HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_P&Z_04.03.2018Notice of Meeting for the
Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Georgetown
April 3, 2018 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Building, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
Consent Agenda
The Statutory Cons ent Agenda inc ludes non-c o ntro versial and ro utine items that may be acted up o n with one
s ingle vo te. An item may b e pulled from the Cons ent Agenda in o rd er that it b e dis c us sed and acted up o n
individ ually as part of the Regular Agenda.
A Co nsideration and possible actio n o f the minutes of March 6, 2018. Karen F ro s t, Recording Sec retary
B Co nsideration and possible actio n o n a Preliminary Final P lat fo r the Wolf Cros s ing Sub d ivision generally
loc ated s outheas t o f the SH 29 and IH-35 inters ec tion (P FP -2017-006). Nathan Jo nes-Meyer, Planner
C Co nsideration and possible actio n o n a Preliminary Final P lat fo r the Ec ho P ark s ubdivis io n generally
loc ated at 7121 Kelley Drive (PFP-2017-007). Nathan Jones -Meyer, Planner
D Co nsideration and possible actio n o f a P reliminary P lat fo r the Patienc e Ranc h S ubdivis io n generally
loc ated at 1000 VP Ranch Rd (PP-2017-008). And reina Dávila-Quintero , Current P lanning Manager
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
E Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t to rezo ne ap p ro ximately 0.92 acre o ut of the Landgraf
Sub Survey generally lo cated at 4229 Williams Drive, from the Agricultural (AG) zo ning d is tric t to the
General Commerc ial (C-3) zo ning d is tric t (R EZ-2018-002). Jo rd an Feld man, P lanner.
F Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t to rezo ne ap p ro ximately 0.28 acre o ut of Blo ck O o f the
Morrow Ad d ition, lo cated at 1215 S Aus tin Ave, from the Res id ential Single-F amily (RS ) district to the
Neighb o rho o d C o mmercial (CN) district (REZ-2018-003). Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric and
Do wntown P lanner
G Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a S ubdivis io n Variance fro m the maximum numb er of lo ts p ermitted
on a cul-de-s ac purs uant to Sec tion 12.05.020 o f the Unified Development C o d e, fo r the p ro p erty loc ated
at 409 Doe Run (WAV-2018-001). Jo rd an F eld man, P lanner
H Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a S ubdivis io n Variance fro m the minimum lo t width o r street
frontage alo ng a p ublic street req uirement purs uant to Sec tion 7.02.010 of the Unified Develo p ment Code,
for the pro p erty loc ated at 2701 E Univers ity Ave, b earing the legal d es c rip tion of 3.42 ac res out o f the
William Ad d is o n Survey, Abstract No . 21 (WAV-2018-002). Ro b yn Miga, P lanner
I Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Comprehensive Plan Amend ment to c hange
approximately 1.37 ac res out o f the Bo oty & Les ueur Survey, 0.66 acre out o f the Outlo t Survey, and
2.84 acres out o f the Hart Additio n Survey, fro m the Mo d erate Dens ity Res idential Future Land Use
Page 1 of 142
c atego ry to the Mixed Use Neighborho od Center Future Land Use catego ry, generally lo cated at the
southeas t c o rner o f the inters ectio n o f Railroad Avenue and Univers ity Avenue. (CPA-2018-001) Jo rdan
Feld man, Planner
J Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on an amendment to Sec tion 7.02.020, Non-Residential Lot and
Dimensional Standards, of the Unified Development Code (UDC) relating to the minimum district size
requirement fo r the Busines s P ark (BP) zoning dis trict (UDC-2018-001). Andreina Dávila-Quintero ,
Current Planning Manager
K Dis cus s ion and pos s ible d irectio n o n the annual review and list of General Amend ments to the Unified
Development C o d e for 2018. Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager.
Th is item is continued from th e March 6, 2018 P lannin g and Zon ing C ommission Meeting.
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 142
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
April 3, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion of the minutes o f Marc h 6, 2018. Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
.
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Minutes _P&Z_03.06.2018 Backup Material
Page 3 of 142
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 2
March 6, 2018
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building, located at 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Commissioners present: Tim Bargainer; Ercel Brashear; John Marler; Kayla McCord; Gary Newman,
Alternate; Travis Perthuis, Alternate; and Kevin Pitts; Josh Schroeder, Chair; and Ben Stewart.
Absent: none
Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Clay
Shell, Assistant Fire Chief; Nathan Jones-Meyer, Planner; Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator; and
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary.
A. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Stewart led the pledge of allegiance.
Chair Schroeder stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker form
to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker is permitted
to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3) minutes, unless otherwise
agreed to before the meeting begins.
• As of the deadline for this agenda, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was
posted on the agenda.
Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that may be acted upon
with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and
acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
B. Consideration and possible action of the minutes of February 20, 2018. Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
C. Consideration and possible action on an amendment to a Preliminary Plat for the Wheeler Tract
generally located north of Westinghouse Boulevard, and east of A.W. Grimes (PP-2017-014)
Robyn Miga, Planner
Motion to approve the consent agenda with correction, by Marler, second by Pitts. Approved 7 – 0.
Legislative Regular Agenda
D. Nomination and selection of Vice-chair and Secretary for the 2018/19 Commission. Karen Frost,
Recording Secretary
Nomination of Bargainer for Vice-chair, by Pitts, second by Brashear. Approved 7 – 0.
Nomination of McCord for Secretary, by Brashear, second by Marler. Approved 7 – 0.
E. Discussion and review of Bylaws and attendance policy. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Frost reviewed the bylaws with no questions or comments asked.
F. Public Hearing and possible action on a request to amend the Saddlecreek Planned Unit
Development (PUD), for approximately 353.084 acres out of the William Addison Survey,
Page 4 of 142
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2
March 6, 2018
Abstract 21, and the Stubblefield Survey, Abstract 556, generally located on the north side of
Sam Houston Ave, between Rockride Ln and SH 130 Toll (REZ-2017-027). Andreina Dávila-
Quintero, Current Planning Manager. This item was continued from the February 20, 2018 Planning
and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Waggoner presented this case for Davila. This item was continued by the commission due to a
concern about the courtyard fending product and the affect it would have on fire response time
to the house inside and behind the fencing. Waggoner gave the staff findings.
Clay Shell, Assistant Fire Chief spoke to the commission and stated that the fire code was not
specific regarding this type of fencing for residential structures. And that if there was a fire or
emergency in the house, the fire department would demolish the fence if they needed access.
Brashear asked if a Knox Box on the gate would improve safety. The applicant said he could
ask the developer but that would possibly add a cost to the home that they might not want to
do. Shell explained that the city could not force the developer/home builder to add the Knox
Box solution because it is not in the code for residential structures, and that there are problems
with the system that might not fix the situation anyway.
Motion by Brashear to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment with the condition that
the Knox Box system be included in the product. The motion died for lack of second.
Motion by Bargainer to approve the Saddlecreek PUD Amendment as presented. Second by
Marler. Approved 6 – 1 (Brashear opposed.)
G. Discussion and possible direction on the annual review and list of General Amendments to the
Unified Development Code for 2018. Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager
Item H was discussed next.
Nelson presented this item with a quick overview of the items that would be presented to
Council. Bargainer expressed concern over the number of items and workload that was being
proposed and asked for consideration of reducing some of it.
H. Presentation and discussion of the Housing Report. Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator
Watkins presented information on Housing that was provided in the agenda packet.
Commissioners had some discussion and asked for more information. Stewart asked for a GISD
overlay on the development pipeline map. McCord asked for multi-family numbers of existing
build and approved projects to date. Marler requested a review of increased housing costs as a
result of government regulations. Nelson explained that type of information is not currently
available. Commissions discussed the type of information they wanted in order to make more
informed decisions. They requested the cost of land be separated from the cost of “developing
the land”. Staff will attempt to determine the cost of development in Georgetown and use
neighboring cities to establish benchmarks.
Motion by Marler, second by Pitts to adjourn at 7:02 pm.
____________________________________ ____________________________________
Josh Schroeder, Chair Attest, Tim Bargainer
Page 5 of 142
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
April 3, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion on a Preliminary F inal Plat for the Wolf C ro s s ing S ubdivis io n generally
lo cated southeas t of the S H 29 and IH-35 inters ec tio n (PF P-2017-006). Nathan Jones -Meyer, Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
This combined p reliminary and final plat is for a one lot, 36.24-ac re sub d ivis io n lo cated at the inters ection
o f IH-35 and SH-29 (Univers ity Avenue).
Staff Analysis:
The p ro p o s ed Preliminary Final P lat meets all o f the req uirements o f the Unified Develo p ment Co d e for a
o ne-lot sub divis io n.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applic ant has paid all applic ation fees .
SUBMITTED BY:
Nathan Jo nes-Meyer, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Attachment 1- Location Backup Material
Attachment 2 - Combined Preliminary and Final Plat Backup Material
Page 6 of 142
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Wolf Crossing – Combined Preliminary and Final Plat Page 1 of 2
Report Date: March 2, 2018
File No: PFP-2017-006
Project Planner: Nathan Jones-Meyer, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Wolf Crossing
Project Address: 930 W University Avenue
Applicant: Antonio Prete, P.E.
Owner: James David Wolf
Total Acreage: 36.24 acres
Legal Description: 37.21 acres out of the C. Stubblefield Survey.
Plat Summary
Total Lots: 1
Blocks: 1
Linear Feet of New Roads: 0
Heritage Trees: 49
Site Information
The site is located at 930 W. University Avenue, at the intersection of IH-35 and SH-29
(University Avenue).
Location Map
Page 7 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
Wolf Crossing – Combined Preliminary and Final Plat Page 2 of 2
Background
This combined preliminary and final plat is a one lot subdivision for a 36.28-acre property. The
subject site is currently zoned C-3 (General Commercial), and has Regional Commercial and
Parks, Recreation, Open Space Future Land Use designations. The subject site has frontage on
SH-29 (University Avenue) and IH-35.
Utilities
The subject site is located within the City of Georgetown’s service area for water, wastewater,
and electric. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve this property either by
existing capacity or developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure.
Transportation
The subject site currently has inbound and outbound access on SH-29 (University Avenue). As
the site develops, it is anticipated that a future inbound and outbound access point may be
located along the IH-35 Frontage Road.
Parkland Dedication
Not applicable for commercial property.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
The proposed Preliminary Final Plat was reviewed by the applicable City departments. All
technical review comments have been addressed by the applicant.
Staff Analysis
The proposed Preliminary Final Plat meets all of the requirements of the Unified Development
Code for a one-lot subdivision.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Combined Preliminary and Final Plat
Page 8 of 142
L E A N D E R R D
FM 1 4 6 0
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
§¨¦35
PFP-2017-006Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map
CHANDLER RD
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 0.25 0.5Mi
Page 9 of 142
TP&
L
E
S
M
T
.
VOL
.
4
1
9
,
P
G
.
4
8
2
STA
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2
9
(R.
O
.
W
.
V
A
R
I
E
S
)
20.00'
GEORGETOWN UTILITY ESMT.
HEREBY
DEDICATED
I
N
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
3
5
(
R
.
O
.
W
.
V
A
R
I
E
S
)
L.C.R.A. 100.00'
ELEC. ESMT
VOL. 337, PG. 563
D.R.W.C.T.
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN
20.00' ELEC. ESMT
VOL. 722, PG. 35
D.R.W.C.T.
BLOCK 'A'
LOT 1
36.07 AC
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
20' P.U.E.
VOL. 2453, PG. 622 O.R.W.C.T.
BM
#
1
0.17 ACRES R.O.W.
HEREBY DEDICATED
TOTAL ACREAGE
36.24 AC
15.00' P.U.E.
PER PLAT
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
1
0
0
Y
R
F
L
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
P
E
R
F
I
R
M
P
A
N
E
L
4
8
4
9
1
C
0
2
9
0
E
H-5855
H-6696
H-6740
H-6749
H-6787
H-6982
H-6981H-6799
10.919 AC
DRAINAGE AND
WASTEWATER ESMT.
HEREBY DEDICATED
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
OE
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
OE
OE
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
OE
OE
OE
H-1731
H-1746
H-1747
H-1753
H-1760
H-1701
H-1754
WA
T
E
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
BU
F
F
E
R
10.00' P.U.E.
HEREBY
DEDICATED
20.00' PROPOSED INGRESS/EGRESS
TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING WEST
UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND PROPOSED
SH-29 RELOCATED SIGNAL.
27
5
.
9
9
'
N4
8
°
5
0
'
3
9
"
E
S71°
2
6
'
0
9
"
E
288.3
5
'
N5
3
°
1
2
'
3
7
"
E
N7
4
°
2
2
'
4
4
"
E
76
.
1
6
'
95
.
5
0
'
N87
°
4
0
'
2
7
"
E
N4
5
°
4
1
'
2
5
"
E
15
2
.
7
2
'
N89
°
0
8
'
0
0
"
E
109
.
4
4
'
75.
2
1
'
N5
7
°
3
2
'
3
1
"
E
79
.
3
2
'
N6
6
°
4
2
'
5
8
"
E
16
3
.
8
3
'
N
4
1
°
2
5
'
0
5
"
E
1
2
1
.
6
7
'
VARIABLE WIDTH
ACCESS ESMT.
DOC#__________FINAL PLAT (PFP-2017-006)
FOR WOLF CROSSING
SUBDIVISION
SHEET 1 OF 4
0
HORIZONTAL SCALE
50 200100
OWNER:JAMES DAVID WOLF
414 INDIGO LANE
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628
ACREAGE:TOTAL ACREAGE = 36.24 AC
TOTAL ACREAGE LOTS = 36.07
TOTAL ACREAGE ROW = 0.17
SURVEY:CLEMENT STUBBLEFIELD
ABSTRACT #558
NUMBER OF BLOCKS:1
NUMBER OF LOTS:1
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT LOTS 1
SUBMITTAL DATE:07/28/2017
ENGINEER:WAELTZ & PRETE, INC.
3000 JOE DiMAGGIO BLVD, #72
ROUND ROCK, TEXAS 78665
(512) 505-8953
SURVEYOR:DIAMOND SURVEYING, INC.
116 SKYLINE ROAD
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628
(512) 931-3100
BENCHMARK:BM # 1: LCRA CONTROL POINT: MG3A
LCRA BRASS DISC IN CONCRETE AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF
LCRA GEORGETOWN SUBSTATION. ELEVATION =736.0346 PER
DATA SHEET PRINTED FROM LCRA WEBSITE "LCRA HARN.ORG"
(NAVD88) GEOID 2012A
BEARING BASIS: NAD-83, TEXAS CENTRAL ZONE (4203),
STATE PLANE SYSTEM. DISTANCES
SHOWN HEREON ARE SURFACE DISTANCES BASED ON A
COMBINED SURFACE ADJUSTMENT FACTOR OF 0.99985979
Waeltz & Prete, Inc.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
3000 Joe DiMaggio Blvd. #72
Round Rock, TX. 78665
PH (512) 505-8953
FIRM TX. REG. #F-10308
MATCH LINE SHEET 2
LOCATION MAP
SCALE 1" = 5,000'
SITE
HERITAGE TREES
H - DENOTES HERITAGE TREE
TREE #SIZE TYPE
H-1710 28"POST OAK
H-1713 27"LIVE OAK
H-1715 17",15",15",14",13"LIVE OAK
H-1724 29", 21", 16"LIVE OAK
H-1731 26"POST OAK
H-1746 29"POST OAK
H-1747 27"POST OAK
H-1753 16", 13", 10"LIVE OAK
H-1754 32", 6", 6"LIVE OAK
H-1760 26"LIVE OAK
H-1761 36", 14"LIVE OAK
H-1762 27"LIVE OAK
H-1766 34"LIVE OAK
H-1767 29"LIVE OAK
H-1774 27", 19"LIVE OAK
H-1776 21", 18"LIVE OAK
H-1780 40"LIVE OAK
H-1781 18", 15"LIVE OAK
H-1782 30"LIVE OAK
H-5593 28"POST OAK
H-5594 24", 23"LIVE OAK
H-5855 32"POST OAK
TREE #SIZE TYPE
H-6696 40"LIVE OAK
H-6740 26"LIVE OAK
H-6749 17",14",13"LIVE OAK
H-6787 15",12",9",6",6"LIVE OAK
H-6799 12",11",10",8",6"LIVE OAK
H-6960 22",18",15",11"CEDAR ELM
H-6961 13",12",12",11"ASH
H-6964 28"ELM
H-6965 18",12",11",9",8"ASH
H-6968 29"ELM
H-6969 16",14",14"LIVE OAK
H-6970 15",15",11"LIVE OAK
H-6971 21",15",10"LIVE OAK
H-6975 17",13",13"LIVE OAK
H-6981 16",15",14"LIVE OAK
H-6982 27"LIVE OAK
H-7078 24",16"LIVE OAK
H-7079 16",13",11"LIVE OAK
H-7083 21",18"LIVE OAK
H-7116 24",15",6"LIVE OAK
H-7117 14",13",12",8"LIVE OAK
H-7118 28"LIVE OAK
H-1701 26"POST OAK
H-1719 33"LIVE OAK
H-1720 32"LIVE OAK
H-1718 26"LIVE OAK
H-1723 16", 13", 9"LIVE OAK
K:
\
C
A
D
\
0
7
3
-
0
0
6
W
o
l
f
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
\
3
-
C
A
D
\
P
L
A
N
S
\
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
-
F
I
N
A
L
P
L
A
T
\
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
B
Y
D
S
I
P
F
P
-
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
6
f
r
o
m
r
e
c
i
e
v
e
d
f
o
l
d
e
r
\
0
7
3
-
0
0
6
F
I
N
A
L
-
P
L
A
T
_
R
E
V
-
D
S
I
.
d
w
g
,
L
a
y
o
u
t
1
,
3
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
9
:
0
9
:
1
7
A
M
,
1
:
1
,
W
-
P
,
I
n
c
.
,
J
L
Page 10 of 142
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
1
0
0
Y
R
F
L
O
O
D
Z
O
N
E
A
E
P
E
R
F
I
R
M
P
A
N
E
L
4
8
4
9
1
C
0
2
9
0
E
20.00'
GEORGETOWN UTILITY ESMT.
HEREBY
DEDICATED
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
3
5
(R
.
O
.
W
.
V
A
R
I
E
S
)
BLOCK 'A'
LOT 1
36.07 AC
TOTAL ACREAGE
36.24 AC H-6975
H-6969
H-6970
H-6971
H-6968
H-6965
H-6964
H-6960
H-6961
H-7118
H-7116
H-7117
H-7083
H-7079
H-7078
H-5594
H-5593
10.919 AC
DRAINAGE AND
WASTEWATER ESMT.
HEREBY DEDICATED
OE
OE
OE
OE
H-1710
H-1713
H-1724
H-1762
H-1761H-1766
H-1767
H-1774
H-1776
H-1782
H-1781
H-1780
H-1715
H-1718
H-1719
H-1720
H-1723
S
T
A
T
E
O
F
T
E
X
A
S
C
A
L
L
E
D
3
6
.
8
1
5
A
C
R
E
S
V
O
L
.
4
6
6
,
P
G
.
2
7
6
D.
R
.
W
.
C
.
T
.
ST
A
T
E
O
F
T
E
X
A
S
C
A
L
L
E
D
2
5
.
1
1
9
A
C
R
E
S
V
O
L
.
4
6
4
,
P
G
.
5
2
1
D.
R
.
W
.
C
.
T
.
W
A
T
E
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
B
U
F
F
E
R
10.00' P.U.E.
HEREBY
DEDICATED
N
1
6
°
0
3
'
4
3
"
E
4
1
6
.
6
6
'
N
1
1
°
2
2
'
0
9
"
E
4
2
6
.
1
6
'
2
6
7
.
5
8
'
N
3
0
°
0
9
'
2
2
"
E
N
3
9
°
5
1
'
5
6
"
E
1
1
0
.
5
2
'
N1
5
°
0
2
'
4
0
"
W
38
8
.
4
8
'
VARIABLE WIDTH
ACCESS ESMT.
DOC#__________
FINAL PLAT (PFP-2017-006)
FOR WOLF CROSSING
SUBDIVISION
SHEET 2 OF 4
0
HORIZONTAL SCALE
50 200100
Waeltz & Prete, Inc.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
3000 Joe DiMaggio Blvd. #72
Round Rock, TX. 78665
PH (512) 505-8953
FIRM TX. REG. #F-10308
MATCH LINE SHEET 1
HERITAGE TREES
H - DENOTES HERITAGE TREE
TREE #SIZE TYPE
H-1710 28"POST OAK
H-1713 27"LIVE OAK
H-1715 17",15",15",14",13"LIVE OAK
H-1724 29", 21", 16"LIVE OAK
H-1731 26"POST OAK
H-1746 29"POST OAK
H-1747 27"POST OAK
H-1753 16", 13", 10"LIVE OAK
H-1754 32", 6", 6"LIVE OAK
H-1760 26"LIVE OAK
H-1761 36", 14"LIVE OAK
H-1762 27"LIVE OAK
H-1766 34"LIVE OAK
H-1767 29"LIVE OAK
H-1774 27", 19"LIVE OAK
H-1776 21", 18"LIVE OAK
H-1780 40"LIVE OAK
H-1781 18", 15"LIVE OAK
H-1782 30"LIVE OAK
H-5593 28"POST OAK
H-5594 24", 23"LIVE OAK
H-5855 32"POST OAK
TREE #SIZE TYPE
H-6696 40"LIVE OAK
H-6740 26"LIVE OAK
H-6749 17",14",13"LIVE OAK
H-6787 15",12",9",6",6"LIVE OAK
H-6799 12",11",10",8",6"LIVE OAK
H-6960 22",18",15",11"CEDAR ELM
H-6961 13",12",12",11"ASH
H-6964 28"ELM
H-6965 18",12",11",9",8"ASH
H-6968 29"ELM
H-6969 16",14",14"LIVE OAK
H-6970 15",15",11"LIVE OAK
H-6971 21",15",10"LIVE OAK
H-6975 17",13",13"LIVE OAK
H-6981 16",15",14"LIVE OAK
H-6982 27"LIVE OAK
H-7078 24",16"LIVE OAK
H-7079 16",13",11"LIVE OAK
H-7083 21",18"LIVE OAK
H-7116 24",15",6"LIVE OAK
H-7117 14",13",12",8"LIVE OAK
H-7118 28"LIVE OAK
H-1701 26"POST OAK
H-1719 33"LIVE OAK
H-1720 32"LIVE OAK
H-1718 26"LIVE OAK
H-1723 16", 13", 9"LIVE OAK
K:
\
C
A
D
\
0
7
3
-
0
0
6
W
o
l
f
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
\
3
-
C
A
D
\
P
L
A
N
S
\
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
-
F
I
N
A
L
P
L
A
T
\
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
B
Y
D
S
I
P
F
P
-
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
6
f
r
o
m
r
e
c
i
e
v
e
d
f
o
l
d
e
r
\
0
7
3
-
0
0
6
F
I
N
A
L
-
P
L
A
T
_
R
E
V
-
D
S
I
.
d
w
g
,
L
a
y
o
u
t
2
,
3
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
9
:
0
9
:
3
7
A
M
,
1
:
1
,
W
-
P
,
I
n
c
.
,
J
L
Page 11 of 142
FINAL PLAT (PFP-2017-006)
FOR WOLF CROSSING
SUBDIVISION
SHEET 3 OF 4
Waeltz & Prete, Inc.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
3000 Joe DiMaggio Blvd. #72
Round Rock, TX. 78665
PH (512) 505-8953
FIRM TX. REG. #F-10308
Engineer’s Certification:
I Antonio A. Prete, Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Texas, do hereby certify that this Wolf Crossing
Subdivision is in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and is not encroached by a "Special Flood Hazard" area, as
denoted herein, and as defined by Federal Emergency Management Administration Flood Hazard Boundary Map,
Community Panel Number 48491C0290E and 48491C0295E, 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, Texas, this __ day of _____, 2018.
Antonio A. Prete
Licensed Professional Engineer
No. 93759 State of Texas
Surveyor’s Certification:
STATE OF TEXAS {
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON {
I, Shane Shafer, 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, Texas, this ___ day of _______,
2018.
Shane Shafer
Registered Professional Land Surveyor No.
James David Wolf
414 Indigo Lane
Georgetown, Texas 78628
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of office this ____ day of _______________, 20___.
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
STATE OF TEXAS {
KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON {
__________________________________
My Commission expires on: ____________
________________________OWNER/DEVELOPER:
J.D. WOLF PROPERTIES, LLC
STATE OF TEXAS {
KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON {
I, James David Wolf, sole owner of the certain tract of land shown hereon and described in a deed recorded in
Document No. 2009090679 of the Official Records of Williamson County, Texas, do hereby state there are no lien
holders of the certain tract of land, and do hereby subdivide 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 WOLF CROSSING SUBDIVISION.
TO CERTIFY WHICH, WITNESS by my hand this _____ day of _____________, 20___.
