The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda_P&Z_11.17.2015Notice of Meeting for the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown November 17, 2015 at 6:00 PM at City Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown 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. 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/. A Ross Hunter wishes to speak to the Commission regarding procedures for public comments. 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. B Consideration of the minutes from October 20, 2015. C Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 18.81 acres in the Stubblefield Survey to be known as SH29E Park, located at 5030 & 5100 Hwy 29. (PP-2015-015) Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner Page 1 of 91 D Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Final Plat for 0.919 acres in the Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as Sun City Pedernales Falls Drive Bridge. (PFP-2015-003) Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner Legislative Regular Agenda E Consideration and possible action on a request to Rezone 1.18 acres in the Dimmit Addition located at 605 East University Ave., to be known as College View Apartments, from the Local Commercial (C-1) District to 0.1607 acre of the Residential Single-family (RS) District and 1.018 acres for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a High Density Multifamily (MF-2) base zoning district. (REZ-2015-009) Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner F Consideration and possible action on Rezoning from the General Commercial (C-3) District with conditions to the General Commercial (C-3) District for 2.72 acres, being Lot 1 of Fountainwood Plaza, located at 5610 Williams Dr. (REZ-2015-016) Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner **Item postponed to the December 1st meeting** G Public Hearing and possible action on a request to rezone Lots 1 & 2, Block 9, of the Glasscock Addition, located at 224 E. 8th Street and known as The Union on Eighth, from the Mixed-Use Downtown (MUDT) District with conditions to the Mixed-Use Downtown (MUDT) District (without conditions). (REZ-2015-014) Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner **Item postponed to December 15th meeting at request of applicant** H Public Hearing and possible action on an amendment to a Special Use Permit at 224 E. 8th Street, being Lots 1 & 2, Block 9, of the Glasscock Addition, for an event facility, known as The Union on Eighth, in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MUDT) District. (SUP-2015-001) Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner **Item postponed to the December 15th meeting at the request of the applicant** I Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 0.132 acres of the Coffee Addition, Track A, Block 20, located at 2103 San Jose Street, from Local Commercial (C-1) District to Residential Single-Family (RS) District. (REZ-2015-017) Juan Enriquez, Planner J Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 2.86 acres being Reata East, Block B, Lot 4, located at 706 Lakeway Drive, from High Density Multifamily (MF-2) District to Townhouse (TH) District. (REZ-2015-018) Juan Enriquez, Planner K Discussion and possible action regarding the potential Planning and Zoning meeting schedule for the 2016 calendar year. L Discussion Items: Update on the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee (UDCAC) meetings. (Commissioner in Training Bargainer) 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 December 1, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in the Council Chambers located at 101 East 7th Street, starting at 6:00 pm. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Shelley Nowling, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Page 2 of 91 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 __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Shelley Nowling, City Secretary Page 3 of 91 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning November 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration of the minutes from October 20, 2015. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Page 4 of 91 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning November 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for 18.81 acres in the Stubblefield Survey to be known as SH29E Park, located at 5030 & 5100 Hwy 29. (PP-2015-015) Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant proposes to subdivide 18.81 acres of land into 7 lots for future development. 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. Recommended Motion: The proposed Preliminary Plat meets the requirements of the Unified Development Code and is recommended for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 Backup Material Page 5 of 91 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report SH29E Park, Preliminary Plat Page 1 of 2 Report Date: November 11, 2015 File No: PP-2015-015 Project Planner: Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner Item Details Project Name: SH29E Park Project Address: 5030 and 5100 Highway 29 East Location: Highway 29 East, east of County Road 103 Total Acreage: 18.81 acres Legal Description: 18.81 acres in the Woodruff Stubblefield Survey, Abstract 556 Applicant: Randy Mongold, San Gabriel Project Management, LLC Property Owner: Emmanuel Reformed Baptist Church, Turner Bypass Trust, and San Gabriel Project Management, LLC Contact: Randy Mongold, San Gabriel Project Management, LLC Proposed Lots: 7 non-residential lots Streets Proposed: 0 new streets Parkland: Parkland requirements are being met with payment of fees-in-lieu of dedication Heritage Trees: None Existing Use: Vacant land Existing Zoning: Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction Growth Tier: Tier 3 Applicant’s Request The applicant proposes to subdivide 18.81 acres of land into 7 non-residential lots for future development. Site Information Location: The property is located on State Highway 29, between County Roads 103 and 106. Physical Characteristics: The tract has one existing dwelling unit, located on the eastern portion. That house will be demolished so the site can be developed. History The two tracts are located within the City of Georgetown Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). No previous applications have been filed for the property. 2030 Plan Conformance The 2030 Plan land use designation for the subject property is Agriculture/Rural Residential. Being in the ETJ, the property is not zoned and land uses cannot be confirmed at this time. This project is located within Growth Tier 3. Tier 3 consists of the most remote portions of the city’s ETJ, an area of land that will likely not be needed to meet the city’s growth needs for the next 20 years. Page 6 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report SH29E Park, Preliminary Plat Page 2 of 2 Utilities Electric services will be provided by Oncor, water service by Jonah Water, and septic systems through the county. Public utility easements are being dedicated with this plat according to the City of Georgetown standards. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure. Transportation This development will be accessed from State Highway 29. Right-of-way dedication is being provided along State Highway 29 in accordance with the City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan. Future Application(s) In order to proceed with development on this site, it will be necessary to obtain approval of a final plat, which is an administratively approved application. Staff Analysis Staff Recommendation and Basis: The proposed Preliminary Plat meets the requirements of the Unified Development Code and is recommended for approval. 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 November 17, 2015 – Planning and Zoning Commission Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Preliminary Plat Page 7 of 91 CITY OF G EORG ETOW NGeorgetown ET J Ge or ge t ow n ET J PP -2 01 5-0 15 E SH 29 R I C H A R D R D M O N T A L V O L N C R 1 0 3 PP-20 15-015Exhibit #1 Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/C entral Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y 0 500 1,000Fee t ¯ Le ge nd SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ EU n i v e r s it y A v e ¬«130 ¬«29 Site City Lim its Str eet Si te ³ Page 8 of 91 +(6*+5&1%7/'06&1'5016%106#+06*'4'&56#/2'&5'#.1(6*'70&'45+)0'&5748';14+6+5#070#76*14+<'&+..')#.%12; 6':#5.#0&5748';+0)+0%#557/'501.+#$+.+6;(41/6*'75'1(#0;70#76*14+<'&+..')#.&1%7/'06Page 9 of 91 +(6*+5&1%7/'06&1'5016%106#+06*'4'&56#/2'&5'#.1(6*'70&'45+)0'&5748';14+6+5#070#76*14+<'&+..')#.%12; 6':#5.#0&5748';+0)+0%#557/'501.+#$+.+6;(41/6*'75'1(#0;70#76*14+<'&+..')#.&1%7/'06Page 10 of 91 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning November 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Final Plat for 0.919 acres in the Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as Sun City Pedernales Falls Drive Bridge. (PFP-2015-003) Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant proposes to dedicate a portion of Pedernales Falls Drive across Cowan Creek. Public Comments: Public notice is not required for this type of plat application. There have been no public comments received at the time of this report. Recommended Motion: The proposed Preliminary/Final Plat meets the requirements of the Unified Development Code and is recommended for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material Preliminary Plat Backup Material Page 11 of 91 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Sun City Pedernales Falls Drive Bridge, Preliminary Final Plat Page 1 of 2 Report Date: November 11, 2015 File No: PFP-2015-003 Project Planner: Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner Item Details Project Name: Sun City Pedernales Falls Drive Bridge Project Address: None – roadway only Location: Pedernales Falls Drive at Rocky Hollow Creek Drive Total Acreage: 0.919 acres Legal Description: 0.919 acres in the Frederick Foy Survey, Abstract 229 Applicant: Bryan Moore, P.E., Steger and Bizzell Property Owner: Pulte Homes of Texas, L.P. Contact: Bryan Moore, P.E. Proposed Lots: 0 lots Streets Proposed: 1 new street Parkland: None for right-of-way plat Heritage Trees: None Existing Use: Vacant land Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development Growth Tier: Tier 1B Applicant’s Request The applicant proposes to dedicate a portion of Pedernales Falls Drive across Cowan Creek. Site Information Location: The new right-of-way is located at Rocky Hollow Creek Drive and Pedernales Falls Drive, crossing Cowan Creek. Physical Characteristics: This area of Cowan Creek is undeveloped. The creek meanders through the Sun City neighborhoods, providing a natural boundary between the original planned neighborhoods and the new expansion areas. The creek also functions as a natural floodway area. History The property was annexed and zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) in October of 2014. The development falls under the current UDC regulations and the development plan of the PUD. The property is also entitled under the Somerset Hills Development Agreement, approved in 2005 and covering primarily utilities and infrastructure. 2030 Plan Conformance The proposed Preliminary Plat is in conformance with the 2030 Plan land use designation of Moderate Density Residential. This project is located within Growth Tier 1B. Tier 1B is the area within the present city limits, or subject Page 12 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Sun City Pedernales Falls Drive Bridge, Preliminary Final Plat Page 2 of 2 to a development agreement, surrounding Tier 1A that is generally under-served by infrastructure and where service and facilities will likely be needed to meet the growth needs of the city. Utilities Utilities will be provided by City of Georgetown electric, water and wastewater. Public utility easements are being dedicated with this plat according to the City of Georgetown standards. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure. Transportation This roadway plat will provide access to surroundings areas, and must be constructed prior to the development of future Sun City neighborhoods. Future Application(s) The Preliminiary/Final Plat is an application that allows for the combination of the Preliminary and Final Plats where an administrative plat requires dedication of utilities or land (Pedernales Falls Drive right-of- way in this instance). The combined application follows the procedure for approval of a Preliminary Plat, but also receives Final Plat approval and may be recorded. The following applications will be processed separately: • Construction plans for the bridge Staff Analysis Staff Recommendation and Basis: The proposed Preliminary/Final Plat meets the requirements of the Unified Development Code and is recommended for approval. Interdepartmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments Public notice is not required for this type of plat application. There have been no public comments received at the time of this report. Proposed Meetings Schedule November 17, 2015 – Planning and Zoning Commission Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Preliminary Plat Page 13 of 91 C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N G e o r g e t o w n E T J PF P -20 1 5-0 03 PEDERNALESFALLSDR M A R TIN C R EEKLN KICKAPOOCREEKLN ROCKY HOL L O W C R E E K D R PFP-20 15-003Exhibit #1 Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/C entral Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y 0 250 500Fee t ¯ Le ge nd SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ")233 8 R o n a ld W R e a g a n Blv d")245 Site City Lim its Str eet Si te ³ Page 14 of 91 GEORGETOWN, TX 78626 STEGERBIZZELL.COM >>ENGINEERS >>PLANNERS >>SURVEYORS 512.930.9412 SERVICES METRO ADDRESS 1978 S. AUSTIN AVENUE WEB DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:APPROVED BY: Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e t h e s o l e p r o p e r t y o f S T E G E R B I Z Z E L L . T h e u s e o f t h e s e d r a w i n g s i s h e r e b y r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l s i t e f o r w h i c h t h e y w e r e p r e p a r e d . R e p r o d u c t i o n o r r e u s e o f t h e s e d r a w i n g s i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f S T E G E R B I Z Z E L L i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-181 TBPLS FIRM No.10003700 STATE OF TEXAS { KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON { I, Pulte Homes of Texas, L.P. a Texas Limited Partnership, owners of the certain tract of land shown hereon and ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶĂĚĞĞĚƌĞĐŽƌĚĞĚŝŶŽĐ͘ηϮϬϭϱϬϲϲϵϳϯŽĨƚŚĞKĨĮĐŝĂůZĞĐŽƌĚƐŽĨtŝůůŝĂŵƐŽŶŽƵŶƚǇ͕dĞǆĂƐ͕ĚŽ hereby resubdivide said tract as shown hereon, and do hereby consent to all plat note requirements shown hereon, and do hereby dedicate to the City of Georgetown the streets, alleys, rights-of-way, easements and public places shown hereon for such public purposes as the City of Georgetown may deem appropriate. This subdivision is to be known as FINAL PLAT PEDERNALES FALLS DRIVE BRIDGE. TO CERTIFY WHICH, WITNESS by my hand this ________ day of ______________________ , 2015 . ___________________________ Stephen Ashlock, Director of Land Development Pulte Homes of Texas, L.P. 9401 Amberglen Blvd. Bldg I, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78729 STATE OF TEXAS { KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON { Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared __________________ , known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of office this_________ day of _________________________ , 2015 . ___________________________________________ Notary Public in and for the State of Texas My Commission expires on: _________________ I, Bryan E. Moore , Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas, do hereby certify that this subdivision ŝƐŝŶƚŚĞĚǁĂƌĚƐƋƵŝĨĞƌZĞĐŚĂƌŐĞŽŶĞĂŶĚŝƐĞŶĐƌŽĂĐŚĞĚďǇĂŽŶĞŇŽŽĚĂƌĞĂ͕ĂƐĚĞŶŽƚĞĚŚĞƌĞŝŶ͕ĂŶĚĂƐ ĚĞĮŶĞĚďǇ&ĞĚĞƌĂůŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ&ůŽŽĚ,ĂǌĂƌĚŽƵŶĚĂƌǇDĂƉ͕ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇWĂŶĞů Number 48491C0275E, effective date September 26, 2008, and that each lot conforms to the City of Georgetown regulations.The fully developed, concentrated stormwater runoff resulting from the one hundred (100) year frequency storm is contained within the drainage easements shown and/or public rights-of-way dedicated by this plat. TO CERTIFY WHICH, WITNESS my hand and seal at Georgetown , Williamson County , Texas, this _____ day of_________________ , 2015. __________________________________ Bryan E. Moore Registered Professional Engineer No. 98920 State of Texas /͕^ŽĨŝĂEĞůƐŽŶ͕WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝƌĞĐƚŽƌŽĨƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨ'ĞŽƌŐĞƚŽǁŶ͕dĞǆĂƐ͕ĚŽŚĞƌĞďǇĐĞƌƚŝĨǇƚŚŝƐƉůĂƚŝƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĨŽƌĮůŝŶŐ of record with the County Clerk of Williamson County, Texas. _____________________________ _______________________ Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Date ĂƐĞĚƵƉŽŶƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŽƌƐƵƌǀĞǇŽƌǁŚŽƐĞƐĞĂůŝƐĂĨĮǆĞĚŚĞƌĞƚŽ͕ĂŶĚĂĨƚĞƌƌĞǀŝĞǁ ŽĨƚŚĞƉůĂƚĂƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƐĂŝĚĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŽƌƐƵƌǀĞǇŽƌ͕/ĮŶĚƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂƚĐŽŵƉůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨ ŚĂƉƚĞƌϭϱ͘ϰϰ͕&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ͕ŽĨƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨ'ĞŽƌŐĞƚŽǁŶDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽĚĞ͘dŚŝƐĐĞƌƚŝĮĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐŵĂĚĞ ƐŽůĞůǇƵƉŽŶƐƵĐŚƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞƌĞůŝĞĚƵƉŽŶĨŽƌǀĞƌŝĮĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞĨĂĐƚƐĂůůĞŐĞĚ͘dŚĞŝƚǇŽĨ 'ĞŽƌŐĞƚŽǁŶĚŝƐĐůĂŝŵƐĂŶǇƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚǇƚŽĂŶǇŵĞŵďĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐĨŽƌŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚǀĞƌŝĮĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ representations, factual or otherwise, contained in this plat and the documents associated within it. _____________________________ ______________________________ Dave Hall Date City of Georgetown Floodplain Administrator STATE OF TEXAS { KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON { I, Nancy Rister, Clerk of the County Court of said County, do hereby certify that the foregoing ŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚŝŶǁƌŝƚŝŶŐ͕ǁŝƚŚŝƚƐĐĞƌƚŝĮĐĂƚĞǁĂƐĮůĞĚĨŽƌƌĞĐŽƌĚŝŶŵǇŽĨĨŝĐĞŽŶƚŚĞͺͺͺͺͺĚĂǇŽĨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ͕ϮϬͺͺ͕ A.D.,ĂƚͺͺͺͺͺŽ͛ĐůŽĐŬ͕ͺͺ͘ŵ͘ĂŶĚĚƵůǇƌĞĐŽƌĚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞͺͺͺͺͺĚĂǇŽĨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ͕ϮϬͺͺͺ͕͕͘͘ĂƚͺͺͺŽ͛ĐůŽĐŬ͕ ___.m. in the Plat Records of said County in Document No._______________________________. TO CERTIFY WHICH, WITNESS my hand and seal at the County Court of said County, at my office in Georgetown, Texas the date last shown above written. Nancy Rister, Clerk County Court of Williamson County, Texas By:_______________________Deputy This subdivision known as FINAL PLAT PEDERNALES FALLS DRIVE BRIDGE, has been approved for filing for record according to the minutes of the meeting of the Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission on the _____day of ________________, 2015, A.D. _________________________________ ____________________ Josh Schroeder, Chairman Date _________________________________ _____________________ Scott Ranking, Secretary Date FINAL PLAT OF SUN CITY PEDERNALES FALLS DRIVE BRIDGE BEING A SUBDIVISION OF 0.919 ACRES IN THE FREDERICK FOY SURVEY, ABSTRACT No.229 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS JOB No. 22226-NH67 DATE: OCTOBER, 2015 SHEET 2 of 2 JJH FOR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF BRYAN E. MOORE, P.E. REG. #98920 ON 10/29/15. IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, PERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS 8868 Research Blvd, Suite 407 Austin, TX 78758 512.916.0224 TBPLS Firm Registration number 101776-01 www.mckimcreed.com METES AND BOUNDS OF a 0.919 Acre Plat of Pedernales Falls Drive Bridge, said 0.919 acre tract being out of a portion of a called 634.646 acre tract conveyed to Sommerset Hills LTD. Recorded in Document Number 2004098880, Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas (O.P.R.W.C.T.), also being in the Frederick Foy Survey, Abstract No. 229, Williamson County, Texas. POINT OF BEGINNING; the south line of said 634.646 acre tract and north line of Planned Unit Development of Sun City Texas, Pedernales Falls Drive and Rocky Hollow Creek Drive, as recorded in Document Number, 2015080174, O.P.R.W.C.T., Thence, over and across said 634.646 acre tract the following four (4) courses; ϭ͘EŽƌƚŚϭϲΣϬϴ͛ϰϱ͟tĞƐƚĨŽƌĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϵϵ͘ϱϮĨĞĞƚƚŽƚŚĞďĞŐŝŶŶŝŶŐŽĨĂŶŽŶͲƚĂŶŐĞŶƚĐƵƌǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚ͖ Ϯ͘ϰϬϲ͘ϱϬĨĞĞƚĂůŽŶŐƐĂŝĚĐƵƌǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂŶĂŶŐůĞŽĨϭϴΣϰϲ͛ϱϴ͕͟ŚĂǀŝŶŐĂƌĂĚŝƵƐŽĨϭϮϰϬ͘ϬϬĨĞĞƚ͕ĂŶĚ ǁŚŽƐĞĐŚŽƌĚďĞĂƌƐEŽƌƚŚϭϬΣϭϰ͛ϭϳ͟ǁĞƐƚĨŽƌĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϰϬϰ͘ϲϴĨĞĞƚƚŽĂƉŽŝŶƚ͖ ϯ͘EŽƌƚŚϴϵΣϬϵ͛ϭϮ͟ĂƐƚĨŽƌĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϳϵ͘ϴϮĨĞĞƚƚŽƚŚĞďĞŐŝŶŶŝŶŐŽĨĂŶŽŶͲƚĂŶŐĞŶƚĐƵƌǀĞƚŽƚŚĞůĞĨƚ͖ ϰ͘ϰϴϰ͘ϵϬĨĞĞƚĂůŽŶŐƐĂŝĚĐƵƌǀĞƚŽƚŚĞůĞĨƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂŶĂŶŐůĞŽĨϮϯΣϱϳ͛ϬϮ͕͟ŚĂǀŝŶŐĂƌĂĚŝƵƐŽĨϭϭϲϬ͘ϬϬĨĞĞƚ͕ĂŶĚ ǁŚŽƐĞĐŚŽƌĚďĞĂƌƐ^ŽƵƚŚϭϮΣϰϵ͛ϰϵ͟ĂƐƚĨŽƌĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϰϴϭ͘ϯϴĨĞĞƚƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚůŝŶĞŽĨƐĂŝĚϲϯϰ͘ϲϰϲĂĐƌĞ tract and north line of Planned Unit Development of Sun City Texas, Pedernales Falls Drive and Rocky Hollow Creek Drive; dŚĞŶĐĞ͕^ŽƵƚŚϳϯΣϯϱ͛ϯϯ͟tĞƐƚĂůŽŶŐƐĂŝĚƐŽƵƚŚůŝŶĞŽĨƐĂŝĚϲϯϰ͘ϲϰϲĂĐƌĞƚƌĂĐƚĂŶĚŶŽƌƚŚůŝŶĞŽĨWůĂŶŶĞĚhŶŝƚ Development of Sun City Texas, Pedernales Falls Drive and Rocky Hollow Creek Drive, for a distance of 90.81 feet back to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said tract containing 0.919 acre. STATE OF TEXAS { KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON { I, Darrell D. White, Registered Professional Land Surveyor in the State of Texas, do hereby certify that this plat is true and correctly made from an actual survey made on the ground of the property legally described hereon, and that there are no apparent discrepancies, conflicts, overlapping of improvements, visible utility lines or roads in place, except as shown on the accompanying plat, and that the corner monuments shown thereon were properly placed under my supervision in accordance with the subdivision regulations of the City of Georgetown, Texas. TO CERTIFY WHICH, WITNESS my hand and seal at Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas ________________________________Date: Darrell D. White Registered Professional Land Surveyor Texas Registration Number 4816 Prepared by: Mckim&Creed 8868 Research Blvd., Suite 407 Austin, Texas 78758 TBPLS Firm Registration Number 101776-01 DARRELL D. WHITE 4816 ST A T E O F T E X A S L A N D S U R V E Y O R PFP-2015-003 Page 15 of 91 GEORGETOWN, TX 78626 STEGERBIZZELL.COM >>ENGINEERS >>PLANNERS >>SURVEYORS 512.930.9412 SERVICES METRO ADDRESS 1978 S. AUSTIN AVENUE WEB DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:APPROVED BY:JOB No. 22226-NH67 DATE: OCTOBER, 2015 SHEET 1 of 2 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e t h e s o l e p r o p e r t y o f S T E G E R B I Z Z E L L . T h e u s e o f t h e s e d r a w i n g s i s h e r e b y r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l s i t e f o r w h i c h t h e y w e r e p r e p a r e d . R e p r o d u c t i o n o r r e u s e o f t h e s e d r a w i n g s i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f S T E G E R B I Z Z E L L i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-181 TBPLS FIRM No.10003700 LEGEND: Iron Pin Found Iron Pin Set DE Indicates Drainage Easement. WLE Indicates Waterline Easement. WWE Indicates Wastewater Easement. BL Indicates Building Setback Line. PUE Indicates Public Utility Easement. ELEC E Indicates Electric Easement OAE Indicates Owner's Association Easement O.R.W.C.T. Indicates Official Records of Williamson County. W.C.P.R. Indicates Williamson County Plat Records P.O.B.Indicates Point of Beginning GENERAL NOTES: Total Acres: 0.919 Ac. Number of Lots: 0 Number of Blocks: 0 4. Linear feet of new street: 496 L.F. 5. Proposed use: Roadway or right-of-way. 6. Water, wastewater and electric service shall be provided by the City of Georgetown. 7. All structures/ obstructions are prohibited in drainage easements 8. dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞĂƌĞĂƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐŽĨƚŚŝƐƐƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞϭϬϬͲǇĞĂƌŇŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶĂƐĚĞĮŶĞĚďǇ&/ZDDĂƉ Number 48491C0275E, effective date of Sept. 26, 2008. 9. WƌŝŽƌƚŽĂŶǇĐŚĂŶŶĞůĂůƚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŽƌďƌŝĚŐĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůĐŚĂŶŐĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŇŽŽĚƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐŽƌĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕Ă Letter of Map Amendment must be submitted to the Williamson County Floodplain Administrator for approval and approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 10. In order to promote drainage away from a structure, the slab elevation should be built at least one-foot above the ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŐƌŽƵŶĚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŐƌĂĚĞĚĂǁĂǇĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĂƚĂƐůŽƉĞŽĨϭͬϮ͟ƉĞƌĨŽŽƚĨŽƌĂ distance of at least 10 feet. 11. Parkland Dedication requirements are being met by paying a fee-in-lieu of dedication. 12. Any Heritage Tree as noted on this plat is subject, in perpetuity, to the maintenance, care, pruning and removal requirements of the City of Georgetown, and approved removal does not require modification of the plat. 13. Sidewalks shall be provided, owned and maintained in accordance with the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) District agreement. 14. This tract is located in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. An approved Water Pollution Abatement Plan is required by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality prior to construction. 15. All bearings and coordinates are referenced to the Texas Coordinate System, Central Zone. NAD 83/93 HARN horizontal control datum and NAVD 88 vertical control datum. All coordinates are grid. All distances are surface and may be converted to grid by multiplying by the combined scale factor of 0.999856056. Coordinates are based on Lower Colorado River Authority USGS Benchmark C-1036. Published NAD 83 X=3,133,774.1200, Y=10,218,746.7610, NAVD 88 Elevation = 726.52; Adjusted to NAD 83/93 HARM X=3,133,772.6300, Y= 10,216,744.9310 Elevation = 723.87 16. The maximum impervious coverage is 40% maximum in overall development. 17. The landowner assumes all risks associated with improvements located in the right-of-way, or road widening easements. By placing anything in the right-of-way or road widening easements, the landowner indemnifies and holds the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, their officers, agents and employees harmless from any liability owing to property defects or negligence not attributable to them and acknowledges that the improvements may be removed by the City and/or County and that the owner of the improvements will be responsible for the relocation and/or replacement of the improvements. 18. The building of all streets, roads, and other public thoroughfares and any bridges or culverts necessary to be constructed or placed is the responsibility of the owners of the tract of land covered by this plat in accordance with the plans and specifications prescribed by the City of Georgetown and/or Williamson County, Texas. Neither the City of Georgetown nor Williamson County assumes any obligation to build any of the streets, roads, or other public thoroughfares shown on this plat or of constructing any of the bridges or drainage improvements in connection therewith. Neither the City of Georgetown nor Williamson County assume any responsibility for drainage ways or easements in the subdivision, other than those draining or protecting the road system and streets in their respective jurisdictions. 19. Neither the City of Georgetown nor Williamson County assumes any responsibility for the accuracy of representations by other parties in this plat. Floodplain data, in particular, may change depending on subsequent development. It is further understood that the owners of the tract of land covered by this plat must install at their own expense all traffic control devices and signage that may be required before the streets in the subdivision have finally been accepted for maintenance by the City and / or County. 20. Right-of-way easements for widening roadways or improving drainage shall be maintained by the landowner until road or drainage improvements are actually constructed on the property. The City and/or County have the right at any time to take possession of any road widening easement for construction, improvement, or maintenance of the adjacent road. 21. No construction in the subdivision may begin until the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TCEQ has approved the Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP) in writing. 22. Control monuments as shown: It is the practice of McKim & Creed to monument all corners (If practical) upon completion of construction. Typical monument is a 1/2-Inch iron rod with a "MCKCRD" Plastic Cap. 23. All plat boundary corners are staked with 1/2 -Inch iron rods with plastic caps stamped "MCKCRD" unless otherwise indicated. 24.This tract is subject to the City of Georgetown Edward Aquifer Recharge Zone Water Quality (Salamander) Ordinance No. 2013-59 and any amendments thereto. 25.Water quality and drainage easements required for this plat shall be dedicated by separate instrument. 26.This subdivision is subject to the City of Georgetown Water Conservation ordinance, Adopted April 22, 2014, ad Ordinance 2014-023. 