The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 05.08.2012Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas MAY 8, 2012 The Georgetown City Council will meet on MAY 8, 2012 at 6:00 P.M. at Council Chambers - 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Proclamation in honor of Better Hearing Month - Proclamation in honor of Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month City Council Regional Board Reports - CAMPO - Lone Star Rail District City Manager Comments - Irrigation Schedule - Life-Saving Award - Police Department Action from Executive Session 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. B - General Charles "Chuck" Graham, regarding an invitation to Memorial Day activities in Sun City 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. C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council Meeting held on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary D Consideration of the 2012 Annual Update to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director E Consideration and possible action regarding a Resolution granting a petition and setting public hearing dates for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 93.77acres in the Mary Ann Lewis, Leroy Lord, and William Roberts Surveys, for a future section of Georgetown Village, located on Shell Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director Legislative Regular Agenda F Public Hearingfor the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 93.77acres in the Mary Ann Lewis, Leroy Lord, and William Roberts Surveys, for a future section of Georgetown Village, located on Shell Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director G Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, amending various Institutional Use designations in the Future Land Use Plan, in conjunction with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Annual Update -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director (action required) H Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to revise the Growth Tier Map, in conjunction with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Annual Update -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner, and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director(action required) I Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Community (MUC) for 121.64 acres in the Isaac Jones Survey, to be known as Gatlin Creek, located at 4900 Williams Drive -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director (action required) J Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1), for 121.64 acres in the Issac Jones Survey, to be known as Gatlin Creek, located at 4900 Williams Drive -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director (action required) K Consideration and possible action to approve appointments to the Emergency Notification Citizen Task Force -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager and Robert Fite, Fire Chief L Discussion and possible action regarding a report and recommendation from the 2012 Compensation Committee -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary M Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action to authorize Task Order No. JPA-12-001 in the amount of $259,450.00 with JPA Real Estate Consulting, Georgetown, Texas, for right of way acquisition services in connection with the proposed TxDOT FM 1460 Improvement Project -- Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director N First Reading of an Ordinance to amend the Code of Ordinances Section 13.04.083, Residential Distributed Generation Rider, to expand the definition of distributed generation to address commercial customers, as well as accommodate a Renewable Distributed Generation Incentive Program, which includes the program criteria, funding source and calculation of the rebate amount -- Kathy Ragsdale, Environmental and Conservation Services Director and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager (action required) O Second Readingof an Ordinance for Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to Office (OF) District for Chaparro Estates, Lots 1,2,3,5 & 6, part of a Resubdivision to be known as Chapriel Place, Block A, Lots 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 5-A and Block B, Lot 1-B, located at the intersection of Williams Drive and Sedro Trail -- Carla Benton, Planner II and Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner(action required) P Second Reading of an Ordinance on a Rezoning amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Sun City Neighborhood 59, situated on 96.99 acres near the future extension of Pedernales Falls Drive - - Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director (action required) Q Second Readingof an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2011-60 pertaining to the annexation of 2011 Annexation Area 15, to correct the label of an exhibit that incorrectly annexed an unintended area -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney(action required) R Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 2.54 acres of the Flores A. Survey from the Agriculture (AG) District to General Commercial (C-3) District, located at 2815 and 2817 North Austin Avenue - - Mike Elabarger, Planner III and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director (action required) 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. S Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending litigation that has been filed against the City or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including but not limited to this week's agenda items T Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Municipal Court Judge Biennial Performance Evaluation Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Proclamation in honor of Better Hearing Month - Proclamation in honor of Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month City Council Regional Board Reports - CAMPO - Lone Star Rail District City Manager Comments - Irrigation Schedule - Life-Saving Award - Police Department Action from Executive Session ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # A City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: - General Charles "Chuck" Graham, regarding an invitation to Memorial Day activities in Sun City ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council Meeting held on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ITEM SUMMARY: Please see attached for draft minutes. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ATTACHMENTS: April 24, 2012 DRAFT Workshop Minutes April 24, 2012 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Cover Memo Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 1 of 5 Pages Draft Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, April 24, 2012 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Bill Sattler, Pat Berryman, Tommy Gonzalez, Troy Hellmann, Rachael Jonrowe Council Absent: All Council Present. Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Jim Briggs, Assitant City Manager; Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Wayne Nero, Police Chief; Robert Fite, Fire Chief; Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director; Mike Peters, Information Technology Director Minutes Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 03:00 PM A Public Safety Presentation -- Wayne Nero, Police Chief and Robert Fite, Fire Chief Berrryman absent. Fite introduced himself and his staff for the City Council. He noted his department is administratively lean and most of his staff are in fire stations and on the street. He said he would like to give a snapshot of 2011, go into 2012 and then go beyond this year to 2013 and 2014. He noted their complete annual report will be available to view on the City's website. He reviewed the 2011 highlights for the City Council. He spoke about Fire Engine One and how he is proud of that purchase. He noted that purchased was made through a partnership with the emergency services district. He noted they also finalized their study through CityGate, which provided them with a ten year snapshot of their department. He spoke about the numerous wildfires the team traveled to throughout Texas last year. He provided Council a brief summary of their support services and emergency services. He reviewed the ISO and insurance rating and noted the City has an ISO rating of a 2. He said an ISO rating gives the residents the lowest insurance rating. He said the only thing that worries him about ISO is, when the City is re-evaluated, ISO is changes all of their standards. He noted the good thing about Georgetown is the City is building a tower, gaining more staff, updating hydrants and improving training. He said he is confident the City will maintain the 2 rating. He provided the City Council with response data for the department. He noted the City is at 5,714 responses last year which is the highest they have ever been. He said they are steady at a 2 to 2.5 percent increase on responses each year. He noted the City has changed its medical responses to the jail, doctor's offices and hospitals. He noted this cuts about two calls a day from the response volume. He briefly spoke about the wildfires they fought last year. Brandenburg spoke about response data and Fite said they run 66% medical calls and about 33% other calls such as fires, car wrecks, hazardous material and alarms. Fit said they are at an average of 5 minutes and 34 seconds of drive time per response. He noted the overall response time for the City should go down even more with the opening of Fire Station 5. He showed Council photos of the current Fire Stations 1 through 4. He described the various department initiatives to the Council. He said there are many questions circulating about why the County is in the Hazmat business. He is wondering, if the County gets out of that, if they could possibly Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 5 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 2 of 5 Pages donate equipment to the City for those services. He moved on to the budget of the fire department. He provided the Council with an example of what it would cost to outfit a fire engine and fire fighter and the expiry dates for the various equipment. He said the cost is about $450,000 and noted this is an expensive business. He reviewed the training for Council and the hours spent on training the fire fighters. He said they are much better able to track the training hours than they have been in the past. He noted the City provided mutual aid 62 times last year, which means they left the City to assist other communities on their calls. He said mutual aid needs to be mutual and noted, just because Georgetown is the County seat, does not meet they need to help everyone. He noted the City only received mutual aid once. He listed the awards and promotions that were given and received by the fire department last year. Mayor asked and Fite confirmed the health related calls is about 66%. Mayor asked and Fite said he is not sure what portion of that is Sun City but he can find out. Mayor said he would assume most of those calls are coming from the Sun City area. Fite spoke about the concept of going into more of a mobile paramedic response in Sun City, where a paramedic can be put in a pick up truck equipped to respond to those type of calls. Fite described the current state of Fire Station 5. He showed Council an online live picture of Fire Station 5 being built. He noted the building has a two story concept and added the second story is more for fitness and equipment. He showed the Council the City's outdoor training classroom as well at the training tower. He applauded Jimmy Jacobs for their work on this facility so far. He noted the City is on schedule for an August 24 move in. He provided Council with the current status of Fire Station 2. He spoke about Fire Inspections and how Hank Jones will be in charge of fire inspections, public education, school programs, special events, and other responsibilities. He said Jones is taking lot off of his plate. He spoke about the fire inspections strategy and noted a large part of their job is about education. He added, when they start commercial inspections, they know they will find unsafe conditions. He said he and Jones will work with the business to find a solution to the problem. He said they want voluntary commitment from the businesses to solve the safety problem. He noted they are always updating their standard operating guidelines. He noted they are looking to have a new guidelines book in 2013. He spoke about Fire Engine 3 and how it is one more step to getting away from the quint concept of response. He spoke about emergency management and how there is a lot more to do with that and there will be a workshop later to address that issue. He spoke about water rescue and water recovery. He showed Council the new dive truck, all funded out of billing. He noted in 2009 and 2012, the City has three drownings at the lake. He said he is not sure they can prevent the drownings but noted they have to be able to help the families when a body needs to be recovered. He said they will kick off this team in August 2014. He showed Council a picture of the fire rescue boat. He spoke about their challenges ahead, including EMS and increasing demands, recruiting and retention, increase in lake activity, drought, an east side fire station and a decrease in revenue to fund additional programs. Gonzalez asked and Fite spoke about the efforts being made to increase the diversity in the department. He provided a Council with a rendering of Fire Station 2. Meigs asked and Fite spoke about the high school Fire Academy. He said he has met with the school district and noted they are looking at having a two year certified fire academy. He said they are looking at having student start in their junior year and, when they graduate high school, they will be certified fire fighters and EMTs. He noted they will also be able to provide homegrown preferences to local candidates who apply to be a firefighter. He said they are looking to kick this off in 2013 or 2014. He spoke about the revenue from training centers being able to help pay operational costs. Nero introduced himself and spoke about their new Police Department patches, which one a national competition in Law and Order Magazine. He provided Council with a 2011 report. He noted if Council has any questions about the report, they can contact him. He spoke about their current staffing and said they have 77 sworn officers, and their staffing goal is 1.8 officers per 1,000 people. He noted that the ratio is currently at 1.54 per 1,000. He provided Council with a slide showing the diversity of the department. He said about 24% of their sworn workforce is considered a minority. He spoke about the PSOT Complex and said they are currently in phase one and just finished the space needs assessment. He said they are ahead of schedule and noted they are currently doing the Construction Manager at Risk selection. He provided Council with the 2012 strategic planning priorities including 5 priority areas. He said those areas include enhance public safety, organizational development, advance teamwork and partnerships, resources management and be innovative. He spoke about the second priority organizational development. Berryman arrived at the dais. He said building capability is his responsibility. He spoke about the importance of training and preparedness. He spoke about instances where officers were prepared and how training has assisted the officers in those certain situations. He spoke about their training framework and said their framework is to be a scholar, statesman and warrior. He spoke about training in the department including ongoing instructor and program development in defensive tactics, taser, pepper ball, EVOC, fitness and wellness, joint dive team, reality based training and firearms. He told the Council about the current need for a Georgetown Firearms Range. He spoke about how the City shares a range with the County. He noted the current state of firearms qualification/training and said their is Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 5 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 3 of 5 Pages no firearm training program, officers qualify once annually, qualification is not training and training is not qualification, motor skills are perishable, developed skills creates capability and contemporary agencies train/qualify four times per year. He said they now have two weeks on the range for two training days and two qualifications. He said they have one remedial day per month and that allows them to concentrate on pistol only. He spoke about rifle training and how retraining will take eight weeks minimum. He spoke about he would not be able to get eight weeks at the range. He continue to speak about the schedule for rifle training as well as more advanced training he would like to provide for the officers. He spoke about the cost of a firearms range and noted it is about $2 to $3 million for a new range. He spoke about the trouble of using other ranges and not wearing out your welcome, noise and safety. He showed Council a concept of a hybrid range. He said something like a regular range could never happen in the City and added indoor ranges are incredibly expensive. He showed Council a picture of a hybrid range and described this type of range for the Council and why it would be doable. He is asking for some open dialogue from the Council. He noted they are master planning the facility and noted he wants to know if it is a feasible option to put a hybrid range on the new PSOT Complex. He opened the meeting up for comments and concerns. Sattler said it is interesting the Chief brings this up today because he noted he discussed the shooting range with the County Judge. He spoke about the facility in Florence and how it is in an overflow state. He said he would support a range if the right planning and land is in place. Gonzalez said he thinks it is a good idea and he thinks while joining and partnering is important, we have to reach a certain level of self-sufficiency as a City. Berryman said she smells an opportunity and asked about renting out a future range for other entities. Nero said it is possible but added they would build it maintenance free. He noted it would not be a revenue generator like a fire academy. Mayor asked and Brandenburg said the thought was to test the waters tonight on this concept. He noted the original plan does have an area that fits this concept. He said the thought was to come back on a future agenda with specifics. Mayor asked that staff go back and bring the fire range concept back for further discussion and review. There was much discussion. B Presentation and possible direction on policy guidelines for Parks and Recreation Fees and Cost Recovery -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director With a Powerpoint Presentation, Garrett introduced the current Parks and Recreation Board members at the meeting. She said this process will focus on the methodology behind setting fees for residential and non-residential users of service. She provided some background on parks and recreation and noted citizens expect a certain level of services for their tax dollars and noted the parks offers services and programs above the basic. She noted citizens also support Parks and Recreation as demonstrated in the 2004 Parks and Recreation Bond election. She noted they recognized that not everyone wants to pay above the minimum. She said they offer a variety of memberships, programs and facility rentals to both residents and non-residents. She said the City focuses on residents and added have priority to register for high demand programs like camp and swim lessons. She noted they also charge a higher fee for non-residents, which is something that has been done since 1995. She said the membership rates are set based on similar providers in the market. She said the program fees are set based on costs and demands and added those fees are set to recover the costs. She spoke about the past operational cost recovery for recreation services and noted it has been about 56%. She spoke about the financial assistance piece for parks services. She spoke about Parks Bucks and how volunteer time at the rec center can be in exchange for up to 50% credit on membership. She spoke about the Friends of the Georgetown Parks and Recreation organization. She said the goal is to set a consistent differential between residential and non-residential rate. She noted staff would also like to determine a cost recovery target. She showed Council a map showing the total parks and recreation usage by area. She showed a graph of who uses the facilities and programs and noted most are from residents. She said, however, non-residents contribute 21-29 percent of the revenue as well. She showed Council the program registrations in 2011. She noted they looked at other communities and added rates for memberships are different due to different amenities. She noted the communities also did not have a consistent policy for resident/non-residents. She showed Council a graph of the family annual rate comparison to other communities in the area. She said the City staff has looked at the target market and users including seniors, families and youth. She said, between 2007 and 2011, there was an almost 10% increase in recovery rates. She noted the General Government and Finance Committee recommended having the target for the Overall Operational Recovery Rate as between 50 and 60%. She spoke about the recommendations for the resident versus non-resident rate. She said the committee recommended the resident rate for memberships be 75% of the non-resident rate plus or minus 10% depending on the current rate. She said, for other rates $50 or less, should be $10 higher. She said, for rates $50 or greater, the non-resident rate should be 25% more. She said they also looked at the target market. She noted the annual rates should be set to incentivize consumers over shorter term option. She spoke about offering a discount to consumers who use bank draft, which the City is able to do with the Parks and Recreation software. She said there was a contingency on the recommendation and noted the philosophies are written for annual fees/rates. She said the parks board recommended an effective date of October 1, 2012. She provided Council with example membership rates. She Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 5 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 4 of 5 Pages spoke about the next steps and added it would be to approve the recommendation and incorporate this into the policy changes including the 2012/2013 budget and the fiscal and budgetary policy. She said there will be an annual review of these rates during the budget process. Mayor asked and Garrett reviewed the details of recommended policy that is included in the City Council packet. Motion by Meigs, second by Hellmann to accept the Parks Board recommendations on the policy guidelines and to research options to incorporate an incentive to use bank drafts. Eason asked that Garrett reviewed why the City wanted to review these fees. Eason spoke about the residents getting preference to use the facilities. Garrett noted this well help staff be able to justify the differences in fees. Sattler asked how these numbers compare to the YMCA. Garrett said the last time she looked at the YMCA memberships, they were higher. Berryman thanked Garrett for putting all of this together. She asked and Garrett said they have run preliminary numbers and the goal is for the revenue not to go below where the City is now. Berryman agreed with Meigs and said the term incentive should be used instead of the word discount when referring to the bank draft option. There was much discussion. Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0 C Presentation of Information Technology (IT) major project status for the current fiscal year, and the IT Master Plan update for FY2013 -- Mike Peters, Information Technology Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer Peters provided Council with an update of the current IT structure. He spoke about the 2012 project status. He described what has already occurred in fiscal year 2012, including the Laserfiche pilot, updated Library internet terminals, GPS devices to help with operational management of utility vehicles, upgrades, WiFi System on the square. He spoke to some of the larger projects that are still underway including Virtual Desktop Implementation, Outlook/Exchange Implementation, Tyler Content Manager, moving Boards and Commissions to NovusAgenda, the MyPermitNow system for Planning Department, Electric Construction Management System and Expense Report Management System. He said the 2013 budget process has already begun and spoke about the IT Master Plan Update. He said the two largest projects expected to move forward next year is the asset management system (AMS) and Laserfiche (Records Management) phased rollout of additional departments. He spoke about other projects in 2013 including a phone system software upgrade, interactive voice response (IVR) replacement, fire inspection system, City intranet, disaster recovery, Police Department and Fire Department staff scheduling, Contract Management System and routine upgrades including CAD/RMS. He described the IT initiatives beyond fiscal year 2013 including utilities customer information system, Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP) replacement, enterprise Records Management (additional departments), AMS extension for transportation and internal work tracking system. Jonrowe asked about security and if there are regular security checks in place. Peters said the City uses the industry standard security product called ActiveDirectory. He said, every couple of years, a penetration test is done where an outside corporation comes in to determine how easy it is for an outsider to get into the system. He continued to describe the current security measures currently in place. Mayor asked and Brandenburg said a lot of this is spread over multi-years and multi-budgets. He noted, compared to other communities, the City has really improved the technology it has now compared to where it was. Recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071 and 551.072 of the Local Government Code -- 5:02PM Returned to Open Session and adjourned -- 6:01 PM Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 06:01 PM. Approved : Attest: _______________________________________________ Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 5 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 5 of 5 Pages Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 5 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 1 of 10 Pages Draft Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, April 24, 2012 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Bill Sattler, Pat Berryman, Tommy Gonzalez, Rachael Jonrowe, Troy Hellmann Council Absent: All Council Present. Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Jim Briggs, Assitant City Manager; Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Wayne Nero, Police Chief; Robert Fite, Fire Chief; Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director; Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director; Kevin Russell, Director of Human Resources and Civil Service; Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner; David Munk, Utility Engineer; Glenn Dishong, Utility Director; Mark Miller, Transportation Services Director; Edward Polasek, Transportation Director; Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer; Carla Benton, Planner II; Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Minutes Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 06:00 PM (Council may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the City Manager for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.) A Call to Order --Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:03 PM Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures City Council Regional Board Reports - CAMPO Mayor said he does not have any updates from CAMPO since the last time they met. - Lone Star Rail District Eason said the next meeting of the Executive Committee on Friday, May 4 and presented the following report to the City Council: Passenger Rail – ·Work in Travis and Hays Counties to secure agreement for local operations and maintenance funding continues. A work session has been scheduled with the Travis County Commissioners Court for mid-May. In Hays County, the working group made up of city, county, and LSRD staff and consultants will be making a report to the rail policy group established by Judge Cobb in the next 30 days. ·A comprehensive business plan is currently being prepared by District staff and consultants. The plan will Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 10 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 2 of 10 Pages encompass the regional need for LSTAR passenger rail and the urban freight rail bypass, benefits of LSTAR and the urban freight rail bypass, financial strategy, implementation strategy, operations and policy, service plans, costs, and risks and mitigation. Union Pacific / Freight Relocation – ·The joint LSRD/Union Pacific inspection trip is scheduled for May 15th through 17th. As a reminder, the joint inspection trip will operate over the proposed LSTAR line, plus related UP territory and the general area of the proposed urban freight rail relocation line, to be conducted with LSRD staff, consultants, and UP staff. The purpose of the trip is to help inform and finalize the joint service planning effort currently going on between LSTAR and UP. ·The Alternatives Analysis is complete. Three alternatives for a freight bypass line will be taken forward into an environmental analysis process (most likely an EIS), including a robust public involvement effort, to be submitted to the federal government to obtain a Record of Decision. Freight Bypass Stakeholder Engagement – ·The team, consisting of LSRD staff and consultants and representatives of Union Pacific, continues to meet bi-weekly to coordinate messaging and report on ongoing outreach efforts. Meetings are currently scheduled with elected officials from Williamson to Bexar County, plus representatives of the City of Seguin, the City of Lockhart, and the Coupland Civic Organization. ·A Freight Bypass / Relocation web page is currently under design by LSRD consultants, as well as a redesign of the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund web page for deployment on the Lone Star Rail District web site – www.lonestarrail.com – within the next two weeks, including a project description, study documents as they become available, and a map of the study corridor. This will also be an opportunity to update other parts of the website with the latest operations and service planning data from our joint service planning process with Union Pacific. Public Engagement – ·Lone Star Rail staff made a project update presentation to the Texas Chapter, American Society of Civil Engineers on 4/20/2012 and the San Antonio Real Estate Council Leadership Development class on 4/21/2012 Other – ·Lone Star Rail District continues to participate actively in the CAMPO Transit Working Group and Project Connect initiatives to define the future Central Texas high capacity transit system. City Manager Comments 2012 Red Poppy Festival Irrigation Schedule Action from Executive Session There was no action out of Executive Session. 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. B - Haythem S. Dawlett regarding 301 South Hangar Drive, Master Lease Agreement with AVS Real Estate LLC The speaker withdrew his request to address council. Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that Council may act on with one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the council discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda. C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council meeting held on Tuesday, April 12, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary D Consideration and possible action on a license to encroach of landscape into the public right-of-way along Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 10 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 3 of 10 Pages 20th and 21st Streets, for the First Presbyterian Church Cemetery being Sparks Addition, Block 12, and pt Block 13, located between 20th Street, Main Street, and 21st Street -- Carla Benton, Planner II and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director E Forwarded from the Airport Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action regarding request from RA General Services, LLC d/b/a Longhorn Jet Center to approve a sublease with AVS Real Estate, LLC -- Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney Motion by Meigs, second by Gonzalez to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. Approved 7-0 Legislative Regular Agenda Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: F First Reading of an Ordinance authorizing the 2012 Certificates of Obligation (CO) bond issue” -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) Rundell said the next four items are related to bonds the City is issuing. She said the first issue is the 2012 CO bonds, which will be issued to pay for public safety vehicles, a fire truck and right of way on the Inner Loop. She read the caption of the Ordinance on first and only reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Speaker, Gary Kimble with Specialized Public Finance, spoke about this year's bond issues and highlighted a few things in the financial summary provided to the Council. He said he is pleased with the outcome of bids received for the GO bond issue. He said the interest rate will be 3.109 percent. He said the City was budgeting a 3.35 percent rate and this is well below that number. He recommended the GO bond issue be awarded to BOSC Inc. He spoke about the CO bond issue and how the term of that issue is different from the GO bond issue. He said Morgan Keenan and Company submitted the winning bid and would recommend the Council award the bid to them. He reviewed the refunding transactions and spoke about how these were discussed at the last meeting. He said he believes the City's interest rates on those bonds can be brought down a lot. He said the savings generated totals over $2.5 million. He said they are asking for Council's approval to allow the City to get into the market. Mayor asked and Kimble said the rates the City is receiving is impressive, largely due to the City's AA+ rating. He spoke about the importance of maintaining the AA+ rating. Mayor said Kimble's presence and leadership has been helpful for the City. Meigs asked and Kimble said his opinion is that the rates will not hold through this time next year. He made several comments regarding where he thinks rates will go over the next few years. He said, until the money starts to move through the economy, you will not see the interest rates go up. He said the window for that is between the next year and three years. Meigs said he hopes Kimble will keep the Council informed of this type of data. Sattler asked and Kimble spoke about refinancing CO bonds and noted, when that happens, they become GO refunding bonds. He said there is no such thing as CO refunding bonds. Kimble said the City is only extending the term on one issue, which is the one issued in 2009 with the original intent of extending it to a 20 year financing. Sattler asked and Kimble confirmed the limited tax note will become the GO self-supporting bonds. There was much discussion regarding the details of the different bond issues. Motion by Meigs, second by Sattler to approve Ordinance 2012-23. Approved 7-0 G First Reading of an Ordinance authorizing the issuance of 2012 General Obligation bonds -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) Rundell described the item and said this Ordinance is for the bonds for the first phase of the funding for the new Public Safety facility. She read only the caption of the Ordinance on first and only reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to approve Ordinance 2012-24. Approved 7-0 H First Reading of an Ordinance authorizing the issuance of 2012 General Obligation Refunding bonds -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 10 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 4 of 10 Pages Rundell noted this is the refunding of the GO portion, of which a large chunk is the limited tax notes. She said this is the only self supporting water, electric and wastewater bonds in the City. She read only the caption of the Ordinance on first and only reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Meigs, second by Hellmann to approve the Ordinance 2012-25. Sattler asked and Rundell siad these are the limited tax notes that are paid for by the utilities. Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0 I First Reading of an Ordinance authorizing the issuance of 2012 Revenue Refunding Bonds -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) Rundell described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on first and only reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Meigs, second by Hellmann to approve Ordinance 2012-26. Approved 7-0 Sattler thanked Rundell, Polumbo and Kimble and said they have done a great job at saving the City money. J Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Use Permit for a Bed & Breakfast use on a residentially zoned property, at Lost Addition, Block 77 (s/pt), located at 1602 S. Austin Avenue. SUP-2012-004 -- Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner (action required) Wyler said this will allow a Bed and Breakfast on a residentially zoned property. He sad, in short, the applicant wishes to open up their house to visitors as a bed and breakfast. He said the applicant went to HARC for the approval of the change in use as well as the parking plan. He said, at the March 22 meeting, HARC approved both items unanimously. He said there was a unanimous vote for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Public Hearing was opened at 6:36 PM Speaker, Philip Brown, said he is the applicant and owner of the property. He said they moved in there a little less than a year ago. He said it has been their dream of running a bed and breakfast. He said they have been warmly received in the community and felt like there is support for this type of business. He said he wants to run the type of bed and breakfast that is in keeping with the business goals of Georgetown. He said they are really excited. He said he has a concern and he read an email that he recently . He spoke about a cloud hanging over the project. He said they have reached an obstacle where building codes meets business reality. He said they had to go in front of the building standards commission on the issue of a fire sprinkler system for the home. He spoke about the system is complicated, obtrusive and expensive. He said they did not plan to have a sprinkler system at all and did not plan to do any major renovations. He continued to speak about the extreme cost of a sprinkler system. He said there is an important place for this type of business in Georgetown but noted the cost of a sprinkler system was not part of their start up cost. Mayor asked and Brandenburg said the Council can proceed with the Special Use Permit but the applicant's concern will need to be placed on a future agenda for consideration. Public Hearing was closed at 6:45 PM Motion by Jonrowe, second by Berryman to approve the Special Use Permit. Approved 7-0 K Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Use Permit for to allow a Restaurant with a Drive-Through on a Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoned property, at City of Georgetown, Block 24 (replat), to be known as Hat Creek Burgers, located at 405 S. Austin Avenue. SUP-2012-005 -- Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner (action required) This item was pulled from the agenda by the applicant. L Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 2.54 acres of the Flores A. Survey from the Agriculture (AG) District to General Commercial (C-3) District, located at 2815 and 2817 North Austin Avenue -- Mike Elabarger, Planner III and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director (action required) Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 10 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 5 of 10 Pages Elabarger said this is a rezoning request located on the north side of North Austin Avenue. He provided Council with an aerial view of the property. He said the applicant is seeking to rezone to the General Commercial District. He said the applicant has had difficulty obtaining residents on the property. He said it contains an A frame building and a larger rectangular building. He said the property has functioned as two properties and he described those for the City Council. He noted a variety of uses have gone in there as well. He noted the C-3 zoning would open up a plethora of opportunities for other types of development. He spoke about the future land use designation for that property as well as the existing zoning in the area. He said staff is in support of this request. He noted staff sees this as the highest and best use zoning district. Public Hearing was opened at 6:51PM. No persons were present to speak. Public Hearing was closed at 6:51PM. He read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Meigs, second by Gonzalez to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0 M Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to Office (OF) District for Chaparro Estates, Lots 1,2,3,5 & 6, part of a Resubdivision to be known as Chapriel Place, Block A, Lots 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 5-A and Block B, Lot 1-B, located at the intersection of Williams Drive and Sedro Trail -- Carla Benton, Planner II and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director (action required) Benton said this is a request for rezoning from Agricultural to Office and described the area for the Council. She noted it is currently five developable lots. She said other lots were platted for office use. She said there are ten heritage trees on the property. She described the current zoning of the surrounding area. She said they have low and moderate density land use for the future land use of this area. She said the low density and moderate density allow for non-residential when it is located along a major arterial. She noted office is compatible for the future land use of this area. She said the Office District supports general professional office, medical and dental offices, personal service uses, banking and printing among other uses. She said they are considered an appropriate transitional use between residential and greater commercial uses. She said, because of the future land use and the existing zoning as well as its compatibility as a transitional use, the city considers this an appropriate request. She said there were two speakers are the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and noted the concerns of the speakers will be addressed at the site plan phase. Public Hearing was opened at 6:56PM No persons were present to speak. Public Hearing was closed at 6:56PM She read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Meigs to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Sattler asked and Benton said the property is served by Pedernales Electric and Chisholm Water System. Approved 7-0 N Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance on a Rezoning amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Sun City Neighborhood 59, situated on 96.99 acres near the future extension of Pedernales Falls Drive -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director (action required) Maddox described the item and said this is for an amendment to the PUD for Sun City Neighborhood 59. He said the request is to increase the amount of homes on the property. Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 10 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 6 of 10 Pages He read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Public Hearing was opened at 7:00 PM No persons were present to speak. Public Hearing was closed at 7:00 PM Motion by Berryman, second by Sattler to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0 O Consideration and possible action to approve the development of a citizen task force committee to evaluate the current Emergency Notification processes and network -- Robert Fite, Fire Chief Fite said in the Council's packet is a history of this issue dating back to 2007 and 2008. He said they are proposing the formation of a citizen task force committee to evaluate the current system, study other emergency notification options and review the success stories throughout the State. He said the committee would come back to Council with ideas on notification as well as funding options. He noted they would like one appointee from each Council member and the Mayor. He said the appointments will be placed on the May 8 agenda and they are hoping for the committee to come back with their report at a meeting in July. Brandenburg said he thought it would be prudent to go over the notifications sirens and if there are other ways to communicate with the public in the case of emergencies. He said the current system is antiquated and added staff would like to study what to do next and how to move forward with this issue. Speaker, Dan Dodsen, thanked Council and said he wishes to commend Chief Fite and added recent happenings has shown the importance of emergency notification systems. He said the City needs to look closely at the notification systems and implement an appropriate process. Gonzalez asked and Fite said he expects one initial kick off meeting, about 4 hours of research at home over a time period of 45 days and two additional follow up meetings. Berryman spoke about people being notified by cell phones in the case of an emergency and added staff really needs to look at the newer technology. Fite agreed and said he would like the committee to really examine new technology. Motion by Berryman, second by Jonrowe to approve the creation of an Emergency Notification Citizen Task Force. Sattler asked and Fite said the sirens are tested every Wednesday at noon and added they have failed twice. Fite said they are not reliable. Sattler asked and Fite said the City has a reverse 911 system through CAPCOG. Berryman said a person can not hear the sirens in your homes. Brandenburg agreed and said the City needs to utilize the technology at its greatest. Eason said she is pleased this is coming forward because, when this last came to Council, it was denounced. She said she is happy there is going to be a full review of this and research of all of the options that are out there to protect everyone in the City during emergency events. Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0 P Presentation, discussion and possible direction to staff concerning Urban Farming -- Jackie Carey, Animal Services Director; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney Chapman described the item and reviewed what has been done on the topic of urban farming so far. She said staff is now bringing back a report and is needing direction from Council on whether or not to move forward with this topic. She noted staff narrowed the report to the issue of animals and, in particular, the keeping of hens and beekeeping. She said those were the two most popular topics brought forward by the public. She spoke about having a page on the website so that people can engage in discussing gardening topics. She noted that will be managed by the webmaster Erin McDonald. She brought Council an outline of the current code provisions related to the urban farming issues. She outlined how certain provisions will need to be amended depending upon the extent to which the Council would like to allow for certain uses. She referred to the current animal restriction section and how it currently restrict people from having hens by setback regulations. She spoke about what other cities say about this issue. She noted all cities provide a limited number of hens along with a specific setback regulations. She said the recommendation if the City allows hens, there will be no roosters, the number of hens would be limited to 8, the types of hens will be defines, they we would required the owner provided written notice to the animal services director of hen ownership as well as a twenty foot setback. She said the recommendation also includes an annual inspection for the enclosures. She noted this will be a complaint driven provision. She spoke about beekeeping and the recommendations for the regulations regarding beekeeping. Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 10 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 7 of 10 Pages Gonzalez spoke about the financial cost of sending out staff to look through the coops and inspect them once a year. Carey said the City won't know until the City sees how popular this is. Jonrowe asked and Carey said they send out inspectors to citizens who have multiple pet permits, but not for people who want dog houses. There was much discussion about whether or not a yearly inspection of the coops would be necessary. Speaker, Rick Williamson, said he would like to support this option. He noted his inclination is that it is a larger topic than what came out in the workshop. He said he would like to bring forward the idea that some other things should probably be discussed in another workshop or meeting. He spoke about the importance of having community and neighborhood gardens. He noted community gardens are notoriously not used by the community but noted neighborhood gardens are more accessible. He said he approves of the report as it stands now but he would like to see more. Speaker, Wally Brown, spoke about the First United Methodist Church community garden. He said every person who wants to come out there and garden does so for free. He spoke about "SAMing" and how it means Specific, Attainable and Measurable. He said the specifics are the land and attainable is to look to volunteers for assistance. He said, in the City, when you want to get something done, you go around and ask and there is a lot of cooperation. He said people are coming in, signing up and growing their own food. He said that is spinning off in other community gardens as well. He said urban gardening is very important and he thanked Council for at least looking into this. He said we have something here in Georgetown that other people do not have and that is how they work as a team. He said he is glad they are looking at this. Speaker, Jimmie Oakley, said he is representing the beekeepers at the United Methodist Church and was past chair of the Williamson County Beekeepers Association. He said, in Texas, there are about 15,000 hobby beekeepers and many of those are in your towns and communities In Texas, $5.4 million was provided to the economy from honey production. He said over 90 commercial crops require the benefits of honeybee pollination. He said the value of pollination to Texas has been almost 100 times the value of the actual value of the honey produced. He spoke about the current bee hives that exist in the community. He described how beekeepers contribute to swarm control and cuts down on the prevalence of African bees. Speaker, Robbin Voight, is here in support this initiative. She said there is enough interest in Georgetown to promote urban farming. She said she knows Southwestern is doing things to support the growth of your own food. Mayor asked and Brandenburg said this is the staff's report back to Council. Chapman said the report focuses on the beekeeping and the hens. Chapman referred to the community garden issue and noted the current Ordinance does not limit this and it is open for any neighborhood garden. Berryman said it seems to her that bees are different than hens. She said bees are benefitting the entire community on many levels. She said there should be some regulations regarding the selling of the honey out of people's homes. She said she is not sure she agrees with the idea of taking bees and lumping them in as an animal that needs to be looked at as a problem similar to a chicken. She noted she would like to see the council categorize them separately. Jonrowe agreed with Berryman and said there has not been an issue with bees and noted she does not think it is necessary to regulate bees at this point. She would like to get rid of this altogether from the policy. Motion by Berryman, second by Eason that beekeeping regulations be eliminated from this item. Approved 7-0 Jonrowe said she has a clarification on the gardening provision and the definition of collector level street. Jonrowe asked and Cook said a community garden would have to be looked at according to who the target market would be and does not necessarily require a vehicle entrance and exit. Meigs said he is going to have a hard time approving the allowance of hens in backyards. He said hens in backyards would create more problems. He noted he is wondering if there would be some way to designate a zone where people can keep hens in a designated area. Jonrowe said that could be difficult in terms of care for the chickens. Hellmann said it seems like this is not a rural thing anymore and said a lot of surrounding cities allow people to own chickens. He said, however, the annual coop inspections will be to much work.He noted staff should instead respond on a complaint basis instead of having to do an annual inspection. Hellmann asked about the chicken map. Chapman said the map was supposed to illustrate that, under the current regulations, they are not allowed in a lot of places. Hellmann noted and Chapman said places that have Homeowner's Associations, covenants or deed restrictions do not allow for chicken ownership and would supersede city regulation. Eason said her concern is that this policy is overkill. She said she does not the City needs this much panic over this issue. She agreed with Hellmann that a yearly inspection would not be necessary. She noted she thinks the complaint list is an over-reaction as well because it spreads misinformation about the animals. Eason said wildlife are already here and the addition of chicken would not effect the current state of critters that are already in our midst. She said she thinks the City needs to be more in the business of educating the public on this issue and how to manage this Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 10 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 8 of 10 Pages appropriately. Sattler said as long as the neighborhoods and their restrictions are honored, he is in favor urban farming. He noted, as far as community gardens, he worked with Wally setting up gardens in Sun City. He said he and his wife have two plots out there. Berryman asked and Chapman spoke about the setback regulations regarding chicken ownership. Berryman said, if the City does decide to do this, they should limit this to three hens with a 50 foot setback. She spoke about a past instance of a neighbor who had hens. She said there are ramifications for this. She mentioned Sattler's comment about an HOA and how, out in Berry Creek, they do not have a protective organization. She said an annual inspection of the coop is probably not necessary but noted it may be good to have. Motion by Berryman, second by Gonzalez to accept this with a three hen limit, a 50 foot setback and an initial inspection of the structure. Berryman asked and Cook said if you are going to have a 50 foot setback, the coop would have to have its own setback requirement. Jonrowe said the 50 foot setback would eliminate most people in Old Town from owning chickens and those are the core group of people who would like to utilize that opportunity. Berryman withdrew her motion. Gonzalez withdrew his second. Motion by Berryman, second by Gonzalez to deny the allowance of chickens in the City. Gonzalez spoke about how HOAs rely cities for these type of regulations. He said, while he thinks gardening is great, if the City starts down the road of chicken ownership it will get carried away and lead to other farm animals such as goats and pigs. Gonzalez said he thinks this can grow out of hand quickly. Eason asked what the City is going to do about the people who already own chickens. Gonzalez and Berryman agreed it would be complaint driven. Vote on the motion: Failed 3-4 (Hellmann, Eason, Jonrowe, Sattler opposed) Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hellmann to accept the recommendations of staff on the manner of hens except for the yearly inspection of coops. Motion by Sattler, second by Eason to amend the motion and make the regulations subject to HOAs, deed restrictions and covenants. Approved 4-3 (Meigs, Berryman, Gonzalez opposed) Vote on the original motion as amended: Approved 4-3 (Meigs, Berryman, Gonzalez opposed) Q Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to award a Construction Contract to Joe Bland Construction, LP, of Austin, Texas, for the construction of the DB Wood Road at Fire Station No. 5 & Shell Road at Bellaire / Westbury Roadway Improvements Project in the amount of $583,321.50 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Polasek described the item and said this is a construction contract to build two improvements on portions of the Inner Loop. He described those improvements for the Council. He said these project was competitively bids. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hellmann to approve the contract. Sattler asked and Polasek described where the funding is coming from for each of those projects. Sattler said he just wants to make sure they have a definition of where these pots of money are coming from. Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0 R Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to award a contract for the 2012 Street Asphalt Recycling/Mill & Overlay to Cutler Repaving Inc, of Lawrence, Kansas, in the amount of $1,527,501.75 -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Director Miller described the item and noted this is to repave and resurface the roads that are older than 35 years. He said they have used this process for about five years and noted Cutler has a patent on this process. He listed some of the local cities that use this process. He said this follows the current contract Council approved about a month ago. He said this was unanimously approved by the GTEC Board. Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 10 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 9 of 10 Pages Motion by Hellmann, second by Gonzalez to approve the contract. Approved 7-0 S Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility System (GUS) Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve the contract for construction of the South Austin Avenue Water Line Improvements to Joe Bland Construction LP, of Austin, Texas for the amount of $264,911.00 -- David Munk, P.E., Utility Engineer and Glenn Dishong, Utility Director Munk described the item and said this is for water line improvements along South Austin Avenue and added the City has experienced many leaks with this line. He said this item was unanimously recommended by the GUS Board. Motion by Berryman, second by Meigs to approve the item. Approved 7-0 T Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility System (GUS) Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order KPA-12-001 with Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP of Georgetown, Texas, for professional services related to Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Rehabilitation Phase IX in the amount of $79,380.00 -- David Munk, P.E., Utility Engineer and Glenn Dishong, Utility Director Munk said the TCEQ requires zones above the aquifer system be tested. He described the testing process for the Council. He said KPA reviews the testing and recommends the remedial corrections for the City. He said their water services department performs the testing. He said this item was unanimously approved by the GUS Board. Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to approve the task order. Approved 7-0 U First Reading of an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2011-60 pertaining to the annexation of 2011 Annexation Area 15, to correct the label of an exhibit that incorrectly annexed an unintended area -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney (action required) Maddox said this Ordinance is to correct the mislabeling of an exhibit on an annexation Ordinance. He read the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied he requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Berryman, second by Hellmann to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0 V First Reading of an Ordinance establishing the classifications and number of positions (Strength of Force) for all the City of Georgetown Fire Fighters and Police Officers pursuant to Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code pertaining to Civil Service-- Kevin Russell, Director of Human Resources & Civil Service (action required) Russell said the City is making changes to both the fire and police department staffing and he described those changes for the Council. Russell read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Eason to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 6-0 (Berryman absent from the dais) W Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Section 2.100 entitled "Economic Development Advisory Board"-- Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney and Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director (action required) Chapman described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Hellmann, second by Berryman to approve. Approved 7-0 X Forwarded from the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO): Consideration and possible action to approve the Second Amended Agreement by and between GCV Enterprises, LLC dba Grape Creek Vineyards and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) -- Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney and Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director Chapman said this is the second amended agreement between GEDCO and Grape Creek. She noted the amendment is necessary to obtain additional construction bids. She said the change of schedule moves the Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 10 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 10 of 10 Pages target date of opening to November 1, 2012 Motion by Berryman, second by Hellmann to approve. Approved 7-0 The meeting was adjourned at 8:27pm Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 08:27 PM. Approved : Attest: _______________________________________________ Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 10 Item # C City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Consideration of the 2012 Annual Update to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director ITEM SUMMARY: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan requires an annual update report to the City Council. The report details actions taken over the last year that relate to the implementation of the plan and forecasts goals and projects for the next year as well. The report is simply informational and requires no action. As part of the Annual Update process, there are several amendments to the Land Use Element, more specifically the Future Land Use Plan and Growth Tier Map. One of these amendments is at the request of a property owner and the two others are staff-initiated. All three will receive public hearings and are action items on the May 8th agenda. 2012 marks the fourth year since the 2030 Plan was adopted. As required, staff will soon begin a more substantial review for the 5-Year Update, which will reassess the general vision, policies and implementation strategies of each element composing the comprehensive city plan. That review will be completed as part of the 2013 annual update cycle. No action is required for this report. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner, and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Annual Update Report - 2012 Cover Memo Item # D Georgetown Planning and Development Department 2030 Plan Annual Update - 2012 Page 1 of 6 2030 Plan Annual Update: 2012 The 2030 Comprehensive Plan was unanimously adopted by City Council on February 26, 2008. The new plan was a much-needed update from Georgetown’s 1988 comprehensive plan, the Century Plan. One of the primary tenets of the new plan was the establishment of an annual update that would detail the past and future implementation items related to the plan. Council passed a resolution on November 11, 2008, establishing the annual update procedures, with this report being one of the objectives of the process. The Annual Update report focuses on the status of remaining comprehensive plan elements, plan implementation efforts over the last year and new goals and actions to be worked on between now and 2013. The Plan anticipates a 5-year review that will occur at next year’s update, potentially leading to a more thorough review of elements and implementation, adoptions of new elements and vision statements, etc. Staff has not yet set goals or began to formulate a strategy for the 5-year revisions; that will begin in earnest following this update. Plan Element Update Completed and Ongoing Elements Since the adoption of the 2030 Plan, four plan elements have been adopted by Council, with five more in various stages of development. The Parks Master Plan and Water and Electric Master Plans were completed in 2009, with Council adopting the Executive Summary for both Utility Plans. An update to the Overall Transportation Plan was funded in 2009 and is nearing completion. The Housing Plan was funded in 2008 and has been substantially completed, but City Council has not yet adopted the plan. Last year, staff was given direction to do an in-depth study of the plan’s implementation steps prior to further consideration of the plan itself. The Housing Board has been working diligently in order to present a revised plan, updated to the 2010 Census, for Council’s consideration in June. Finally, the Citizen Participation Plan was developed by staff with the help of a citizen advisory committee and was approved in 2010. 2011 saw no new elements adopted; however, several are in various stages of development and are scheduled for completion this fiscal year. The remaining comprehensive plan elements are further described below. Remaining Elements The remaining 2030 Plan Elements List, which was accepted by Council as a guide to the status of ongoing and future Charter elements for the budget priority process, is attached at the end of this report. Details regarding anticipated timelines, priorities and upcoming actions for all of the elements are included on the list for the Council’s consideration in the budget priority process. The costs to separate out each element and hire individual or separate consultants are prohibitive for their completion in the short term. As a result, staff is continuing to explore the possibilities of doing any or all of the remaining elements in-house or with limited support over the next couple of years. Several of the elements already have tasks completed on important Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 6 Item # D Georgetown Planning and Development Department 2030 Plan Annual Update - 2012 Page 2 of 6 components of a final plan, which we feel could be adopted with some minor additions and updates. For example, staff is currently developing in-house elements for Historic Preservation, Public Facilities, and a Public Safety strategic plan element. In addition, updates to the Downtown Design Guidelines are nearing completion. Staff expects to have completed the Public Facilities Plan, Overall Transportation Plan Update, the Public Safety Plan and a Historic Preservation Plan by the end of the year. Housing Plan adoption is entirely dependent on City Council’s continued consideration of that element. Actions Affecting the 2030 Plan in 2011 Actions were taken in the last calendar year affecting the short and long-term planning efforts of the 2030 Plan. These include newly annexed lands, rezonings, land use changes, utility service boundary changes, and the continued 2010 Census data releases. Annexation 2011 saw the City annexing the most territory since 2008, with both voluntary and involuntary annexations taking place. Between February of 2011 and the end of January 2012, a total of 13 annexation ordinances were approved, with five of those being voluntarily submitted and eight being City-initiated. Last year, staff signaled in the Annual Update report that an updated Annexation Priority Map would be coming soon for consideration at Council amidst a potential study of unilateral (involuntary) annexation. This priority map, which outlined 10+ years of annexation priorities, was the basis for the proposed annexation program which commenced last summer and was completed in December. The annexation program focused on economic development corridors, such as Westinghouse Road and Shell Road, and infill areas (aka “donut holes”). A total of 444.61 acres were approved through that program for inclusion into the city limits, with an additional 89 acres approved for agricultural exemption agreements, which delays annexation for properties that have Ag exemptions. In addition to the properties annexed by City Council through the City-initiated process, five parcels were annexed voluntarily by property owners, totaling 268.61 acres. These five properties were brought in due to anticipated development or requirements of an agreement under which the property was regulated. For 2011, a total of 702.59 acres were annexed into the City, bringing the total to 33,139 acres, or 51.78 square miles. One final action which greatly affects the future annexation of the southwestern quadrant of Georgetown was the approval of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement for the Water Oak project on Leander Road and SH 29. This project, approved in 2007, was intended to be in the city limits; however, the new amendment removed that requirement and the project will move forward outside of the city limits and makes provisions for the disannexation of the 268.3 acres that were annexed in 2007. That action is anticipated this summer. Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 6 Item # D Georgetown Planning and Development Department 2030 Plan Annual Update - 2012 Page 3 of 6 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments When the Century Plan was the City’s comprehensive planning document, it was common practice to change the Future Land Use Plan and Intensity Plan in order to develop or plan to develop a piece of property. The new plan is more conceptual in nature, guiding staff, developers, P&Z, and City Council in decision-making for zoning and development intensity without having to always make changes by ordinance to the various maps. In 2011, staff supported a handful of zoning cases that would have previously required an additional application and approval through the former comprehensive plan process. The adaptation of this land use strategy for the long-term planning efforts of the Utility Master Plans (see below) has led to greater efficiency and certainty in those plans while still allowing flexibility for new or different developments as the need occurs. There were 15 separate rezonings approved by City Council in 2011, the most in three years, yet only two comprehensive plan amendments (both future land use amendments) went in conjunction with those rezonings. This gives a pretty good indication of the flexibility that the 2030 Future Land Use Plan has provided applicants, and also how it has empowered staff to make planning decisions based on more than just the colors on the map. The 2030 Plan is a guide based on the long-term goals and aspirations of the community and has been successful in this regard. The two plan amendments were both in the southern part of town (see next section) along Westinghouse Road. The result of each amendment was essentially the same – to create an employment-based mix of uses – although one significantly shrank a high density residential node and the other shrank an employment center node. The statistical percentage change of each category was negligible as a result of these amendments. Note: Another land use amendment was approved as this report was being written, adding additional high density residential to the Future Land Use Plan, with a companion rezoning. Southeast Development Zone Last year, staff discussed the Southeast Development Zone project and the possibility of a renewed focus on the southern part of our ETJ by advancing some utilities that have been lacking in the area. The aforementioned annexation plan was established as the first step; discussions were initiated with Round Rock to potentially help assist the utility situation, if only temporarily; potential land use, growth tier, and proactive rezoning plans were drawn up by staff as possibilities for the area; and the Finance Department weighed in on how to create a Tax-Increment Reinvestment Zone for the area that might help fund some capital improvements. During the annexation process, much of the ability and support for the big project began to fade as it became clear that much of the land would be forced to remain outside of the city limits, which would restrict our ability to create a TIRZ, and the improvements needed to support the project would be cost-prohibitive for the City. However, staff has internally made concerted efforts to drive smaller capital improvements to the area, continues to work with Round Rock on solutions, and we are supporting an upcoming move for the Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 6 Item # D Georgetown Planning and Development Department 2030 Plan Annual Update - 2012 Page 4 of 6 recently-annexed areas into the first growth tier. It is likely that, with these actions, there will be City support for the area, even if the more comprehensive effort does not come about as quickly as desired. Census 2010 In February of 2011, the initial United States Census information was released to Georgetown. The initial data release focused on Census Places, meaning the total population and basic information needed to proceed with the Redistricting process, completed and accepted in the fall of 2011. Additional Census data regarding demographics, economic, and social statistics will be provided to us within the year. For planning purposes, the Census data is a valuable resource to help determine trends and projections for the next 10 to 20 years. Staff is currently studying the detailed block information and is compiling information for a more detailed statistical report following the release of the demographic data. Plan Amendments for the 2012 Annual Update As set forth in the November 2008 resolution, any amendments proposed by the public, staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council will be considered at the Annual Update as a package, with only majority approval required. For the 2012 Update, no proposed amendments were received during the 2012 open application period. However, a proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan was submitted during the 2011 Annual Update cycle in conjunction with a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning case. Staff and the applicant spent a full year working out key components of the PUD and it is ready for Council consideration. Public hearings on both the PUD and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) were held at the March P&Z meeting and both will move forward to Council as part of the Annual Update process in May. No further action is required of the Commission and Council will consider the CPA under the rules of the Annual Update, which require a majority vote. Staff does have a few recommendations for the Future Land Use Plan that are being submitted as an amendment (see separate action item). Each of the changes relates to Institutional use, both to acknowledge recent actions by public entities and also to remove the potential burden of a private property owner whose property may have an unwanted designation of Institutional. (For the 2030 Plan, institutional is synonymous with “civic.”) In 2013, a larger study of changes, trends, and amendments to the Future Land Use Map will likely occur, but this year’s changes are minor and fairly straightforward. In addition to the Future Land Use Amendments, staff is bringing forward proposed changes to the Growth Tier Map, which are typically considered only every few years in conjunction with the updates to the Water and Wastewater Master Plans. Staff has been working diligently with the Utility Department and their consultants to ensure that any recommended changes to this plan are proactive, sensible, and affordable. Staff has studied changes in capital projects due to annexations and other agreements outside of the normal planning and development process Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 6 Item # D Georgetown Planning and Development Department 2030 Plan Annual Update - 2012 Page 5 of 6 and also how future shifts might affect the overall system. Looking at primarily water and wastewater planning, the Growth Tier policy tool is being tweaked for Tier 1 to include a couple of areas that have the potential to be economic development areas in the short-term. The first tier growth area still has significant improvements necessary for new growth and for redevelopment. Staff will continue to eye other areas for additional investment as this plan progresses and study potential extensions and improvements to other growth areas as projects and potential cost-sharing are proposed. See comprehensive plan amendment to amend Growth Tier Map. At this time, P&Z and the City Council have the opportunity to suggest additional changes to staff on potential amendments, ask for further studies, or stress the importance of certain implementation steps for the coming year. Goals, Policies, and Actions Implementation Summary The first goal of the Land Use Plan Element is to “Promote sound, sustainable, and compact development patterns with balanced land uses, a variety of housing choices…” Many of the policies and actions throughout the plan relate to establishing guidelines to encourage a balanced mix of housing, commercial, and employment uses. City Council has accomplished many of these intentions with the adoption of the Mixed-Use Zoning District. The immediate (0-2 year) priority actions that were addressed by staff since 2010 are listed below. Many of these items have been recommended by the UDC Task Force as part of the UDC Annual Review process; the majority of these items have been adopted or soon will be considered by City Council. Items considered and principally completed since 2010 1.A. Encourage a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses at varying densities and intensities, to reflect a gradual transition from urban to suburban to rural development. 1.C. Establish standards appropriate for new residential development pertaining to lot sizes, open space, buffers, road connectivity, etc. 1.D. Establish improved standards for commercial development. 1.E.1. Establish standards for and actively promote new forms of compact development to include Transit-Oriented Development, as well as tr aditional neighborhood development (TND), mixed-use, and pedestrian-scale development. 1.E.3. Promote mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly land use patterns, including community activity centers, neighborhood activity centers, conservatio n subdivisions, and walkable neighborhoods. 2.A.2. Overlay districts (where specific requirements could be modified to allow established character to be maintained; e.g., buildings pulled up to the street, credit for on- street/shared parking, etc.) 2.A.3. Adjust the City’s schedule of development fe es (e.g., development review fees and costs to upgrade infrastructure) to lessen financial burdens on investments in designated areas and more accurately reflect the different costs of prov iding services in developed areas (where Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 6 Item # D Georgetown Planning and Development Department 2030 Plan Annual Update - 2012 Page 6 of 6 infrastructure is available), suburban areas, and f ringe areas (where costly infrastructure extensions are necessary). 2.B.2: Through the City’s Capital Improvement Program, prioritize short and long-range capital investments in designated urban areas, including but not limited to utility replacements, capacity improvements, area-wide stormwater systems, street improvements, etc. 4.B. Revise the UDC to ensure development that is compatible in character with the surrounding context. 4C: Develop and apply neighborhood conservation strategies such as code enforcement and house rehabilitation programs. 4.D. Revise the UDC to ensure proper transitions and buffering between established neighborhoods and adjacent commercial and manufacturing areas. Goals, Policies and Actions for 2012-2013 For 2012, staff will explore other implementation items of the Future Land Use Element, including completing work with the UDC Task Force on the significant updates to the UDC. The UDC is and will be crucial to execution of the policies and actions of the 2030 Plan and staff will continue to recommend updates to the development code as warranted in the future. Items being considered by staff for 2012 or as part of 2013’s 5-year Review 1.A.2. Reserve and rezone land ideally suited for l ong-term commercial and employment uses and prevent its use for residential subdivisions. 2B.1: Conduct community wide public facility assessments to identify and prioritize corrections to deficiencies in infrastructure, including local streets and sidewalks, and other public facilities, including parks and recreation facilities. (Coordinate this action with preparation of other Plan elements, including Infrastructure, Transportation, and Open Space and Recreation). 2B.3: Identify revitalization corridors for capital improvements (e.g., streetscape/landscaping, utility upgrades, etc.) 3A.3: Establish a proactive plan to provide infrastructure in advance of development. There are several projects related to the 2030 Plan that will either continue or get underway in 2012. These include the next Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates, adoption of new 2030 Plan elements, continued updates to the UDC, and other ongoing implementation items of the adopted 2030 Plan Elements. The 5-year Review will likely see some suggestions of new Goals, Policies and Actions as we continue to evolve as a community and try and adapt to quickly changing circumstances. Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 6 Item # D City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action regarding a Resolution granting a petition and setting public hearing dates for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 93.77acres in the Mary Ann Lewis, Leroy Lord, and William Roberts Surveys, for a future section of Georgetown Village, located on Shell Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director ITEM SUMMARY: The proposed annexation is for property adjacent to the existing Georgetown Village, Section Six. It is property that is being put together from 3 tracts of land and is anticipated to be the next phase of development, tentatively named Creekside at Georgetown Village. The acreage is planned to be residential as part of the Georgetown Village Concept Plan and the annexation petition will soon be followed by a rezoning and preliminary plat. In order to complete the annexation the following process will be followed: April-June 2012 Calendar · May 8, 2012: Resolution accepting petition · May 8, 2012: 1st Public Hearing held at City Council Meeting. · May 22, 2012: 2nd Public Hearing at City Council Meeting. · June 12, 2012: 1st Reading of Ordinance at City Council Meeting, · June 26, 2012: 2nd Reading of Ordinance. (Second Reading can be held up to 90 days from 1st reading, the last scheduled Council Meeting in the 90 days is August 28, 2012.) Recommended Motion:Approval of the resolution setting the public hearing dates. FINANCIAL IMPACT: City services, including police and fire protection, emergency medical services, solid waste collection and disposal, maintenance of water and wastewater facilities, maintenance of road, streets and drainage, street lighting, maintenance of City park and recreation facilities must be provided to the annexed area within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation. Extension of capital improvements such as water and wastewater systems will be subject to the City’s utility extension and improvement policy and/or the approval of a development agreement by the City. SUBMITTED BY: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS: Annexation Request Resolution Accepting Petition Exhibit B - Property Survey Exhibit A - Location Map Cover Memo Item # E At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 o f 2 It e m # E At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 2 o f 2 It e m # E GT Village Creekside – 93.77 ac Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. ______________ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, granting a Petition for Voluntary Annexation of 93.77 acres in the Mary Ann Lewis, Leroy Lord, and William Roberts Surveys, for a future section of Georgetown Village; and Directing Publication of Notice and Public Hearings for Proposed Annexation Whereas, the owners of the hereinafter described area of land have requested the governing body of the City of Georgetown, pursuant to Local Government Code Section 43.028, by written petition, properly acknowledged, to annex said area of land into the City of Georgetown, to-wit: 93.77 acres in the Mary Ann Lewis, Leroy Lord, and William Roberts Surveys, Williamson County, Texas, more particularly shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and described by metes and bounds in Exhibit “B,” both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full; and Whereas, the said area of land, is contiguous to the existing city limits of the City of Georgetown, and is vacant and without residents or has fewer than three qualified voters residing on it. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS: That the said Petition, being proper and according to law, shall be, and it is hereby, granted; and, further, the City Secretary is directed to commence the publication of notices of two public hearings to be held May 8, 2012, and May 22, 2012, before the City Council on the subject of the proposed annexation of the said area into the City of Georgetown; and further, to place upon the City Council Agendas for June 12, 2012, and before August 28, 2012, the consideration of the passage of an ordinance annexing said area into the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 8th day of May, 2012. ATTEST: ____ __ __ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary George G. Garver, Mayor Approved as to Form: __ Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # E C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN G e o r g e t o w n E T J Georgetown ETJ G e o r g et o w n E T J Georgeto w n E TJ Georgeto w n E TJ G e o r g e t o w n E T J W E S T B U R Y L N CRYSTAL SPR I N G S D R SHELL RD SYCAMORE ST WATERL I L Y L N CHEST N U T C T VILLAGE PARK DR VILLAGE COMMONS BLVD CEDAR ELM LN COLD SPRINGS DR VILLAGE GLEN S P R I N G C T ANX-2012-001 0 710 1,420Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ANX-2012-001 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # E Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # E Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # E Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # E Attachment number 4 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # E City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Public Hearingfor the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 93.77acres in the Mary Ann Lewis, Leroy Lord, and William Roberts Surveys, for a future section of Georgetown Village, located on Shell Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director ITEM SUMMARY: The proposed annexation is for property adjacent to the existing Georgetown Village, Section Six. It is property that is being put together from 3 tracts of land and is anticipated to be the next phase of development, tentatively named Creekside at Georgetown Village. The acreage is planned to be residential as part of the Georgetown Village Concept Plan and the annexation petition will soon be followed by a rezoning and preliminary plat. In order to complete the annexation, the following process will be followed: April-June 2012 Calendar · May 8, 2012: Resolution accepting petition · May 8, 2012: 1st Public Hearing held at City Council Meeting. · May 22, 2012: 2nd Public Hearing at City Council Meeting. · June 12, 2012: 1st Reading of Ordinance at City Council Meeting, · June 26, 2012: 2nd Reading of Ordinance. (Second Reading can be held up to 90 days from 1st reading, the last scheduled Council Meeting in the 90 days is August 28, 2012.) No action is required at this time. FINANCIAL IMPACT: City services, including police and fire protection, emergency medical services, solid waste collection and disposal, maintenance of water and wastewater facilities, maintenance of road, streets and drainage, street lighting, and maintenance of City park and recreation facilities must be provided to the annexed area within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation. Extension of capital improvements such as water and wastewater systems will be subject to the City’s utility extension and improvement policy and/or the approval of a development agreement by the City, as described in the attached Service Plan. SUBMITTED BY: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Annexation Request Resolution Accepting Petition Annexation Service Plan Property Survey Location Map Cover Memo Item # F At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 o f 2 It e m # F At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 2 o f 2 It e m # F GT Village Creekside – 93.77 ac Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. ______________ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, granting a Petition for Voluntary Annexation of 93.77 acres in the Mary Ann Lewis, Leroy Lord, and William Roberts Surveys, for a future section of Georgetown Village; and Directing Publication of Notice and Public Hearings for Proposed Annexation Whereas, the owners of the hereinafter described area of land have requested the governing body of the City of Georgetown, pursuant to Local Government Code Section 43.028, by written petition, properly acknowledged, to annex said area of land into the City of Georgetown, to-wit: 93.77 acres in the Mary Ann Lewis, Leroy Lord, and William Roberts Surveys, Williamson County, Texas, more particularly shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and described by metes and bounds in Exhibit “B,” both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full; and Whereas, the said area of land, is contiguous to the existing city limits of the City of Georgetown, and is vacant and without residents or has fewer than three qualified voters residing on it. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS: That the said Petition, being proper and according to law, shall be, and it is hereby, granted; and, further, the City Secretary is directed to commence the publication of notices of two public hearings to be held May 8, 2012, and May 22, 2012, before the City Council on the subject of the proposed annexation of the said area into the City of Georgetown; and further, to place upon the City Council Agendas for June 12, 2012, and before August 28, 2012, the consideration of the passage of an ordinance annexing said area into the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 8th day of May, 2012. ATTEST: ____ __ __ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary George G. Garver, Mayor Approved as to Form: __ Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # F C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN G e o r g e t o w n E T J Georgetown ETJ G e o r g et o w n E T J Georgeto w n E TJ Georgeto w n E TJ G e o r g e t o w n E T J W E S T B U R Y L N CRYSTAL SPR I N G S D R SHELL RD SYCAMORE ST WATERL I L Y L N CHEST N U T C T VILLAGE PARK DR VILLAGE COMMONS BLVD CEDAR ELM LN COLD SPRINGS DR VILLAGE GLEN S P R I N G C T ANX-2012-001 0 710 1,420Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ANX-2012-001 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # F Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # F Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # F Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # F Attachment number 4 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 1 of 13 Exhibit C CITY OF GEORGETOWN ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN AREA: CREEKSIDE AT GEORGETOWN VILLAGE COUNCIL DISTRICT NO. 5 DATE: JUNE 26, 2012 I. INTRODUCTION This Service Plan (the Plan) is made by the City of Georgetown, Texas (City) pursuant to Sections 43.056(b)-(o); 43.062, and 43.052(h)(1) of the Texas Local Government Code (LGC). This Plan relates to the annexation into the City of the land shown on Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B” to this Service Plan, which has sometimes been referred to as “Creekside at Georgetown Village.” The provisions of this Plan were made available for public inspection and explained to the public at the two public hearings held by the City on May 8, 2012, and May 22, 2012, in accordance with Section 43.056(j) of the LGC. NOTE: This annexation was initiated by the petition or request of the owners of land in the annexed area. As stated in Section 43.056(e) of the Texas Local Government Code, the requirement that construction of capital improvements must be substantially completed within the period provided in this service plan does not apply to a development project or proposed development project within an area annexed at the request or on the petition of the landowner. The development of this property would require a rezoning and Utility Agreement at the time of development. The rezoning and Utility Agreement shall control the schedule of the provision of municipal services for the areas. To the extent that there is a conflict between this Service Plan and Utility Agreement, the Utility Agreement shall control. II. TERM OF SERVICE PLAN Pursuant to Section 43.056(l) of the LGC, this Plan shall be in effect for a ten-year period commencing on the effective date of the ordinance approving the annexation. Renewal of the Plan shall be at the discretion of the City Council and must be accomplished by Ordinance. III. INTENT It is the intent of the City that municipal services under this Plan shall provide municipal services in accordance with the timetables required by the LGC. The City reserves the rights guaranteed to it by the LGC to amend this Plan if the City Council determines that changed conditions, subsequent occurrences, or any other legally sufficient circumstances exist under the LGC or other Texas laws that make this Plan unworkable, obsolete, or unlawful. IV. CATEGORIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 2 of 13 The municipal services described herein are categorized by those services which are (1) available to the annexed area immediately upon annexation; (2) those services which will be available to the annexed area within 2½ years from the effective date of the annexation; and (3) those services for which capital improvements are needed and which will be available within 4½ years from the effective date of the annexation based upon a schedule for construction of such improvements as set forth herein. For the purposes of this Plan, “provision of services” includes having services provided by any method or means by which the City provides municipal services to any other areas of the City, and may include causing or allowing private utilities, governmental entities and other public service organizations to provide such services by contract, in whole or in part, and may include duties on the part of a private landowner with regard to such services. In addition, in accordance with Section 43.056(g) of the LGC, if before annexation the annexed area had a lower level of services, infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance than the same being provided by the City to other areas within the City limits, this Plan shall be construed to allow for the provision to the annexed area of a level of services, infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance that is comparable to the level of services, infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance in other parts of the City with topography, land use, and population density similar to those reasonably contemplated or projected in the annexed area. V. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED UPON ANNEXATION 1. Police Protection –Upon annexation, the Georgetown Police Department will extend regular and routine patrols to the area. 2. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services– Upon annexation, in the areas where the City has jurisdiction over fire protection and emergency medical services or a contract under which the City provides such services, the City of Georgetown Fire Department will provide response services in the annexed area consisting of: fire suppression and rescue; emergency response to 9-1-1 calls; fire prevention education efforts, and other duties and services provided by the Georgetown Fire Department to areas within the City limits. 3. Solid Waste Collection – Upon annexation, for occupied structures, the City will provide solid waste collection services to the annexed area in accordance with City ordinances and policies in effect on the date of the annexation. However, per the terms of Sections 43.056(n) and (o) of the LGC, if a property owner chooses to continue to use the services of a privately owned solid waste management provider, the City is prevented from providing solid waste services for 2 years. 4. Operation and Maintenance of Water and Wastewater Facilities in the Annexed Area that Are Not Within the Area of Another Water or Wastewater Utility – City- owned water and wastewater facilities that exist in the annexed area will be maintained upon annexation and such maintenance shall be governed by the City’s Attachment number 5 \nPage 2 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 3 of 13 ordinances, standards, policies and procedures. Per the provisions of Section 13.01. 020 of the Unified Development Code (“UDC”), for unplatted tracts in the annexed area, the City shall not repair, maintain, install or provide any public utilities or services in any subdivision for which a Final Plat has not been approved and filed for record, nor in which the standards contained in the UDC or referred to therein have not been complied with in full. The property currently is in the Chisholm Trail Service Area, not the City of Georgetown. 5. Operation and Maintenance of Streets, Roads, and Street Lighting – The City will provide preventative maintenance of the existing public streets and roads in the annexed area over which it has jurisdiction through maintenance and preventative maintenance services such as emergency pavement repair; ice and snow monitoring; crack seal, sealcoat, slurry seal, and PM overlay; and other routine repair. The City shall not maintain private roads in the annexed area. Preventative maintenance projects are prioritized on a City-wide basis and scheduled based on a variety of factors, including surface condition, rideability, age, traffic volume, functional classification, and available funding. As new streets are dedicated and accepted for maintenance they will be included in the City’s preventative maintenance program. Per the provisions of Section 13.01.020 of the UDC, for unplatted tracts in the annexed area, the City shall not repair, maintain, install or provide any streets or street lighting to any subdivision for which a Final Plat has not been approved and filed for record, nor in which the standards contained in the UDC or referred to therein have not been complied with in full. With regard to street lighting, it is the policy of the City of Georgetown that adequate street lighting for the protection of the public and property be installed in all new subdivisions. Installation procedures and acceptable standards for street lights shall be governed by the utility standards of the City in effect at the time of subdivision construction or addition thereto. 6. Operation and Maintenance of Public Parks, Playgrounds, and Swimming Pools - Upon annexation, publicly owned parks, playgrounds, and swimming pools in the annexed area (if any) will be operated and maintained by the City in accordance with the Section 12.20 of the City Code of Ordinances, and other applicable ordinances, policies, and procedures in effect at the time of annexation for other areas in the City limits. Privately owned parks, playgrounds, and pools will be unaffected by the annexation and shall not be maintained by the City. 7. Operation and Maintenance of Publicly Owned Buildings, Facilities, and Services – Should the City acquire any buildings, facilities or services necessary for municipal services in the annexed area, an appropriate City department will operate and maintain them. 8. Library – Upon annexation, library privileges will be available to anyone residing in the annexed area. Attachment number 5 \nPage 3 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 4 of 13 9. Planning and Development; Building Permits and Inspections - Upon annexation, the City’s Unified Development Code and Title 15 of the City Code of Ordinances will apply in the area. These services include: site plan review, zoning approvals, Building Code and other standard Code inspection services and City Code enforcement; sign regulations and permits; and Stormwater Permit services. For a full description of these services, see the City’s Unified Development Code and Title 15 of the City Code of Ordinances. 10. Animal Control Services – The provisions of Chapter 7 of the City Code of Ordinances relating to animal control services shall apply in the annexed area. 11. Business Licenses and Regulations – The provisions of Chapter 6 of the City Code of Ordinances relating to business licenses and regulations (Carnivals Circuses and Other Exhibitions; Electrician’s Licenses; Gross Receipts Charge or Street Rental; Peddlers and Solicitors; Taxicabs, Buses and Other Vehicles for Hire; Horse Drawn Carriages and other Non-Motorized Vehicles for Hire; Sexually Oriented Businesses; and Alcoholic Beverages) shall apply in the annexed area. 12. Health and Safety Regulations – The provisions of Chapter 8 of the City Code of Ordinance relating to health and safety regulations (Fire Prevention Code; Fireworks; Food Sanitation; Noise Control; Nuisances; Junked Motor Vehicles; and Smoking in Public Places) shall apply in the annexed area. 13. Regulations Pertaining to Peace, Morals and Welfare -- The provisions of Chapter 9 of the City Code of Ordinance relating to peace, morals and welfare (Housing Discrimination; Weapons; and Enforcement of Other Miscellaneous Violations) shall apply in the annexed area. VI. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN 4½ YEARS OF ANNEXATION; CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1. In General – The City will initiate the construction of capital improvements necessary for providing municipal services for the annexation area as necessary for services that are provided directly by the City. 2. Water and Wastewater Services– Water and wastewater services are only provided to occupied lots that have been legally subdivided and platted or are otherwise a legal lot, and that are located within the boundaries of the City’s authorized service areas. Further, existing residences in the annexed area that were served by a functioning onsite sewer system (septic system) shall continue to use such private system for wastewater services in conformance with the provisions of Section 13.20 of the City Code of Ordinances. Existing non-residential establishments in the annexed area may continue to use an onsite sewer system (septic system) for sewage disposal in conformance with the provisions of Section 13.20 of the City Code of Ordinances. Upon the Development of any property in the annexed area, the provisions of Chapter 13 of the UDC shall Attachment number 5 \nPage 4 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 5 of 13 apply. The City shall have no obligation to extend water or wastewater service to any part of the annexed area that is within the service area of another water or wastewater utility. For annexed areas located within the City’s authorized service areas, the City shall, subject to the terms and conditions of this Plan, extend water and wastewater service in accordance with the service extension ordinances, policies, and standards that are summarized in Section X of this Plan, which may require that the property owner or developer of a newly developed tract install water and wastewater lines. The extension of water and wastewater services will be provided in accordance with any applicable construction and design standards manuals adopted by the City. 3. Water and Wastewater Capital Improvements Schedule – Because of the time required to design and construct the necessary water and wastewater facilities to serve the annexed area, certain services cannot be reasonably provided within 2½ years of the effective date of annexation. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 43.065(b) and (e) of the LGC, the City shall implement a program, which will be initiated after the effective date of the annexation and include the acquisition or construction of capital improvements necessary for providing water and wastewater services to the area. The following schedule for improvements is proposed: construction will commence within 2 ½ years from the effective date of annexation and will be substantially complete within 4 ½ years from the effective date of annexation. However, the provisions of Section VII of this Plan shall apply to the schedule for completion of all capital improvements. In addition, the acquisition or construction of the improvements shall be accomplished by purchase, lease, or other contract or by the City succeeding to the powers, duties, assets, and obligations of a conservation and reclamation district as authorized or required by law. 4. Roads and Streets – No road or street related capital improvements are necessary at this time. Future extension of roads or streets and installation of traffic control devices will be governed by the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the City’s Overall Transportation Plan, the City’s Capital Improvements Plan; the City’s regular or non-impact fee Capital Improvements Program, and any applicable City ordinances, policies, and procedures, which may require that the property owner or developer install roads and streets at the property owner’s or developer’s expense. It is anticipated that the developer of new subdivisions in the area will install street lighting in accordance with the City’s standard policies and procedures. Provision of street lighting will be in accordance with the City’s street lighting policies. 5. Capital Improvements for Other Municipal Services – No capital improvements are necessary at this time to provide municipal Police; Fire Protection; Emergency Medical Services; Solid Waste Collection; Public Parks, Playgrounds, or Swimming Pools; Public Buildings or Facilities; or Library Services. The annexed area will be included in the City’s future planning for new or expanded capital improvements and evaluated on the same basis and in accordance with the same standards as similarly situated areas of the City. Attachment number 5 \nPage 5 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 6 of 13 VII. FORCE MAJEURE AND SCHEDULE EXTENSIONS 1. Certain events, described as Force Majeure Events in this Plan, are those over which the City has no control. Force Majeure Events shall include, but not be limited to, acts of God; terrorism or acts of a public enemy; war; blockages; riots; strikes; epidemics; forces of nature including landslides, lightening, earthquakes, fires, storms, floods, washouts, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes; arrest and restraint of government; explosions; collisions, and all other inabilities of the City, whether similar to those enumerated or otherwise, which are not within the control of the City. Any deadlines or other provisions of this Plan that are affected by a Force Majeure Event shall be automatically extended to account for delays caused by such Force Majeure Event. 2. In accordance with Section 43.056(e) of the LGC, this Plan and the schedules for capital improvements necessary to provide full municipal services to the annexed area may be amended by the City to extend the period for construction if the construction is proceeding with all deliberate speed. The construction of the improvements shall be accomplished in a continuous process and shall be completed as soon as reasonably possible, consistent with generally accepted local engineering and architectural standards and practices. However, the City does not violate this Plan if the construction process is interrupted for any reason by circumstances beyond the direct control of the City. VIII. AMENDMENTS Pursuant to the provisions of Section 43.056(k) of the LGC, on approval by the City Council, the Plan is a contractual obligation that is not subject to amendment or repeal except as provided by state law. Section 43.056(k) of the LGC provides that if the City Council determines, after public hearings, that changed conditions or subsequent occurrences make the Plan unworkable or obsolete, the City Council may amend the Plan to conform to the changed conditions or subsequent occurrences. An amended Plan must provide for services that are comparable to or better than those established in the Plan before amendment. Before any Plan amendments are adopted, the City Council must provide an opportunity for interested persons to be heard at public hearings called and held in the manner provided by Section 43.0561 of the LGC. IX. FEES The City may impose a fee for any municipal service in the area annexed if the same type of fee is imposed within the corporate boundaries of the City. All City fees are subject to revision from time to time by the City in its sole discretion. X. SUMMARY OF CURRENT WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION POLICIES Per the requirements of Section 43.056(e) of the LGC, the following summary is provided regarding the City’s current service extension policies for water and wastewater service. However, this is a summary of the current policies, and the policies and regulations related to Attachment number 5 \nPage 6 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 7 of 13 water and wastewater utility extensions that are included in the City Code of Ordinances, the Unified Development Code, the City’s Construction and Specifications Manual; Drainage Manual, and other published policies and technical manuals, as the same may be amended from time to time, shall control the extension of water and wastewater services to the annexed area. In addition, these policies and ordinances are set by City Council and can be amended in the future: 1. In General -- The provisions of Chapter 13 of the City’s Unified Development Code (“UDC”) shall apply in the annexed area and Chapter 13 of the City Code of Ordinances. Portions of the current Chapter 13 of the UDC and the current Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances are summarized below. Note that these provisions are established by ordinance of the City Council and are subject to change from time to time. A. The City shall not repair, maintain, install or provide any water services, wastewater service, gas, electricity or any other public utilities or services to any property that has not been legally subdivided or is a non-legal lot. B. For property that is required by the City’s UDC or other City regulations to construct water or wastewater facilities, funding and construction of those facilities are the responsibility of the property owner or developer (the “subdivider”). C. Subdividers shall be responsible for providing an approved public water supply system for fire protection and domestic/ commercial/ industrial usage consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Where an approved public water supply or distribution main is within reasonable distance of the subdivision, but in no case less than one-quarter mile away, and connection to the system is both possible and permissible (including adequate system capacity), the subdivider shall be required to bear the cost of connecting the subdivision to such existing water supply. The subdivider shall, consistent with all existing ordinances, make a pro-rata contribution to funding of needed storage facilities, treatment facilities, and specific distribution lines as determined necessary by the City. D. Subdividers shall be responsible for providing an approved public sanitary sewer system, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, throughout the entire subdivision such that all lots, parcels, or tracts of land will be capable of connecting to the sanitary sewer system except as otherwise provided herein. Where an approved public sanitary sewer collection main or outfall line is in no case less than one-half mile away, and connection to the system is both possible and permissible (including adequate system capacity), the subdivider shall be required to bear the cost of connecting the subdivision to such existing sanitary sewer system. Where an approved public wastewater collection main or outfall line is more than one-half mile away from the property boundary, and where extension of a sanitary sewer collection main or outfall line is scheduled in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan to be completed to a point within one-half mile of the property boundary within five (5) years from the date of the Preliminary Plat approval, the subdivider shall be Attachment number 5 \nPage 7 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 8 of 13 required to install a public wastewater collection system. The design and construction of a public sanitary sewer system shall comply with regulations covering extension of public sanitary sewer systems adopted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. E. All infrastructure and public improvements must be designed and installed in accordance with all of the elements of the Comprehensive Plan and shall meet the minimum requirements established by the UDC, the City's Construction Standards and Specifications for Roads, Streets, Structures and Utilities, and any other adopted City design or technical criteria. No main water line extension shall be less than eight inches. All new public sanitary sewer systems shall be designed and constructed to conform with the City’s Construction Standards and Specifications and to operate on a gravity flow basis by taking advantage of natural topographic conditions and thereby reducing the need for lift stations and force mains. 2. If the specific undeveloped property does not have City water or wastewater facilities and capacity fronting the property – the owner may make an application for an extension of service to the property. If the Assistant City Manager for Utilities determines in writing that adequate water or wastewater capacity is available, or will be available, and if the project does not include City cost participation or reimbursement, if the proposed facilities are depicted on the City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans, and the requested service otherwise meets the City’s requirements, the extension size, capacity, and routing may be approved by the Assistant City Manager for Utilities for construction by the developer at the developer’s cost and expense. 3. If the specific undeveloped property does have adequate City water or wastewater facilities and capacity fronting the property – the owner may receive water or wastewater service from the City by applying for a tap permit and paying the required fees. 4. If any property in the annexed area is using a septic system – the property owner remains responsible for the operation and maintenance of the septic system. If the property is in a Rural Residential Subdivision as defined in Chapter 13 of the UDC, or is a legal lot greater than one acre in size and used for single family residential purposes, the property shall continue the use of a septic system after annexation until such time that the use of the property changes, the property is further subdivided or developed, or a public sanitary sewer line has been extended to within 200 feet of the property boundary and the property owner has received notification from the City of the City’s desire for the property to be connected to the public sanitary sewer line. If the septic system fails before the City’s centralized wastewater service is extended to within 200 feet of the property and the City determines that the provision of centralized wastewater service is not feasible or practical at that time, then the property owner must either repair or replace the septic system in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.20 of the City Code of Ordinances. Properties using a septic system that are not in a Rural Residential Subdivision , or are not legal lots greater than one acre in size and used for Attachment number 5 \nPage 8 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 9 of 13 single family residential purposes at the time of annexation, but that are designated as either residential, open space or agricultural on the City’s Future Land Use Plan shall continue the use of a septic system until such time that the use of the property changes, the property is further subdivided or developed, or a public sanitary sewer line has been extended to within 200 feet of the property boundary and the property owner has received notification from the City of the City’s desire for the property to be connected to the public sanitary sewer line. 5. Reimbursement and cost participation by the City – Pursuant to Section 13.09.030 of the UDC, the City, in its sole discretion and with City Council approval, may participate with a property owner or developer in the cost of oversized facilities or line extensions. The actual calculation of the cost participation and reimbursement amounts, including limits and schedules for the payments, are set forth in the UDC. 6. City Code of Ordinances: (The following provisions are set by the City Council and can be amended in the future by ordinance.) Chapter 13.10 of the City Code of Ordinances currently provides as follows: Section 13.10.010 Policy established. This policy shall apply to improvements to the City's utility systems, including system upgrades, system expansion, and plant capacity additions. In this Section, the term “utility system” shall mean the City’s water system, wastewater system, reuse irrigation system, and stormwater drainage system. Section 13.10.020 System Planning. The City shall maintain and periodically update system plans for each utility so that system improvements are implemented to maintain adequate capacity for growth while maintaining proper service levels to existing customers. Section 13.10.030 Project Timing. A. Projects designed to expand or upgrade a utility system must be completed and ready for operations such that capacity requirements by state regulatory agencies and City system plans are met. B. When possible, the City should coordinate the construction of system improvements in a particular location with the expansion or maintenance of other utility infrastructure to minimize the future impact on each utility. C. Projects should begin the design phase when existing demand at a specific location exceeds 75% of current capacity and future demand is expected to exceed the current total capacity. Attachment number 5 \nPage 9 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 10 of 13 D. Projects should begin the construction phase when existing demand at a specific location exceeds 90% of current capacity and future demand is expected to exceed the current total capacity. E. Projects required to facilitate the development of a specific tract shall be done in accordance with the Unified Development Code. F. Projects required as a result of an annexation service plan shall be provided as stated in the approved Service Plan for such annexed tracts. Section 13.10.040 Project Financing. A. Projects required to facilitate the subdivision of a specific tract shall be paid by the subdivider in accordance with the Unified Development Code, unless otherwise authorized in writing and approved by the City Council in accordance with the terms of Section 13.09 of the Unified Development Code or other applicable law. B. When utility expansion is requested within a portion of the City’s utility service area, but the City is not otherwise required to provide service or planning to provide service as reflected in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan, the City may nonetheless, at the City’s sole option, facilitate the design and construction of the required utility extensions or upgrades by managing the project with the cost of such extensions to be shared and fully paid by the requesting landowners or subdividers prior to commencement of the project. C. When utility expansion is requested within a portion of the City’s utility service area, the City shall evaluate degree to which the project 