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared James David Wolf, 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.
____________________________ _______________
___________, Floodplain Coordinator Date
City of Georgetown
This subdivision to be known as Wolf Crossing has been accepted and approved for filing of record with
the County Clerk of Williamson County, Texas, according to the minutes of the meeting of the Georgetown
Planning and Zoning Commission on the ____ day of __________, 20__, A.D.
____________________________ ________________
________________, Chairman Date
____________________________ ________________
________________, Secretary Date
Based upon the above representations of the Engineer or Surveyor whose seal is affixed hereto, and
after a review of the plat as represented by the said Engineer or Surveyor, I find that this plat complies
with the requirements of Chapter 15.44, Flood Damage Prevention, of the Georgetown Municipal Code.
This certification is made solely upon such representations and should not be relied upon for verifications
of the facts alleged. The City of Georgetown disclaims any responsibility to any member of the public or
independent verifications of the representation, factual or otherwise, contained in this plat and the
documents associated with it.
........................................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................................
County Clerk's Certification
I, Nancy Rister, Clerk of the County Court of said County, do hereby certify that the
foregoing instrument in writing, with its certificate of authentication was filed for record in
my office on the _____ day of ______________, 20___, A.D., at _____ o'clock, __.M.,
and duly recorded this the _____ day of ______________, 20___, A.D., at _____ o'clock,
__.M., in the Official Public Records of said County in Document No. ______________.
TO CERTIFY WHICH, WITNESS my hand and seal of 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
_________________________
Deputy
........................................................................................................................................................................
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
FOR A 36.24 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CLEMENT STUBBLEFIELD SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 558, IN
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF TRACT TWO, PARCEL ONE, CALLED A REMAINDER PORTION
OF 412 ACRES OF LAND AND BEING ALL OF TRACT TWO, PARCEL TWO, CALLED 24 ACRES OF LAND, CONVEYED TO
JAMES DAVID WOLF AS RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2009090679 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. SAID TRACTS OF LAND BEING SURVEYED ON THE GROUND BY DIAMOND
SURVEYING IN NOVEMBER 2017, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING at a cotton gin spindle found monumenting the northwest corner of said Wolf tract, same being on the intersection
of the south right-of-way line of State Highway 29 and the east right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 35, for the northwest
corner and POINT OF BEGINNING hereof, from which the northwest corner of said Clement Stubblefield Survey bears
approximately
S 79°52”W for a distance of 5746 feet;
THENCE, N 84°27’09” E with said south right-of-way line of State Highway 29 common with said Wolf tract for a distance of
28.52 feet to a 1/2” iron rod found monumenting the northwest corner of a called 1.375 acre tract of land conveyed to Lehigh
Gas Wholesale Services, Inc., recorded in Document No. 2015001881, of the Official Public Records of Williamson County,
Texas, same being an exterior ell corner of said Wolf tract;
THENCE, S 00°53’31” W with the west boundary line of said 1.375 acre Lehigh Gas Wholesale Services, Inc. tract, common
with said Wolf tract for a distance of 199.92 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found monumenting the southwest corner of said 1.375 acre
Lehigh Gas Wholesale Services, Inc. tract and an interior ell corner of said Wolf tract;
THENCE, N 87°35’04” E with the south boundary line of said 1.375 acre Lehigh Gas Wholesale Services, Inc. tract common
with said Wolf tract for a distance of 90.16 feet to a 1/2” iron rod found monumenting the most westerly northwest corner of Lot
1, Block A, West University Professional Center a subdivision recorded in Cabinet H, Slide 20 of the Plat Records of Williamson
County, Texas, same being on an exterior ell corner of said Wolf tract;
THENCE, S 02°23’24” W with the west boundary line of said Lot 1, Block A, common with said Wolf tract for a distance of
331.78 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found monumenting the southwest corner of said Lot 1, Block A, same being on an interior ell
corner of said Wolf tract;
THENCE, N 87°21’35” E with the south boundary line of said Lot 1, Block A, common with said Wolf tract for a distance of
359.08 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found monumenting the southeast corner of said Lot 1, Block A, same being on an interior ell
corner of said Wolf tract;
THENCE, with the east boundary line of said Lot 1, Block A, common with said Wolf tract, the following two (2) courses and
distances:
1) N 28°55’45” E for a distance of 96.97 feet to an iron rod found with cap marked “RPLS 2218” on an angle point;
2) N 03°56’20” E for a distance of 449.94 feet to a 1/2” iron rod found monumenting the northeast corner of said Lot 1, Block
A, same being on an exterior ell corner of said Wolf tract, same being on said south right-of-way line of State Highway 29;
THENCE, N 87°48’41” E with said south right-of-way line of State Highway 29 common with said Wolf tract for a distance of
374.14 feet to an iron rod found with cap marked “CS LTD” monumenting the northwest corner of a called 0.812 acre tract of
land conveyed to the Lower Colorado River Authority, recorded in Volume 333, Page 451 of the Deed Records of Williamson
County, Texas, same being on an exterior ell corner of said Wolf Tract, from which a LCRA brass disk found monumenting the
northeast corner of said 0.812 acre Lower Colorado River Authority tract bears N 87°52’41” E for a distance of 160.08 feet;
THENCE, departing said south right-of-way line of State Highway 29, S 06°47’05” W with the west boundary line of said 0.812
acre Lower Colorado River Authority tract and the west boundary line of a called 0.429 acre tract of land conveyed to the Lower
Colorado River Authority, recorded in Volume 812, Page 421 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas common with
said Wolf tract for a distance of 259.19 feet to a 60D nail found in fence post on the southwest corner of said 0.429 acre Lower
Colorado River Authority tract, same being on an interior ell corner of said Wolf tract;
THENCE, S 71°26’09” E with the south boundary line of said 0.429 acre Lower Colorado River Authority tract and the south line
of a called 6.079 acre tract of land conveyed to CSW Georgetown, LLC, recorded in Document No. 2017021673 of the Official
Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, common with said Wolf tract, passing at a distance of 216.12 feet a LCRA brass
disk found monumenting the southeast corner of said 0.429 acre Lower Colorado River Authority tract and the southwest corner
of said 6.079 acre CSW Georgetown, LLC tract, in all a total distance of 769.71 feet to a calculated point in the approximate
center of the South San Gabriel River;
THENCE, with said approximate center of the South San Gabriel River, the following seventeen (17) courses and distances:
1) S 39°41’44” W for a distance of 148.19 feet to a calculated point;
2) S 54°26’55” W for a distance of 89.39 feet to a calculated point;
3) S 65°16’42” W for a distance of 190.16 feet to a calculated point;
4) S 80°09’48” W for a distance of 214.92 feet to a calculated point;
5) S 84°21’37” W for a distance of 284.20 feet to a calculated point;
6) S 66°02’17” W for a distance of 95.00 feet to a calculated point;
7) S 43°47’06” W for a distance of 159.60 feet to a calculated point;
8) S 37°49’30” W for a distance of 252.33 feet to a calculated point;
9) S 18°45’04” W for a distance of 139.49 feet to a calculated point;
10) S 05°30’34” W for a distance of 109.84 feet to a calculated point;
11) S 01°12’09” E for a distance of 185.86 feet to a calculated point;
12) S 07°12’59” W for a distance of 219.63 feet to a calculated point;
13) S 20°25’06” W for a distance of 84.88 feet to a calculated point;
14) S 30°42’07” W for a distance of 120.13 feet to a calculated point;
15) S 18°57’14” W for a distance of 260.88 feet to a calculated point;
16) S 17°46’45” W for a distance of 215.80 feet to a calculated point;
17) S 30°54’23” W for a distance of 43.32 feet to a calculated point on the east right-of-way line of said Interstate Highway
35, common with said Wolf tract;
THENCE, with said east right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 35 common with said Wolf tract, the following three (3)
courses and distances:
1) N 15°02’40” W for a distance of 597.00 feet to a TxDOT concrete monument found monumenting the beginning of a curve
to the right;
2) With said curve to the right an arc length of 1750.41 feet, said curve having a radius of 3519.71 feet, a central angle of
28°29’39”, and having a chord which bears N 00°48’31” W for a distance of 1732.42 feet to an iron rod found with cap
marked “CS LTD” monumenting the end of this curve;
3) N 36°05’01” E for a distance of 166.49 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 36.24 acres of land more or
less.
26 February
26 Feb.
K:
\
C
A
D
\
0
7
3
-
0
0
6
W
o
l
f
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
\
3
-
C
A
D
\
P
L
A
N
S
\
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
-
F
I
N
A
L
P
L
A
T
\
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
B
Y
D
S
I
P
F
P
-
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
6
f
r
o
m
r
e
c
i
e
v
e
d
f
o
l
d
e
r
\
0
7
3
-
0
0
6
F
I
N
A
L
-
P
L
A
T
_
R
E
V
-
D
S
I
.
d
w
g
,
L
a
y
o
u
t
3
,
3
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
9
:
0
9
:
5
4
A
M
,
1
:
1
,
W
-
P
,
I
n
c
.
,
J
L
Page 12 of 142
FINAL PLAT (PFP-2017-006)
FOR WOLF CROSSING
SUBDIVISION
SHEET 4 OF 4
Waeltz & Prete, Inc.
CIVIL ENGINEERS
3000 Joe DiMaggio Blvd. #72
Round Rock, TX. 78665
PH (512) 505-8953
FIRM TX. REG. #F-10308
PLAT NOTES:
1.UTILITY PROVIDERS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE:
WATER - CITY OF GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
WASTEWATER - CITY OF GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
ELECTRIC - CITY OF GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
2.ALL STRUCTURES/OBSTRUCTIONS ARE PROHIBITED IN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
3.THERE ARE AREAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS SUBDIVISION IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AS
DEFINED BY FIRM MAP NUMBER 48491C0290E AND 48491C0295E, EFFECTIVE DATE OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2008.
4.IN ORDER TO PROMOTE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM A STRUCTURE, THE SLAB ELEVATION SHOULD BE BUILT AT
LEAST ONE-FOOT ABOVE THE SURROUNDING GROUND, AND THE GROUND SHOULD BE GRADED AWAY FROM
THE STRUCTURE AT A SLOPE OF 1/2" PER FOOT FOR A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 10 FEET.
5.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.
6.A 15-FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT IS RESERVED ALONG ALL PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGES WITHIN THIS
PLAT.
7.THE MONUMENTS OF THIS PLAT HAVE BEEN ROTATED TO THE NAD 83/89 HARN - TEXAS CENTRAL ZONE AND
NAVD 88.
8.THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE PER NON-RESIDENTIAL LOT SHALL BE PURSUANT TO THE UDC AT
THE TIME OF SITE PLAN APPLICATION BASED ON THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY.
9.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 ACKNOWLEDGE 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.
10.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 JURISDICTION.
11.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.
12.THE SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS OF
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN.
13.A GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN WATER QUALITY
REGULATIONS, WAS COMPLETED ON 01 DEC 2016. ANY SPRINGS AND STREAMS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE
GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT ARE SHOWN HEREIN.
14.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.
15.NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR
EACH OF THE FOLLOWING LOTS: BLOCK 'A' LOT 1
16.PRIOR TO ANY CHANNEL ALTERATION OR BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WILL CHANGE EXISTING FLOOD
PATTERNS OR ELEVATIONS, A LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR FOR APPROVAL AND APPROVAL BY THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.
17.ALL WATER QUALITY PERMANENT BMPs, DETENTION, AND/OR RETENTION BASINS, AND RELATED
APPURTENANCES SHALL BE SITUATED WITHIN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, DRAINAGE LOT OR AS SHOWN ON
THE SITE PLAN. THE OWNERS, HOA, SUCCESSORS, OR ITS ASSIGNEES OF THE TRACTS UPON WHICH ARE
LOCATED SUCH EASEMENTS, APPURTENANCES, AND DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY FACILITIES SHALL
MAINTAIN AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE, ROUTINE INSPECTION AND UPKEEP.
18.THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL PROVIDE WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE FOR THE 6.079 AC TRACT (DOC.
#2017021673). AT THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR EITHER THE 6.079 ACRE TRACT OR THIS
SUBDIVISION, WHICHEVER IS FIRST, CONVEYANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT NO COST TO THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN OR THE 6.079 ACRE SITE. THESE ARE TO BE BUILT OR BONDED PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
19.A VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE CITY'S CODE SECTION 13.07.A, MORE SPECIFICALLY THE REQUIREMENT TO
CONSTRUCT THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE, IS APPROVED WITH THIS PLAT.
20.CROSS ACCESS IS GRANTED TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. MINIMUM OF ONE TO EACH NEIGHBORING
PROPERTY AND THREE POSSIBLE STUBS FROM THE WEST UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONAL CENTER.
K:
\
C
A
D
\
0
7
3
-
0
0
6
W
o
l
f
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
\
3
-
C
A
D
\
P
L
A
N
S
\
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
-
F
I
N
A
L
P
L
A
T
\
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
B
Y
D
S
I
P
F
P
-
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
6
f
r
o
m
r
e
c
i
e
v
e
d
f
o
l
d
e
r
\
0
7
3
-
0
0
6
F
I
N
A
L
-
P
L
A
T
_
R
E
V
-
D
S
I
.
d
w
g
,
L
a
y
o
u
t
4
,
3
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
9
:
1
0
:
3
4
A
M
,
1
:
1
,
W
-
P
,
I
n
c
.
,
J
L
Page 13 of 142
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
April 3, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion on a Preliminary F inal Plat for the Echo Park s ub d ivision generally
lo cated at 7121 Kelley Drive (P FP -2017-007). Nathan Jo nes-Meyer, Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
This combined p reliminary and final plat is for a one lot, 12.228-acre s ubdivis ion loc ated at 7121 Kelley
Drive.
Staff Analysis:
The proposed Preliminary F inal P lat meets all of the requirements o f the Unified Development Co d e for a
o ne-lot sub divis io n.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applic ant has paid the required ap p lic atio n fees .
SUBMITTED BY:
Nathan Jo nes-Meyer, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Attachment 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Attachment 2 - Combined Preliminary and Final Plat Backup Material
Page 14 of 142
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Echo Park – Combined Preliminary and Final Plat Page 1 of 2
Report Date: March 2, 2018
File No: PFP-2017-007
Project Planner: Nathan Jones-Meyer, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Echo Park
Project Address: 7121 Kelley Drive
Applicant: Charles Garcia, P.E.
Owner: W.D. Kelley Foundation
Total Acreage: 12.228 acres
Legal Description: 12.228 acres out of the John Powell Survey
Plat Summary
Total Lots: 1
Blocks: 1
Linear Feet of New Roads: 0
Heritage Trees: 0
Site Information
The site is located at 7121 Kelley Drive, along the IH-35 Frontage Road.
Location Map
Page 15 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
Echo Park – Combined Preliminary and Final Plat Page 2 of 2
Background
This combined preliminary and final plat is a one lot subdivision for a 12.228-acre property. The
subject site is currently zoned C-3 (General Commercial), and has Community Commercial and
Employment Center Future Land Use designations. The subject site has frontage on IH-35,
Gateway Dr and Kelley Dr.
Utilities
The subject site is located within the City of Georgetown’s service area for water, wastewater,
and electric. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve t his property either by
existing capacity or developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure.
Transportation
The subject site currently has inbound and outbound access on Kelley Drive. As the site
develops, it is anticipated that a future inbound and outbound access point may be located along
the IH-35 Frontage Road.
Parkland Dedication
Not applicable for commercial property.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
The proposed Preliminary Final Plat was reviewed by the applicable City departments. All
technical review comments have been addressed by the applicant.
Staff Analysis
The proposed Preliminary Final Plat meets all of the requirements of the Unified Development
Code for a one-lot subdivision.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Combined Preliminary and Final Plat
Page 16 of 142
W E S T I N G H O U S E R D
§¨¦35
PFP-2017-007Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map
CHANDLER RD
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 0.25 0.5Mi
Page 17 of 142
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
3/19/2018
1" = 100'
NLM
FINAL PLAT OF ECHO PARK REALTY TX SUBDIVISION
17-014
1 OF 1
NLM WILLIAM C. STAMPADOS, RPLS #5393
Antelope Surveying, Firm Reg. #10070700
4903 South Fox Street
Englewood, CO 80110
Project Contact: Nick Mansfield
(864) 451-0176
nick@survey-matters.com
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
PREPARED FOR: W D KELLEY FOUNDATION
NORTH INTERSTATE 35 FRONTAGE ROAD & GATEWAY DRIVE
PREPARED FOR: ECHOPARK REALTY TX, LLC
12.228 ACRES IN THE JOHN POWELL SURVEY,
ABSTRACT #491
”
·
CITY PROJECT #PFP-2017-007
Page 18 of 142
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
April 3, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion of a Preliminary Plat for the P atience Ranc h Sub d ivision generally
lo cated at 1000 VP R anc h Rd (PP -2017-008). Andreina Dávila-Quintero , C urrent Planning Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Overview of Applicant's Request:
The ap p licant is req ues ting approval of a Preliminary Plat for 95-lo t (89 single-family lo ts and s ix (6)
landsc ap e lots ) res id ential sub d ivision.
Staff's Analysis:
The proposed Preliminary Plat meets all of the requirements o f the Unified Development C o d e fo r a 95-lo t
(89 single-family lots and s ix (6) landsc ap e lots ) residential s ubdivis io n as outlined in the attac hed Staff
Report.
Public Comments:
As of the d ate o f this report, the Planning Dep artment has rec eived 15 written c o mments in o p p o s ition of
the reques t.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applic ant has paid the required ap p lic atio n fees .
SUBMITTED BY:
And reina Dávila-Quintero , Current Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
PP-2017-008 Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Patience Ranch Preliminary Plat Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Public Comments Backup Material
Page 19 of 142
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
PP-2017-008
Patience Ranch Preliminary Plat Page 1 of 3
Report Date: March 30, 2018
File No: PP-2017-008
Project Planner: Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager
Item Details
Project Name: Patience Ranch Subdivision
Project Address: 1000 VP Ranch Drive
Total Acreage: 108.8997 acres
Legal Description: 108.997 acres of land out of the James Bell Survey, Abstract 87; the Samuel
Campbell Survey, Abstract 157 and Israel Sauls Survey, Abstract 595
Applicant: Carlson, Brigance & Doering, Inc, c/o Geoff Guerrero and Brett Pasquarella
Property Owner: SFSD Investments, Inc., c/o Derek Pampe
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for 95-lot (89 single-family lots and six (6)
landscape lots) residential subdivision.
Page 20 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
PP-2017-008
Patience Ranch Preliminary Plat Page 2 of 3
Plat Summary
Number of Phases: 3
Residential Lots: 89
Drainage Easement and Greenbelt Lots: 4
Landscape Easement and Greenbelt Lots: 1
Landscape Easement Lots: 1
Total Lots: 95
Blocks: 5
Linear Feet of Street: 9,674 linear feet
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is located north of the Escalera Ranch Subdivision, off of VP Ranch Drive and
Clovis Dr (Exhibit 1) within the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). It is bordered by undeveloped
land and ultimately the South Fork San Gabriel River to the north, single-family residential subdivision
to the south (Escalera Ranch Subdivision), undeveloped land (part of the proposed Water Oak
development) to the east, and Garey Park to the west.
Physical Characteristics:
The subject property is an irregularly shaped tract consisting of approximately 109 acres out of a
remaining 358-acre tract of land located between the South Fork San Gabriel River and the Escalera
Ranch Subdivision. The subject property comprises of multiple water features, including springs and
streams, as well as geological features due to the significant changes in elevation. A tree survey was
required with the submission of the Preliminary Plat application to identify all heritage trees on the
subject property, which identified approximately a total of 972.5 inches caliper.
Background
The subject property is a portion of a much larger tract of land that has been subdivided and developed
(or intended to be developed) into different residential neighborhoods including the Escalera Ranch,
Preserve and Water Oak subdivisions. This subject portion connects to the Escalera Ranch subdivision
at two existing street stubs: VP Ranch Drive to the western portion and Clovis Drive to the eastern
portion. The subject property is proposed to be developed as a residential subdivision comprising of 89
single-family lots and six (6) greenbelt and/or landscape easement lots (Exhibit 2).
On January 30, 2018, the proposed project was recognized statutory rights pursuant to Chapter 245 of
the Texas Local Government Code. As a result, the orders, regulations, ordinances, rules and required
in effect on or about February 17, 2017, govern the proposed project.
Utilities
The subject property is located within the City’s service area for water and wastewater. Additionally,
it is located within the Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC) service area for electric. It is anticipated
that there is adequate capacity to serve the subject property at this time.
Page 21 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
PP-2017-008
Patience Ranch Preliminary Plat Page 3 of 3
Transportation
The subject property’s current access is from VP Ranch Drive and Clovis Drice through the Escalera
Ranch Subdivision. VP Ranch Drive is a local road with a 50-foot wide right-of-way, and Clovis Drive
a residential collector with a 60-foot wide right-of-way. The nearest major thoroughfare is RM 2243
(also known as Leander Road within the city limits), located along the south border of the Escalera
Ranch Subdivision. RM 2243 is classified as a Major Arterial in the City’s Overall Transportation Plan,
and currently provides the sole access to the Escalera Ranch, Preserve and proposed Patience Ranch
subdivisions.
Parkland Dedication
Parkland dedication requirements are satisfied through fee in lieu of land dedication for the proposed
subdivision.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
The proposed subdivision plat was reviewed by the applicable City departments and Williamson
County. All technical review comments were addressed by the applicant.
Staff Analysis
The proposed Preliminary Plat meets all of the requirements of the Unified Development Code for a
95-lot (89 single-family lots and six (6) landscape lots) residential subdivision.
Public Comments
As of the date of this report, the Planning Department has received a number of written comments in
opposition of the request (Exhibit 3).
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Patience Ranch Preliminary Plat
Exhibit 3 – Public Comments
Page 22 of 142
W University A
v
e
¬«29
Leander Rd
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Willia
msDr
L e a n d e r R d
Leander R d
¬«29¬«29 W University Ave W University Ave
RiveryBlv d
W olfRanchPkw y
Wat
er
O
akPkwy
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
C
e
d
a
r
H
o
l
l
o
w
R
d
R
onald
W
Reagan
B
l
v
d
PP-2017-008Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 0.75 1.5Mi
Page 23 of 142
Page 24 of 142
Page 25 of 142
Page 26 of 142
Page 27 of 142
Page 28 of 142
Page 29 of 142
From:Tami Pharr
To:Andreina Davila
Cc:eroapresident@gmail.com
Subject:Concern for Variance for access to Patience Ranch new subdivision (Case PP-2017-008)
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:18:53 AM
Dear Andreina,
I’d like to formally state my opposition to the Patience Ranch Development Plan (Case PP-
2017-008). I sent the below email to you on November 29, 2017, and my statement still stands. I’d like
this to be recorded as a strong Opposition to the above case.
Thank you,
Tami
On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Tami Pharr <tamipharr@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sirs,
I am writing you to express my deep concern with the potential variance for the
new VP Ranch subdivision. It’s my understanding that section 3.22.060 of the
Georgetown, TX Code of Ordinances indicates the approval criteria for granting
the variances. The code indicates that at least four of the factors are required for
the variance to be approved. I believe that there are 2 factors that the developer
will not be able to meet which should allow the Planning and Zoning Committee
to vote no on the requested variance.
A.That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the area or to the City in
administering this Code.
There are 106 lots in Escalera Ranch with an additional 71 lots in the Preserve
that have only 1 egress point, which isn’t compliant with the egress codes today.
Adding an additional 89-188 homes severely impacts the ability for all residents
to safely and quickly leave the neighborhood in case of a natural or man-made
disaster. Interestingly, there was a major wreck in front of Escalera Parkway on
2243 this past weekend which impacted the ability for residents to safely and
quickly enter/exit the neighborhood. The impact this additional development
would have in the safety and welfare to the other homes/residents in Escalera
Ranch/Preserve would be significant.
B.That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of this Code.
Granting the variance would actually go against the spirit of the code as it’s
written. Because there isn’t a second egress point would substantially conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of this Code as it’s written.
