TBD 24 C L E A RRIDGE C V WATER OAK PKWY C E D A R H O L L O W R D W A T E R L O O C V WOODWAY BND V I S T A H E I G H T S D R Q U A R R Y H I L L D R R A N C H O B U E N O D R G A B R I E L F O R E S T E S T A N C I A W A Y OLD CREEKSIDE RD LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ 0 2,000 4,000Feet Exhibit #4 DA-2014-003 ")2243 ¬«29 Site City Lim its Street Site ³ DA-2014-003 WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 CONSENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN TEXAS AND ZAMIN, L.P., AND WILLIAMSON COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 30 DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2014 WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page i Contents ARTICLE I INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. ARTICLE III EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.01 Execution of this Agreement. .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.02 Execution of the Strategic Partnership Agreement. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.03 Execution of Consent to the Partial Assignment of Receivables Agreement. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.04 Organizational Meeting of the District’s Board.. ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.05 Limit on Authority.. ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.06 Effect of Failure to Timely Execute and Return Documents. Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.07 Withdrawal of Consent. ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.08 Required Submittals to the City Prior to Creation of the District.Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.09 No Incorporation; No Other Special Districts. .......... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.10 Limit on Exercise of Eminent Domain Powers. ....... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.11 Interlocal Agreements. ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.12 Service Contracts and Interlocal Agreements. ............ Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.13 District Property. ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. ARTICLE IV ISSUANCE OF BONDS ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.01 Issuance of Bonds. ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.02 Authorized Purposes. ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.03 Timing of Issuances. . ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.04 Amount of Bonds. ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.05 Bond Requirements. .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.06 Economic Feasibility. ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.07 Notice of Bond Issues. ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.08 Compliance with Agreements. .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.09 Certifications.. ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.10 Bond Objections. . ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.11 Official Statements.. .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.12 Limitation on Bond Issuance. .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. ARTICLE V TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.01 Tax Rate Considerations for Proposed Bonds. ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.02 District Fees. .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.03 Reimbursement of City Expenses. ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.04 Bridge Payment. . ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.05 City Master Development Fee. .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. ARTICLE VI LAND DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................... 5 6.01 Land Plan. ................................................................................................................... 5 6.02 Modifications to the Land Plan. ................................................................................... 5 6.03 Plat Approval. ............................................................................................................. 6 WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page ii 6.04 Public Infrastructure. .................................................................................................. 7 6.05 Easements. .................................................................................................................... 7 6.06 Commencement of Construction; Notice; Inspections.. ............................................... 9 6.07 Inspections.. .................................................................................................................. 9 6.08 Building Permits. . ....................................................................................................... 9 6.09 Certificate of Occupancy and Final Inspection. . ...................................................... 10 6.10 Stop Work Orders. ...................................................................................................... 10 6.11 Plat Review Fees. . .................................................................................................... 10 6.12 Plan Review Fees........................................................................................................ 10 6.13 City Inspection Fees. . ............................................................................................... 10 6.14 Building Permit Fees. . .............................................................................................. 11 6.15 Impact Fees.. ............................................................................................................... 11 6.16 Fire Service Improvement Program (“SIP) Fees. ..................................................... 11 ARTICLE VII OPEN SPACE, PARKLAND, AND TRAILS ..................................................... 11 7.01 Parkland Fees. ........................................................................................................... 11 7.02 South San Gabriel River Trail Improvements. ........................................................... 12 7.03 Open Space, Parkland, Internal Trails and Other Recreational Facilities. ............... 14 ARTICLE VIII ROADWAYS ...................................................................................................... 14 8.01 On-Site Roadways. ................................................................................................... 14 8.02 Off-Site Roadways. .................................................................................................. 14 ARTICLE IX PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE - GENERAL ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. 9.01 Water and Wastewater Public Infrastructure. ............ Error! Bookmark not defined. 9.02 Drainage and Water Quality Public Infrastructure. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 9.03 Transfer of Ownership, Op. and Maintenance for Public Infrastructure. ............ Error! Bookmark not defined. ARTICLE X WASTEWATER SERVICE .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 10.01 Provision of Wastewater Service. . ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 10.02 Construction of the SSGI. ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 10.03 Phase D Fiscal Security.. .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 10.04 Draws on the Phase D Fiscal Security. ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 10.05 Limit on Wastewater Connections. ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 10.06 Information Transfer. ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 10.07 Wastewater Service to Third Parties. ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. ARTICLE XI SERVICES.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 11.01 Water Services. . ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 11.02 Wastewater Services. Error! Bookmark not defined. 11.03 Garbage Services. . ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 11.04 Police, Fire and EMS Services. Error! Bookmark not defined. 11.05 Street Lighting. .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 11.06 Fire Hydrants. ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 11.07 Services Outside the District. .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. ARTICLE XII ANNEXATION ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 12.01 General. ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 12.02 Filing of Notices. ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 12.03 Partial Annexations by City. ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 12.04 District Annexation by City. ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page iii 12.05 Zoning on Annexation by the City. ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 12.06 Annexation by the District. ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. ARTICLE XIII AUTHORITY ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 13.01 Authority. . .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. ARTICLE XIV REPORTING ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 14.01 District Information to be Provided to the City. ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. 14.02 Financial Dormancy Affidavit, Financial Report or Audit. Error! Bookmark not defined. 14.03 Other Documents. ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. ARTICLE XV TERM, ASSIGNMENT; BREACH AND REMEDIESError! Bookmark not defined. 15.01 Term. .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 15.02 Agreement to Run with the Land; Assignment. .......... Error! Bookmark not defined. 15.03 Notification of Breach. ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 15.04 Cure of Breach.. ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 15.05 Limitations on Actions During Cure Period. ............. Error! Bookmark not defined. 15.06 Remedies for Breach. .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 15.07 Cooperation. ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. ARTICLE XVI MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS .................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 16.01 Notice. ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 16.02 Severability; Waiver. ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 16.03 Applicable Law and Venue. ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 16.04 Entire Agreement. ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 16.05 Exhibits, Headings, Construction and Counterparts. . Error! Bookmark not defined. 16.06 Time. . ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 16.07 Notice to End Buyer. ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 16.08 Authority for Execution. ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 16.09 Exhibits. .................................................................................................................... 15 16.10 Recordation. ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 4 CONSENT AGREEMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § This Consent Agreement (“Agreement”) is between the City of Georgetown, Texas (the “City”), a home-rule city located in Williamson County, Texas, and ZAMIN, L.P., a Texas limited partnership, 6002 Camp Bullis Rd., San Antonio, TX 78257 (the “Owner”). Upon final creation of Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 30, a municipal utility district to be created pursuant to Article XVI, Section 59 of the Texas Constitution and under Chapters 49 and 54 of the Texas Water Code (the “District”), the District shall join in this Agreement and be bound by its provisions. ARTICLE I INTRODUCTION 1.01 Owner is the owner of, or has a contract to purchase, that certain real property described by metes and bounds on Exhibit A and shown by sketch on Exhibit B, consisting of approximately 284 acres of land, more or less (the “Land”). The Land lies entirely within the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (“ETJ”). 1.02 Section 42.042 of the Texas Local Government Code and Section 54.016 of the Texas Water Code require the City’s written consent to create a municipal utility district within a City’s ETJ. Section 13.10 of the City’s Unified Development Code (“UDC”) sets forth the City’s requirements for requests to create a special district. 1.03 On July 3, 2014, Owner filed with the City Secretary’s office a petition requesting the consent of the City to the creation of a municipal utility district on the Land (the “Creation Petition”). 1.04 On October 28, 2014 the City Council adopted Resolution No. _______________ (the “Consent Resolution”) consenting to the creation of the District on the Land. 1.05 This Agreement requires, among other things, that a Strategic Partnership Agreement as authorized by Section 43.0751 of the Texas Local Government Code be entered into by the District and the City. 1.06 Owner and the City intend that the purpose of this Agreement is to set out the mutually agreeable terms and conditions relating to the creation and operation of WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 5 the District and development of the Land, consistent with the Consent Resolution, and that this Agreement and the Strategic Partnership Agreement are essential elements of the granting of the City’s consent to creation of the District. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements, covenants, and conditions hereinafter set forth, the Parties contract as follows. Sections 2-5 omitted from this excerpt ARTICLE II LAND DEVELOPMENT A. LAND PLAN 6.01 Land Plan. The City Council hereby approves the Land Plan attached hereto as Exhibit D, the Land Development Standards attached hereto as Exhibit E, and use of the Land as follows: Up to 730 single family residential uses and no fewer than five (5) different lot sizes so as to create a variety of housing types; “Neighborhood Commercial” uses (as that term is defined in the UDC); and open space, parkland, and amenity areas as general shown on the Land Plan or more specifically provided in this Agreement. All development of the Land must be in compliance with the Land Plan, the Land Development Standards attached hereto as Exhibit E, and the Governing Regulations. 