Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda CC 07.11.2017
Notice of M eeting of the Governing B ody of the City of Georgetown, Texas J uly 11, 2 01 7 The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on July 11 , 2017 at 6:00 PM at the City Co uncil Chambers, 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact the City Se c retary's Office, at least three (3 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930- 3652 o r City Hall at 113 East 8th Street fo r additional information; TTY use rs ro ute through Relay Texas at 7 11. Re gular Se ssion (This Regular Sessio n may, at any time, be re cessed to convene an Executive Se ssio n for any purpose authorize d by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Code 551.) A Cal l to Order Invocati o n P l e dg e of Al l egi ance Co mments from the Mayor - ADA Awareness Month Proclamation - National Parks and Recreation Mo nth Pro clamation Ci ty Co unci l Regi onal Board Re po r ts Announcements - Go Geo Launch August 21 - Parks and Recreation Month Instagram Pho to Contest - Sunset Mo vie Series Ac ti on fro m Executi ve Sessi on Statutory Conse nt Age nda The Statuto ry Co nsent Agenda includes no n-c ontroversial 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 to appro ve the mi nutes of the Wo rksho p and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 -- Shelley No wling, City Secretary C Consideration and possible action to appo int Stuart McLennan to the G eneral G overnment Page 1 of 185 and F i nance Advi sory Board (G G AF ) to fill a vacancy -- Mayor Dale Ross D Consideration and possible action to appo int Alternate Member Terri Asendorf as a regular me mber o f the Hi stori c and Archi te c tural Revi ew Commi ssi on(HARC) to fill a vacancy -- Mayo r Dale Ross E Consideration and possible action to mo ve Catheri ne Moral es from the Alternate Number 2 po sition to the Alternate Number 1 po sition o n the Hi stori c and Archi tectural Revi ew Co mmi ssi on (HARC) to fill a vacanc y -- Mayor Dale Ross F Consideration and possible action to appro ve a contract between City of Geo rgetown and the G eo r geto w n Heal th Foundati on for a feasi bi l i ty study relating to an i n-pati ent resi denti al hospi ce faci l i ty in the Georgetown area fo r an amount not to exce e d $1 0,0 00 .00 -- Councilmember Steve Fought, Distric t 4 Le gislative Re gular Age nda G Consideration and possible action to allo w the appl i cant of a Spec i al Use P ermi t for an automo ti ve sal es faci l i ty locate d at 20 30 S. Austi n Avenue , to re appl y for a Special Use Permit before the expi rati on of tw el ve mo nths -- Councilmembe r Jo hn Hesser, District 3 H P ubl i c Heari ng and Fi rst Readi ng of an Ordinance Rezoni ng approximately 12.228 acres in the J. Po well Survey, located at the i ntersecti on of Kel l ey Dri ve and G atew ay Dri ve, along No rth Interstate 35 from the Agric ulture (AG) District to the Gene ral Co mmercial (C-3) District -- Sofia Nelso n, CNU-A, Planning Director (acti on requi red) I Se c ond Readi ng of an Ordinance to Rezo ne 5 .605 acres in the A. Flo re s Survey, located east of Inte r state 3 5 and approximately 50 0 feet so uth of the intersection o f Lakew ay Dri ve and Interstate 35, to be kno wn as Ew al d Kubota from the Re sidential Single-Family (RS) District to a Planned Unit Developme nt with a General Commercial (C-3) base zoning -- Sofia Nelso n, P lanning Director (acti o n requi red) J Se c ond Readi ng of an Ordinance to Rezo ne 0 .791 acres of vacate d ri g ht o f w ay, located at the southw est co rner of Booty’s Cr ossi ng Ro ad and Wi l l i ams Dri ve fro m no zo ning to C-1 (Lo c al Co mmercial), to be known as Wi l l i amsburg Vi l l age -- Sofia Ne lson, CNU-A, Planning Dire c to r (acti on requi red) K Consideration and po ssible action to consider a potential battery storage pro ject funded by the Department Of Energy -- Chris Fo ste r, Reso urce Management and Integration Manager L Consideration and possible action to appro ve a Resolution accepting the Capi tal Area Metro po l i tan P l anni ng Organi zati on (CAMP O) and Ci ty of G eo r geto w n Wi l l i ams Dri ve Study -- Nathaniel Waggoner, AICP, P MP, Lo ng Range Planning Manager, and Andreina Dávila- Quintero , Current P lanning Manager M F orw arded from the G eneral G o ve r nment and Fi nance Advi sory B o ard (G G AF): Consideration and possible actio n to appro ve the G uaranteed Maxi mum P ri ce (G MP) for the Desi gn/Bui l d agreement with G . Creek Constructi on of Austin, Texas fo r the restorati on of G race Heri tage Center -- Eric Jo hnso n, CIP Manager and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Proje ct Update s N Pro ject updates and status reports re garding current and future transpo rtation and traffic project; street, sidewalk, and other infrastructure projects; police, fire and other public safety projects; eco nomic develo pment projects; city facility proje c ts;downtown pro jects including parking enhancements, city lease agreements, sanitatio n services, and possible direction to c ity staff -- David Mo rgan, City Manager Public Wishing to Addre ss Council On a subje c t that is posted on this agenda: Ple ase fill out a speaker registratio n form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on whic h you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start Page 2 of 185 of the me e ting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council conside rs that item. On a subje c t no t po sted on the agenda: P e rso ns may add an item to a future City Co uncil agenda by contac ting the City Secretary no later than noo n on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subje c t matter o f the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reache d at 51 2/93 0-3651. O - At the time of posting, no perso ns had signed up to address the City Co uncil Exe cutive Se ssion In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes, Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular se ssio n. P Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney - Advice fro m attorney about pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items Se c . 55 1.0 74 : Personnel Matter s - City Manager, City Attorney, City Se c retary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal Adjournme nt Ce rtificate of Posting I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2017, at __________, and remained so p o s ted for at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the s cheduled time of s aid meeting. __________________________________ Shelley No wling, City S ecretary Page 3 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Cal l to Order Invocati on Pl edge of Al l e gi anc e Comments fro m the Mayo r - ADA Awareness Month P roclamation - National Parks and Recreation Month Proclamation Ci ty Counci l Re gi o nal Bo ard Reports Announcements - GoGeo Launc h August 21 - P arks and Recreation Month Instagram Photo Co ntest - Sunset Movie Serie s Acti on from Executi ve Sessi on ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Shelley Nowling - RD Page 4 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the mi nutes o f the Workshop and Re gular Meeting held on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 -- She lle y Nowling, City Secretary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENT S: Description Regular Meeting Minutes 6.27.2017 Works hop Meeting Minutes 6.27.2017 Page 5 of 185 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers at 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary’s Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Councilmember District 2, Valerie Nicholson. Mayor Dale Ross, Ana Eby, District 1, John Hesser, District 3, Steve Fought, District 4, Ty Gipson, District 5, Rachael Jonrowe, District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, District 7 were in attendance. Regular Session (This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A. Call to Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Jerry Hammerlun Tribute City Council Regional Board Reports Mayor Ross said that the June CAMPO meeting had been cancelled. Announcements - Parks and Rec Awarded Grant - National Main Street Accreditation Action from Executive Session No action was taken from Executive Session Statutory 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 to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, June 13, 2017 -- Shelley Nowling, City Secretary C. Consideration and possible action to appoint Ercel Brashear to the Planning and Zoning Commission to fill a vacancy – Mayor Dale Ross D. Consideration and possible action to approve an Interlocal Agreement with Georgetown Independent School District for the purpose of a joint Aquatics Feasibility Study --Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Councilmember Gonzalez pulled Item D from the Statutory Consent Agenda to the Legislative Regular Agenda for discussion. Minutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, June 27, 2017 Page 6 of 185 E. Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve Change Order #2 to Westar Construction, Inc. of Georgetown, Texas in the amount of $137,589.92 for ADA trail improvements in San Gabriel Park – Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director F. Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve a BuyBoard contract with TF Harper and Associates LP of Austin Texas, for the installation of playground equipment and surfacing at Garey Park in the amount of $144,999.75 -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director G. Consideration and possible action to approve the acquisition of Revocable Licenses by the City of Georgetown in connection with the GoGeo 2017 Transit Project to allow the placement and operation of bus stops and necessary improvements on private property -- Nathaniel Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Transportation Analyst Motion by Gonzalez, second by Gipson to approve the Statutory Consent Agenda in its entirety, with the exception of Item D, which has been placed on the Legislative Regular Agenda at the request of Councilmember Gonzalez. Approved: 6-0 (Nicholson absent) Legislative Regular Agenda D. Consideration and possible action to approve an Interlocal Agreement with Georgetown Independent School District for the purpose of a joint Aquatics Feasibility Study --Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Councilmember Gonzalez pulled Item D from the Statutory Consent Agenda to the Legislative Regular Agenda for discussion. Kimberly Garrett, the Parks and Recreation Director, spoke on the joint workshop held with the City Council and the Georgetown Independent School District. She explained that the decision had been to formulate an Interlocal Agreement between the two parties to implement a joint Aquatics Feasibility Study and this Item would memorialize this agreement. Councilmember Gonzalez said that he wants a second look at this. He said that Georgetown does not have the capacity to enter into yet another pool and that perhaps this money could be well served for something else. Councilmember Fought said he agrees with the concern, but the City had given their word back in February and could not pull out at this time. Fought added that there will be questions to be answered in the future. Motion by Fought, second by Gipson to approve Item D. Approved: 6-0 (Nicholson absent) H. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone 0.791 acres of vacated right of way, located at the southwest corner of Booty’s Crossing Road and Williams Drive from no zoning to C-1 (Local Commercial), to be known as Williamsburg Village -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on the rezoning request for a vacated right of way at the southwest corner of Booty’s Crossing Road and Williams Drive. She provided a location map and pictures of the subject property and pictures of Williams Drive and businesses near the subject property. Nelson then provided the zoning map and future land use maps. Nelson provided the criteria for Local Commercial (C-1) zoning. Page 7 of 185 The UDC criteria for zoning changes was shown next and Nelson explained that the request was found to be consistent. Nelson noted that both the UDC Advisory Board and the Planning & Zoning Commission have recommended approval. Nelson read the caption Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 6.12 PM. No persons had signed up to speak on the Item. Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 6.12 PM. Motion by Eby, second by Gipson, to approve Item H. Page 8 of 185 Approved: 6-0 (Nicholson absent) I. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone 5.605 acres in the A. Flores Survey, located east of Interstate 35 and approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lakeway Drive and Interstate 35, to be known as Ewald Kubota from the Residential Single-Family (RS) District to a Planned Unit Development with a General Commercial (C-3) base zoning -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on the rezoning request for a property located east of I35 and 500 feet south of the intersection of Lakeway Drive and Interstate 35. She explained that this will be a PUD request. Nelson provided a location map, zoning map, and future land use map, as well as aerial views of the property and views from I35 travel lanes. She explained that the area is largely undeveloped. Nelson spoke on development along Austin Avenue and provided related pictures of the I35 frontage road. She explained that the proposed project for this property is a Kubota dealership. She noted that this Kubota dealership would be designed more for residential users with large properties, needing these types of equipment. Nelson showed a layout of the design and a picture of a Kubota building, noting that the materials proposed to be used will meet architectural and material requirements. Nelson spoke on Project Development Standards and provided the following UDC-PUD Comparison Charts. Page 9 of 185 Nelson provided a Chart of Criteria for PUDs and showed the compliance of each requirement. Page 10 of 185 Nelson said that the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the request and that the applicant was present for questions. Nelson read the caption Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 6.20 PM. No persons had signed up to speak on the Item. Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 6.20 PM. Councilmember Eby asked about the P&Z recommendation of approval and if that had come with conditions. She also asked if staff had suggested any conditions. Nelson confirmed that there had been conditions, but that the applicant has agreed to the recommendations. Nelson noted that the applicant had requested grass instead of pavement, but had agreed to the condition to provide an irrigation system for the grass. Councilmember Gipson asked if this will cause any other signage issues. Nelson said signage had been a concern because of this property being located in a City gateway area, which is also in need of business. She explained that staff found signage requirements that would still meet the regulations and not be excessive in the area. Nelson noted that the grass area will have a minimum 25 foot landscape buffer. She noted an initial concern to having the display pushed so far out. She explained that this is necessary because of the size of the equipment. Councilmember Jonrowe said she is concerned with the amount of variances, and the City is not getting enough in return. She questioned why the applicant was not adhering regarding landscaping requirements. Applicant, John Ewald said that he had asked for forgiveness of some codes, but had also committed to staff recommendations and has gone above certain requirements, as well. Jonrowe noted that PUDs are generally a trade-off, allowing exceptions for something in return. Ewald explained that he was originally led to believe that septic would be allowed on the property and will now be required to extend a sewage line at a cost of $150,000 to run a septic line down to the street. Nelson said this was an enhancement in consideration for the City. Nelson agreed that there is often a negotiation for a PUD. She noted that PUDs are often used for areas that straddle two different zoning areas. She explained that, in this case, the project would need industrial zoning, but is in an area where the city would not necessarily want industrial zoning. Jonrowe asked about landscaping and lighting plans. Shelly Mitchell, an engineer for the project, explained the significance of the property being adjacent to 4 rows and how this had to be considered for sidewalk pieces. She noted that the outdoor display will be more visible with the variance. She explained that they would not want big trees in front of the display and shrubs and trees have been diverted to another area of the property. Mitchell noted that security for this type of facility requires more lighting, but the style still meets regulations, and is only about the placement. Page 11 of 185 Motion by Fought, second by Hesser, to approve Item I. Approved: 6-0 (Nicholson absent) J. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning approximately 23.527 acres in the D. Wright Survey located southwest of the intersection of Booty Crossing and Williams Drive from the Agriculture (AG) District to Residential Single-Family (RS) District -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director (action required) Nelson spoke on the rezoning request for property located southwest of the intersection of Booty Crossing and Williams Drive. She noted that this is a second reading of this request for the Oakmont Track. Nelson said the property had recently gone through the annexation process. Nelson provided a location map, zoning map and future land use map. She provided the requirements for Residential Single-Family (RS) Zoning. Nelson provided the UDC criteria for rezoning and spoke on the finding of consistency. Page 12 of 185 Nelson noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval and then read the caption. Motion by Eby, second by Gonzalez, to approve Item J. Approved: 6-0 (Nicholson absent) K. Forwarded from Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve a contract with Cholla Pavement Maintenance, Inc. of Apache Junction, Arizona for 2017 Two Course Surface Treatment with Fog in the amount of $1,066,087.50 -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director and Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director, spoke on the contract with Cholla Pavement Maintenance, Inc. for two course surface treatment with fog. He noted that “fog” is referring to a seal. Wright explained that this has been presented at a previous Council workshop meeting on paving maintenance. He explained that staff would be coming back to the Council with other maintenance projects in September. Wright said that this particular method has been in existence for some time and has proven to be a successful method. He then described the streets to be treated. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser, to approve Item K. Approved: 6-0 (Nicholson absent) L. Forwarded from Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve a contract with Cutler Repaving, Inc. of Lawrence, Kansas for 2017 Street Maintenance (Hot in Place Recycling) in the amount of $1,060,008.35 -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director and Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director, spoke on the contract with Cutler Repaving, Inc. for street maintenance. He explained that the Cutler process is a patented process. Wright described the process and the primary streets to be treated, the bulk of which are in the Old Town area. Mayor Ross asked about the downtown streets and if he was referring to East and West streets. Wright confirmed that the streets were East and West and considered to be neighborhood streets. He explained that these streets need extra treatment but not replacement. Wright said the Cutler process is a very good method and that the price on this is at a 3 year low right now. Motion by Fought, second by Hesser, to approve Item L. Councilmember Gipson asked if this method has been used in the past. Wright said it has been used for the past 10 years. Approved: 6-0 (Nicholson absent) M. Forwarded from Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve a contract with Archer Western Construction, LLC. of Irving, Texas for Domel Pump Station Improvements in the amount of $2,147,800.00 -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director, spoke on a contract with Archer Western Construction for the Domel Pump Station Improvements. He explained that the Domel Pump Station was a Chisholm Trail asset and is now a City of Georgetown asset. Wright noted that it provides 3 million gallons of water a day, and has safety issues and maintenance issues. He noted that more water treatment would be added, as well. Wright showed a map of the area and described the pump station and its large service area. Wright said that the intention is to reduce the amount of pumping, make the station safer and prevent future flooding. He spoke on the competitive bid process and said that the City received a fantastic bid and staff and engineers recommend approval. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Fought to approve Item L. Approved: 6-0 (Nicholson absent) Page 13 of 185 Project Updates N. Project updates and status reports regarding current and future transportation and traffic project; street, sidewalk, and other infrastructure projects; police, fire and other public safety projects; economic development projects; city facility projects; and downtown projects including parking enhancements and possible direction to city staff -- David Morgan, City Manager Mayor Ross asked City Manager, David Morgan, if he had any project updates to speak about. Morgan said he did not have updates at this time, but would be happy to answer questions. Morgan recognized the GISD extern program. He explained that Kim Henley, a teacher at Tippit Middle School and Clair Lacombe, a teacher at Georgetown High School, had been shadowing him and Assistant City Manager, Lauri Brewer, and were in the audience. Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. O. Tom Ketterhagen would like to address the City Council regarding a Georgetown Bike Plan, Safety and Awareness - Sharon Reed would like to address the City Council regarding a Georgetown Bike Plan, Safety and Awareness - Jim Hellebusch would like to address the City Council regarding a Georgetown Bike Plan, Safety and Awareness - Drew Hardin would like to address the City Council regarding a Georgetown Bike Plan, Safety and Awareness - Laura Hobgood would like to address the City Council regarding a Georgetown Bike Plan, Safety and Awareness - Mark Geppert would like to address the City Council regarding changes to Williams Drive and a proposed Ketterhagen Memorial Mayor Ross called on the speakers who had signed up to address the Council. Speakers included Sharon Reed, Drew Hardin, Laura Hobgood, Mark Geppert and Tom Ketterhagen. Jim Hellebusch donated his 3 minutes of speaking time to Tom Ketterhagen, who was then given 6 minutes of speaking time. Comments and Concerns voiced included the following: Support a Bike Plan in this year’s budget Signage is needed for added safety and awareness Changes need to be made to Williams Drive with signage and lane markings In the Year 2000, the Cycling community asked for a Bike Plan 100s of cyclists signed a petition TXDOT and City said they could not make changes because there was not a Bike Plan in place It took 3 years of work by Rep. Gattis and for TXDOT to include shoulders for bicycle access Original plan was to put curbs on outside lanes, which would mean not shoulders There are no alternative roadways for bicyclists to use; Must use Williams Drive 2003 Cyclists again asked for a Bike Plan City said earliest Bike Plan would be 2004 or 2005 in a Williamson County Sun article, but did not happen Bike Community again asked for a Bike Plan in February 2016 Requesting a memorial for Tommy Ketterhagen, as well as a bike plan Georgetown is a great place to live Limitations getting around Georgetown without using a car Want to commute to downtown Georgetown with a bicycle Continued sympathies to the Ketterhagen family Rides thousands of miles per year Georgetown has plenty of places to gather with friends Bicyclists would rather ride than drive a car This is good for businesses on the square Bicyclists are an indicator of safe streets Would indicate that it is safe for pedestrians and walking pets Safety plan in Georgetown for cyclists would make everyone aware Students should be out of harm’s way Must make streets safe Consider in 2018 budget Page 14 of 185 Promote healthy life style Lots of riders on the roads Start a discussion on the design of bike plan Need to promote bike safety More cyclists on road, it becomes safer Bike lane markings and signage makes things safer Remember Tommy Ketterhagen with a Memorial Bikeway Help people to become more aware of cyclists Help prevent another tragedy Give back to the community 1000 people at Tommy’s funeral 500 participants at Tommy’s Memorial Ride starting at Eastview High School 700+ contributors to Tommy’s GoFundMe account Ghost bike installed at the site where Tommy died Thanks given to Detective Kirby Thanks to D.A. Shawn Dick, Dee and Sunni Men’s soccer clubs raised over $600 100s of meals, cards and letters 1000s praying for the Ketterhagen family and 100s of masses said Make roads safer for the vulnerable cyclists Improve bike infrastructure Need a master bike plan Motorists need to know where bikes are for safety Bike plan saves money in the future Good bike infrastructure is attractive for future residents Bike infrastructure is important for high tech companies to come to Georgetown Thanks to Tommy’s friends here tonight Need to be big on safety Bike maps are important Need more data Cannot live in the past More bikes means less traffic congestion and road maintenance Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. P. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Sec. 551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Commercial Projects in the Following Areas • I35 and University Avenue • I35 and Southeast Inner Loop Adjourn Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 7.05 PM. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Approved by the Georgetown City Council on _____________________________ Date _____________________________ _____________________________ Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City Secretary Page 15 of 185 Minutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, June 27, 2017 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas. The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary’s Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Councilmember Anna Eby, District 1 and Councilmember Valerie Nicholson, District 2. Mayor Dale Ross, John Hesser, District 3, Steve Fought, District 4, Ty Gipson, District 5, Rachael Jonrowe, District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, District 7 were in attendance. Policy Development/Review Workshop – Call to order at 3:01 PM A. Employee Compensation, Benefits and Wellness Update -- Tadd Phillips, Human Resource Director Human Resource Director, Tadd Phillips, provided a presentation and update on employee compensation, benefits and the wellness program. He began the presentation with an Executive Summary. Phillips provided a Compensation Overview and a Chart depicting Total Rewards Strategies. Page 16 of 185 Phillips spoke on the Compensation Approach and described 3 key areas: Market, Merit and Steps. Page 17 of 185 Phillips explained the Fire & Police Meet & Confer Agreements and said that the agreements specify City comparators and pay philosophy. Phillips spoke on the FY2018 Market Summary and provided a list of market comparators Page 18 of 185 Show Phillips said that the City of Georgetown has 246 non-civil service job titles and 112 benchmark job titles (46%). Of these positions 72% fell within market and 28% fell below market. Merit Pay was shown next. Mayor Ross asked the Council if they had any questions on compensation before Phillips went on to speak on the Benefits Program. Councilmember Jonrowe asked about living wages and how many of the City employees fall below that. Jonrowe said she would be interested to look at how to be a driver of fair wages and costs. Page 19 of 185 Mayor Ross asked about 72% of jobs at market and 29% below and if any of the City’s jobs are above market. Phillips said there is a handful of jobs above market, but very few. Phillips began the presentation on Benefits with a Benefits History slide. Phillips noted the importance of Vendor Relationships and described programs to encourage and help heath care of employees move in the right direction. He spoke on the City’s Self Insurance Program and provided a slide showing the Self Insurance Fund Reserve. Page 20 of 185 Councilmember Gipson asked if there was good feedback from employees about the benefits program. Phillips said he receives great feedback and noted that there will be no increase in premiums, which all employees are happy about. Phillips noted that additional costs are no longer happening year to year. Mayor Ross asked Phillips about the biggest risk of being self-insured. Phillips said the biggest risk would be if the City were to experience bad claims for 6 years in a row, without a healthy reserve. He described the healthy situation of the current fund and how this mitigated risk. Phillips spoke on Employee Benefits Program Goals and provided a Current Benefits Update. Page 21 of 185 Phillips explained that for FY2018 planning, the Self-Insurance Fund cost will be continuously monitored and projections updated through July. He noted that specific recommendations will be developed as part of the City Manager’s proposed budget. Phillips spoke on the Wellness Program successes and mentioned the 5K Event that Councilmember Eby participated in. He said this is a run/walk event at Rivery Park and many enjoy the trails and culture of wellness. He provided a slide on the Current Wellness Events. Phillips said the program is designed to give credit for time spent taking care of one’s self. Page 22 of 185 Phillips described the Wellness Program Goals and showed a slide depicting participation in the program. Phillips noted that participation has increased considerably, with a high level of program completion. Phillips said he is researching incentive structures and options for the 2019 plan year and will continue to work with Bravo on program design. Councilmember Fought said 6 years ago the HSA account was implemented. Fought said this is an extremely well run program. He noted that recruiting and retaining the right people is an important objective. Fought spoke on compensation and said you can evaluate success by asking if you are losing people and determining if you are getting good applicants for job postings.. Fought thanked Phillips for running a great program. Page 23 of 185 Councilmember Jonrowe asked if the City’s benefits program includes dental and mental health coverage. Phillips confirmed that these were included benefits. Jonrowe asked about tuition reimbursement. Phillips said the program had been started this year, with roughly 14 to 15 participants so far. Phillips said the program is very tangible and exciting to the employees. Jonrowe asked if employee surveys ask about what benefits employees would like to see. Phillips spoke on the employee benefits committee and said he would add this suggestion for discussion at their next meeting. Jonrowe asked Phillips to share the feedback. Jonrowe asked about current maternity and paternity leave. Phillips said employees are permitted to use sick pay and FMLA, but there is not a specific policy. Phillips added that he will continue to look at this. B. Presentation and discussion of the CAMPO/City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study Final Plan -- Nathaniel Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Transportation Analyst and Andreina Davila-Quintero, Project Coordinator Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst for the City, provided a presentation on the Williams Drive Final Plan. He acknowledged Andreina Davila-Quintero, the City’s Project Coordinator and thanked her for the wealth of knowledge and abilities she brought to the project. Waggoner also acknowledged members of Cap Metro in the audience and thanked them for their generous contributions. Phillip Tindall, Deputy Director of CAMPO, spoke. He thanked the Council for their support in the project and allowing them to report. He explained that this is the first study completed under CAMPO’s Platinum Planning program, an approach to regional transportation planning. Tindall said this planning approach forges a connection for transportation, land use and economic development. Tindall thanked staff and community leaders and stakeholders. Waggoner thanked the CAMPO staff and said the presentation will be a final check with the City Council. He provided a slide showing the contributors of the project. Waggoner provided a presentation agenda. He said he would be asking for Council direction to staff to return on July 11, 2017 for acceptance of the Study’s Final Plan • Progress to Date • Study Purpose and Goals • Public Comment • Implementation Plan • Next Steps Waggoner provided a slide titled Check-Ins with GTAB and P&Z Page 24 of 185 Councilmember Fought spoke on the task of looking at this project. He explained that there was an unconstrained look at this project with no money constraints or time constraints, which was a great way to look at it, while still being realistic. Waggoner spoke next on Recommendations made from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) and the Planning and Zoning Commission. City Manager, David Morgan asked Wagoner to describe the perspectives of GTAB and P&Z members. Waggoner spoke on the perspectives of off-street bicycle facilities and on-street facilities. Waggoner explained the concerns with traffic congestion and timing and how the appropriateness and timing of the project had been discussed. Check-Ins with the City Council was shown next. Page 25 of 185 Waggoner noted that the purpose of the project was to develop a plan of action that will incorporate safety, efficient transportation operations, safe accommodations of all modes, and integration of smart transportation and land use, community needs, and the future economic growth of Williams Drive. Waggoner explained that the goals for Williams Drive include: • Enhance multimodal movements and transportation operations • Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development • Protect and enhance the corridor • Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services that are accessible to neighborhoods Waggoner provided slides on what has been heard. Page 26 of 185 Andreina Davila Quintero, Project Coordinator, spoke on FY17/18 Action Items. She said she wanted to identify action items already in process and already funded. She explained that they have been listening to stakeholders, citizens and City Council leaders in order to improve congestion on Williams Drive. Davila Quintero noted that some actions are still pending. Page 27 of 185 Page 28 of 185 Page 29 of 185 A Summary Slide was provided by Davila Quintero. Davila Quintero asked the City Council for direction to staff in order for them to return on July 11, 2017 for acceptance of the Williams Drive Study Final Plan. Councilmember Hesser said members of GTAB have had a spirited debate regarding Williams Drive. He said there is concern that, over time, comments have not been transferred and have changed the objective. Hesser said he appreciates the staff. He noted that the emphasis should be on traffic flow and congestion. He said it is also important to concentrate on retail and commercial activity. Hesser explained that moving vehicles needs to be the priority. He said that GTAB members are not completely comfortable with the plan and would like to see the first 4 years. He noted there is still concern about bikes on this street without a bike plan. He noted the speed on 130 as much too dangerous. Hesser said a bike plan needs to be in place before putting bicycles on Williams Drive. Hesser said he wants to pull bike recommendations for the first 4 years, until the bike plan can be made and parks and streets need to have a comprehensive plan. Hesser noted the 150 curb cuts on Williams Drive, without a real solution. He said the City cannot start beautification without a plan and he would not want Page 30 of 185 congestion increased because of this. Hesser said he would like to come up with solutions and suggested that staff come back to Council with the solutions. Councilmember Gonzalez said the biggest focus and financial resources need to go to congestion first, and then beautification and a bicycle plan. He said the focus for the 3 to 4 year plan needs to be on traffic congestion. Councilmember Gipson said project zoning is most critical. He thanked staff for their hard work. Gipson said there needs to be a good bike plan that is thought through well. He said zoning will be the biggest challenge because the area is somewhat land-locked there. Councilmember Jonrowe asked what lessons have been learned and said that it has been an exciting project to watch. She asked if lessons learned could be used for developing HWY 29 or Leander Rd. City Manager, Morgan, said principles learned will be informational for all the rest of the corridors as well. He said developing corridors can be managed better initially. Morgan said it is important to understand that this project is a guideline and adoption of the next fiscal year adoptions. Morgan said it is important to remember that a bike plan is a priority and it is part of the Williams Drive Plan to do a bike master plan. He said the engineering studies specifically focus on capacity on the roadway and signal management. He noted that the City will be taking over some of TXDOT signal management, affecting immediate concerns with traffic congestion. Councilmember Jonrowe said the City needs to move forward with a bicycle plan for the entire City, not just Williams Drive. She noted that this would be a draw for younger professionals being attracted to the area. Waggoner spoke on accessible pedestrian signals, with push buttons, which accessible and audible. He said there will be 6 intersections upgraded to today’s standards. Fought said the methodology of looking at the whole area will identify what needs to be studied. He said this is good work and a good broad look. Hesser said he agrees with Gipson that changes in commercial properties will bring unintended consequences. Ross asked Morgan what has been relayed by Council. Morgan said the First 4 Years of the Implementation Plan will be presented to the Council July 11, 2017, as well as a document study of the longer term plan. C. Presentation on Community Center Fees and Garey Park Operations -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Kimberly Garrett, Parks Director, provided the presentation. Before the presentation was initiated, Garrett announced that the Parks & Recreation Department had been awarded a $200,000 trail grant from the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. She said that the grant would help fund a nearly half-mile concrete trail expansion from San Gabriel Park along the San Gabriel River to the Katy Crossing Subdivision. Mayor Ross congratulated Garrett and staff. Garrett provided an agenda for the presentation. • Update from April 25th Council Workshop • Community Center Fees o Review of Rental Fees/Revenues/Building Expenses o Fee Increase options to reduce subsidy for operations o Provide recommendations from staff and Parks Board • Garey Park o Project Update o Key elements of the budget o Impact to 2018 budget and future budgets Garret spoke on the Community Center and provided an image of the Center. She noted that the center is 100% booked on Saturdays and the City holds a lottery drawing for rentals one year in advance. She explained that the Parks Department sometimes receives 5 or 6 applications for the same date. Garrett provided a description of the Community Center. Page 31 of 185 Garrett discussed the Reviewed Expenses & Revenues and provided a chart for Proposed Fees. She said implementation would take approximately 2 years. Page 32 of 185 Garrett spoke about Comparable Facilities and explained why the Community Center is hard to compare because of its capacity and flexibility of use. Garrett provided a comparison of other facility rental options for a Friday or Saturday rental. Page 33 of 185 Garrett provided a slide depicting revenue and expense at the Community Center The Parks Board and Staff Recommendations were shown • Increase fees to reduce the GF subsidy • Phase increase over 2 years • Admin time to book, check out keys, deposit collection, building conditions not captured in expense • Eliminate R/NR fee structure – highly specialized • Larger increase to general rentals than non-profit rentals Councilmember Hesser asked how many discounted weekend days are utilized. Garrett said out of 163 rentals, 13 were non-profit and the majority of non-profit rentals are on a week day. Page 34 of 185 Gipson said with a waiting list for the Community Center, the City needs to move with the demand and stop pulling from the general fund. He suggested possibly increasing fees even more. Ross asked about the 24% of the general fund and what number that represents. Garrett said the utility costs average $25,000 annually. Garrett said she would like to see how the increased fees impact rentals and if there would be fewer rentals with the increased fees. She noted that this would need to be reviewed regularly. Hesser asked if building maintenance is in the general fund. Garrett said general building maintenance only. Garrett spoke on Garey Park next and provided an overview. She spoke on the budget process for the project and thanked the many staff members who helped in the joint effort of putting the budget together Page 35 of 185 Garrett described the proposed staffing needs for Garey Park and the Operational Expenses. Page 36 of 185 Garrett described the One Time Capital Expenses, as well as Capital Maintenance and Replacement Page 37 of 185 Proposed Park Fees and Revenue were discussed. Page 38 of 185 Garrett provided a slide on the 2018 Budget Request Summary and Future Budget Impacts. Page 39 of 185 Garrett explained that these are conservative figures for revenues, and she thinks the revenues will actually be higher. She explained that cost recovery gets greater as revenues increase and grow. She noted that it will take a few years to become totally profitable, but this will be tracked and looked at yearly. Councilmember Gipson asked about events and festivals and mentioned that these could be huge revenue sources. He reminded Garret about Councilmember Nicholson’s suggestion of disk golf. Gipson instructed staff to identify the money makers and tournaments that will bring in a lot of gate fees. He said that he hopes the CVB is also involved in this. Garrett said there has been much interest shown but things are hard to determine at this time. Garrett said there has been discussion to possibly partner with Williamson County regarding the disk golf. Councilmember Gonzalez asked if there is a separate CIP plan for the Garey house roof, replacement, floors, etc. Garrett brought up the future budge impact slide and explained that all of this has been accounted for. Page 40 of 185 Hesser asked if guests of the person renting the Garey house are required to bay gate fees. Garrett said, most likely, those fees would be included in the house rental fee, but some of these things are still being worked through. Councilmember Jonrowe asked if the City would be keeping track of where visitors to the park are from. She suggested being able to coordinate this with heads in beds and encouraging people to stay in Georgetown for their outing or vacation. She spoke about visitors staying in Georgetown hotels and having a Georgetown experience. Mayor Ross noted that Garrett attends Parks conferences and seminars regularly and asked her to name some of the non-financial benefits to having such a jewel of park. Garrett said mental health and well- being will be a big benefit. She said such a place bring in people. Garrett said she has presented Garey Park at conferences and people love it. She explained that the opportunities are endless. Ross noted that an open ended park, such as this, has much revenue, more than just financial. He said this speaks to who we are as a City. Councilmember Gipson asked about food and catering. Garrett said there are discussions of possible food trucks or contracts with concessionaires. Gipson said this would be another revenue source. Councilmember Gonzalez said new development and commercial development will follow suit but not for 5 to 15 years. Gipson asked if there is a turning lane into Garey Park. Garrett and Morgan explained that there will not be a turning lane but that there is a deceleration lane. Gipson said it is tragic and dangerous there. Garrett said staff will be working with TXDOT on signage and flashing lights. D. Presentation and discussion of Austin Ave. Bridges Public Meeting #3 and Environmental Clearance Process -- Ed Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator Ed Polasek, the City’s Transportation Planning Coordinator, provided a presentation and update on the Austin Avenue Bridges Meeting and Environmental Clearance Process. He provided an agenda of the presentation. • Overview of public involvement process • Overview of 3rd public meeting and public input • Update on environmental process • Review the need and purpose statement • Discussion of design alternative Polasek provided a chart indicating the Public Involvement Process Page 41 of 185 A Project Description was also provided. Polasek spoke on the project needs and purpose. Page 42 of 185 Polasek spoke on the 12 Preliminary Alternatives. He explained that 8 scenarios were developed for the improvement to the bridges and 5 generally met the purpose and needs. He noted that there was a Public Meeting, regarding this, held in May. Polasek spoke on the 3rd Public Meeting and provided an overview as well as details, public input and a summary. Page 43 of 185 Polasek spoke on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Historic Significance was discussed. Page 44 of 185 Councilmember Fought asked about the concrete bents. Polasek confirmed that bents was the correct description or term. Fought said he is a supporter of historic preservation, but most of this is not even seen. Councilmember Jonrowe said the perception of the overall bridge is historic and one would not want to change the aesthetic properties of the bridge. Fought asked if replicas could be used, since the appearance would be important. Polasek said this is being consulted with experts. Fought said using something similar instead of the real thing could be a significant cost difference. Fought asked if the grant funding is available because of the historic eligibility. City Manager, David Morgan, said yes, and that the City would need to follow the historic process to be eligible for grant funding. Councilmember Hesser asked if the style of these bridges is a stable form for bridges and still used today. An engineer for the project explained that the bridges are stable as designed, but the design is not current practice in today’s engineering, because there are more economical ways to do this today. Polasek spoke on the Anticipated Schedule Activity Timeline. Page 45 of 185 Polasek provided an Overview and Consideration for the City of Georgetown Design Guidelines. Councilmember Jonrowe asked where the dividing line is between the12 foot and 11 foot travel lane recommendations. Polasek said it is at the end of the Downtown Master Plan, which is right at the entry point of the southern bridge. Jonrowe asked if Council can decide to expand. Polasek confirmed. Polasek spoke regarding the Next Steps. • TXDOT review of NEPA and Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) documents, anticipate feedback fall/winter 2017 • Return to City Council to review No Build and Preferred Alternative, anticipated late 2017 to early 2018 • Present No Build and Preferred Alternative at a public hearing, anticipated late 2017 to early 2018 Mayor Ross asked if the options coming back to Council will have economic impacts. Polasek confirmed and said there are costs to the project and impact. Ross asked if staff has talked to downtown business owners. City Manager, David Morgan said they have been very involved in the process. Ross asked for something more structured. Ross asked if traffic impact studies would be done on each option that had been shown. Morgan confirmed. Ross asked staff to provide traffic mitigation options so that business interruption is kept to a minimum. Morgan and Polasek confirmed that this will be the case. Morgan said that each project will have 2 lanes open at all times. Councilmember Jonrowe thanked Polasek. She said it is interesting that this presentation ended up on the same night as the Williams Drive review and it will be a helpful exercise for the Council to compare and contrast. Jonrowe explained that there are different priorities because of different experiences. She said the Council will need to consider Austin Avenue also. Jonrowe asked what year the City took over Austin Avenue from TXDOT. Jim Briggs said it was 2002. Jonrowe said she believed the TXDOT Plan had 5 lanes the entire length of the project. Polasek confirmed that the TXDOT plan had 5 lanes from Williams Drive to Hwy 29. Jonrowe asked about changes to traffic signal operations separate from the bridge discussions and if this could safe expense. Polasek said this can be done fairly easily in next year’s signal study. Jonrowe asked who wrote the needs and purpose statement. Polasek said staff, TXDOT, engineers, and consultants all worked together – based on public input. Jonrowe asked for documents showing how this has evolved over time. She said she has noticed subtle changes that have shifted priorities. Polasek said he would provide this for the Council. Jonrowe said Council will need to see the potential financial economic impact. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.074 and Section 551.087 at 5.05 PM. Page 46 of 185 Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. E. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Sec. 551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Commercial Projects in the Following Areas • I35 and University Avenue • I35 and Southeast Inner Loop Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to open the Regular City Council meeting at 6:00 PM. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Approved by the Georgetown City Council on _____________________________ Date _____________________________ _____________________________ Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City Secretary Page 47 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to appoint Stuar t McLennan to the G eneral G o ve r nment and Fi nance Advi sory B oard (G G AF ) to fill a vacancy -- Mayor Dale Ro ss ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Shelley Nowling - RD Page 48 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to appoint Alte rnate Member Terri Asendorf as a re gular member of the Hi stori c and Archi tectural Re vi ew Co mmi ssi on(HARC) to fill a vacancy -- Mayor Dale Ross ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Shelley Nowling - RD Page 49 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to move Cathe r i ne Mo ral es from the Alternate Number 2 po sition to the Alternate Number 1 position o n the Hi stori c and Archi te c tural Revi ew Commi ssi on (HARC) to fill a vacancy -- Mayor Dale Ross ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Shelley Nowling - RD Page 50 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve a contr act between City of Georgeto wn and the G eorgetown Heal th Foundati on for a feasi bi l i ty study relating to an i n-pati ent resi denti al hospi ce fac i l i ty in the Georgetown area fo r an amount not to exceed $10 ,00 0.00 -- Councilmembe r Steve Fought, District 4 ITEM SUMMARY: The to tal (estimate d) cost for the study is $30,00 0 and is proposed in two parts. The first part is to de termine feasibility for such a facility in the Georgetown area (estimated $20 ,00 0); the second part (if needed) would de velop implementation strategies ($1 0,000). The study wo uld be co nducted through joint funding and participation fro m the Georgetown Health Foundation, the Baylor Sc ott and White Ho spital, Hospice -Austin (Christopher House) and the City Council. This study is part of our lo ng-term effort to advance quality medical services in Georgetown. This concept was part of the City Council’s long range strategic goals . The results of the study wo uld be presented to Co unc il when they are available. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for this o ne -time study is available in the balance of the Council Discretio nary fund. A budget amendment will be needed to appropriate the funding for this study in FY 2 01 7. SUBMITTED BY: Shelley Nowling, City Secretary ATTACHMENT S: Description Ho s p ice RFP Agreement - G eo rgeto wn Health F o und ation Page 51 of 185 Page 1 of 5 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NOTICE TO PROPOSERS The Georgetown Health Foundation is soliciting proposals from qualified firms with sub- stantial and relevant experience and expertise to provide an analysis of the feasibility of having an inpatient/residential Hospice facility in the Georgetown area. Sealed Proposals (1 copy) which are postmarked on, or delivered by other means, by Friday, June 16, 2017 will be considered. The following addresses can be used to submit proposals: By US mail, UPS, FEDEX, or the equivalent to: Georgetown Health Foundation Attention: Scott Alarcon Lake Aire Center 2425 Williams Dr # 101 Georgetown, TX 78628 By FAX to: Georgetown Health Foundation Attention: Scott Alarcon (512) By e-mail to: Scott@gthf.org QUESTIONS SHOULD BE REFERRED TO STEVE FOUGHT AT: (512) 863-5543 (Home phone) (512) 948-5596 (Cell phone) or e-mail to STEVE.FOUGHT@me.com Page 52 of 185 Page 2 of 5 BACKGROUND A group of interested citizens wants to investigate the feasibility of having an inpatient/ residential HOSPICE facility in Georgetown vicinity. There are already a number of ways patients can get HOSPICE care in the area, including home care, assigned beds in local hospitals or assisted living facilities and in nursing homes. However, the only inpatient facility is Hospice Austin’s Christopher House, which is located in East Austin. That facility is wonderful, but quite a distance from Georgetown, making it somewhat dif- ficult for residents in the Georgetown area to use. The population demographics of Georgetown seem well suited for a HOSPICE facility along the lines of Christopher House. Sun City’s population in particular provides a core (well over 15,000 individuals with an average age of 74). After that, Georgetown and the surrounding area are developing a reputation as an area suited for retirement, and there is robust collection of medical facilities in the area which might make use of such a facility. The “small group of residents” who are posing this question and who would serve as members of the steering committee for the study are: • Scott Alarcon, CEO Georgetown Health Foundation • Steve Fought, Ph.D., District 4 Representative to Georgetown City Council and Mayor Pro Tem. • Ginny Hahn, retired HR Executive, Sun City Resident, and member of the Georgetown Commission on Aging. • Tim Harris, President, Georgetown Commercial Properties LLC • Kimberly Langston, RN.,BSN,President - Continuing Care Hospital, CTX Post- Acute Services (Baylor Scott and White) • Marjorie Mulanax, Executive Director, Hospice Austin (Christopher House) • Gary Nelon, Treasurer, Hospice Austin, prior Mayor, Georgetown, Texas Because this small group of residents is an informal association, the Georgetown Health Foundation (a 501-C[3] Corporation) has graciously offered to be the umbrella organiza- tion though which the study would be managed, especially the financial aspects. The following organizations have contributed financially to the effort, and will be repre- sented on the steering group as well as have access to all materials generated by the study effort. • Hospice Austin (Christopher House) • Baylor Scott and White Hospital (and Foundation) • City of Georgetown (Georgetown Economic Development Corporation) • Georgetown Health Foundation • St David’s Hospital (and Foundation) SCOPE OF WORK Page 53 of 185 Page 3 of 5 We want to explore two questions in detail: 1. Assess need/demand for an inpatient/residential Hospice facility in the Georgetown area. Project demand for inpatient beds (GIP level of care) separately from residen- tial level of care. (Phase 1) 2. If inpatient and/or residential hospice beds are needed, develop financial projec- tions including pro forma financial statements for projected number of beds needed at GIP / residential level of care. Recommend the organizational and financial struc- ture to best assure initial and ongoing financial sustainability, as well as function in a collaborative manner with related organizations in the Georgetown and surround- ing area. (Phase 2) Our expectation is that the study/analysis would unfold in two phases. The first phase would determine bed need and the second phase would focus on financial feasibility, in- cluding initial funding and ongoing financial sustainability. There would naturally be a decision point between the two phases, and pricing of the project should include separate pricing for Phase 1 and Phase 2. Each of these questions should be studied/analyzed in appropriate detail. For instance, the question of feasibility in the Georgetown area would also include some thoughts on whether or not one location over another would be preferable. The response would also include potential impact on existing Hospice facilities, including and especially Hospice Austin’s Christopher House. The proposals should include a plan for: • Interviews with local Hospice care providers and hospice referral sources • Gathering demographic information on likely client base; • One meeting or conference call per week for progress report; • An outline of the study/analytical methodology and where the local group would have a role as well as the expectations of the local group’s participation (i.e., help set up interviews, provide interview space, etc.). The question on organizational and financial structure should offer some insights on how to achieve the necessary initial and ongoing financial support, especially from foun- dations. One final note: The group is enthusiastic about the possibility of an inpatient/residential Hospice facility in the Georgetown area. However, the group is also keenly aware that such a facility might negatively impact Hospice Austin’s Christopher House and/or other approaches to Hospice care in the area. As such, we would like the study/analysis to Page 54 of 185 Page 4 of 5 offer insights on how to lessen whatever negative impacts might possibly occur, and how the project might actually augment or enhance the current approaches. Page 55 of 185 Page 5 of 5 Evaluation Criteria Qualifying (Pass/Fail): The contractor must have experience in conducting Feasibility Studies for this sort of service, have experience in the Austin-area region, and plan to conduct surveys/interviews to support the study/analysis. Specific Areas for Evaluation and points assigned: Experience conducting similar analyses 30 points Credentials of consultant(s) 20 Methodology and estimated time for completion 30 Cost 20 It is our intent to have the selection process completed by 17 July 2017 and for the study/analysis work to begin shortly thereafter. Page 56 of 185 {00009470 / v / / FIN / GENERAL / 7/5/2017} 1 STATE OF TEXAS } COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON } AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND THE GEORGETOWN HEALTH FOUNDATION This agreement is made and entered into by and between the City of Georgetown (the “City”), a Texas home rule municipal corporation, and the Georgetown Healthcare System, Inc., a Texas non-profit corporation dba Georgetown Health Foundation (“GHF”), both located in Williamson County, Texas. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City and GHF desire to investigate the feasibility of having an inpatient residential Hospice facility in the Georgetown area; and WHEREAS, the City and GHF desire to enter into an Agreement for the City to contribute towards the funding of a study (the “Study”) of that possibility; and WHEREAS, the City finds that it is in the public interest to contribute towards the Study, and it is mutually advantageous to both parties to enter into the arrangement evidenced by this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, agree as follows: RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES The City will contribute Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) (the “Funds”) towards the cost of the Study. The Study will be in two phases, with the outcome of the first phase determining whether the second is to be done. Should the second phase not be carried out, any unused Funds shall be returned promptly to the City. GHF is responsible for the procurement of the Study through appropriately procured consultant contracts, and the results of the Study shall be shared by GHF and the City. The parties shall observe and comply with all Federal, State, and City laws, rules, ordinances and regulations in any manner affecting the conduct of the services herein provided and performance of all obligations undertaken by this Agreement. If any provision hereof shall be finally declared void or illegal by any court or administrative agency having jurisdiction, the entire Agreement shall not be void; but the remaining provisions shall continue in effect as nearly as possible in accordance with the original intent of the parties. Page 57 of 185 {00009470 / v / / FIN / GENERAL / 7/5/2017} 2 NOTICE Any notice given by one party to the other in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, with postage and certified fees prepaid; City of Georgetown: Georgetown Health Foundation: David Morgan Scott Alarcon City Manager CEO City of Georgetown Georgetown Health Foundation P.O. Box 409 Lake Aire Center Georgetown, TX 78627 2425 Williams Drive, Suite 101 Georgetown, TX 78628 Notice shall be deemed to have been received on the date of receipt as shown on the return receipt. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement, and any exhibits attached, is the complete and entire Agreement between the parties. Any modification or amendment shall not be effective unless signed in writing by both parties. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Texas and all obligations under this Agreement are performable in Williamson County, Texas. SIGNED this _________ day of July, 2017. CITY OF GEORGETOWN GEORGETOWN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., a Texas non-profit corporation dba GEORGETOWN HEALTH FOUNDATION BY: _________________________ BY: ______________________________________ Dale Ross, Mayor Scott Alarcon, CEO ATTEST: ____________________________ Shelley Nowling, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM ____________________________ Charlie McNabb, City Attorney Page 58 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to allow the appl i c ant o f a Speci al Use Permi t for an auto moti ve sal es faci l i ty located at 2030 S. Austi n Avenue , to reappl y fo r a Special Use P ermit before the e xpi rati o n of tw el ve months -- Councilmember John Hesser, District 3 ITEM SUMMARY: This is a request to waive the 1 year waiting perio d be fore submitting a new request for zoning. The application, submitted on May 1 2 by Alan's Used Cars, failed to receive adequate consideration on my part. The Planning & Zoning Commission ove rturned staff's recommendation of denial with a 7-0 vote and I have learned of new evidence of whic h I was made aware. The applicant should be allowe d to resubmit his application. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Shelley Nowling, City Secretary Page 59 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Publ i c Heari ng and Fi rst Readi ng of an Ordinanc e Rezoni ng approximately 12.22 8 acres in the J. Powell Survey, located at the i ntersecti on of Kel l ey Dri ve and G atew ay Dri ve, along North Inte rstate 35 from the Agriculture (AG) District to the General Commercial (C-3) District -- So fia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Directo r (acti on requi red) ITEM SUMMARY: B ackground: The applicant has requested to rezone the undeveloped 12.228 acres tract from Agriculture (AG) District, assigned upon annexation in 2 01 7, to General Commercial (C-3) District. Publ i c Comment: To date, no written public co mments have been received. Staff Recommendati o n: Staff recommends approval of the request. Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on Recommendati o n: At their June 20 , 20 17 , meeting, the Planning and Zo ning Commission unanimously reco mmended to the City Council approval (7-0) to re zo ne the 12.228 acres to the C-3 district. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None studied at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Director ATTACHMENT S: Description S taff Report Attachment 1 – Lo catio n Map Attachment 2 – F uture Land Us e Map Attachment 3 – Zo ning Map Attachment 4 – C -3 Dis trict Development S tand ard s and P ermitted Land Us es Ordinanc e - Ec ho P ark Exhib it A - Loc ation Map Exhib it B - Legal Des c rip tion Page 60 of 185 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 1 of 6 Report Date: June 16, 2017 File No: REZ-2017-007 Project Planner: S. Nathan Jones-Meyer, Planner Item Details Project Name: Echo Park Project Address: Intersection of Kelley Drive and Gateway Drive, along North IH-35 Owner: W.D. Kelley Foundation 707 S. Rock St. Georgetown, TX 78626 Applicant: Karen Wunsch, Masterplan 6500 River Place Blvd., Bldg. 7, Suite 250 Austin, TX 78730 Total Acreage: 12.228 acres Legal Description: Portions of Georgetown Gateway AMD Phase A, Section 1, Lot 1 and AW0491 AW0491 - Powell, J. Survey Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG) Proposed Zoning: Community Commercial (C-3) Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested to rezone the undeveloped 12.228 acres from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Community Commercial (C-3) District to allow future commercial development at the site. The requested rezone would provide the property owner with permitted uses allowed by the C-3 District. Site Information Location: The subject site is located at the intersection of Kelley Drive and Gateway Drive. It is part of the W.D. Kelley Foundation Kelley Trust. It is bordered by Celebration Church to the east, IH-35 to the west, and several auto sales business to the south. Physical Characteristics: The site is comprised of a portion of two tracts totaling 12.228 acres. The site sits at the foot of a hill, commonly referred to as Rabbit Hill. The site is covered in brush and, due to the incline, would need to be cleared and leveled before development. Page 61 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 2 of 6 Surrounding Properties: Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North None Community Commercial Undeveloped South C-3 Employment Center Commercial Use East PF Employment Center Place of Worship West None Mining Highway ROW Property History The site is part of approximately 90 acres of undeveloped, unincorporated land known as the Kelley Trust. The Kelley Trust is managed by the non-profit W.D. Kelley Foundation and extends from its frontage along IH-35 to Rabbit Hill Road. In the late 1990’s, the City of Georgetown approved a concept plan proposed by the W.D. Kelley Foundation for the future development of the site. The concept plan included a proposed lot layout and showed the northern extension of Kelley Drive to connect to Rabbit Hill Road. Since that time, there has been no major development on the property and the concept plan has expired. A portion of the site was platted in 1988 by Rabbit Hill Joint Venture. In 1993, both the platted portion of the site, and an additional unplatted portion, were sold to the Kelley Trust. In April 2017, the W.D. Kelley Foundation submitted a voluntary petition of annexation with the City. The petition for annexation was approved by the City Council, and after its second public hearing, the subject site was incorporated into the City. The subject site was designated Agriculture (AG) upon annexation. This request to rezone, as well as the petition for annexation, is being processed by City staff as the result of pre-development meetings that took place in early 2017 between the owner, City staff, and the land developer, Sonic Automotive. The ultimate goal of the property owner and the developer is to develop the land as an auto sales facility. An SUP application has been submitted with the Planning Department and is scheduled to be brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation on July 18th. City staff has shared concerns with the property owner and developer regarding the consistency of auto sales with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The zoning request and SUP request will be considered separately. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use: The 2030 Future Land Use category for this subject site is Community Commercial and Employment Center. The Community Commercial category is described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as areas that accommodate retail, professional office, and service-oriented business activities that serve more than one residential neighborhood. These areas are typically configured as “nodes” of varying scales at the intersection of arterial roads, or at the intersection of arterials and collectors. Community Commercial areas typically will include neighborhood serving commercial uses as well as larger retail uses including restaurants, specialty retail, mid- Page 62 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 3 of 6 box stores and smaller shopping centers. They may also include churches, governmental branch offices, schools, parks, and other civic facilities. The Employment Center category is described in the 2030 Comprehensive as intended for large, undeveloped tracts located at strategic positions, which are designated for we ll planned, larger scale employment and business activities. These areas act as a transition between more intensely developed commercial uses and residential neighborhoods. Future land uses allowed under this category should be encouraged to develop in a campus-like setting with generous open space that encourages pedestrian activity. Primary uses include offices, flex offices, and technology research and development. While some light industrial land uses may be included, care should be taken to protect adjacent uses from adverse impacts, use as truck traffic and outdoor storage. Growth Tier: The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 2 (Intermediate Growth Area). The City may consider rrequests for annexations and rezonings in this area; however, the City should first examine such requests based on object criteria and then require applicants to conduct a comprehensive impact assessment demonstrating that impacts can be adequately mitigated. Transportation The subject site’s current access is from a driveway curb cut on the IH-35 Frontage Road and a street stub at the end of Kelley Drive. Trip generation will be reviewed with the Site Development Review application, possibly triggering the need for a TIA at that time. Cross access to future development adjacent to the subject property will be required. Utilities Water/Wastewater and Electric is served by the City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that there is adequate water capacity at this time to serve this property by existing capacity. Proposed Zoning District The C-3 district is intended 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. The C-3 District offers the most options of permitted land uses and is the most intense land use apart from the Industrial District. 