While I have other concerns with granting the variance, such as the damage the
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 30 of 142
construction vehicles would cause to the existing roads in Escalera Ranch, and the
impact on adding these homes would have in the ability to receive Home Owners
Insurance, the 2 factors above should be enough for the Planning and Zoning
Commission to not approve the variance request. But these other concerns are
important. My family moved to Escalera Ranch in August. We had difficulty
finding an insurance carrier that would underwrite our home because we were so
far away from the fire hydrant, and that the closest fire station is more than 5
miles away. Adding these additional homes with only 1 egress point will have a
detrimental ability for the current home owners to keep and find insurance to meet
these industry standards. The developer presented to the neighbors last night and
indicated he was not required to pay for any damage to the entrance/exit or roads
in the neighborhood from his construction trucks. That’s disheartening since
everyone who lives in this neighborhood chose it for it’s natural beauty and
country feel.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Tami Pharr
124 Covington Cove
Georgetown, TX 78628
512-750-2352
tamipharr@gmail.com
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 31 of 142
From:Greg Brown
To:Andreina Davila
Cc:kaletahbrown@gmail.com; Thomas Arthur
Subject:Escalera parkway/ Southfork
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:09:25 AM
Attachments:image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Andreina,
My wife, Kaletah, and I live on VP Ranch Dr. in Escalera Ranch. We strongly oppose the Southfork
subdivision developers using Escalera Parkway, VP Ranch Dr. and Clovis Dr. as their entrance. Safety
is our primary concern as the streets in Escalera were clearly not designed to withstand heavy traffic
or heavy construction equipment. These are narrow (single lane in some areas), winding,
blacktopped streets with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Many trees are close to the road and not
friendly to speeding cars or to large construction vehicles. Also there is only one access road into or
out of the neighborhood. This has always been a concern in case of fire or other emergency. Adding
an additional subdivision with somewhere between 89 and 371 homes would greatly increase the
density and congestion and risk should an evacuation occur. There are other routes that could and
should be used for access.
Our neighborhood also has many strict deed restrictions to promote conservation of wildlife. For
example, only 50% of each lot may be developed including landscaping. There is a minimum 50’ foot
buffer of “native” area between and behind all homes that must be left natural so wildlife may
commute through the neighborhood. This kind of increased traffic will not be good for conservation
of the wildlife that our neighborhood principals were founded on.
In summary, Escalera Ranch streets are not thoroughfares and should not become thoroughfares
due to safety and environmental concerns. Again, we strongly oppose the Patience Ranch
Development Plan (Case PP-2017-008).
Thanks,
Greg & Kaletah Brown
218 VP Ranch Dr.
Georgetown, Texas 78628
Thanks,
Greg Brown
107 Park Central Blvd. | Georgetown, Texas 78626
Phone: 512-763-3600 | Direct: 512-763-3604 | Fax: 512-763-3615 | Email:
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 32 of 142
gregbrown@rdmolders.com | Web: www.rdmolders.com
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. It is intended to be read only by the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on
notice that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this message.
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 33 of 142
From:Amy Landau
To:Andreina Davila
Cc:Josh Landau
Subject:Fw: RE: Patience Ranch Variance Request Project
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 2:45:00 PM
Attention, Ms. Davila-Quintero,
Please note that as a resident of Escalera Ranch I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to the Patience Ranch
Development Plan (Case PP-2017-008) for a number of reasons including ROAD IMPACT and HOME
OWNERS INSURANCE. Perhaps my most imminent concern is the detrimental impact of the
development plan upon our HEALTH and SAFETY. Our current streets don't adequately provide for
proper emergency vehicle access nor do they allow for safe evacuation of the neighborhood in case of
emergency. Therefore, adding more traffic from additional homes would greatly exacerbate the current
situation.
Thank you for your attention to these crucial matters.
Amy Landau
Amy Landau
121 Covington Cove
Georgetown, TX 78628
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Joshua.Landau@dell.com <Joshua.Landau@dell.com>
To: "andreina.davila@georgetown.org" <andreina.davila@georgetown.org>
Cc: "eroapresident@gmail.com" <eroapresident@gmail.com>; "amylandau@yahoo.com"
<amylandau@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018, 2:15:16 PM CDT
Subject: RE: Patience Ranch Variance Request Project
Hello-
We would like to express that I’m extremely concerned about the proposal for new housing to be
constructed behind the Escalera community without additional roadways.
Specifically, we’re concerned about:
1. Emergency Vehicle and fire response
Single egress: Escalera Ranch and The Preserve only have a single egress which presents a safety
issue should this egress be blocked. When the original plat for these subdivisions was granted they were
granted a variance to only have one egress "temporarily" with the second egress planned when the Water
Oak Subdivision was developed. That has yet to happen and our subdivisions are continuing to live with
only one emergency egress. Adding an additional 89 homes, or even more when additional phases of
Southfork is developed, increases the density and the congestion should there need to be an evacuation
via a single egress thus creating a safety exposure.
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 34 of 142
2. Road Impact
Construction Vehicles have already scared and damaged the roads of Escalera Ranch and additional
heavy machinery could cause additional damage to the roads. Recently the roads were resurfaced by
the County
and it will likely be a significant amount of time before our cycle of road maintenance will come around
again. Additional heavy construction vehicles could damage the roads and diminish the beauty and
function of them. Escalera Parkway is very narrow and winding in various places, especially in the divided
sections with median, which are nearly impossible for large trucks, such as construction vehicles, to
navigate without damage.
3. Home Owners Insurance
Insurance companies have begun to deny writing homeowners insurance coverage due to the distance of
services for fire response and the number of homes in the area. Increasing the density of homes will add
to the formula that could cause more companies to deny coverage. This can greatly affect our property
values if we can't get insurance. Roads are very narrow and Escalera Ranch HOA has already had to
improve the VP Ranch and Escalera Ranch Parkway corner to allow for safely navigating that corner.
Thank you for your consideration.
Joshua & Amy Landau
Escalera Residents
121 Covington Cove
Georgetown, TX 78628
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 35 of 142
From:Corky Barho
To:Andreina Davila
Subject:Fwd: Proposed Southfork subdivision
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 1:04:16 PM
Ms. Davila,
I understand that this is again on the docket for Apr 3rd meeting. Could you please again
register my concerns as outlined in my previous email to you (below)? If any of the council
members were to spend 24 hours in our neighborhood they would understand the significant,
negative impact that this will have on our quality of life and safety.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Andreina Davila <Andreina.Davila@georgetown.org>
Date: November 27, 2017 at 3:10:47 PM MST
To: 'Corky Barho' <corky@corkysells.com>
Subject: RE: Proposed Southfork subdivision
Good afternoon Corky. I hope I find you well and that you had a wonderful
Thanksgiving holiday.
Thank you for your email. I have saved a copy in the case file.
If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I hope you have
a wonderful day.
ADQ
Andreina Dávila-Quintero
Current Planning Manager
Planning Department
City of Georgetown
O: 512.931.7686
F: 512.930.5892
E: andreina.davila@georgetown.org
Large File Upload (10MB) https://www.hightail.com/u/andreinadavila
“We value Trust, Professionalism, Teamwork, Communication, and Work/Life Balance in order to
provide outstanding service to our community.”
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 36 of 142
From: Corky Barho [mailto:corky@corkysells.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 2:25 PM
To: Andreina Davila <Andreina.Davila@georgetown.org>
Subject: Proposed Southfork subdivision
Hello,
I am the President of the Preserve at Escalera Pkwy HOA. I'm
writing to express serious concern at the proposed access
through Escalera Ranch to this new subdivision. The Escalera
neighborhood with winding, narrow streets along with the huge
increase in truck traffic on 2243 already has a very hazardous
entrance. The ONLY entrance /exit into the neighborhood is
from 2243. I have personally witnessed several fatal accidents
and have come upon numerous accidents just this past week.
Drivers using 2243 from I-35 to Ronald Reagan become
impatient behind the 18 wheeler gravel trucks and constantly
pass in the no-passing sections. I've almost been hit head-on
and several neighbors, as well as my husband have had to bail
into the grass on the side of the road to avoid accidents. Now
that Garey Park will have an entrance near us, it will be even
more dangerous.
Moving vans often become stuck as they cannot maneuver the
curves in our neighborhood. How will large construction vehicles
be able to do it? The roads are already damaged by the
construction of a much smaller neighborhood (The Preserve)
than the proposed Southfork. The Preserve, however, had a
construction entrance off of 2243 because of access issues
through Escalera.
I would propose that the City of Georgetown would use the strip
of land that it acquired from VP Ranch which fronts 2243 near
the entrance to Garey Park to, at the very least, be used as a
construction entrance to Southfork.
Please forward this email to the appropriate person/s.
Thank you for your consideration.
Today is a good day for a good day!
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 37 of 142
Broker Associate
Office:(512)342-8744 Direct 512-750-0506
4501 Spicewood Springs Rd #1029 Austin, Tx 78759
SEARCH the MLS
Information About Brokerage Services
Ask aboout our Wimberly location!
I am licensed to do business in the state of Texas by the Texas Real Estate
Commission - license#0587138
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if any, is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail, destroy all copies of the
original message, and do not disseminate it further. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications
through this medium, please advise the sender immediately. IRS Circular 230 Notice: To the extent that this message or any
attachment concerns tax matters, it is not intended to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding
penalties that may be imposed by law.
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 38 of 142
From:Andrew Ducote
To:Andreina Davila
Subject:Objection to Southfork/Patience Ranch Development
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:03:28 AM
Good Morning Planning Manager Davila,
I am writing with the strongest objection to the new Southfork development. I recently
purchased 105 Marcos Dr in Escalera Ranch hoping for a secluded place for my 2 young
children 5 &2 to play, ride bikes and enjoy the untouched nature. We paid 2.5X the price for
comparable land in Leander or Liberty Hill for the benefit of less traffic, noise and pollution.
The idea of putting 100+ home lots behind our development with no reasonable access is
dangerous and immoral.
The inability for emergency vehicles to access all these residents is a major concern.
In the event of evacuation from fire or flood many more lives would be lost because of the
improper city planning motivated by greed.
There needs to be a more reasonable plan made for access to these new neighborhoods.
I don't object to the neighbors but I strongly object to the sharing of that one constricted
roadway as the only means of access in and out.
Respectfully,
Andrew Ducote
(512)673-6735
Dr. Andrew Ducote
www.patriot-dental.com
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 39 of 142
From:Nathaniel Greenwood
To:Andreina Davila
Subject:OPPOSITION to the Patience Ranch Development Plan (Case PP-2017-008)
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:34:58 AM
Dear Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission:
As a home owner in Escalera Ranch I strongly object to a new development using existing roads in Escalera Ranch.
These roads are not designed for that type of traffic. I also worry about safety since there are no side walks that my
children can walk on. With the turns in the road it can be difficult to see someone until you are right upon them.
It would make sense for a separate, dedicated road be built to accomodate the new subdivision. Thank you for your
time reading my concerns.
Nathaniel Greenwood DO FACEP
Chief Medical Officer
Family Emergency Rooms
ngreenwood@familyemergencyroom.com
Mobile: (512) 773-3510
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 40 of 142
From:Stu McKenna
To:Andreina Davila
Cc:Stu & Lisa McKenna
Subject:OPPOSITION to the Patience Ranch Development Plan (Case PP-2017-008)
Date:Friday, March 30, 2018 9:10:08 AM
Attachments:Southfork.pdf
Dear Ms. Davila-Quintero,
We are writing to express our significant concern and opposition to the proposed Patience Ranch/"Southfork" development.
We base our opposition primarily on the following factors:
1. The proposed development is not in accordance with the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code (UDC).
The UDC requires two access points to a major arterial, and the Southfork design does not provide that. It is our
understanding that the Southfork developer received a favorable ruling from the City of Georgetown attorney simply because
the developer submitted a Utility Plan (no further information) under the previous code that did not require two access points.
It is clear to us that the City made this decision without adequate input and comment from City constituents, and did not
consider facts such as the below.
2. Escalera Ranch roads are not in accordance with TXDOT Roadway Design Manual (RDM) dated October 2014 as
it is, and the addition of a brand new development and its traffic will create unsafe conditions:
- The TXDOT RDM calls for a 11 ft or 12 ft lane widths for low-speed areas. The paved width of VP Ranch Drive
and Clovis Drive are 21 ft, with no center divider. Were a 1 ft lane divider be provided, the width would only by 10
ft.
- The TXDOT RDM recognizes walking as an important transportation mode and thus requires sidewalks to increase
pedestrian safety. There are currently no sidewalks within Escalera Ranch.
- There are no existing shoulders within Escalera Ranch that would accommodate bicycle paths and parking.
- There is inadequate lighting on all Escalera streets.
The developer has presented you plans to build 89 homes over the first two phases of Southfork, and he has additional plans
to build another 142 single family homes plus 60 condominium units in follow-on phases (see attachment). Escalera Ranch
streets and roads are inadequate to support the combined Escalera and Southfork traffic, even gradually over time. VP Ranch,
a 1/2 mile long street, is characterized by several winding bends where motorists and pedestrians are blind to oncoming
traffic. Even today with minimal construction, we routinely have "near misses" with oncoming traffic. Allowing the many
Southfork residents egress/degress through Escalera will make our streets unsafe to the point that we will not be able to be
pedestrians on our own streets. Additionally, our streets are inadequate for support emergency vehicles in case of fire etc.
The addition of the Southfork development will only exacerbate this issue.
It is understood and expected that Escalera Ranch, as it exists, would be "grandfathered" in regarding TXDOT
guidelines; however, the fact that the City of Georgetown is considering stapling on a new development twice the size
of Escalera that will use substandard streets to access the 2243 arterial road, is unacceptable.
The City of Georgetown cannot and should not, in good conscience, consider approval of Southfork without requiring
improvement of existing Escalera streets so they are in compliance with existing TXDOT RDM requirements and best
practices.
3. The addition of Water Oak Parkway long term will not remedy the situation. Once Water Oak Parkway is
constructed, it will indeed improve movement of traffic for residents living on the Eastern side of the proposed Southfork
development. However, it will provide minimal advantage for the 91 homesites (slightly less than the 105 lots in the entire
Escalera Ranch development) in the Western side of the development. The residents of those 91 lots will almost assuredly
continue to use VP Ranch Drive and Escalera Parkway for egress to and from 2243 even after Water Oak Parkway is built.
As has always been the case, the majority of Escalera and The Preserve traffic is to and from the Parmer and 183 Tollroad
arteries, and Southfork will likely follow suit. The distance will be less to travel through Escalera, and without any Water
Oak stoplights and traffic to deal with, it will provide the path of least resistance for Southfork residents coming from the
West side of the development.
4. Our streets and roads within Escalera Ranch are inadequate to provide passage of the heavy machinery required to
develop Southfork. Extremely large and heavy "Earth Moving" vehicles, and the vehicles they are transported on, will need
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 41 of 142
to use our roads throughout the development of all phases of the Southfork development. Our roads were not designed or
constructed to handle the weight and size of these vehicles, and would have to be widened and/or improved to properly
support them.
5. Lastly, in our opinion, the developer of Southfork has not demonstrated good faith in following City of Georgetown
procedures for advertising the existence of the Variance Request and 5 December City of Georgetown meeting (which was
ultimately cancelled), and the existence of the meeting on 3 April. The developer and/or their representatives posted two
notices regarding the variance request, one on the Developer's private property at the end of VP Ranch Drive (requiring us to
trespass on their property if we wanted to look closely at the sign), and the other on the developer's fenceline at 304 Clovis
Drive, a vacant lot at the end of the street. Given the placement of these signs, it was clear the Developer was attempting to
minimize awareness of the variance request and City of Georgetown meeting. Only due to the diligence of one of our
residents did we become aware of the variance request and meeting.
Given the above, we urge the City of Georgetown to DENY the Patience Ranch/Southfork variance request and further
investigate the matter, to include a through study of Escalera roadways as well as conduct an independent traffic study. To do
otherwise would create an unsafe environment for Escalera Ranch residents because of an unacceptable increase in
construction and residential vehicular traffic. Additionally, the value of our homes will be significantly diminished if this
variance is approved. Were the Southfork development to proceed, we strongly encourage the City of Georgetown to limit
egress/degress via the planned Water Oak Parkway.
We are proud to call Georgetown our home, and recognize that new developments will have to emerge to handle
Georgetown's growing population. But they should be done in a manner that is not disruptive to neighboring, established
communities. We encourage the City of Georgetown to carry out a more forward-looking, strategic plan to accommodate
Southfork and its traffic than what the variance requests.
We appreciate the City's consideration, and look forward to discussing these concerns with you in person at the 3 April
planning meeting.
Sincerely,
Stuart and Elizabeth McKenna
248 VP Ranch Drive
Georgetown, TX
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 42 of 142
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 43 of 142
From:Leslie Proctor
To:Andreina Davila
Subject:Opposition to the Patience Ranch Plan
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 6:08:03 PM
I am writing you today to oppose the Patience Ranch Development Plan (Case PP-2017-008). I
am a resident of The Preserve at Escalara and feel that this development is a safety risk for our
neighborhood. Our streets are filled with kids and we have no sidewalks. The roads built for this
development are not equipt for the amount of traffic this new development would intel. They need
to find a new entrance.
Thank you,
Leslie Proctor
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 44 of 142
From:Bobby Schroeder
To:Andreina Davila
Cc:bigtuesday@aol.com
Subject:Patience Ranch Case PP-2017-008
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:10:49 PM
Andreina,
I'm writing to you to voice my concerns regarding the above subject. My wife Jan and I purchased our lot and built
our house in Escalera Ranch in 2000. Prior to us closing on our lot we had to sign a document that we acknowledged
that the roads within Escalera were not designed and built to County/ City standards. I can't believe that any entity
with jurisdiction would approve adding additional density to any existing nonstandard infrastructure with a one
access point to a major roadway. It is also unbelievable to me that the Fire Code would allow this to happen, given
the above mentioned roadway and access point conditions.
I would hope that the safety concerns of the general public and residents of Escalera
Ranch would weigh heavily on the City of Georgetown to the point that the Patience Ranch Development would be
required to build themselves an additional access point.
Thank you for your time.
Bobby and Jan Schroeder
208 Escalera Pkwy
Sent from my iPad
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 45 of 142
From:Duane McGlauflin
To:Andreina Davila
Subject:Patience Ranch Development Plan (Case PP-2017-008)
Date:Friday, March 30, 2018 7:07:19 AM
Andreina Davila-Quintero,
We are writing this letter regarding the above referenced to appeal to the planning and zoning
commissioners to reconsider the approval of the above subdivision access through Escalerra Ranch.
It is unclear to us how the commissioners cannot consider the health, safety and welfare of the
existing neighborhood when considering this request.
The proposed access for the 200 + homes and new residences of the Patience Ranch would have to
use VP Ranch road. Currently the road is a 24’ wide meandering local street with no sidewalks or
curbs and a twenty five mile per hour speed limit. This road was never contemplated as a collector
and doesn’t even qualify as a “local” street due to its curvy nature, minimal width and site distances.
On any given day, seven days a week, this road has joggers, walkers and bicyclist on it along with
workmen, either delivery or maintenance workers making it a true challenge for existing traffic to be
safe. To add another 200 homes worth of vehicles to this already congested situation would be
totally reckless on the city’s behalf and would create a considerable liability for them as well.
We understand that this subdivision is grandfathered from the Unified Development code requiring
two access point to major arterial, however this code is there because it makes common sense. We
already have 200+ plus homes with only one access point and now we want to double it and use a
paved “ranch trail” to do so is irresponsible and dangerous.
We strongly urge the commissioners to spend some time to review this request and arrive at a
better, safer solution
Sincerely,
Duane & Cyd McGlauflin
This e-mail transmission and any attached files may contain confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is only
intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify MailAdmin@dnt.construction or by telephone at 512-837-6700 and destroy this e-mail.
Thank you.
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 46 of 142
From:Jeff Metter
To:Andreina Davila
Cc:tgarthur67@gmail.com
Subject:Patience Ranch Development Plan
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:21:26 PM
Andreina,
My name is Jeffry Metter and I reside at 105 Covington Cv in Escalera Ranch subdivision and am
writing this on behalf of my wife and myself to inform you of our OPPOSITION to the Patience Ranch
Development Plan (Case PP-2017-008).
To begin with we cannot believe that anyone would even consider turning the entrance of Escalera
Ranch into the construction entrance of a major development such as Southfork in the first place.
On its face its hard to believe.
We see the issues as follows;
First, the entrance (in particular) to Escalera Ranch was never designed to handle the type of heavy
construction equipment needed for a major development such as Southfork. This developer will
absolutely destroy our entrance, and attendant property values, as they will turn it (the entrance)
into a construction entrance. A good example of why this makes little sense would be Garey Park.
The City of Georgetown isn’t using the main entrance to the Park as a construction entrance. Why
not? The answer is obvious, because it’s destructive. The Cities investment would be destroyed
which is exactly what’s going to happen to us. Why should we be treated by the City with any less
respect?
But safety, especially at the entrance, is our number one concern. With the added construction
traffic (not to mention the new additional residents of Southfork) a bad situation would be made
even worse. The intersection of 2243 and Escalera Parkway is dangerous. To date, with today’s
current volume of traffic, there have been numerous close calls, accidents, and one incident that led
to multiple deaths. The issue with safety at the intersection is visibility, speed and the amount of
traffic traveling 2243 especially during high traffic hours. This should be a major concern for all. We
would be making a bad situation worse.
To make the safety problem even worse, the entrance and exit, into and out of, Escalera Ranch are
mere one lane roads and with more added traffic (construction as well as new residents) they will
not adequately provide for proper emergency vehicle access or evacuation in the event of an
emergency. When Escalera was developed it had it’s own construction entrance just like the City
does currently for Garey Park. There is no way large construction equipment can enter and exit
without causing major damage and further we believe that it is inherently dangerous to have the
“choke” point as we have now made even worse. It’s bad enough with our current traffic volumes
considering both Escalera Ranch and he Preserve which both use Escalera Parkway, let alone adding
more Southfork residents plus the construction equipment and people.
Finally, this is a residential neighborhood and the safety of the residents, especially children, has to
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 47 of 142
be a major concern to everyone. Does anyone expect rock trucks, concrete trucks, etc. to obey
speed limits? We don’t have sidewalks here and typically kids are often on the streets playing. How
will we, if this goes through, protect our children? Furthermore, we’ve had incidents of crime in the
subdivision, do you think this will make it better or worse? Who in the world is going to protect the
residents from construction people?
Our recommendation is that the City use it’s good offices to assist the Developer to find a different
method of access which would avoid harming the residents of both Escalera Ranch and the Preserve
and which would have the primary benefit of improving the safety situation for all concerned.
Using Escalera Ranch as a construction entrance is on many levels a truly horrible idea.
Jeff Metter
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 48 of 142
From:Joshua.Landau@dell.com
To:Andreina Davila
Cc:eroapresident@gmail.com; amylandau@yahoo.com
Subject:RE: Patience Ranch Variance Request Project
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 2:15:21 PM
Hello-
We would like to express that I’m extremely concerned about the proposal for new housing to be
constructed behind the Escalera community without additional roadways.
Specifically, we’re concerned about:
1. Emergency Vehicle and fire response
Single egress: Escalera Ranch and The Preserve only have a single egress which presents a safety
issue should this egress be blocked. When the original plat for these subdivisions was granted they
were
granted a variance to only have one egress "temporarily" with the second egress planned when the
Water Oak Subdivision was developed. That has yet to happen and our subdivisions are continuing
to live with only one emergency egress. Adding an additional 89 homes, or even more when
additional phases of Southfork is developed, increases the density and the congestion should there
need to be an evacuation via a single egress thus creating a safety exposure.
2. Road Impact
Construction Vehicles have already scared and damaged the roads of Escalera Ranch and additional
heavy machinery could cause additional damage to the roads. Recently the roads were resurfaced
by the County
and it will likely be a significant amount of time before our cycle of road maintenance will come
around again. Additional heavy construction vehicles could damage the roads and diminish the
beauty and function of them. Escalera Parkway is very narrow and winding in various places,
especially in the divided sections with median, which are nearly impossible for large trucks, such as
construction vehicles, to navigate without damage.
3. Home Owners Insurance
Insurance companies have begun to deny writing homeowners insurance coverage due to the
distance of services for fire response and the number of homes in the area. Increasing the density of
homes will add
to the formula that could cause more companies to deny coverage. This can greatly affect our
property values if we can't get insurance. Roads are very narrow and Escalera Ranch HOA has
already had to improve the VP Ranch and Escalera Ranch Parkway corner to allow for safely
navigating that corner.
Thank you for your consideration.
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 49 of 142
Joshua & Amy Landau
Escalera Residents
121 Covington Cove
Georgetown, TX 78628
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 50 of 142
From:Denise Lebowitz
To:President Eroa; Andreina Davila
Subject:Re: Southfork (Patience Ranch) Development
Date:Friday, March 30, 2018 10:48:34 AM
City of Georgetown Planning and Zoning Staff:
I have previously written about mine and other residents concerns regarding the safety of
residents in emergency situations requiring emergency vehicle access and/or evacuation with
quick access to a major thoroughfare by hundreds of residents. I ask that my previous emails
and this one be filed as part of the record to be presented for review at the next Planning and
Zoning committee meeting where this development is being considered.
I would also request that the City Staff present this matter in regular agenda rather consent
agenda in order to provide an opportunity for citizens’ input on a matter that is of deep
concern to their families safety and property.
I understand that Escalera Ranch Owners Association has our attorney reviewing the matter
and the opportunity for concerned residents of Escalera Ranch and The Preserve to address the
P&Z is the right thing to do when a matter of public safety impact exists and is increased by
the technicalities of a filing date on a form
Escalera Ranch and The Preserve residents have been impacted by this matter for decades and
the P&Z will be considering a matter that could literally add fuel to the fire exposing the
future residents of the Southfork Community to a possible disaster and further impacting its
effect on the safety of the existing residents of Escalera Ranch and The Preserve.