6.02 Modifications to the Land Plan. (a) Because the Land comprises a significant area and its development will occur in phases over a number of years, modifications to the Land Plan may become desirable due to changes in market conditions or other factors. Owner may request modifications to the Land Plan. Minor Modifications of the Land Plan pertaining to (a) roadway and trail alignments; (b) changes in the density of specific sections or phases shown on the Land Plan that do not increase the overall density of development on the Land, and (c) changes of less than 20% in the size of any section or phase shown WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 6 on the Land Plan, shall be considered Minor Modifications over which the Planning Director will have final review and decision- making authority. In addition, the City may request modifications to the Land Plan relating to roadway and trail alignments if necessary to due to topography, terrain, floodplains and floodways, alignment with connections to adjoining portions of roadways, trails, or utilities on adjacent properties, and similar situations, all of which shall be considered Minor Modifications over which the Planning Director will have final review and decision-making authority. All other changes to the Land Plan that are not Minor Modifications shall be considered Major Modifications. Major Modifications to the Land Plan must be approved as an amendment to this Agreement by the City Council. After approval by the City in accordance with this Section, all Minor Modifications and Major Modifications to the Land Plan shall be recorded by the City at Owner’s expense in the Official Records of Williamson County, and thereafter, all references in this Agreement to the Land Plan shall mean and refer to the then most current approved and recorded Land Plan. (b) Minor Modifications to Land Plan allowed by Section 6.02(a) of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be changes to the Project under Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code. All Major Modifications to the Land Use Plan shall be deemed to be changes to the Project under Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code, and the provisions of the UDC and all other applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time of such Major Modifications shall apply unless the City agrees otherwise. B. DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 6.03 Plat Approval. Subdivision of the Land shall require approval of preliminary and final plats by the City. IT SHALL BE A CONDITION TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY, AS WELL AS A REQUIREMENT FOR COMPLETENESS, OF ANY APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OR FINAL PLAT OF ANY PORTION OF THE LAND THAT NO MATERIAL EVENT OF DEFAULT SHALL EXIST WITH REGARD TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AS OF THE FILING DATES FOR SUCH APPLICATIONS. WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 7 6.04 Public Infrastructure. Construction of all Public Infrastructure shall comply with the Governing Regulations, and no construction or installation of Public Infrastructure shall begin until plans and specifications have been approved by the City, bonds have been posted and insurance procured as required by Exhibit P, and all other requirements of the Governing Regulations pertaining to construction of Public Infrastructure have been met. All Public Infrastructure shall be constructed and installed in compliance with the Governing Regulations and shall be inspected to determine compliance. 6.05 Easements. (a) General. Owner or the District shall obtain all easements necessary for the construction of the Public Infrastructure at no cost to the City. All Public Infrastructure (including water and wastewater facilities up to the customer’s side of the meter) shall be placed within dedicated or recorded utility easements or public rights-of- way. All easements for Public Infrastructure that are to be transferred to the City shall be on forms acceptable to the City Attorney. Except as otherwise required by this Agreement, all easements required by this Agreement to be conveyed to the City shall be conveyed to the City no later than the date that the final plat is recorded for the land within which the improvements will be constructed. (b) Easements for Phase D of the SSGI: Owner or the District shall, at no cost to the City, obtain all temporary construction easements and permanent utility easements necessary for the construction of Phase D of the SSGI, as well as all access easements necessary for the on-going maintenance and repair of Phase D of the SSGI (collectively, the “Phase D Easements”). The Phase D Easements shall be in a form substantially similar to the forms of easements attached hereto as Exhibit O and approved by the City Attorney. Owner or the District shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the Phase D Easements on or before August 1, 2015. (1) If Owner or the District is unable to obtain the Phase D Easements on or before said date, the City may, but is not required to, acquire the Phase D Easements, using its powers of eminent domain if necessary, at Owner’s sole cost and expense; subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 8 Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the written request from Owner requesting that the City acquire the Phase D Easements and documenting its good faith efforts to secure the Phase D Easements (including but not limited to offers, counteroffers, positions of the parties, valuation documentation, etc.), City shall provide a preliminary written estimate to the Owner of projected costs and expenses related to acquisition of the Phase D Easements. In addition, Owner shall provide payment in the full amount of the written estimate to the City within thirty (30) days after receipt of the written estimate. Owner shall pay all costs and expenses incurred by the City relating to the acquisition of the Phase D Easements, including, without limitation, costs of negotiating easements with landowners, preparation of easement instruments and surveys, payment of a negotiated sum for purchase of an easement, and purchase or condemnation costs incurred by the City, including any litigation related thereto (including legal fees, witness costs, and court costs). In the event that the actual costs of easement acquisition exceed the original estimate, Owner shall provide payment of the additional amount within fifteen (15) days of receipt of a written request for payment from the City. In the event that the actual costs of easement acquisition are less than this sum, the City shall promptly refund the excess amount to Owner. (2) Owner acknowledges and agrees that the City will not authorize its employees, representatives, agents or consultants to acquire the Phase D Easements until the foregoing payments are received by the City in full. Failure by Owner to timely pay any invoice in full shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. (3) In no event shall the City be required to initiate efforts to acquire the Phase D Easements before October 1, 2015. (4) The City shall make available to Owner and the District the existing public easements associated with other segments of the SSGI for the purpose of constructing Phase D of the SSGI, at no cost to Owner or the District. WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 9 (c) South San Gabriel River Trail Easements. The easements related to the South San Gabriel Trail Improvements shall conform to the requirements of Section 7.02 of this Agreement. (d) City Right of Entry. Owner hereby grants to the City, its agents, employees, representatives and assigns, a right to enter the Land for purposes consistent with this Agreement. 6.06 Commencement of Construction; Notice; Inspections. Following City approval of the plans and specifications for the Public Infrastructure and prior to the commencement of construction, Owner shall give written notice to the Utility Director in order to allow the City to assign an inspector. The City will inspect all Public Infrastructure to be dedicated or conveyed to the City for compliance with the approved plans and specifications. The City will provide the inspections contemplated by this Section for the standard fees charged by the City for inspections inside the City limits, which fees will be collected by the City from the customer requesting the inspection. The City will retain copies of all inspection reports for the City’s applicable records retention period, and provide them to the District upon request. 6.07 Inspections. The City will inspect all Public Infrastructure that will be dedicated or conveyed to the City. The District engineer can observe City inspections for the purpose of gathering the information required to complete and submit all TCEQ required reports. At no cost to the City, the District engineer will inspect Public Infrastructure which is to be owned and maintained by the District, the County or any other entity other than the City. The City and the District engineer shall maintain a permanent record of all Public Infrastructure and other improvements inspected. All such records shall be made available to the City upon request within ten (10) days after the inspection is performed (including reports that identify deficiencies and subsequent corrective actions). All such records shall be kept in a form reasonably approved by the City and as otherwise required by applicable law or regulations. 6.08 Building Permits. No Structure shall be constructed unless a building permit has been issued by the City certifying that the plans and specifications for the Structure are in compliance with the Governing Regulations. No building permit shall be issued for a Structure unless a final plat has been recorded for the lot on which the Structure is being constructed. This Section shall not apply to temporary Structures placed on the Land for the purposes of the initial confirmation election for the District. WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 10 6.09 Certificate of Occupancy and Final Inspection. No Structure shall be occupied until a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the City (for commercial Structures) or a final inspection certifying that the Structure has been constructed in compliance with the Governing Regulations (for residential Structures). All costs for the certificates of occupancy or final inspections shall be paid for by the builder performing the work (or by the owner of the property on which the work is being performed). 6.10 Stop Work Orders. The City shall have the right to inspect, from time to time, the construction of any Public Infrastructure and any Structure. If the City determines that any Public Infrastructure or Structure is not being constructed in compliance with the Governing Regulations and the contractor or builder fails to correct the non-compliance within a reasonable period of time after notice thereof, the City shall have the right to enforce compliance and to stop new work on the Public Infrastructure or Structure by the issuance of a “stop-work order” until the non- compliance is corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the City. Nothing in this Section 6.10 is intended to create any liability of the City to determine whether any Public Infrastructure or Structure is constructed in accordance with the Governing Regulations. C. FEES 6.11 Plat Review Fees. Development of the Land shall be subject to payment to the City of the reasonable fees and charges applicable to the City’s preliminary and final plat review and approval process (the “Plat Review Fees”) according to the fee schedule adopted by the City Council and in effect on the date of submittal of each plat application. The fee schedule applicable to the Land shall be uniformly applicable to all development within the ETJ of the City. 6.12 Plan Review Fees. Development of the Land shall be subject to payment to the City of the reasonable fees and charges applicable to the City’s review of plans and specifications for Public Infrastructure to be dedicated or conveyed to the City (the “Plan Review Fees”) according to the fee schedule adopted by the City Council and in effect on the date of submittal of each set of plans and specifications. The fee schedule applicable to the Land shall be uniformly applicable to all development within the ETJ of the City. 6.13 City Inspection Fees. Development of the Land shall be subject to payment to the City of the reasonable fees and charges applicable to inspections performed by the City for Public Infrastructure to be dedicated or conveyed to the City (the “Inspection Fees”) according to the fee schedule adopted by the City Council WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 11 and in effect on the date of each such inspection. The fee schedule applicable to the Land shall be uniformly applicable to all development within the ETJ of the City. 6.14 Building Permit Fees. Development of the Land shall be subject to payment to the City of the reasonable fees and charges applicable to the City’s issuance of building permits and certificates of substantial completion (the “Building Permit Fees”) according to the fee schedule adopted by the City Council and in effect on the date of submittal of each building permit application. The fee schedule applicable to the Land shall be uniformly applicable to all development within the ETJ of the City. 6.15 Impact Fees. Owner agrees that the City’s wastewater Impact Fees shall be assessed at the time that every preliminary plat for all or a portion of the Land is approved by the City and that the amount of the wastewater impact fee shall be the wastewater impact fee then in effect under Chapter 13.32 of the City Code of Ordinances. Owner agrees that the wastewater impact fees shall be paid at the time a final plat for all or a portion of the Land is approved by the City. The applicable water impact fees in effect at the time of final plat are due at the time a final plat for all or a portion of the Land is approved by the City. 6.16 Fire Service Improvement Program (“SIP) Fees. Owner agrees to pay or cause to be paid a fee for fire services in the amount of SIX HUNDRED THIRTY U.S. DOLLARS ($630.00) per legal lot (the “Fire SIP Fee”) at the time of each building permit application. ARTICLE VII OPEN SPACE, PARKLAND, AND TRAILS 7.01 Parkland Fees. The parkland fees for the portion of the Land defined in this Agreement as the “Zamin Tract” shall be those fees in effect at the time that a final plat for any portion of the “Zamin Tract” is approved by the City. For Section One of the “Zamin Tract” (as said Section One is shown on the “Preliminary Plat for Crescent Bluff,” City Project No. PP-2012-017-C-376, executed by the Chair of the City’s Planning & Zoning Commission on 8/6/2014), Owner shall pay said parkland fees on a per lot basis as required by the UDC. In consideration of Owner’s conveyance of land for and construction of the South San Gabriel Trail Improvements, no parkland fees shall be assessed for that portion of the Land defined in this Agreement as the “Chapman Tract” or for Sections Two through Five of that of the “Zamin Tract” (as said Sections Two through Five are shown on the “Preliminary Plat for Crescent Bluff,” City Project No. PP-2012-017-C-376, executed by the Chair of the City’s Planning & Zoning Commission on 8/6/2014). WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 12 7.02 South San Gabriel River Trail Improvements. (a) River Trail Easement. Owner shall, at no cost to the City, convey the River Trail Easement (defined herein) to the City on or before the date that is one hundred eighty (180) days after the City sends Notice to Owner requesting same. (b) River Trail Design. Owner or District shall, at no cost to the City, commence design of the River Trail (defined herein) upon the earlier of (1) the recording of the first single-family residential final plat on any portion of the Land; or (2) the date that the City provides Notice to Owner or the District that the City or another entity has submitted design drawings to the City for approval of the portion of the trail adjacent to the Land. (c) River Trail Construction. Owner or District shall complete construction of the River Trail no later than twelve (12) months after the date that the City approves the design documents for the River Trail. Upon final completion and acceptance by the City, the River Trail shall be conveyed to the City for operation and maintenance. (d) River Trail Parking Lot. Owner or District shall, at no cost to the City, complete construction of the River Trail Parking Lot (herein defined) no later than the date that construction of the River Trail is completed and accepted for operation and maintenance by the City. Upon final completion, the River Trail Parking Lot shall be owned and maintained by the District to standards at least as stringent as the City’s standards and in accordance with Applicable Laws, and the City shall have no responsibility therefor. (e) River Trail Access Trail. Owner or District shall, at no cost to the City, complete final construction of a River Trail Access Trail as provided herein. At all times on and after the date of the City’s final acceptance of the River Trail and the River Trail Parking Lot, there shall be access from a local