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. Some land uses have specific design limitations to ensure compatibility with the surrounding properties. Staff Analysis Staff has determined that the requested zoning of C-3 meets the intent of the Future Land Use Page 63 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 4 of 6 categories of Community Commercial and Employment Center. The site sits along the IH-35 frontage road and is a major gateway into the City. The land uses that are permitted by right and do not require a SUP under the C-3 District complement the Future Land Use designations and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would not be required. Seen from a regional perspective, the site acts as the beginning of the transition from the existing automotive sales and commercial land uses near Westinghouse to a well-planned, larger scale employment and business center intended for the undeveloped land located to the north. As the rest of the Kelley Tract continues to develop, it will add a valuable mix of commercial and employment land uses along the IH-35 gateway. This will eventually tie into the residential single family and multi-family development that is occurring along Rabbit Hill Road and Westinghouse. As these land uses interact, they will enhance each other by creating a mix of employment, commercial, retail and residential uses within close proximity to each other. As part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Element identified a number of land use goals, policies and actions. The following goals and action statements are the most relevant to this request: Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.A2 states that the City should “reserve and rezone land ideally suited for long term commercial and employment uses and prevent its use for residential subdivisions.” Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.D4 states that the City should “develop and apply standards for the location and design of mid-box and big-box retail centers to improve their aesthetics, maintain appropriate commercial scale and provide for their future adaptive re-use.” Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.E3 states that the City should “encourage forms of development that promote an interconnected street network, safe pedestrian routes, and healthy active living.” Goal 3, Policies and Action 3.A1 states that the City should discourage “pre-mature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inefficient development.” Complies Does 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 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. This application was reviewed by staff and deemed to be complete. X The zoning change is consistent The proposed zoning change is consistent with the Page 64 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 5 of 6 with the Comprehensive Plan Community Commercial and Employment Center future land uses of the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Commercial category supports the C-3 District at this location since it is located along a major highway. The Employment Center category supports C-3 because this area begins the transition from the saturated automotive sales and commercial land uses near Westinghouse to a well planned, larger scale employment and business center intended for the undeveloped land located to the north. 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 request promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The location of commercial development along corridors such as Williams Drive will help serve the nearby residential neighborhoods. The C-3 District will help facilitate orderly commercial development along a major highway. X 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 compatible with the surrounding zoning districts and uses. A landscape gateway buffer will be required along IH-35, per the UDC. X The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the District that would be applied by the proposed amendment. The uses allowed in the C-3 District are suitable along major arterials such as IH-35 and within the areas of the Future Land Use designated as Community Commercial and Employment Center. General Findings Based on all the information presented, staff has made the following findings: 1. The proposed rezone to C-3 would support the following goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.A2 states that the City should “reserve and rezone land ideally suited for long term commercial and employment uses and prevent its use for residential subdivisions.” The rezoning of this property to the C-3 District for the future commercial development would support this goal. Residential land uses are not permitted within the C-3 District. Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.D4 states that the City should “develop and apply standards for the location and design of mid-box and big-box retail centers to improve their aesthetics, maintain appropriate commercial scale and provide for their future adaptive re-use.” The rezone of this property the C-3 District would support this goal by encouraging a well-planned mix of commercial and business activities. Page 65 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 6 of 6 Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.E3 states that the City should “encourage forms of development that promote an interconnected street network, safe pedestrian routes, and healthy active living.” The land uses permitted under the C-3 district could support this goal by developing in a campus-like setting with linked open space to maximize value, promote visual quality, and encourage pedestrian activity between employment, retail, and residential areas. Goal 3, Policies and Action 3.A1 states that the City should discourage “pre-mature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inefficient development.” The rezoning of this property will contribute to this goal by connecting the commercial and employment land uses intended along the IH-35 gateway to the residential land uses along Rabbit Hill Road. 2. The proposed zoning change is consistent with the Community Commercial and Employment Center future land uses of the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Commercial category supports the C-3 District at this location since it is located along a major highway. The Employment Center category supports C-3 because this area begins the transition from the saturated automotive sales and commercial land uses near Westinghouse to a well-planned, larger scale employment and business center intended for the undeveloped land located to the north. 3. The zoning change request promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The location of commercial development along corridors such as Williams Drive will help serve the nearby residential neighborhoods. The C-3 District will help facilitate orderly commercial development along a major highway. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s zoning request based on the above-mentioned findings. Public Comments As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of the subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the rezoning application (5 notices mailed), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (June 4, 2017) and signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has not received any written or verbal comments in support or against the zoning request. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Future Land Use Map Attachment 3 – Zoning Map Attachment 4 – C-3 District Development Standards and Permitted Land Uses Page 66 of 185 W E S T I N G H O U S E R D §¨¦35 REZ-2 017-0 07Exhibit #1 Co ord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purp oses Only ¯ Locati on Map Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.5 1Mi Page 67 of 185 S I H 35 SB S IH 35 NB S I H 35 F W Y S B S IH 35 FWY NB W E S T I N G H O U S E R D R A B B I T H I L L R D K E L L E Y D R EXIT 259A NB EXIT 257 SB C L E A R V I E W D R ENTR 259 NB C O M M E R C E B L V D P A R K C E N T R A L B L V D S IH 35 FRN I H 3 5 F R GATE WAY DR C L E A R V I E W D R Coo rd inate Sys tem: Te xas S tate Plane/C entral Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic D ata Fo r General Planning Purposes O nly ¯ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhi bit #2 REZ-20 17 -00 7 Legend Thoroughfare Future Land Use Institutional Regi onal Commercial Community Commerc ial Em ployment Center Low Dens ity Residential Mining Mix ed Us e Community Mix ed Us e Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Us e Area Ag / Rural Residential Ex isting Collector Ex isting Freeway Ex isting Major Arterial Ex isting Minor Arterial Ex isting Ramp Pr oposed Collector Pr oposed Freeway Pr opsed Frontage Road Pr oposed Major Arterial Pr oposed Minor Arterial Pr oposed Railroad High Density Residential 0 ¼½Mi Le ge ndSi teParcelsCity Lim itsGeorgetown ETJ Page 68 of 185 S I H 35 SB S IH 35 NB S I H 35 F W Y S B S IH 35 FWY NB W E S T I N G H O U S E R D R A B B I T H I L L R D K E L L E Y D R EXIT 259A NB EXIT 257 SB C L E A R V I E W D R ENTR 259 NB C O M M E R C E B L V D P A R K C E N T R A L B L V D S IH 35 FRN I H 3 5 F R GATE WAY DR C L E A R V I E W D R Zon in g Inf ormationREZ-2 017-0 07Exhibit #3 Co ord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purp oses Only Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ¯ 0 ¼½MiPage 69 of 185 District Size‐min. acreage = 5 Side Setback = 10 feet Bufferyard = 15 feet with plantings Maximum Building Height = 45 feet Side Setback to Residential = 15 feet adjacent to AG, RE, RL, RS, TF, MH, Front Setback = 25 feet Rear Setback = 10 feet MF‐1, or MF‐2 districts (0 feet for build‐to/downtown) 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 Heliport Multifamily Attached Food Catering Services Kennel Recreational Vehicle Sales, Rental, Fuel Sales Live Music/Entertainment Self‐Storage (indoor or outdoor) Funeral Home Micro Brewery/Winery Substance Abuse Treatment Facility General Retail Neighborhood Amenity Center Transient Service Facility General Office Park (neighborhood/regional) Wireless Transmission Facility (41'+) Government/Postal Office Pest Control/Janitorial Services Home Health Care Services School (Elementary, Middle, High) Hospital Upper‐story Residential Hotel/Inn/Motel (incl. extended stay) Wireless Transmission Facility (<41') Integrated Office Center Landscape/Garden Sales 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 General Commercial (C‐3) District District Development Standards Specific Uses Allowed within the District Page 70 of 185 Utilities (Minor/Intermediate/Major) Veterinary Clinic (indoor only) Page 71 of 185 Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 1 of 2 Description: Rezone 12.228 acres of the J. Powell Survey Case File Number: REZ-2017-007 Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached ORDINANCE NO. _____________________ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the Official Zoning Map to rezone 12.228 acres in the J. Powell Survey from the Agriculture (AG) District to the General Commercial (C-3) District also known as Echo Park; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District classification of the following described real property ("The Property"): 12.228 acres of the J. Powell Survey of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; and Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on June 20, 2017, held the required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the requested rezoning of the Property; and Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on July 18, 2017 held an additional public hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, that: Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified Development Code. Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the Property is hereby amended from the Agriculture (AG) District to the General Commercial (C- 3) District, in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Legal Description) and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Page 72 of 185 Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 2 of 2 Description: Rezone 12.228 acres of the J. Powell Survey Case File Number: REZ-2017-007 Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown. APPROVED on First Reading on the 11th day of July, 2017. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 25th day of July, 2017. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST: ______________________ _________________________ Dale Ross Shelley Nowling Mayor City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Charlie McNabb City Attorney Page 73 of 185 W E S T I N G H O U S E R D §¨¦35 REZ-2 017-0 07Exhibit #1 Co ord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purp oses Only ¯ Locati on Map Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.5 1Mi Page 74 of 185 Page 75 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Second Readi ng of an Ordinance to Rezone 5.60 5 acres in the A. Flores Survey, lo c ate d east of Interstate 35 and approximately 50 0 feet so uth of the intersection o f Lakew ay Dri ve and Interstate 3 5, to be known as Ewal d Kubota from the Re sidential Single-Family (RS) District to a Planned Unit Developme nt with a General Commercial (C- 3) base zoning -- Sofia Nelso n, P lanning Director (acti o n requi red) ITEM SUMMARY: B ackground: The applicant has requested to re zo ne the undeve lo pe d 5.6 05 acre tract from Residential Single-Family (RS) District to a P lanned Unit Development (PUD) with a General Co mmercial (C-3) base district to allow fo r future heavy equipme nt sales. Publ i c Comment: To date, no written public co mments have been received. Staff Recommendati o n: See staff report. Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on Recommendati o n: The Planning and Zoning Co mmission recommended support of the request on June 2 0, 2 01 7. Ci ty Counci l Fi rst Readi ng Acti on: At their June 27, 20 17 meeting, the City Counc il voted unanimously (6-0 ) to appro ve the request to rezone the 5 .60 5 acres to the Ewald Kubo ta P UD with a C-3 base district. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None studied at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Director ATTACHMENT S: Description S taff Report Attachment 1- lo c atio n map Attachment 2- Future Land Use Map Attachment 3- Zoning Map Ewald Kub ota Ordinanc e Exhib it A - Loc ation Map Exhib it B - Legal Des c rip tion Ewald Kub ota P UD Page 76 of 185 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota Page 1 of 8 Report Date: June 16, 2017 File No: REZ-2017-005 Project Planner: Chelsea Irby, Planner Item Details Project Name: Ewald Kubota Project Address: 2650 N IH-35 Owner: Mark Griffin (Georgetown Griffin) Applicant: Shelly Mitchell (Pape-Dawson) Total Acreage: 5.605 acres Legal Description: AW0235 AW0235 - Flores, A. Sur., ACRES 5.605 Existing Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS) Proposed Zoning: PUD with a base zoning of General Commercial (C-3) Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from Residential Single-Family (RS) to a PUD with a base zoning of General Commercial (C-3). The owner intends to develop a new Ewald Kubota equipment dealership on the property. The project will include approximately 10,50 0 square feet of office, showroom, warehouse, and service shop to support the dealership. Equipment sales generally include retail sales, leasing, and repair of heavy or commercial vehicles or equipment such as those used in construction, farming, or manufacturing. Site Information Location: The property is located between NB IH-35 and N. Austin Ave. approximately 500’ south of Lakeway Drive. Physical Characteristics: The property is undeveloped with trees and is relativley flat. The property is a rectangle and is located between two roads, IH-35 NB and Austin Ave. It is also located in the Edwards Aquifer Zone. A small portion of land in the southern part of the property is within the FEMA AE flood zone. Page 77 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 2 of 8 Surrounding Properties: Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North N/A Community Commercial Vacant South RS Open Space Vacant East AG/C-1 Employment Center Pet resort and church West AG Employment Center Agriculture, with some residential Property History The property was annexed in September of 1987 and is currently zoning Residential Single- Family (RS). 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use: The property is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as mostly Employment Center, with a small amount of Community Commercial on the northern portion: Employment Center: This designation is intended for tracts of undeveloped land located at strategic 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. Community Commercial: This category applies to areas that accommodate retail, professional office, and service-oriented business activities that serve more than one residential neighborhood. These areas are typically configured as “nodes” of varying scales at the intersection of arterial roads, or at the intersection of arterials and collectors. Community commercial areas typically will include some neighborhood-serving commercial uses as well as larger retail uses including restaurants, specialty retail, mid- box stores, and smaller shopping centers. They may also include churches, governmental branch offices, schools, parks, and other civic facilities. Growth Tier: The property is located in Growth Tier 1A (High Priority): 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. Transportation The property will have primary access to Austin Avenue, which is a major arterial. Page 78 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 3 of 8 Utilities Water will be provided by City of Georgetown and electric service is provided by City of Georgetown and PEC. Water service to the property shall be provided by a City of Georgetown 8” waterline that runs east of the property along the east side of N. Austin Avenue. Wastewater service to the property shall be provided by a City of Georgetown 30” wastewater line that runs east to west 650 feet south of the property. Wastewater will be extended to the southern edge of the property at the owner’s expense. Proposed Zoning District PUD with a base zoning of General Commercial (C-3): General Commercial (C-3) – The General Commercial District (C-3) is intended 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. UDC-PUD Comparison Chart UDC Reference UDC Requirement PUD Variation Chapter 5.09.30 C - Outdoor Display, General The display shall not extend to a height above 10 feet. The display shall not exceed 15' feet. The display should be located adjacent to wall of principal building, in a front yard or street yard. Located in front, street, side, and rear yards, permitted in locations on Conceptual Land Plan, and will not be paved. Chapter 7.04.040 A - Building Materials 80% of collective walls shall have the listed building materials. The development will meet the requirements of the UDC. Chapter 7.04.040 C - Roof Styles Roofs less than or equal to a 2:12 pitch, unless parapet coverage is utilized, are prohibited. The development will meet the requirements of the UDC. Chapter 7.04.050 C - Building Articulation Horizontal articulation - No building wall shall extend laterally for a distance greater than three times the building's average height without a perpendicular offset of at least 25% of such height. The development will meet the requirements of the UDC. Page 79 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 4 of 8 Vertical articulation - No building wall shall extend laterally for a distance greater than three times the building's average height without a change in vertical elevation of at least 25% of such height. The development will meet the requirements of the UDC. Chapter 7.04.050 D - Architectural Features All building walls shall incorporate at least three of the architectural features listed. Building walls greater than 100 feet in length or buildings greater than 30 feet in height shall incorporate an additional two items. The development will meet the requirements of the UDC. Chapter 8.04.040 - Parking Lot Landscaping All non-residential surface parking areas or lots shall contain areas constructed, planted, and maintained as landscaped islands, peninsulas, or medians and shall contain shade trees to reduce the thermal impact of parking lots. Enclosed parking structures and vehicle display and sales areas are exempt from the Parking Lot Landscaping requirements set forth herein. Parking lot landscaping requirements shall not apply to equipment storage and display areas. The applicant will meet all landscaping for the standards. Any landscaping (trees and shrubs) required for the display area will be moved to an area outside of the display area. Chapter 8.04.060 - Bufferyards No light fixtures, parking, dumpsters, storage, recreation facilities, accessory buildings, or alleys shall be permitted within a required buffer yard. Light poles shall be allowed in a bufferyard, setbacks, and easements. Chapter 9.02 - Parking Requirements All commercial sales and service: 1 per 300 ft2 GFA of office/showroom area + 1 additional per 2,500 ft2 indoor and outdoor storage or staging area. No additional parking required for indoor/outdoor storage or staging area. Chapter 10.06.010 - Sign Dimensional Standards 1 per linear feet of primary façade not to exceed a max of 48 sq. ft. per sign face with a max height of 6'. The development will meet the requirements of the UDC. Page 80 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 5 of 8 Chapter 12 - Sidewalks Sidewalks required all on road frontage. Owner will build sidewalk on east side of property and will pay 20% into sidewalk fund for south and west side. Wastewater Extension Due to legal lot status the waste water extension would not normally be required. The developer is committing to the extension of utilities through the PUD. Staff Analysis Purpose of PUD: The project will include approximately 10,500 square feet of office, showroom, warehouse, and service shop to support the dealership location. Additional improvements include equipment display and storage areas, fencing, parking, paving improvements for site circulation, and utility infrastructure. Kubota Corporation