The spirit of the amended and currently enforceable UDC regulations to require two Ingress
and Egress to a major thoroughfare for a development plan such as Southfork is not being
honored nor enforced by the approval of such development if it does not stand up to the safety
regulations of the UDC in effect prior to the actual review and approval of the development
plan.
When do the safety rights of the citizens come before a grandfathered filing date on a “Form”
that is not relevant to the UDC regulations In effect before the development is approved by
the Planning and Zoning Board.
Thank you so much for your representation of the residents which your staff regulates. We
request a voice in your process for our safety.
Denise and John Lebowitz
109 Marcos Drive
Georgetown, Tx
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 29, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Thomas Arthur <tgarthur67@gmail.com> wrote:
The Southfork Development, north of Escalera Ranch, is back on the agenda for
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 51 of 142
approval by the City of Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission for April
3, 2018 at 6:00 pm. The developer (Joe Straub of Harris & Straub Investors)
received a ruling from the City of Georgetown attorney that since the utility plan
for the subdivision was submitted before the new Unified Development Code
(which requires two access points to a major arterial) went into effect they were
vested to the previous code. The previous code does not require the two points of
access to major road, therefore no Variance is required. Meanwhile, the developer
has met all the technical considerations for the development with respect to the previous
code and is proceeding to get approval of the plan at the Planning & Zoning meeting on
April 3, 2018. According to state law no public hearing is required for the
development to proceed if they meet all the provisions of the relevant Unified
Development Code and the Commission is obligated to approve it without
discussion on what is called the Consent Agenda.
The EROA board of directors has engaged a real estate attorney to investigate and render
an opinion as to whether we have any legal or civil options to fight this but I'm writing this as
an individual homeowner in Escalera Ranch.
If you are so inclined, I recommend that you individually let your opinion be heard (again)
on the development plans by:
1. Writing an email to the Andreina Davila-Quintero (andreina.davila@georgetown.org)
using your own words stating your OPPOSITION to the Patience Ranch Development Plan
(Case PP-2017-008) and why you feel that way. So resurrect your emails from the past
and confirm your OPPOSITION to the planned development that so many of you sent last
December. I suspect that the strongest argument is one that includes one of Health &
Safety impact. Our current streets not only don't adequately provide for proper emergency
vehicle access but also do not allow for safe evacuation of the neighborhood in case of
emergency. Therefore, adding more traffic from additional homes would only exacerbate
the current situation. The more letters the Commission receives in OPPOSITION the more
likely they are to take the case off of the Consent Agenda and allow public comment. These
emails need to reach Andreina before the end of the week to be in the package that the
members of the Planning and Zoning Commission will see before the meeting next
Tuesday.
2. Attend the Planning and Zoning Commissions meeting scheduled for April 3, 2018 at
6:00 pm to be held at City Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626.
And if you are willing to speak then sign up and reference the Southfork/Patience Ranch
Development Plan (Case PP-2017-008). There is no guarantee that the item will be opened
for discussion but our numbers alone should be an indication to the Commission.
Thanks
--
Thomas Arthur
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 52 of 142
From:Denise Lebowitz
To:Andreina Davila
Subject:Re: Traffic impact UDC
Date:Friday, March 30, 2018 9:41:04 AM
Andreina
Thank you for your quick response clarifying this matter. The developer had warned us that if
we objected too much he would just put multi family units or higher density housing in the
project. I just wanted to check.
Can you tell me which form for Utility approvals gives the dateline which grandfathers this
development under the “old” UDC regulations?
Also I have searched and could not get my search to populate the UDC amendments which
changes the ingress and egress requirements.
Would you please provide me with the section numbers for both the old and amended UDC
regulations. If you can cut and paste the actual text that would be great but I understand if you
cannot.
As you might understand my inquiries continue to express mine and those of Escalera
neighbors concern that the fire, emergency response and other possible disaster situation
would expose further additional residents to the dangerous conditions of limited access to a
major thoroughfare in such emergency situations.
I have previously written about these issues and ask that my previous emails and this one be
filed as part of the record to be presented for review at the next Planning and Zoning
committee meeting where this development is being considered.
I would also request that the City Staff present this matter in regular agenda rather consent
agenda in order to provide an opportunity for citizens input on a matter that is of deep
concern.
I understand that Escalera Ranch Owners Association has our attorney reviewing the matter
and the opportunity for concerned residents of Escalera Ranch and The Preserve to address the
P&Z is the right thing to do when a matter of public safety impact exists and is increased by
the technicalities of a filing date on a form
May I expect to hear back from you today? I know that your packet to the P&Z is being
prepared and I’d like to know what is possible for inclusion.
Thank you so much
Hope you are well too. Thanks for asking....I’m doing great.
Denise Lebowitz
109 Marcos Dr
Georgetown Tx
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 53 of 142
From:Denise Lebowitz
To:Andreina Davila
Cc:President Eroa
Subject:Southfork Subdivision Variance Request - Patience Ranch
Date:Sunday, November 26, 2017 3:17:01 PM
Dear Commissioners,
We are writing regarding our concerns about the variance requested to allow the two egress
requirement of connection to a major thoroughfare to be waived. Below are some of our
concerns.
1. Emergency Vehicle and fire response
Single egress: Escalera Ranch and The Preserve only have a single egress which presents a
safety issue should this egress be blocked. When the original plat for these subdivisions was
granted they were
granted a variance to only have one egress "temporarily" with the second egress planned when
the Water Oak Subdivision was developed. That has yet to happen and our subdivisions are
continuing to live with only one
emergency egress. Adding an additional 89 homes, or even more when additional phases of
Southfork is developed, increases the density and the congestion should there need to be an
evacuation via a single egress thus creating a safety exposure.
2. Road Impact.
Construction Vehicles have already scared and damaged the roads of Escalera Ranch and
additional heavy machinery could cause additional damage to the roads. Recently the roads
were resurfaced by the County
and it will likely be a significant amount of time before our cycle of road maintenance will
come around again. Additional heavy construction vehicles could damage the roads and
diminish the beauty and function of them.Escalera Parkway is very narrow and winding in
various places, especially in the divided sections with median, which are nearly impossible for
large trucks, such as construction vehicles, to navigate without damage.
3. Home Owners Insurance
Insurance companies have begun to deny writing homeowners insurance coverage due to the
distance of services for fire response and the number of homes in the area. Increasing the
density of homes will add
to the formula that could cause more companies to deny coverage. This can greatly affect our
property values if we can't get insurance. Roads are very narrow and Escalera Ranch HOA
has already had to improve the VP Ranch and Escalera Ranch Parkway corner to allow
forsafely navigating that corner.
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 54 of 142
It is important that the Planning and Zoning commission understand that we already are
subjected to conditions that are not safe, conditions which would not meet the requirements of
current zoning and that granting this variance would again repeat the error of the past.
Granting this variance would establish this new subdivision not only without the two egress
points to a major thoroughfare as the ordinance requires, but also adds this new
development to our unsafe position of only one emergency egress. Compounding the
volume of traffic, to a community with distant Emergency Services neither serves or protects
the residents of either the existing or proposed subdivision. We ask the support by the P&Z to
protect the residents served by the zoning laws. It is not that we object to a property owner’s
right to develop their property, but we do ask that the zoning laws be upheld to protect all
residents served by them.
The concerns of the residents of Escalera Ranch and The Preserve are valid and we ask that
the protective requirements of the Ordinance be upheld to assure that safety of the citizens
served by them are insured.
With Highest Regards,
Denise and John Lebowitz
109 Marcos
Georgetown, Tx. 78628
CC: Commissioner Valerie Covey
Pct. 3
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 55 of 142
From:Paul DeCiutiis
To:Andreina Davila
Subject:Re: WAV-2017-005 Patience Ranch Subdivision Variance
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:15:45 AM
Good Morning, Ms. Dávila-Quintero -
I am writing you out of concern for this project moving forward to allow the
Southfork/Patience Ranch Development Plan (Case PP-2017-008) to proceed with
construction through our neighborhood. I feel this is a serious issue with respect to
emergency vehicle and evacuation issues. It will endanger our residents and
children that currently walk the narrow winding streets since there are no
sidewalks. It will also adversely affect our neighboorhood entrance, roads and
home values. Let these folks develop their property but please don't allow them to
do so at the expense of ours. There is no-win for us here. It will threaten us from
both a health and safety and also a financial standpoint and it just doesn't make
sense.
I write this with great anxiety and I question the path forward that the developer is
pursuing as it appears they are trying to avoid a variance based on a technicality. I
pray you will not allow this to happen. I would like to suggest that you and the
board members take a drive out to our neighborhood. Observe the entrance with
no light that has already produced 2 fatalities. Look at the bottleneck in the front
and throughout the streets that will be destroyed by heavy traffic and trucks. I think
it will be enlightening and not simply a decision on paper and hope you all will
make a decision that will be best for all.
The developer can build through the Water Oaks entrance, as originally planned, if
they can work through the financial issues for which that property is entangled. But
because they want to move now, they plan to wreck our neighborhood for the sake
of convenience and money. It saddens me deeply and I hope you all can rule in our
favor or at least delay the decision until this issue is fully vetted.
Thank very much - you have a difficult job I do not envy. God Bless, and thank
you for your consideration.
V/R
Paul DeCiutiis
Paul E. DeCiutiis, P.E., BCEE
Kane Environmental Engineering, Inc.
Office/Mobile: (512) 699-2444
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 56 of 142
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Andreina Davila <Andreina.Davila@georgetown.org> wrote:
Dear Resident,
Thank you for your email and comments relating to the Patience Ranch Subdivision
Variance (Project Case No. WAV-2017-005). Please be advised that this item has been
postponed per request of the applicant, and thus will not be considered at Tuesday’s
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Once we have rescheduled this item for
consideration, we will post new notifications of the new meeting date.
In the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance. I hope
you have a wonderful weekend.
Thank you,
ADQ
Andreina Dávila-Quintero
Current Planning Manager
Planning Department
City of Georgetown
406 W 8th St
P.O. Box 1458
Georgetown, Texas 78627
O: 512.931.7686
F: 512.930.5892
E: andreina.davila@georgetown.org
Large File Upload (10 MB) https://www.hightail.com/u/andreinadavila
“We value Trust, Professionalism, Teamwork, Communication, and Work/Life Balance in order to provide
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 57 of 142
outstanding service to our community.”
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 58 of 142
From:EROA President
To:Andreina Davila
Subject:South Fork Development
Date:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 4:29:43 PM
Andreina ...I just found out that the South Fork Development (aka Anne Patient Property) is
on the agenda for approval on Tuesday April 3rd meeting of Planning and Zoning, although no
meeting appears to be on the COG Public Meeting Calendar for the 3rd.
We clearly are against this development proceeding as planned due mainly to Health and
Safety Issues due to the constrained access for emergency vehicles as well as homeowner
emergency egress. Our existing roads don't really provide sufficiently for the neighborhood
and adding any more traffic would only exacerbate the situation.
Over 95% of the property owners of Escalera Ranch signed a petition against granting a
variance for two points of access to major arterial, and many wrote letters to you and/or he
Planning and Zoning Commission when it was on the agenda for last December. Can you
provide me with any documents that the developer has filed so that impacted property owners
can write emails in opposition to approval of the South Fork development plan. Also, when
do you need these emails and who should they be addressed to?
---
Thomas Arthur
President, Escalera Ranch Owners Association
Email Contact: eroapresident@gmail.com
Home Phone: 512 930-7858
Cell Phone: 512 294-4573
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 59 of 142
From:Phyllis Henkelman
To:Andreina Davila
Subject:Southfork (Patience Ranch Development)
Date:Friday, March 30, 2018 10:10:01 AM
Case: PP-2017-.008
IN OPPOSITION TO THE SOUTHFORK DEVELOPMENT:
I am vehemently opposed to increasing the traffic on Escalera Ranch’s narrow roads. If the
Southfork development is allowed to use Escalera Ranch’s entrance and road ways it will
become a safety issue for our children. As our roads are winding, there is an issue with line of
sight for children on bikes and other cyclists. We do not have sidewalks in our development so
the children have to ride their bikes in the road. The county/city should not make it more
dangerous for kids to enjoy a childhood pastime by increasing the traffic on their roads.
Secondly, we are concerned with the signage involved in selling lots and advertising for a new
development. Escalera Ranch is a settled community. We should not have to put up with
developer’s signs and construction trucks going through our neighborhood for many years to
come. This is a peaceful community. Please respect that.
Garey Park is soon to open. The traffic it will bring to the area will cause an already heavily
traveled 2243 to become even more dangerous. Adding yet another community into this mix
does not seem to be the best choice. We purchased land in the Escalera Ranch development to
get out of the city and enjoy country living in an uncrowded environment. Please don’t add
another development onto ours and ruin the original idea of this special property that is
Escalera Ranch.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue,
Phyllis Henkelman
205 Escalera Parkway
Georgetown, TX 78628
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 60 of 142
Andreina Davila-Quintero
andreina.davila@georgetown.org
Regarding: Case PP02017-008 AKA Southfork Development
We are opposed to the development of Southfork at this time for the following reasons:
1. There is only one exit for the 200+ homes from Escalera Parkway onto 2243. Escalera
Parkway was designed as a meandering one way ingress/egress street with over hanging
trees purposely to induce slow traffic. Potential damage to trees, rock walls, steel guard
rails, utilities and median landscaping will be more probable due to equipment used to
install infrastructure and building construction. Some of the medians are owned by Escalera
Ranch and others by Williamson County, but all are maintained by the property owners of
Escalera Ranch. We don’t need the expense of damage repairs created by new
development equipment.
2. Escalera Ranch is a neighborhood sensitive to the “integration of man to nature.”
“Preservation of the natural environment is the unifying visual theme throughout.” “As a
property owner at Escalera Ranch, you too become a steward of the land and its resources.”
Quotes from the Master Design Guidelines. This philosophy was important to Georgetown
at the time of plan approval in 1999 – 2000. Notes on an Escalera Ranch concept plan dated
March 2005 indicated that any lot of less than 1 acre would be provided wastewater service
by Georgetown. According to the comments from Joe Straub he can build a far more dense
community. How will the wastewater be handled? Is the need for tax revenue abandoning
the concept of preserving the natural environment- especially next to the beautifully
planned Gary Park?
3. About the time (2005 -/+) of Escalera Ranch’s development FM2243 was budgeted by
TXDOT for future widening. Since then the funding was removed and currently there is no
long term plan for the expansion of FM 2243. Yet the northern segment of the Southwest
Bypass is scheduled to open early this year along with the opening of the Gary Park. Both of
these projects will increase traffic on the 2-lane FM 2243 where vehicles frequently speed
and cross the single or double yellow line/s to pass vehicles travelling on East/West or trying
to make right/left hand turns. Yes, there are two right hand turn lanes on the North side of
FM 2243 – one at Escalera Parkway and the other at the soon to open Gary Park. NETOUT is
that the ingress/egress at Escalera Parkway will become more hazardous and slower for the
existing population in Escalera Ranch and the Preserve.
4. In the event of a necessary evacuation, increased traffic from Southfork onto the one
meandering egress of Escalera Parkway onto a busy FM 2234 could cause serious if not fatal
delays. Large areas of the natural environment are the “cedars” aka Junipers that are a
serious source of fuel to fires as well as the tall native grasses. Access to parts of our
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 61 of 142
neighborhood and the proposed Southfork are only accessible by helicopter fire control.
Have you considered that?
5. We oppose more vehicular lights shining in our living room window as vehicles egress from
VP Ranch onto Escalera Parkway. With vehicles that wait for passing vehicles or adjusting
digital media before turning the LED beams becomes very annoying. Our personal
preference would be to never have access to Southfork from VP Ranch and to divert access
to Clovis since headlights from the cars would not shine into the homes on Escalera Ranch.
6. Lastly, if the Southfork project continues to move forward, we request that a Bond be
posted by the Developer for the benefit of the Escalera Ranch Owners Association, Inc. in an
amount agreed upon by the Directors of EROA, Inc. to cover any damages done to the
Association property or any property maintained by the Association and any damages done
to property of owners within Escalera Ranch subdivision.
Thank you for your consideration,
Harold and Evelyn Young
200 Escalera Parkway
512-986-8666
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 62 of 142
November 28, 2017
RE: Southfork Development; Georgetown, Texas
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission:
This letter serves as opposition to allowing a variance through Escalera Ranch to access Southfork
Residential Neighborhood on the current property of VP Ranch in Georgetown, TX.
As a Firefighter that pays taxes to Williamson County ESD 8 and a resident on Clovis Drive in Escalera
Ranch, I would like to add some additional information to consider regarding emergency services.
Nation Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 sets national guidelines for response times for
emergency services. These response times allow for a 2-minute turnout time (from time dispatched to
time the unit is leaving the station) and a 4-minute drive time. Georgetown Fire Station 1 is the closest
responding station for Escalera Ranch. In light traffic it takes approximately 7:40 to reach the entrance
to Escalera Ranch and an additional 3:00 to reach the end of Clovis Drive where most of homes are to be
built. So, with a total time just to reach the new Southfork Development entrance of 10:40 with light
traffic, this is well over 2 times the NFPA 1710 national standard for response times. With the opening
of Garey Park and the additional growth along the Ronald Reagan Corridor, this will also increase the
traffic on the already congested FM2243. Allowing the proposed Southfork Development will
dramatically add crucial minutes to an already poor emergency services response time.
The entrance to Escalera Ranch was not meant for heavy construction equipment that will be needed
for the development of a new subdivision. A normal sized 18-wheeler will not fit down the entrance
side of Escalera Parkway. They currently are required to go down the exit side of Escalera Parkway
without anyone directing traffic, which is a safety concern for neighborhood residents. If construction
equipment were to block the entrance to Escalera Parkway, and emergency services were needed in the
neighborhood, I can tell you from experience that minutes can mean the difference between life and
death or a home/contents destroyed by fire. With only one means of egress, allowing a variance for the
Southfork Development would ultimately double the number of residents that currently live in Escalera
Ranch. There have been numerous traffic accidents at and near our entrance, the additional homes
using Escalera Ranch roadways would create even more traffic issues and safety concerns.
For the reasons stated above, I believe the variance to use Escalera Ranch roadways for access to the
proposed Southfork subdivision should be denied.
Wayne Pietzsch
204 Clovis Drive
Georgetown, TX 78628
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 63 of 142
From:Jatla, Muralidhar M.D.
To:Andreina Davila
Subject:VP Ranch Variance Request
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:23:48 AM
Hello Andreina
I reside in Escalera Ranch at 123 Marshall Ct, Georgetown, Texas. I would like our city to NOT grant
egress through Escalera Ranch for the Southfork subdivision. Single egress is already a major safety
concern for residents of Escalera and adding to this is not safe. Accessing Escalera Ranch with
construction and moving trucks is very tricky as it’s windy and we routinely have vehicles that get
‘stuck’ forcing residents to go the opposite way and risk accidents. It is difficult to get homeowner’s
insurance for homes this far from emergency services and we should not add this risk to new
residents or our existing safety personnel. Thank you for your consideration
Murali Jatla, MD, MBA
Pediatric Gastroenterology
Associate Professor of Pediatrics
Texas A&M College of Medicine
Medical Director, Subspecialty Pediatrics
BaylorScott&White McLane Children’s
The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and protected
from disclosure, and no waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other privilege is
intended. If you are the intended recipient, further disclosures are prohibited without proper
authorization. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error)
please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying,
disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden and possibly a
violation of federal or state law and regulations. The sender and Baylor Scott & White Health,
and its affiliated entities, hereby expressly reserve all privileges and confidentiality that might
otherwise be waived as a result of an erroneous or misdirected e-mail transmission. No
employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of Baylor Scott
& White Health, or any affiliated entity, by e-mail without express written confirmation by the
CEO, the Senior Vice President of Supply Chain Services or other duly authorized
representative of Baylor Scott & White Health.
Exhibit 3
Public Comments
Page 64 of 142
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
April 3, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t to rezone approximately 0.92 ac re out o f the Land graf
Sub Survey generally loc ated at 4229 Williams Drive, fro m the Agric ultural (AG) zoning district to the
General Commerc ial (C-3) zoning district (REZ-2018-002). Jordan Feld man, Planner.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applic ant has reques ted to rezo ne 0.92 ac re o f p rimarily undeveloped land in the Land graf Sub survey
fro m Agriculture (AG) District to General Commerc ial (C-3) District.
Staff's Analysis:
The p ro p o s ed req ues t partially complies with the ap p ro val criteria of the Unified Development Code fo r a
zo ning map amendment (rezo ning) as outlined in the attac hed Staff Rep o rt.
Public Comment:
To d ate, no written pub lic comments have been received on the p ro p o s ed rezo ning req uest.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applic ant has paid all required app lic atio n fees .
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan Feld man, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
REZ-2018-002 Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Future Land Us e Map Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Backup Material
Exhibit 4 - C3 Dis trict Development Standards and Permitted Us es Backup Material
Page 65 of 142
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 0.682 acres Page 1 of 6
Rezoning from AG to C-3
Report Date: March 30, 2018
File No: REZ-2018-002
Project Planner: Jordan Feldman, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: 4229 Williams Drive
Location: 4229 Williams Drive
Legal Description: Landgraf Sub, Lot 1, Acres .92
Total Acreage: 0.92 acres
Applicant: Gina Delise Kutach & Tony Ramirez
Property Owner(s): Gina Delise Kutach & Tony Ramirez
Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG)
Proposed Zoning: General Commercial (C-3)
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this zoning case.
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to rezone 0.92 acre of primarily undeveloped land in the
Landgraf Subdivision from Agriculture (AG) District to General Commercial (C-3) District.
Page 66 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 0.682 acres Page 2 of 6
Rezoning from AG to C-3
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is located on the northern side of Williams Drive, southeast of the
Williams Drive and D B Wood Road/Shell Road intersection. See attached Exhibit 1.
Physical Characteristics:
The lot is primarily undeveloped with sparse tree coverage. The project area has
approximately 180 feet of street frontage along Williams Drive. The northern edge abuts
extraterritorial jurisdiction (single-family residential development), and the eastern and
southern edge of the property abut Agricultural (AG) zoning with General Commercial (C-
3) further south.
Surrounding Properties:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
(ETJ)
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center &
Low Density Residential
Single Family
Residences
South Agriculture (AG) & General
Commercial (C-3)
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center &
Moderate Density Residential Restaurant
East Agriculture (AG) Mixed Use Neighborhood Center &
Low Density Residential Pet Grooming
West Agriculture (AG) Mixed Use Neighborhood Center &
Moderate Density Residential Florist & Retail
Page 67 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 0.682 acres Page 3 of 6
Rezoning from AG to C-3
Property History
The subject property is currently undeveloped. It is primarily surrounded by low impact
commercial and residential uses. Surrounding properties include single family homes, dog
groomers, restaurant, florist and small boutique clothing stores. The development pattern
for this portion of Williams Drive is primarily residential single family and senior living
mixed with low impact neighborhood commercial. This is in contrast to segments of
Williams Drive to the north and south that have seen more dense retail strip and big box
commercial development. The existing General Commercial (C-3) zoned lot next to the
property was developed as a restaurant, where Local Commercial (C-1) zoning would have
been more applicable.
2030 Plan
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan designates land use categories on this property of Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Center projecting compact centers with limited retail goods and services for
a local customer base. They accommodate (but do not require) mixed-use buildings with
neighborhood-serving retail, service, and other uses on the ground floor, and offices or
residential units above. They may also include stand-alone high density residential
development.
Growth Tier
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A. Tier 1A is 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. Within Tier 1A, the city is
called on to conduct assessments of public facility conditions and capacities and to prioritize
short and long term capital investments so as to ensure that infrastructure capacity is
sufficient to serve development intensities as indicated on the Future Land Use Map and in
the zoning districts.
Transportation
The subject property has public road frontage along Williams Drive. Williams Drive is
identified as an existing Major Arterial in the Overall Throughfare Plan. Major arterials
connect major traffic generators and land use concentrations, and serve much larger traffic
volumes over greater distances.
Utilities
The subject property is located within the City’s service area for electric, water, and
wastewater. It is anticipated that there will be adequate capacity to serve this property either
by existing capacity or developer participation in future upgrades to infrastructure. Utility
evaluations will be required at the time of platting and site development plan to ensure
sufficient capacity.
Page 68 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 0.682 acres Page 4 of 6
Rezoning from AG to C-3
Proposed Zoning District
The applicant has requested General Commercial (C-3) zoning on this property. The
purpose of the C-3 district is to provide a location for general commercial and retail activities
that serve the entire community and its visitors. Uses may be large in scale and generate
substantial traffic, making the C-3 district only appropriate along freeways and major
arterials.
Typical uses in this district include general retail, hotels, restaurants, and general office.