0 50 100 SCALE: 1"=50' FINAL PLAT OF SUN CITY PEDERNALES FALLS DRIVE BRIDGE BEING A SUBDIVISION OF 0.919 ACRES IN THE FREDERICK FOY SURVEY, ABSTRACT No.229 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS LOCATION MAP - 1" = 2000' OWNER: PULTE HOMES OF TEXAS, LP STEPHEN ASHLOCK, DIRECTOR OF LAND DEVELOPEMENT 9401 AMBERGLEN BLVD., BLDG I, SUITE 150 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78729 ENGINEER: STEGER BIZZELL 1978 S. AUSTIN AVE. GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 SURVEYOR: McKIM & CREED, INC. 8868 RESEARCH BLVD., SUITE 407 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758 JJH FOR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF BRYAN E. MOORE, P.E. REG. #98920 ON 10/29/15. IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, PERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS 8868 Research Blvd, Suite 407 Austin, TX 78758 512.916.0224TBPLS Firm Registration number 101776-01 www.mckimcreed.com POINT OF BEGINNING Y=10,239,311.93 X= 3,105,418.82 PFP-2015-003 30' P.U.E. PER DOCUMENT NO. ______________ 30' P.U.E. PER DOCUMENT NO. ______________ Y=10,239,805.76 X= 3,105,319.22 Y=10,239,806.94 X= 3,105,399.03 Y=10,239,337.58 X= 3,105,505.93 Page 16 of 91 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning November 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action on a request to Rezone 1.18 acres in the Dimmit Addition located at 605 East University Ave., to be known as College View Apartments, from the Local Commercial (C-1) District to 0.1607 acre of the Residential Single-family (RS) District and 1.018 acres for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a High Density Multifamily (MF-2) base zoning district. (REZ-2015-009) Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant has requested to rezone 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition, located at 605 East University Ave., from the Local Commercial (C-1) District to 0.1607 acre of the Residential Single-family (RS) District and 1.018 acres for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a High Density Multifamily (MF-2) base zoning district. The applicant seeks to develop a multifamily development of 32 units to be known as College View Apartments on the majority of the property, while creating a separate lot for the existing single-family structure that will comply with the Residential Single-family district standards. The applicant seeks to incorporate portions of the existing buildings into the structures of two of the proposed apartment buildings. Planning & Zoning Commission: At the November 3, 2015 meeting, the Commission heard presentations on the application by both staff and the applicant. A public hearing was held, with 18 speakers in total, 17 opposed. The Commission had many questions for staff regarding the application specifics and UDC regulations. The applicant addressed several questions from the Commission, as well as rebuttal to the public comments. A motion to recommend denial failed to receive a second. A motion to postpone action until the November 17th meeting was seconded and approved by a vote of 3-1. Public Comment: As of the date of this report, 13 written public comments have been received, from 10 different persons, and are attached to this staff report as Exhibit 7. Recommended Motion: Staff is recommending approval of the application based on the findings contained with the staff report. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Page 17 of 91 Description Type Staff Report Backup Material Exhibit 1 - Future Land Use / Transportation Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Zoning Map Backup Material Exhibit 3 - PUD Development Plan Backup Material Exhibit 4 - PUD Conceptual Site Layout Backup Material Exhibit 5 - PUD Elevations and Floor Plans Backup Material Exhibit 6 - PUD Elevations and Floor Plans-Staff Preferred Backup Material Exhibit 7 - Public Comments Backup Material Page 18 of 91 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition - Page 1 of 11 Rezoning from C-1 to RS and PUD (MF-2) Report Date: November 13, 2015 File No: REZ-2015-009 Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner Item Details Project Name: College View Apartments Location: 605 East University Avenue Total Acreage: 1.18 acres Legal Description: 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition (comprising four properties) Applicant: Lee McIntosh, McIntosh Holdings Property Owner: Georgetown Hospital Authority (2 tracts) Georgetown Healthcare Systems (1 tract) Steenken Family Partnership (1 tract) Existing Use: A single-family residence being used for a non-profit purpose; a vacant hospital comprised of both wood and brick/masonry structures Existing Zoning: Local Commercial (C-1) District Proposed Zoning: The applicant has requested to rezone 1.18 acres located at 605 East University Ave., from the Local Commercial (C-1) District to the following zoning districts: • 0.1607 acres to the Residential Single-family (RS) District; • 1.018 acres to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a High Density Multifamily (MF-2) base zoning designation. The applicant seeks to develop a multifamily development of 32 units on the on the 1.018 acre tract, while creating a separate lot for the existing single-family structure, on the .1607 acre tract, that will comply with the Residential Single-family district standards. The applicant seeks to incorporate portions of the existing buildings into the structures of both of the new apartment buildings. Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential (MDR) Growth Tier: Tier 1A Surrounding Zoning/Use: Page 19 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition - Rezoning Page 2 of 11 From C-1 to RS and PUD (MF-2) Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North RS, Residential Single-family Moderate Density Residential Single family residences South C-1, Local Commercial, and CN, Neighborhood Commercial [across University Avenue/Highway 29] Moderate Density Residential Commercial (gas station, retail center, pharmacy) East RS, Residential Single-family; C-1, Local Commercial [across Walnut Street] Moderate Density Residential Single family residences; offices (Georgetown Community Clinic) West RS, Residential Single-family [across College Street] Moderate Density Residential Williams Elementary School (GISD) Property History The current structure was built in 1922 as the first hospital in Georgetown and significantly altered in 1962. The 1984 Historic Resource Survey form describes the structure’s condition as “fair, severely altered” and states that “original façade completely obscured.” The survey form also states that the structure is significant for its historic use, not the structure itself. The 1960s alterations resulted in the removal of the primary façade, and most of the character defining features of the architectural style. The single family residential structure addressed as 1019 South College Street was constructed in 1880 and is identified as a High Priority structure on the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resource Surveys. High priority structures are those which may be individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, due to their high level of architectural integrity. Development Request Chapter 4 of the UDC identifies the intention of the Planned Unit Development District (PUD) to allow flexibility in planning and designing for unique or environmentally sensitive properties. PUD zoning is designed to accommodate various types of development, including multiple housing types, neighborhood and community retail, professional and administrative areas, industrial and business parks, and other uses or a combination thereof. A PUD may be used to permit new or innovative concepts in land use and standards not permitted by zoning or the standards of this UDC, greater flexibility is given to allow development in a PUD that would not otherwise be allowed. The PUD document consists of the following components: • A required Development Plan (Exhibit 3 to this staff report) that describes and summarizes the attributes and UDC modifications of the proposed PUD District; and • A required Conceptual Site Layout (Exhibit 4 to this staff report) that graphically depicts the proposed development; and Page 20 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition - Rezoning Page 3 of 11 From C-1 to RS and PUD (MF-2) • Architectural Elevations and floor plans of the proposed buildings (Exhibit 5 to this staff report). The proposed project, as outlined above, is a 32 unit apartment building. The applicant is proposing to retain and reuse the existing frame of the structure, while enclosing the pull in parking area and creating first floor units, and constructing a third story atop of the existing building. Due to the following unique circumstances the PUD request includes deviations to the development standards associated with the base zoning designation (MF-2) and provides development commitments that would not normally be committed to as a result of the base zoning designation: • The land is located in close proximity to an established residential neighborhood where conventional zoning classifications do not adequately address the development standards needed to create a development that respects the location of the site on a major arterial roadway and adjacent to single family residential development. • The land serves as transition between different and seemingly incompatible land uses; • The UDC does not currently have a zoning designation, excepting the Mixed Use Downtown District that is only permitted in the traditional downtown area, that supports infill multi-family development. The applicant is requesting the following deviations from the base zoning regulations of the MF-2 district: 1. Impervious Cover The property has been qualified by a Professional Surveyor to have 92 % Impervious Cover. The proposed project reduces this to a maximum of 87%. As the property has been qualified by a Professional Surveyor to have 92 % Impervious Cover, and the proposed project will reduce that to a maximum of 87%, no storm water management devices (quantity or quality) are planned to be developed on the Property. If, during the Site Development Plan process, the applicant’s engineer cannot certify that 87% impervious cover exists in the pre-development condition, water detention may be required for the amount of impervious cover between existing conditions and 87%. Given the existing impervious cover exceeds the requirements of the UDC, the site is considered legally non-conforming. The UDC establishes requirements for legally non- conforming sites and identifies specific triggers when the development must be brought into conformance with the code. As a result of the nonconforming provisions of the UDC, this development deviation is not a deviation granted by the PUD; instead it is a standard regulated and available to all legally nonconforming sites. 2. Density - The maximum allowed density for the MF-2 Zoning District is 24 units per acre and 24 units per structure. The project proposes a developed density of 32 units Page 21 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition - Rezoning Page 4 of 11 From C-1 to RS and PUD (MF-2) per acre – 8 more than permitted - with no individual building structure exceeding 24 units. 3. Building Setbacks – See table: UDC Standard Proposed Setbacks North (Adjacent to Residential Single-Family RS District) - Rear 30 feet Building = 30 feet Parking = 5 feet South (University Ave) - Front 25 feet Building = 10 feet [Equal to the 10’ Gateway Overlay District landscaping buffer] Parking = N/A West (College Street) - Side 15 feet Building = 0 feet Parking = 0 feet [Represents a setback reduction of the entire 15 feet.] East (Walnut Street) - Side 15 feet Building = 15 feet Parking = 0 feet 4. Building Height - The MF-2 District maximum building height standard is 45 feet; the Old Town Overlay District has a maximum building height standard of 30 feet. It’s noted that the existing structures have mean heights of 23.6 feet (1920 wooden hospital) and 21.0 feet (1962 additions). The proposed maximum building height is thirty-six feet (36’) as measured per UDC Section 7.03.030(D.). 5. Landscaping & Bufferyards – The property is subject to the Downtown Gateway Landscape Overlay District along University Avenue, and a Type “c” Medium Level Bufferyard is required when an MF-2 District is adjacent to an RS District. Street Yard and Parking lot landscaping are also required. UDC Requirement Proposed South Side (University Ave.) Downtown Gateway Overlay, a 10- foot planting area with vegetation comprised of two shade trees and two 5-gallon shrubs per 1,000 square feet of landscape area. Raised planters, ornamental trees and shrubs West Side (College St.) Parking lot screening Parking lot landscaping and screening with shrubs East Side (Walnut St.) Streetyard landscaping, parking lot screening Three shade trees and shrubbery North Side (residential Medium Level Bufferyard, comprised of a 15 foot wide 5’ wide bufferyard, a minimum six-foot tall Page 22 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition - Rezoning Page 5 of 11 From C-1 to RS and PUD (MF-2) properties) planting area with one shade tree, two ornamental evergreens, and eight evergreen shrubs each 50 linear feet. privacy screen at the property line comprised of a 2’6” tall masonry base, with intermittent columns of masonry topped with a 3’6” tall wooden privacy fence. Parking Lot (General) One shade tree per 12 stalls; no stall more than 50’ from a shade tree; minimum size of tree well areas. Preserve existing trees # 07, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17 – clean-up, provide irrigation, and provide either tree wells or pervious pavers. 6. Building Separation – A building separation standard of 15’ between all buildings exists for the MF-2 District. The minimum required separation is proposed to be removed altogether; however, any minimum Fire Code separation requirements would be met. Structurally and functionally the project would be separated into three separate buildings of 15, 14 and 3 units, but they would all be connected by covered walkways and/or roofs. The PUD provides the following commitments: • The sole permitted use of the site would be a multi-family development. • Building Height maximum of 36’, nine feet less than allowed in the MF-2 District. • Tree preservation measures as identified on the Conceptual Site Layout. • A privacy wall along entire boundary with RS District in lieu of UDC bufferyard requirements, and shade tree plantings in yard area between building and Walnut Street not otherwise required. • Specific Building Architecture and Site Layout/design. The Conceptual Site Layout (Exhibit 4 to this staff report) graphically depicts the proposed development with specific details. The exhibit is meant to demonstrate the primary site development aspects expressed in the Development Plan, and is a critical part of what makes this PUD application different than a by-right zoning request. All other aspects of development not requested for modification will comply with minimum requirements listed in the UDC, enforced at the time of the administratively reviewed Site Development Plan or subsequent building permits. Page 23 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition - Rezoning Page 6 of 11 From C-1 to RS and PUD (MF-2) Transportation The access to this property is proposed to be via College Street and Walnut Street, with no vehicular access from University Avenue (State Highway 29). The proposed driveway locations are meeting UDC spacing requirements, with exact locations and details such as turn radiuses determined at Site Development Plan review. The average daily trips (ADT) threshold for triggering the need to perform a Traffic Impact Analysis is 2,000 ADT; it is not anticipated that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required based on the 32 proposed units. Staff Analysis Staff has reviewed the rezoning requests and has made the following findings: Request from the Local Commercial District (C-1) to the Residential Single-family District (RS): 1. The Future Land Use designation of the Moderate Density Residential supports the RS District for the 7,000 square foot area, as the location is mid-block, fronting an existing Collector road built to local road standards, and not abutting an arterial or higher classification of roadway. 