dealerships are a unique development project due to the size of equipment and associated building structure required to repair and service the equipment. Large expansive areas are required for display, storage, and circulation of the equipment. Per the UDC, Heavy Equipment Sales are only located in the Industrial District (IN). An example of this would be the uses located along Industrial Park Circle, just northwest of the subject property. Comply Neutral Do Not Comply Approval Criteria for Planned Unit Developments (Section 3.06.040) Rezoning to and development under the PUD District will be permitted only in accordance with the following specific objectives: X A variety of housing types, employment opportunities, or commercial services to achieve a balanced community A new commercial service opportunities will be created. X An orderly and creative arrangement of all land uses with respect to each other and to the entire community The subject property is located along IH-35 NB and Austin Ave. in an area that largely remains undeveloped. The surrounding development does include a church to the west and various industrial uses to the northwest. The proposed use is consistent with the surrounding use and overall desire to have regional commercial type uses located along IH-35 and in the Employment Center future land use designation. X A planned and integrated comprehensive transportation system Located between two major roadways. No new roads are proposed. A sidewalk will be constructed along Austin Ave. Driveway Page 81 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 6 of 8 providing for a separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, to include facilities such as roadways, bicycle ways, and pedestrian walkways access will be via Austin Avenue. X The provisions of cultural or recreational facilities for all segments of the community No recreational facilities proposed. X The staging of development in a manner which can be accommodated by the timely provision of public utilities, facilities, and services Adequate public utilities are addressed in the PUD. Water lines are in place and the owner will extend the wastewater line to the south of the property. The wastewater line extension is the area of the PUD where the applicant went beyond minimum standards of the Code. General Findings Based on all the information presented, staff has made the following findings: 1. The proposed use is generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map. 2. The proposed building design and site layout deviates from the normal General Commercial (C-3) zoning standards to less restrictive standards in the areas of building design, signage and outdoor display. Staff Recommendation Staff has reviewed the requested PUD and has worked with the applicant to fully understand the applicant’s vision for the property. Given the nature of the equipment sold the proposed use did not squarely fit into one zoning classification. The closest use classification would be “heavy equipment” which is only permitted in the Industrial zoning district. In advising the applicant for rezoning the PUD tool was selected in order to provide flexibility in allowing a use that could be appropriate along I-35 given the appropriate development standards, and given the location along a major gateway into the community. As the PUD was prepared the applicant identified various standards he sought to seek relief from. Proposed Development Standard Recommendation Reason Land Use Use of a PUD to permit the use in the C-3 zoning district Approval Given the nature of the equipment sold the proposed use did not squarely fit into one zoning classification. Given the emphasis on sales a PUD was selected with a C3 Page 82 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 7 of 8 base zoning. Outdoor Display 1.Request to allow display of merchandise on a non- paved surface. Approval with condition - If equipment is parked on a landscaped areas (turf or grass) the area must have an irrigation system. As a gateway into the community, outdoor display is a development standard staff is highly concerned about. The UDC identifies the purpose of the Gateway Overlays is to protect and enhance the entrance corridors to the City with landscaping, setbacks, and special design standards. The intent of the Gateways are to establish entrance corridors that herald the approach to the City, define the arrival to a destination, and link common elements together. 1. Paved Surface. Staff can support the request that outdoor display areas shall not be required to be paved if the merchandised is located on a grass or turf area that is fully irrigated. The purpose of the irrigation is to ensure the grass remains healthy, attractive and alive. Parking Requirements – No additional parking shall be provided for the indoor/outdoor display areas Approval Based on the submitted concept plan the applicant has provided adequate off- street parking to fully accommodate customers on site. Outdoor Lighting within a bufferyard Approval Given the location of the site it does not appear the lighting will have an adverse impact on the adjacent Page 83 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 8 of 8 properties. The site will still be subject to the foot candle lighting specifications required by the UDC. Parking lot landscaping requirements shall not apply to equipment storage and display areas. Approval with condition - If equipment is parked on a landscaped areas (turf or grass) the area must have an irrigation system. It is the applicant’s desire to have equipment displayed on a more natural area. As a gateway into the community staff wants to ensure the area remains attractive and all grass/turf areas remain alive. The applicant has agreed to this. Public Comments No public comments received. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Future Land Use Map Attachment 3 – Zoning Map Attachment 4 – Aerial Map Attachment 5 – Ewald Kubota PUD Page 84 of 185 N IH 3 5 LAKEWAYDR NORT H W E S T B L V D SERENADADR W I L L I A M S D R A I R P O R T R D N A U S T I N A V E §¨¦35 ¬«130 ")SPUR158 BOOTYS CROSSING RD W I L L I A M S D R ")971 REZ-2017-005Exhibit A Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.5 1Mi Page 85 of 185 LAKEWAYDR A I R P O R T R D §¨¦35 ")SP U R158 ")97 1 Coo rd inate Sys tem: Te xas S tate Plane/C entral Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic D ata Fo r General Planning Purposes O nly ¯ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhi bit #2 REZ-20 17 -00 5 Legend Thoroughfare Future Land Use Institutional Regi onal Commercial Community Commerc ial Em ployment Center Low Dens ity Residential Mining Mix ed Us e Community Mix ed Us e Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Us e Area Ag / Rural Residential Ex isting Collector Ex isting Freeway Ex isting Major Arterial Ex isting Minor Arterial Ex isting Ramp Pr oposed Collector Pr oposed Freeway Pr opsed Frontage Road Pr oposed Major Arterial Pr oposed Minor Arterial Pr oposed Railroad High Density Residential 0 ¼½¾Mi Le ge ndSi teParcelsCity Lim itsGeorgetown ETJ Page 86 of 185 LAKEWAYDR A I R P O R T R D §¨¦35 ")SP U R158 ")97 1 Zon in g Inf ormationREZ-2 017-0 05Exhibit #3 Co ord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purp oses Only Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ¯ 0 ¼½¾MiPage 87 of 185 Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 1 of 2 Description: Ewald Kubota PUD Case File Number: REZ-2017-005 Date Approved: July 11, 2017 Exhibits A-C Attached ORDINANCE NO. _____________________ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the Official Zoning Map to rezone 5.605 acres of the A. Flores Survey from the Residential Single-Family (RS) District to a Planning Unit Development (PUD) with a General Commercial (C-3) base zoning to be known as Ewald Kubota repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District classification of the following described real property ("The Property"): 5.605 acres of the A. Flores Survey, as recorded in Document Number 2002072779 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; and Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on June 20, 2017, held the required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the requested rezoning of the Property; and Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on June 27, 2017, held an additional public hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, that: Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified Development Code. Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the Property is hereby amended from the Residential Single-Family District (RS) to the Ewald Kubota PUD with a base district of General Commercial (C-3), in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map), Exhibit B (Legal Description), and Exhibit C (PUD development standards) and incorporated herein by reference. Page 88 of 185 Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 2 of 2 Description: Ewald Kubota PUD Case File Number: REZ-2017-005 Date Approved: July 11, 2017 Exhibits A-C Attached Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown. APPROVED on First Reading on the 27th day of June, 2017. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 11th day of July, 2017. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST: ______________________ _________________________ Dale Ross Shelley Nowling Mayor City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Charlie McNabb City Attorney Page 89 of 185 N IH 3 5 LAKEWAYDR NORT H W E S T B L V D SERENADADR W I L L I A M S D R A I R P O R T R D N A U S T I N A V E §¨¦35 ¬«130 ")SPUR158 BOOTYS CROSSING RD W I L L I A M S D R ")971 REZ-2017-005Exhibit A Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.5 1Mi Page 90 of 185 Exhibit B REZ-2017-005 Legal Description Page 91 of 185 Page 92 of 185 Page 93 of 185 PDF DOCUMENT 2: DEVELOPMENT PLAN EWALD KUBOTA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CITY OF GEORGETOWN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TX Prepared by: PAPE-DAWSON ENGINEERS, INC. Shelly Mitchell, P.E. June 2017 Job No. 50935-00 Page 94 of 185 Ewald Kubota Georgetown Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan Exhibit A – PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 A. PROPERTY The Ewald Kubota Georgetown Planned Unit Development District is located on the east side of IH-35 and approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lakeway Drive and IH-35 and encompasses approximately 5.605 acres, described per the attached legal description, Exhibit B, herein defined as the “property”. B. PURPOSE Ewald Kubota, Inc. is a Kubota Corporation equipment dealer with seven locations across central and south Texas. Ewald Kubota, Inc. intends to develop a new equipment dealership on the subject property. The project will include approximately 10,500 square feet of office, showroom, warehouse, and service shop to support the dealership location. Additional improvements include equipment display and storage areas, fencing, parking, paving improvements for site circulation, and utility infrastructure. Kubota Corporation dealerships are a unique development project due to the size of equipment and associated building structure required to repair and service the equipment. Large expansive areas are required for display, storage, and circulation of the equipment. Ewald Kubota, Inc. carries what is known in the industry as “Compact Equipment” as the size of their merchandise is on a much smaller scale than equipment used for commercial agriculture purposes. However, as the City of Georgetown’s Unified Development Code (UDC) does not have a compact equipment designation, this development will fall under the use of “Heavy Equipment Sales and Repair”. The Ewald Kubota, Inc. use of Heavy Equipment Sales and Repair will be located on approximately 5.605 acres. The standards established in this PUD shall be applicable only to these 5.605 acres that Ewald Kubota, Inc. will develop, as demonstrated on the attached concept plan. This PUD serves to augment and/or modify the standards for development outlined in the City’s UDC in order to implement the vision for the property and insure a cohesive, quality development not otherwise anticipated by the underlying base zoning district. In accordance with UDC Section 4.06.010.C “Development Plan Required”, this Development Plan titled Exhibit A is a summary of the development and design standards for the property. This PUD is intended to conform to the approval criteria of Sections 3.06.030 and 3.06.040 of the UDC. Per Section 3.06.030, the following criteria shall be considered by City Council for zoning changes: Page 95 of 185 2 A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is sufficient and correct enough to allow adequate review and final action; B. The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; C. The zoning change promotes the health, safety or general welfare of the City and the safe, orderly, and healthful development of the City; D. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood; and E. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the District that would be applied by the proposed amendment. Section 3.06.040 provides that, in addition of consideration of the foregoing criteria of Section 3.06.030, the following applicable criteria shall be considered by City Council for approving this PUD: A. A variety of housing types, employment opportunities, or commercial services to achieve a balanced community; B. An orderly and creative arrangement of all land uses with respect to each other and to the entire community; C. A planned and integrated comprehensive transportation system providing for a separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, to include facilities such as roadways, bicycle ways, and pedestrian walkways; D. The provisions of cultural or recreational facilities for all segments of the community; E. The location of general building envelopes to take maximum advantage of the natural and manmade environment; and F. The staging of development in a manner which can be accommodated by the timely provision of public utilities, facilities, and services. C. LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION On October 27, 2016, John Ewald was granted a Legal Lot verification for the subject property. As such, the property will not require platting or a preliminary plan. A copy of the Legal Lot verification letter can be found as Exhibit C of this Development Plan. D. APPLICABILITY AND BASE ZONING In accordance with UDC Section 4.06.010.A “Compatibility with Base Zoning District”, the PUD shall be designed to be used in conjunction with a designated base zoning district. All development of the property shall conform to the base zoning district of General Page 96 of 185 3 Commercial – “C-3”. All General Commercial standards and requirements shall apply except for those specifically deviated by this PUD Development Plan. E. CONCEPTUAL LAND PLAN A Conceptual Land Plan has been attached to this PUD Development Plan as Exhibit D to illustrate the land use and design intent for the property. The Conceptual Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a guide to illustrate the general vision and design concepts and is not intended to serve as a final document. As such, the proposed configurations are subject to refinement at time of Site Plan review. Approval of this PUD, Development Plan, and Conceptual Land Use Plan does not constitute approval of a Site Development Plan per Section 3.09 of the UDC. F. PERMITTED / EXCLUDED LAND USES 1. Primary Use The primary uses of the 5+/- acre property shall be for Heavy Equipment Sales and Repair and Small Engine Repair. 2. Other Permitted Uses Permitted uses in the C-3 – General Commercial zoning districts. 3. Prohibited Uses Those uses prohibited in the C-3 – General Commercial zoning districts. 4. Permitted Accessory Uses Permitted accessory uses in the IN – Industrial and C-3 – General Commercial zoning districts shall be allowed on all the property. Accessory uses include but are not limited to: office, warehouse, and equipment display and storage. G. DESIGN STANDARDS 1. Density Not Applicable in the C-3 zoning district. There shall be no limitation on building square footage as long as applicable setbacks, buffer yards and impervious cover are achieved. Floor to area ratio requirements shall not be applicable. These standards shall be applicable to the entire property. 2. Sidewalks Sidewalks shall be required on all four sides of the property. There is currently an existing sidewalk along Lakeway Dr. north of the property as shown on Exhibit E. The developer will not be responsible for replacing this sidewalk so long as it is in good shape and ADA compliant at the time of development. Per the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan, developers have the option to pay 20% into a sidewalk fund in lieu of constructing sidewalks. This 20% funding option shall be applicable to the southern and western sides of the property, both of which may be subject to TxDOT improvement in the future. The 20% cost shall be based Page 97 of 185 4 on the cost of design, and construction cost. The cost shall be submitted for the review and approval of the development engineer. As for the eastern side of the property along Austin Ave., the developer shall be responsible for the construction of a 6-foot sidewalk and associated crosswalks. 3. Setbacks These standards shall be applicable to the entire property. These setbacks on the property shall be as follows: Front Setback - minimum 25 feet Side Setback - minimum 10 feet Side Setback to Residential District - minimum 15 feet Rear Setback - minimum 10 feet Rear Setback to Residential District - minimum 25 feet 4. Building Height These standards shall be applicable to the entire property. The maximum building heights on the property will comply with the UDC, Table 7.03.020. 5. Exterior Lighting Exterior Lighting on the Property and its buildings will comply with the requirements set forth in Section 7.05 of the UDC related to outdoor lighting unless otherwise described in this PUD Development Plan. 6. Fencing A minimum 8-foot tall fence shall be required for outdoor storage area within I-35 view. Per Section 5.09.030.E, wall or fence shall be constructed of materials that include, but are not limited to, brick, stone, reinforced concrete or other similar masonry materials; redwood, cedar or preservative pressure-treated wood; or other materials as approved by the Director. 7. Paving Outdoor Display, General areas need not be paved as per Section 5.09.030.C of the UDC. Areas designated as Outdoor Storage, Limited, however, do require paving as per Section 5.09.030.E. Outdoor Display, General areas shall not be paved in order to maximize greenspace and a natural aesthetic. Unpaved, Outdoor Display, General areas will be irrigated. 8. Fire Access Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility per the 2002 International Fire Code (IFC) Section 503.1.1. Per 2002 IFC 503, fire apparatus roads shall be an all-weather drive surface of asphalt or concrete or chip seal placed onto base material engineered to withstand 75,000 lbs. Page 98 of 185 5 H. PARKING Parking on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 9 of the UDC except as otherwise stated in this Development Plan. Parking requirements shall be as shown on the Conceptual Land Plan. No additional parking shall be required for indoor and outdoor storage or staging area. I. VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 1. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) TIA shall be required at time of site plan for projects that exceed 2000 trips per day as described in Section 12.05.030 of the UDC. 2. Driveway Access Driveway shall meet the requirements of Chapter 12 and TxDOT requirements, as applicable. J. UTILITIES Water service to the property shall be provided by a City of Georgetown 8” waterline that runs east of the property along the east side of N. Austin Drive. Wastewater service to the property shall be provided by a City of Georgetown 30” wastewater line that runs east to west 650 feet south of the property. Wastewater will be extended to the southern edge of the property at the owner’s expense. K. TREE PRESERVATION Tree Preservation on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 8 of the UDC. A Tree Survey has been provided as Exhibit F. L. LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS Landscaping on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 8 of the UDC unless otherwise stated in this PUD Development Plan. A 25-foot landscape buffer yard shall be required along IH-35 and N. Austin Ave in accordance with the Highway Gateway Overlay district. 25-foot landscape buffer yards shall be provided along the north and south property line. Proposed species and locations are subject to refinement at time of Site Plan review. Likewise, mitigation measures to be as shown on the Tree Mitigation Summary per UDC Section 8.04.030. Parking lot landscaping requirements shall not apply to equipment storage and display areas. Light poles shall be allowed in a bufferyard, setbacks, and easements. Page 99 of 185 6 M. SIGNAGE Signage on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Code unless otherwise stated in this Development Plan or in a Master Sign Plan for the property. Signage along N. Austin Avenue shall be limited to a 6’ masonry monument sign with a sign face of a maximum of 48 square feet per sign face meeting the sign location requirements of the UDC. Signage along I-35 shall be limited to one pole sign meeting the sign height, area, spacing and location standards of the UDC. N. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE Impervious coverage on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 11 of the UDC unless otherwise stated in this PUD Development Plan. Detention ponds, water quality ponds, and landscape rock shall be considered pervious cover. Up to a 5% impervious cover credit for preservation of protected trees shall be awarded to the Heavy Equipment Sales and Repair Use per Section 8.02.050.A.1 of the UDC. Per code, a maximum of a 30% total reduction in the number of required spaces for preservation of protected trees, with approval of the Urban Forester. Impervious Cover % = [0.70 * 5 acres] + [0.55 * (Total Acreage – 5 acres)] / Total Acreage Impervious Cover % = [0.70 * 5 acres] + [0.55 * (5.605 acres – 5 acres) / 5.605 acres Impervious Cover % = 69.00% O. STORMWATER Impervious coverage on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 11 of the UDC unless otherwise stated in this PUD Development Plan. A portion of the property is located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone according to the TCEQ USGS Quad Map. The property must comply with the requirements of Chapter 11 of the UDC and the Edwards Aquifer Rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and must meet 85% removal according to the Georgetown water quality ordinance. Detention and water quality ponds including outlet structures shall be allowed in building setback areas. Pond design shall include berms, not retaining walls. Detention and water quality ponds shall not be allowed in landscape buffer yards. P. PARKLAND AND COMMON AMENITY AREA (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Not Applicable Page 100 of 185 7 Q. OTHER ITEMS APPLICABLE TO THE EWALD KUBOTA HEAVY EQUIPMENT SALES AND REPAIR USE 1. General Outdoor Display shall follow all requirements found in Section 5.09.030A and 5.09.030C aside from those listed hereafter: 1. Height restriction of display items in the designated Outdoor Display areas shall be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet to allow for flexibility with future merchandise. General Outdoor Display areas as designated on the Site Plan need not be adjacent to the building. 