Attachment 4 contains a comprehensive list of C-3 district allowable uses and development
standards. Certain land uses, including automotive sales, rental or leasing facilities, require
a Special Use Permit (SUP). Some land uses have specific design limitations to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding properties.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
The proposed request was reviewed by the applicable City departments. All comments were
addressed by the applicant. No comments were issued on the proposed request.
Staff Analysis
Staff has reviewed the rezoning request and determined that the proposed rezoning meets
the criteria established in UDC Section 3.06.030 for zoning changes.
The Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council shall review the following criteria for
zoning changes:
Approval Criteria for
Rezoning
Staff analysis Staff
Determination:
1. The application is
complete and the
information
contained within the
application is
sufficient and correct
enough to allow
adequate review and
final action
An application must provide the necessary information to review
and make a knowledgeable decision in order for staff to schedule
an application for consideration by P&Z and City Council. The
application was reviewed by staff and deemed to be complete.
Comply
2. The zoning change
is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed zoning change partially complies with the Future
land Use element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. While the C-3
zoning district may be appropriate along major arterials, the Mixed
Use Neighborhood Center Future Land Use designation supports
less intense uses than what is permitted and seen in the C-3 zoning
Partially
Comply
Page 69 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 0.682 acres Page 5 of 6
Rezoning from AG to C-3
Approval Criteria for
Rezoning
Staff analysis Staff
Determination:
district that tend to serve a wider community or region.
Compatible zoning districts within this Future Land Use
designation may include Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and
Local Commercial (C-1).
3. The zoning change
promotes the health,
safety or general
welfare of the City
and the safe orderly,
and healthful
development of the
City
Williams Drive is one of the City’s major commercial and
transportation corridors envisioned to support a mix of residential
and non-residential uses, as well as community serving
commercial uses. Uses permitted within the C-3 zoning district
include general retail, hotels and restaurants that are appropriate
for the subject property; however, other permitted uses include
Limited Auto Repair and Service, Auto Sales, Car Wash, or
Community Park & Ride that are not considered to be appropriate
at this location. Due to the surrounding land uses and character
that has been established in this section of Williams Drive. These
and other C-3 allowed uses are not found to be compatible with
adjacent existing uses. This section of Williams Drive is developed
with residential and low intensity commercial uses that serve the
immediate area and city, as opposed to the region.
Partially
Comply
4. The zoning change
is compatible with
the present zoning
and conforming uses
of nearby property
and with the
character of the
neighborhood
The proposed rezoning is not compatible with the surrounding
zoning districts and uses because of the character and existing
pattern in which this portion of Williams Drive has developed.
While a C-3 zoning district exists adjacent to the property and
south on Williams Drive, the properties have been developed with
less intense commercial uses that are permitted in C-1, or with
residential uses compatible with neighborhood commercial uses.
Based on the purpose of the C-3 district permitted uses, and
location, C-3 district may be appropriate along Williams Drive
when located at intersections with other major thoroughfares.
Does Not
Comply
5. The property to be
rezoned is suitable
for uses permitted by
the District that
would be applied by
the proposed
amendment.
This criterion was reviewed based on the physical characteristics
and conditions of the property. The C-3 zoning district does not
have a minimum lot area or district size requirement. The subject
property is approximately one (1) acre, and thus, is considered
suitable for some uses permitted in the General Commercial (C-3)
District. However, a less intense commercial zoning contains more
appropriate for this corridor and surrounding area.
Partially
Comply
The proposed General Commercial (C-3) zoning supports higher intensity commercial uses,
which are appropriate for high traffic areas. The property is currently sited along a major
arterial, which will support the higher intensity commercial use on that site. However,
existing land uses and zoning districts have created a low intensity development pattern
Page 70 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
Flores Survey 0.682 acres Page 6 of 6
Rezoning from AG to C-3
with primarily residential and neighborhood commercial along this portion of Williams
Drive.
Based on the information presented, staff finds that the requested General Commercial (C-
3) zoning district partially complies with the approval criteria for granting a rezoning
request.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius
of the subject property and within the city limits (8 notices mailed) were notified of the
rezoning application, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun
Newspaper (March 18, 2018) and a sign was posted on-site. These notices included the
public hearing scheduled for City Council on April 24, 2018.
No written or verbal comments have been received by the Planning Department staff.
Meetings Schedule
April 3, 2018 – Planning and Zoning Commission
April 24, 2018 – City Council First Reading of the Ordinance
May 8, 2018 – City Council Second Reading of the Ordinance
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – C-3 District Development Standards and Permitted Land Uses
Page 71 of 142
B O O T Y S C R O S S I N G RD
SERENADADR
W
IL
LIA
M
S D
R
SHELL RD
WILLIAMS DR
D B WOOD RD
WILLIA
M
S D
R
REZ-2018-002Exhibit #1
Co o rdi nate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zo ne/N A D 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For Gener al Plann ing Pu rposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 0.25 0.5Mi
Page 72 of 142
WILLIAMS DR
W E S P A R A D A D R
LA PALOMA DR
VERDE VISTAMIRAMAR DR
MANZANITA DR
E S T R E L L A X I N G
MIRIQUITA RD
WHIT E H E R O N D R
LA PALOMA
Coord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Plan ning Pu rposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Over all Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
RE Z-2018 -002
Leg en d
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Com mercial
Com munity Commercial
Emp loym ent Center
Low Density Residential
Min ing
Mixed Use Comm unity
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Mode rate Density Residential
Op en Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing F reeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Pro p osed Collector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p sed Frontage Road
Pro p osed M ajor Arterial
Pro p osed M inor Arterial
Pro p osed Railroad
Hig h Density Residential
Legend
Sit eParce lsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500125Fe etPage 73 of 142
WILLIAMS DR
W E S P A R A D A D R
LA PALOMA DR
VERDE VISTAMIRAMAR DR
MANZANITA DR
E S T R E L L A X I N G
MIRIQUITA RD
WHIT E H E R O N D R
LA PALOMA
Zoning InformationREZ-2018-002Exhibit #3
Co o rdi nate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zo ne/N A D 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For Gener al Plann ing Pu rposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 250 500125FeetPage 74 of 142
Maximum Building Height = 45 feet Side Setback = 10 feet Bufferyard = 15 feet with plantings
Front Setback = 25 feet Side Setback to Residential = 15 feet adjacent to AG, RE, RL, RS, TF, MH,
(0 feet for build-to/downtown)Rear Setback = 10 feet MF-1, or MF-2 districts
Rear Setback to Residential = 25 feet
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required
Agricultural Sales Activity Center (youth/senior)Auto. Parts Sales (outdoor)
Artisan Studio/Gallery Athletic Facility, Indoor or Outdoor Auto. Repair & Service, General
Assisted Living Bar/Tavern/Pub Auto. Sales, Rental, Leasing
Automotive Parts Sales (indoor)Business/Trade School Bus Barn
Auto. Repair and Service, Limited Church (with columbarium)Cemetary, Columbaria, Mausoleum, or
Memorial Park
Banking/Financial Services College/University Correctional Facility
Blood/Plasma Center Commercial Recreation Firing Range, Indoor
Car Wash Community Center Flea Market
Consumer Repair Dance Hall/Night Club Hospital, Psychiatric
Dry Cleaning Service Data Center Lumber Yard
Emergency Services Station Day Care (group/commercial)Major Event Entertainment
Event Catering/Equipment Rental Driving Range Manufactured Housing Sales
Farmer's Market Event Facility Meat Market
Fitness Center Fuel Sales Multifamily Attached
Food Catering Services Heliport Recreational Vehicle Sales, Rental,
Funeral Home Kennel Self-Storage (indoor or outdoor)
General Retail Live Music/Entertainment Substance Abuse Treatment Facility
General Office Micro Brewery/Winery Transient Service Facility
Government/Postal Office Neighborhood Amenity Center Wireless Transmission Facility (41'+)
Home Health Care Services Park (neighborhood/regional)
Hospital Pest Control/Janitorial Services
Hotel/Inn/Motel (incl. extended stay)School (Elementary, Middle, High)
Integrated Office Center Upper-story Residential
Landscape/Garden Sales Wireless Transmission Facility (<41')
Laundromat
Library/Museum
Medical Diagnostic Center
Medical Office/Clinic/Complex
Membership Club/Lodge
Nature Preserve/Community Garden
Nursing/Convalescent/Hospice
Parking Lot (commercial/park-n-ride)
Personal Services (inc. Restricted)
Printing/Mailing/Copying Services
Private Transport Dispatch Facility
Restaurant (general/drive-through)
Small Engine Repair
Social Service Facility
Surgery/Post Surgery Recovery
Theater (movie/live)
Transit Passenger Terminal
Urgent Care Facility
Utilities (Minor/Intermediate/Major)
Veterinary Clinic (indoor only)
General Commercial (C-3) District
District Development Standards
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Page 75 of 142
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
April 3, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t to rezone approximately 0.28 ac re out o f Bloc k O of the
Mo rro w Ad ditio n, loc ated at 1215 S Aus tin Ave, fro m the Residential Single-Family (RS) d is tric t to the
Neighborho od Commerc ial (CN) d is tric t (REZ-2018-003). Madison Tho mas , AIC P, His toric and
Downto wn Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The ap p licant has reques ted to rezo ne 0.278 ac re of p ro p erty develo p ed with a s ingle-family residential
home in the Mo rro w Ad d ition S urvey fro m Res idential Single-F amily (RS) Dis trict to Co mmercial
Neighborho od (CN) Dis tric t. Ac cording to the ap p licant’s letter of intent, the ap p licant is seeking a
rezo ning to C N zo ning d is tric t to allo w fo r a food catering bus iness and pos s ible res taurant us e. The
ap p licant intend s to operate a b akery c atering s ervices with the optio n to purc has e and c o nsume food o n-
s ite.
Staff Findings:
Bas ed on all the informatio n p res ented , s taff has determined that the propos ed C o mmercial Neighborho od
(CN) zoning d is tric t meets the approval c riteria for granting a rezoning reques t as o utlined in the attac hed
Staff Rep o rt.
Public Comment:
To d ate, two written p ublic c o mments have been rec eived in o p p o s ition of the req ues t.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applic ant has paid the required ap p lic atio n fees .
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
REZ-2018-003 Staff Report Cover Memo
Attachment 2 - Future Land Us e Map Backup Material
Attachment 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Attachment 3 - Zoning Map Backup Material
Attachment 4 - CN Dis trict Development Standards Backup Material
Attachment 5 -Public Comments Backup Material
Page 76 of 142
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
REZ-2018-003 Sugar Mommy’s Page 1 of 8
Report Date: March 30, 2018
File No: REZ-2018-003
Project Planner: Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Sugar Mommy’s
Location: 1215 S. Austin Ave.
Total Acreage: 0.278 Acres
Legal Description: Morrow Addition, Block O (PT)
Existing Zoning: RS Residential Single-Family, Old Town Overlay, Belford Historic District
Proposed Zoning: Commercial Neighborhood (CN)
Applicant: Christen Bedair
Property Owner: Robert Redick & Linda Hird-Redick
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this zoning case.
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to rezone 0.278 acre of property developed with a single-family
residential home in the Morrow Addition Survey from Residential Single-Family (RS) District to
Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District. According to the applicant’s letter of intent, the
applicant is seeking a rezoning to CN zoning district to allow for a food catering business and
possible restaurant use. The applicant intends to operate a bakery catering services with the
option to purchase and consume food on-site.
Page 77 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ-2018-003 Sugar Mommy’s Page 2 of 8
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is located on S. Austin Ave. near the southeast corner of S. Austin Ave. and
E. University Ave within the Old Town Overlay, Belford Historic District. See attached Exhibit 1.
Physical Characteristics:
The lot is currently developed with a single-family home that is approximately 2,400 square feet
total. There is also a detacted garage located at the rear of the property and multiple mature
trees. The property has approximatly 105 feet of street frontage along S. Austin Ave. A sidewalk
exists along the front of the property, leading to the front door of the home, and a driveway
along the north property line creates a vehical entrance into the lot, directly adjacent to the
neighboring property driveway.
Page 78 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ-2018-003 Sugar Mommy’s Page 3 of 8
Surrounding Properties:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North Office (O)
Moderate
Density
Residential
Professional Office
South
Residential
Single-
Family(RS)
Moderate
Density
Residential
Residential
East
Residential
Single-
Family(RS)
Moderate
Density
Residential
Residential
West
(across S.
Austin Ave.
Residential
Single-
Family(RS)
Moderate
Density
Residential
Residential
Property History
The subject property was rezoned from Multi-family (RM) to RS Single-family by Ordinance No.
1981-25. This property has an existing single-family home estimated to have been constructed in
1915. The structure is currently rated as a high priority structure on the City’s 2016 Historic
Resources Survey.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use:
The property is currently identified as Moderate Density Residential on the Future Land Use
Map. This designation is described as:
This land use category comprises single family neighborhoods that can accommodate a
density ranging between 3.1 and 6 dwelling units per gross acre, with housing types
including small-lot detached and attached single-family dwellings (such as townhomes).
Moderate-Density Residential category may also support complementary non-residential
uses along arterial roadways such as neighborhood-serving retail, office, institutional, and
civic uses.
The property is also located in the Downtown Transition Area identified and described in the
Downtown Master Plan as:
an area meant to serve as a transition between the Downtown Overlay District and the
surrounding residential neighborhoods. Development that is compatible in design and
scale with abutting residential uses is especially important. Providing places that serve
residents nearby is also key and measures to mitigate impacts of new uses should be a
priority. Some compatible redevelopment, such as repurposing existing single family
homes into professional offices or restaurants, has already begun and is particularly
Page 79 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ-2018-003 Sugar Mommy’s Page 4 of 8
welcomed by the abutting residents. Other transitional uses such as Bed and Breakfast
establishments, professional offices and light commercial uses may be considered in this
area as long as their architecture is context sensitive and responds to the surrounding
residential character and their business hours and uses are limited in hours and intensity.
Growth Tier:
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A (Developed, Redeveloping), which is the
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. This property is
located within Growth Tier 1A.
Transportation
Access to the site is served by S. Austin Avenue, a Collector on the City’s Overall Transportation
Planthat is identified as a primary automobile route into the downtown. The property directly
served by sidewalks that are located on both sides of S. Austin Avenue. This propety is located
on a route served by the City’s fixed route bus system and is within a ½ (half) mile of a bus stop.
Utilities
Water, wastewater and electric is served by the City of Georgetown. It is assumed that there is
adequate water capacity at this time to serve this property. Utilities service will be evaluated
during the site plan development stage following a successful rezoning.
Proposed Zoning District
The Neighborhood Commercial District (CN) is intended to provide areas for small-scale office
and commercial activities such as the sale of convenience goods and personal service businesses
that primarily serve adjacent residential areas. No uses that adversely affect the health, safety,
welfare, or residential character of neighborhoods are allowed. Neighborhood commercial areas
are generally located within neighborhoods and have pedestrian access to adjacent residential
areas.
Notable Development Standards in CN District:
Lot width, minimum 50 feet
Maximum building height 30 feet
Minimum setback adjacent to residential district 10 feet
Front setback 20 feet
Side Setback 5 feet
Parking
Restaurant: 1 per 100 sq. ft. of designated seating
area + 4 additional spaces
Food Catering Services: 1 per 400 sq. ft. GFA
Maximum Impervious Cover Up to 65%
Page 80 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ-2018-003 Sugar Mommy’s Page 5 of 8
Bufferyards 10 ft. with plantings adjacent to RS, no buffering
required adjacent to OF
Staff Analysis
Staff has reviewed the rezoning request and determined that the proposed rezoning request meets the
criteria established in UDC Section 3.06.030 for zoning changes:
The Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council shall review the following criteria for zoning changes:
Complies
Partially
Complies
Do Not
Comply Approval Criteria for Rezoning
X
The application is complete and
the information contained within
the application is sufficient and
correct enough to allow adequate
review and final action
The application submitted is
complete. It provides sufficient
information to allow for staff to
review the request and for P&Z
to make a recommendation and
Council to make a decision.
X
The zoning change is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan
The Future Land Use is Moderate
Density Residential which calls
for complimentary non-
residential uses. It is also located
in the Transition Area, which
recommends a redevelopment
strategy for repurposing single-
family homes into offices or
restaurants.
X
The zoning change promotes the
health, safety or general welfare
of the City and the safe orderly,
and healthful development of the
City
The zoning change will promote
the health, safety and general
welfare of the city, allowing a
commercial use that is
appropriate adjacent to single-
family and that should be located
on a higher level street, like a
Collector Street. Parking and
traffic circulation will be
evaluated during site plan
review.
X
The zoning change is compatible
with the present zoning and
conforming uses of nearby
property and with the character of
the neighborhood
The change of zoning to
Commercial Neighborhood is
compatible with the surrounding
area. This property is two lots
south of the intersection Austin
Ave and University Ave, which
Page 81 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ-2018-003 Sugar Mommy’s Page 6 of 8
boasts intense commercial
activity. Stepped back from the
intersection is professional
offices, this property and some
adjacent residential homes. A use
permitted in CN would be
appropriate in this location and
would fit with the character of
the area. The property is
identified as a high priority
historic resource. Current Unified
Development Code (UDC)
requirements (i.e. parking,
impervious cover, setbacks,
height, etc.) will constrain
redevelopment and expansion of
the property, furthering
protections to the character of the
neighborhood.
X
The property to be rezoned is
suitable for uses permitted by the
District that would be applied by
the proposed amendment.
The proposed rezoning is to
Commercial Neighborhood, the
lowest intensity commercial
district available. CN creates a
transition zoning that allows low
intensity, low impact uses or
uses that are limited in this area.
General Findings
Based on all the information presented, staff has determined that the proposed
Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning district meets the approval criteria for granting a
rezoning request.
This low intensity commercial zoning district is designed to provide a transition between higher
intensity commercial and residential uses. Businesses permitted in CN zoning, through site
planning requirements must mitigate potential impacts to the surrounding area through
repurpose of existing-single family homes.
In addition, the CN zoning district supports the following goals of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan:
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Element, Goal 1, states:
Promote sound, sustainable, and compact development patterns with balanced land uses, a variety of
housing choices and well-integrated transportation, public facilities, and open space amenities.
Page 82 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ-2018-003 Sugar Mommy’s Page 7 of 8
The policies with this goal include, “encourage a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and
employment uses at varying densities and intensities, to reflect a gradual transition from urban to
suburban to rural development.”
The Commercial Neighborhood Zoning District encourages less intense commercial uses to
locate adjacent to neighborhood zoning or more intense commercial uses to create a transition
zone between the two.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Element, Goal 2, states:
Promote sound investment in Georgetown’s older developed areas, including downtown, aging commercial
and industrial areas, in-town neighborhoods, and other areas expected to experience land use change or
obsolescence.
The policies listed under this goal include, “removing present inadvertent impediments to infill and
re-investment in older, developed areas.”
Commercial Neighborhood is a zoning district that can work to accommodate commercial uses
that can adapt and reuse existing historic buildings while retaining their historic character.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius
of the subject property (18 Notices mailed) were notified of the rezoning application, a legal
notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (March 16, 2018) and
signs were posted on-site. These notices included the public hearing scheduled for the City
Council on April 24, 2018.
The Planning Department staff has received two written comments in opposition.
Meetings Schedule
April 3, 2018 – Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
April 24, 2018 – City Council Public Hearing and First Reading of the Ordinance
May 8, 2018 – City Council Second Reading of the Ordinance
Page 83 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ-2018-003 Sugar Mommy’s Page 8 of 8
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Future Land Use Map
Attachment 3 – Zoning Map
Attachment 4 – CN District Development Standards and Permitted Land Uses
Attachment 5 – Public Notice Responses
Page 84 of 142
EL
M
ST
A
SH
ST
S M
A
I
N
S
T
W 9 T H S T
W 1 0 T H S T
W 11TH ST
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
H
A
R
T S
T
W 1 6 T H S T
S M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 11T H S T
E 1 5TH S T
TI
M
B
E
R
S
T
RO
C
K
S
T
W U N IV E R SI TY AV E
E 1 3 T H S T
E 1 4T H S T
E U N IV ER S IT Y AV E
RAILROAD AVE
E 1 6 T H S T
W 1 5 T H S T
W 1 4 T H S T
W 1 3 T H S T
WE
S
T
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
GEOR
GE
S
T
ST O N E C I R
W 1 4 T H S T
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 1 6 T H S T
W
E
S
T
S
T
WE
S
T
S
T
Coord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Plan ning Pu rposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Over all Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
RE Z-2018 -003
Leg en d
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Com mercial
Com munity Commercial
Emp loym ent Center
Low Density Residential
Min ing
Mixed Use Comm unity
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Mode rate Density Residential
Op en Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing F reeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Pro p osed Collector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p sed Frontage Road
Pro p osed M ajor Arterial
Pro p osed M inor Arterial
Pro p osed Railroad
Hig h Density Residential
Legend
Sit eParce lsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500125Fe etPage 85 of 142
EL
M
ST
S M
A
I
N
S
T
W 11TH ST
W 10T H S T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
H
A
R
T S
T
S A
U
S
TIN
AV
E
S
M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
E 1 1 T H S T
TI
M
B
E
R
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W 1 6 T H S T
W U N I V E RSI TY AV E
R
OCK S
T
E 1 5T H S T
E U N I V ER S I T Y AV E
E 1 6 T H S T
W 14T H S T
E 1 3T H S T
E 1 4T H S T
WE
S
T
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
ER
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W 1 5 T H S T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
E 1 6 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
REZ-2018-003Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 250 500Fee t
Page 86 of 142
EL
M
ST
A
SH
ST
S
M
A
IN
S
T
W 9 T H S T
W 1 0 T H S T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 11TH ST
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
H
A
R
T S
T
W 1 6 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
E 1 0 T H S T
E 11T H S T
E 1 5TH S T
R
OC
K
S
T
W U N I V E R SI T Y AV E
TI
M
B
E
R
S
T
E 1 6 T H S T
E 1 3 T H S T
E 1 4T H S T
E U N I V ER S I T Y AV E
RAILROAD AVE
W 1 5 T H S T
W 1 4 T H S T
W 1 3 T H S T
WE
S
T
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
GE
ORGE
S
T
S TO N E C I R
W 1 4 T H S T
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 1 6T H S T
W
E
S
T
S
T
WE
S
T
S
T
Zoning InformationREZ-2018-003Exhibit #3
Co o rdi nate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zo ne/N A D 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For Gener al Plann ing Pu rposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 250 500125FeetPage 87 of 142
Maximum Building Height = 30 feet Front Setback = 20 feet Bufferyard = 10 feet with plantings
Maximum Building Size = 0.3 FAR, (0 feet for build-to/downtown) adjacent to AG, RE, RL, RS, TF, MH,
max. bldg. size 7,500 SF Side Setback = 5 feet MF-1, or MF-2 districts
(only applies to those uses Side Setback to Residential = 10 feet
marked with * below)Rear Setback = 0 feet
Rear Setback to Residential = 20 feet
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required
Assisted Living Activity Center (youth/senior)Bar/Tavern/Pub*
Dry Cleaning Service*Bed and Breakfast (with events)Community Center
Emergency Services Station Consumer repair*Event Facility
Government/Postal Office Day Care (group/commercial)Inn
Group Home (7+ residents)Dry cleaning service (drop off only)Restaurant (drive-through)*
Hospice facility Farmer's market*
Library/Museum Fitness center*
Nature Preserve/Community Garden Food catering services*
Nursing/Convalescent/Hospice General retail*
Parking Lot (park-n-ride)General office*
Utilities (Minor)Home health care services*
Home based business
Laundromat*
Medical or dental offices*
Micro Brewery/Winery
Park (neighborhood)
Printing, mailing and reproduction
services*
Personal services*
Religious assembly facility (with
columbarium)
Restaurant (General)*
School (Elementary, Middle)
Upper-story Residential
Utilities (Intermediate)
Wireless Transmission Facility (<41')
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District
District Development Standards
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Page 88 of 142
Page 89 of 142
Page 90 of 142
Page 91 of 142
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
April 3, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a Sub d ivis ion Varianc e from the maximum number o f lots permitted
o n a c ul-de-sac p urs uant to S ectio n 12.05.020 of the Unified Develo p ment Code, for the property lo cated
at 409 Doe Run (WAV-2018-001). Jordan Feldman, Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Overview of Applicant's Request:
The ap p licant has reques ted a S ubdivis io n Varianc e from Sec tion 12.05.020.C, C ul-de-sac , o f the Unified
Develo p ment Code (UDC) to allo w a 4-lo t s ingle family res id ential sub d ivis io n o n a c ul-de-sac exceeding
the maximum number o f allowab le lots , to allow 21 lo ts o n a c ul-de-sac .
Staff's Analysis:
Ac cording to the UDC, a s ubdivis io n varianc e may be ap p ro ved, c o nditionally ap p ro ved, or d is ap p ro ved
b y the Planning and Zoning Co mmis s io n. Ap p ro val req uires a sup er-majo rity vote by the
Commission. Staff finds that the requested variance satisfies at least four (4) of the preceding factors for
granting a variance as outlined in the attached Staff Report.