public street within Zamin Tract to the River Trail and thence to the River Trail Parking Lot as follows: (1) That segment of the River Trail Access Trail connecting the River Trail Parking Lot to the River Trail shall be finally WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 13 completed no later than the date that construction of the River Trail is completed and accepted for operation and maintenance by the City. Prior to January 1, 2025, this portion of the trail may be constructed using decomposed granite or mulch; however, on and after January 1, 2025, this portion of the trail must be constructed (or re-constructed, as the case may be) as an ADA-compliant concrete trail accordance with the specifications attached hereto as Exhibit M. (2) For segments of the River Trail Access Trail connecting the developed portions of the Land to the River Trail Parking Lot and thence to the River Trail that are located within any portion of the Land for which a final plat has been recorded in the Official Records of Williamson County, the River Trail Access Trail shall consist of either a six (6) foot wide ADA- compliant concrete trail, or a UDC-compliant sidewalk adjacent to a public street. (3) The District shall be responsible for ownership, maintenance and repair of the River Trail Access Trail to standards at least as stringent as the City’s standards and in accordance with Applicable Laws. (4) No final plat shall be approved by the City for any portion of the Chapman Tract unless and until the Owner or the District has either (i) completed construction of the South San Gabriel River Improvements; or (ii) posted financial assurance for the design and construction of the South San Gabriel River Improvements in the amount and form required by the City. All applications for preliminary plats for all or any portion of the Chapman Tract shall include a request to include a plat note on the preliminary plat referencing the requirements of this Section 7.02(e)(4). (f) Maintenance Connections. Owner shall grant to the City, but not to the general public, easements from the public streets or rights-of- way within the Land across portions of the Land as necessary to provide access by the City to the River Trail for emergency vehicles and maintenance and repair purposes. Such access easements shall WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 14 be in locations mutually agreed by Owner and the City, conveyed to the City by separate instrument acceptable in form and content to the City Attorney, and may be moved from time to time as the Land is finally platted. 7.03 Open Space, Parkland, Internal Trails and Other Recreational Facilities. Owner shall provide parkland, open space, and trails in the acreages and areas shown on the Land Plan. Such items, if provided and/or constructed, will be conveyed to, operated, and maintained by, the District for ownership, operation, and maintenance. The District agrees not to convey or transfer any open space, parkland and trails or any improvements located thereupon to a property owners association without the approval of the City Council. The District agrees to operate and maintain the open space, parkland and internal trails and all improvements located therein in a good state of repair and in accordance with City standards and all Applicable Laws, and in a manner so as not to create a nuisance or danger to the public health and safety. The City will have no obligation to operate or maintain the open space, parkland and internal trails or any improvements located thereon. All improvements constructed or installed in open space, parkland, greenbelt or common area must meet any applicable consumer product safety standards, and all other requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws. ARTICLE VIII ROADWAYS 8.01 On-Site Roadways. Owner or the District shall design and construct all On-Site Roadways that are necessary to serve the Land in conformance with the Land Plan and the Governing Regulations. Upon completion of construction, the On-Site Roadways shall be dedicated or transferred to Williamson County for ownership, maintenance and repair as and when any portion of the Land adjacent to such On-Site Roadways is platted or when otherwise required under the Governing Regulations. The On-Site Roadways shall be maintained in good condition and working order, ordinary wear and tear excepted. If Williamson County does not accept the On-Site Roadways, then such roadways shall be maintained to City standards by the District or, in the City’s sole discretion, by the City under a contract between the District and the City. Unless provided otherwise in a written contract between the City and the District approved by their respective governing bodies, the City shall have no responsibility for the owning, maintaining, or repairing the On-Site Roadways. 8.02 Off-Site Roadways. The City acknowledges receipt and approval of a Traffic Impact Analysis for the Zamin Tract. With regard to the Chapman Tract, prior WCMUD 30 Draft 10-13-14 Consent Agreement Williamson County MUD 30 DRAFT for P&Z Consideration Only Page 15 to the submittal of any development applications related to the Land, Owner shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Land prepared in compliance with Chapter 12.05 of the UDC. After approval of the TIA by the City, the City shall determine, in its sole discretion, whether (a) Owner shall construct the traffic-related improvements as required by the TIA, or (b) Owner shall pay to the City a sum equal to the traffic-related improvement costs identified in the TIA (the “TIA Improvement Costs”). The TIA Improvement Costs shall be paid to the City when and as required by the City. Notwithstanding anything in this Section or the TIA to the contrary, (x) Owner or Developer shall construct, at no cost to the City, all traffic signals or signal improvements on SH 29 adjacent to the Land; and (y) Owner’s proportionate share of the cost of the Bridge (as that term is defined in the Laredo WO Agreement) shall be equal to the amount of the Bridge Payment (defined in Section 5.04 of this Agreement). All remaining sections omitted from this excerpt Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement, and made a part hereof for all purposes: Exhibit A Land – metes and bounds description Exhibit B Land -- sketch Exhibit C Finance Plan Exhibit D Land Plan Exhibit E Land Development Standards Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit A 178.685 ACRES GALO PROPERTIES CHAPMAN TRACT Records, for the northeasterly corner concrete monument found in the said FN. NO. 07-753 (AJM) NOVEMBER 27, 2007 BPr JoB NO. 1640*19 hereof, from which a TXDOf southerly right-of-way line, DESCRIPTIO}iI 0F 178"685 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE ISAAC DONAGAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT No. I78, SITUATED IN WILLTAMSON coUNTY, TEXA$; BEING ALL oF THAT CERTAIN 73.74 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO DENNIS CHAPMAN, JR., AND WIFE' I{AROL CHAPMAN, OF RECORD IN DOCUMENT NO. 9545414, OF THE OFFICTAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; $LL OF THAT CERTATN 104.I95 ACRE TRACT DESCRTBED IN THE DEED TO DENNIS L. CHAPMAN, ,'TR. AND WIFE, KAROL C. CHAPMAN, oF RECORD IN DoCUMENT NO. 2OO1O3O7?8 OF THE OFFIC]AL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WITLTAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND ALso BE]NG Att oF THAT CERTATN a.0z ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO DENNIS CHAPMAN, JR. AND lTFE, KAROL CHAPMAN, OF RECORD IN DOCUMENT NO. 9641.81"3, OF SAID OFFTCIAL RECORDS; SAID 178.685 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGTNNTNG, at an axle found in the southerly right-of-way rine of state Highway 29 (L00' R.o.!,l. ), for the northeasterly corner of said 73.74 acre tract, being the northwesterly.corner of that certain 192,3L4 acre tract described in the deed to Laredo WO, Ltd., of record in Document No. 20Q7 014289 of said official pubtic for the point of curvature hears s82o 26, F6,,8, a dj_stance of a non-tangent curve to the left, of 528.21 feet; THENCEf reaving said southerry right*of*way line, along the westerry Line of said 192.314 acre tractr, being the easterly line of said 73.'14 acre tract found monumented, fencEd, and used bn the gT?und, for the easterly Line hereof, the fclrrowing twenty-three t23) courses and distances: 1) S02o50' 09'8, a distance of 1339.10 feet to a !/2. iron rod found at a fence post; 2) s05o02'r1"w, a distance of Lg,'lz feet to a 60d naiL found in a LL" Cedar tree; 3) s00o38'3L"w, a distance of j-j.4,90 feet to a 60d nail found in a L3" Live Oak tree; 4) S02o50'32"W, a distance of 41.68 feet to a 60d nail_ found in a B" Cedar tree; 5) $00'27'29"W, a distance of l-21.81 feet to a 60d naif found in a L2" triple Cedar tree; 6) s02"46'58'ui, a distance of 13.71. feet to an iron rod found; 'l) S00"3J'24*w, a distance of l6.t2 feet to an iron rod found; B) S03o41'13"E, a distance of S0.SL feet to an iron rod found; 9) S00'35'36"W, a distance of 238.00 feet to an iron rod found; Exhibit A FNO7-753 {A.TM) NOVEMBER 27, 2OO7 PAGE 2 OF 6 10) S00"3BrZl"Wt a distance of Z4.Zg feet to an iron ff) S00o09'35"E, a distance of 13S.9:" feet to a 60d a 6" Live Oak tree; LZ) S02"45'01."8, a distance of 39.40 feet to a 60d a L5" Cedar tree; L3) 503"11'51-"E, a distance of 123.58 feet to a 60d a cedar fence post; 14) S00'06'38"8, a dj-s'tance of 40.77 feet to a 60d a cedar fence post; 15) s01"39,20"w, a distance of L49.04 feet to a 60d a 18" Elm tree; 16) S02 o08, 59',w, a distance of 140. 6L feet to a 60d a L8" Cedar tree; 17) S01oL0'39"E, a distance of 96.13 feet to a 60d a 1"4" Elm tree; 18) S00o29'LgoE, a dj.stance of 311.0g feet to a 60d a 1,2" Cedar tree,- 79.29 feet to a 60d ?4.5f feet to a 60d rod found; nail found in nail found in naii- found in nail found in nail found in nail found in nail found in nail found in nail found in nail found in nail found in nail found hy 19) s02"25',02"8t a distance of a 1.5" Cedar tree; 20) s00'04rsz"w, a distance of a 7" Cedar treet 21") S02'05' 56"W, a distance of 31. 02 feet a 24" triple Pecan tree; 22\ S04'32'45"W, a distance of 49.08 feet a gate post; to a 60d to a 60d 23t S00"L5'54"E, a distance of 37A.43 feet to a !/2,, iron rod with cap found; EHEIICE, continuing alorrg an unfenced portion of the westerly line of said L92.3L4 acre tract, same being a portion of the ealterly line of said '73,14 acre tract, for a portibn of the easterry rinl hereof, the following two (2) courses and distances: S00o06'25"W, a distance of 't65.Zi feet to a L/2. iron rod with cap found on the high river bank; S00"L0'.15"8, a distance of 94.12 feet to a point in the approximate centerline meanders of the south san Gabriel River, being southwesterry corner of said 192.3L4 acre Lract, same being the southeasterly corner of said 73.?4 acre tract and the southeasterly corner hereof; tl 2') Exhibit A FN0?-753 (AJM) NOVEMBER 27, 2001 PAGE 3 OF 6 TIIFN9EI along the approximate centerline meanders of the South SanGabriel River, being a portion of the northerry line of thatcertain 3L4.00 acre tract described in the Aeed to Laredo !ilg,Ltd.' of record in Document No. 20070L4286 of said Official- public Records, for tl* southerly rine hereof, the folrowing sev€n (7)courses and distancesi 1 ) S 68 " dl1' 25"W, a distance of 49 .27 f eet to a point; 2l 574"39'3?-W, a distance of 256.96 feet to a point; 3 ) 581"L4' 08.w, a dist,ance southeasterly corne.r of the southwesterly corner angle point hereof; of 283.23 feet to a point for the said L04. L95 acre tractr same being of said 73,74 acre tract, for an 4) S80"I3'36'W, a distance of ?g.g7 feet to a point; 5) $77o52'13"W, a distance of 332.Bi feet to a point; 6) NSLoL1'}z"W| a distance of L?l.ST feet to a point; ?) N6Lo0?'30'w, a distance of Fg0.l0 feet to a point for thesoutheasterly corner of that certain 104.19b acre tracLdescribed in the deed to Glenna M. Co1e, of record in Volume !88, Page 862 of the Deed Records of Williamson C6unty,Texas, being the southvresterly corner of said 104, Lgg a"iichapman tract, for the southwesterly corner hereof; TnENcE' Ieaving said centerline meanders and the northerly l-ine ofsaid 314.00 acre tcact, along the conrmon line of said 104-.1gS acreCole tract and said 104"L95.-acre- Chapman tract, for the westertyline hereof, the following nine (9) course and distances: r) N09"AJ'Q5'8, a distance of 2T9.00 feet to an iron rod foundbeslde a fence post; 2l N09"00' 49"8, a di-stance of r.603. ?g feet to a L/2. iron rodset with cap,. 3) N44o42t54uEt a distance of 65.00 feet to a r/z- iron rodfound; 4) s76'32'40"E, a distance of s64.3? feet to a !/2,, iron rodfound; 5) N02" 49' 40"8, a distance of 319. j.9 feet to a L/2,, iron rodfound; 5) N5?'44t34'wt a distance of 133,BL feet to a !/z- iron rodfound; 7) s65"05' 34'l'l, a distance of 400. g1_ feet to a L/?.. iron rodfound; Exhibit A FN07-753 (ALTM) NOVBMBER 27, 2007 PAGE 4 OF 6 B ) N63 " 42t 1,3uW , a distance of i 47 .35 for: an angle point; feet to a fence post found 9) N02o53,36.[\1, a distance of Z3lg.js the southerly right-of-way line of the northwesterly corner hereof,. feet to a fence post in said State Highway 29, for THENCE, s82"30'10'E, -along a portion of the southerly right-of-wayline of said state . Highway ig, same being the northerly rine o-rsaid 104,195 acre Chapman tract, a distance of 1392.3g feet to aL/2" iron rod found for the northwesterly corner of that certain2-03 acre tract of land descrihed in the Deed to Dixie Moore, ofrecord in Document No. 2006041594 of sald Official public Records,being the northeaste.rly corner of said 1-04.195 acre Cnapman tract , for an angre point in the irregular northerly line hereof; THENCE, sl7o32'48'w, reaving sald southerly right-of-way rinealong tlhe westerly rine of said 2 . 03 acre tract, same being aportion of the ^eastefry fj-ne of said 104. Lgs acre ihapman tract, adistance of 523. 38 feet to a l/z inch iron rod withr- cap set forthe souLhwesterry corner of said z.03 acre tract, being thewesterly most northwesterly corner of said -13.74 acre tract and anangle point in the easterly line of said 104. lgs acre tract, andalso being the westerly corner of that certaj-n 0.02 acre tractdescribed in the deed to Dennis chapman, Jr. and Karol chapman, ofrecord j-n Document No. 9641.8L3 of - said Official Records, for anangle point in the irregular northerly line hereof; THENCE, s69o07'?guEt teaving the easterly rine of said j.04.rg5 acre chapman tract, along the southerJy -line of said z.o3 acretractr same being the northerry line of said 0.02 acre tract, adistance of 218. 90 feet to a I/2,' iron rod found for thenortheasterly corner of said 0.02 acre tract, same being thesoutheasterly corner of said 2.03 acre tract, also being i; thewesterly line of that certaj-n 3,22 acre tract of .Land desiribed inthe Deed t,o clint Hawes and wife, Marrane Hawes, of record inDocument No. 9638854 of said Official Public Records, for an anglepoint in the northerly line hereof; THENCE, $06"1-6r l5-w, arong the easterly I,ine of said 0,0z acretract, same being a portion of the westerry line of said j.zz acre tract, a distance of 2,3L feet to a L/z inch iron rod with cap set in the northerly l-ine of said 73.14 acre tract, same being thesoutheasterly corner of said 0.02 acre tract, for an angle -point in the northerly line hereof; TIIENCE, arong the southerry and easterly rines of said 3,zz acre llag!, being a portion of the i-rregurar northerry rine of said'13.74 acre tract,.for a portion of the irregular northerly rine hereof, the following seven (?) courses and distances: 1 ) sB 9"2 4t 3'1"8, a distance of 112 . 63 f eet to a 1,/ z. iron rod found in a fence Line; 2I S89'22t47uEt a distance of t66.28 feet to an iron rod found at a 15" Live Oak tree; Exhibit A FNo7-753 (AJM) NOVEMBER 27. 