2. The surrounding zoning of the 7,000 square foot area is Residential Single-family (RS) District, and the proposed District would add to the existing RS zoning fronting College Street to the north. 3. The immediate surrounding uses are single-family residences and the vacant former hospital, and the proposed District would result in a lot commensurate with many of the typical ‘old town’ residential lots in this part of the City. 4. The proposed 7,000 square foot lot, which includes the existing High Priority historic structure will be divided from the MF-2 zoning district, restored and made available for sale as a single family residence. The new single family residence provides an additional buffer for the adjacent residences located along College Street and provides an additional single family residence for the Old Town neighborhood, increasing the available housing stock. Request from the Local Commercial District (C-1) to the Planned Unit Development – High Density Multifamily District (MF-2 PUD): 1. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation of the Moderate Density Residential supports complementary non-residential uses along arterial roadways, but does not specifically note multifamily. 2. Staff finds that a reuse and redevelopment of portions of the existing structures to fill a segment of the housing spectrum that is underserved in the ‘old town’ area meets many goals and objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 24 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition - Rezoning Page 7 of 11 From C-1 to RS and PUD (MF-2) 3. The combination of the current zoning (C-1) and extremely high amount of existing impervious cover (noted at 92%) could result in many more intense and intrusive uses/developments for the neighboring properties. Fuel sales, convenience store, or drive-through restaurant uses could all be developed on the property with just subdivision platting and Site Plan approvals. 4. The proposed PUD District creates a transitional buffer for a property at the end of two streets that intersect with a major arterial State Highway. 5. The existing zoning of the property, Local Commercial (C-1) District, allows a wide range of uses under Chapter 5 of the UDC, including: • Permitted By-Right: Group Homes/Assisted living/Nursing home; Emergency services station; Library; Museum; Social Service Facility; Hospital; Inn/hotel; Parking Lot; Park-and-Ride; • Permitted subject to Limitations (see UDC): schools and day cares; religious assembly; Public park; Bed and breakfast; Restaurants/bar/brewery; Live music/theater/lodge; Medical/dental/health related; General Office; General Retail; Ag/landscape sales; Personal Services; Laundromat; Banks; Fitness Center; Vet. Clinic, Indoors; Auto. Parts Sales, Indoor; Fuel Sales; Car Wash; Wireless Transmission (less than 40’) • Permitted by Special Use Permit (SUP) from City Council: Multifamily Attached Dwelling Units; Event facility; Personal Services, Restricted; Self- storage, Indoor; Meat Market. The general development standards for the C-1 District, per Table 7.03.020 of the UDC, are: 35’ building height maximum; Impervious cover maximum of 70% for properties under 5 acres over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone; Front building setback of 25’ (0’ if in the Downtown Gateway Overlay); Side building setback of 10’ (15’ if adjacent Residential District); Rear building setback of 0’ (25’ if adjacent Residential District); Bufferyards if adjacent a Residential/Multifamily District; Landscaping and Screening per Chapter 8. Staff has reviewed the requests for consistency with Section 3.06.040 of the UDC and recommends APPROVAL of both rezoning requests for the following reasons: Criteria for Approval for Zoning Change Meets Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria Neutral Comments The application is complete and the information contained within the application is sufficient and correct enough to allow X Staff has reviewed the application for completeness per the requirements of the UDC. Page 25 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition - Rezoning Page 8 of 11 From C-1 to RS and PUD (MF-2) adequate review and final action. The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. X The Comprehensive Master Plan is an overarching long-term plan for the future of Georgetown. The elements of the comprehensive plan include future land use, transportation, airport, housing, downtown master plan, and executive summaries for parks, public safety and utility master plans. In reviewing the comprehensive master plan it is critical, particularly in a PUD request, that all elements are reviewed and evaluated as a whole rather than individually. In reviewing the guidance of the comprehensive master plan staff has made the following findings: • The proposed development appears to support the land use element goals identified in the comprehensive master plan including: promoting sound, sustainable and compact development patterns with balanced land uses and variety of housing choices; Remove present inadvertent impediments to infill and re-investment in older, developed areas; Maintain and strengthen viable land uses and land use patterns (e.g., stable neighborhoods, economically sound commercial and employment areas, etc.) • The future land use map identifies the greater old-town area as a moderate-density residential area. This land use category comprises single family neighborhoods that can be accommodated at a density ranging between 3 and 6 dwelling units per gross acre. • The future land use map and overall transportation master plan identify University Avenue as a major arterial roadway • As a major arterial roadway, University Avenue is considered a transportation corridor linking I-35 and SH130. Additionally, University Avenue functions as gateway into the core of the Georgetown community and as such transitions between uses fronting on University and surrounding uses need critical review. • In order to support the stated goals of housing choices, investment in infill development, and ensure proper transitions between established neighborhoods and commercial development an increased density along major arterials must be considered. The zoning change promotes the health, safety X The proposed zoning change has taken steps to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the Page 26 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition - Rezoning Page 9 of 11 From C-1 to RS and PUD (MF-2) or general welfare of the City and the safe orderly and healthful development of the City. City in the following ways: • The development of this site utilizing a PUD rather than straight local commercial or multi- family zoning allows the site to be reviewed based on the context of the location rather than adhering to the minimum development standards of the straight zoning designations • The design of the site with the building close to the street and away from existing single family development is a development standard that promotes the orderly development of the area and takes steps to eliminate transportation conflicts that would result in direct access (a curb cut or multiple curb cuts) should the site be developed without a unified plan or developed in the commercial manner it is entitled to with the current zoning designation. • The proposed zoning change creates the opportunity to promote orderly development of sites in which existing utilities and infrastructure is available and creates the opportunity to diversify the choices available for households of different age, size and income in the core of the community. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood; and X The proposed zoning change is compatible with the zoning of the nearby property. The zoning designations/ uses of the surrounding properties include Local Commercial to the south (convenience store/gas station/ commercial center); to the east the property is zoned Local Office (the property is currently vacant but has been used as office space and is permitted to continue the use); to the west the property is zoned Residential, Single Family (currently used as Williams Elementary); to the north the property is zoned and used as Residential Single Family. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the District that would be applied by the proposed amendment. X The proposed PUD limits the use of the site to a multi- family development. The use of the site as multi- family development is suitable for the size and location of the subject property. Section 3.06.040 – Approval Criteria (Specific Objectives) for PUD Approval: A variety of housing types, employment opportunities, or commercial services to achieve a balanced community; X The subject property is a ~1 acre infill redevelopment site. The PUD development as proposed diversifies the choices available for households of different age, size, and income. An orderly and creative arrangement of all land uses with X The proposed development is a three story multi-family development. In order to reduce the height impact of the development on the adjacent homes, in addition to Page 27 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition - Rezoning Page 10 of 11 From C-1 to RS and PUD (MF-2) respect to each other and to the entire community; developing a site that is more consistent with an urban style development than a suburban garden style apartment, the applicant has designed a site that pulls the building towards University Avenue and away from the single family homes to the north. A planned and integrated comprehensive transportation system providing for a separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, to include facilities such as roadways, bicycle ways, and pedestrian walkways X The proposed development includes reconstruction and enlargement of the sidewalk along University Avenue and construction of sidewalks along College and Walnut Streets. The provisions of cultural or recreational facilities for all segments of the community; x The proposed project complies with the criteria by enhancing the cultural benefit of the Old Town Overlay District through the rehabilitation of the historic residential structure. Preservation is a cultural element of the community and continued preservation efforts provide a benefit for the community. The location of general building envelopes to take maximum advantage of the natural and manmade environment; and X The proposed building has been sited away from the single family homes and is pulled close to the street. Additionally, the subdivision and rehabilitation of the two story house provides additional buffering for the site. The staging of development in a manner which can be accommodated by the timely provision of public utilities, facilities, and services. X The proposed development will be developed in one phase. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of 23 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on October 18th. As of the writing of this report, two (2) written comments have been received; these are added as Exhibit 7 of this staff report. Attachments Exhibit 1 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 2 – Zoning Map Page 28 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report 1.18 acres in the Dimmitt Addition - Rezoning Page 11 of 11 From C-1 to RS and PUD (MF-2) Exhibit 3 – PUD Development Plan “Exhibit A” Exhibit 4 – PUD Conceptual Site Layout “Exhibit B” Exhibit 5 – PUD Elevations and Floor Plans “Exhibit C” Exhibit 6 – PUD Elevations and Floor Plans “Exhibit C” – STAFF PREFERRED Exhibit 7 – Public Comment Meetings Schedule November 3, 2015 – Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing November 17, 2015 – Planning and Zoning Commission November 24, 2015 – City Council Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance December 8, 2015 – City Council Second Reading of an Ordinance Page 29 of 91 REZ-2015-009 E 11TH ST WA L N U T S T S C O L L E G E S T E 13TH ST E 10TH ST P I N E S T E UNIVERSITY AVE 0 200 400 Feet Coordinate 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 #1 REZ-2015-009 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 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 N A u s t i n A v e E University AveW University Ave §¨¦ N C olle ge St35 Page 30 of 91 REZ-2015-009 W A L N U T S T E 11TH ST S C O L L E G E S T E 13TH ST E 10TH ST P I N E S T E UNIVERSITY AVE Zoning InformationREZ-2015-009Exhibit #2 ¯ Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 200 400Feet LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ³SiteCity Limits Street Site §¨¦35 W University Ave E University Ave N A u s t i n A v e N CollegeSt Page 31 of 91 Exhibit “A” College View Apartments High Density Multi-family (MF-2) District Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan A. PROPERTY The College View Apartments Planned Unit Development District is located at 605 East University, Georgetown Texas 78626 and encompasses approximately 1.018 acres, described as “1.018 acres in the Dimmit Addition”. The property is not considered a Legal lot by the definition in the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) and will undergo subdivision platting after the rezoning process and before Site Plan approval can be issued. B. PURPOSE The purpose of this PUD District is the redevelopment of the portion of the property comprising the old Georgetown Hospital into 32 apartment Units and 61 parking spaces. This PUD zoning serves to augment and/or modify the standards for development outlined in the City’s UDC in order to implement the vision for the property and insure a cohesive, quality development not otherwise anticipated by the underlying base zoning district. In accordance with UDC Section 4.06.010.C “Development Plan Required”, this Development Plan titled Exhibit “A” is a summary of the development and design standards for the property. C. APPLICABILITY AND BASE ZONING In accordance with UDC Section 4.06.010.A “Compatibility with Base Zoning District”, all development of the property shall conform to the base zoning district of High Density Multi-Family (MF-2). Except for those requirements specifically deviated by this Development Plan, all development standards established in the most current version of the UDC at the time of development shall be applicable, including amendments or ordinances adopted after the date of this PUD zoning being approved by City Council. In the case that this Development Plan does not address a specific item, the City of Georgetown UDC and any other applicable Ordinances shall apply. In the event of a conflict between the regulations of this PUD zoning and the regulations of the base zoning district (MF-2), the PUD shall control. D. CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT A Conceptual Site Layout has been attached to this Development Plan as Exhibit “B” to illustrate the land use and design intent for the property. The Conceptual Site Layout is intended to serve as a guide to illustrate the general vision and design concepts and is not intended to serve as a final document for development. Page 32 of 91 As such, the proposed building and parking configurations are subject to refinement at time of Site Plan review. The Conceptual Site Layout depicts two buildings, parking, outdoor areas, and tree preservation. Approval of this PUD, Development Plan, and Conceptual Site Layout does not constitute approval of a Site Development Plan per Section 3.09 of the UDC. E. LAND USES 1. Primary Use. The primary use shall be Multi-Family Attached Dwelling Units and required parking. 