Public Comments:
As req uired by the Unified Development Cod e, all property o wners within a 200-foot radius of the sub ject
p ro p erty were notified of the S ubdivis io n Varianc e reques t (11 notices), a legal no tic e advertising the public
hearing was plac ed in the Sun News p ap er (Marc h 18, 2018) and a sign was pos ted on-s ite. To date, s taff
has received 0 written c o mments in opposition to the req uest.
Motion:
When making a motio n to ap p ro ve, approve with cond itions , o r disapprove the varianc e reques t, the
Planning and Zo ning Commission mus t id entify and rec ite each fac tor that the Commission has found to
have been met, or not met (in the event o f a dis approval).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applic ant has paid the required ap p lic atio n fees .
SUBMITTED BY:
And reina Dávila-Quintero , Current Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
WAV-2018-001 - Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Conceptual Plan Backup Material
Page 92 of 142
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-001
409 Doe Run – Subdivision Variance Page 1 of 7
Report Date: March 30, 2018
File No: WAV-2018-001
Project Planner: Jordan Feldman, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: 409 Doe Run
Project Address: 409 Doe Run (Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 10.0 acres
Legal Description: 10.0 acres of land out of the Whitetail Sec 2, Lot 46 survey
Applicant: Kyle Miller, Steger Bizzell Engineering
Property Owner: Lonnie Wilson, X-Land
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested a Subdivision Variance from Section 12.05.020.C, Cul-de-sac, of the
Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow a 4-lot single family residential subdivision on a cul-de -
sac exceeding the maximum number of allowable lots, to allow 21 lots on a cul-de-sac.
Page 93 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-001
409 Doe Run – Subdivision Variance Page 2 of 7
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is located south of Doe Run and east of Whitetail Drive (Exhibit 1) within the
City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The southern edge of the property is bordered by City of Round
Rock undeveloped land, single-family residential lots to the north and west, and undeveloped land to
the east.
Physical Characteristics:
The subject property is rectangularly shaped tract consisting of approximately 10.0 acres. The subject
property comprises of several trees and slight elevation changes.
Background
The subject property is located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) fronting on to Doe Run, a local
road approximately 1,800 feet long from the intersection to the end of the cul-de -sac. Currently, there
are 14 lots fronting this portion of Doe Run with a replat currently in the review process that will
increase the total lot count to 17 lots on this cul-de-sac. The property owner wishes to subdivide the
Page 94 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-001
409 Doe Run – Subdivision Variance Page 3 of 7
subject property from one lot to four lots. All lots will be greater than two acres. This will increase the
total number of residential lots fronting on a cul-de-sac to 21 (Exhibit 3). In accordance with Section
12.05.020.C of the Unified Development Code (UDC), a residential cul-de-sac shall not exceed 20 total
lots or 500 feet in length, whichever is less. Consequently, the applicant is requesting this Subdivision
Variance to allow 21 lots on the existing cul-de-sac.
On October 26, 2017, a pre-application meeting was held. During this meeting, a requirement to extend
an eight-inch water line from the intersection of Whitetail Drive and Doe Run to the proposed
subdivision and the allowance of four access points on Doe Run were discussed.
On December 28, 2017, City staff determined the applicant would be required to build a road that
connects to an existing street, or request a variance to allow more than 20 lots on Doe Run. This was
due to the receipt of another plat application on the same street as this other plat would increase the
total number of lots on Doe Run to 17.
A master planned community south of the Whitetail Subdivision is proposed in the City of Round Rock.
This subdivision would connect to Whitetail Drive, providing a second access point for the Whitetail
Subdivision.
Approval of the Subdivision Variance would allow the subject property to be subdivided into four lots
allowing for a residential cul-de-sac to exceed to 20 lots with 21 lots.
Concept Plan:
Page 95 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-001
409 Doe Run – Subdivision Variance Page 4 of 7
Utilities
The subject property is located within the City’s service area for water and wastewater. It is anticipated
that there is adequate capacity to serve the subject property at this time.
Transportation
The subject property’s current access is from Doe Run. The nearest major arterial is Leander Road
accessed through a collector level road, CR 176, by way of Patricia Road and Deer Draw. Doe Run
Patricia Road and Deer Draw are local roads with a 60-foot right-of-way according to the recorded Plat.
The nearest collector road is CR 176, located north of the subject prooperty. CR 176 is classified as an
existing Major Collector in the City’s Overall Transportation Plan, and currently provides the sole
access to the Whitetail Subdivision.
Whitetail Drive is a local road with a 60-foot right-of-way that intersects with Doe Run. This local road
will connect and extend to the south into the City of Round Rock through a new master planned
community that is currentl under construction. This extension of Whitetail Drive will provide an
additional access point to the Whitetail Subdivision and ultimately connect to E New Hope Dr, which
is classified as a minor arterial.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
The proposed subdivision variance was reviewed by the applicable City departments. All technical
review comments have been addressed by the applicant.
Staff Analysis
According to the UDC, a subdivision variance may be approved, conditionally approved, or
disapproved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Approval requires a super-majority vote by the
Commission. At least four (4) of the following factors are required for approval:
Approval Criteria for
Subdivision Variance
Staff analysis Staff
Determination:
A. That the granting
of the variance will
not be detrimental to
the public health,
safety or welfare or
injurious to other
property in the area
or to the City in
administering this
Code.
The requested Subdivision Variance is to allow 21 lots on a 1,800-
foot long cul-de-sac to allow a 10.0 acre lot to be subdivided into
four (4), two acre or greater lots without providing a new street.
The City regulates street and block length with a cul-de-sac by not
allowing residential cul-de-sacs to exceed 20 total lots or 500 feet in
length, whichever is less. Regulations such as this, promote
walkability and ensure lower traffic speeds.
Regarding fire safety, section D107.1 of the 2012 International Fire
Code (IFC) adopted by the City of Georgetown allows up to 30
single family dwelling units on a road with a single point of access
before a second fire access road is required.
Comply
Page 96 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-001
409 Doe Run – Subdivision Variance Page 5 of 7
Approval Criteria for
Subdivision Variance
Staff analysis Staff
Determination:
In addition, a significant portion of the Whitetail Subdivision is
only accessible through a collector level road, CR 176, by way of
Patricia Road and Deer Draw. However, a future connection is
planned south on Whitetail Drive that will ultimately connect to a
minor arterial, providing a second access point out of the
subdivision.
Staff reviewed the proposed request with the Technical Review
team and finds that the requested variance will not be injurious to
the area based on the existing and future conditions of the
surrounding area.
B. That the granting
of the variance would
not substantially
conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan
and the purposes of
this Code.
The approval of this variance does not substantially conflict with
the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Code as the
Subdivision Variance, should it be approved, would allow one
additional lot over the maximum twenty lots allowed on a cul-de-
sac without exceeding the IFC 30 unit requirement. It should also
be noted that the proposed Whitetail Drive connection to the
property to the south will provide additional means of egress and
ingress for this subdivision, thus furthering the goal of the
Comprehensive Plan of providing for an efficient, effective and
reliable system for moving people through a network of roads.
Comply
C. That the
conditions that create
the need for the
variance do not
generally apply to
other property in the
vicinity.
According to Section 16.02, Definitions, of the UDC, a “Street, Cul-
de-Sac” is “a street or series of connected streets that has a single
approved vehicular access point.” Furthermore, per UDC Section
12.05.020.C, a cul-de-sac may not be more than 500 feet or 20 lots,
whichever is less. Any replatting within this roadways would
require a road to be constructed or a variance requested due to the
number of lots being greater than 20.
None of the existing cul-de-sacs in the Whitetail Subdivision
exceed the maximum 20 lots count. The maximum currently is 19
lots. If property owners look to subdivide properties exceeding the
20 lot count in the future, they will have to go through the same
subdivision variance process.
Research has shown that other lots that have been replatted in the
subdivision have not requested a variance or have been required to
construct additional roadway. However, in the case of the subject
property, existing conditions do not allow for the accommodation
of a new street to be connected to the existing or future network.
The subject property is not located at the intersection of two streets,
Comply
Page 97 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-001
409 Doe Run – Subdivision Variance Page 6 of 7
Approval Criteria for
Subdivision Variance
Staff analysis Staff
Determination:
and is surrounded by developed single-family residential lots.
Additionally, the end of the cul-de-sac is bordered by the quarry,
which would not allow for the future extension of this road. These
are unique conditions that do not generally apply to other property
in the area.
D. That application of
a provision of this
Code will render
subdivision of the
land impossible.
The subject property is surrounded by developed lots, and thus the
applicant cannot reasonably make connection to the west or south
with no control or input into the adjacent properties, to include the
land plan of a master planned community within another City’s
jurisdiction. There are no future connection points proposed from
the new development to the south (Highlands at Mayfield) to the
subject property.
Application of the 20-lot limitation would not allow the
subdivision of the property into the 4 lots intended by the property
owner. While the subject property may be subdivided into less lots
to meet this provision, the further subdivision of the lots along this
roadway would require the extension and connection of a new
street that is not feasible unless additional property is acquired
Comply
E. Where the literal
enforcement of these
regulations would
result in an
unnecessary
hardship.
In their letter of intent, the applicant included a copy of the Site
Plan for the Highlands at Mayfield (HAM) master planned
community that is proposed to the south of the Whitetail
subdivision within the City of Round Rock ETJ (Exhibit 3). The
Site Plan shows there are multiple single-family lots planned along
the shared property line between the subject property and HAM.
The HAM master plan does not provide a future roadway
connection near the common property boundary with the subject
property. However, HAM will make a connection to the Whitetail
subdivision at Whitetail Drive providing connectivity and
additional emergency access to the south.
The subdivision of the proposed lot into 4 lots would require the
creation of a new street to meet minimum code requirements. This
would include the construction of a new dead-end road to the
west, or south with no plans for a future connection due the
proposed single-family lots within HAM. In addition, this new
roadway would require dedication of right-of-way (approximately
1.5 acres) and easements for 15-foot wide vegetative filter strips on
each side of the road to treat the runoff (approximately 0.6 acres).
The extraordinary condition to build a roadway due to one
additional lot results in 20-percent of the property being dedicated
Comply
Page 98 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-001
409 Doe Run – Subdivision Variance Page 7 of 7
Approval Criteria for
Subdivision Variance
Staff analysis Staff
Determination:
for the creation of a new dead-end road. In this case, staff finds that
the addition of a new road stub would not meet the intent of the
provisions of the Code as it will result in multiple lots (that may
exceed 21 should these lots be further subdivided) with one single
point of access. The requested variance, should it be approved,
would allow and limit the maximum number of lots on this cul-de-
sac to 21 lots, unless additional Subdivision Variances or a new
road is provided
Staff finds that the requested variance satisfies all five (5) of the preceding factors for granting a
variance.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200-foot radius of the
subject property were notified of the Subdivision Variance request (11 notices), a legal notice
advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (March 18, 2018) and a sign was posted
on-site. To date, staff has received 0 written comments in opposition to the request.
Motion
When making a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the variance request, the
Planning and Zoning Commission must identify and recite each factor that the Commission has found
to have been met, or not met (in the event of a disapproval).
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Concept Plan
Page 99 of 142
Leander Rd
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
L e a n d e r R d
E CRYSTA
L
F
A
L
L
S
P
K
W
Y
R
O
N
A
L
D
W
R
E
A
G
A
N
B
L
V
D
(
P
A
R
M
E
R
L
N
)
")1431
WAV-2018-001Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5 1Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 100 of 142
January 24, 2018
Ms. Sofia Nelson
Planning and Development Services Division
City of Georgetown
300 Industrial Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Re: Replat of Lot 46, Whitetail Subdivision, Section II – Variance
Dear Ms. Nelson:
Xland respectfully requests a variance from Section 12.05.020.C. of the City of Georgetown’s Unified
Development Code (UDC) regarding the maximum number of lots or length on a residential cul-de-sac.
Xland requests the allowance of one additional lot over the maximum on Doe Run to allow 21 total lots.
Whitetail Subdivision is a rural acreage lot single family style development. Lots would generally not be
less than two acres in size due to Texas Commission on Environmental (TCEQ) well and septic
requirements.
Xland proposed to subdivide Lot 46 into four lots. On October 26, 2017, a pre-application meeting was
held. During this meeting, a requirement to extend an eight-inch water line from the intersection of
Whitetail Drive and Doe Run to proposed subdivision and the allowance of four access points on Doe Run
were discussed.
On December 28, 2017, City staff notified us the applicant would be required to build a road which
connects/stubs to an existing street, or request a variance to allow more than 20 lots on Doe Run. This
was due to the anticipation of another plat on Doe Run being reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to
Xland’s plat. The other plat would increase the total number of lots on Doe Run to 17 if recorded prior to
Xland’s plat.
Below is a list of the required findings a variance must satisfy for approval followed by narrative
explanation of how this project meets the requirement:
There are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict
application of the provisions of the Unified Development Code will deprive the applicant of the
reasonable use of their land.
o Attached directly after this Letter of Intent is the Site Plan for Highlands at Mayfield (HAM)
master planned community to the south of the Whitetail subdivision within the City of
Round Rock ETJ. The Site Plan shows there are multiple single-family lots planned along
the shared property line between Xland and HAM. The HAM master plan does not provide
a future roadway connection near the common property boundary with Xland. HAM will
make a connection to the Whitetail subdivision at Whitetail Drive providing connectivity
and additional emergency access to the south. No connections to the Whitetail
Page 101 of 142
January 24, 2018
Ms. Sophia Nelson
Page 2
P:\22000-22999\22569-Whitetail\Documents\Letter of Intent - Variance.docx
subdivision from HAM are planned to the east of Whitetail Drive providing an opportunity
for connection from any of the lots along the east end of Doe Run.
o The applicant would be constructing a dead-end road with no plans for a future
connection due the proposed single-family lots within HAM. In addition, the roadway
would require dedication of right-of-way (approximately 1.5 acres) and easements for 15-
foot wide vegetative filter strips on each side of the road to treat the runoff
(approximately 0.6 acres). This loss of property would be detrimental to the proposed
subdivision of Lot 46 into four single family lots.
o The extraordinary condition to build a roadway due to one additional lot results in 20-
percent of the property being dedicated for the road, adds additional roadway for
Williamson County to maintain in perpetuity, and adds a safety hazard by creating
another dead-end road in the Whitetail subdivision with a termination in the rear yards
of future single family lots in HAM. It also adds unnecessary impervious cover to the
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
injurious to other property in the area, or the City in administering the Code.
o Section D107.1 of the 2012 International Fire Code (IFC) adopted by the City of
Georgetown allows up to 30 single family dwelling units on a cul-de-sac before a second
fire access road is required.
o A significant portion of the Whitetail Subdivision is only accessible through Patricia Road
after the Deer Draw intersection. There are already several dead-end roads in the
subdivision today. The addition of another dead-end road, which appears to connect to
Highlands at Mayfield may cause confusion during an emergency. This could be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the
area. HAM will make a connection to the subdivision at Whitetail Drive providing
connectivity and additional emergency access to the south.
The conditions that create the need for the variance do not generally apply to other property in
the vicinity.
o According to Section 16.02. – Definitions of the UDC, a “Street, Cul-de-Sac” is “a street or
series of connected streets that has a single approved vehicular access point.” As
mentioned previously, there is a single access point to the south of the Patricia Road and
Deer Draw intersection. Any replatting in the area to the south of the intersection in the
subdivision would technically require a road to be constructed or a variance requested
due to the number of lots being greater than 20.
o Research has shown that other lots that have been replatted in the subdivision have not
requested a variance or have been required to construct additional roadway.
The conditions that create the need for the variance are not the result of the applicant’s own
actions.
o The owner was instructed by the City several months after the pre-application meeting
to submit a variance. This was in anticipation of another replat in the vicinity being
approved prior to this project’s replat being recorded. If recorded prior to the applicant’s
project, the total count on Doe Run would be 17 lots. The applicant did not create the
need for the variance by their own actions.
o Whitetail Subdivision is a very old large lot subdivision designed under different times and
regulations. Although Doe Run is an unusually long cul-de-sac, it dead ends in to a tract
of land that is undeveloped mining property. Because Doe Run is developed at the end of
Page 102 of 142
January 24, 2018
Ms. Sophia Nelson
Page 3
P:\22000-22999\22569-Whitetail\Documents\Letter of Intent - Variance.docx
the cul-de-sac, it is very unlikely this street will ever become a future connection point to
adjacent tracts; meaning traffic counts and patterns are unlikely to change noticeably.
Therefore, one additional drive entrance is unlikely to have any meaningful impact on Doe
Run. Highlands at Mayfield will make a connection to the subdivision at Whitetail Drive
providing connectivity and additional emergency access to the south.
The granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes of the Code.
o The approval of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
and the purposes of the Code as it is only requests one additional lot over the maximum
twenty lots be allowed without exceeding the IFC 30 lot requirement.
Because of the conditions that create the need for the variance, the application of the Code to
the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization
of the property.
o The applicant cannot reasonably make connection to HAM to the south with no control
or input into the land plan of a master planned community within another City’s
jurisdiction. No connection from HAM to the Xland boundary is proposed.
o A proposed roadway connection to nowhere would add unnecessary, unused roadway
impervious cover to the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and unreasonably restrict the
utilization of the full property as four large lot single family homes.
o The UDC 20 lot limit unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property as four large lot
single family homes when the IFC allows for 30 lots on a cul-de-sac, and HAM is providing
a second connection to the subdivision at Whitetail Drive to provide connectivity and
additional emergency access to the south.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
David L. Platt, P.E.
Project Manager
Page 103 of 142
C
E
D
A
R
HO
L
L
O
W
RANCHO
BU
E
N
O
B
L
U
E
Q
U
A
I
L
R
I
V
E
R
TOWN
GLEN
11.3
18TH
LE
A
N
D
E
R
13TH
14TH
SC
E
N
I
C
RU
C
K
E
R
BR
I
D
G
E
RIVE
R
S
I
D
E
S
U
N
S
E
T
S
T
A
R
V
I
E
W
HAR
M
O
N
Y
F
A
W
N
Georgetown
Country
Club
1.4
0
.
8
0.8
ST
A
R
V
I
E
W
SOUTH
C
R
O
S
S
OAK H
O
L
L
O
W
CROSSINGVISTA
H
I
L
L
V
I
E
W
SPRING
HOLLO
W
RIVER
GEORGETOWN
Cemetery
SAN
GABRIEL
FO
R
K
SAN
SCE
N
I
C
SOUTH
SA
N
GAB
R
I
E
L
35
29
MID
D
L
E
FOR
K
D
B
W
O
O
D
OAK LAND
RIDGE OAK
LIVE OAKS
H
A
D
Y
O
A
K
D
E
E
P
W
O
O
D
GREE
N
W
O
O
D
RID
G
E
WO
O
D
IN
W
O
O
D
T
A
L
L
WOOD
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
RIV
E
R
W
O
O
D
NO
R
W
O
O
D
RIVER
B
O
W
SPANIS
H
OAK
SUNSHINE
W
O
O
D
M
O
N
T
L
U
T
H
E
R
P
I
N
O
A
K
R
O
C
K
M
O
O
R
W
O
O
D
S
T
O
N
E
OAKS
THO
U
S
A
N
D
R
O
C
K
C
R
E
S
T
SUS
A
N
A
DEBOR
A
TA
M
E
R
A
SO
U
T
H
R
I
D
G
E
S
A
N
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
C
h
a
n
d
l
e
r
3.
5
S
H
E
R
R
I
L
L
WOODV
I
E
W
ROCK
M
O
O
R
1
.
0
LEAND
E
R
S
C
E
N
I
C
DEER
DRAW
P
A
T
R
I
C
I
A
BUCK
BEND
FAWN
R
I
D
G
E
BUCK
S
K
I
N
DRAW
ANT
L
E
R
FAUB
I
O
N
We
s
t
Fo
r
k
Sm
i
t
h
Bra
n
c
h
0.6
GABR
I
E
L
RIVER
FORK
SAN
2243
35
W
H
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
DOE R
U
N
D
R
I
V
E
LEAND
E
R
R
O
A
D
2243
SITE
PARKSIDE AT
MAYFIELD RANCH
SUBDIVISION
HIGHLANDS AT
MAYFIELD RANCH
SUBDIVISION
TEXAS
CRUSHED
STONE
TEXAS
CRUSHED
STONE
WHITETAIL
SUBDIVISION
JOB NO.
GEORGETOWN, TX 78626
STEGERBIZZELL.COM
>>ENGINEERS >>PLANNERS >>SURVEYORS
512.930.9412
SERVICES
METRO
ADDRESS 1978 S. AUSTIN AVENUE
WEBTEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-181
TBPLS FIRM No.10003700
DATE
LOCATION MAP
LOT 46 OF WHITETAIL SUBDIVISION,
SECTION II
Feet
0 2000 4000
01-23-2018 22569
Page 104 of 142
HIGHLANDS AT
MAYFIELD RANCH
SUBDIVISION
TEXAS
CRUSHED
STONE
DOE RUN
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
D
R
I
V
E
FAWN RIDGE
BU
C
K
L
A
N
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
18
1920
21
15
16
17
ADJACENT PLAT
IN REVIEW PROCESS
SITE
ROAD REQUIRED
BY UDC
PROPOSED
CONNECTIVITY
BY OTHERS
WHITETAIL SUBDIVISON
CITY OF GEORGETOWN ETJ
438.37'
998.54'
JOB NO.
GEORGETOWN, TX 78626
STEGERBIZZELL.COM
>>ENGINEERS >>PLANNERS >>SURVEYORS
512.930.9412
SERVICES
METRO
ADDRESS 1978 S. AUSTIN AVENUE
WEBTEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-181
TBPLS FIRM No.10003700
DATE
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
Feet
0 250 500
01-23-2018 22569
Page 105 of 142
ADJACENT PLAT
IN REVIEW PROCESS
WHITETAIL
SUBDIVISION
HIGHLANDS AT
MAYFIELD RANCH SUBDIVISION
TEXAS
CRUSHED
STONE
DOE RUN
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
D
R
I
V
E
FAWN RIDGE
BU
C
K
L
A
N
E
AX
I
S
D
E
E
R
C
O
V
E
MU
L
E
D
E
E
R
CO
V
E
FAUBION DRIVE
BUCK BEND
P
A
T
R
I
C
I
A
R
O
A
D
PA
T
R
I
C
I
A
R
O
A
D
FAUBION DRIVE
DEER DRAW
BUCKSKIN
COURT
ANTLER
D
R
I
V
E
NEAREST EXISTING
POINT OF CONNECTIVITY
TEXAS
CRUSHED
STONE
PARKSIDE
AT
MAYFIELD
RANCH
SUBDIVISION
SITE
JOB NO.
GEORGETOWN, TX 78626
STEGERBIZZELL.COM
>>ENGINEERS >>PLANNERS >>SURVEYORS
512.930.9412
SERVICES
METRO
ADDRESS 1978 S. AUSTIN AVENUE
WEBTEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-181
TBPLS FIRM No.10003700
DATE
WHITETAIL SUBDIVISION MAP
Feet
0 500 1000
01-23-2018 22569
Page 106 of 142
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
April 3, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a Sub d ivis ion Varianc e from the minimum lot wid th or s treet
fro ntage alo ng a pub lic s treet requirement purs uant to S ectio n 7.02.010 of the Unified Development Code,
fo r the p ro p erty lo c ated at 2701 E University Ave, bearing the legal desc riptio n o f 3.42 acres o ut of the
William Ad d is on S urvey, Ab s trac t No. 21 (WAV-2018-002). Robyn Miga, Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
The ap p licant has reques ted a S ubdivis io n Varianc e from the minimum lo t wid th or s treet frontage along a
p ublic street requirement purs uant to Sec tion 7.02.010 of the Unified Development Code (UDC).
Staff's Analysis:
Ac cording to the UDC, a s ubdivis io n varianc e may be ap p ro ved, c o nditionally ap p ro ved, or d is ap p ro ved
b y the Planning and Zoning Co mmis s io n. Ap p ro val req uires a sup er-majo rity vote by the
Commission. S taff has reviewed the p ro p o s ed req ues t in ac cordance with S ec tio n 3.22.060, Ap p ro val
Criteria, o f the Unified Develo p ment Co d e (UDC). S taff has fo und that the reques ted Sub d ivision Varianc e
meets at leas t four (4) of the Approval Criteria as o utlined in the attac hed Staff Report.
Motion:
When making a motio n to ap p ro ve, approve with cond itions , o r disapprove the varianc e reques t, the
Planning and Zo ning Commission mus t id entify and rec ite each fac tor that the Commission has found to
have been met, or not met (in the event o f a dis approval).