2007 PAGE 5 OF 6 3) N00o2Sr53,.E, a dj.stance of 1L.'t4 feet to a the fence line; 4 ) N04 "13' 57,,v'1f a distance of 36.10 feet to a a 8" Cedar; 5) N0Io09'22n8, a distance of t77.BZ feet to a a 15" Live Oak tree; 60d naiL found in 50d nail found in 60d nail found in 6) N05"72'r8"8, a distance of 1.96.34 feet. to an iron rod found in the fence line; 7) N0?o39'r6'E, a distance of 55.23 feet to an L/2,, iron rod found at a fence corner on saj-d southerl-y right-of-way line of State Highway Zj, for the northeasterly corner oi said 3,22 acre tract' same being the northerly mbst northwesterly corne.r of said 73.'74 acre tract, for an angle point in th; irregular northerly line hereof; llHENcE, sB2o28' zI"Et along said southerry right-of-way rine, being a portion of the northerly line of said 71.7a aire tract, i distance of 227 .47 feet to t,he POINT OF BEGINNIIIG, contaj-ning an area of 179.751- acres (7 tS2gr gFg $e. FT. ) of land, more er I-ess; withln these metes and bounds. gAvE Al'rD ExcEp[ THEREFROM THE FoLLowrNc TRACT oF r.At[D: 1.066 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE rSAAC DONAGAN $URVEy, ABSTRACT NO. ].78' SITUATED IN WIILIAMSON couNTY, TExAs; BETNG ALL OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS WHITELEY CEMETERY, DEED RECORDING INFORMATION NOT FOUND, SAID TRACT EEING SITUATED ALONG THE LINE COMMON TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE AFORESAID'73.'14 ACRE TRACT AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE AFORESAID ].04. ]-95 ACRE CHAPMAN TRACT; SAID 1..066 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWST BEGTNNTNG, at a L/2" iron rod found by a fence corner post at the occupied southeasterly corner of said j..066 acre tract, being an angle point in the easterly rine of said 104. rg5 acre cha-pman tract and the westerly l-ine of said ?3.?4 acre tract, from whicrt an axle found in the southerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 29, lor the northeasterry corner of said i3.i4 acre tract hears N09"1"8t44"8, a distance br 332?.s3 feet, and arso from which a L/2" iron rod with cap found on the easterly line of said 7j.14 acre tract, being on the high north bank of the South San Gabriel River bears S2? " LJ' 30"8t a distance of 1309. 56 f eet; THTTIE' along the f enced southerly and raresterly lines of said 1.066 acre tract, being a portion of the easteiry rine of said 104,195 acre Chapman tract, the following two {2) courses and distances: 1) N?6o54'06"w, a distance of Zl-4.ii feet to a I/2, iron rod found at a fence corner post,, for the southwesterly corner of said 1.066 acre tract, and angle point in the easterly line of said 104.195 acre Chapman tract; Exhibit A FNO7-7s3 (AJM) NOVEMBER 27, 2AO7 PAGE 6 Or 6 2l N12o3s'33-E,, a distance of 2r.5 " 69 feet to a r/2, iron rodfound at _a fence "o.rr*r post, for the northwesterly corner ofsaid L'066 acre tr""i, the *"**-n"ing in the "uste"ry rine ofsaid 7s-i4 acre trac-t, from wrricri-a r/2, iron rod found foran angre point in the ";**;;-'rin* of said 104 " r.95 acre:llfTil_ r"T.1, f:$ ?*1, r, lii'"I ",*- T,a cr bears N r r s s1 li. ;,-- ; TEENCE' alonq the fenced northerly -and. easterry r.ines of said1" 066 acre tragt, .being -a portlon'of irr* westerry line of said73.74 acre tract, the rJffi"inU t*.- 121 Jou""uu and disr,ances: L) s76"20'24"8, a distance of 2r_g.35 feet to a r/2. iron rodfound at e fence **ttt*r post, for the northeasterly corner ofX l'3" i; tff . if ?J-'"fJ"ff " -;;' " ;;ie'ioint i" - ir,* - i,LG r e,rv - r i". 2I $13 o39' g3/'w' a distance of z13.5s _ _feet to the For'r oFBEGINNING,- contaj_ni"g i" area of 1.06q acres. (46,42g Se. FT.)of land, more or lesd, wiinin tfr*".' inetes and bounds. {? , ?83,531 N0. 5683 STATE OF TEXAS BEARING BASISI_THE BASI$ OF BEARTNGs FoR THIS sURVEY IS THE TEXA*cooRDTNATE svsrEll'-meoe5(96) cnoornel zbrqi, EsrABrrsHED By NGs opusfi8HH$:- usrNc coRs srnrrcimi DF53?0, nrg63s, DEseee, DF4062, & rt MARK A' ZTENTEK' A REGT$TERED FROFE'.TONAL LAND suRVEyoRr DoHEREBY srATE THAT THrs nrsinrptrou rs BAsED upoN A suRVEy MADE oNTHE GRout'lD BY BURY+PARTNER$' rNc. , nunilre THE MoNTI{ oF No'EMBER !$flJ;r.r'rs DEscRrPrroN uoAs *RE'ARED ro AccoMpANy A LAND rrrlE EURY + PARTNERS, INC. ENGI NEER I NG _ SOLUT I ONS ?2L w. srxTH STREET, surTE 600AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701. F'T. Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit B File: 10 9 14 Summary 1 Land Use Estimated Construction Costs Developer Items Type of Development Acreage #Lots/Sq. Ft.Water, Wastewater & Storm Drainage 22,611,065$ Road 1,739,375 Parks and Recreational 1,463,519 Subtotal 25,813,959 Capital Revovery Fees Single Family 217.23 730 Water (Chisholm)2,117,000 Wastewater (City of Georgetown)2,124,541 Commercial - - Subtotal 4,241,541 District Items Offsite Road/Bridge Pro Rata Share 1,073,499$ Offsite Wastewater Line D 1,282,535 Land Cost (Bridge)265,152 Land Cost (Water and WW) plus Contingencies (10%)454,605 Subtotal 3,075,791 Total Estimated Construction Costs 33,131,291$ Other - Engineering (15%)(a) Contingencies (10%)(a) Undevelopable 66.77 33,131,291$ Total 284.00 Creation and Organizational Costs 98,804 33,230,095$ Projected Assessed Valuation Number of Acreage House Lot Total Lots Value Section 1 22.32 391,000$ 69,000$ 460,000$ 75 34,500,000$ Section 2 22.32 391,000 69,000 460,000 75 34,500,000 Section 3 22.32 391,000 69,000 460,000 75 34,500,000 Section 4 22.32 391,000 69,000 460,000 75 34,500,000 Section 5 22.32 391,000 69,000 460,000 75 34,500,000 Section 6 28.27 391,000 69,000 460,000 95 43,700,000 Section 7 22.32 391,000 69,000 460,000 75 34,500,000 Section 8 22.32 391,000 69,000 460,000 75 34,500,000 Section 9 22.32 391,000 69,000 460,000 75 34,500,000 Section 10 10.42 391,000 69,000 460,000 35 16,100,000 Total 217.23 730 335,800,000$ Type Dev 335,800,000$ Single Family - Apartments (Estimated Assessed Valuation - $100,000/unit)1,000,000 Commercial (Estimated Assessd Valuation - $100/Sq. Ft.) Projected Ultimate Assessed Value 336,800,000$ Bond Issues Bond Issue Developer Year Size Reimbursement 2016 2,650,000$ 1,984,454$ 2017 2,575,000 2,024,860 2018 2,575,000 2,023,750 2019 2,575,000 2,025,100 2020 2,900,000 2,286,900 2021 8,000,000 6,420,787 2022 8,000,000 6,425,987 2023 8,500,000 6,825,250 2024 8,425,000 6,758,646 46,200,000$ 36,775,733$ Taxes 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Debt Service 0.2806$ 0.3734$ 0.4202$ 0.4490$ 0.4603$ Maintenance & Operation 0.6694 0.5766 0.5298 0.5010 0.4897 Total 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Debt Service 0.6545$ 0.7509$ 0.8596$ 0.9334$ 0.9334$ Maintenance & Operation 0.2955 0.1991 0.0904 0.0166 0.0166 Total 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ Total Estimated Construction and Contingency Costs Public Finance Group has prepared the following analysis utilizing the Developer's existing Land Plan as well as estimated costs, values and lot absorptions as provided by the Developer, and Public Finance Group makes no assurances that the property within the District will be developed in the manner herein described. Total Construction, Creation, Operation Costs Williamson County MUD No. 30 October 9, 2014 Executive Summary Crescent Bluff Development 2 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Section 1 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Section 2 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Section 3 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Section 4 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Section 5 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 75 Section 6 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 95 Section 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 75 Section 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 75 Section 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 75 Section 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 Total Lots Developed 75 75 75 75 75 95 75 75 75 35 730 Homes Constructed 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Section 1 30 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Section 2 0 30 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Section 3 0 0 30 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Section 4 0 0 0 30 45 0 0 0 0 0 75 Section 5 0 0 0 0 30 45 0 0 0 0 75 Section 6 0 0 0 0 0 50 45 0 0 0 95 Section 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 30 0 0 75 Section 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 30 0 75 Section 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 30 75 Section 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 Total Units Constructed 30 75 75 75 75 95 90 75 75 65 730 Williamson County MUD No. 30 Land Development Schedule Lots to be Developed 3 Projected 2015 Assessed Valuation 217.23 @ $15,000/acre 3,258,450$ Cumulative 30 houses Plus:30 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 1 11,730,000$ 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 2 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 3 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 4 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 5 - 30 30 11,730,000 75 lots Plus:75 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 1 5,175,000 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 2 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 3 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 4 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 5 - 75 75 5,175,000 22.32 Less:22.32 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (334,772) Projected 2016 Assessed Valuation 19,828,678$ Cumulative 75 houses Plus:45 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 1 17,595,000$ 30 30 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 2 11,730,000 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 3 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 4 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 5 - 105 75 29,325,000 75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 1 - 75 75 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 2 5,175,000 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 3 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 4 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 5 - 150 75 5,175,000 44.64 Less:22.32 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (334,772) Projected 2017 Assessed Valuation 53,993,905$ Cumulative 75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 1 -$ 75 45 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 2 17,595,000 30 30 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 3 11,730,000 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 4 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 5 - 180 75 29,325,000 75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 1 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 2 - 75 75 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 3 5,175,000 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 4 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 5 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 6 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 7 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 8 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 9 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 10 - 225 75 5,175,000 66.95 Less:22.32 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (334,772) Projected 2018 Assessed Valuation 88,159,133$ Cumulative 75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 1 -$ 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 2 - 75 45 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 3 17,595,000 30 30 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 4 11,730,000 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 5 - Williamson County MUD No. 30 Projection of Assessed Valuation 4 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 6 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 7 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 8 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 9 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 10 - 255 75 29,325,000 75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 1 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 2 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 3 - 75 75 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 4 5,175,000 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 5 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 6 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 7 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 8 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 9 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 10 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 11 - 300 75 5,175,000 89.27 Less:22.32 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (334,772) Projected 2019 Assessed Valuation 122,324,361$ Cumulative 75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 1 -$ 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 2 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 3 - 75 45 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 4 17,595,000 30 30 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 5 11,730,000 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 6 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 7 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 8 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 9 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 10 - 330 75 29,325,000 75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 1 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 2 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 3 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 4 - 75 75 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 5 5,175,000 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 6 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 7 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 8 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 9 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 10 - 375 75 5,175,000 111.59 Less:22.32 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (334,772) Projected 2020 Assessed Valuation 156,489,589$ Cumulative 75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 1 -$ 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 2 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 3 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 4 - 75 45 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 5 17,595,000 50 50 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 6 19,550,000 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 7 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 8 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 9 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 10 - 425 95 37,145,000 75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 1 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 2 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 3 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 4 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 5 - 95 95 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 6 6,555,000 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 7 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 8 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 9 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 10 - 470 95 6,555,000 5 139.86 Less:28.27 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (424,045) Projected 2021 Assessed Valuation 199,765,544$ Cumulative 75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 1 -$ 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 2 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 3 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 4 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 5 - 95 45 