2. Other Permitted Uses. None 3. Prohibited Uses. None 4. Permitted Accessory Uses. None F. DESIGN STANDARDS 1. Density. The project proposes a development density of 32 units per acre, with no individual building structure exceeding 24 units. 2. Setbacks. The proposed building setbacks for this project are: • North (adjacent to Residential Single Family RS District) - Rear o Rear building setback shall be 30’. o Rear parking setback shall be 5’. • South (University Ave) - Front o Front building setback shall be 10’. o Front parking setback – N/A. • West (College Street) - Side o Side building setback shall be 0’. o Side parking setback shall be 0’. • East (Walnut Street) - Side o Side building setback shall be 15’. o Side parking setback shall be 0’. The building and parking setbacks between the proposed RS District (with this application) and the MF-2 PUD District shall be zero (0’). 3. Building Height. The proposed maximum building height is thirty-six feet (36’) as measured per UDC Section 7.03.030(D.). Page 33 of 91 4. Exterior Lighting. Exterior Lighting will comply with the requirements set forth in Section 7.05 of the UDC. 5. Building Separation. The building separation standards of Chapter 6 for the MF-2 district will not be met on this project, however, minimum Fire Code regulations will be met. All three buildings will be connected by covered walkways and will function as a single structure for fire control purposes. A zero separation is therefore proposed. Structurally and functionally the project will be separated into three separate buildings of 15, 14 and 3 units respectively. G. PARKING. Sixty-one (61) parking spaces are proposed, with 49 traditional 18’x9’ spaces and 12 Compact spaces (16’x8’); see the Concept Site Layout. H. VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 1. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). No TIA is being provided, as the threshold for requiring one is not met by this project. 2. Driveway Access. Driveways are as shown on the Conceptual Site Layout, and will meet UDC requirements as determined at the time of Site Development Plan review. I. TREE PRESERVATION Tree preservation shall be in accordance with the UDC. As shown on the Conceptual Site Layout, the following specifics are committed to being performed: • Parking lot islands as protective measures for Trees #07 & #15. • Pervious pavers as protective measures for Trees #10, #13, #15, and #17. • Trees #04 and #05 in the Gateway Landscape area are retained. J. LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS Landscaping on the Property shall be in conformance with Chapter 8 of the UDC unless otherwise stated in this Development Plan. 1. Streetyard and Gateway: Streetyard and Gateway landscaping on the South side adjacent University Avenue/State Highway 29 shall be comprised of: • Raised Planters near or integrated into the buildings along the length of University Avenue, including wrought iron (like) fencing, will be utilized to house some of the required shrubbery plantings. • Due to anticipated utility conflicts, ornamental trees may be utilized in lieu of shade trees. Streetyard landscaping on the East Side adjacent Walnut Street shall be comprised of: Page 34 of 91 • Three (3) shade trees, comprising 20 total caliper inches at the time of planting, placed in the pervious area between the proposed building and the property line. • A solid row of shrubbery (when mature) along the base of the east façade of the building. 2. Parking Lot Landscaping: • The provisions of Section 8.04.040(A.) and (B.) shall not be met. Rather, the following trees shall be preserved, and improved upon by reduction of pervious material within their critical root zones, per the Conceptual Site Layout: #07, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 17. 3. Bufferyards: The following bufferyard is proposed along the North Side of the property: • A 5’ wide bufferyard (green space) adjacent the off-site RS District zoned properties. • A varying width bufferyard (green space), with no plantings, around the 7,000 SF proposed RS District (with this application), with parking permitted within it. • Along the entire boundary of the proposed MF-2 PUD District where adjacent the existing or the proposed RS District (with this application) zoned properties, a minimum six-foot – and maximum eight-foot - tall privacy screen comprised of a 2’6” tall masonry base, with intermittent columns of masonry topped with a 3’6” (for 6’) or 4’6” (for 8’) tall wooden privacy fence. 4. Parking Lot Screening: • Shrubbery will be installed at the parking lot entrances from College Street and Walnut Street consisting of 5-gallon shrubs between the property line and the parking spaces. K. SIGNAGE Signage on the Property shall be in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Code. L. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE The property has been qualified by a Professional Surveyor to be 92 % Impervious Cover. The project proposed to reduce this to 87% maximum as exemplified on the Concept Site Layout. M. STORMWATER DRAINAGE As the property has been qualified by a Professional Surveyor to be 92 % Impervious Cover, and the proposed project will reduce that to a maximum of 87%, no storm water management devices (quantity or quality) shall be developed Page 35 of 91 on the Property. If during the Site Development Plan process, the applicant engineer cannot certify that 87% impervious cover does exist in the pre- development condition, water detention may be required for the amount of impervious cover between existing conditions and 87%. Drainage will be diverted from the site to the curbs of the three surrounding public streets, (College, Walnut, University Avenue.) or utilize the existing drainage system as dictated by the approved Site Development Plan. N. PARKLAND AND COMMON AMENITY AREA 1. Parkland. The parkland dedication requirements of UDC Section 13.05 will be met with fee-in lieu of dedication, as provided for in Section 13.05.010.D, at time of Site Development Plan approval. 2. Common Amenity Area. The Common Amenity Area requirements of UDC Section 6.06.020 will be met by integrating the following amenities on-site: Four (4) metal benches that currently meet the City standard for right of way use will be installed on the site as determined by staff and applicant at the time of Site Development Plan review. O. PUD MODIFICATIONS In conformance with Section 4.06.010.D.3 of the UDC, modifications to this Development Plan shall require City Council approval of an amendment to this PUD processed pursuant to Section 3.06 of the UDC, except, where the Director of Planning determines such modifications to be minor, the Director may authorize such modifications. Minor modifications may include changes to building sizes, uses, or locations providing those modifications conform to the general intent of this PUD, uses authorized by this PUD, or to applicable provisions of the UDC and any other applicable regulations. P. PATIOS ON UNIVERSITY Five ground floor units are proposed adjacent to University Avenue. These units will have patios surfaced in pavers and separated from the sidewalk with a small brick retaining wall and an appropriately sized wrought iron ornamental fence. Q. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A – PUD Development Plan (this document) Exhibit B – PUD Conceptual Site Layout Exhibit C – PUD Elevations and Floor Plans Page 36 of 91 Page 37 of 91 Page 38 of 91 Page 39 of 91 Page 40 of 91 Page 41 of 91 Page 42 of 91 Page 43 of 91 Page 44 of 91 Page 45 of 91 Page 46 of 91 Page 47 of 91 Page 48 of 91 Page 49 of 91 Page 50 of 91 Page 51 of 91 Page 52 of 91 From:Pamela Mitchell To:Mike Elabarger; Matt Synatschk ; Sofia Nelson Subject:605 E. University Proposal - Case # REZ-2015-009 Date:Tuesday, October 27, 2015 1:00:21 PM Attachments:GT.605University.Talking Points3.docx Dear Mike, Sophia, and Matt, As you know from our meeting 2 months ago, I am opposed to the 605 E. Universityproposal submitted by Mr. McIntosh. I am looking forward to the materials Fridaybut am concerned I will not have enough time to understand the proposal given myschedule - I am facilitating a 3 day strategic planning retreat for BSWH DallasDivision 11/1- 11/3 (at 2 p.m.). It has been scheduled for months. It is my issuenot yours but it does make it hard for me to do the level of prep required for P&Z given the enormous impact this proposal has on my property. So, a couple of asks. . . : From the web site, I understand that P&Z guides projects based on: 1) quality ofthe proposal in terms of supporting GT's future, 2) preservation of the community'shistorical and environmental features, and 3) alignment with the city'scomprehensive plan (plan 2030). And that, you use the UDC as the guide foradherence. Is that correct? Also, I am looking for information on the following:: 1. Can you provide me the materials you have to date? Do you expect more information or a revised rendering? 2. Can you list the areas where the proposal is out of compliance with the UDCand/or asking for exception?3. Can you share with me the parking space count? - I read 61 spaces but count53.4. Can you provide me the scope of the evaluation regarding traffic and parkingimpact? Lastly, what is the best way to share: 1. The concerns I have for the proposal - I am not in favor of the infill proposal - it is too big (3 stories) and too out of character with the old town overlay district, etc. (See attached - it is based on the last rendering I have but theessential concerns remain.) And, I am concerned about the re-zoning to highdensity/multi-family. It is not aligned with the intent of the space and moreimportantly, does not reflect the Plan 2030 intent of multi-family housinglocations.2. My preferences - I prefer to have the space used for community/healthservices (like the AA house) that is in keeping with the historical intent of the land/building and something that adheres to normal business hours (8 a.m.-5 p.m. M-F). . . even extended business hours like the AA house (6 a.m. - 10 p.m. 7 days/week). 3. The feedback from the community - I have had a booth at Market Days thelast 2 months and have shared the proposal and location. I have secured over200 signatures opposing the building and am collecting more. I will be at P&Z and take my 3+ minutes. I will also send in the comment card sent Page 53 of 91 by you regarding the proposal (given my proximity to the space). What else should I be doing to have my concerns heard. . . ? If you would like to talk real time or meet face to face, I will make myself availableup until Sunday when I need to leave for Dallas. 831-901-4011.Thanks, Pam Pamela Mitchell 1017 S. College Street Click here to report this email as spam. Page 54 of 91 Know Georgetown Grow Georgetown Georgetown Community Preservation Initiative 1 Initiative: 605 E. University Talking Points Overview: Developer, Mr. Lee McIntosh is proposing a development on 605 E. University. The proposal is for a 33-unit, 3-story apartment building. Currently, the site contains the old Georgetown hospital and Community Center. Issues and Concerns: 1. Summary – The key issues are: a. Mis-alignment with the character of the Old Town Overlay District b. Size of the building – 3 stories in a neighborhood of mostly 1-story, single family homes c. Traffic and safety – a) congestion on 29 and no turn lane, b) traffic on College St. and Walnut St. given proximity to the elementary school, c) College St. though fare for city trucks and concerns over street parking 2. Consistency with the Old Town Overlay District/Neighborhood a. The current design outlines: i. A new 3 story building - in a neighborhood of mostly 1-story historic or older homes ii. No set-back off of University, College St. or Walnut St. - Educational and religious buildings along University are mostly 2 stories and have compliant set-back’s from the street b. The apartment building has 33 units, 56 bedrooms i. Given the proximity to Southwestern University, the building is expected to have a higher number of occupants than bedrooms and mostly of college age ii. Activity, noise, and lights are expected to be more intense and invasive than the remainder of the single family residence/neighborhood 1. Note: as a C1 zoning plat, business is expected to be conducted on the site with standard business hours. iii. By nature of the building being for apartments, the tenets are transitory and not expected to be invested in the community of GT 3. Unified Design Standards Compliance a. The current design is inconsistent with UDC design standards i. Height – over 35 feet ii. Set-back – not complying with city regulations regarding street set-backs iii. Buffer – no buffer between building/parking lot and nearest single-family residences iv. Parking – insufficient parking given nature of renters Page 55 of 91 Know Georgetown Grow Georgetown Georgetown Community Preservation Initiative 2 b. Note: There is no current information on parking lot lighting, building lighting, landscaping/tree retention, etc. 4. Traffic and Safety a. Given the shortage of parking spaces and the expectation that there will be more residence than bedrooms, tenets and tenet guests are expected to use College St. and Walnut St. as overflow. i. Rt 29/University traffic will create more congestion on Rt 29 as well as pushing more traffic onto side streets and through neighborhoods ii. There is no turn lane off of Rt 29/University or light at College St. or Walnut St. 1. Congestion on Rt 29/University is expected (at best) 2. Occurrence of accidents are likely (at worst) iii. A total of 3 additional parking spaces are available for guests which means tenets will be parking on College St. or Walnut St. 1. College St. and Walnut St are both school zoned 2. College is a major though fare for city waste trucks, Suddenlink maintenance trucks, and business traffic (GT Parks and Rec, Suddenlink, Recycle Station) iv. There is no side walk on Walnut St. 5. Historical Relevance a. The site is the location of the old Georgetown Hospital (circa 1923) and the Community Center (circa pre-1965). b. Note: The old Georgetown Hospital is in a nearly unrecoverable state of disrepair and would require significant investment to refurbish to standard. 