Public Comments:
As req uired by the Unified Development Cod e, all property o wners within a 200-foot radius of the sub ject
p ro p erty were notified of the S ubdivis io n Varianc e reques t (8 notices), a legal no tic e advertising the pub lic
hearing was plac ed in the Sun News p ap er (Marc h 18, 2018) and s igns were p o s ted o n-site. To d ate, staff
has received 0 written c o mments on the reques t.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applic ant has paid the required ap p lic atio n fees .
SUBMITTED BY:
Robyn Miga, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
WAV-2018-002 - Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Applicant's Letter of Intent Backup Material
Page 107 of 142
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-002
2701 E University Ave – Subdivision Variance Page 1 of 5
Report Date: March 30, 2018
File No: WAV-2018-002
Project Planner: Robyn Miga, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: 2701 E University Ave
Project Address: North of SH 29, west of NE Inner Loop, and east of Smith Creek Road
Total Acreage: 3.420 acres
Legal Description: Portions of the William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21.
Applicant: Thomas Slowbe, Sphere-Realty
Property Owner: University Vista Townhomes Ltd.
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested a Subdivision Variance from the minimum lot width or street
frontage along a public street requirement pursuant to Section 7.02.010 of the Unified
Development Code.
Location Map:
Page 108 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-002
2701 E University Ave – Subdivision Variance Page 2 of 5
Site Information
Location:
The subject site is located north of SH-29 (East University Ave), west of NE Inner Loop, and
east of Smith Creek Road. It is part of the William Addison Survey Abstract No. 21. It is
bordered by Southwestern University. It has a Mixed Use Community Future Land Use
designation, and is zoned Local Commercial (C-1).
Physical Characteristics:
The site is one lot totaling 3.42 acres along East University Ave. The site has access to a 20’ by
20’ access easement agreement, through the piece of property owned by Southwestern
University to the south. This portion borders the southern boundary of the subject property by
a narrow strip, thus preventing the property owner from having direct access to the ROW until
East University Ave is widened.
Background
The subject property was annexed into the City of Georgetown in 1986 (Ord. 1986-59), and was
zoned in 1997 to the Local Commercial (C-1) zoning district (Ord. 1997-21).
The property owner met with staff in January 2018 to discuss options on development of this
tract of land since plat requirements would dictate that it needs to physically touch an adjacent
road. The property owner has also attempted to purchase the strip of land along the southern
boundary in an effort to avoid the variance request, but the two property owners were not able
to agree on a reasonable value for this strip of land, according to the prope rty owner. As the
property owner does not own property that is adjacent to a public street, or property that may
be dedicated for street frontage, the applicant is requesting a subdivision variance to plat and
ultimately develop the subject property without frontage on a public street.
Utilities
The subject site is located within the City’s service area for water and wastewater. Additionally,
it is located within the City and Oncor’s service areas for Electric. It is anticipated that there is
adequate water capacity at this time to serve this property by existing capacity.
Transportation
The subject site’s current access is from a 20’ by 20’ access easement that runs parrallel to East
University Ave (SH 29), which was granted by the owner of the property through a separate
agreement. University Avenue is a Major Arterial, which will eliminate the variance once the
road has been widened.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
The proposed subdivision variance was reviewed by the applicable City departments. All technical
review comments have been addressed by the applicant.
Page 109 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-002
2701 E University Ave – Subdivision Variance Page 3 of 5
Staff Analysis
According to the UDC, a subdivision variance may be approved, conditionally approved, or
disapproved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Approval requires a super -majority
vote by the Commission. At least four (4) of the following factors are required for approval:
A. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare or injurious to other property in the area or to the City in administering
this Code.
Findings Complies
The subdivision variance will create a logical means of access for the property to a
thoroughfare, and will not result in a negative effect on the public health, safety, or
welfare of the surrounding property. There is an existing 20’ by 20’ access easemen t
along the south portion of the property that will continue to provide access to the subject
property from East University Ave. Once the property owner moves forward with
developing the tract, it will be required to meet development standards in accordanc e
with the Unified Development Code for the use on the property. In addition, a 15’
bufferyard is required where the property is adjacent to Residential Single-Family.
B. That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this Code.
Findings Complies
The granting of the variance does not conflict with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The
Overall Transportation Plan (a component of the Comprehensive Plan) identifies the
major thoroughfares within the City’s jurisdiction. University Ave (SH 29) is a TxDOT
road classified as a Major Arterial in the City’s Overall Transportation Plan. Major
arterials connect major traffic generators and land use concentrations, and serve much
larger traffic volumes over greater distances. TxDOT plans to widen University Ave;
however, this project is not scheduled to commence until 2024. The variance of allowing
this property to utilize an access easement as a form of ingress and egress until
University Ave has been widened in order to plat is not in conflict with the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, the main point of access to the property will remain
on East University Ave. Approval of this variance would potentially allow a commercial
property to be developed before the roadway expansion.
Page 110 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-002
2701 E University Ave – Subdivision Variance Page 4 of 5
C. That the conditions that create the need for the variance do not generally apply to
other property in the vicinity.
Findings Complies
The applicant has requested this subdivision variance to plat the property without
frontage on a public street because the property owner does not own property that is
adjacent to a public street, or property that may be dedicated for street frontage,
resulting in a land-locked property. Because of this, the conditions that create the need
for the variance do not apply to adjacent property, as can be depicted in the below
image:
The property labeled 2701 is the property subject to this subdivision variance, and the
property shown with a cross-hatching label, which is addressed 2631, is the property
that created the need for the variance. The owner of the cross-hatched property granted
the 20’ by 20’ access easement between the subject property and East University Ave. to
provide access to the subject property.
D. That application of a provision of this Code will render subdivision of the land
impossible.
Findings Partially Complies
The application of the minimum street frontage on a public street requirement does not
necessarily make it impossible to subdivide the land; however, it creates a challenge if
the property owner is unable to acquire a portion of the property that borders the
southern boundary of the subject property (along East University Ave.). According to
the supporting documentation that was provided by the applicant, the adjacent
Page 111 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
WAV-2018-002
2701 E University Ave – Subdivision Variance Page 5 of 5
property owner would either like input on development of the tract, or stated it would
cost upwards of “six figures” to purchase the roadway frontage. According to the City’s
Engineering Department, the expansion of East University Ave. is slated to begin design
in 2024 in a collaborative effort between the City and TxDOT. It is also noteworthy that
the property was purchased in 2003 with the current conditions in place, which has
made development of the property unfeasible. Granting of this variance would allow
the platting and ultimate development of the subject property until the road is widened
and public frontage is provided.
E. Where the literal enforcement of these regulations would result in an unnecessary
hardship.
Findings Complies
The enforcement of the regulation would result in an unnecessary hardship. With the
property owner currently unable to acquire a portion of the adjacent property to meet
the frontage on a public street requirement, it would cause an undue hardship on the
development of the subject 3.42-acre property. The subject property is unable to obtain
roadway frontage through any other means until University Ave. is widened; therefore,
would not be developable until that point, which is at least six years away, according to
the City’s Engineering Department.
Staff has found that the requested variance satisfies at least four (4) of the preceding factors.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200-foot radius of the
subject property were notified of the Subdivision Variance request (8 notices), a legal notice advertising
the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (March 18, 2018) and signs were posted on-site.
To date, staff has received 0 written comments on the request.
Motion
When making a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the variance request, the
Planning and Zoning Commission must identify and recite each factor that the Commission has found
to have been met, or not met (in the event of a disapproval).
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Page 112 of 142
N IH
3
5
S
O
UTHW
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E UNIVER
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
N AU
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
FM 1460
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
SO
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
§¨¦35
¬«29
¬«130
¬«130
SE
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
E UNIVERSITY
A
V
E
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
E UNIVERSITY AVE
(River /S t r e a m )
WAV-2018-002Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 113 of 142
Page 114 of 142
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
April 3, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a Co mp rehens ive Plan Amendment to change
ap p ro ximately 1.37 acres o ut of the Booty & Les ueur S urvey, 0.66 ac re out of the Outlot S urvey, and 2.84
acres o ut of the Hart Additio n Survey, from the Mo d erate Dens ity Res id ential Future Land Use category to
the Mixed Us e Neighborho o d Center Future Land Us e category, generally lo c ated at the s o utheast c o rner
o f the inters ec tion of Railroad Avenue and Univers ity Avenue. (CPA-2018-001) Jordan F eld man, Planner
ITEM SUMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
The ap p licant has req uested to c hange the Future Land Us e c atego ry fo r 4.872 ac res from the Moderate
Dens ity Residential c atego ry to the High Density Res id ential catego ry for the p urp o s e of rezoning the
p ro p erty to the High Density Multifamily (MF -2) d is tric t. The MF -2 d is tric t propos ed in a pend ing rezoning
case (REZ-2018-001) is und er review b y staff, b ut is not c o ns istent with the c urrent Mo d erate Dens ity
Residential c ategory. T herefore, the ap p licant is sub mitting this Comprehens ive P lan Amend ment (CPA) to
facilitate that zoning reques t.
Staff's Analysis:
The UDC id entifes that amendments to the 2030 P lan may b e c o nsidered when the req uest maintains
s o und , s table, and d es irab le develo p ment that is c o ns is tent with the goals and polic ies of the 2030 Plan.
Additio nally, the UDC S ectio n 3.04.030.B es tab lis hes ap p ro val criteria in analyzing the lo ng term effec ts of
a Co mp rehens ive P lan Amendment. Staff finds the proposed change from Moderate Density Residential
to Mixed Use Neighb o rhood Center meets the goals o f the 2030 Plan and c riteria fo r amend ing the Future
Land Us e Map as o utlined in the attac hed Staff Report.
Public Comments:
A legal no tic e ad vertis ing the p ublic hearing was p laced in the S un Newspap er (Marc h 18, 2018). To d ate,
s taff has received zero (0) written comments in s up p o rt o f the ap p licatio n.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applic ant has paid the required ap p lic atio n fees .
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan Feld man, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
CPA-2018-001 Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Backup Material
Exhibit 2 - Future Land Us e Map Backup Material
Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Backup Material
Page 115 of 142
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
The Rail at Georgetown – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 1 of 7
Report Date: March 30, 2018
File No: CPA-2018-001
Project Planner: Jordan Feldman, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: The Rail at Georgetown
Project Address: 710 W. 13th St., 700 W. 14th St, 708 W. 15th St.
Location: Between blocks of 13th St. and 17th St. along Railroad Ave
Legal Description: 4.872 Acres in Hart Addition & Booty and Lesiesure
Existing Use: Multi-family
Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential
Proposed Future
Land Use: Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case.
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has initiated a request to change the Future Land Use category of 4.872 acres from
the Moderate Density Residential category to the Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center designation
for the purpose of rezoning the property to the High-Density Multi-Family (MF-2) zoning district
to bring the existing use into conformance. The proposed MF-2 district is a pending rezoning
case (REZ-2018-001) currently under review by staff. The MF-2 district is not consistent with the
current Moderate Density Residential category, therefore, the applicant is submitting this
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to change the Future Land Use to a category consistent
with the existing use on the subject property and surrounding area.
The CPA application will precede the associated rezoning application to allow the Commission
and Council to fully evaluate and determine the appropriateness of the future land use category
on this site. If the Commission and Council deny this application CPA request, the subsequent
rezoning request would also not be supported due to its incompatibility with the current Future
Land Use category.
Page 116 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
The Rail at Georgetown – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 2 of 7
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is located between 13th St and 17th St along Railroad Ave, and is comprised
of three (3) properties the largest being 2.84 acres, another 1.37 acres and the smallest 0.66 acres;
totaling 4.872 acres.
Physical Characteristics:
The property is currently developed as 111-units of multi-family housing, known as the Rail at
Georgetown .
Page 117 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
The Rail at Georgetown – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 3 of 7
Surrounding Properties:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North
(C-3) General Commercial,
(C-1) Local Commercial,
and (OF) Office
Moderate Density
Residential
Drive thru restaurant, Feed
store, office
South (OF) Office and (RS)
Residential Single- Family
Moderate Density
Residential
Public park and single
family homes
East
(RS) Residential Single-
Family and (TH)
Townhouse and (OF)
Office
Moderate Density
Residential Single family homes,
West
(RS) Residential Single-
Family and (MF-2) High-
Density Multifamily, and
(OF) Office
Moderate Density
Residential Single family homes
Property History
The subject site is zoned Office (OF) and the existing multi-family property was built in 1986. The
current zoning district was a result of the conversion of the previous RM-3, Office and Services,
zoning district that permitted multi-family development when the Unified Development Code
(UDC) was adopted in 2003. As the current OF zoning district does not permit multi-family
residential, the existing use is considered a legal non-conforming situation pursuant to Chapter
14 of the UDC. Due to the current zoning and non-conforming situation, the applicant must
purchase zoning insurance. If a building were to be damaged more than 50%, the applicant
currently does not have the authority to rebuild. The correction to the zoning designation would
alleviate this condition. The applicant has submitted an application to have both the Future Land
Use Map and the zoning changed to establish a designation of the property consistent with the
current use and character of the surrounding area.
Transportation
The subject properties have existing access to Railroad Ave and to 13th, 14th, 15th and 17th Streets
respectively. 13th, 14th and 15th streets are local roads. However, Railroad Ave is as neighborhood
collector roads with a 65-foot right-of-way, and 17th street while designated as a Major Collector
in the City’s Overall Transportation Plan also serves as a neighborhood collector fo the area. The
center point of the three (3) properties is within 800’ of a fixed route bus stop at 17th/Railroad.
Utilities
The property has existing utilities with the City of Georgetown serving as the electric,
wastewater and water service provider.
Page 118 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
The Rail at Georgetown – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 4 of 7
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use:
The 2030 Future Land Use category for the subject property is Moderate Density Residential.
This land use category primarily comprises single family neighborhoods that can be
accomodated at a density ranging between 3.1 and 6 dwelling units per acre with housing types
including small-lot detached and attached single-family dwellings (such as townhomes). The
category can also support complementary non-residential uses along arterial roadways such as
neighborhood-serving retail, office, institutional, and civic uses.
Growth Tier
Tier 1A
Tier 1A is 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. Within Tier 1A, the city is called on to conduct assessments of public facility conditions and
capacities and to prioritize short and long term capital investments so as to ensure that
infrastructure capacity is sufficient to serve development intensities as indicated on the Future
Land Use Map and in the zoning districts.
Proposed Future Land Use Category
As shown in Exhibit 4, the applicant is seeking to change the Future Land Use category from
Moderate Density Residential to Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center.
As defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, this category of land use supports smaller areas of
mixed commercial use within existing and new neighborhoods. These areas are primarily
proposed adjacent to, or as part of, larger residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood-serving
mixed-use areas abut roadway corridors or are located at key intersections. They often function
as gateways into the neighborhoods they serve. These compact and often “walk-to” centers
provide limited retail goods and services to a local customer base, while having minimal impact
on the surrounding residential uses. They accommodate (but do not require) mixed-use
buildings with neighborhood-serving retail, service, and other uses on the ground floor, and
offices or residential units above. They may also include stand-alone high density residential
development.
Uses in these areas might include a corner store, small grocery, coffee shops, hair salons, dry
cleaners and other personal services, as well as small professional offices and upper story
apartments. They may also include noncommercial uses such as churches, schools, or small
parks. In new neighborhoods, in particular, the exact size, location, and design of these areas
should be subject to a more specific approval process, to ensure an appropriate fit with the
surrounding residential pattern.
Page 119 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
The Rail at Georgetown – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 5 of 7
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
The proposed amendment was reviewed by the applicable City departments. All comments were
addressed by the applicant.
Staff Analysis
The Future Land Use Plan is a component/element of the 2030 Plan. It is a holistic view of
Georgetown and provides guidance for land uses in a more broad based approach (as
opposed to zoning). The Future Land Use Map provides guidance for zoning decisions. It
does not necessarily reflect the present use of land or existing zoning district designations.
Rather, the Future Land Use Map depicts the array and distribution of land uses as they are
expected to exist in 2030.
The UDC identifes that amendments to the 2030 Plan may be considered when the request
maintains sound, stable, and desirable development that is consistent with the goals and policies
of the 2030 Plan. Additionally, the UDC establishes approval criteria in analyzing the long term
effects of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Below is a summary of land use goals stated within the 2030 Plan used to evaluate this request.
Additionally, an evaluation of the UDC approval criteria is included with staff evaluation of each
criteria statement.
• Promote sound, sustainable, and compact development patterns with balanced land uses,
a variety of housing choices, and well integrated transportation, public facilities, and open
space amenities.
Page 120 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
The Rail at Georgetown – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 6 of 7
• Attract desired forms of balanced development, creating quality urban, suburban, and
rural places that offer a choice of setting and lifestyle.
• Encourage residential developments that are well-connected to the larger community,
planned and designed to compliment the heritage and natural character of the City, and
offer a variety of housing types and price ranges.
• Encourage sound, compact, and quality growth, including pedestrian-friendly
development patterns that incorporate mixed-uses, a variety of densities, and resource
conservation while accommodating public transportation, alternative fuel vehicles, biking,
and walking as convenient substitutes for automobile use.
• Encourage the staged, orderly expansion of contiguous development to coincide with the
expansion of roads and infrastructure.
The proposed Mixed Use Neighborhood Center category allows for compact diverse
development that mixes residential, commercial and office in a district that supports pedestrian-
friendly infrastructure and walkability. This land use category supports a mix of housing types at
different price points increasing options and affordability. Amending the land use designation
will support an integrated environment within the existing and future residential and
neighborhood commercial uses.
Section 3.04.030.B of the UDC contains the following criteria for which an amendment request
should be considered against.
1. The need for the proposed change;
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment is required to enable the applicant to request a multifamily
zoning district consistent with the land use of the subject and surrounding properties,
which otherwise are not compatible with the existing Moderate Density Residential land
use category. The existing multi-family land use was developed under the former zoning
district and Future Land Use category, which allowed and encourages high density
residential. This amendment would bring the properties into compliance with existing
land uses. Staff has identified this area as one that will need to be reviewed during the city
initiated Comprehensive Plan Update process due to the development that has occurred
since the designation of Moderate Density Residential, which has created a more mixed
use environment.
2. The effect of the proposed change on the need for City services and facilities;
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment,will not require additional sevices and facilities. The subject
property is an existing multi-family development that was constructed in 1986. This
Page 121 of 142
Planning Department Staff Report
The Rail at Georgetown – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 7 of 7
amendment, should it be approved, will designate the area consistent with the existing
and surrounding land uses.
3. The compatibility of the proposed changes with the existing uses and development
patterns of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood; and
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment would not negatively impact the immediate surrounding uses
as this portion of the City has developed with a mix of uses consistent with the requested
Future Land Use category. In addition, this amendment would support the existing
walkable infrastructure by continuing to promote a mix of uses for local residents.
4. The implications, if any, that the amendment may have for other parts of the Plan.
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment would facilitate a stand-alone multifamily use that is neither
near a major activity/employment center nor future transit service.
The land use goals adopted in the 2030 Plan and included above are predicated on timing and
balance of land use development. The above stated goals focus on compact and contiguous
development which limit gaps in the City’s growth. Staff finds the proposed change from
Moderate Density Residential to Mixed Use Neighborhood Center is appropriate.
Public Comments
A legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (March 18, 2018).
To date, staff has received zero (0) written comments in support of the application.
Meetings Schedule
April 3, 2018 – Planning and Zoning Commission
April 24, 2018 – City Council First Reading of the Ordinance
May 8, 2018 – City Council Second Reading of the Ordinance
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Future Land Use Map
Attachment 3 – Zoning Map
Page 122 of 142
W 17T H S T
W U N IV E R SI TY AV E
SCENIC DR FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
S
A
U
S
TI
N
AV
E
W 1 8 T H S TRAILROAD AVE
W 1 6 T H S T
TI
M
B
E
R
S
T
W 1 5 T H S T
A
LL
E
Y
H
A
R
T
S
T
W 14T H S T
W 1 3 T H S T
LEANDER ST
BRIDGE ST
W 1 9 T H S T
C
A
N
D
E
E
S
T
W
E
S
T
S
T
R
O
C
K
S
T
ST O N E C I RW16THST
H
A
R
T S
T
W 18T H S T
W 1 4 T H S T
CPA-2018-001Exhibit #1
Co o rdi nate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zo ne/N A D 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For Gener al Plann ing Pu rposes Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000Fee t
Page 123 of 142
S
M
A
IN
S
T
S A
U
S
TI
N
AV
E
W 1 7 T H S T
W 10T H S T
W U N IV E R SI TY AV E
RAILROAD AVE
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 11TH ST
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
W 1 8 T H S T
W 1 6 T H S T
S M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
H
A
R
T
S
T
TIM
B
E
R
S
T
S
C
E
N
I
C
D
R
L
E
A
N
D
E
R
S
T
W 1 5 T H S T
R
O
C
K
S
T
S IH 35 FWY NB
E 1 0 T H S T
E 1 1 T H S T
A
LL
E
Y
EXIT 261 NB
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
E 1 8T H S T
E 1 9 T H S T
E 1 7T H S T
W 14T H S T
E 1 6 T H S T
W 1 3 T H S T
C Y R U S A V E
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
E
N
T
R
2
6
0
N
B
BRIDGE ST C
A
N
D
E
E
ST
UNIVERSITYAVETNSB
E U N I V ER S I T Y AV E
B
R
U
SH
Y
S
T
ENTR 262 SB
WE
S
T
S
T
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
S
B
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W 19T H S T
E 1 5T H S T
STONE CIR
MONTGOM
ERY
ST
W 1 9 T H S T
H
A
R
T
S
T
W
E
S
T
S
T
W 18T H ST
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
W16TH ST
W 14T H S T
S IH 35 NB
W 18T H S T
Coord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Plan ning Pu rposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Over all Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
CPA-20 18-00 1
Leg en d
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Com mercial
Com munity Commercial
Emp loym ent Center
Low Density Residential
Min ing
Mixed Use Comm unity
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Mode rate Density Residential
Op en Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing F reeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Pro p osed Collector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p sed Frontage Road
Pro p osed M ajor Arterial
Pro p osed M inor Arterial
Pro p osed Railroad
Hig h Density Residential
Legend
Sit eParce lsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 500 1,000250Fe etPage 124 of 142
S
M
A
IN
S
T
S A
U
S
TI
N
AV
E
W 1 7 T H S T
W 10T H S T
W U N I V E R SI TY AV E
RAILROAD AVE
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W 11TH ST
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
W 1 8 T H S T
W 1 6 T H S T
S M
Y
R
TL
E
S
T
H
A
R
T
S
T
TI
M
B
E
R
S
T
S
C
E
N
I
C
D
R
L
E
A
N
D
E
R
S
T
R
O
C
K
S
T
W 1 5 T H S T
S IH 35 FWY NB
E 1 0 T H S T
E 1 1 T H S T
ALL
E
Y
EXIT 261 NB
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
E 1 8T H S T
E 1 9 T H S T
E 1 7T H S T
W 1 4 T H S T
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
EXIT 262 NB
E
N
T
R
2
6
0
N
B
E 1 6T H S T
W 1 3 T H S T
C Y R U S A V E
BRIDGE ST C
A
N
D
E
E
ST
E U N I V ER S I T Y AV E
B
R
U
SH
Y S
T
ENTR 262 SB
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
S
B
W
E
ST
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W 1 9 T H S T
E 1 5T H S T
STONE CIR
MONT
GOM
E
RY
ST
W 1 9 T H S T
H
A
R
T
S
T
W 18T H S T
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
W16TH ST
W 1 4 T H S T
S IH 35 NB
W 18T H S T
WE
S
T
S
T
Zoning InformationCPA-2018-001Exhibit #3
Co o rdi nate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zo ne/N A D 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For Gener al Plann ing Pu rposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 500 1,000250Fe etPage 125 of 142
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
April 3, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n an amend ment to S ectio n 7.02.020, No n-R es id ential Lo t and
Dimens io nal S tand ard s , o f the Unified Develo p ment Co d e (UDC) relating to the minimum d is tric t s ize
req uirement for the Bus iness Park (BP) zoning d is tric t (UDC-2018-001). And reina Dávila-Quintero, Current
Planning Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Overview of Applicant’s Request:
The ap p licant has reques ted to amend the minimum dis trict size req uirement of the Bus iness Park (BP)
zo ning d is tric t from the c urrent twenty (20) ac res to five (5) acres, c o nsistent with the previo us minimum
lo t s ize standard for this district before it was removed in 2009. Ac cording to the ap p licant, the fo rmer 5-
acre req uirement is ad eq uate area fo r a s uc ces s ful and s ustainable Busines s Park (Attachment 1). In
ad d ition, a 5-ac re minimum d is tric t s ize requirement would allow properties lo c ated along majo r
tho ro ughfares where the BP zo ning d is tric t may be ap p ro p riate to b e developed with a mix of o ffice,
commerc ial and light indus trial uses cons is tent with the p urpose o f this zoning dis trict.