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 6 17,595,000 45 45 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 7 17,595,000 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 8 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 9 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 10 - 515 90 35,190,000 75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 1 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 2 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 3 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 4 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 5 - 95 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 6 - 75 75 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 7 5,175,000 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 8 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 9 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 10 - 545 75 5,175,000 162.18 Less:22.32 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (334,772) Projected 2022 Assessed Valuation 239,795,772$ Cumulative 75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 1 -$ 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 2 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 3 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 4 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 5 - 95 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 6 - 75 30 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 7 11,730,000 45 45 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 8 17,595,000 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 9 - 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 10 - 590 75 29,325,000 75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 1 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 2 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 3 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 4 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 5 - 95 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 6 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 7 - 75 75 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 8 5,175,000 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 9 - 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 10 - 620 75 5,175,000 10,000 Plus 10,000.00 Sq Ft @ 100 /Sq Ft Commercial 1,000,000 184.50 Less:22.32 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (334,772) Projected 2023 Assessed Valuation 274,960,999$ Cumulative 75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 1 -$ 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 2 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 3 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 4 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 5 - 95 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 6 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 7 - 75 30 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 8 11,730,000 45 45 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 9 17,595,000 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 10 - 665 75 29,325,000 6 75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 1 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 2 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 3 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 4 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 5 - 95 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 6 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 7 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 8 - 75 75 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 9 5,175,000 0 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 10 - 695 75 5,175,000 206.81 Less:22.32 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (334,772) Projected 2024 Assessed Valuation 309,126,227$ Cumulative 75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 1 -$ 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 2 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 3 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 4 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 5 - 95 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 6 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 7 - 75 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 8 - 75 30 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 9 11,730,000 35 35 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 10 13,685,000 0 0 Houses @ 391,000 /House Section 11 - 730 65 25,415,000 75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 1 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 2 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 3 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 4 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 5 - 95 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 6 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 7 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 8 - 75 0 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 9 - 35 35 Lots @ 69,000 /Lot Section 10 2,415,000 730 35 2,415,000 217.23 Less:10.42 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (156,227) Projected 2025 Assessed Valuation 336,800,000$ File: 10 9 14 Summary 7 Estimated Construction Costs Costs 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Total Construction Costs (plus 2 yrs Developer Int)36,775,733$ 1,984,454$ 2,024,860$ 2,023,750$ 2,025,100$ 2,286,900$ 6,420,787$ 6,425,987$ 6,825,250$ 6,758,646$ 36,775,733$ . Nonconstruction Costs Legal Fees (3.00%)79,500$ 77,250$ 77,250$ 77,250$ 87,000$ 240,000$ 240,000$ 255,000$ 252,750$ 1,386,000$ Financial Advisory Fees (2.50%)66,250 64,375 64,375 64,375 72,500 200,000 200,000 212,500 210,625 1,155,000 Capitalized Interest (2 years @ 5.00%)265,000 257,500 257,500 257,500 290,000 800,000 800,000 850,000 842,500 #4,620,000 Developer Interest (2 years @ 5.00%)- - - - - - Bond Discount (3.00%)79,500 77,250 77,250 77,250 87,000 240,000 240,000 255,000 252,750 1,386,000 TCEQ Issuance Fee (0.25%)6,625 6,438 6,438 6,438 7,250 20,000 20,000 21,250 21,063 115,500 Creation Costs/Operating Expenses 100,000 - - - - - - - 100,000 Administration and Organization 26,021 24,753 25,863 24,513 26,450 31,213 26,013 32,500 38,242 255,568 Attorney General Fee (0.10%)2,650 2,575 2,575 2,575 2,900 8,000 8,000 8,500 8,425 46,200 Contingency - - - - - - - - - - Bond Application Report Costs 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 360,000 Total Nonconstruction Costs 665,546$ 550,141$ 551,251$ 549,901$ 613,100$ 1,579,213$ 1,574,013$ 1,674,750$ 1,666,355$ 9,424,268$ Total Bond Issue Requirement 2,650,000$ 2,575,000$ 2,575,000$ 2,575,000$ 2,900,000$ 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 8,500,000$ 8,425,000$ 46,200,000 19,828,678$ 53,993,905$ 88,159,133$ 122,324,361$ 156,489,589$ 199,765,544$ 239,795,772$ 309,126,227$ 336,800,000$ 1-Oct 48,299,701 82,464,929 #116,630,156 150,795,384 #192,552,885 233,124,067 297,571,151 332,187,705 336,800,000 2,650,000$ 5,225,000$ 7,800,000$ 10,375,000$ 13,275,000$ 21,275,000$ 29,275,000$ 37,775,000$ 46,200,000$ 13.36%9.68%8.85%8.48%8.48%10.65%12.21%12.22%13.72% 1-Oct 5.49%6.34%6.69%6.88%6.89%9.13%9.84%11.37%13.72% 2,650,000$ 2,575,000$ 2,575,000$ 2,575,000$ 2,900,000$ 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 8,500,000$ 8,425,000$ (2,650,000) (2,575,000) (2,575,000) (2,575,000) (2,900,000) (8,000,000) (8,000,000) (8,500,000) (8,425,001) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (1)$ Administration & Organization 26,021 24,753 25,863 24,513 26,450 31,213 26,013 32,500 38,242 26,021$ 24,753$ 25,863$ 24,513$ 26,450$ 31,213$ 26,013$ 32,500$ 38,242$ % of Cumulative Debt to Assessed Valuation Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 30 construction & nonconstruction costs Summary of Costs October 9, 2014 Projected Assessed Valuation Cumulative Debt Outstanding Total Bond Issue Amount Williamson County MUD No. 30 Projection of Income and Expenses Growth $2,650,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2016 $2,575,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2019 $8,000,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2022 $2,575,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2017 $2,900,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2020 $8,500,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2023 $2,575,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2018 $8,000,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2021 $8,425,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2024 prepared by Public Finance Group Projected Tax Rate Tax Investment Total Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Cumulative Percentage Assessed Per Collections Income Available Series 2016 Series 2017 Series 2018 Series 2019 Series 2020 Series 2021 Series 2022 Series 2023 Series 2024 Total Debt Fund of Subsequent Year Valuation $100 A.V.@ 99%@ 1.00%for Debt @ 5.00%@ 5.00%@ 5.00%@ 5.00%@ 5.00%@ 5.00%@ 5.00%@ 5.00%@ 5.00%Debt Balance Year's Debt 2015 3,258,450 - 265,000$ (a) 2016 19,828,678$ 0.2806$ -$ 2,650$ 267,650$ -$ -$ 525,150 (b) 2017 53,993,905 0.3734 55,083 5,252 585,484 132,500 -$ 132,500 710,484 (c)271.96% 2018 88,159,133 0.4202 199,597 7,105 917,186 132,500 128,750 -$ 261,250 913,436 (d)153.52% 2019 122,324,361 0.4490 366,740 9,134 1,289,311 207,500 193,750 193,750 -$ 595,000 984,311 (e)124.83% 2020 156,489,589 0.4603 543,744 9,843 1,537,898 208,750 195,500 190,500 193,750 -$ 788,500 1,549,398 (f)155.02% 2021 199,765,544 0.6545 713,118 15,494 2,278,010 204,750 197,000 192,250 190,500 215,000 -$ 999,500 2,078,510 (g)130.60% 2022 239,795,772 0.7509 1,294,391 20,785 3,393,686 205,750 193,250 188,750 192,250 216,500 595,000 -$ 1,591,500 2,652,186 (h)121.49% 2023 274,960,999 0.8596 1,782,620 26,522 4,461,328 206,500 194,500 190,250 188,750 212,750 595,250 595,000 -$ -$ 2,183,000 3,120,828 (i)110.73% 2024 308,126,227 0.9334 2,339,929 31,208 5,491,966 207,000 195,500 191,500 190,250 214,000 595,000 595,250 630,000 - 2,818,500 2,673,466 82.32% 2025 336,800,000 0.9334 2,847,290 26,735 5,547,490 207,250 196,250 192,500 191,500 215,000 594,250 595,000 629,750 426,250 3,247,750 2,299,740 70.81% 2026 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 22,997 5,434,992 207,250 196,750 193,250 192,500 215,750 593,000 594,250 629,000 426,000 3,247,750 2,187,242 67.51% 2027 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 21,872 5,321,369 207,000 197,000 188,750 193,250 216,250 591,250 593,000 627,750 425,750 3,240,000 2,081,369 64.24% 2028 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 20,814 5,214,436 206,500 197,000 189,250 188,750 216,500 594,000 591,250 631,000 425,500 3,239,750 1,974,686 61.01% 2029 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 19,747 5,106,688 205,750 196,750 189,500 189,250 216,500 591,000 594,000 628,500 425,250 3,236,500 1,870,188 57.81% 2030 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 18,702 5,001,144 204,750 196,250 189,500 189,500 216,250 592,500 591,000 630,500 425,000 3,235,250 1,765,894 54.49% 2031 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 17,659 4,895,807 208,500 195,500 189,250 189,500 215,750 593,250 592,500 631,750 424,750 3,240,750 1,655,057 51.12% 2032 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 16,551 4,783,862 206,750 194,500 188,750 189,250 215,000 593,250 593,250 632,250 424,500 3,237,500 1,546,362 47.79% 2033 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 15,464 4,674,080 204,750 193,250 193,000 188,750 214,000 592,500 593,250 632,000 424,250 3,235,750 1,438,330 44.39% 2034 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 14,383 4,564,967 207,500 196,750 191,750 193,000 212,750 591,000 592,500 631,000 424,000 3,240,250 1,324,717 40.94% 2035 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 13,247 4,450,219 204,750 194,750 190,250 191,750 216,250 593,750 591,000 629,250 423,750 3,235,500 1,214,719 37.47% 2036 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 12,147 4,339,120 206,750 197,500 193,500 190,250 214,250 590,500 593,750 631,750 423,500 3,241,750 1,097,370 33.94% 2037 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 10,974 4,220,598 208,250 194,750 191,250 193,500 212,000 591,500 590,500 628,250 423,250 3,233,250 987,348 30.52% 2038 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 9,873 4,109,476 209,250 196,750 188,750 191,250 214,500 591,500 591,500 629,000 423,000 3,235,500 873,976 27.04% 2039 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 8,740 3,994,970 204,750 198,250 191,000 188,750 216,500 590,500 591,500 628,750 422,750 3,232,750 762,220 25.16% 2040 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 7,622 3,882,097 - 194,250 192,750 191,000 213,000 593,500 590,500 632,500 422,500 3,030,000 852,097 30.04% 2041 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 8,521 3,972,872 - - 189,000 192,750 214,250 595,250 593,500 630,000 422,250 2,837,000 1,135,872 42.97% 2042 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 11,359 4,259,485 - - - 189,000 215,000 590,750 595,250 631,500 422,000 2,643,500 1,615,985 65.83% 2043 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 16,160 4,744,399 - - - - 215,250 595,250 590,750 631,750 421,750 2,454,750 2,289,649 54.90% 2044 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 22,896 5,424,800 - - - - - 593,250 595,250 630,750 2,351,500 4,170,750 1,254,050 35.11% 2045 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 12,540 4,378,845 - - - - - - 593,250 628,500 2,349,750 3,571,500 807,345 27.11% 2046 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 8,073 3,927,672 - - - - - - - 630,000 2,348,250 2,978,250 949,422 40.46% 2047 336,800,000 0.9334 3,112,254 9,494 4,071,171 - - - - - - - - 2,346,750 2,346,750 1,724,421 78,612,107$ 474,564$ 4,605,000$ 4,434,500$ 4,389,000$ 4,389,000$ 4,943,000$ 13,637,000$ 13,637,000$ 14,495,500$ 17,452,250$ 81,982,250$ (a) Capitalized Interest (2yrs @ 5.00%) included in Series 2016 bond proceeds 265,000$ (b) Includes Capitalized Interest (2yrs @ 5.00%) included in Series 2017 bond proceeds 257,500$ (c) Includes Capitalized Interest (2 yrs @ 5.00%) included in Series 2018 bond proceeds 257,500$ (d) Includes Capitalized Interest (2 yrs @ 5.00%) included in Series 2019 bond proceeds 257,500$ (e) Includes Capitalized Interest (2 yrs @ 5.00%) included in Series 2020 bond proceeds 290,000$ (f) Includes Capitalized Interest (2 yrs @ 5.00%) included in Series 2021 bond proceeds 800,000$ (g) Includes Capitalized Interest (2 yrs @ 5.00%) included in Series 2022 bond proceeds 800,000$ (h) Includes Capitalized Interest (2 yrs @ 5.00%) included in Series 2023 bond proceeds 850,000$ (i) Includes Capitalized Interest (2 yrs @ 5.00%) included in Series 2024 bond proceeds 842,500$ The information shown is based on the best information available and is subject to change without notice. 0 100 200 400 Scale: 1” = 200’Crescent Bluff Concept Plan October 2, 2014 Concept Plan Lot Category 1 Lot Category 2 Lot Category 3 Lot Category 4 Lot Category 5 LEGEND +/- 1.1 ac. +/- 1.9 ac. +/- 8.4 ac. +/- 24.0 ac. +/- 45.3 ac. +/- 80.7 ac. Cemetery Amenity Center Water Quality Features Parkland Open Space/Environmental Features +/- 730 Total Lots @ +/- 2.6 DU/Acre +/- 284 Total Acres Total Open Space Open Space Trail South Fo r k S a n G a b r i e l r i v e r South San Gabriel River Trail (Constructed by MUD) Trail (Constructed by others) Collectors HigHway 29 ROw HIGHWAY 29 COmmeRCial Out PaRCel wateR Oak wateR Oak COle tRaCt CemeteRy t O be CO nst R u C ted by muni C i P al utility dist R i C t s O ut H san gab R iel R ive R t R ail t R ail t O be CO nst R u C ted by O t H e R s amenity PaRkland Exhibit E Land Development Standards Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the Land Development Standards provided for in this Exhibit E shall prevail over any other conflicting provisions of the Agreement. 