6. Consistency with the Master Plan 2030 a. The GT Master Plan 2030 calls for multi-family housing but not for the 605 E. University site 7. Design a. The design of the building is not reflective of the historic nature of the neighborhood 8. Precedence a. On the east side of 35/in old town GT, there are no other multi-family dwellings over 2 stories b. The proposal is one of several 3-4 story buildings being proposed in or immediately around the Old Town/Historic Overlay District. Page 56 of 91 Know Georgetown Grow Georgetown Georgetown Community Preservation Initiative 3 Status and Next Steps: Step/Activity Status Notes/Action Items GT-CPI Awareness • Petition drive – asking for signatures from Georgetown residents and patrons for submission of Planning and Zoning, HARC, and City Council • Notification to GT community regarding project and upcoming activities • Saturday, 9/12 – join us at booth 811 for Market Days. We will be talking to the community and securing signatures for the petition Demolition • Application for demolition has been received by the city and approved by HARC • Demolition can occur as early as 9/23/2015 • Concerns can be submitted until 9/15 Rezoning • The site will need to be combined (there are currently 3-4 plats and rezoned from C-1 to multi- family • The application is not yet complete and has not been scheduled for planning and zoning • Planning and Zoning Hearing: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 6 p.m In-fill • Certificate of Design was submitted and reviewed by HARC 6/25/15. It was denied. • Mr. McIntosh submitted an appeal to the City Council. • City Council Hearing: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 6 p.m. Location Page 57 of 91 Know Georgetown Grow Georgetown Georgetown Community Preservation Initiative 4 Rendering of proposed building Neighborhood. . . Page 58 of 91 Page 59 of 91 From:RUSSELL To:Mike Elabarger Subject:Fw: Rezoning of 605 East University from Commercial to Residential Date:Sunday, October 25, 2015 9:32:56 PM From: RUSSELL <texanaprop@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:25 AM To: planning@georgetown.org Subject: Rezoning of 605 East University from Commercial to Residential To: Mike Elabarger From: Ralph Russell Date: October 25, 2015 Regarding: rezoning 605 East University Ave from Commercial ro Residential. I am very much opposed to this rezoning. I am in favor of leaving the property commercial. It is more beneficial to me at 604 E. University, across the street, to leave it commercial. Commercial properties benefit other commercial properties. An apartment complex on University Ave in that location would not fit with the character of the unique commercial neighborhood there. Nor would it balance with the appearance of the area including the classical older homes to the East and West on University Ave. We have a very unique little island of commercial properties. If developed in the right way, this property could be made into a beautiful area of small shops, restaurants and businesses or offices very beneficial to me and much needed for that part of town. An apartment complex does not belong there. Let's say no to this one. Ralph Russell Owner, 604 E. University Ave. Georgetown TX. Resident, 1104 River Bend Georgetown, TX 512-869-5880 texanaprop@hotmail.com Click here to report this email as spam. Page 60 of 91 From:RUSSELL To:Mike Elabarger Subject:Fw: Addendum to Rezoning of 605 East University from Commercial to Residential Date:Sunday, October 25, 2015 9:50:50 PM Mike, I wanted to add one additional point. Apartments do not bring in sales tax revenue. It is not cost effective for the city to allow this change. This is a lucrative location. It would certainly be an income loss for the city to change the zoning from commercial. From: RUSSELL <texanaprop@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:25 AM To: planning@georgetown.org Subject: Rezoning of 605 East University from Commercial to Residential To: Mike Elabarger From: Ralph Russell Date: October 25, 2015 Regarding: rezoning 605 East University Ave from Commercial ro Residential. I am very much opposed to this rezoning. I am in favor of leaving the property commercial. It is more beneficial to me at 604 E. University, across the street, to leave it commercial. Commercial properties benefit other commercial properties. An apartment complex on University Ave in that location would not fit with the character of the unique commercial neighborhood there. Nor would it balance with the appearance of the area including the classical older homes to the East and West on University Ave. We have a very unique little island of commercial properties. If developed in the right way, this property could be made into a beautiful area of small shops, restaurants and businesses or offices very beneficial to me and much needed for that part of town. An apartment complex does not belong there. Let's say no to this one. Ralph Russell Owner, 604 E. University Ave. Georgetown TX. Resident, 1104 River Bend Georgetown, TX 512-869-5880 texanaprop@hotmail.com Click here to report this email as spam. Page 61 of 91 From:ceasley@suddenlink.net To:Mike Elabarger Subject:605 E University Date:Monday, November 02, 2015 11:29:56 AM Dear Mike, I am writing to express my chagrin at the possibility of a 3 story bldg. in this quiet neighborhood. Setbacks only 5 ft., 87% impervious cover? How can this be? How can it possibly fit in to this visually important neighborhood? The staff has approved these exceptions? The developer should be ashamed. He knows better. Clare Easley 912 Forest Page 62 of 91 From:Kelly Gerry To:Mike Elabarger Subject:605 E. University Ave. Date:Monday, November 02, 2015 9:33:21 PM Mike... I understand you are the person to speak with in Planning and Zoning (Georgetown)re: the proposed development at the corner of University and College. My family recently purchased the big house at the end of 8th st. and college and feel responsible in the stewardship of a property that has been around for 135 years or so. My lack of support for this proposal may or may not be typical. As a businessperson I try to be a realist as it relates to development. College has a number oflots that need repair and I am very much for development in the area. That saidthere are components of this plan that haven't been properly disclosed or haven'tbeen thought through sufficiently in order to gain my support. Based on the growth of Georgetown and the value growth of land close to the town center, I am certain that town council doesn't want to see the beginnings of a low- rent district in this region. The plans that I have seen have the following attributes: - they look like an excellent investment opportunity for the developer. As I ownseveral rental properties, I understand the need to see positive cashflow... howeverthis looks like a gold mine. Good for the developer... not necessarily good for theneighborhood. - they are a mix of one and two bedroom apartments within close walking distance of the university. It doesn't take a mental giant to understand who the developer is trying to attract. Unfortunately with this mix, it will be a highly transient location(unless rental agreements are conditioned on long-term (multi-year) rental - which isvery unlikely in my opinion). - the building they are planning is relatively ugly, with little investment (shown) indesign and landscaping. I would compare some of the investments just north of thecentral Court building and the care that was taken to ensure that the homes / buildings were designed with the community in mind. I see very little of that detail in this proposal. From what I see, improvements on these buildings are basically a facade. If they need an architect... I know several who could make some needed suggestions to the design. - height is an issue. this ship may have sailed, but a three story apartment buildingseems very unsightly for the area. If you were me, how would you feel afterinvesting the amount I have on a home that has been carefully restored over manyyears... and then finding out that you are going to be neighbors with 'that'. I hope you can think about with honest reflection. I purchased my home to be a part of a community... to be proud of the historic home that I acquired... and participate in the improvement in the general area. This development moves against all of those imperatives in my opinion. - traffic is an issue... but not a huge one... I honestly don't see that as a defensible Page 63 of 91 point for opposition. That assumes that there is sufficient parking and conditions that regulate those that stay at the residences on a regular basis. I am sure that will be in place... how they regulate and police these conditions is of interest. Truthfully, with land already acquired and preliminary review completed I don'tbelieve this project will be stopped. I feel a bit cheated as I bought my home(mansion?) without understanding that this was in process... it's public so I blamemyself to some degree. that said, at this stage I think we can certainly make the developer invest properly in the investment for the long term. Key areas I think are reasonable are: - Improve the look of the buildings (1st priority)... this is a combination ofarchitecture and landscaping improvements.- Ensure strong controls and management are legislated and in place to ensure theproperty enhances the neighborhood (as all new developments should). Enforcement of controls needs to be a strong consideration for approval... how will council ensure that this really happens? - Increase the # of 2 and 3 bedroom residences. % should be set to ensure long term residents are encouraged to become part of this community and internally police any bad behaviour that might easily exist in these locations in their absence. While this may seem like a major design change, this is actually a fairly easyadjustment based on the building layout. I have access to a few thousand architectsthat demonstrate that this is a correct statement... the big issue is that it will affectthe developers plan to have ultra-positive cashflow. - Lower the buildings. This is a difficult improvement. IF other items are lookedafter, this may not be as critical. However if we look at any buildings in the area that have 3 stories (ie. Georgetown University & my home) they should reflect the period / style / detail that make old-town a special place to live. kind regards. Kelly J. Gerry936.444.5718. Click here to report this email as spam. Page 64 of 91 Page 65 of 91 From:Rob Dyer To:Mike Elabarger; Mayor; District3 ; District1 ; District2 ; District4 ; District5 ; District6 ; District7 ; David Morgan Subject:Proposed Apt Complex on University Date:Monday, November 02, 2015 9:43:18 AM Good Morning, First and foremost, I would like to tell you all thank you for your time and service toour community. I appreciate the work you all put in to making Georgetown a greatplace to live! I would also like to take a minute to express my opinion on theproposed apt complex that is planned for the old medical center property across the street from Williams Elementary on University. After having lived in Old Town for a number of years, and also built and remodeledseveral properties around the University, (and being an elementary schoolprincipal), I can definitely see a need for more options in housing. I think anice apartment complex / multi family housing is a good idea, and wedefinitely need more (nice) properties that are affordable. I also think garageapartments are a good idea in Old Town because they provide another option forresidential rental. The ones I am aware of are generally well maintained by the families that live on or own the property (on site ownership and management), and are often lived in by family members. That being said, it is important to me that we have and maintain high standards inthis area to ensure the continued viability and improvement to Old Town. It is myunderstanding that the proposed complex does not meet the UDC guidelines, andthat exemptions are being asked in a number of areas including an increase in thenumber of units, and a decrease in the amount of impervious coverage. I feel thatboth of these factors will create a parking problem in an area where there is littleadditional on street parking. Increased numbers of units also lessons the ability to create a community of residents and increases anonymity, and its related issues. I would ask that you consider asking the developer to comply with the UDC and HARK recommendations. Thanks, Rob Dyer1711 McCoy Place Click here to report this email as spam. Page 66 of 91 From:Kay Vossler To:District6 ; Mayor; Mike Elabarger Subject:Proposed apartment complex at 605 E. University in Georgetown Date:Tuesday, November 03, 2015 2:04:33 PM Dear Ms. Jonrowe, Mr. Mayor, and Mr. Elabarger: I am apposed to the 3-story apartment complex proposed for the site at 605 E. University. Below I have listed just a few reasons: a) the apartment complex will greatly increase traffic in a residential area which abuts a school zone b) the developer is requesting four (4) exceptions to the current code requirements. These requirements were instituted specifically to protect Old Town and the homeowners in the area. c) the size of the building does not fit the location; it is too big for the piece of land. d) it does not comply with the HARC Design Guidelines. Please consider denying the requests of the developer in total and keep our Old Town charming and quaint. Kind regards, Kay Vossler 409 E. 10th St. 805-798-4466 Click here to report this email as spam. Page 67 of 91 From:Wigington, Jo To:District6 Cc:"pamela.i.mitchell@gmail.com"; Mayor; Mike Elabarger; Laurie Brewer Subject:Against PUD appeal for Apartments on University Date:Wednesday, November 04, 2015 9:52:51 AM Dear Rachael, I was outraged at the approval to move ahead with the PUD project apartment complex on University heard by the P&Z commission on 11/3. Could you and Mr. Fuller, the only supporter of the community lead us in opposition by proposing we keep the C1 zoning and enforce the UDC guidelines? I do not agree with using a PUD to bypass our Old Town overlay and place high density apartments with 0 lot line and inadequate parking next to residences. I also felt “ambushed” by this loophole Mr. McIntosh and Staff planning found to get around our codes at their profit. We need to grow and apartments are fine with me. I simply want them to meet our historic guidelines such as: 1. setbacks, 2. C1 zoning with lower density, 3. meet impact studies such as utilities and parking. 