One s uc h examp le is a 15.9-ac re tract of land on Wes tinghous e Ro ad that is als o p art o f the Teravis ta
Municipal Utility Dis trict (MUD) Cons ent Agreement, last amend ed in June 2015. Per the Co nsent
Agreement, the 15.9-acre trac t o f land is id entified as a commerc ial tract with us es cons is tent with the
Busines s Park, Office, and Neighb o rhood and Lo cal Commerc ial zoning dis tric ts . The property o wner
wishes to develop this tract of land as a b usines s p ark and thus rezo ne the p ro p erty to BP. However, d ue
to the size o f this tract, and the minimum d is tric t s ize req uired fo r the BP zo ning d is tric t, the p ro p erty may
not be rezo ned to BP at this time.
Staff's Analysis:
Staff has reviewed the p ro p o s ed reques t and determined that it meets the c riteria outlined in UDC Sectio n
3.05.050 for a UDC Text Amendment as outlined in the attac hed Staff Report.
Public Comments:
As required b y the Unified Develo p ment Code, a legal notice ad vertis ing the pub lic hearing was p laced in
the Sun News p ap er (Marc h 18, 2018). As of the p ublic ation date of this rep o rt, s taff has rec eived no
written c o mments o n the reques t.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applic ant has paid the applic ation fee.
SUBMITTED BY:
And reina Dávila-Quintero , Current Planning Manager, and Nathan Jones , Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
UDC-2018-001 Staff Report Cover Memo
Page 126 of 142
Attachment 1 - Applicant's Letter of Intent Backup Material
Attachment 2 - Propos ed Amendment to UDC Section 7.02.020 Backup Material
Page 127 of 142
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: UDC-2018-001 Page 1 of 5
Report Date: March 30, 2018
Case No: UDC-2018-001
Project Planner: Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager, and Nathan Jones,
Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Business Park District Size UDC Text Amendment
Location: City-wide
Applicant: GT-WR Development I, LLC, c/o John M. Walsh, III, Manager
Representative: KBGE Eng, c/o Brian Estes, PE
Request: Unified Development Code Text Amendment to revise the minimum district size
of the Business Park (BP) zoning district from twenty (20) acres to five (5) acres.
Case History: This is the first public hearing for this case. The City Council voted to process
this UDC text amendment as an Executive Amendment on February 27, 2018
(Resolution No. 022718-W).
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to amend the minimum district size requirement of the Business Park (BP)
zoning district from the current twenty (20) acres to five (5) acres, consistent with the previous
minimum lot size standard for this district before it was removed in 2009. According to the applicant,
the former 5-acre requirement is adequate area for a successful and sustainable Business Park (Exhibit
1). In addition, a 5-acre minimum district size requirement would allow properties located along major
thoroughfares where the BP zoning district may be appropriate to be developed with a mix of office,
commercial and light industrial uses consistent with the purpose of this zoning district.
One such example is a 15.9-acre tract of land on Westinghouse Road that is also part of the Teravista
Municipal Utility District (MUD) Consent Agreement, last amended in June 2015. Per the Consent
Agreement, the 15.9-acre tract of land is identified as a commercial tract with uses consistent with the
Business Park, Office, and Neighborhood and Local Commercial zoning districts. The property owner
wishes to develop this tract of land as a business park and thus rezone the property to BP. However,
due to the size of this tract, and the minimum district size required for the BP zoning district, the
property may not be rezoned to BP at this time.
Proposed UDC Text Amendment:
The purpose of the BP zoning district is to provide a location for office, research, and light industrial
uses typically located as part of a large development. Business parks often include commercial activities
such as restaurants, banks, day care and similar uses that are intended to serve the on-site community
and may include some limited high-density residential. At the time of its adoption, the BP zoning
district included a minimum lot area of five (5) acres to ensure adequate area for the mix of uses
typically seen in a business park. However, in 2008, the City Council directed staff to review the BP
zoning regulations and develop a recommendation to make the district “more usable to the City.”
Page 128 of 142
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: UDC-2018-001 Page 2 of 5
In 2009, staff led a UDC Task Force to study options for site design standards that included the possible
establishment of the minimum district size. The initial staff proposal for a minimum district size for the
BP zoning district was 20 acres. Upon review of the UDC Task Force meeting notes, as well as Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council meeting minutes, it appears that staff’s initial proposal was
accepted without much discussion. The minimum district size of 20 acres for the BP zoning district was
established when the City Council formally amended the UDC in October 2009 (Ordinance 2009-56).
The 20-acre minimum district size has presented challenges in certain areas where the BP zoning district
may be appropriate by inadvertently affecting the minimum lot area needed to develop a business park
on a single property that is not located next to existing property zoned BP. City staff reviewed the
minimum district size requirement for similar zoning districts within the city, as well adjacent
municipalities, and found that other zoning districts and cities have a 0 or 5 acre minimum size
requirement as outlined in the tables below:
Similar zoning districts in the City of Georgetown
Zoning District Purpose Minimum District Size
Mixed-Use (MU) This district is intended to provide development
standards to promote a dense and active mixed use
urban environment that incorporates residential and
non-residential uses.
5 acres
Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
This district is intended to allow flexibility in planning
and designing for unique or environmentally sensitive
properties and that are to be developed in accordance
with a common development scheme. 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.
N/A
Industrial (IN) This district is intended to provide a location for
manufacturing and industrial activities that may
generate some nuisances.
N/A
Comparable zoning districts in surrounding Cities
City District Minimum District or
Lot Area Size
College Station Business Park 5 acres
Round Rock Business Park N/A
Cedar Park Heavy Commercial (HC) or Light Industrial (IL) N/A
Leander Heavy Commercial (HC) N/A
Hutto Light Industrial (LI) N/A
Taylor Light Industrial (M-1) N/A
Pflugerville Campus Industrial (CI) or Light Industrial (LI) N/A
Page 129 of 142
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: UDC-2018-001 Page 3 of 5
Comprehensive Plan Guidance
One of the goals of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan is to promote sound, sustainable, and compact
development patterns with balanced land uses, a variety of housing choices and well integrated
transportation, public facilities and open space amenities. To accomplish this goal, the City’s
Comprehensive Plan identifies the following policy and action items:
1.A. Encourage a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses at varying
densities and intensities, to reflect a gradual transition from urban to suburban to rural
development.
1. Adjust zoning provisions to provide greater flexibility for mixed-uses, multiple
housing types, compact development, and redevelopment.
2. Reserve and rezone land ideally suited for long-term commercial and employment
uses and prevent its use for residential subdivisions.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
The proposed amendment was reviewed by the applicable City departments. All comments were
addressed by the applicant.
Staff Analysis
In accordance with UDC Section 3.05.050, the proposed text amendment:
1. Promotes the health, safety or general welfare of the City and the safe, orderly, and healthful
development of the City.
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the City, as well as
the safe orderly, and healthful development of the City by allowing smaller tracts of land intended
for Employment Center uses to be developed as employment and business parks.
2. Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Complies
The proposed minimum district size for the BP zoning district is consistent with the goals of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan, primarily Goal 1.D which calls for the City to “establish improved
standards for commercial development.” Since the adoption of the 20-acre minimum district size in
2009, the City has approved four BP rezoning ordinances, two of which were approved as Planned
Unit Developments. The 20-acre minimum district size requirement has acted as a barrier to the
kind of “usability” of the district that was envisioned when the standard was adopted. The reduced
minimum district size will improve the commercial guidelines by allowing business parks to
develop on a smaller scale, reducing their overall impact, and providing a needed land use
throughout the City.
Additionally, the BP zoning district is primarily compatible with the Employment Center Future
Land Use designation, which is intended for tracts of undeveloped land located at strategic
Page 130 of 142
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: UDC-2018-001 Page 4 of 5
locations, which are designated for well planned, larger scale employment and business activities,
as well as supporting uses such as retail, services, hotels, and high density residential development
(stand-alone or in mixed-use buildings) as a conditional use. Another compatible Future Land Use
may include Mixed-Use Community, which is appropriate for larger scale, creatively planned
communities, where a mix of residential types and densities are complemented by supporting retail,
small to medium-scale office development, and integrated open spaces, where appropriate.
However, the current standard has presented challenges on property located along Westinghouse
Road and NE Inner Loop, two of the City’s major arterials designated for Employment Center in
the Future Land Use Map, due to the minimum lot area needed to develop a business park on a
single tract. Approval of this UDC Text amendment will allow smaller properties within this Future
Land Use designation to be developed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Is necessary to address conditions that have changed in the City.
Findings Complies
In the last couple of years, the City has seen an increase in property owners wishing to develop light
industrial, business and employment uses consistent with the purpose of the BP zoning district.
These properties are typically located within areas of the city that are adjacent to commercial nodes
and residential neighborhoods, along the city’s gateways, or in existing industrial parks that do not
include property already zoned BP. Should this amendment be approved, it will provide additional
opportunity for these properties to be developed with light industrial and business related uses
appropriate for the area in order to meet the demand for this type of development.
4. Would positively or negatively impact the environment or community.
Findings Complies
The proposed text amendment would positively impact the environment and community by
allowing smaller tracts of land to develop as business and employment uses along major
thoroughfares and other areas of the city that are adjacent to residential areas.
5. Is in conformance with other applicable Sections of the City Code.
Findings Complies
The proposed amendment is in conformance with the purpose of the BP zoning district. In addition,
the proposed amendment is not found to be in conflict other standards of the BP district, including
setbacks and building height standards.
Based on these findings, staff finds that the proposed UDC Text Amendment meets the criteria outlined
in UDC Section 3.05.050 for a text amendment.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed
in the Sun Newspaper (March 18, 2018). As of the publication date of this report, staff has received no
Page 131 of 142
City of Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Case No.: UDC-2018-001 Page 5 of 5
written comments on the request.
Meetings Schedule
April 3, 2018 – Planning and Zoning Commission
April 10, 2018 – City Council First Reading of the Ordinance
April 24, 2018 – City Council Second Reading of the Ordinance
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Applicant’s Letter of Intent
Attachment 2 – Proposed Amendment to Section 7.02.020 of the Unified Development Code
Page 132 of 142
Attachment I
Page 133 of 142
Attachment I
Page 134 of 142
Attachment 2
Proposed Amendment
Deleted language is strikethrough
Added language is underlined
Sec. 7.02.020. - Non-Residential Lot and Dimensional Standards.
The lot and dimensional standards provided in Table 7.02.020 are in addition to the
interpretations and exceptions in Section 7.02.030. Table 7.02.020 contains cross-references and
notes to specific sections or chapters of this Code when additional requirements or explanations
may apply.
Table 7.02.020: Non-Residential Lot and Dimensional Standards
Non-Residential Zoning Districts
Dimension CN C-1 C-3 OF BP IN PF MU-
DT MU
District size, min. acreage — — — — 20 5 — — — 5
***
***
Page 135 of 142
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning
April 3, 2018
SUBJECT:
Disc ussion and p o s s ib le direc tion on the annual review and lis t o f General Amendments to the Unified
Develo p ment Code fo r 2018. And reina Dávila-Quintero , Current Planning Manager.
This item is con tin u ed from the Ma rch 6, 20 1 8 Pla n n ing a n d Z onin g Com mission Meetin g .
ITEM SUMMARY:
In acc o rd anc e with Sec tion 3.05.020 o f the Unified Develo p ment Co d e (UDC), the UDC s hall b e reviewed
o n an annual bas is . The purp o s e of the review and amend ments proc es s is to es tab lis h and maintain s o und,
s table, and des irab le develo p ment within the City’s jurisdic tion, correc t errors in the text, o r due to
changing c o nd itions in the UDC. The list of amend ments to be reviewed on an annual b as is shall be
reviewed and ap p ro ved b y the City Co uncil (“General Amendments List”), after review and cons id eration
b y the Unified Development Code Ad visory Committee (UDCAC) and Planning and Zo ning Commission.
Every year City Staff and the UDCAC revise a list of items in the UDC that need to be replaced or updated
due to difficulties with the language or outdated provisions. Items identified as P riority 1 in the attached
General Amendments List are those items that staff and the UDCAC have identified should be reviewed in this
next round of amendments. Some of these may be determined by City Council to be on a different time
frame, such as items to be considered outside the Annual Review process and that would not be reviewed by
the UDCAC.
On March 6, 2018, S taff p res ented the d raft UDC General Amend ments Lis t that the City will work on for
the year 2018 (Attachment I), and asked for feedbac k fro m the memb ers of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The purp o s e of this item is to gather the Commission's feedb ac k on the p ro p o s ed General
Amend ments Lis t to present to City Counc il.
The General Amend ments Lis t will b e presented to C ity Co uncil fo r disc uss io n at their April 10, 2018
Wo rksho p ses s io n, and c o nsideratio n at their Ap ril 24, 2018 Regular Meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
And reina Dávila-Quintero , Current Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Attachment 1 - General Amendments List Backup Material
Page 136 of 142
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 1 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Land Uses 1 1
Acknowledge mobile food trailers as
a use within the UDC and outline
appropriate regulations governing.
Mobile food trailers have increased in popularity and the
city’s codes should be updated to address them.CoG Staff In Review 2018 Ch 3 and 5
Historic Districts 1 2
Review the standards pertaining to
historic districts and structures based
on the revised Historic Resource
Survey
The 2016 Historic Resource Survey makes recommendations
pertaining to the review and definition of historic structures.
This amendment is to revise the UDC consistent with the
recommendations in the survey.CoG Staff In Review 2018
Sec 3.13 & Sec
16.02
Parkland 1 3
Update provisions governing
parkland dedication based on
forthcoming recommendations by
the Parks & Recreation Board
subcommittee review.
A subcommittee of the Parks & Recreation Board has been
created that is tasked with reviewing and providing
recommended changes regarding the city’s parkland
provisions and policies.CoG Staff In Review 2018 Sec 13.08
Nonresidential Standards 1 4
Consider revising the minimum
district size for the BP zoning district.
Currently, the UDC requires a minimum district size for the
BP zoning district of 20 acres. However, this appears to
have created challenges for properties less than 20 acres in
size. Additionally, recent development shows Business Parks
in 10-15 acre tracts. Staff would like to review this
requirement through the public review process.Public In Review 2018 Sec 7.02
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 5
Create a process to address requests
for vesting determinations.
Vesting claims have been presented to the city occasionally
over the past few years, but with no defined procedures for
addressing. These requests will likely increase over the next
few years as the city has adopted new regulations that will
apply to some existing developments.CoG Staff 2018 Ch 3
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 6
Create a process to address requests
for appeals.
The UDC does not clearly address the appeal process of an
administrative or board decision, to include the intake, basis
for appeal and findings processes. CoG Staff 2018 Sec 3.14
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 7 Administrative/legal clean-ups
Review inconsistencies, errors and conflicting
references/sections.CoG Staff 2018 All
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 8
Expand development agreement
language establishing clear
requirements and processes.
Upcoming policies for procedures and consideration of
special districts and development agreements are
anticipated and would require UDC amendments to
implement.CoG Staff 2018
Sec 3.20 & Sec
13.10
Page 137 of 142
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 2 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 9
Clarify wastewater connection
requirements for property in the ETJ
Currently, the UDC requires all development to connect to
the City's wastewater system when located within 1/2 mile.
The proposed amendment will clarify that this provision
only applies to property located in city limits.CoG Staff 2018 Sec 13.05
Definitions 1 10
Revise various definitions for clarity
or add new definitions as needed.
Staff has come across several definitions that need clarity or
definitions that are needed to provide clarity in other
sections of the UDC. Examples include clarification of
street yard definition and consideration of the current
contractor services, limited definition. In addition this
would include any revisions to definitions needed for other
revisions made to the UDC.CoG Staff Ongoing Sec 16.02
Land Uses 1 11
Consider updating the list of Specific
Uses in Chapter 5 to include various
uses that are not currently listed.
Over time new uses are presented to staff that are not
specifically addressed in the UDC. Examples include self-
service machines (ice) and storage yards.CoG Staff 2018 Ch 5
Land Uses 1 12
Consider changes to the zoning
districts various Specific Uses may be
permitted in.
Staff is regularly presented with questions regarding the
possibility of allowing different uses in districts they are not
otherwise allowed in and would like to address some of
these through the public process in the next round of
updates to the UDC. Examples include whether
recreational vehicles (RVs) should be allowed as primary
quarters in the Agriculture district.CoG Staff 2018 Ch 5
Land Uses 1 13
Consider changes to the zoning
districts various Specific Uses may be
permitted in.
Reconsider allowing "Contractor Services Limited",
"Contractor Services General", and "Office Warehouse"
Specific Uses in the C-3 zoning district.Public 2018 Ch 5
Nonresidential Standards 1 14
Review the maximum number of
units required per building for MF
districts
The current standards limit the number of units per
structure to balance the building size and massing with the
property and surrounding area. Staff has found that this
may be addressed through additional architectural and
building design standards as seen in recent cases. Staff
recommends reviewing this requirement to determine
applicability.CoG Staff 2018 Sec 6.02
Page 138 of 142
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 3 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Residential Standards 1 15
Consider masonry requirements for
single-family and two-family
structures
Consider adding masonry requirements for single-family
and two-family structures, which do not exist today.CoG Staff 2018 Ch 6
Transportation 1 16
Clarify what triggers the requirement
for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and
when an appeal may be made and
review the improvements that are
considered or required."
The City needs to ensure we are adequately preparing for
future roadways with plats, dedications and reservations.
Clarification is needed regarding when Traffic Impact
Analyses are required and appealed, and how right-of-way
is being planned to implement the City’s Overall
Transportation Plan, for example, adequate intersection
right-of-way.CoG Staff 2018 Sec 12.09
Application Processes and
Requirements 1 17
Review rezoning public review
requirements to require
neighborhood meetings for rezoning
cases.
Currently, City staff recommends applicants for rezoning
requests to meet with the neighborhood and adjacent
property owners to explain the proposed project and
proactively address any concerns. Staff recommends
including this practice as a requirement in the UDC in a tier
approach.CoG Staff 2018 Sec 3.06
Signs 1 18
Review the UDC's definition for
Portable Signs, as well as signage for
bus stops
Currently, portable signs include any advertisement signs
on vehicles. Additionally, with the City's new fixed route
system, City staff is recommending to revise the sign
standards for bus stops.CoG Staff 2018
Sec 10.03 and
Sec 16.02
Downtown/Old Town 2 19
Consider adding limitations to certain
uses to create a "transition zone"
between the Downtown and Old
Town Overlays districts.
Consider adding limitations to certain uses along the edge
of the Downtown Overlay that are adjacent to residential
uses outside the overlay to create a "transition zone"
between the Downtown and Old Town overlays.Public Ch 4
Land Uses 2 20
Add or amend standard conditions of
approval for Special Use Permits
required for specific uses.
Staff proposes adding standard conditions of approval to
Special Use Permits that currently do not have any and
possibly refining some of the conditions for those that do in
order to provide better direction to applicants.CoG Staff Sec 3.07
Page 139 of 142
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 4 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Landscaping 2 21
Review and update the current
regulations regarding trash
receptacle screening
The current provisions regulating screening of trash
dumpsters do not take into account recycling and are often
too small for the needs of the facility. Additionally, the UDC
does not address locational requirements such as those
affecting service truck access.CoG Staff Ch 8
Zoning/ Overlay Districts 2 22
Reconsider how the current Gateway
Overlay districts are being used.
Currently, the Gateway Overlay districts only provide for
additional landscaping along the frontages of these roads.
Staff would like to explore utilizing these districts to address
other issues that have presented over the last couple of
years such as land uses or design.CoG Staff Sec 4.11
Signs 2 23
Reconsider allowing electronic
signage
In 2009 the City considered revisions to the UDC that would
allow electronic signage in the City. However, the
proposed amendment was turned down by both P&Z and
City Council. Since that time, staff has continued to get
numerous requests from the public to reconsider allowing
electronic signage. This item would bring the topic back to
discussion.Public Ch 10
Alternative Energy/ Green
Building Provisions 3 24
Update codes to provide provisions
for green building strategies and
ensure regulations do not
unintentionally prohibit such
strategies
The UDC should be reviewed to ensure there are not
unintentional barriers to utilization of sustainable energy,
such as requiring solar energy panels to be screened.
Public/CoG
Staff
Downtown/Old Town 3 25
Consider creating additional design
standards for residential infill
construction in the Old Town Overlay
District
When the most recent update to the Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines were approved City Council in
2012, Council requested staff bring back options for
additional standards and review of new residential
construction in the historic overlay districts. In August of
2014, City Council held a workshop on residential infill
design standards and directed staff to place the topic on
the UDC Amendment List for review. The goal is to create
a set of standards for design of new residential structures
that would preserve the character of the Old Town Overlay
District.City Council Sec 4.08
Page 140 of 142
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 5 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Landscaping 3 26
Clarify application and calculation of
landscaping requirements.
Based on experience with the provisions, staff has
recognized the need to clarify the application of the street
yard landscaping requirements to projects located a great
distance from the street as well as phased projects since, as
written street yard landscaping applies to yards defined by
buildings, not areas. Additionally, clarification is needed
regarding what areas are to be included or not included in
various landscape calculations.CoG Staff Ch 8
Landscaping 3 27
Review current nonresidential
landscaping requirements with
regard to the city’s water
conservation efforts.
Consider updates to the nonresidential landscaping
requirements to address the ongoing drought conditions
and incorporate provisions to address water conservation
efforts.CoG Staff Ch 8
Nonconforming 3 28
Refine the UDC regulations regarding
abandonment of a nonconforming
situation.
Based on experiences with the provisions, staff would like to
provide better clarity regarding the determination of
abandonment.CoG Staff Ch 14
Nonconforming 3 29
Define process for determining
nonconforming status and consider if
there are additional existing
situations to exempt.
Staff currently receives requests for determination of
nonconforming status, particularly abandonment status,
and the process for this determination should be clarified
and included in the UDC.CoG Staff Ch 14
Nonresidential Standards 3 30
Review the masonry requirements for
multifamily and commercial buildings
Review existing masonry requirements for multifamily and
commercial buildings to ensure appropriate, sustainable,
and visually- appealing materials are being used in the
appropriate locations.CoG Staff 2018 Ch 7
Residential Standards 3 31
Review and update Conservation
Subdivision standards to encourage
usage.
Update conservation subdivision section to relax restrictions
and incentivize its use. Consider in light of salamander
listing and water conservation ordinance standards.CoG Staff Sec 11.06
Signs 3 32
Review temporary banner regulations
to consider subdivision banners
Review temporary banner regulations to consider internal
subdivision banners.CoG Staff Ch 10
Page 141 of 142
Printed on 3/2/2018
LEGEND: 1 = High | 2 = Medium | 3 = Low | R = Remove
L:\Division\cd\UDC\UDC Amendments\0 - General Amendments List\UDC_General_Amendment_List Page 6 of 6
UDC General Amendment List
General Topic Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
Requested Amendment Amendment Description Requester Status
UDC Annual Review
Cycle
UDC
Chapter/
Section*
Signs 3 33
Reconsider maximum height for
monument signs when landscaping is
incorporated.
Consider allowing an increase in maximum height
permitted for monument signs when landscaping is
incorporated at the base.CoG Staff Ch 10
Zoning/ Overlay Districts 3 34
Review Courthouse View Protection
Overlay district requirements for
clarity and completeness.
The Courthouse View Overlay provisions should be
reviewed to make sure they are complete, that there are no
missing steps, and that the specifics of how to apply this
overlay are clear.CoG Staff Sec 4.10
Application Processes and
Requirements R 35
Review the Special Use Permit (SUP)
Conceptual Site Plan requirements
for review.
There is a very detailed list of items to be included on the
Conceptual Site Plan required for consideration of an SUP.
Not all of these details are needed or applicable to all types
of SUPs. Staff proposes we look at this list and consider
whether all are needed or appropriate.CoG Staff Sec 3.07
Land Uses R 36
Provide better clarification regarding
when a use is considered an
accessory use and when it is
considered an additional primary use.
There has been some question in the past when more than
one use is proposed on the same property or with the
same business as to whether the use should be treated as
an accessory use to the primary use or whether it should be
handled as another primary use on the property. Also,
clarity with regards to the standards that the accessory use
must adhere to should be provided as well.CoG Staff Ch 5
Land Uses R 37
Clarify the definition and application
of the "Live Music or Entertainment"
specific use
Clarification is needed regarding the intent of the "Live
Music or Entertainment" specific use in Chapter 5 as well as
the limitations associated with the use, including the
definition of outdoor entertainment.CoG Staff Sec 5.04
Land Uses R 38
Review and update outdoor display
and storage regulations
Review regulations pertaining to outdoor display and
storage of merchandise, materials, and equipment. The
existing regulations have presented challenges in some
situations and are somewhat unclear in others.CoG Staff Sec 5.09
Landscaping R 39
Review current requirements for
screening of mechanical equipment
for options or exceptions.
There are difficulties in applying the screening requirements
in every situation. More exemptions or options are needed.CoG Staff Ch 8
* The UDC Chapter or Section referenced in this column provides the regulation subject to this amendment. However, please note that other sections may need to be amended to address any conflicts and ensure consistency throughout the document.
Page 142 of 142