2. General Outdoor Display areas will not be required to be paved. Keeping the areas unpaved will allow for flexibility with equipment placement, showcase the equipment in its intended environment, reduce impervious coverage, and keep the property more visually appealing. Outdoor Display areas will be irrigated. 3. General Outdoor Display shall be allowed to be located in front, street, side and rear yards, but not located in setbacks or bufferyards. General Outdoor Storage shall be restricted to the rear, fenced yard, but not located in setbacks or bufferyards. General Outdoor Display and Storage shall be permitted in locations identified on the Conceptual Land Plan. 2. 7.04.040 A Building Materials shall read as follows: 100% of the collective walls of the office and showroom, not to include overhead doors or windows, of the building shall be finished in one or more of the following building materials: 1. Brick, stone, cast stone, rock, marble, granite, glass block or tile; 2. Stucco or plaster; 3. Split-face concrete block, poured-in place concrete, and tilt-wall concrete. Any use of concrete products shall have an integrated color and be textured or patterned. Tilt-wall concrete structures shall include reveals, punch-outs or other similar surface characteristics to enhance the wall on at least 10% of each wall; 4. Glass with less than 20% reflectance. However, a maximum of 50% of the first two stories or floors of a building may be constructed in glass. This requirement shall not pertain to the service shop portion of the building as it will be screened by the fence. The use of metal as a building material will be allowed for the screened service shop portion of the building. 3. 7.04.040 C. Roof Styles: The service shop portion and the track shop building propose a 1:12 slope roof. Page 101 of 185 8 4. 7.04.050 C. 1. Horizontal Articulation: The service shop portion and the track shop building will not step in or out in plan to permit horizontal articulation. 5. 7.04.050 C. 2. Vertical Articulation: The service shop portion and the track shop building will lack vertical articulation in the building elevation. 6. 7.04.050 D Architectural Features: Limited architectural features are being proposed for the utilitarian functions of service shop portion and the track shop building. R. PUD MODIFICATIONS In conformance with Section 4.06.010.D.3 of the UDC, modifications to this Development Plan shall require City Council approval of an amendment to this PUD processed pursuant to Section 3.06 of the UDC, except, where the Director of Planning determines such modifications to be minor, the Director may authorize such modifications. Minor modifications may include changes to building sizes, uses, or locations providing those modifications conform to the general intent of this PUD, uses authorized by this PUD, or to applicable provisions of the UDC and any other applicable regulations. It is anticipated that building structures, loading docks, parking spaces, etc. may change in size and location during final design of the Ewald Kubota Heavy Equipment Sales and Service Use. S. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A – PUD Development Plan Exhibit B – Survey and Field Notes Exhibit C – Copy of Legal Lot Verification Letter Exhibit D – Conceptual Land Plan Exhibit E – Lakeway Drive Sidewalk Aerial Exhibit F – Tree Survey Page 102 of 185 9 Exhibits Page 103 of 185 Page 104 of 185 Page 105 of 185 Page 106 of 185 L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\Case Files\Verification Letters\Legal Lot Verification Letters\2016\LTR-2016-027 I35 and Lakeway\IH 35 NB and NE Inner Loop Legal Lot Verification Letter.doc October 27, 2016 John Ewald Ewald Kubota, Inc. Seguin, TX 78155 Via email: john.e@ewaldkubota.com RE: Legal Lot verification for a portion of that called 12.5 acre tract of land in the Antonio Flores Survey, Abstract no. 235, located at Interstate Highway 35 and Lakeway Drive Dear Mr. Ewald: Per Section 3.10.020 B of the Unified Development Code (UDC1) of the City of Georgetown, this letter confirms that the 5.605‐acre portion of that called 12.5 acre tract of land in the Antonio Flores Survey, Abstract no. 235, located at Interstate Highway 35 and Lakeway Drive, and more fully described in a deed recorded as Document number 2009008812, of the Official Records of Williamson County, Texas is a legal lot. Thus per Section 3.08.020 F, a plat would not be required for this tract to be developed, unless it were to be divided. Also, this letter does not authorize the property owner to proceed with development of the tract and does not specify requirements that must be met for future development. For your information, “development” is defined in Section 16.02 of the UDC as follows: “The term “development” includes any of the following occurrences: The division of a parcel of land into two or more lots or parcels; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alternation, relocation, or enlargement of any buildings; the extension of any use of land; any clearing, grading, excavation, or other movement of land, for which permission may be required pursuant to this ordinance; reconstruction, alteration of the size or material change in the external appearance of a structure; and excavation for the construction, moving, alteration, or repair, not including ordinary maintenance and repair, of any building or structure exceeding 144 square feet in area.” 1 You can access the complete UDC on the City’s internet site at www.georgetown.org. Page 107 of 185 L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\Case Files\Verification Letters\Legal Lot Verification Letters\2016\LTR-2016-027 I35 and Lakeway\IH 35 NB and NE Inner Loop Legal Lot Verification Letter.doc Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Carolyn Horner, AICP Planner Page 108 of 185 % '9 # . & - 7 $ 1 6 # %1 0 % ' 2 6 7 # . . # 0 & 2 . # 0 )' 1 4 ) ' 6 1 9 0 6 ' : # 5 :::::::::: .')'0& 0 # 7 5 6 + 0 # 8 ' +* ': * + $ + 6 & Page 109 of 185 Imagery ©2017 Google, Map data ©2017 Google 100 ft Lakeway Dr. Sidewalk Ewald Kubota 5.604-ac site Page 1 of 1Google Maps 2/27/2017https://www.google.com/maps/dir//N+Austin+Ave,+Georgetown,+TX+78626/@30.6734139,-97.6639593,333m/data=!3m1!1e... Page 110 of 185 Page 111 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Second Readi ng of an Ordinance to Rezone 0.79 1 acres of vacated ri ght of way, lo c ated at the southw est corne r of B ooty’s Crossi ng Road and Wi l l i ams Dri ve from no zoning to C-1 (Local Comme rc ial), to be known as Wi l l i amsburg Vi l l ag e -- So fia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Director (acti on requi red) ITEM SUMMARY: B ackground: The applicant has requested to rezone the undeve lo pe d 0.7 91 acres from no zoning to Lo cal Co mmercial (C-1) Distric t to allow fo r future commercial development o f the site. The re are five small tracts that were formerly TxDOT and Williamson County right-o f-way but have been vac ate d and sold for private develo pment. The requested rezoning wo uld provide the pro pe rty o wner with permitted uses allowe d by the C-1 District. Publ i c Comment: As required by the Unifie d Develo pment Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius o f the subject pro perty that are locate d within City limits were notified of the rezoning application (13 notices mailed), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (May 2 1, 2 017) and signs were po sted on-site. To date, staff has no t received any writte n or verbal comments in support or against the zoning request. Staff Recommendati o n: Staff recommends approval of the request to rezo ne 0.7 91 acres to the C-1 Distric t. Pl anni ng & Zoni ng Commi ssi on Recommendati o n: At their June 6 , 2 01 7, meeting, The Planning and Zoning Commissio n unanimously reco mme nded to the City Council approval (7-0) to re zo ne the 0.791 acres to the C-1 District. Ci ty Counci l Fi rst Readi ng Acti on: At their June 27 , 20 17 , meeting, the City Council vo ted (6 -0) to approve the reque st to rezo ne the 0.791 acres to the C-1 District. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None studied at this time SUBMITTED BY: Juan Enriquez, Planner, and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director ATTACHMENT S: Description S taff Report Attachment 1 - Lo catio n Map Attachment 2 - F uture Land Us e Map Attachment 3 - Zo ning Map Attachment 4 - C -1 Dis trict Development Stand ard s and P ermitted Land Us es Ordinanc e Exhib it A - Loc ation Map Exhib it B - Legal Des c rip tion Page 112 of 185 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Williamsburg Village Rezoning No Zoning to C-1 Page 1 of 5 Report Date: June 2, 2017 File No: REZ-2017-003 Project Planner: Juan Enriquez, Planner Item Details Project Name: Williamsburg Village Rezone Project Address: SW corner of Bootys Crossing Road and Williams Drive Owner: Williamsburg Village Center LP Applicant: David Platt, P.E. (Steger Bizell) Total Acreage: 0.791 acres (total of 5 small tracts) Legal Description: Tracts 1-5 in D. Wright Survey Existing Zoning: No zoning. Vacated Right-of-Way Proposed Zoning: Local Commercial (C-1) Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested to rezone the undeveloped 0.791 acres from no zoning to Local Commercial (C-1) District to allow for future commercial development of the site. There are five small tracts that were formerly TxDOT and Williamson County right-of-way but have been vacated and sold for private development. The requested rezoning would provide the property owner with permitted uses allowed by the C-1 District. Site Information Location: The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Bootys Crossing Road and Williams Drive. Physical Characteristics: The site is comprised of five tracts totaling 0.791 acres which were formerly TxDOT and Wilco right-of-way and is triangularly shaped. Currently, there is no developent on-site. However, the tracts are adjacent to and have access from the Williamsburg Village shopping center. Surrounding Properties: Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North C-1 Community Commercial Commercial Use South C-3 Community Commercial Commercial Use East C-3 Community Commercial Commercial Use West C-3 Community Commercial Commercial Use Page 113 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Williamsburg Village Rezoning No Zoning to C-1 Page 2 of 5 Property History The site was formerly TxDOT right-of-way and sold to Williamson County in November of 2008. The site was then sold for private development in July of 2014. The current property owner submitted legal lot verifications to determine that all five lots were legal and that platting was not required. Staff and the City’s legal department determined that all five tracts were legal and platting was not required for any future development unless the owner subdivides the lots or merges them together as one lot. Since the tracts were previously right-of-way, they had no zoning designation. The property is currently vacant and undeveloped. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use: The 2030 Future Land Use category for this subject site is Community Commercial. The Community Commercial category is described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as areas that accommodate retail, professional office, and service-oriented business activities that serve more than one residential neighborhood. These areas are typically configured as “nodes” of varying scales at the intersection of arterial roads, or at the intersection of arterials and collectors. Community Commercial areas typically will include neighborhood serving commercial uses as well as larger retail uses including restaurants, specialty retail, mid-box stores and smaller shopping centers. They may also include churches, governmental branch offices, schools, parks, and other civic facilities. 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. Transportation The subject site’s current access is from Booty Crossing Road, a collector street. Trip generation will be reviewed with the Site Development Review application, possibly triggering the need for a TIA at that time. Utilities Water/Wastewater and Electric is served by the City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that there is adequate water capacity at this time to serve this property by existing capacity. Proposed Zoning District The C-1 District is intended to provide areas for commercial and retail activities that primarily serve residential areas. Uses should have pedestrian access to adjacent and nearby residential areas, but are not appropriate along residential streets or residential collectors. The District is more appropriate along major and minor thoroughfares and corridors. Typical uses within this Page 114 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Williamsburg Village Rezoning No Zoning to C-1 Page 3 of 5 district are general retail, restaurants (including drive-through), gas stations, medical or dental offices, etc. Attachment 4 contains a comprehensive list of C-1 District allowable uses and development standards. In the C-1 District, the floor to area ratio of a building cannot exceed 0.5 for certain land uses. Certain land uses have specific design limitations to ensure compatibility with the surrounding properties. Staff Analysis Williams Drive is one of the City’s major thoroughfares (existing major arterial) and there are a mixture of commercial uses within the City and the City’s ETJ. Bootys Crossing Road is identified as an existing collector roadway which includes commercial uses but it serves primarily as a gateway into several residential neighborhoods in this area. In this case, staff determined that the requested zoning of C-1 meets the intent of the Future Land Use category of the property which is in a commercial node (Community Commercial) along a major intersection and therefore a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was not required. As part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Element identified a number of land use goals, policies and actions. The following goals and action statements are the most relevant to this request: • The 2030 Future Land Use category for this subject site is Community Commercial. The Community Commercial category is described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as areas that accommodate retail, professional office, and service-oriented business activities that serve more than one residential neighborhood. These areas are typically configured as “nodes” of varying scales at the intersection of arterial roads, or at the intersection of arterials and collectors. In this case, the site is located along a major intersection with a major arterial (Williams Drive) and collector (Bootys Crossing Road) designation within a Community Commercial node. • Also, Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.A2 states that the City should “reserve and rezone land ideally suited for long term commercial and employment uses and prevent its use for residential subdivisions.” The rezoning of this property to the C-1 District for the future commercial development would support this goal. There are commercial developments to the north, east, west and south of this site. Complies Does 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 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. This application was reviewed Page 115 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Williamsburg Village Rezoning No Zoning to C-1 Page 4 of 5 review and final action by staff and deemed to be complete. X The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan The proposed zoning change is consistent with the Community Commercial node of the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Commercial category supports the C-1 District at this location since the site is surrounded by other commercial development all located within a major intersection. 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 request promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The location of commercial development along corridors such as Williams Drive will help serve the nearby residential neighborhoods. The C-1 District will help facilitate orderly commercial development along a major arterial roadway. X 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 compatible with the surrounding zoning districts and uses. A landscape gateway buffer will be required along Williams Drive, per the UDC. Additionally, the surrounding properties are zoned for commercial purposes. X The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the District that would be applied by the proposed amendment. The uses allowed in the C-1 District are suitable along major arterials such as Williams Drive and within the areas of the Future Land Use designated as Community Commercial. General Findings Based on all the information presented, staff has made the following findings: 1. The 2030 Future Land Use category for this subject site is Community Commercial. The Community Commercial category is described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as areas that accommodate retail, professional office, and service-oriented business activities that serve more than one residential neighborhood. These areas are typically configured as “nodes” of varying scales at the intersection of arterial roads, or at the intersection of arterials and collectors. In this case, the site is located along a major intersection with a major arterial (Williams Drive) and collector (Bootys Crossing Road) designation within a Community Commercial node. Also, Bootys Crossing Road is considered a gateway into several residential neighborhoods that may be served by commercial development at this site. 2. The land uses permitted in the C-1 District along with the district development standards directly help to implement the 2030 Plan’s goals of a balance of land uses as well as ensuring transitions and buffers between residential and commercial uses. The need for Page 116 of 185 Planning Department Staff Report Williamsburg Village Rezoning No Zoning to C-1 Page 5 of 5 goods and services closer to residents (both current and future) is necessary in order to achieve a balanced community. 3. Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.A2 states that the City should “reserve and rezone land ideally suited for long term commercial and employment uses and prevent its use for residential subdivisions.” The rezoning of this property to the C-1 District for the future commercial development would support this goal. C-1 zoning at this location will reserve land suitable for commercial development along a major arterial. 4. The property is located along Williams Drive, a major arterial road, and the transportation network at this location can support the traffic that may be generated by the uses anticipated in the C-1 District. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s zoning request based on the above-mentioned findings. Public Comments As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of the subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the rezoning application (13 notices mailed), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (May 21, 2017) and signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has not received any written or verbal comments in support or against the zoning request. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Future Land Use Map Attachment 3 – Zoning Map Attachment 4 – C-1 District Development Standards and Permitted Land Uses Page 117 of 185 B O O T Y S C R O S S I N G RD N IH 3 5 LA KEWAYDR W I L L I A M S D R WILL I A M S D R BOOTYS CROSSING RD W I L L I A M S D R REZ-2017-003 Attachment #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.25 0.5Mi Page 118 of 185 W I L L I A M S D R DA W N D R PA R K E R D R LAKE W A Y D R RIVER BEND D R AD D I E L N KA T H I L N BRAN D Y L N BO O T Y S C R O S S I N G R D GAB R I E L V I E W D R WESTE R N T R L PATT I D R ME S Q U I T E L N P R I M R O S E T R L B R O K E N S P O K E T R L R O C K Y H O L L O W T R L WHI S P E R O A K S L N J O HNTHOM A S D R O A K L N W E S T W O O D L N L O N E S O M E T R L G O L D E N OAKS DRKIMB E R L Y S T B U F F A L O S P R I N G S T R L ME L I S S A C T VILL A G E D R PARK M E A D O W B L V D S P RIN G W O O D L N BI R C H O A K L N STACEY LN GABRIEL V I E W D R Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes O nly ¯ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Attachment #2 REZ-2017-003 Legend Thoroughfare Future Land Use Institutional Regional Commercial Community Commercial Employment Center Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Ag / Rural Residential Existing Collector Existing Freeway Existing Major Arterial Existing Minor Arterial Existing Ramp Proposed Collector Proposed Freeway Propsed Frontage Road Proposed Major Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial Proposed Railroad High Density Residential LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 500 1,000Ft Page 119 of 185 W I L L I A M S D R DA W N D R PA R K E R D R LAKE W A Y D R RIVER BEND D R AD D I E L N KA T H I L N BRAN D Y L N BO O T Y S C R O S S I N G R D GAB R I E L V I E W D R WESTE R N T R L PATT I D R ME S Q U I T E L N P R I M R O S E T R L B R O K E N S P O K E T R L R O C K Y H O L L O W T R L WHI S P E R O A K S L N J O HNTHOM A S D R O A K L N W E S T W O O D L N L O N E S O M E T R L G O L D E N OAKS DRKIMB E R L Y S T B U F F A L O S P R I N G S T R L ME L I S S A C T VILL A G E D R PARK M E A D O W B L V D S P RIN G W O O D L N BI R C H O A K L N STACEY LN GABRIEL V I E W D R Zoning InformationREZ-2017-003 Attachment #3 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ¯ 0 500 1,000FtPage 120 of 185 Maximum Building Height = 35 feet Front Setback = 25 feet Bufferyard = 15 feet with plantings Maximum Building Size = .5 FAR (0 feet for build‐to/downtown) adjacent to AG, RE, RL, RS, TF, MH, (only applies to those uses Side Setback = 10 feet MF‐1, or MF‐2 districts marked with * below) Side Setback to Residential = 15 feet Rear Setback = 0 feet Rear Setback to Residential = 25 feet Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required Agricultural Sales* Activity Center (youth/senior) Event Facility Artisan Studio/Gallery* Bar/Tavern/Pub Meat Market Assisted Living Bed and Breakfast (with events) Multifamily Attached Automotive Parts Sales (indoor)* Business/Trade School Personal Services Restricted Banking/Financial Services* Car Wash Private Transport Dispatch Facility Blood/Plasma Center* Church (with columbarium) Student Housing Consumer Repair* College/University Dry Cleaning Service* Commercial Recreation Emergency Services Station Community Center Farmer's Market* Dance Hall/Night Club Fitness Center* Day Care (group/commercial) Food Catering Services* Fuel Sales Funeral Home* Live Music/Entertainment General Retail* Micro Brewery/Winery General Office* Neighborhood Amenity Center Government/Postal Office Park (neighborhood/regional) Group Home (7+ residents) Pest Control/Janitorial Services Home Health Care Services* Self‐Storage (indoor only) Hospital School (Elementary, Middle, High) Hotel/Inn (excluding extended stay) Theater (movie/live) 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* Printing/Mailing/Copying Services* Restaurant (general/drive‐through)* Rooming/Boarding House Social Service Facility Surgery/Post Surgery Recovery* Urgent Care Facility* Utilities (Minor/Intermediate/Major) Veterinary Clinic (indoor only)* Local Commercial (C‐1) District District Development Standards Specific Uses Allowed within the District Page 121 of 185 Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 1 of 2 Description: Rezone 0.791 acres of the D. Wright Survey Case File Number: REZ-2017-003 Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached ORDINANCE NO. _____________________ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the Official Zoning Map to rezone 0.791 acres (tracts 1-5) in the D. Wright Survey from no zoning to the C-1 (Local Commercial) District also known as Williamsburg Village; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District classification of the following described real property ("The Property"): 0.791 acres (tracts 1-5) in the D. Wright Survey, of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; and Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on June 6, 2017, held the required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the requested rezoning of the Property; and Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on June 27, 2017, held an additional public hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, that: Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified Development Code. Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the Property is hereby amended from no zoning to the C-1 District (Local Commercial), in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Legal Description) and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Page 122 of 185 Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 2 of 2 Description: Rezone 0.791 acres of the D. Wright Survey Case File Number: REZ-2017-003 Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown. APPROVED on First Reading on the 27th day of June, 2017. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 11th day of July, 2017. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST: ______________________ _________________________ Dale Ross Shelley Nowling Mayor City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Charlie McNabb City Attorney Page 123 of 185 B O O T Y S C R O S S I N G RD N IH 3 5 LA KEWAYDR W I L L I A M S D R WILL I A M S D R BOOTYS CROSSING RD W I L L I A M S D R REZ-2017-003 Exhibit A Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.25 0.5Mi Page 124 of 185 S84°33'00"E 286.30'S15°44'30"W 4.14' S84°16'00"E 30.76' S84°04'15"E 153.84' S6 1 ° 0 1 ' 1 5 " E 49 . 1 0 ' 15' P.U.E. & LAN D S C A P E A R E A 25' BLDG. LINE (S84°31'52"E 286 . 1 0 ' ) (S04°02'10"W 3.89') (S84°01'09"E 30.27') (S84°06'12"E 15 5 . 0 0 ' ) (S 6 1 ° 1 1 ' 2 7 " E 4 7 . 6 3 ' ) BOOTY'S C R O S S I N G R O A D 660 661 662 663 (S6°09'46"W 10.00') S83°46'30"E 53.45' (N83°50'14"W 5 3 . 4 6 ' ) (N83°50'14"W 3 5 7 . 8 7 ' ) S5 ° 5 7 ' 4 5 " W 79 . 8 1 ' A L L N52 ° 0 2 ' 0 0 " E 52.3 9 ' N7 ° 2 2 ' 4 5 " E (S5 2 ° 0 0 ' 4 3 " W 5 2 . 3 3 ' ) (S 7 ° 2 3 ' 5 2 " W 3 7 . 7 0 ' ) F . M . H I G H W A Y N o . 2 3 3 8 ( W I L L I A M S D R I V E ) "x" S C R I B E D O N S I D E W A L K "x" S C R I B E D O N S I D E W A L K (S 5 5 ° 2 1 ' E 4 8 . 0 ' ) R=340.00' A=261.91' C=255.48' N74°09'00"ER=340.00' A=262.00' C=255.56' N74°05'14"E I P S 664 665 667 668 669670 671 N52 ° 0 2 ' 0 0 " E 94.7 0 ' R=413.00' A=86.98' C=86.82' N58°06'15"E R=413.00' A=60.44' C=60.38' N68°20'00"E 273.08' 84.90' N5 ° 5 7 ' 4 5 " E 27 . 4 2 ' S84°07'30"E 147.48' ALL 138.39' 9.09' S83°47'15"E 357.98' ALL N2 9 ° 2 6 ' 4 5 " E 13 3 . 0 5 ' A L L 22 . 8 0 ' 10 7 . 3 2 ' 2.93' 48 . 3 2 ' 31 . 4 9 ' S 3 6 ° 5 7 ' 0 0 " E 2 7 2 . 9 7 ' 7 3 ' M I N I M U M R O W F O R M A J O R C O L L E C T O R ( C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N ) (S78°50'E 185.5' ) (S 1 1 ° 0 5 ' W 8 0 . 0 ' ) (S 3 4 ° 3 9 ' W 1 1 0 . 0 0 ' ) (N83°1'W 594. 4 7 v s ) TRACT 5 0.008 AC. TRACT 1 0.486 AC. TRACT 2 0.104 AC. TRACT 3 0.070 AC. TRACT 4 0.123 AC. 0 20 40 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e t h e s o l e p r o p e r t y o f S T E G E R & B I Z Z E L L E N G I N E E R I N G , I N C . T h e u s e o f t h e s e d r a w i n g s i s h e r e b y r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l s i t e f o r w h i c h t h e y w e r e p r e p a r e d . R e p r o d u c t i o n o r r e u s e o f t h e s e d r a w i n g s i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f S T E G E R & B I Z Z E L L E N G I N E E R I N G , I N C . i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . Project Path: Project Number:22445 1"=00'SCALE: 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 P:\22000-22999\ 22445-BollerAD\Xref TRACT 1 0.486 AC in the D. Wright Survey, Abs. No. 13 TRACT 2 0.104 AC in the D. Wright Survey, Abs. No. 13 TRACT 3 0.070 AC in the D. Wright Survey, Abs. No. 13 TRACT 4 0.123 AC in the D. Wright Survey, Abs. No. 13 TRACT 5 0.008 AC in the D. Wright Survey, Abs. No. 13 Exhibit B - Legal Description Page 125 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to co nsider a po tential battery storage project funded by the Department Of Ene r gy -- Chris Foster, Re so urce Management and Integration Manager ITEM SUMMARY: I n J une G U S was informed of an opportunity to participate in a 3 year research program with the D ept. of E nergy to study the impacts on distribution reliability of a storage device located on the customer side of the meter. F or this study the D O E is expected to contribute up to $3,000,000 towards the project in partnership with Advanced M icrogrid S olutions (AM S ). AM S would install the ba+ery at the W estside S ervice C enter, and provide the monitoring software. G U S would dispatch the system, and both G U S and AM S would report the findings to the D O E at the end of the project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: C ity will be expected to contribute staff time towards the project worth up to $50,000 over 3 years. SUBMITTED BY: Chris Foster - Resource Management & Integratio n Manager ATTACHMENT S: Description Battery Storage Informatio n Sheet Page 126 of 185 June 28, 2017 James Briggs General Manager Georgetown Utility Services City of Georgetown, TX Dear Jim, Advanced Microgrid Solutions (AMS), a pioneer in the development of grid-‐facing solutions using advanced energy storage coupled with proprietary optimization software, is interested in partnering with Georgetown Utility Services (GUS) on an innovative storage and grid services demonstration project. Earlier this year, AMS was the primary recipient for a DOE ENERGISE Grant and is currently seeking to replace its utility sub-‐recipient and host. AMS has identified Georgetown Utility Services (GUS) as an ideal candidate to replace Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC), which is no longer able to participate due to changes of management. The project that AMS is leading is called “Security Constrained Economic Optimization of PV and Other Distributed Assets” and is intended to demonstrate a comprehensive integrated solution that co-‐optimizes aggregated distributed energy resources (DERs) of all types to maximize host site energy benefits and utility grid services. The solution optimizes for physical distribution grid constraints, performance, needs, and cost reduction, achieving a distribution grid level “security constrained economic dispatch” of the DERs. The combined optimization maximizes the value of PV output and mitigates PV integration impacts at least cost. This solution will enable cost effective integration of high penetrations of distributed PV in the power grids of the future, while demonstrating how the AMS solution meets the objectives of efficiency, resiliency and affordability. As a grant sub-‐recipient, GUS will benefit from participation in the project in multiple ways, including: • Receipt of $200,000 in cash grant offset by $50,000 of cost-‐sharing. This is designed to offset GUS’s internal labor costs of the project. • Grant funded deployment of an advanced energy storage system at a GUS facility during the duration of the project, with favorable residual value purchase options at the end of the project term. • Experience with advanced techniques for optimizing DERs, including solar and energy storage, on GUS distribution circuits. • Demonstration of continued commitment to advancing GUS’s position as a leader in renewable energy utilization. The project will span a three-‐year period and includes three primary participants: AMS, Opus One, and a host Utility. AMS designs, develops and manages large-‐scale projects using advanced energy storage and software control technologies designed to provide multiple, co-‐optimized energy products and services including demand management, grid support, emergency generation Microgrid controls, and products for local utility and regional wholesale energy markets. Opus One has built GridOS, a distributed intelligence platform using a real-‐time model-‐based system to integrate DERs and distribution automation (DA) capabilities. GridOS, the result of a breakthrough in a powerful, efficient, and robust Page 127 of 185 method of distribution system state estimation (DSSE), can unlock capabilities such as the real-‐time management, operational planning, and locational marginal pricing of DERs for system operations and transactive energy markets. We are currently seeking a progressive utility partner that wants to identify the lowest cost path to maximizing PV integration through utilization of cooptimized DERs. The project is based on two primary phases the first of which is focused on deployment of a microgrid and optimization of the feeder upon which the microgrid is located. AMS will be the provider, developer and operator of a BESS system to integrate as a microgrid with an existing building at the host utility and the microgrid will then be utilized in coordination with the distribution grid for maximizing system benefits. Opus One, the provider of various grid modeling, optimization and control technologies, will deploy software to integrate with the host Utility SCADA and DMS to manage physical grid constraints and signal AMS regarding P&Q needs from the microgrid asset to improve operation of the feeder. The second project phase is will evaluate the impact of a scaled deployment of the co-‐optimized solution with Opus One’s system integrating 10,000+ nodes into its real-‐time constraint analysis for control and optimization. This will be accomplished by modeling real-‐time grid operations in a “sandbox” environment representational of the actual distribution grid. On the scaled-‐up model we will run what-‐ if analysis to identify potential constraints of increased PV integration and how additional DER deployment can be optimized to support. In addition to the two primary phases of work described above the project makes a significant effort to communicate findings to various stakeholders in the utility industry. To support the stakeholder interaction AMS will work with Texas Electric Cooperative (TEC) to bring together Coops from around Texas to learn from and contribute feedback regarding the project means, methods and results. For Georgetown Utility Services to participate as a member of the project team for this grant we ask for commitment regarding several distinct activities and work streams. • Microgrid development. Chris Foster in collaboration with AMS have identified the Westside Service Center as an ideal location for microgrid testing. The high ratio of PV to site load makes this an ideal candidate for demonstration of several project use cases. Additionally, the site’s location at the end of the feeder means that it is well situated for delivering value from various grid services. For successful deployment of this microgrid Georgetown will need to make the site manger available for plan review and support identification of periods of time for construction activities. AMS will provide the BESS as well as E&C services. • Model and software integration support. For both the early stage effort around maximizing the value of the Microgrids impact on the feeder and the later stage focused on a scaled up “sandbox” model the project team will need to integrate OpusOne’s GridOS software into GUS systems. This will involve support from several teams including but not limited to: distribution operations, distribution planning, IT and others. • Market and Services Cost Benefit Analysis. The project aims to identify the value for services for all applicable markets and customers including ERCOT, the distribution grid operator, and host customer. To provide value of DER services to ERCOT it will need to be rolled up through the LSE or QSE and the net value will be identified as savings to the QSE or LSE. Host customer savings should be modeled not only based on the cost of service for the specific microgrid site, but also or all reasonable tariffs in the region. Final distribution services and value will be identified based Page 128 of 185 on locational value for Voltage optimization upgrade deferral and various other potential values or savings for the utility. To model these costs and benefits it is critical that GUS provide support for identification of business as usual costs, as well as model oversight and validation of results. • Stakeholder engagement. The DOE requires that all project teams gather and implement feedback from various technical stakeholders, while AMS secured support from TEC regarding this initiative, it will be critical to have support and participation from both technical and business leaders from GUS to discuss its experience implement and identifying value of the project technologies and solutions. AMS believes that the DOE Energize Grant project provides GUS is a unique and highly cost-‐effective opportunity to further its goals related to renewable energy and grid modernization. We look forward to scheduling a call with leadership to further describe the opportunity and requirements of the project. Sincerely, Kelly Warner President, Advanced Microgrid Solutions 781.492.2615 Page 129 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution accepting the Capi tal Area Metropol i tan P l anni ng Organi zati on (CAMPO) and Ci ty of G eorgeto w n Wi l l i ams Dri ve Study -- Nathaniel Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Long Range Planning Manager, and Andreina Dávila-Quintero , Current P lanning Manager ITEM SUMMARY: On January 26, 2016, the City Council o f the City o f Georgetown, Texas, entered into an Interlocal Agreement with the Capital Area Metropo litan Planning Organization (“CAMPO”) to complete a study of Williams Drive, in accordance with CAMPO’s Platinum P lanning P rogram, to develop a plan o f action that will incorporate safety, efficient transportation operations, safe accommodations of all mo des, and integratio n of smart transportation and land use, community ne e ds, and the future eco nomic growth o f Williams Drive (“the Study”). CAMPO’s Platinum Planning P rogram seeks to generate comprehensive and detailed multimo dal planning at the local level that will generate regionally significant be ne fits through projects and policies. The complete final plan of the Study may be viewed online at the pro ject website : https://transportatio n.georgetown.org/williams-drive/. Through this pro cess, the Study identifie d five primary issues, including traffic congestion, traffic operations, barriers to redevelopment and reinvestment, aesthetic enhancements, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Study’s final plan captures the visio n of the co mmunity for the Williams Drive corridor incorporating short, mid and long te rm recommendatio ns that address the five primary issues identified, while meeting the goals o f the Study to enhance multimodal movements and transportation operations; support co rrido r-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development; protect and enhance the co rrido r ’s quality of life; and encourage development that creates a variety o f context sensitive mixed-use services that are accessible to neighbo rhoods. Furthermo re, the Study pro vide s guidance on future plans, programs and budget requests to improve the Williams Drive c orridor. On June 9, 201 7, GTAB made a motion “to accept the first four years of the plan and conditionally the rest of it with a strong recommendation to City Council that they no t set year 5 and on into concre te.” The motion passed 5-3 in favo r. On June 20, 2017, P& Z made a mo tion “to accept the first fo ur year segment of this plan and pass on to the City Council a re commendation that from year 5 on that these Boards be resubmitte d the data that has accumulated in those four years to see what revisio ns need to be made from year 5 on.” The motion passed 6-0 in favo r. The Williams Drive P roject Team recommends acceptance o f the Williams Drive Study and adoption of the short term (0- 4 years) impleme ntation plan as it meets the established purpose and goals. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Final Plan include s Fiscal Year 2018 budget recomme ndatio ns which will ultimate ly require City Council appro val through the annual budget process. Those funding requests are supported by existing revenues collected through the Gateway Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ), c ontributio ns accumulated through Traffic Impact Assessme nts pro- rata improvements, and other potential City funding sources. SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP ATTACHMENT S: Description Williams Drive S tud y Presentatio n Res o lutio n-Ac c eptanc e Williams Drive Stud y S hort Term Imp lementation P lan Page 130 of 185 Williams Drive Study City Council July 11, 2017 Page 131 of 185 Resolution Acceptance of the Study and adoption of the Short Te r m ( 0 -4 years) Implementation Plan Page 132 of 185 First 4 years 1 & 2 –Transportation (Traffic Congestion and Operations) •Right-turn lanes on Williams Dr and Rivery Blvd •Traffic Signal Coordination •Traffic engineering (access management, intersection improvements, network connections, capacity, speed and utilities) •Williams Dr & Austin Ave intersection operation improvement •Painted median pilot program Page 133 of 185 First 4 years 1 & 2 –Transportation (Traffic Congestion and Operations) •Traffic Management Center •Williams Dr & I-35 intersection improvement •Promote Go-Geo •Communication/Public Education •Stripe Northwest to include center turn lane and on-street bike lanes* •Raised, planted medians in Centers Area *Recommendations related to bicycle facilities will be addressed through the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan Page 134 of 185 First 4 years 3 -Barriers to Redevelopment/Reinvestment •Update the 2030 Comprehensive Plan •Amend the Future Land Use Map •Preliminary engineering (access management, intersection improvements, network connections, capacity, and speed) •Review and update development standards and zoning •New connecting roadways 4 -Aesthetic Enhancements •Remove empty telephone poles •Review and update development standards and zoning •Signage and wayfinding study •Raised, planted medians in Centers Area •Grant program for signage and streetscape Page 135 of 185 First 4 years 5 -Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities •Sidewalks on west side of Austin Ave •Install and repair curb ramps •Bicycle Master Plan* •Remove mid-block pedestrian crossing •Bicycle facilities* •Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) upgrades at intersections •Install and repair sidewalks on Williams Dr *Recommendations related to bicycle facilities will be addressed through the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan Page 136 of 185 Resolution Acceptance of the Study and adoption of the Short Te r m ( 0 -4 years) Implementation Plan Page 137 of 185 Questions and Feedback Thank you! Page 138 of 185 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 1 OF 2 WILLIAMS DRIVE STUDY RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, ACCEPTING THE WILLIAMS DRIVE STUDY AND ADOPTING THE SHORT TERM (0-4 YEARS) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, on January 26, 2016, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, entered into an Interlocal Agreement with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (“CAMPO”) to complete a study of Williams Drive, in accordance with CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program; and WHEREAS, CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program seeks to generate comprehensive and detailed multimodal planning at the local level that will generate regionally significant benefits through projects and policies; and WHEREAS, the Study identified five primary issues, including traffic congestion, traffic operations, barriers to redevelopment and reinvestment, aesthetic enhancements, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and WHEREAS, the Study’s final plan captures the vision of the community for the Williams Drive corridor incorporating short, mid and long term recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Study’s final plan, including the concept designs and implementation plan, meet the purpose and goals of the Study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1: The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this resolution implements the City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program. In addition, the City Council hereby finds that this resolution promotes the City Council’s strategic goals to create a strategy to increase mobility; and to create and maintain outstanding aesthetics, and a welcoming appearance and spirit. SECTION 2: In accordance with Article III, Subsection E, of the Interlocal Agreement between CAMPO and the City of Georgetown for Williams Drive Study, the Study, on file with the City Secretary’s Office is hereby accepted. Page 139 of 185 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 OF 2 WILLIAMS DRIVE STUDY SECTION 3: The short term (0-4) years projects outlined in the Study’s Implementation Plan are hereby adopted for consideration in future plans and programs. SECTION 4: The Study’s Implementation Plan is to be reviewed and updated on an annual basis. SECTION 5: The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, and the City Secretary to attest this Resolution. SECTION 6: This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of , 2017. Dale Ross, Mayor ATTEST: Shelley Nowling, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ________________________________ Charlie McNabb, City Attorney Page 140 of 185 Williams Dr Study Short Term Implementation Plan TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND OPERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Timeframe No. Action Item Area Project Cost Estimate Funded/ Committed T-01 Rivery Blvd extension from Williams Dr to Northwest Blvd (build) Centers Area $ 10,500,000 X T-02 Reconstruction and new construction of Northwest Blvd from Fondana Dr to Austin Ave, including proposed bridge over IH 35 (build)Centers Area $ 11,150,000 X T-03 Intersection improvement at Williams Dr and IH-35 Centers Area $ 52,000,000 X T-04 Eastbound right-turn lane Williams Dr to SB Rivery Blvd Centers Area $ 345,959 X T-05 Northbound right-turn Rivery Blvd to eastbound Williams Dr Centers Area $ 284,000 X T-06 Intersection operation improvements for Austin Ave and Williams Dr Centers Area $ 500 T-07 Preliminary Engineering analysis for access management/driveway consolidation, intersection improvements, network connections, capacity, speed, and utilities Study Area $ 515,000 T-08 Install a painted median and center left hand turn pockets along one of the character areas of the Williams Dr corridor (pilot program)Centers Area $ 18,303 T-09 Traffic Signal Coordination from Austin Avenue to Jim Hogg Rd Study Area $ 24,000 X T-10 Inventory existing traffic signal infrastructure and identify standard operating systems/upgrades, limited implementation Study Area $ 24,000 X T-11 Promote Go-Geo Study Area $ 5,000 T-12 Communication/Public Education