4. keep business hours 5. impervious cover guidelines I live down the street on College and 8th and do not agree that this would benefit Georgetown or this neighborhood as a PUD. Jo Beth Wigington 601 E. 8 th St. Georgetown Jo Beth Wigington, CSP |Risk Engineering Consultant Crum&Forster | 6404 International Parkway, Suite 1000 | Plano, TX 75093 | USA M: 972-998-1750 jo.wigington@cfins.com | www.cfins.com Crum & Forster Enterprise is part of FAIRFAX Group Click here to report this email as spam. Page 68 of 91 From:ceasley@suddenlink.net To:Mike Elabarger Subject:P&Z Date:Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:24:24 PM Mike, Your presentation on 605 E University was skillful at the meeting Tuesday nite. What I took away from the meeting was a PUD can occur anywhere in Old Town and ignore any zoning ordinance or Old Town Overlay. Please correct that assumption if I'm mistaken. Clare Easley 912 Forest Page 69 of 91 From:Karen Frost To:Mike Elabarger; Sofia Nelson Subject:FW: Response to Request for Zoning Change - Opposition to REZ-2015-009 - College at University Date:Monday, November 09, 2015 9:34:12 AM Please forward to anyone else that needs this. It came in yesterday. Karen From: John Gordon [mailto:jnbrgordon@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 7:33 PM To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>; Mayor <mayor@georgetown.org>; District6 <district6@georgetown.org>; District1 <district1@georgetown.org> Cc: Eric C Gordon <faith_eric_jax@yahoo.com>; Ruth Gordon <RthAGordon@gmail.com>; Linda Scarbrough <linda@wilcosun.com>; Tristan Whitmire <tristanbwhitmire@yahoo.com> Subject: Response to Request for Zoning Change - Opposition to REZ-2015-009 - College at University To Mayor Ross, Councilwoman Jonrowe (in district), Councilwoman Eby (adjacent district), and Planning Department, The residential lot at 1007 South College Street has been in the possession of the Gordon family continuously for 127 years. James Jefferson (JJ) Gordon purchased the property in 1888. His son and daughter-in-law, Thomas Jefferson (Jeff) Mott Gordon and LaNella Evelyn Chambers (Gordon) retained ownership in 1928 after JJ's death. JJ's Grandson Charles Chambers Gordon, son of Jeff and Lanella, in 1989 following the death of LaNella purchased the divided interests of the residence from his brother Thomas Weldon Gordon and Weldon's three sons John, Patrick, & Reed to retain full ownership. JJ's great, great grandson Eric Clark Gordon, son of John and grandson of Weldon, purchased the residence from Charles Gordon this summer as Charles was dying. The area has been residential single family for the entire period with the exception that the historic Georgetown High School was build across the street from which both Charles & Weldon graduated in the 1930's. The building at the corner of College and University was constructed as the Georgetown Hospital at which John & Patrick Gordon were born. The nature of the area is residential with small supporting commercial areas providing walking distance services to the homes. =============================================================== Putting in a high density apartment like structure will change the area forever. Once the permission is given, there will be no reason not to let the next area of two or three residential lots of lesser homes that get purchased from having another "apartment zoning", and then the next and the next. Page 70 of 91 If you want high density apartments all over east Georgetown, just state it. But that would be a BIG MISTAKE. As one who has watched Georgetown's development over the last 60 years, I will state it will be a mistake in zoning so much land for apartments and multifamily. Just because someone overpays for land does not mean that they automatically get their land upgraded to greater density zoning. The current zoning of C-1 is appropriate for the track in this single family residential area. DO NOT CHANGE THE ZONING. -- John B. Gordon, PE (Father of Eric Clark Gordon, owner) Family, Engineer, Church, Orchestra, Politics, Soccer 1007 Green Meadow Dr, Round Rock, TX 78664 512-789-5073 (cell), 512-255-5727 (home) INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS MESSAGE AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE. Click here to report this email as spam. Page 71 of 91 From:Karen Frost To:Sofia Nelson; Mike Elabarger Subject:FW: Response to Request for Zoning Change - Opposition to REZ-2015-009 - College at University Date:Monday, November 09, 2015 12:49:49 PM Karen From: Tristan Whitmire [mailto:tristanbwhitmire@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 12:39 PM To: John Gordon <jnbrgordon@gmail.com>; WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>; Mayor <mayor@georgetown.org>; District6 <district6@georgetown.org>; District1 <district1@georgetown.org> Cc: Eric C Gordon <faith_eric_jax@yahoo.com>; Ruth Gordon <RthAGordon@gmail.com>; Linda Scarbrough <linda@wilcosun.com> Subject: Re: Response to Request for Zoning Change - Opposition to REZ-2015-009 - College at University To Mayor Ross, Councilwoman Jonrowe (in district), Councilwoman Eby (adjacent district), and Planning Department, The home on the residential lot at 1003 South College Street was built in 1890 and is located in the heart of the historic district. The homes in this district and our historic square give Georgetown it's charm and they attract both homeowners and tourists to our town. I have experienced a 10% annual property tax increase from the time I purchased this home in 2005. Currently those taxes are $5000 a year for a <1500 square foot home. That is extremely high. I have been willing to accept this valuation as the price I must pay for living in such a beautiful and rare historic neighborhood. Even considering allowing the new construction of an apartment-like structure on our street is hard to fathom and quite honestly is rather insulting to a family who has a heavily vested interest in the neighborhood and the local community. My wife is a 5th grade teacher at Ford Elementary and I am an accountant with the City of Georgetown. Not only would an apartment-like structure be a visual eyesore in the heart of the historic district, but it would increase traffic drastically on a residential neighborhood street that already experiences a mass of pass-thru traffic to the San Gabriel ball fields etc. As a parent of two children, ages 4 and 7, this is unacceptable. The recent GISD bond is transforming Williams Elementary into an administration building which will already greatly increase the flow of traffic on South College Street. This street cannot and should not have to handle any more traffic volume from an apartment in addition to that. This is not a rental neighborhood and nor should it be treated as such. This is a neighborhood which is trying desperately to preserve the history and the qualities of the past in an ever changing fast-paced world that is concerned only with income generation. My Georgetown family of four does not approve of the proposal whatsoever. Page 72 of 91 Tristan Whitmire Senior Accountant City of Georgetown 1003 South College Street Georgetown, TX 78626 ph: 512-656-2286 From: John Gordon <jnbrgordon@gmail.com > To: planning@georgetown.org; mayor@georgetown.org; district6@georgetown.org ; district1@georgetown.org Cc: Eric C Gordon <faith_eric_jax@yahoo.com >; Ruth Gordon <RthAGordon@gmail.com>; Linda Scarbrough <linda@wilcosun.com>; Tristan Whitmire <tristanbwhitmire@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 7:33 PM Subject: Response to Request for Zoning Change - Opposition to REZ-2015-009 - College at University To Mayor Ross, Councilwoman Jonrowe (in district), Councilwoman Eby (adjacent district), and Planning Department, The residential lot at 1007 South College Street has been in the possession of the Gordon family continuously for 127 years. James Jefferson (JJ) Gordon purchased the property in 1888. His son and daughter-in-law, Thomas Jefferson (Jeff) Mott Gordon and LaNella Evelyn Chambers (Gordon) retained ownership in 1928 after JJ's death. JJ's Grandson Charles Chambers Gordon, son of Jeff and Lanella, in 1989 following the death of LaNella purchased the divided interests of the residence from his brother Thomas Weldon Gordon and Weldon's three sons John, Patrick, & Reed to retain full ownership. JJ's great, great grandson Eric Clark Gordon, son of John and grandson of Weldon, purchased the residence from Charles Gordon this summer as Charles was dying. The area has been residential single family for the entire period with the exception that the historic Georgetown High School was build across the street from which both Charles & Weldon graduated in the 1930's. The building at the corner of College and University was constructed as the Page 73 of 91 Georgetown Hospital at which John & Patrick Gordon were born. The nature of the area is residential with small supporting commercial areas providing walking distance services to the homes. =============================================================== Putting in a high density apartment like structure will change the area forever. Once the permission is given, there will be no reason not to let the next area of two or three residential lots of lesser homes that get purchased from having another "apartment zoning", and then the next and the next. If you want high density apartments all over east Georgetown, just state it. But that would be a BIG MISTAKE. As one who has watched Georgetown's development over the last 60 years, I will state it will be a mistake in zoning so much land for apartments and multifamily. Just because someone overpays for land does not mean that they automatically get their land upgraded to greater density zoning. The current zoning of C-1 is appropriate for the track in this single family residential area. DO NOT CHANGE THE ZONING. -- John B. Gordon, PE (Father of Eric Clark Gordon, owner) Family, Engineer, Church, Orchestra, Politics, Soccer 1007 Green Meadow Dr, Round Rock, TX 78664 512-789-5073 (cell), 512-255-5727 (home) INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS MESSAGE AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE. Page 74 of 91 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning November 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 0.132 acres of the Coffee Addition, Track A, Block 20, located at 2103 San Jose Street, from Local Commercial (C-1) District to Residential Single-Family (RS) District. (REZ-2015-017) Juan Enriquez, Planner ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant has requested to rezone a vacant and undeveloped 0.132 acre lot from Local Commercial (C-1) District, to Residential Single-Family (RS) District to allow for future of a single-family residence on the subject property. Public Comment: As of the date of this report, no written or verbal comments in support or against the project have been received. Recommended Motion: Recommend Approval to the City Council of the request to rezone the 0.132 acre lot to the RS District. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Juan Enriquez, Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Backup Material Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Backup Material Page 75 of 91 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Coffee Addition, Track A, Lot 20 - Rezoning Page 1 of 4 From C-1 to RS Report Date: November 17, 2015 File No: REZ-2015-017 Project Planner: Juan Enriquez, Planner Item Details Project Name: 2103 San Jose Street Location: 2103 San Jose Street Total Acreage: 0.132 Legal Description: Coffee Addition, Track A, Lot 20 Applicant: James Prince Property Owner: Prince Development, LLC Contact: James Prince Existing Use: Vacant/Undeveloped Existing Zoning: Local Commercial (C-1) Proposed Zoning: Single-Family Residential (RS) Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential Growth Tier: Tier 1A Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested to rezone 0.132 acres of undeveloped land from Local Commercial (C-1) to Single-Family Residential (RS). The request would provide for a future development similar to the surrounding neighborhood which is all single-family residences, at least within a 500 foot radius of the subject property. The subject property is located on San Jose Street between E. 20th Street and E. 22nd Street. Site Information Location: The subject property is located on San Jose Street between E. 20th Street and E. 22nd Street. Physical Characteristics: The commercially zoned lot is currently vacant and undeveloped, with tree coverage throughout the property. The lot has approximately 65 feet of street frontage on San Jose Street which will be the primary means of inbound and outbound access for any future development. Page 76 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Coffee Addition, Track A, Lot 20 - Rezoning Page 2 of 4 From C-1 to RS Surrounding Properties: The surrounding properties are all zoned Residential Single-Family (RS): Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North Residential Single-Family (RS) Moderate Density Residential Single-Family Residence South Residential Single-Family (RS) Moderate Density Residential Single-Family Residence East Residential Single-Family (RS) Moderate Density Residential Single-Family Residence West Residential Single-Family (RS) Moderate Density Residential Single-Family Residence (Under construction) (See Exhibit 3) Property History The subject property is located at 2103 San Jose Street, Coffee Addition, Track A, Lot 20 in the City of Georgetown, which is an unrecorded subdivision in Williamson County. Staff received copies of a deed on the subject property, through the Legal Lot Verification process, that determined that the property has existed in its current configuration since before the City established its Subdivision Ordinance. Therefore, the subject property is considered a legal lot through a deed and not through the City’s Subdivision Ordinance that was established in May 1977. Past known uses on the subject property have been a retail store and a gas station. According to City records, the last remaining structure on site was demolished in 2008. Therefore, the subject property has been vacant and undeveloped for seven years. 2030 Plan Conformance The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the 2030 Plan land use designation of Moderate Density Residential, providing for housing types such as single-family residences with a density ranging between 3.1 and 6 dwelling units per acre. 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 applicant has requested Single-Family Residential (RS) zoning on this property. The RS zoning district is intended for areas of medium density with a minimum lot size of 5,500 square feet. The RS district contains standards for development that maintain single-family Page 77 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Coffee Addition, Track A, Lot 20 - Rezoning Page 3 of 4 From C-1 to RS neighborhood character. In this case, the proposed RS zoning district will allow for future development with the development standards that will help maintain the desired neighborhood character similar to all the surrounding uses and districts. The applicant discussed the possibility of using the property to construct a single-family residence which would be required to comply with all the RS development standards prior to building permit issuance. Utilities Electric, water, and wastewater are served by City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve this property for development of a single-family residence. Transportation Inbound and outbound access to this project is provided via San Jose Street. Future Application(s) The following applications will be required to be submitted: • Building permits for construction. 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 Single-Family Residential (RS) zoning district for future single-family development with a density between 3-6 units per acre. 2. The existing zoning situation of the surrounding area has RS zoning to the north, south, east and west. The proposed rezone to RS will allow for the development of a single-family residence that will be surrounded with the same residential zoning districts. 3. The surrounding developed uses include single-family uses to the north, south, east and west of the subject property. The proposed RS zoning will allow for the future development of a single-family residence, which will comply with the RS development standards that will help maintain a single-family neighborhood character similar to all the surrounding uses. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners (21 notices mailed) within Page 78 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Coffee Addition, Track A, Lot 20 - Rezoning Page 4 of 4 From C-1 to RS a 200 foot radius of the subject property were notified of the rezoning application, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper and a sign was posted on-site. To date, no written or verbal comments in support or against the applicant’s rezoning proposal have been received by the Planning Department. Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map Meetings Schedule December 8, 2015 – City Council First Reading January 12, 2016 – City Council Second Reading Page 79 of 91 R EZ -2 01 5-0 1 7 PINE S T E 1 9 T H S T E 2 0 T H S T C O F F E E S T H O L L Y S T M A P L E S T E 2 2 N D S T S A N J O S E S T REZ-2 015-0 17 Exhibit #1 Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S ta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 200 400Fee t ¯ Le ge n d SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ E U n i v e r s i t y Av e Southw este r n B l v d S A u s tin A ve ")1 4 6 0 Site City Limits Str eet Si te ³ Page 80 of 91 R E Z -2 0 1 5 -0 1 7 E 1 9 T H S T PINE S T E 2 0 T H S T C O F F E E S T H O L L Y S T M A P L E S T E 2 2 N D S T S A N J O S E S T 0 200 400 Feet Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tate Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Fut ure L an d Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2REZ-2 015-0 17 Lege nd Th oro ughf are Fu ture Land Use Institut ional Regional Commerc ial Comm unity Commercial Employm ent Center Low Density Res idential Mining Mix ed Use Community Mix ed Use Neighborhood Center Moderat e Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Ag / Rur al Residential E U n i v e r s i t y Av e Southw este r n B l v d S A u s tin A v e ")1 4 6 0 Site ³ City Lim its Str eet Si te Existing Collector Existing Freeway Existing Major Ar terial Existing Minor Ar terial Existing Ramp Proposed Collector Proposed F reeway Props ed Frontage Road Proposed M ajor Arterial Proposed M inor Arterial Proposed Railroad High Density Residential Page 81 of 91 R EZ -2 01 5-0 1 7 PINE S T E 1 9 T H S T E 2 0 T H S T C O F F E E S T H O L L Y S T M A P L E S T E 2 2 N D S T S A N J O S E S T Zon in g Inf orm a tio nREZ-2 015-0 17Exhibit #3 ¯ Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tate Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 200 400Feet Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ E U n i v e r s i t y Av e Southw este r n B l v d S A u s tin A ve ")1 4 6 0 ³ Site City L imits Stre et Site Page 82 of 91 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning November 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 2.86 acres being Reata East, Block B, Lot 4, located at 706 Lakeway Drive, from High Density Multifamily (MF-2) District to Townhouse (TH) District. (REZ-2015-018) Juan Enriquez, Planner ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant has requested to rezone a vacant and undeveloped 2.86 acre residential lot from High Density Multifamily (MF-2) District, to Townhouse (TH) District to allow for future residential development of the property. Public Comment: As of the date of this report, no written or verbal comments in support or against the project have been received. Recommended Motion: Recommend Approval to the City Council of the request to rezone the 2.86 acre residential lot to the TH District. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Juan Enriquez, Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Backup Material Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Backup Material Page 83 of 91 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Reata East, Block B, Lot 4 - Rezoning Page 1 of 4 From MF-2 to TH Report Date: November 17, 2015 File No: REZ-2015-018 Project Planner: Juan Enriquez, Planner Item Details Project Name: The Grove at Georgetown Location: 706 Lakeway Drive Total Acreage: 2.86 Legal Description: Reata East, Block B, Lot 4 Applicant: Christopher Doose Property Owner: International Sales and Leasing Corporation Contact: Christopher Doose Existing Use: Vacant/Undeveloped Existing Zoning: High Density Multifamily (MF-2) Proposed Zoning: Townhouse (TH) Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential Growth Tier: Tier 1A Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested to rezone 2.86 acres of undeveloped land from High Density Multifamily District (MF-2) to Townhouse District (TH). The request would provide for a less intensive development from a higher residential density. The MF-2 District allows up to 24 residential units per acre and Townhouse District allows between 3-6 units per acre. Site Information Location: The subject property is located along Lakeway Drive between Northwest Boulevard and Whisper Oaks Lane. Physical Characteristics: The residential lot is currently vacant and undeveloped, with tree coverage throughout the property. The lot has approximately 185 feet of street frontage along Lakeway Drive which will be the primary means of inbound and outbound access for any future development. Surrounding Properties: Page 84 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Reata East, Block B, Lot 4 - Rezoning Page 2 of 4 From MF-2 to TH The surrounding properties include Local Commercial (C-1), High Density Multifamily (MF- 2) and Residential Single-Family (RS): Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North Local Commercial (C-1) Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Medical Facility South Residential Single-Family (RS) Moderate Density Residential Townhouses East High Density Multifamily (MF-2) Moderate Density Residential Vacant/Undeveloped West Residential Single-Family (RS) (Across Lakeway Drive) Institutional Elementary School (See Exhibit 3) Property History The subject property was annexed into the City by Ordinance No. 870579 and designated with the default Agriculture district in December 1987. The property was then rezoned to Dense Multi-Family district (RM-2) by Ordinance No. 880277 in August 1988. In 2003, the City of Georgetown, through its comprehensive Unified Development Code update, re-designated the RM-2 district to the Multi-Family (MF) district. In May of 2014, the City re-designated the MF district by splitting it into MF-1 (Low Density Multifamily) and MF-2 (High Density Multifamily). The subject property is currently zoned MF-2. 2030 Plan Conformance The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the 2030 Plan land use designation of Moderate Density Residential, providing for housing types such as townhouses with a density ranging between 3.1 and 6 dwelling units per acre. There is a small portion of the lot that is within the Parks, Recreation and Open Space future land use along the northeast part of the residential lot. However, it is only a small portion and the proposed rezoning is to provide for the future development of a less intensive project that is allowed with the current zone of MF- 2. 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 applicant has requested Townhouse District (TH) zoning on this property. The TH zoning Page 85 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Reata East, Block B, Lot 4 - Rezoning Page 3 of 4 From MF-2 to TH district is intended for townhouses and attached single-family dwellings. The TH district is appropriate for infill development as well as a transition from residential areas to non- residential areas. This project will serve as infill development that is surrounded by a developed neighborhood and will provide a transition from the adjacent residential area from the commercial lot to the north. The applicant discussed the possibility of using the property to construct townhouses, which is considered less intensive than the current High Density Multifamily (MF-2) which allows up to 24 units per acre. Utilities Electric, water, and wastewater are served by City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure. Transportation Inbound and outbound access to this project is provided via Lakeway Drive. Future Application(s) The following applications will be required to be submitted: • Preliminary and Final Plat • Site Plans for the townhouses will be processed administratively; and • Building permits for construction. Staff Analysis Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The Future Land Use designation of Moderate Density Residential can support the proposed Townhouse (TH) zoning district for future townhouse development with an allowed density between 3-6 units per acre. 2. The existing zoning situation of the surrounding area is Single-Family Residential (RS) to the south and west across Lakeway Drive, Local Commercial (C-1) to the north and High Density Multifamily to the east. The proposed rezone to TH will allow a less intensive multifamily project that will be surrounded with other similar residential zoning districts. 3. The surrounding developed uses include townhouse uses to the south and future high density multifamily to the east of the subject property. There is a medical facility located to the north of the site. The proposed TH zoning district will allow a less intensive residential project on the subject site with a density between 3-6 units per acre compared to the up to 24 units per acre currently allowed with the existing MF-2 zoning district. All the City utilities are available for development of the site since the Page 86 of 91 Planning Department Staff Report Reata East, Block B, Lot 4 - Rezoning Page 4 of 4 From MF-2 to TH site is considered infill development in a primary residentially built neighborhood. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners (8 notices mailed) within a 200 foot radius of the subject property were notified of the rezoning application, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper and a sign was posted on-site. To date, no written or verbal comments in support or against the applicant’s rezoning proposal have been received by the Planning Department. Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map Meetings Schedule December 8, 2015 – City Council First Reading January 12, 2016 – City Council Second Reading Page 87 of 91 CITYOFGEORGETOWN Georgetown ETJ R EZ -2 01 5-0 18 L A K EWAY D R B U F F A L O S P RIN G S T R L NORTHWESTBLVD C A N Y O N R D L O N E S O M E T R L WHISPEROAKSL N REZ-20 15-018 Exhibit #1 Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/C entral Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y 0 500 1,000Fee t ¯ Le ge nd SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ WilliamsDr Willia m sDr Lake w ay Dr Lakeway D r Booty'sCrossingRd NAustinAve RiveryBlv d S eren a da D r N orth w estBlvd Lake w ay Dr Lake w ay Dr §¨¦35 Site City Lim its Str eet Si te ³ Page 88 of 91 Georgetown ETJ R EZ -2 01 5-0 18 NORTHWOOD NORTHWEST D A W N RIV E R B E N D W I N DMILL B U F F A L O S P RIN G S C A N Y O N LONESOME L A K E W AY WHISPEROAKS 0 500 1,000 Feet Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/Central Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y ¯ Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Fut ure La nd Use / Ove rall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2REZ-20 15-018 Legen d Th oro ug hfa re Fu ture L an d Use Institut ional Regional Commercial Comm unity Com mercial Employm ent Cent er Low Density Residential Mining Mix ed Us e Com munit y Mix ed Us e Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mix ed Us e Area Ag / Rural Resident ial §¨¦35 Willia msDr Lake way Dr Lakeway D r Booty'sCrossingRd N A ustin Ave N A ustin Ave RiveryBlv d N A ustin Ave W olfRanchPkw y E Morro w St N orth w estBlvd Lake way Dr Site ³ City Lim its Str eet Si te Existing Collector Existing Freeway Existing Major Art erial Existing Minor Art erial Existing Ram p Proposed Collect or Proposed F reeway Propsed F rontage Road Proposed Major Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial Proposed Railroad High Densit y Residential Page 89 of 91 CITYOFGEORGETOWN R EZ -2 01 5-0 18 N O R T H W E S T BLVD B U F F A L O S P RIN G S T R L C A N Y O N R D LONESO M E T R L L A K E W AY DR WHISPEROAKSLN Zon in g I nfo rmati onREZ-20 15-018Exhibit #3 ¯ Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/Central Zone/NAD 83 /US FeetCartographic Data For Genera l Planning Purposes Onl y 0 500 1,000Feet Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ §¨¦35 W illia msDr Lake w ay Dr Lakeway D r Booty'sCrossingRd N Austin Ave NAustinAve N Austin Ave NColleg e StRiveryBlvd N Austin Ave WolfRanchPkw y EMorro w St N orth w estBlvd Lake w ay Dr ³ Site City L imits Stre et Site Page 90 of 91 1st and 3rd Tuesday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Friday Monday Wednesday Monday Wednesday Friday 1st & 3rd Tuesdays 28 days prior 22 days prior 21 days prior 20 days prior 18 days prior 15 days prior 13 days prior 8 days prior 6 days prior 4 days prior Tuesdays Jan 6 Dec 9, 2014 Dec 15, 2014 Dec 16, 2014 Dec 17, 2014 Dec 19, 2014 Dec 22, 2014 *Dec 23, '14*Dec 23, '14*Dec 23, '14*Dec 23, '14 Dec 29, 2014 Dec 31, 2014 Jan 2, 2015 Jan 6Jan 6Jan 6Jan 6 Jan 20 Dec 23 Dec 29 Dec 30 Dec 31 Jan 2 Jan 5 Jan 7 Jan 12 Jan 14 Jan 16 Jan 20Jan 20Jan 20Jan 20 Feb 3 Jan 6 Jan 12 Jan 13 Jan 14 Jan 16 *Jan 20*Jan 20*Jan 20*Jan 20 Jan 21 Jan 26 Jan 28 Jan 30 Feb 3Feb 3Feb 3Feb 3 Feb 17 Jan 20 Jan 26 Jan 27 Jan 28 Jan 30 Feb 2 Feb 4 Feb 9 Feb 11 Feb 13 Feb 17Feb 17Feb 17Feb 17 Mar 3 Feb 3 Feb 9 Feb 10 Feb 11 Feb 13 Feb 16 Feb 18 Feb 23 Feb 25 Feb 27 Mar 3Mar 3Mar 3Mar 3 Mar 17 Feb 17 Feb 23 Feb 24 Feb 25 Feb 27 Mar 2 Mar 4 Mar 9 Mar 11 Mar 13 Mar 17Mar 17Mar 17Mar 17 Apr 7 Mar 10 Mar 16 Mar 17 Mar 18 Mar 20 Mar 23 Mar 25 Mar 30 Apr 1 Apr 3 Apr 7Apr 7Apr 7Apr 7 Apr 21 Mar 24 Mar 30 Mar 31 Apr 1 Apr 3 Apr 6 Apr 8 Apr 13 Apr 15 Apr 17 Apr 21Apr 21Apr 21Apr 21 May 5 Apr 7 Apr 13 Apr 14 Apr 15 Apr 17 Apr 20 Apr 22 Apr 27 Apr 29 May 1 May 5May 5May 5May 5 May 19 Apr 21 Apr 27 Apr 28 Apr 29 May 1 May 4 May 6 May 11 May 13 May 15 May 19May 19May 19May 19 Jun 2 May 5 Apr 13 May 12 May 13 May 15 May 18 May 20 *May 22*May 22*May 22*May 22 May 27 May 29 Jun 2Jun 2Jun 2Jun 2 Jun 16 May 19 *May 26*May 26*May 26*May 26 May 26 May 27 May 29 Jun 1 Jun 3 Jun 8 Jun 10 Jun 12 Jun 16Jun 16Jun 16Jun 16 Jul 7 Jun 9 Jun 15 Jun 16 Jun 17 Jun 19 Jun 22 Jun 24 Jun 29 Jul 1 Jul 3 Jul 7Jul 7Jul 7Jul 7 Jul 21 Jun 23 Jun 29 Jun 30 Jul 1 *Jul 2*Jul 2*Jul 2*Jul 2 Jul 6 Jul 8 Jul 13 Jul 15 Jul 17 Jul 21Jul 21Jul 21Jul 21 Aug 4 Jul 7 Jul 13 Jul 14 Jul 15 Jul 17 Jul 20 Jul 22 Jul 27 Jul 29 Jul 31 Aug 4Aug 4Aug 4Aug 4 Aug 18 Jul 21 Jul 27 Jul 28 Jul 29 Jul 31 Aug 3 Aug 5 Aug 10 Aug 12 Aug 14 Aug 18Aug 18Aug 18Aug 18 Sep 1 Aug 4 Aug 10 Aug 11 Aug 12 Aug 14 Aug 17 Aug 19 Aug 24 Aug 26 Aug 28 Sep 1Sep 1Sep 1Sep 1 Sep 15 Aug 18 Aug 24 Aug 25 Aug 26 Aug 28 Aug 31 Sep 2 *Sep 4*Sep 4*Sep 4*Sep 4 Sep 9 Sep 11 Sep 15Sep 15Sep 15Sep 15 Oct 6 Sep 8 Sep 14 Sep 15 Sep 16 Sep 18 Sep 21 Sep 23 Sep 28 Sep 30 Oct 2 Oct 6Oct 6Oct 6Oct 6 Oct 20 Sep 22 Sep 28 Sep 29 Sep 30 Oct 2 Oct 5 Oct 7 Oct 12 Oct 14 Oct 16 Oct 20Oct 20Oct 20Oct 20 Nov 3 Oct 6 Oct 12 Oct 13 Oct 14 Oct 16 Oct 19 Oct 21 Oct 26 Oct 28 Oct 30 Nov 3Nov 3Nov 3Nov 3 Nov 17 Oct 20 Oct 26 Oct 27 Oct 28 Oct 30 Nov 2 Nov 4 Nov 9 Nov 11 Nov 13 Nov 17Nov 17Nov 17Nov 17 Dec 1 Nov 3 Nov 9 Nov 10 Nov 11 Nov 13 Nov 16 Nov 18 Nov 23 Nov 25 *Nov 25*Nov 25*Nov 25*Nov 25 Dec 1Dec 1Dec 1Dec 1 Dec 15 Nov 17 Nov 23 Nov 24 Nov 25 *Nov 25*Nov 25*Nov 25*Nov 25 Nov 30 Dec 2 Dec 7 Dec 9 Dec 11 Dec 15Dec 15Dec 15Dec 15 Reports due to Principal Planner for review Novus Agenda items submitted for review Novus Items finalized and forwarded to Planning Tech Novus completed. Commission emailed link. Posted online and City Hall. P&Z Meeting * Dates adjusted due to holiday - subject to change depending on updates to holiday calendars, etc. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 2015 P&Z MEETING Public notice agenda deadline Staff finalizes notice items on agenda (Word doc) Notice items approved for notice Notice Items sent to Sun by noon Letters mailed and signs ready for pick up after lunch Non-public notice agenda deadline Page 91 of 91