1. Application of the UDC: The 106 acre “Zamin Tract” as shown on Exhibit A hereto and as approved for preliminary plat by City Planning and Zoning Commission on August 6, 2013 shall be developed in accordance with that approved preliminary plat except as outlined in this Exhibit E. The development of the 178 acre “Chapman Tract” as shown on Exhibit A hereto shall comply with the UDC in effect as of June 1, 2014 except as outlined below. 2. Setbacks: Lot type Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Side Setback by Street Zero Lot line lots 20’ 0 and 10’ 10’ 10’ Regular lots* 20’ 5’ and 5’ 10’ 10’ * Front setback may be decreased to 15’ to accommodate tree preservation 3. Fencing material: The Project (All 284 acres) shall use masonry and wrought iron fencing facing Highway 29. The fence shall be between 5’ and 6’ in height. The fence might use other materials like Core Ten or decorative treated timbers to enhance the design of the fence. 4. Trees: The project shall retain no less than 90% of all single-trunk Heritage Trees and 70% of the multi trunk Heritage Trees. In an effort to compensate for the tree removal, the project will commit to the following: (a) Front yard trees in accordance with the UDC. (b) Trees shall be planted along Highway 29 in the buffer area. (c) Trees shall be planted in the medians in the collector streets. (d) Trees shall be planted within the open spaces, including along the City’s regional trail. (e) The project shall follow the UDC mitigation requirements for removal of Heritage Trees, including the possibility of additional re-plantings, tree fund contributions, and other available options for the developer, to be determined through the platting process. (f) Approximately 17 acres of open space shall be preserved in their natural state. (g) Approximately 24 acres of open space shall be maintained by the district as Parkland. 5. Land Uses: Allowed Uses: The majority of the project shall be developed as a single family residential subdivision, with land allocated for neighborhood-serving retail as shown on Exhibit C. The Commercial portion of the Project shall be developed in accordance with the uses and standards provided for in the UDC C-1 zoning district. The developer may consider submitting a future request to the City to transfer no more than 15 acres of land along Highway 29 on the Chapman tract, surrounding the Commercial and the Hwy 29 ROW, from single-family to townhome development. Prohibited Uses: The following uses shall be prohibited within the Project: (i) night club; (ii) central laundry or dry cleaning plant or laundromat (except that this prohibition shall not be applicable to on-site laundry service provided solely for pickup and delivery by the ultimate consumer or laundry services provider; (iii) automobile, truck, trailer or R.V. repair; (iv) mortuary or funeral service; (v) bingo club; (vi) flea market; (vii) any establishment selling or exhibiting pornographic materials; (viii) any use which is a public or private nuisance, in the sole discretion of the District (ix) any smelting or industrial use; (x) any use which would cause noxious or offensive odors; (xi) commercial blood plasma centers; (xii) scrap and salvage services; (xiii) heavy manufacturing; (xiv) any dumping, disposing, incinerating, or reducing of garbage (exclusive of dumpsters for the temporary storage of garbage and any garbage compactors, in each case which are regularly emptied so as to minimize offensive odors); and (xv) Any use listed as requiring a Special Use Permit in the C-1 District. 6. Impervious Cover: The Project shall have a maximum overall impervious cover limitation of 43%. The 106 acre Zamin tract, which has an approved preliminary plat known as Crescent Bluff, shall be granted additional impervious cover than was expressly approved with the Preliminary Plat. The approved phases for the Preliminary Plat shall be granted the following maximum impervious cover percentages, not to exceed 50% over the entire 106 acres. Phase 1 – 48% Phase 2 – 48% Phase 3 – 57% Phase 4 – 47% Phase 5 – 49% The 178 acre tract, referred to as the Chapman Tract, shall be restricted to a maximum impervious cover of 37% total. During the preliminary plat stage each development phase, if applicable, shall be assigned a maximum allowed impervious cover, provided the composite impervious cover does not exceed 37% for the Chapman Tract. All residential lots on the Zamin Tract and the Chapman Tract shall be limited to a maximum impervious cover of 55% per lot, except that up to 140 lots on the Zamin Tract that are 6,000 square feet or less in size shall be allowed up to 60% impervious cover per lot. Non-residential lots shall have a maximum 55% impervious cover unless granted available waivers, as provided in the Unified Development Code. 7. Landscaping: Focus on native plants, in accordance with City’s preferred plat list, with repeated areas of focus throughout the Project will enhance the Project and ensure healthy mix of vegetation that can handle the variations in the weather. Protection of sensitive features will be paramount and buffers shall be included in design. 8. Street Lights and Signs: The Project shall use specialty/ decorative street lights and street signs 9: Age Restricted Units: The Project shall not have age restricted residential units. The information shown is based on the best information available and is subject to change without notice. 0 100 200 400 Scale: 1” = 200’Crescent Bluff October 14, 2014 parkland, open space & trails Parkland Trail by Others LEGEND +/- 1.1 ac. +/- 1.9 ac. +/- 8.4 ac. +/- 24.0 ac. +/- 45.3 ac. +/- 80.7 ac. Cemetery Amenity Center Water Quality Features Parkland Open Space/Environmental Features Total Open Space Open Space Trail South Fo r k S a n G a b r i e l r i v e r South San Gabriel River 10’ Trail (Constructed by MUD, to be ADA compliant) Trail (Constructed by others) River Trail Parking Easement Trail locations are approximate and subject to change based on topography, engineering requirements, location of Heritage trees, and other natural characteristics of the land. HIGHWAY 29 Cemetery river trail Parking to be C onstru C ted by muni C i P al utility distri C t south san gabriel river trail trail to be C onstru C ted by others amenity 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 7 14 River Trail Parking Enlargement N.T.S. City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Use Permit for Rivery Park II, Block B, Lot 6, to permit the use of Multi-family, Attached Dwelling Units, located at 516 Wolf Ranch Parkway. SUP-2014-003 (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit to permit the use of “Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units”, with a density not to exceed twenty (20) dwelling units per acre, in the General Commercial (C-3) zoning district on the noted platted lot, per Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 5.02.010, Section 5.02.020(E.), and Section 3.07. See the attached Staff Report for background on the property, entitlements, and more on the Special Use Permit as it pertains to this specific use. Exhibit 3, the required Conceptual Site Layout, graphically depicts the potential multifamily development that could be built in accordance with the governing regulations for the property and use. Public Comment: No public comments have been received as of the time of this report. Recommended Motion: Approval of the Special Use Permit for Rivery Park II, Block B, Lot 6, to permit the use of Multi-family, Attached Dwelling Units, located at 516 Wolf Ranch Parkway. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Future Land Use / Transportation Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Zoning Map Backup Material Exhibit 3 - Conceptual Site Layout Backup Material Exhibit 4 - Section 5.02.020(E.) Backup Material Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Rivery Park II, Block B, Lot 6 Page 1 of 6 Special Use Permit for Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units in C-3 Report Date: October 16, 2014 File No: REZ-2014-003 Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner Item Details Project Name: Rivery Park II, Block B, Lot 6 Project Address: 516 Wolf Ranch Parkway Location: West side of Wolf Ranch Parkway, west of Rivery Boulevard (See Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 17.569 acres Legal Description: Amending Plat of Lot 6, Block B, The Rivery Park II. Applicant: Roberto Garcia, ASLA Property Owner: Rivery Park Ltd. Partnership, LLP Contact: Roberto Garcia, ASLA Existing Use: Undeveloped land Existing Zoning: General Commercial (C-3) per Ordinance 2012-17 Proposed Use: Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units requiring a Special Use Permit in C-3 Future Land Use: Regional Commercial Growth Tier: Tier 1A Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit to permit the use of “Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units”, with a density not to exceed twenty (20) dwelling units per acre, in the General Commercial (C-3) zoning district on the noted platted lot, per Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 5.02.010, Section 5.02.020(E.), and Section 3.07. Site Information Location: This property is located approximately 800 feet west of the intersection of Wolf Ranch Parkway and Rivery Boulevard. (See Exhibit 1) Physical Characteristics: The property is currently a moderately treed, undeveloped tract that wraps around the City Lights movie theater in a crescent shape, and abuts the Georgetown Country Club to the west of the tract. Surrounding Properties: The surrounding properties include a golf course, a movie theater, undeveloped land, and the San Gabriel River. (See Exhibits 1 & 2) Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North C-3, General Commercial Open Space San Gabriel River South MF-2, High-Density Multi-family Regional Commercial Undeveloped land East C-3, General Commercial (PUD) Regional Commercial Commercial/Retail West RS, Residential Single-family Open Space Open Space/Recreation Planning Department Staff Report Rivery Park II, Block B, Lot 6 Page 2 of 6 Special Use Permit for Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units in C-3 Property History The property has a long history of development attempts and entitlements. Below is a chronological list of events related to the subject lot, sometimes involving a larger scope of land for the project first conceived of as The Rivery that was located partly in the J.B. Pulsifer and Nicholas Porter Surveys. In 1986, the subject lot as part of a larger landholding, was annexed into the City (most of the lot was subject to Ordinance 86-52; a portion nearest the current Wolf Ranch Parkway was part of Ordinance 86- 51); the default zoning assigned at the time of annexation was Single-family Residential (RS). In 1994, Ordinance 94-14 rezoned a portion of 259 acres that included the subject lot, known as The Rivery, from the R-S (Single Family District) to the C-2A (Commercial First Height Restricted) District, with the following conditions: 1. Exclusion of all residential uses and other “R” district uses. 2. Commercial uses were limited to the commercial uses shown on the Rivery Concept Plan, Exhibit “B” of that Ordinance. In 1996, Ordinance 96-45 rezoned the entire 259 acres, known as The Rivery (containing this subject lot), from the remaining RS and C-2A zoning districts [as previously conditioned] to the C-2A District, with the following conditions: 1. Exclusion of all residential uses and other “R” district uses. 2. Commercial uses were limited to the commercial uses shown on the Rivery Concept Plan, Exhibit “B” of that Ordinance. 3. A 150’ wide natural bufferyard be provided along the common property boundary with the River Hills Subdivision, Section One. Recorded on May 7, 1998 as Doc # 1998023963, the Rivery Subdivision included the subject property as generally a part of the 47.5702 acre Lot 2. In late 2002, a “Compromise and Settlement Agreement”, derived from a lawsuit brought forth by the property owner against the City, laid out conditions and allowances regarding future development on property that includes this subject lot. Many of these specific development agreements were memorialized in the eventual subdivision plats. A Development Agreement (County Doc # 2002043144) was also entered into by the property owner and the City regarding Final Plat requirements. In 2003, the adoption of the Unified Development Code (UDC) transitioned the C-2A District name to the C-3 General Commercial District; see Section 1.04. Ordinance 96-45 still governed the zoning of the lot. Recorded on February 22, 2005 as Doc # 2005012659, the Rivery Park II subdivision included the subject lot as generally the 17.80 acre Lot 7. Recorded on December 12, 2005 as Doc # 2005098021, the Amending Plat of Block B, Rivery Park II created the subject lot being the 17.569 acre Lot 6. In early 2012, the property owner submitted a rezoning application (REZ-2012-001) to rezone the subject lot from the 1996 ‘restricted’ Ordinance to the General Commercial (C-3) district, which would be subject to the by-right development standards of the Unified Development Code. The applicant’s stated intent of the rezoning was to permit the specific use of Apartments (now termed Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units by the UDC), which were restricted by the first condition of Ordinance 96-45. City Council Planning Department Staff Report Rivery Park II, Block B, Lot 6 Page 3 of 6 Special Use Permit for Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units in C-3 approved that rezoning request, thus providing the property owner the by-right use of Apartments as permitted by the UDC at that point in time. Unified Development Code – Multifamily Regulations Prior to May 27, 2014, the Unified Development Code regulated the Multifamily land use by providing a Multifamily (MF) zoning that permitted the Apartment and Townhouse specific uses, subject to their stated zoning and development standards. Multifamily development was most often expressed under the defined use of “Apartments”. This specific use was not only permitted in the MF District, but also permitted by- right in the Local Commercial (C-1) and General Commercial (C-3) districts, and by Special Use Permit (Council approval, subject to Section 5.02.020(E.)) in the Business Park (BP) and Mixed Use Downtown (MUDT) districts. Generally, building standards for the use were according to the particular zoning district, which created inequities when projects were being designed in the various districts that allowed the same use. For example, the MF District had greater maximum building height (a development positive) and building setbacks (a development negative), but impervious cover limits were higher in C-1/C-3 (a development positive). The impact of these disparities was, mostly facilitated by the higher impervious coverage limits, Apartment development proliferating in the Commercial zoning districts as principal uses, rather than being complimentary and supportive to commercial or employment uses as envisioned in the 2030 Plan. On May 27, 2014, in Ordinance 2014-30, City Council adopted regulations governing the Multifamily land use as administered in the Unified Development Code. The changes were generally two-fold: 1. The previously defined use of “Apartment” was replaced with two new uses: Multifamily, Attached Dwelling Units. Three or more dwelling units located on a single lot or parcel, with each dwelling unit located in a structure containing three or more dwelling units. This term includes, but is not limited to, triplexes, quadraplexes, and apartments. Multifamily, Detached Dwelling Units. Three or more dwelling units located on a single lot or parcel, with each dwelling unit located within a structure containing no more than two dwelling units. 