about alternate routes, best practices/suggestions during peak hours.Study Area $ 10,000 T-13 Work with the Post Office to relocate individual mail boxes Centers Area T-14 Establish Traffic Management Center (TMC) and appropriate staffing Study Area $ 200,000 T-15 Work with Police Department for enforcement and traffic control Study Area $ 25,000 T-16 Stripe Northwest Blvd to accommodate a 10 foot center turn lane, two 10 foot through lanes, and two 5-foot bike lanes on either side off the roadway Centers Area $ 304,128 T-17 Install raised, planted center medians with left hand turn pockets in the Centers Area Centers Area $ 2,376,000 Total Costs $ 77,781,890 Sh o r t ( 0 - 4 y e a r s ) Page 1 of 3 Page 141 of 185 Williams Dr Study Short Term Implementation Plan BARRIERS TO REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Timeframe No. Action Item Area Project Cost Estimate Funded/ Committed R-01 Update the City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Williams Dr recommendations Study Area Staff Time X R-02 Amend the FLU map to include a subarea plan for the Centers Area Centers Area $ 24,500 X R-03 Adjust the TIRZ boundary to include the entirety of the GISD site and adjacent sites and develop TIRZ spending plan Centers Area Staff Time R-04 Engineering studies for water, wastewater, drainage/stormwater/water quality Centers Area $ 200,000 R-05 Work with GISD on potential redevelopment of catalytic site Centers Area N/A R-06 Review and update the development standards applicable to properties in the Williams Dr Centers Area, specifically regulations pertaining to block/lot standards, landscaping, signage, and streetscape improvements Centers Area Staff Time R-07 Adopt a MU district/SP overlay district/Rezoning for the Centers Area Centers Area Staff Time R-08 Adopt a MU district/SP overlay district/Rezoning for the Catalytic Site(s) Centers Area Staff Time R-09 Create a special assessment/financial district to fund these recommended public projects Centers Area Staff Time Total Costs $ 224,500 AESTHETICS ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Timeframe No. Action Item Area Project Cost Estimate Funded/ Committed A-01 Update City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Williams Dr recommendations, specifically as it applies to gateways Corridor Area Staff Time X A-02 Remove empty telephone poles on the north side of Williams Dr between Shell Rd and La Paloma Corridor Area $ 500 A-03 Update the City's UDC relating to the Gateway Overlay district standards as these apply to the Williams Dr Corridor. This may include new regulations pertaining to signage, front building façade and parking in addition to landscaping. Corridor Area Staff Time A-04 Undertake corridor wide signage and wayfinding study Study Area $ 40,000 A-05 Intersection demonstration gardens at the intersection of Williams Dr and I-35 Centers Area $ 5,000 Total Costs $ 45,500 Sh o r t ( 0 - 4 y e a r s ) Sh o r t ( 0 - 4 y e a r s ) Page 2 of 3 Page 142 of 185 Williams Dr Study Short Term Implementation Plan PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Timeframe No. Action Item Area Project Cost Estimate Funded/ Committed P-01 Design and construction of sidewalk along the west side of Austin Ave from Morrow St to Williams Dr Centers Area $ 20,000 X P-02 Remove mid-block pedestrian crossing on Williams Dr between I-35 and Rivery Blvd Centers Area $ 1,000 P-03 Preliminary Engineering analysis and schematic design for bikeways along and parallel to Williams Dr Study Area $ 5,000 P-04 Undertake a Citywide Bicycle Master Plan Study Area $ 65,000 P-05 APS Signal Upgrades at Williams Dr and Lakeway Dr, Williams Dr and Shell/DB Wood Rd, Williams Dr and Wildwood Dr, Williams Dr and Lakewood Dr, and Williams Dr and Rivery Blvd Study Area $ 250,000 X P-06 Implement buffered bike lanes along both sides of Williams Dr between Jim Hogg Rd and Lakeway Dr Corridor Area $ 409,500 P-07 Implement an on-street bicycle lane along W Sequoia Spur from Shell Rd to Val Verde Dr Corridor Area $ 49,379 P-08 Implement on-street bicycle lanes along Serenada Dr between Booty's Crossing and Northwest Blvd, continuing east along Northwest Blvd to just east of E. Janis Dr Corridor Area $ 112,865 P-09 Implement parallel signed bicycle routes along Park Lane between Williams Dr and W Central Dr, along Dawn Dr between Park Lane and Western Trail, and along Mesquite Lane between Booty's Crossing and Rivery Blvd Centers Area $ 215,931 P-10 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Williams Dr between Lakeway Dr and Rivery Blvd, and Lakeway Dr between Williams Dr and Northwest Blvd Centers Area $ 316,800 P-11 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Whisper Oaks Dr between Lakeway Dr and Northwest Blvd Centers Area $ 52,560 P-12 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Broken Spoke Trl between Western Trail and Lakeway Dr Centers Area $ 60,000 Total Costs $ 1,558,035 Sh o r t ( 0 - 4 y e a r s ) Page 3 of 3 Page 143 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Forwarded fro m the G eneral G overnment and Fi nance Advi sory B oard (G G AF): Consideration and possible action to approve the G uaranteed Maxi mum Pri ce (G MP) fo r the Desi gn/B ui l d agreement with G . Creek Constructi on of Austin, Texas for the restorati o n of G race Heri tage Center -- Eric Johnson, CIP Manager and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: On July 12, 20 16 , the City Council approved the Desi g n/B ui l d - cost of the work plus design-builder ’s fee with a guaranteed maximum price agreement with G. Creek Co nstruction o f Austin, Texas for the Grace Heritage Restoration project. G. Creek Construction partnered with ARCHITEXAS, who performed the original Architectural Assessme nt dated October 28, 20 15 . In May 2017, ARCHITEXAS completed the restoration design and subsequently G. Creek Construction be gan working on their Guaranteed Maximum P rice (GMP). The GMP for Grace Heritage Resto ratio n is $4 37 ,333, plus $34,080 pro fe ssio nal services that was agreed to in the original Design Build Contract. An additional $19,938 continge nc y (5%) is requested fo r unforese en c onditions. The total project pric e is not to exceed $491,350. The total project price includes several elements, not within the original scope of the project, including ADA, Restroo m exterior and stained glass restoration. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The original Pro ject Co nstruction Budget totals $2 90 ,00 0. The Council appropriated $1 50 ,00 0 from the Council Special Revenue Fund for Phase I repairs of Grace He ritage Center. The FY2 01 7 budget also funded Phase II repairs for Grace Heritage Cente r at $1 40 ,00 0. Other funding includes, $1 03 ,50 0 fro m 2 01 6 ADA Funding, $59,000 from 20 15 Bo nds/Interest (Facilities), $25 ,50 0 from TIRZ (Restro om) and $13,500 from TIRZ (Stained Glass) for a funding total of $49 1,5 00 . SUBMITTED BY: Shelley Nowling, City Secretary ATTACHMENT S: Description Grac e Heritage Center GMP Grac e Heritage Center Proposal Page 144 of 185 Grace Heritage Center Restoration -GMP July 11, 2017 Page 145 of 185 Background •Presentation of ARCHITEXAS Architectural Assessment to City Council –October 13, 2015 •GGAF –Design/Build Recommendation –June 29, 2016 •City Council –Design/Build approval –July 12, 2016 •Design completed by ARCHITEXAS –May 1, 2017 Page 146 of 185 Architectural Assessment Scope •Council Allocated $290,000 to address the scope identified in the Architectural Assessment. •ADA Compliance was not addressed in that scope –City would have made ADA modifications through the Facilities ADA Transition Project that is completing ADA compliance Citywide. Page 147 of 185 City of Georgetown Construction –$348,948 •Phase 1 –Level 1 -Critical:Advanced deterioration is involved and immediate repair or replacement is needed to prevent the failure of the element within the next 2 years.There may be a threat to health or life safety.Level 1 priority should be accomplished immediately. •Phase 2 –Level 2 -Serious:Deterioration may result in the failure of the element within 2 to 5 years if not corrected,and a threat to health or safety may result if not corrected.Deterioration of adjacent or related elements may occur as a result of this deterioration. Level 2 should be repaired or restored within this period or included in a comprehensive restoration of the building. Page 148 of 185 City of Georgetown Beyond Original Scope •ADA –Meet current Texas Accessibility Standards •Detached Restroom –Restroom Exterior –Restore and repaint •Stained Glass Restoration –Stained Glass Restoration Page 149 of 185 City of Georgetown ADA Compliance –$103,418 Page 150 of 185 City of Georgetown Detached Restroom Repairs –$25,472 Page 151 of 185 City of Georgetown Stained Glass Restoration –$13,512 Page 152 of 185 City of Georgetown (Includes Professional Services) Construction $ 348,948 ADA $ 103,418 2016 ADA Funding Restroom $ 25,472 TIRZ Stained Glass $ 13,512 TIRZ PROJECT TOTAL $ 491,350 Construction Budget $ 348,948 Owner Contingency $ 20,000 Estimates by ARCHITEXAS $ 290,000 Over Budget 13%$ 38,948 Budget Breakdown Page 153 of 185 City of Georgetown Funding Source Council 2016 SRF $150,000 2017 Bonds $140,000 2016 ADA Funding $103,500 2015 Bonds/Interest (Facilities)$ 59,000 TIRZ (Restroom)$ 25,500 TIRZ (Stained Glass)$ 13,500 TOTAL $491,500 Funding Page 154 of 185 City of Georgetown GGAF Recommendation •Proceed with $290,000 originally budgeted, plus $103,500 for ADA compliance. •Proceed with restroom repairs separately using TIRZ funding •Acquire additional funds outside of the City for additional budget or reduce scope. Approx $72,500 Page 155 of 185 City of Georgetown Scope Reduction •Stained Glass •Foundation Repairs •Wood Doors, Frames and Hardware restoration •Windows, Frames and Hardware restoration •Repair/Replacement of Foundation Grills •Restoration of Bronze Plaque Page 156 of 185 Next Steps •Ratify contract with G. Creek for approved GMP –Completed July 2017 •Begin Construction –August 2017 –Estimated Construction time is 30 to 45 days. City of GeorgetownPage 157 of 185 512-452-5640 Office 512-452-5916 Fax PO Box 163764 Austin, TX 78716 www.gcreek.com Job Name:Grace Heritage Center Estimator:Leo Cardenas Job Address:881 S. Main St. Georgetown, TX 512.745.7929 Bid Date:June 19, 2017 leo@gcreek.com DIV ITEM LABOR MATRL SUB NOTES 1 General Conditions $9,450.00 $150.00 $4,475.00 Permit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 By Owner Pre-Construction Design and Pricing $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 General Labor $6,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Lift and scaffolding $0.00 $0.00 $4,100.00 Daily Clean $600.00 $320.00 $0.00 Final Clean $1,950.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 Site Work Erosion Controls $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landscaping protection Demolition $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Included in Woodwork Haul off $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Included in Demolition Crushed Granite $750.00 $600.00 $0.00 Site Restoration $0.00 $0.00 $3,500.00 Allowance 3 Concrete Concrete Sidewalks $4,100.00 $3,650.00 $400.00 520 sf Concrete Ramp $3,900.00 $1,700.00 $0.00 205 sf Curb & Gutter $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A 4 Masonry Stone Masonry $0.00 $0.00 $4,300.00 Reset loose stones and chemically clean stone base Stucco Repairs $0.00 $0.00 $850.00 5 Metals Guardrails, Railings, & Handrails $0.00 $0.00 $8,350.00 6 Wood Woodwork $0.00 $71,000.00 $82,500.00 Demo per plans. Install rabbeted beveled wood siding, cove trim and flashing, wood stairs and decking. Includes Mahogany 7 Thermal & Moisture Protection Roofing $0.00 $0.00 $23,600.00 Misc. Flashing $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Included in Roofing 8 Doors & Windows Wood Doors, Frames & Hardware $0.00 $0.00 $24,500.00 Includes $1,300.00 hardware Allowance Windows $0.00 $0.00 $31,750.00 9 Finishes Painting $0.00 $0.00 $35,100.00 10 Specialties Access hatch at bell tower roof $0.00 $0.00 $1,420.00 Repair damaged foundation Grilles $0.00 $0.00 $600.00 Clean Belfry $0.00 $0.00 $850.00 Restore Bronze Plaques $0.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 Allowance 15 Mechanical Plumbing $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A HVAC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A 16 Electrical Electrical/Lighting $0.00 $1,200.00 $4,500.00 Includes $1,200.00 allowance for light fixtures Fire Alarm $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A data / phone / cabling/sound system $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A $27,250.00 $78,620.00 $231,995.00 Material Total w/tax 0.00%78,620.00$ Labor w/ Burden 35,697.50$ Sub/Equipment 231,995.00$ Subtotal 346,312.50$ GC Overhead 6.00%20,778.75$ GC Fee 6.00%20,778.75$ GL Insurance 3,064.17$ Subtotal 390,934.17$ PP Bond 7,818.68$ Price per SF #REF!Total Proposal $ 398,752.86 PROPOSAL PROJECT SUBTOTAL Page 158 of 185 ALLOWANCES: ALLOW. 1 Allowance to replace four exterior light fixtures.1,200.00$ ALLOW. 2 Allowance for new hardware at doors 101 and 102. Included in Wood Doors, Frames, & Hardware Total Allowances:1,200.00$ ALTERNATES: ALT 1 Fabricate siding out of Douglas Fir, Clear vertical grain, in lieu of Red Cedar **See Notes** ALT 2 2,675.00$ 2,840.00$ ALT 3 No price change ALT 4 2,300.00$ ALT 5 3,800.00$ Exterior Architectural Woodwork 7,475.00$ Thermal & Moisture Protection 1,900.00$ Finishes 10,530.00$ ALT 6 3,150.00$ B. Restore stained glass panels including wood sash and reinforcing bars.9,425.00$ ALT 7 (1,160.00)$ Total Alternates:42,935.00$ NOTES: NOTE 1 Douglas Fir not recommended for this application by wood suppleier. Supplied did not provide quote. *** The following Items have been excluded from proposal. They are on Probable cost estimate but not on plans:*** Modify Grade at southeast, Test Sprinkler system and adjust heads as needed, Repair leaking condenser line. Exclusions: Millwork, Fire Alarm, Fire Sprinklers, Furniture, Self Storage, Vision Screen, Site prep and demolitions, Landscaping & Irrigation, Water Feature, , Fencing, Site paving, Vegetative roof. Option 1: Fabricate wood window sills, exterior wood trim and wash elements out of Accoya Grade A2 in lieu of Honduran Mahogany. Option 2: Fabricate wood window sills, exterior wood trim and wash elements out of Redwood, Heart B grade, in lieu of Honduran Mahogany. Fabricate wood doors and frame out of Spanish Cedar FAS Select in lieu of Honduran Mahogany. Removed and salvage existing brick pavers north of existing restroom building and replace with compacted crushed granite walkway. Crushed granite walkway shall be part of the accessible route from the accessible parking space east of the existing restroom building to the base of the new ramp. As such, the running slope shall not exceed 5% and the cross slope shall not exceed 2%. Enlarge planting bed at west portion of removed ramp. Masonry A. Remove and replace protective glazing with vented aluminum frame and clear acrylic glazing Painted wood guardrails with painted galvanized metal handrails at West Entry platform and steps as indicated on Sheet A-2.01A. Wood species shall be Honduran Mahogany (Swietenia Macrophylia), heartwood. Page 159 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: P roject updates and status reports regarding current and future transportation and traffic project; street, sidewalk, and other infrastructure pro jects; police, fire and other public safety pro jects; econo mic development projects; city facility projects;downtown projects inc luding parking enhancements, c ity lease agreements, sanitation services, and possible direction to city staff -- David Morgan, City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City Council has requested regular updates regarding the status of projects, as well as the ability to discuss the se projects as a collective. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This is an Council Update Item. SUBMITTED BY: Shirley J. Rinn o n be half of David Morgan, City Manager ATTACHMENT S: Description GTAB Co vers heet GTAB Pro jec t Updates GTEC Covers heet GTEC Projec t Up d ate GEDCO Projec t Update Page 160 of 185 July 2017 GTAB Cover Sheet Austin Avenue Bridges Project - N & S San Gabriel Rivers: 3rd Public Meeting held 5/11, 4-7pm at the GTAC Flood Study: Study ongoing. Preliminary flood study results are complete. Mitigation efforts are currently being evaluated. Draft results expected late summer 2017. Final report due end of 2017. FM 971 - Realignment at Austin Avenue: Preliminary Engineering complete; Engineer’s work for the 60% design submittal is on hold pending AFA with TxDOT. Submittal of preliminary signal design to TxDOT 11-17-16. AFA documents finalized. Meeting scheduled for June, to go over schedule to complete. FM 1460: Construction is on-going; administered by TxDOT. Utility relocation complete. I 35 SB FR Sidewalk Improvements Project (University Ave to Leander Rd): Construction Approximately 65% complete with flatwork complete from SH29 to the South Gabriel River Bridge. Accessible structure construction underway. Anticipate completion by Nov. (Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) Phase 1 – WPAP for phase 1 approved. On site tasks: Phase 1 House demolition complete, Contour survey complete, Geotechnical testing complete, Fencing complete. Phase one bid date has been scheduled for 27 June, 2017. Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) Phase 2 – County let preliminary construction project for phase 2 which includes the construction of ramps into and out of the Quarry, completion scheduled for July. Surveying and staking of phase 2 ongoing. Southwest Bypass (Leander Rd. to Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension) Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB Wood Rd.) Construction is approximately 70% complete project wide. South San Gabriel bridge beam set is complete along with 90% deck panels. Second bridge south of the Gabriel, beam set complete. Base course installed on the South side of the bridges with first course Asphalt installed to South Bridge. Base course installation on Wolf Ranch Pkwy underway, utility crossings for Hillwood subdivision complete. First course of asphalt north of river to be scheduled shortly. Transit Service (Fixed Route Bus): Stops and Routes updated and presented to Council 2/14/17. ADA Plan meeting with CMTA 2/28. CMTA will provide eligibility screening. Council adopted service plan 4/25/17. Grand Opening scheduled for 8/21 at 1pm. Page 161 of 185 2015 Road Bond Program, Citywide Sidewalk Improvements Project Construction started May 1, 2017. All flat work along Williams drive is complete, with revegetation and signal work underway. 8th and Rock work has started. Project approximately 35% complete. Williams Drive Study: Concept Plan Final report expected 3/1/17. Council to consider acceptance of Plan 7/11, adopt 4 year implementation plan. Page 162 of 185 Page 163 of 185 Page 164 of 185 Page 165 of 185 Page 166 of 185 Page 167 of 185 Page 168 of 185 Page 169 of 185 Page 170 of 185 Page 171 of 185 Page 172 of 185 Page 173 of 185 July 2017 GTEC Cover Sheet Airport Road: Engineering design 100% +: addressing storm water/water quality, performing environmental investigations for clearances. Row docs ready. WPAP submitted to TCEQ first of May. FM 1460 ROW & Utility Relocations: All water/wastewater utility relocates have been completed and are in service Three Utility companies have submitted invoices for reimbursement – Atmos Energy, ONCOR and Seminole Pipeline Mays St Extension: Council – August 9th; NTP – October 10, 2016 2.5” of C mix asphalt has been installed north & southbound lanes, 6’ sidewalks are complete and concrete crews are installing ramps and one driveway approach. Clay liner being installed in detention pond, second Round Rock reimbursement sent. Northwest Boulevard: Engineering underway: Meeting set for June to go over schedule reassessment. Engineering completion scheduled fiscal 17/18 with construction beginning in fiscal 17/18 Rabbit Hill Road Improvements: Task Order awarded by Council August 9, 2016. Utility coordination meeting on 2/21/17. CP&Y surveying and identifying utility conflicts along route with Final Design Plans for review late summer of 2017. Rivery Boulevard - TIA Improvements: Engineering 95% complete. Slight modification is being made to length of added lane to fit with existing features. Submittal to TCEQ in June. Rivery Boulevard Extension: Plans at 100%. Submitted to TCEQ first of May for WPAP approval. To stay on the current schedule for bidding this project has been separated entirely from the Northwest Blvd. project. Offers have been made on 21 parcels. Closed on 16 parcels; 4 pending contract execution or final closing preparation. Environmental assessment complete on 9 parcels. Condemnation proceedings have been requested on 1 parcel. Aggressive efforts continue to close all outstanding parcels in FY 2017. Page 174 of 185 Page 175 of 185 Page 176 of 185 Page 177 of 185 Page 178 of 185 Page 179 of 185 Page 180 of 185 Page 181 of 185 Name Description Start Date (Council Approved)End Date $ Encumbered $ Expended Citigroup Grant for wastewater infrastructure for construction of datacenter. 12/12/2006 12/31/2018 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 DisperSol Grant for job creation related to expansion of manufacturing facilities.10/16/2014 2/15/2019 250,000$ $ 80,000 Grape Creek Grant for reimbursement of Qualified Expenditures for the lease/purchase and future site improvements at 101 E. 7th Street and 614 Main Street for the operation of a winery on the Downtown Square. 8/23/2011 3/1/2018 280,000$ 280,000$ Grape Creek GEDCO purchase of building. GCV currently under lease/purchase agreement with right to exercise purchase at end of PA for $447K.8/23/2011 3/1/2018 447,000$ 447,000$ Lone Star Circle of Care Grant for Qualified Expenditures for future site improvements at 205 East University Avenue, Georgetown, Texas. Loan Agreement and Promissory Note have been executed. 6/28/2011 11/30/2017 387,000$ $ 387,000 Radiation Detection Corporation Grant for Qualified Expenditures and job creation related to the relocation of the corporate offices to Georgetown. 7/23/2013 12/31/2021 320,000$ 320,000$ Radix BioSolutions, Ltd. Provided grant to assist with the work and future plans of Radix BioSolutions at the TLCC. Radix paid back $47K on 3/15/15. Radix paid back $50K 3/10/16. Radix paid back $50K on 3/10/2017 .3/9/2010 3/31/2018 250,000$ $ 103,000 GEDCO - ACTIVE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT June 19, 2017 Over Page 182 of 185 Name Description Start Date (Council Approved)End Date $ Encumbered $ Expended GEDCO - ACTIVE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT June 19, 2017 TASUS Texas Corporation Provide a grant of $67,500 for job creation related to expansion of manufacturing facilities. 2/25/2014 5/31/2017 67,500$ -$ Rentch Brewery Provide financial assistance not to exceed $70K for infrastructure costs related to the expansion of their existing operation including upgraded electric transformer and upgraded waterlines to the facility.10/11/2016 3/1/2017 70,000$ $ 70,000 Page 183 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: - At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the City Council ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Robyn Page 184 of 185 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Regula r Meeting July 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Manager, City Atto rney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration o f the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Shelley Nowling, City Secretary - RD Page 185 of 185