2. The previously named zoning district Multifamily (MF) was replaced with two new districts: Low Density Multifamily District (MF-1) – generally intended for attached and detached multifamily residential development, such as apartments, condominiums, triplexes, and fourplexes, at a density not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre. High Density Multifamily District (MF-2) - generally intended for attached multifamily residential development, such as apartments and condominiums, at a density not to exceed 24 dwelling units per acre. ** Townhouse zoning district uses and standards were also amended as part of this Ordinance. Planning Department Staff Report Rivery Park II, Block B, Lot 6 Page 4 of 6 Special Use Permit for Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units in C-3 Proposed Special Use Permit for Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units Unified Development Code Table 5.02.010 stipulates that the Multifamily Attached Dwelling Unit use requires City Council approval of a Special Use Permit, in accordance with UDC Section 3.07, and in compliance with Section 3.07.030 (Approval Criteria) and Section 5.02.020(E.). See Exhibit 4 for the entire Section 5.02.020(E.); See the Analysis portion for details of these two criteria. 2030 Plan Conformance Land Use: The proposed Special Use Permit request for ‘multifamily attached dwelling units’ – what’s commonly called Apartments – is contemplated in the 2030 Plan’s future land use designation of Regional Commercial as approprite for this property. High-density residential can a supporting land use to larger, intense, regionally significant non-residential land uses located in prime locations with arterial or interstate transportation connections – the Rivery project area meets those characteristics. Growth Tier: The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A, that portion of the city where infrastructure systems are in place, or can be economically provided and where the bulk of the city’s growth should be guided over the near term. Utilities Electric, water, and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown. Past Utility Evaluations by the developer have indicated that there is adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure. Transportation The primary access to this project would be provided from a driveway at Wolf Ranch Parkway just west of the western-most entrance to the adjacent movie theater. A second access point from the northern side of the project, to currently un-developed land, would be made upon construction, but connection from that point to Rivery Boulevard would depend upon development of the properties in between. Future Application(s) The following applications will be required to be submitted to fulfill the described project: • Site and Construction Plans will be processed administratively; • Building permits for construction. • Certificates of Occupancy upon tenancy. Planning Department Staff Report Rivery Park II, Block B, Lot 6 Page 5 of 6 Special Use Permit for Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units in C-3 STAFF ANALYSIS As it affects the by-right C-3 zoning district on this lot, the Special Use Permit request for the use - Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units – is governed by Section 5.02.020(E); see Exhibit 4. Paraphrased, subsection (E)(2) states that multifamily development should be secondary and supportive to commercial uses, and be in accordance with the following standards: impervious coverage limited to 50% maximum; C-3 district setbacks and height; 15’ building separation minimum; Sections 7.04, 7.05, and 8.04 for building design, lighting, and landscaping; Sections 6.06.020 and 13.05 for Common Amenity Center and Parkland. Staff finds that the development of the lot as proposed is 100% multifamily - as opposed to integrated development that purposefully mixes apartments with retail or other uses - but is adjacent to some of the most intensely developed commercial uses in Georgetown. The governing plat and settlement agreement allow for higher impervious cover maximums, and specific regulations regarding tree surveying and tree preservation. The remaining aspects of multifamily development, processed via an administrative Site Plan, are expected to be in accordance to the UDC at that time, which would thus comply with subsection (E)(2). Paraphrased, subsection (E)(3) states that Council may consider and add conditions on the approval, including but not limited to location, frontage width, 24 units per acre and structure, building heights, amenities, accessory structures, access locations, and buffers. Staff finds that the project will develop in accordance with entitled standards and the UDC, with a self- imposed limit of 20 units per acre maximum. Through the review, Staff found no specific reasons to recommend any conditions regarding the eventual development. Staff provided the applicant some cursory comments on the submitted Concept Site Layout, but those items are all to be addressed through the Site Plan review process. Staff finds the Concept Site Layout to be in compliance with Section 5.02.020(E), minus the entitlements of the governing subdivision plat and settlement agreement. It is fully within the purview of Council to consider the impacts of this proposed development, and impose conditions regarding the items noted in Section 5.02.020(E)(3). The applicant has self-restricted the maximum density to twenty (20) units per acre (see Exhibit 3), which shall be governing and enforced on the Site Plan by Staff. Staff is supportive of the requested Special Use Permit for the following reasons: 1. The Future Land Use designation of Regional Commercial supports the proposed multifamily use, given the existing development in the Rivery project to date. 2. The existing zoning allows the use, subject to Special Use Permit approval by City Council, and the applicant has provided a Concept Site Layout that conforms to Section 5.02.020(E.), as applicable. 3. The surrounding properties have entitlements or active construction of other densities of residential uses, supporting the concept of mixing residential uses amongst non-residential uses to create a more ‘24/7 live-work-play’ type of environment. Planning Department Staff Report Rivery Park II, Block B, Lot 6 Page 6 of 6 Special Use Permit for Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units in C-3 Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of 7 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on October 5, 2014. As of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received. Meetings Schedule October 21, 2014 – Planning and Zoning Commission November 11, 2014 – City Council First Reading & Public Hearing November 25, 2014 – City Council Second Reading Attachments Exhibit 1 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 2 – Zoning Map Exhibit 3 – Concept Site Layout provided by Applicant Exhibit 4 – UDC Section 5.02.020(E) C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N ( R i v e r / S t r e am) (R i v e r /Stre a m ) G e o r g e t o w n E T J PARKER DRDUNMANDR WOLF RANCH PKWY P O W E R R D HINTZRD COUNTRY C L U B R D R A N C H R D SIH35NB HERSHEYA V E WILLIA M S D R OAK LN HAGEN CT SIH35SB M O R S E C V C O T T O N W O O D D R P O W E R C I R M E S Q UIT E L N G A B R I E L VIEWD R N O A K H O L L O W R D P A R K W A Y S T COTTON W OOD DR W I L L O W L N PARKLN HARMONY L N A S H W OOD LN O A K L N S P R I N G VALLEY R D SIH35FWYNB SIH35FWYSB WOODLAWNAVE A D A MS ST RIVERY D RI V E W A Y RIVERYBLVD HIGHKNO L L LN W O L F R D RIDG E C R E S T R D RIVERY B L V D PA R K E R C I R W O LF R D SUP-2014-003 0 1,000 2,000Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2SUP-2014-003 Legend Thoroughfare Future Land Use Institutional Regional Com mercial Community Com mercial Employment Center HIgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Com munity Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Ag / Rural Residential W o lf Ranch Pkwy §¨¦35 §¨¦35 Site³ City Lim its Street Site Existing Collector Existing Freeway Existing Major Arterial Existing Minor Arterial Existing Ramp Proposed Collector Proposed Freeway Propsed Frontage Road Proposed Major Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial Proposed Railroad Riv e r y Blvd C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N ( R i v e r / S t r e a m ) (R i v e r /Stre a m ) SUP-2014-003 WOLF RANCH PKWY HINTZRD SIH35NB COUNTRY C L U B R D R A N C H R D WILLIA M S D R SIH35SB N H I L L V I E W D R M O R S E C V P O W E R R D PARKER DR P O W E R C I R D U N M A N D R M E S Q UIT E L N PARK LN G A B R I E L VIEWD R P A R K W A Y S T COTTON W OOD DR W I L L O W L N HARMONY L N A S H W O O D LN O A K L N S P R I N G VALLEYR D SIH35FWYNB SIH35FWYSB WOODLAWN AVE A D A M S ST RIVERY D RIV E W A Y RIVERY BLVD R I D G E C R E S T R D P A R K E R C I R W OLF R D 0 1,000 2,000Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ SUP-2014-003Zoning Information Exhibit #3 Wolf RanchPkw y R i ver y B lvd §¨¦35 ³ City Limits Street Site Site E. Multifamily, Attached Dwelling Units 1. Attached multifamily dwelling units are permitted in accordance with Table 5.02.010. 2. A Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 3.07, is required for attached multifamily dwelling units as designated in Table 5.02.010 and is subject to the following conditions: a. The location and context of the attached multifamily development shall be secondary and supportive to established surrounding commercial uses, helping to facilitate an active, pedestrian friendly environment where the mixture of uses enables people to live, work, play, and shop. b. Impervious coverage for attached multifamily developments in a C-1, C-3 or BP district shall be limited to 50% c. Front setbacks shall be in conformance with the front setback of the district in which the attached multifamily development is proposed. Side and rear setbacks for attached multifamily developments in a C-1, C-3 or BP district shall be 15 feet, except where located adjacent to a residential zoning district the side and rear setbacks shall increase to 30 feet. d. Building height shall be in conformance with the building height of the district in which the attached multifamily development is proposed. e. A minimum building separation of 15 feet shall be provided between all buildings on the site. f. Attached multifamily development in all districts must also meet the Building Design Standards of Section 7.04, the Lighting Design Standards of Section 7.05, and the Non-Residential Landscape Requirements of Section 8.04. g. Attached multifamily development in all districts must also meet the Common Amenity Area requirements of Section 6.06.020 and the Parkland Dedication requirements of Section 13.05. h. Multifamily development existing prior to May 27, 2014, or depicted on a Site Plan approved prior to May 27, 2014, shall be exempt from the requirements of the limitations of this Section, except that any expansion to that development shall require Special Use Permit approval in accordance with this Section. 3. In addition to the requirements of Section 5.02.020.E.2, when reviewing the conceptual site layout required per Section 3.07, the City Council may consider and add conditions provided the requirements of the zoning district are not exceeded, to the Special Use Permit, including but not limited to the following: a. Location of the development; b. Amount of lot frontage along a commercial corridor; c. Dwelling units per acre (maximum 24); d. Maximum building heights; e. Dwelling units per structure; f. Type and number of amenities; g. Accessory structures; h. Ingress and egress locations; and i. Landscape buffers. City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning of Booty and Lasueur Addition, Lot 2, from the Office (OF) District to the Residential Single-family (RS) District, located at 1304 Hart Street. REZ-2014-027 ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant has requested to rezone this legal lot from the Office (OF) District to the Residential Single-family (RS) District, which is consistent with the 2030 Plan’s future land use designation and the nature of development of the surrounding properties. Public Comment: No written comments have been received to date. Recommended Motion: Approval of the request to rezone of Booty and Lesueur Addition, Lot 2, from the Office (OF) District to the Residential Single-family (RS) District. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Future Land Use / Transportation Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Zoning Map Backup Material Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report 1304 Hart Street-Booty & Lesueur Addition, Lot 2 - Rezoning Page 1 of 4 OF to RS Report Date: October 17, 2014 File No: REZ-2014-027 Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner Item Details Project Name: Booty & Lesueur Addition, Lot 2 Project Address: 1304 Hart Street Location: Hart Street between 13th and 14th Streets. (See Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 0.16 acre Legal Description: Booty & Lesueur Addition, Lot 2 Applicant: James Prince Property Owner: Prince Development Contact: James Prince Existing Use: Undeveloped land Existing Zoning: Office (OF) District Proposed Zoning: Residential Single-family (RS) District Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential Growth Tier: Tier 1A Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested to rezone this legal lot from the Office District to the Residential Single-family District, which is consistent with the 2030 Plan’s future land use designation and the nature of development of the surrounding properties. Site Information Location: This property is located just east of Railroad Avenue, about one block south of West University Avenue (SH 29). (See Exhibit 1) Physical Characteristics: The property is flat, with several trees of unknown size and species, and currently undeveloped. The lots to either side of it are developed with residences. Surrounding Properties: The surrounding properties include residential uses and undeveloped land. (See Exhibits 1 & 2) Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North OF, Office Moderate Density Residential Single family residential South OF, Office Moderate Density Residential Single family residential East RS, Residential Single-family Moderate Density Residential Single family residential West OF, Office Moderate Density Residential Undeveloped land Property History Through deed record research with the Williamson County Clerk’s department, the property appears to date back to a deed creation called “Booty and Lesueur”, which created sixteen (16) lots of property between the modern-day streets of Railroad Avenue, Hart Street, and West 13th and 14th Streets. West Street now runs Planning Department Staff Report 1304 Hart Street-Booty & Lesueur Addition, Lot 2 - Rezoning Page 2 of 4 OF to RS north/south in the middle of these lots. Over time, the western portion of this land division (Lots 9-16) was consolidated by deed into one property that is today the Victorian Villages residential complex. The eastern portion today is recognized by the Williamson Central Appraisal District [WCAD] as a smaller grouping of properties; see aerial image below. The subject property of this rezoning request, referenced as 1304 Hart and, per deed records, Lot 2 of the Booty & Lesueur Addition, is currently undeveloped; according to the previous property owner, a residential structure was demolished from the lot in the mid-2000’s. For tax purposes due to previously being owned by the property owner of Lot 1 (addressed as 1302 Hart Street), Lot 2 currently appears as being a portion of the property addressed as Lot 1. The “legal description” provided by WCAD states “Booty & Lesueur, Block 1, Lot 1-2pts, ACRES 0.3”. The applicant submitted an application for a Legal Lot Verification (LTR-2014-013), which was completed, recognizing Lot 2 as a legal lot established by deed prior to May 10, 1977, which was the inaction date of subdivision regulations by the City. History of Zoning Districts Based on research done for the 2007 rezoning of the property at 1308 Hart Street, also within Block 1 of the Booty and Lesueur Addition, the property has historically been residentially zoned. The 1965 zoning map identified properties in this vicinity as “Residential”. At the time of the 1968 zoning map, the property was redesignated as “RM”, Residential Multiple-family district. In 2002 the property was designated as “RM-3”, Residential, Office and Service Use District. With the adoption of the Unified Development Code (UDC) in 2003, all RM-3 properties transitioned to the Office (OF) District, which is the current zoning district applied to the property. See Table 1.04.040 of the UDC. Planning Department Staff Report 1304 Hart Street-Booty & Lesueur Addition, Lot 2 - Rezoning Page 3 of 4 OF to RS Background: As indicated above, upon adoption of the UDC in 2003, certain prior zoning districts were transitioned to the designations used in the new development code. In most cases the new districts had no impact upon existing land uses and simply changed the district name. It was determined at that time that the most appropriate transition for the prior RM-3 District was the Office District. Prior to the UDC, zoning districts were “cumulative” in nature, meaning, all the uses in one district were allowed in the next, more intense (by uses) district, plus the additional more intense uses. By that system, the RM-3 District permitted everything from single-family residential to a variety of multifamily forms and uses such as hospitals, churches, civic institutions, and offices/office buildings. Development standards were also in place to allow a fairly intense development to occur – 40’ building heights, and the absense of minimums (or maximums for that matter) regarding lot coverage or lot sizes. Thus, under the RM-3 zoning, a single-family residential use would be permitted, but so could such large developments as hospitals or office buildings. The caveat is, for this subject lot, that most forms of non- residential development is muted by the small lot size. However, the nature of the zoning allowed for, and facilitated, consolidation of properties for non-residential uses not envisioned at the time of the original lot creation. The OF district, currently governing the property, does not allow for any residential use other than as secondary uses (upper story residential). 2030 Plan Conformance Land Use: The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the 2030 Plan land use designation of Moderate Density Residential, which promotes a density ranging between 3.1 and 6 dwelling units per gross acre. Growth Tier: The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A, that portion of the city where infrastructure systems are in place, or can be economically provided and where the bulk of the city’s growth should be guided over the near term. Proposed Zoning District The Residential Single Family (RS) District is intended for areas of medium density with a minimum lot size of 5,500 square feet and contains standards that maintain the single-family neighborhood characteristics. The existing lot is approximately 6,900 square feet with sixty feet of street frontage. Utilities Electric, water, and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown; there are no foreseen issues with providing these services to this property for the permitted uses in the proposed District. Transportation The access to this lot will be from Hart Street, which is functionally classified as a Local street, and currently has approximately 28’ of paved surface within an approximately 65’ wide right-of-way. Planning Department Staff Report 1304 Hart Street-Booty & Lesueur Addition, Lot 2 - Rezoning Page 4 of 4 OF to RS Future Application(s) The following applications will be required to be submitted: • Building permits for construction of a single family residence. Staff Analysis Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The Future Land Use designation of Moderate Density Residential, supports the proposed zoning district and permitted residential uses. 2. The existing zoning situation of this and surrounding properties does not match – or currently permit – the predominant use that is occurring (single family residential). 3. The surrounding developed uses are all single family residential. 4. The current structure of the UDC’s zoning classifications and allowed uses works to protect existing uses and development patterns. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None. Public Comments A total of 20 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on October 5, 2014. As of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received. Meetings Schedule October 21, 2014 – Planning and Zoning Commission November 11, 2014 – City Council First Reading and Public Hearing November 25, 2014 – City Council Second Reading Attachments Exhibit 1 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 2 – Zoning Map W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E H A R T S T RAILROAD AVE W 1 3 T H S T W E S T S T W 14 TH S T TIM B E R S T W 1 5 T H S T REZ-2 014-027 0 200 400Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2REZ-2014-027 Legend Thoroughfare Future Land Use Institutional Regional Com mercial Community Com mercial Employment Center Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Com munity Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Ag / Rural Residential W University Ave SAustinAve S Coll ege St §¨¦35 S A u st i n Av e §¨¦35 §¨¦35 Site ³ City Lim its Street Site Existing Collector Existing Freeway Existing Major Arterial Existing Minor Arterial Existing Ramp Proposed Collector Proposed Freeway Propsed Frontage Road Proposed Major Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial Proposed Railroad High Density Residential REZ-2 014-027 RAILROAD AVE W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E H A R T S T W 1 3 T H S T W E S T S T W 1 4T H S T TIM B E R S T W 1 5 T H S T Zoning InformationREZ-2014-027Exhibit #3 ¯ Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 200 400 Feet LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ W Univ ersi ty Av e S Au s ti n A ve §¨¦35 ³ Site City of Georgetown, Texas SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on the rezoning of a 3.2 acre tract described as Royal Oaks Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2, from Office District (OF), to High Density Multifamily District (MF-2), located at 206 Royal Drive. REZ-2014-028 --Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director ITEM SUMMARY: Background: This is a staff initiated application to rezone the Georgetown Square Apartments site from Office District to High Density Multifamily District to bring the property into conformance with the Unified Development Code. When the UDC was adopted, several multifamily properties were inadvertently converted to the Office District due to the previous code that had a cumulative district that allowed both office and multifamily uses. Public Notice: A total of 5 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on October 5, 2014. As of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of the rezoning to MF-2, High Density Multifamily District. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The typical rezoning fee of $515 may be absorbed by the Management Services budget. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Future Land Use Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Zoning Map Backup Material Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Royal Oaks Subdivision - Rezoning Page 1 of 4 OF to MF-2 Report Date: October 14, 2014 File No: REZ-2014-028 Project Planner: Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator Item Details Project Name: Georgetown Square Apartments Project Address: 206 Royal Drive Location: Royal Drive, West of North Austin Avenue Total Acreage: 3.2 acres Legal Description: Royal Oaks Subdivision, Lots 1 & 2 Applicant: City of Georgetown Property Owner: Georgetown Square, Ltd. Contact: Paul Moore, Steele Properties, LLC Existing Use: Two-story Apartment Complex Existing Zoning: Office (OF) from Unified Development Code Ordinance 2003-16 Proposed Zoning: High Density Multifamily (MF-2) District Future Land Use: Community Commercial (CC) Category Growth Tier: Tier 1A Overview of Applicant’s Request The City (staff) is initiating this application to rezone the property from the Office (OF) District to the High Density Multifamily (MF-2) District. The two lots are currently developed with an apartment complex, Georgetown Square Apartments, and this use is intended to continue. The property owner anticipates doing significate improvements to the units and possibility applying to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for funding. Discrepancies between the use and the zoning create difficulties in obtaining bank and federal grant funding. Site Information Location: This property is located on both sides of Royal Drive between North Austin Avenue and the dead end of Royal Drive east of I-35. See Exhibits 1 and 2. Physical Characteristics: The property is developed with 11 buildings, eight apartment buildings and three that house apartment opearations and amenities. There are also four parking lots for resident and guest parking onsite. Surrounding Properties: The surrounding properties include a telecommunication office , a single-family dwelling, and vacant parcels (See 2014 Aerial on next page). Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North IN – Industrial District Community Commercial Utility, Telephone South IN – Industrial District Community Commercial Large lot residential East C-1 – Local Commercial Community Commercial Vacant West IN – Industrial District Community Commercial Vacant Planning Department Staff Report Royal Oaks Subdivision - Rezoning Page 2 of 4 OF to MF-2 Property History The property was annexed into the city limits in 1964 as R-S, Residential Single Family District. On October 18, 1971, zoning ordinance 71-22 approved the rezoning to R-M, Residential Multiple-Family District. The property was platted on January 20, 1972 as the Royal Oaks Subdivision (Document No. 1972005865). The construction on the Georgetown Square Apartments was started in 1972 and the complex opened for residents in 1973. The R-M District was later changed to RM-3, which was part of a cumulative zoning district under the Zoning Ordinance until 2003. The RM district had three levels, RM- 1, Multifamily, RM-2, Dense Multifamily, which included RM-1 uses, and RM-3, Office and Service, which allowed all RM-1 and RM-2 uses as well office. With the adoption of the Unified Development Code in 2003 (Ordinance #2003-16), the RM-1 and RM-2 District became TF, Two-Family and MF, Multifamily, respectively, and RM-3 became OF, Office. Staff was aware that this would create some non- conforming situations, which have been addressed on a case by case basis. Planning Department Staff Report Royal Oaks Subdivision - Rezoning Page 3 of 4 OF to MF-2 2030 Plan Conformance Land Use: The existing use is not expressly included in the uses of the Community Commercial (CC) category, however, it does meet the intent to “maximize compatibility of adjacent land uses, minimize traffic congestion and overloading of the public infrastructure systems, and ensure a high standard of site, landscape, and architectural design.” Growth Tier: The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A, that portion of the city where infrastructure systems are in place, or can be economically provided and where the bulk of the city’s growth should be guided over the near term. Proposed Zoning District The High Density Multifamily (MF-2) District is intended for attached multifamily residential development, such as apartments and condominiums, at a density not to exceed 24 dwelling units per acre. The existing complex has 54 units, at a density of approximately 16.9 units per acre. The District is appropriate in areas planned as High Density Residential or Mixed Use, but may be appropriate in the Community Commercial area based on location, surrounding uses, and infrastructure impacts. Utilities Electric, water, and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown; there are no anticipated issues with providing utilities based on the development standards of the proposed district. Transportation The only access to this property will be from Royal Oaks Drive, which is of adequate size and level of service to support development permitted by the proposed District. With the extention of FM 971 over I-35 to connect with Northwest Boulevard, the new alignment shows the right-of-way cutting into the southernmost corner of Lot 1. This will take approximately 10 feet on the southern edge of the property. Future Application(s) The following applications will be required to be submitted:  Site Plan / Construction Plan for expansion of the multifamily development;  Building permits for construction or rennovations;  Certificates of Occupancy for changes in ownership. Planning Department Staff Report Royal Oaks Subdivision - Rezoning Page 4 of 4 OF to MF-2 Staff Analysis Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The Future Land Use designation of Community Commercial, at this location and with the surrounding existing development, supports the proposed district. 2. The existing zoning of the property creates a Legal Nonconforming situation since the current multifamily use is not allowed in the OF district. The proposed MF-2 district would correct the non- conforming use issue and return the property to a zoning district similar to what was in place when the property was developed. 3. The existing use and proposed MF-2 district are consistent with other surrounding development. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of 5 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on October 5, 2014. As of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received. Meetings Schedule October 21, 2014 – Planning and Zoning Commission November 11, 2014 – City Council First Reading and Public Hearing November 25, 2014 – City Council Second Reading Attachments Exhibit 1 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 2 – Zoning Map N A U S T I N A V E PARK V I E W DR F O N T A N A D R NO R T H W E S T B L V D E MORROWST N I H 3 5 S B EN T R 2 6 3 S B FM 971 R O Y A L D R A P P L E C R E E K D R NIH35FWYSB N I H 3 5 F W Y N B 0 500 1,000 Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US Feet Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Legend Site Parcels City Limits Georgetown ETJ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2 REZ-2014-0Ϯ8 Legend Thoroughfare Future Land Use Institutional Regional Commercial Community Commercial Employment Center Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Ag / Rural Residential §¨¦35 W e i r R d N A u s t i n A v e d Site ³ City Limits Street Site Existing Collector Existing Freeway Existing Major Arterial Existing Minor Arterial Existing Ramp Proposed Collector Proposed Freeway Propsed Frontage Road Proposed Major Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial Proposed Railroad High Density Residential Northwest B l v d N A U S T I N A V E NO R T H W E S T BLV D E MOR ROWST N I H 3 5 S B ENTR263SB FM 971 R O Y A L D R A P P L E C R E E K D R NIH35FWYSB N I H 3 5 F W Y N B Zoning Information REZ-2014-0Ϯ8 Exhibit #2 ¯ Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US Feet Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 500 1,000 Feet Legend Site Parcels City Limits Georgetown ETJ Northwe s t B l v d §¨¦35 ³Site We i r R d NAustinAve