1) facilitates contiguous growth, 2) maximizes the provision of service to the service area, 3) enhances economic development, 4) improves system operations, 5) contributes to conservation or other environmental concern, and 6) facilitates the completion of the utility master plan. D. At the City’s sole option, the City may also facilitate the installation of utility expansion requests through 1) financial cost contribution, 2) financing of the improvement using individual contracts between the City and each landowner for a proportionate share of the project cost to be paid out over a specified period of time at a specified rate of interest, 3) Impact Fee or connection fee reduction or waiver. Chapter 13.20 of the City Code of Ordinances currently provides as follows: Sec. 13.20.010. General. A. It is unlawful for any owner or lessee, tenant or other person in possession of any premises where any person lives or works, or occupies the same, to establish, maintain or use any water closet, bathtub, lavatory or sink except by one of the following means and consistent with the other terms, conditions and requirements of this Chapter and with the City’s Unified Development Code: Attachment number 5 \nPage 10 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 11 of 13 1. Connection to an approved Onsite Sewage Facility that is constructed and maintained in accordance with the rules and regulations of all appropriate state and local agencies having jurisdiction over such facilities; or 2. Connection to a public centralized wastewater collection main with all wastewater discharged to a centralized public wastewater collection system. B. Upon the “Development” of property, the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Unified Development Code (pertaining to Infrastructure and Public Improvements) shall govern the provision of wastewater service to the property. For the purposes of this section, the term “Development” shall have the same meaning as in Section 16.05 of the City’s Unified Development Code. C. It is the duty of each such person referenced in subsection (A), above, to connect such fixtures to an approved wastewater system, and to maintain the same. Sec. 13.20.020. On Site Sewage Facilities. A. General. All On Site Sewage Facilities must be constructed and maintained in accordance with the rules and regulations of the appropriate state and local agencies having jurisdiction over such facilities. B. Availability of a Public Centralized Wastewater Collection Main. If a public centralized wastewater collection main is located within 200 feet of a property line, and the wastewater collection main has adequate capacity to receive and transport the wastewater flow produced by the property, then property owner shall connect that property to said utility line at the earliest to occur of either of the following events: failure of the On Site Sewage Facility servicing the property, or the date that is five (5) years after receipt of notice of the availability of a wastewater collection main within 200-feet of the property line. C. Failure of On Site Sewage Facility. When an Onsite Sewage Facility fails, the following provisions shall apply: a. If a public centralized wastewater collection main is located within 200 feet of the property boundary, and the wastewater collection main has adequate capacity to receive and transport the wastewater flow produced by the property, then the property must be connected to said utility line by the property owner; b. If no public centralized wastewater collection main is located within 200 feet of the property boundary, the City shall evaluate the feasibility of providing centralized wastewater collection services to the property via a gravity or low pressure system. Where the provision of gravity sewer service or low pressure system is technically feasible, utility system improvements may be made in accordance with Chapters 13.10; c. If the City determines that the provision of wastewater service via a centralized wastewater collection main is not necessary due to existing or future land use, then the On Site Sewage Facility may be repaired or replaced. (Prior code § 12-101) Attachment number 5 \nPage 11 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 12 of 13 Sec. 13.20.030. Privies prohibited. It is unlawful for any owner or lessee, tenant or other person in possession of any premises in the City to establish or maintain any privy or dry closet. Sec.13.20.040 Low Pressure Sewer Systems A. A “Low Pressure Sewer System” is an individual lift station located at each utility customer or property owner location having a private force main connecting to a public force main or gravity main located in a public utility easement or public right- of-way. B. Each property owner and utility customer shall be responsible for the cost of installation and maintenance of the individual lift station and private force main. Section 13.20.050. Prohibited Discharges into Sewer System No person shall discharge, cause to be discharged, or permit to be discharged, either directly or indirectly into the public sewer system, waste or wastewater from any of the following sources unless allowed by the City Manager, or his/her designee: A. Any wastes or wastewater that does not meet the limitations imposed by Section 13.24 of the Code of Ordinances. B. Any stormwater, groundwater, rainwater, street drainage, subsurface drainage, or yard drainage; C. Any unpolluted water, including , but not limited to, cooling water, process water or blow-down water from cooling towers or evaporative coolers; D. Any wastes or wastewater, or any object, material, or other substance directly into a manhole or other opening into the sewer facilities other than wastes or wastewater through an approved service connection. E. Any holding tank waste, provided, that such waste may be placed into facilities designed to receive such wastes and approved by the City Manager, or his/her designee. Section 13.20.060 Sewer System Maintenance A. For properties with gravity wastewater service, the property owner and utility customer shall be responsible for the proper operation, maintenance, and repairs of the sewer system in the building and the service lateral between the building and the point of connection into the public sewer main. B. For properties with low pressure service, the property owner and utility customer shall be responsible for the proper operation, maintenance, and repairs of the sewer Attachment number 5 \nPage 12 of 13 Item # F Annexation Service Plan GT Village Creekside Page 13 of 13 system in the building and the service lateral, lift station (grinder pump) and force main between the building and the point of connection into the public sewer main. C. When, as a part of sewer system testing, the City identifies a flaw in a private service lateral or force main where a repair is necessary to prevent infiltration or inflow, the property owner and utility customer shall be responsible to cause the repairs to be made within one (1) year of the date of notification by the City. D. If repairs are not complete within one year of notification by the City, City may engage the services of a contractor to make the necessary repairs with the costs for such repairs to be paid by the City and subsequently charged to property owner and utility customer. Attachment number 5 \nPage 13 of 13 Item # F City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, amending various Institutional Use designations in the Future Land Use Plan, in conjunction with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Annual Update -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan was approved in 2008, establishing a new framework for Georgetown’s comprehensive plan. A new kind of Future Land Use Plan was adopted in that process, one that was very conceptual in nature and did not specifically associate individual parcels of land with a particular use. A problem had arisen where the Land Use Plan became treated like a zoning map instead of a guide for long- term land use principles. The new plan, instead, relied less on the map and directed staff, the City Council, or a property owner to the policies of the comprehensive plan and the supporting language of the land use categories. The result of this change has been significant, as the number of Comprehensive Plan Amendments required to do a zoning change has been significantly reduced. During the course of a given year, staff reviews and analyzes many applications for their potential effect on the long-range plans including transportation, utilities, parks, etc. Most of the time, planners and related staff are now able to make a recommendation to City Council without requiring a land use change and the process has been a success. At the annual review, staff is charged with evaluating whether certain actions over the last year that affect land uses should be graphically represented on the Future Land Use Map. At this time, staff is recommending that four fairly minor changes to the plan be considered for amendment. These changes pertain to Institutional (aka “Public”) uses, either depicting new realities on the ground or cleaning up part of the map. In two cases, public uses were planned for private property, which could have been particularly burdensome to those owners when attempting a future rezoning or simply attempting to sell their land. Staff acknowledges this and is proposing to remove the Institutional designation from the property and replace it with something more appropriate. In addition to the staff recommendations, there is an owner-initiated amendment to the Future Land Use Plan that will receive separate action but is considered part of the Annual Update process for 2012. Planning and Zoning Commission At the April 3, 2012, Planning and Zoning meeting, the Commission unanimously (7-0) recommended the land use changes to Council, with direction to redraw the amendment to the new McCoy and middle school sites to strictly adhere to the boundaries of the property. This slight adjustment has been made. Staff Recommended Motion Recommend to the City Council approval of the amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner, and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Cover Memo Item # G Exhibit A: Proposed Changes Ordinance - Staff Land Use Amendments Exhibit B - Land Use Plan with staff changes Cover Memo Item # G Ordinance No. _______________ Page 1 of 2 2012 Annual Update – Staff Land Use Amendments ORDINANCE NO. ____________ An Ordinance of the City of Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Plan, as part of the 2012 Annual Update; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, the City Charter of the City of Georgetown was amended by vote of the people in April 1986 such that comprehensive planning was established as a continuous and ongoing governmental function; and Whereas, the City Council approved the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Executive Summary; Introduction; Plan Framework; Plan Elements: Land Use Element; Procedures for Plan Administration, Implementation, Monitoring and Updates; and Appendices, on February 28, 2008; and Whereas, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Plan Administration Section made provisions for an annual update to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for a review of implementation progress and consideration of possible plan amendments; and Whereas, on November 11, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution 111108-S, establishing procedures for an ongoing annual update; and Whereas, on April 3, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and recommended to the City Council the specific land use amendments proposed by staff as part of the 2030 Annual Update amendment package; and Whereas, notice of the City Council public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City prior to the hearing, which stated the time and place of the hearing. 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 goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Section 2: The map amendments described in Exhibit A of this ordinance are hereby adopted as the staff-initiated land use amendments as part of the 2012 Update cycle. Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # G Ordinance No. _______________ Page 2 of 2 2012 Annual Update – Staff Land Use Amendments 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. This ordinance shall become effective immediately, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 8th day of May, 2012. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 22nd day of May, 2012. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: _________________________________ _________________________________ Jessica Brettle George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # G Exhibit A: Proposed Changes 1.) Add Institutional to acknowledge school properties purchased by GISD for new elementary and junior high in Georgetown Village. 2.) Add Institutional to depict property purchased by City of Georgetown for new Fire Station #5 and future Public Safety Complex 3.) Remove Institutional from private property which was inadvertently added during creation. Replace with Moderate Density Residential and add Community Commercial at intersection of CR 110/Southwestern Blvd and Inner Loop. 4.) Remove Institutional from private property which was inadvertently added during creation. Replace with Mixed Use Community in the area around Inner Loop and East University Avenue/SH 29. Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # G S W 1 SW 2 SW 3 R O N A L D W R E A G A N B L V D §¨¦35 N W 1 !(195 NW 2 C R 150 C R 152 W STATE HIGHWAY 29 W C C R 1 1 9 I M P WC ARTER I A L 1 C R 1 4 0 C R 143 C R 1 1 0 SHELL R D C R 105 C R 194 LEAND E R R D E S T A T E H I G H W A Y 2 9 C R 1 0 3 M A P L E S T E R A B B I T H I L L R D C R 1 4 1 D B WOOD RD RIVERY BLVD C R 111 C R 147 S H E L L S P U R S W 4 E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E C R 151 F U T U R E C O L L E C T O R W UNIVERSITY AVE ALT. CR 188 S W 2 L U N A T R L !(130 ")971 ")1431 ")2243 !(29 !(29 ")972 ")972 CR 150 S O U T H W E S T B Y P A S S I N N E R LO O P SPU R R O N A L D W R E A G A N B L V D C R 1 0 4 C R 1 0 3 E X T . CR 1 1 0 E 2ND ST E 7TH ST SANALOMA DR B O O T Y 'S C R O SSING RD WESTING H O U S E R D COU N T R Y R D E 21ST ST W C A R T E R I A L 2 C R 110 FUTURE C O L L E C T O R W C A R T E R I A L 2 AIR P O R T R D IN N E R L O O P S E FM 972 ")971 ")2338 W 17TH ST SCENIC DR WHIS P E R I N G W I N D D R WILDW O O D DR S E I N N E R L O O P ")1460 D B W O O D R D N W 1 FUT U R E C OLL E C TO R W I L L I A M S D R S A U S T I N A V E S C H U R C H S T C R 2 4 5 R R 2 3 3 8 C R 2 4 8 CHANDLE R R D INDIAN SP R I N G S R D S U N C I T Y B L V D D EL WEBB B L V D SE R E N A D A DR C E D A R B R EAKS RD P R O P O S E D R O N A L D W R E A G A N B L VD RR ARTER I A L H S W 3 §¨¦35 S P R I N G SBLUE P K W Y S E 1 SE 1 C R 2 8 9 LAKE W AY DR NO R T H W E S T B L V D N AUSTIN AVE N E INN E R L O O P S M IT H C R E E K R D M A I N S T H U T T O R D S O U T H W E S T ER N B L V D COOPER A T I V E WAY CR 1 1 5 B E R RY CREEK D R")3405 RR C HIS H O L M TR L CR 152 FUTURE OAKMONT D R J I M HOGG R D C O L L E C T O R C R 2 6 2 C R 2 6 1 C R 2 4 5 S E 1 SE 1 CR 174 S W 1 CR 176 CR 176 C R 1 7 5 S A M B A S S P K W Y H I D D E N V A L L E Y D R T E RAVISTA P K W Y R R A R T E R I A L A P R O P O S E D A S A C O M M U T E R R A I L F U T U R E C O L L ECTOR F U T U R E C O L L E C T O R RIDGE LIN E BLVD WOLF RA N C H P K WY F M 1 4 6 0 S O U T H W E S T E R N CRYST A L FALL S PKWY RONAL D W R E A G A N B L V D RON A L D W R E A G A N B L V D R O N A L D W R E A G A N B L V D !(130 M. K . T . R R M.K.T. RR M . K . T . R R M.K . T . R R M.K.T. R R S m i t h B r a n c h Pecan B r a n c h Je n n i n g s B r a n c h B i g H o u s e B r a n c h Onio n B r a n c h Mid d l e F ork San Gabri e l Ri v er Middle Fork San Gabriel R ive r San Gabriel River M i d d l e F ork S a n G a b r i e l R i v e r Mi d d le F o r k San Gabriel River S o u t h F o r k S a n G a b riel Ri v er So uth F ork San Gabriel River South F ork San Gabriel R i v er Sou t h F o r k S a n G a briel River West Fork Smith Bra n c h Mustang Creek Hunt's Crossing We s t F o r k S m i t h B r a n c h South For k M u s t a n g C r e e k Cowan C r e e k South Be r r y C r e e k North F ork Brushy Cr e e k B l o ck H o u s e Creek Bl o c k House Creek Mankins Crossing North Fork San G a b ri e l R i v e r R a n g e r B r a n c h Weir B r a n c h Ea s t F o r k R a n g e r B r a n c h S m a l l e y B r a n c h S o w e s B r a n c h North Fork M u s t a n g C r e e k O p o s s u m C r e e k S m a l l e y B r a n c h S o u t h F o r k M u s t a n g C r e e k Mi d d l e F o r k S a n G a b r i e l R i v e r South Berry Creek Glasscock Branch Dry B e r r y C r e e k Middl e F o r k S a n G a b r i e l R i v e r South Fork Sa n G a b r i e l R i v e r Smith B r a n c h Brushy C r e e k Cow a n C r e e k Opossum Cr e e k Willi s C r e e k M i l e h a m B r a n c h Dr y B e r r y C r e e k Mil e h a m B r a n c h Y a n k e e B r a n c h North F o r k S a n G a b r i e l R i v e r W e i r B r a n c h Sow e s B r a n c h Pe c a n B r a n c h Cott o n w o o d C r e e k Brushy Creek M c N u t t C r e e k C o w a n C r e e k Pecan Branch McNutt C r e e k Berry C r e e k San Gabriel Riv e r Opossu m C r e e k B i g H o u s e B r a n c h Ch a n d l e r B r a n c h McNutt Cre e k Co w a n C r e e k San Gabriel Ri v e r S m a l l e y B r a n c h Cowan C r e e k South Fork Mustan g C r e e k Cottonwo o d C r e e k Berry Creek Be r r y C r e e k B e r r y C r e e k J e n n i n g s B r a n c h C h a n d l e r B r a n c h Berry Creek Sowes B r a n c h Berry Creek M c N u t t C r e e k C o t t o n w o o d C r e e k Sa n G a b r i e l R i v e r Willis C r e e k McN u t t C r e e k D r y B e r r y C r e e k Cowan Cr e e k North Fork Sa n G a b r i e l R i v e r Berry C r e e k Wi l l i s C r e e k Berry Creek South Fo r k S a n G a b r i e l R i v e r O p o s s u m C r e e k B e r r y C r e e k Pe c a n B r a n c h M c N u t t C r e e k Smith B r a n c h C h a n d l e r B r a n c h D r y B e r r y C r e e k Willis Creek Co b b s S p r i n g s B r a n c h D r y B e r r y C r e e k D r y B e r r y C r e e k Brushy Creek Dr y B e r r y C r e e k Mas o n C r e e k B e r r y C r e e k Dry F o r k C r e e k S m a l l e y B r a n c h South Berry Creek Opossum Creek Smalley Branch Berr y C r e e k O p o s s u m C r e e k Opo s s u m C r e e k Yanke e B r a n c h C o t t o n w o o d C r e e k Berry C r e e k Opossu m C r e e k Pec a n B r a n c h Chan d l e r B r a n c h Weir B r a n c h Dry Berry C r e e k Nor t h F o r k S a n G a b r i e l R i v e r Peca n B r a n c h Berry Creek Berry C r e e k Berr y C r e e k Berr y C r e e k O p o s s u m C r e e k P e c a n B r a n c h O p o s s u m C r e e k B e r r y C r e e k M c N u t t C r e e k San G a b r i e l R i v e r Dr y B e r r y C r e e k Mile h a m B r a n c h Willis Creek C h a n d l e r B r a n c h Ran g e r B r a n c h Bru s h y C r e e k Smith Bra n c h Yanke e B r a n c h Mustang Creek San Gabrie l R i v e r Ber r y C r e e k D r y B e r r y C r e e k Ma s o n C r e e k B r u s h y C r e e k Pe c a n B r a n c h Weir B r a n c h Dry F o r k C r e e k Cobbs S p r i n g s B r a n c h Soil Conservation ServiceSite 3 Reservoir Soil Conservation ServiceSite 16 Reservoir Conservation Pool: 791 Feet Above Mean Sea Level Lake Georgetown Soil Conservation ServiceSite 2 Reservoir Soil Conservation ServiceSite 5 Reservoir Soil Conservation Service Site 10b Reservoir Soil Conservation ServiceSite 10a Reservoir Map maintained by:City of Georgetown, TexasInformation Technology Department510 West 9th St.Georgetown, Texas 78627Phone: (512) 930-4357 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/Feet FUTURELAND USEPLAN April 30, 2012 ***Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only The accuracy and precision of this carto-graphic data is limited and should beused for informational/planning purposesonly. This data does not replace surveysconducted by registered Texas landsurveyors nor does it constitute an"oﬃcial" veri ﬁcation of zoni ng, l and useclassiﬁcation, or ot her classiﬁcati on setforth in local, state, or federal regulatoryprocesses. The City of Georgetown,nor any of its employees, do not makeany warranty, express or implied,including any warranty of merchant-ability and ﬁtness f or a p articul ar purpose, or assumes any legal liabilityor responsibility for the accuracy,completeness, or usefullness of anysuch information, nor does itrepresent that its use would notinfringe upon privately owned rights. 0 2,500 Feet 1 inch = 2,500 feet The Future Land Use Plan represents aconceptual vision of the community'sdesired land use paterns over thenext 20 to 30 years. It serves as aguide for decisions regarding zoning,roadways, utilities, and other issuesrelated to the physical developmentof the City. E Legend Agricultural /Rural Residential Low Density Residential Moderate DensityResidential High Density Residential Community Commercial Regional Commercial Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Specialty AreaMixed Use Employment Center Institutional Parks, Recreation,Protected Open Space Mining ResidentialLand Use Categories: CommercialLand Use Categories: Mixed UseLand Use Categories: OtherLand Use Categories: River/Stream Body of Water Existing Collector Street Proposed Collector Existing Minor Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial Existing Major Arterial Proposed Major Arterial Existing Freeway Proposed Freeway Proposed CommuterRail Existing Railroad City Limits Boundary E.T.J. Boundary ProposedUltimate Boundary Per Texas State law, "A comprehensiveplan shall not constitutue zoning regulationsor establish zoning district boundaries." ([KLELW%/DQG8VH3ODQZLWK6WDIISURSRVHG$PHQGPHQWV Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # G City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to revise the Growth Tier Map, in conjunction with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Annual Update -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner, and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director(action required) ITEM SUMMARY: The Growth Tier Map is a long-term guide to public improvement planning and implementation and assists staff in prioritizing system improvements. As part of the comprehensive plan annual update, staff is updating the plan in conjunction with the upcoming water/wastewater master plan update. See attached Staff Report for more information. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation At the May 1, 2012, Planning and Zoning meeting, the Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend the map to City Council. Staff Recommended Motion Approve the revised Growth Tier Map as part of the 2030 Plan Annual Update. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner, and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Present Growth Tier Map Proposed Tier Changes - 1A Ordinance Exhibit A - Proposed 2012 Growth Tier Map Staff Report Cover Memo Item # H Georgetown Planning and Development Department 2030 Plan Annual Update – 2012 – Growth Tier Map Cover Memo Item Summary The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2008, changed the way the City looked at both long-term land use and public works planning. The City’s Future Land Use Plan became much more conceptual with broader land use categories, an emphasis on a more regional focus for desired uses, and greater importance placed on the description of the land uses rather than their absolute location on the map. Additionally, anticipated densities were built into the land use categories, which assisted in long-range utility and roadway planning, and also gave a clearer picture as to the proper zoning districts to implement then plan. As stated in the 2012 Annual Update report, the result of this change has been significant in that the number of Comprehensive Plan Amendments has been significantly reduced and the long-term planning outlook has become more pro-active instead of merely reactive. The updated Land Use Element of the 2030 Plan also included a growth planning policy tool known as the Growth Tier Map, which to some extent became a replacement for the Intensity Plan, a key component of the now-defunct Century Plan. The Intensity Plan was an amendable map that assigned a numerical value to land based on its impacts to the utility and roadway systems. When initially approved, the Century Plan laid out the anticipated and desired growth areas by assigning higher intensity levels to properties. The Utility Master Plans, updated approximately every 3 years, would use these intensity levels to determine capacity needs and long-term system improvements. Over the years, however, a change to the Intensity Plan levels on a property could be applied for at any time by a property owner; the cumulative effect of this was that the Utility system became much more reactive to constant changes in the system, instead of focusing planning for infrastructure investment through a long-term lens. The Growth Tier Map was approved as a tool designed to provide increased efficiency and improved planning policy by narrowing the focus on areas where improvements can and should be targeted over a period of time. The Map set up a 3-tiered system measured in 10- year increments, affecting mostly utility planning efforts, but also including broader public facility and land use planning policy. Quoting from the 2030 Plan, Tier 1 areas are “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.” The first tier is considered the short-term, highest-priority growth area where improvements will be targeted over the next ten years, with the goal of establishing most or all of the infrastructure needed for the projected build-out of those areas. Tier 1 is used to focus on improving existing infrastructure as needed through capital projects and cost-sharing Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # H Georgetown Planning and Development Department 2030 Plan Annual Update – 2012 – Growth Tier Map Cover Memo mechanisms that may encourage or assist new developments. Tier 1 was split into Tier 1A and 1B to acknowledge commitments that the City had previously made through annexation service plan agreements and development agreements with property owners for future projects. Areas in 1B did not necessarily represent areas where the City would actively look to provide new facilities and services, but rather to recognize where commitments were in place that would affect system planning. Tier 1 areas, all within the city limits, are those where capital improvements projects will generally be focused over the next 10 years and where certain system improvements would be eligible for developers to receive impact fee reimbursements. Tiers 2 and 3 are the intermediate and long-term growth areas, located outside of the city limits, where the City is not currently focusing resources. These areas are certainly included in the long-term system master planning, but are not projected as immediate needs. Tier 2 areas may be located within the city limits or within the immediate proximity of other Tier 1 areas and can become Tier 1 areas by agreement, by proximity and availability of facilities due to Tier 1 investments, or simply by the passage of time and updates to the Growth Tier Map. It should be noted that areas located in Tiers 2 and 3 are not prohibited from utility connection or extension of facilities; these are simply areas that the City is not anticipating public investment over the next ten years and extensions would be at the developer’s expense absent special agreement. It’s also worth mentioning that, irrespective of the ten-year window, certain decisions made or shifts in policy during this time could lead to areas in Tier 2 benefitting as much if not more than Tier 1 areas. The Growth Tier Map does not necessarily adhere to a strict, compact distribution of tier location and there are several reasons for that. The Georgetown city limits depict the reality that property does not develop in a contiguous fashion, causing pockets of Tier 2 scattered intermittently within Tier 1. Second, utilities and roadways are dependent on a larger network for maximum use capacity, and certain parts of the system are under-utilized as other areas nearby are maxed-out without further investment. Additionally, there are areas which may be considered “built-out” where the City does not furnish utilities and the projection is that they will require no capital investment. Finally, there are areas where City staff is recommending changes to tier designation based on a response to an increase in activity and interest, or because there is desire to encourage growth in a particular location. One of the tenets of the 2030 Plan is that the Growth Tier Map be reevaluated and amended infrequently and only within the Annual Update framework. The map is best studied for potential amendment in conjunction with the Utility master planning cycle, a process where potential amendments to the growth tiers can be evaluated simultaneously and Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # H Georgetown Planning and Development Department 2030 Plan Annual Update – 2012 – Growth Tier Map Cover Memo future growth impacts to the public works system can be projected using the most current data and trends. This is successful because of the links between the land use plan, the growth tier plan, and the utility master plans. The master planning update process has recently begun and it is anticipated to be completed this calendar year. Following the master plan updates, impact fee levels will be studied and assigned accordingly for both water and wastewater, based on the maintenance needs of an ever-expanding system. (Note: Georgetown does not have transportation impact fees, only utility impact fees) Over the last few months, staff has been studying potential changes to the tier map and the effects thereof. In conjunction with the utility department and their consultants, a new map is being presented as part of the 2012 Annual Update process. Changes from the 2008 map include two additional areas added to Tier 1A for economic development purposes, with the goal of ensuring improvements and capacity are either built or cost-shared in areas designated for employment or other commercial activity. These areas are depicted in Exhibit B to this report. Staff also recommends moving some areas from Tier 1B into Tier 2 because previous City commitments have been met and they are not currently considered the highest-priority growth areas. Finally, additional property has been recently annexed, so additional Tier 1B areas have been added to the map where services and facilities are required over the next 2-5 years. Guiding growth through a policy of infrastructure management is an effective tool for the Utility and for the City and is successful if it can be properly managed through a conservative approach to investment. It is difficult to choose which areas are considered higher priority than others, as generally each part of town is worthy of investment and are sometimes deficient in the infrastructure needed to support development. Capital improvement projects for the utility and transportation systems are expensive, however, and are possible only through the money received through existing connections to the system – i.e. ratepayers – and the collection of impact fees – i.e. developers. Development helps support the ongoing operations and management of the system and helps build key components of that system, but there are constantly going to be additional needs to the existing system that are funded through utility revenue. Creating a flexible but targeted system of locating these improvements in a defined area allows the Utility to step back and manage priorities with a long-term outlook and fiscally responsible approach. Adoption of the revised Growth Tier Map is required by the City Council with a recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Following approval, the map will be used to complete the study for the Utility Master Plans and be used in analysis of proposed changes to the Future Land Use Plan and/or Zoning Map. An ongoing piece of Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # H Georgetown Planning and Development Department 2030 Plan Annual Update – 2012 – Growth Tier Map Cover Memo the development review process is the submittal and review of what is called a Utility Evaluation, where staff can study the potential impacts of a land use or zoning change early in the process. This evaluation is crucial to anticipating and managing the utility system impacts of proposed developments in between updates to the master plans. While the staff recommendation is to continue to review and amend the Growth Tier Map on a three-year cycle in tandem with the utility studies, the 2030 Plan allows for review of the plan on an annual basis, if needed. Attachments Existing Growth Tier Map Specific Areas added to Tier 1 Exhibit A: Proposed new Growth Tier Map (with changes incorporated) Submitted By Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner, and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # H S S A N G A BRIEL R MID D LE S A N GA B R I E L R N SAN GABRIEL R LAKE GEORGETOWN S A N GABRIE L R BERRY CREEK S MITH BR UNIVERSITY AVE WOL F R ANCH N AUSTIN AVE MA I N S T LEAND E R R D S A U S T I N A V E F M 1 4 6 0 17TH ST M A P L E S T H U T T O R D S O U T H W ESTERN BLVD SE INNER L O O P W SH 29 E SH 29 S H 1 3 0 N E I N NER LOOP F M 971 IH 3 5 IH 3 5 IH 3 5 S W 3 C R Y S T A L F A LLS P K WY AIR P O R T R D CR 151 S M I T H C R E E K R DFUTURE C O L L E C T O R C R 1 0 3 C R 1 4 0 CR 150 F U T U R E C O L L E C T O R CR 194 W C A R T E R I A L 2 FM 972 C R 1 4 1 FUTU RE C O L L E C T O R SH 1 9 5 S H 1 9 5 S U N CITY BL V D DEL W E B B BLVD WHIS P E RI N G W IND D R SHE L L RD S H ELL RD S E R ENADA D R SANA L OMA DR SHELL SP U R LAKE WAY BL V DNOR TH W EST BLVD WIL L I A M S D R S UN C I T Y B L V D R I VERY SE 1 SE 1 SE 1 F U T U R E C OLLECTO R CR 143 CR 147 R O N ALD W RE A G A N B LV D NW 1 R O N A L D W R E A G A N B LV D FM 3405 R R 2 3 3 8 R R 2338 C R 2 4 5 C R 2 4 8 INDIAN SP R I N G S R D JIM HOGG RD C R 2 6 2 C R 2 6 1 S W 1 D B W O O D R D S O U T H W E S T B Y P A S S D B WOOD R D SW 1 R O N A LD W REA G AN BLVD R O N A L D W R E A G A N B L V D CR 174 S W 2 S W 2 S W 3 S W 4 R R A R T E R I A L H S A M B A S S R D I N N E R L O OP S P U R C R 1 1 6 WESTINGH O U S E R D H I D D E N V A L L E Y D R TER A V I S T A P K W Y OAK M O NT D R R R A R T E R I A L A R R U N IV E R S ITY A VE F M 1 4 6 0 W C C R 1 1 9 I M P C R 1 0 4 WC ARTER I A L 1 W C A R T E R I A L 2 F UTURE C O L L E C T O R S H 1 3 0 CR 152 GROWTHTIER MAP Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ 0 1.5 Miles 1 inch = 1.5 miles MAY 12, 2009 Chris Bryce The Growth Tier Mapis a system of tiers in theCity and ETJ that planfor a full-range of City servicesand investement in stagedtime frames. The tier systemis set up at 10-year intervalsthat commit infrastructureto Tier 1 for the short-term,Tier 2 for the intermediate term,and Tier 3 for the long term. In Tier 3, the City has discretionto deny projects unless amajor infrastructure andservice committment is madeby a property's developer. Legend River/Stream Body of Water City Limits ExtraterritorialJurisdiction (E.T.J.) Existing Collector Existing Arterial Existing Freeway Proposed Collector Proposed Arterial Proposed Freeway ProposedPassenger Rail Existing Rail Map 3-12 Ultimate Boundary Tier 2 - IntermediateGrowth Area Protected Land Tier 3 - Long-TermGrowth Area Tier 1B(Developing) Tier 1A(Developed/Redeveloping) Tier 1 - Current Growth Area Present Growth Tier MapAttachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # H 2012 Proposed Additions to Tier 1 Growth Area SE Inner Loop/Sam Houston Avenue/Maple Area – Future Transit Oriented Development Area NE Inner Loop/IH-35/Lakeway/Airport Area – Anticipated Economic Development Area Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # H Ordinance No. _______________ Page 1 of 2 2012 Annual Update – Staff Land Use Amendments ORDINANCE NO. ____________ An Ordinance of the City of Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Plan, as part of the 2012 Annual Update; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, the City Charter of the City of Georgetown was amended by vote of the people in April 1986 such that comprehensive planning was established as a continuous and ongoing governmental function; and Whereas, the City Council approved the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Executive Summary; Introduction; Plan Framework; Plan Elements: Land Use Element; Procedures for Plan Administration, Implementation, Monitoring and Updates; and Appendices, on February 28, 2008; and Whereas, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Plan Administration Section made provisions for an annual update to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for a review of implementation progress and consideration of possible plan amendments; and Whereas, on November 11, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution 111108-S, establishing procedures for an ongoing annual update; and Whereas, on May 1, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and recommended to the City Council the new Growth Tier Map as part of the 2030 Annual Update amendment package; and Whereas, notice of the City Council public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City prior to the hearing, which stated the time and place of the hearing. 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 goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Section 2: The map depicted in Exhibit A of this ordinance is hereby adopted as the new Growth Tier Map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # H Ordinance No. _______________ Page 2 of 2 2012 Annual Update – Staff Land Use Amendments 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. This ordinance shall become effective immediately, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 8th day of May, 2012. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 22nd day of May, 2012. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: _________________________________ _________________________________ Jessica Brettle George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # H S S A N G A BRIEL R MID D LE S A N GA B R I E L R N SAN GABRIEL R LAKE GEORGETOWN S A N GABRIE L R BERRY CREEK S MITH BR UNIVERSITY AVE WOL F R ANCH N AUSTIN AVE MA I N S T LEAND E R R D S A U S T I N A V E F M 1 4 6 0 17TH ST M A P L E S T H U T T O R D S O U T H W ESTER N BLVD SE INNER L O O P W SH 29 E SH 29 S H 1 3 0 N E I N NER LOOP F M 971 IH 3 5 IH 3 5 IH 3 5 S W 3 C R Y S T A L F A LLS P K WY AIR P O R T R D CR 151 S M I T H C R E E K R DFUTURE C O L L E C T O R C R 1 0 3 C R 1 4 0 CR 150 F U T U R E C O L L E C T O R CR 194 W C A R T E R I A L 2 FM 972 C R 1 4 1 FUTU RE C O L L E C T O R SH 1 9 5 S H 1 9 5 S U N CITY BL V D DEL W E B B BLVD WHI S P E RI N G W IND D R SHE L L RD S H ELL RD S E R ENADA D R SANA L OMA DR SHELL SP U R LAKE WAY BL V DNOR TH W EST BLVD WIL L I A M S D R S UN C I T Y B L V D R I VERY SE 1 SE 1 SE 1 F U T U R E C OLLECTO R CR 143 CR 147 R O N ALD W REA G A N B L V D NW 1 R O N A L D W R E A G A N B LV D FM 3405 R R 2 3 3 8 R R 2338 C R 2 4 5 C R 2 4 8 INDIAN SP R I N G S R D JIM HOGG R D C R 2 6 2 C R 2 6 1 S W 1 D B W O O D R D S O U T H W E S T B Y P A S S D B WOOD R D SW 1 R O N A LD W REA G AN BLVD R O N A L D W R E A G A N B L V D CR 174 S W 2 S W 2 S W 3 S W 4 R R A R T E R I A L H S A M B A S S R D IN N E R L O OP S P U R C R 1 1 6 WESTINGH O U S E R D H I D D E N V A L L E Y D R TER A V I S T A P K W Y OAK M O NT D R R R A R T E R I A L A R R U N I V E R S ITY A VE F M 1 4 6 0 W C C R 1 1 9 I M P C R 1 0 4 WC ARTER I A L 1 W C A R T E R I A L 2 F UTURE C O L L E C T O R GROWTHTIER MAP Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ 1 inch = 2 miles May 22, 2012 The Growth Tier Mapis a system of tiers in theCity and ETJ that planfor a full-range of City servicesand investement in stagedtime frames. The tier systemis set up at 10-year intervalsthat plan primarily forinfrastructureto Tier 1 for the short-term,Tier 2 for the intermediate term,and Tier 3for the long term. Legend River/Stream Body of Water City Limits ExtraterritorialJurisdiction (E.T.J.) Existing Collector Existing Arterial Existing Freeway Proposed Collector Proposed Arterial Proposed Freeway ProposedPassenger Rail Existing Rail Map 3-12 Ultimate Boundary Protected Land Tier 3 - Long-TermGrowth Area Tier 1B(Agreement/Annex Areas) Tier 1A(High Priority) Tier 1 - High-Priority Growth Area Tier 2 - ImmediateGrowth Area Exhibit A: Proposed 2012 Growth Tier Map Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # H City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Community (MUC) for 121.64 acres in the Isaac Jones Survey, to be known as Gatlin Creek, located at 4900 Williams Drive -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant has requested to change the future land use designation on the property located at 4900 Williams Drive from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Community, with the intention of developing a mix of uses including commercial, office, and residential. This application was initially received during the annual 2030 Plan amendment cycle in 2011, but was stalled in order for the applicant to prepare a PUD zoning to support the requested land use change. It is companion to a rezoning request for a Planned Unit Development District. Due to the timing of the PUD, this request will now be processed with the 2012 annual 2030 Plan amendment cycle. Please refer to the attached staff report for more information. Public Comment: Staff has received a total of 22 written comments from surrounding and area property owners in opposition of this project, although comments have specifically been directed at the accompanying rezoning. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 6th, there were six speakers who all spoke in opposition of the project, although again comments were specifically directed at the rezoning request. The speakers primarily cited concerns regarding drainage and the potential for multifamily or another more dense development adjacent to their properties. Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation: At their regularly scheduled meeting on March 6, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously, 5-0, to recommend approval of the request, subject to approval of the accompanying rezoning. Special Consideration: This request for a comprehensive plan amendment will not require the typical super majority vote from City Council for approval since the application was made and will be considered during an annual 2030 Plan amendment cycle. Recommended Motion: Approval of the first reading of an Ordinance changing the Future Land Use designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Community (MUC) for 121.64 acres in the Isaac Jones Survey, to be known as Gatlin Creek, located at 4900 Williams Dr., subject to the approval of the accompanying rezoning for the Planned Unit Development district. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact was studied. SUBMITTED BY: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1 - Location Map Cover Memo Item # I Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Exhibit 4 - Aerial Map Ordinance Exhibit 5 - Written Public Comments Staff Report Exhibit 6 - March 6 P&Z Minutes Cover Memo Item # I Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report Gatlin Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 1 of 6 Report Date: May 1, 2012 File No: CPA-2011-001 Project Planner: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner Item Details Project Name: Gatlin Creek Location: 4900 Williams Dr. (See Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 121.64 acres Legal Description: 121.64 acres in the Jones Survey Applicants: David Wolf Property Owner: David Wolf Contact: Philip Wanke, BWM Group Existing Use: Undeveloped Existing Zoning: Agricultural (AG) Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) with C-1 base district Existing Future Land Use: Low Density Residential Proposed Future Land Use: Mixed Use Community Growth Tier: Tier 1A & Tier 2 Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested to change the future land use designation on the property located at 4900 Williams Drive from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Community, with the intention of developing a mix of uses including commercial, office, and residential. This application was initially received during the annual 2030 Plan amendment cycle in 2011, which stalled in order for the applicant to prepare a PUD zoning to support the requested land use change. It is companion to a rezoning request for a Planned Unit Development District. The applicant initially intended to pursue standard zoning for the site in order to sell a portion of the frontage for development of an assisted living facility and to lay out commercial lots along the remaining frontage. Because the Future Land Use Map shows this area as Low Density Residential, approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was needed to proceed forward with any of the zoning districts that would allow this type of development. Staff could not find justification for support of a future land use change to a Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 6 Item # I Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report Gatlin Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 2 of 6 commercial designation; the property is not at a major or minor node as is typically necessary for the commercial designations. However, after further discussions with the property owner, it was determined staff could support a change to a mixed-use designation, provided a Planned Unit Development was developed for the property ensuring a mixture of uses and requiring some type of internal roadway circulation to alleviate the numerous driveway conflicts that would have been allowed with standard zoning. Site Information Location: The approximately 122-acre property is located on the east side of Williams Drive, just south of the Sun City entrance at Del Webb Boulevard and north of Sedro Trail. Physical Characteristics: The property is currently undeveloped with approximately 2,536 feet of frontage along Williams Drive. The site’s elevation drops significantly towards the rear portion of the property where it backs up to the US Army Corp of Engineer property surrounding Lake Georgetown. The rear of the property is encumbered with a significant amount of 100-year floodplain as well as an inundation easement for the lake. The property has significant tree coverage, including over 200 Heritage Trees. Surrounding Properties: The properties immediately adjacent to this site include the Casa Loma, Fountainwood Estates, and Olde Oak residential subdivisions. Also, the property backs up to the US Army Corp of Engineers property that surrounds Lake Georgetown and the Gunn property. Across Williams Drive are several undeveloped lots in the Chaparo Estates subdivision as well as property developing as the Legacy at Georgetown and Colonial Real Estate. The surrounding zoning, existing uses and future land uses include: Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North ETJ (no zoning) Low Density Residential Casa Loma Subdivision, Fountainwood Estates South AG & ETJ (no zoning) Low Density Residential & Open Space Old Oak Subdivision East AG & C-3 Low & Moderate Density Residential undeveloped, developing (Legacy at Georgetown and Colonial Realty) West AG & ETJ (no zoning) Low Density Residential & Open Space Fountainwood Estates, US Army Corp of Engineer Property Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 6 Item # I Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report Gatlin Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 3 of 6 Property History The property was brought into the City’s limits via a series of annexations. The first of these was in 1995 when the first approximately 42 acres along Williams Drive was included in a larger City initiated annexation along FM 2338 (Ordinance 95-12). In April of 2010, an additional 18.61 acres was brought into the City via a voluntary request for annexation by the property owner – at the time for a potential development prospect (Ordinance 2010-11). The last of the property, the remaining 60.24 acres, was voluntarily annexed into the City in February of 2011 in anticipation of the applications currently under consideration (Ordinance 2011-05). The properties were assigned the default zoning of Agriculture (AG) upon annexation. Utilities Water: The property is currently in the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District’s water service area. The City of Georgetown is currently evaluating the possibility of managing the Chisholm Trail service area in the future. Under either scenario, the developer will be required to provide water pressure levels meeting the minimum City of Georgetown standards for fire flow and domestic water service. Wastewater: The City of Georgetown provides wastewater service within this area. However, the developer has been made aware of their responsibility for any extensions or upgrades necessary to serve this property. Electric: This property lies within the Pedernales Electric Cooperative’s electric service area. Transportation The site has extensive frontage along Williams Drive, approximately 2,536 feet. The associated PUD for this prioperty proposes a loop road off of Williams Drive that will extend to the core of the property and provide access to the rear development, so additional access along Williams Drive will be limited. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this proposed development was a requirement of the PUD zoning. The loop road and driveway access onto Williams Drive were reviewed with the TIA. Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 6 Item # I Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report Gatlin Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 4 of 6 2030 Comprehensive Plan Currently, the subject property is designated as Low Density Residential on the City’s future land use map (see Exhibit 2). The applicant seeks to change the future land use to Mixed Use Community. The Mixed Use Community land use designation is intended for large tracts of undeveloped land, which are appropriate for larger scale, creatively planned communities, where a mix of residential type and densities are complemented by supporting retail, small to medium scale office development, and integrated open spaces, where appropriate. Development in this category is best served by a Planned Unit Development or via the Mixed Use zoning standards. The existing Low Density Residential category primarily supports residential at 1.1 to 3 dwelling units per acre density, although, this category may also support complementary non-residential uses along arterial roadways such as neighborhood serving retail, office, institutional, and civic uses, even if not depicted on the Future Land Use Map. The 2030 Plan includes a Growth Tier categorization that identifies where growth is desired to occur over the next two decades or more, heavily focused on the delivery of municipal services. This particular property straddles two Growth Tier categories, Tier 1A and Tier 2. Tier 1A 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. Tier 2 is primarily for areas of the ETJ where growth and the provision of public facilities are anticipated beyond the next 10 years. Zoning Districts As noted, the applicant is also seeking approval of a rezoning to a PUD district with a base district of C-1 (see the Staff Report for REZ-2011-004); staff is supportive of that rezoning, as those districts implement the proposed future land use designation in this report. The PUD, Planned Unit Development District, is intended to allow flexibility in planning and designing for unique or environmentally sensitive properties, which are to be developed in accordance with a common development scheme or planned associations of uses. PUD zoning is designed to accommodate various types of development, including a combination or mix of uses. The proposed C-1 base 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 would include townhouse/multifamily dwellings and group living situations, institutional uses, restaurants, hotels, and retail sales. In order of intensity, the C-1 District is the middle of the three Commercial districts (CN, Neighborhood Commercial and C-3, General Commercial). Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 6 Item # I Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report Gatlin Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 5 of 6 Future Application(s) There is a companion application for a PUD rezoning running concurrently with this appilcation. Following these applications, it will be necessary to obtain approval of preliminary and final plats, construction plans and site plans, for each portion of the development, in addition to any necessary building permits in order to proceed further with development within this PUD. Staff Analysis Staff is in support of the request to change the Future Land Use for this property from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Community, subject to approval of the associated PUD rezoning application under review for this property. While the location is not appropriate for a commercial “node” designation, achieving a mix of uses and providing for more internal circulation for the site through PUD standards creates more of an activity center that provides for opportunities for more localized trips within the development. While not at a major or minor intersection, the property’s location along a major arterial such as Williams Drive provides for support from the 2030 Plan for mixed use developments. Special Considerations The companion rezoning of this property is subject to approval of a TIA, which is still awaiting final submittal. Staff is proposing a condition on the approval of the rezoning, requiring receipt of the final TIA document prior to the first reading of the ordinance at City Council. Staff’s support of this application is contingent on the PUD rezoning, and as such, staff would recommend the Commission condition its recommendation on this application to be subject to the rezoning proceeding to first reading simultaneously. Please note, because this application was received during an annual review cycle, the super majority vote that is applicable to out-of-cycle requests is not required with this item. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of 37 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on February 19th and April 20th. There have been twenty-two public comments received at the time of this report – all in opposition (see Exhibit 5). Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 6 Item # I Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report Gatlin Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 6 of 6 Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map Exhibit 5 – Public Comments Meetings Schedule March 6, 2012 – Planning and Zoning Commission May 8, 2012 – City Council First Reading May 22, 2012 – City Council Second Reading (pending) Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 6 Item # I C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETO W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETO W N Georgetown ETJ G e o r g e t o w n E T J Georgetown ETJ RE D P O P P Y TRL D EL WEBB BLVD TRAIL OF THE FLOWERS WILLIAMS DR Y E L L O W R O S E T R L DEL WEBB B L V D VINCA DR A C A CIA W A Y SEDRO TRL DEWBERRY DR DAISY P A T H J IM HOGG P A R K R D O L D E O A K DR LI A T R I S L N LANTANA DR DAN D E L I O N DR L A KEVIEW L N H ESTER H O L L OW WHITEWING W A Y B L A ZIN G S T A R DR P L O V E R P A S S S C H O OL DV O L DE O A K D ROLDE O A K D R C A S A L O M A C I R A L L E N C I R A LLEN C I R J I M H O G G P ARK RD JIM HOGG PARK RD 0 1,200 2,400Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1REZ-2011-004/ CPA-2011-001 CPA-2011-001 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # I C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N WILLIAMS DR RM 2338 0 2,400 4,800Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Legend Thoroughfare EC EF EMA EMIA ERF PC PF PFR PMA PMIA PR Future Land Use Institutional Regional Commercial Community Commercial Ag / Rural Residential Employment Center HIgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2REZ-2011-004 CPA-2011-001 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # I C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETO W N Georgetown ETJ Georgetown ETJ DAISY PATH WOODLAKE DR SEDR O TRL BLUESTEM DR VINCA DR A C A C I A W A Y R E D P O P PY TRL SU N DAY SC H O OL D R T H IS T L E T R L DEWBERRY DR WILLIAMS DR WOODSTOCK DR LI A T R I S L N P E N N Y L N B L A ZIN G S T A R D R D A N D E LI O N D R SCHOOL DV HESTERHOLLOW LAKEVIEW LN LANTANA DRDEL W EBB BLV D O L D E O A K D R C A S A L O M A C I R A L L E N C I R JIM HOGG PARK RD 0 1,200 2,400Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ CPA-2011-001 LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Zoning Information Exhibit #3 CPA-2011-001 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # I CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETO W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETO W N Georgetown ETJ G e o r g e t o w n E T J Georgetown ETJ WILLIAMS DR PENNY LN COLUMBINE CT BLUESTEM DR VINCA DR A C A C IA W A Y SEDRO TRL R E D P O P P Y T R L R E D P O P P Y T R L T H IS T L E T R L DEWBERRY DR HESTERHOLLOW JIM H O G G P A R K R D LI A T R I S L N LANTANA DRBLAZING S T A R D R SCHOOL DV D A N D E LIO N D R LAKEVIE W LN D E L W E B B B L V D DEL W EBB BLVD O L D E O A K D R ALLE N CIR C A S A L O M A C I R JIM HOGG PARK RD 0 1,000 2,000Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4CPA-2011-001 CPA-2011-001 Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 3 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 4 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 5 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 6 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 7 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 8 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 9 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 0 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 1 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 2 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 3 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 4 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 5 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 6 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 7 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 8 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 9 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 0 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 1 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 2 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 3 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 4 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 5 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 6 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 7 o f 2 8 It e m # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 8 o f 2 8 It e m # I Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / March 6, 2012 Page 1 of 5 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 06, 2012 at 6:00 PM Council Chambers 101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Commissioners: Ercel Brashear, Chair; Porter Cochran, Annette Montgomery, John Horne and Roland Peña. Commissioners in Training: Scott Rankin Commissioner(s) Absent: Sally Pell and Robert Massad Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director, Carla Benton, Planner; Mike Elabarger, Planner; Valerie Kreger, Planner; David Munk, City Engineer and Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary. Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m. Chair Brashear called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 6. Public Hearing and possible action on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Community for 121.64 acres out of the Jones Survey, to be known as Gatlin Creek, located at 4900 Williams Drive. CPA-2011-001 (Valerie Kreger) 7. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1) for 121.64 acres out of the Jones Survey, to be known as Gatlin Creek, located at 4900 Williams Drive. REZ-2011-004 (Valerie Kreger) The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone staff report was presented as combined. Staff report by Valerie Kreger. The applicant has requested to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Community. The applicant intends to develop a mix of uses including commercial, office, and residential. This application was initially received during the annual 2030 Plan amendment cycle in 2011, but was stalled in order for the applicant to prepare a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to support the requested land use change. The proposed PUD documents are now complete and included in an accompanying application which seeks to establish a PUD utilizing a C-1 base district. Because this application was received during an annual review cycle, the super majority vote that is applicable to out-of-cycle requests is not required with this item. The rezoning of this property is subject to approval of a TIA, which is still awaiting final submittal and approval. The rezoning request, if acted on by the Planning & Zoning Commission, will not move forward for City Council consideration until the TIA has received final approval. Staff’s support of this application is contingent on the PUD rezoning, and as Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 3 Item # I Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / March 6, 2012 Page 2 of 5 such, staff would recommend the Commission make approval of this item contingent on approval of the rezoning and require this item move forward to City Council on the same schedule as the PUD application. The applicant has requested a rezoning from Agriculture (AG) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1). The applicant intends to develop a mix of uses including commercial, office, and residential. The TIA for the project has been reviewed, but still awaits the final submittal for approval. The rezoning request, if acted on by the Planning & Zoning Commission, will not move forward for City Council consideration until the TIA has received final approval. Chair Brashear invited the applicant to address the Commissioners. Phillip Wanke representing the applicant stated the idea is to consolidate the commercial to the center of the track and propose a larger building in the center, possibly a grocery store. Chair Brashear Opened the Public Hearing. Michael Conner, 117 Casa Loma Circle state he is against the rezoning and does not want total commercial. He is also concerned with the impact this development will have on Lake Georgetown. Dennis McNutt, 311 Allen Circle stated he believes in property owner rights, but feels the development is so large; it will obstruct the water drainage to Lake Georgetown. John Cowman, Leander stated he is a land rights advocate, but need to work on land transition and compatibility standards need to be addressed. Mr. Cowman believes in the process, but feels this plan is not ready to be moving forward. He is not for this plan and feels there needs to be a good neighbor policy in place. Rene Broom, 309 Allen Circle strongly objects with the rezoning. She stated this development is up to 70% impervious coverage and will affect Lake Georgetown. This development is also in the 100 year flood plain and should only allow low density development. David Wolf, applicant feels there is misinformation. Engineering study for the water drainage has not been completed. Steve O’Conner, 313 Allen Circle stated he is concerned with the drainage and the flooding and afraid flooding with effect his home. Chair Brashear Closed the Public Hearing. Phillip Wanke, representing the applicant stated they are addressing the stormwater concerns and the development is regulated by TCEQ to make sure there is no water run off. FEMA will also have to approve the water drainage. Project Website has wrong information regarding the drainage. Water quality features will include a wet pond. Mr. Wanke feels the water drainage will not impede the neighbors. David Munk, Development Engineer for the City of Georgetown, stated the City requires a Professional Engineer to design the water drainage for this development. Flood plan control has to be through the Corp of Engineer. Mr. Munk stated the City does a lot of water quality, but TCEQ and Corp has to be happy with the development before it can move forward. Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 3 Item # I Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / March 6, 2012 Page 3 of 5 Motion by Commissioner Cochran to recommend to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 121.64 acres in the Issac Jones Survey, to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Community, contingent on the simultaneous consideration of the associated PUD rezoning application. Second by Commissioner Horne. Approved. (5-0) Motion by Commissioner Montgmoery to recommend to the City Council approval of a request to rezone 121.64 acres in the Issac Jones Survey from the Agriculture (AG) District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1) District, contingent on the resubmittal and final approval of the TIA prior to City Council consideration. Second by Commissioenr Horne. Approved. (5-0) Meeting Adjourned. 9:20 Attachment number 7 \nPage 3 of 3 Item # I Ordinance Number: Page 1 of 2 Description: Gatlin Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment Date Approved: May 22, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the Future Land Use Plan, adopted on the 20th Day of February 2008, from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Community (MUC) for 121.64 acres of the Issac Jones Survey; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City Council for the purpose of changing the Future Land Use Plan designation on the following described real property ("The Property"): 121.64 acres of the Issac Jones Survey, as recorded in Document Numbers 9612381 and 2009090679 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and Whereas, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days for the first day of such publication; and Whereas, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and Whereas, the applicant for such Comprehensive Plan Amendment placed on the property such sign(s) as required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and Whereas, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on March 6, 2012, recommended approval of the Future Land Use Plan Amendment. 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 overall 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 of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # I Ordinance Number: Page 2 of 2 Description: Gatlin Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment Date Approved: May 22, 2012 Section 2. The Future Land Use Plan of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the land use for the Property shall be and the same is hereby changed from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Community (MUC), and is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect on the date of final adoption by City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 8th day of May, 2012. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 22nd day of May, 2012. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ______________________ _________________________ Jessica Brettle By: George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # I City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1), for 121.64 acres in the Issac Jones Survey, to be known as Gatlin Creek, located at 4900 Williams Drive -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant has requested a rezoning from Agriculture (AG) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1). The applicant intends to develop a mix of uses including commercial, office, and residential. This application is companion to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment initially received during the annual 2030 Plan amendment cycle in 2011, which stalled in order for the applicant to prepare a PUD zoning to support the requested land use change. That item will now be considered as part of the 2012 annual 2030 Plan amendments. Please refer to the attached staff report for more information. At the time of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 6th, final traffic impact analysis (TIA) results had not yet been received, and the recommendation from the Commission was subject to receipt of those results. Staff has since received confirmation of the TIA approval from our consultant. A summary of the TIA results are attached as Exhibit 7 that indicates any future potential for a signal light at this development will be at the cost of the developer and identifies several areas that will require road improvements in the future due to this development as well as other area development. Those improvements include: 1. Exclusive southbound right turn lane at Williams Drive and Shell/DB Woods Road in 2019. Pro rata share of improvements is 76%. 2. Exclusive left turn and shared right-through-left-turn lane at Williams Drive and Wildwood Drive in 2019. Pro rata share of improvements is 1.9%. 3. Exclusive eastbound and westbound left turn lanes at Williams Drive and Shell/DB Woods Road in 2029. Pro rata share of improvements is 16.5%. 4. Dual westbound left turn lanes and exclusive northbound right turn lane at Williams Drive and Wildwood Drive in 2029. Pro rata shares of improvements are 13.3% and 0.5% respectively. 5. Signal timing modifications at Williams Drive and Woodlake Drive in 2029. Pro rata share of improvements is 11.4%. 6. Signal timing modifications at Williams Drive and Del Webb Boulevard in 2029. Pro rata share of improvements is 15.3%. 7. Installation of traffic signal, once warranted, at Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road in 2029. Pro rata share of improvements is 13.6%. Public Comment: Staff has received a total of 22 written comments from surrounding and area property owners in opposition of this rezoning. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 6th, there were 6 speakers who all spoke in opposition of the rezoning request. The speakers primarily cited concerns regarding drainage and the potential for multifamily or other more dense development adjacent to their properties. Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation: At their regularly scheduled meeting on March 6, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously, 5-0, to recommend approval of the request, subject to receipt of final TIA results. Recommended Motion: Approval of the first reading of an Ordinance rezoning 121.64 acres in the Issac Jones Survey, to be known Cover Memo Item # J as Gatlin Creek, located at 4900 Williams Dr., from Agriculture (AG) district to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a base zoning district of Local Commercial (C-1). FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact was studied. SUBMITTED BY: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Exhibit 4 - Aerial Map Exhibit 7 - TIA Approval Letter Ordinance Ordinance Exhibit A - PUD Development Plan (with PUD Exhibits A-I) Exhibit 5 - Written Public Comments Staff Report Exhibit 6 - March 6 P7Z Minutes Cover Memo Item # J Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report Gatlin Creek PUD Page 1 of 8 Report Date: May 1, 2012 File No: REZ-2011-004 Project Planner: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner Item Details Project Name: Gatlin Creek Location: 4900 Williams Dr. (See Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 121.64 acres Legal Description: 121.64 acres in the Jones Survey Applicant: David Wolf Property Owner: David Wolf Contact: Philip Wanke, BWM Group Existing Use: Undeveloped Existing Zoning: Agricultural (AG) Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) with C-1 base district Future Land Use: Concurrent Application for Mixed Use Community (currently Low Density Residential) Growth Tier: Tier 1A & Tier 2 Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested a rezoning from Agriculture (AG) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1). The applicant intends to develop a mix of uses including commercial, office, and residential. This application is companion to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment initially received during the annual 2030 Plan amendment cycle in 2011, which stalled in order for the applicant to prepare a PUD zoning to support the requested land use change. The applicant initially intended to pursue standard zoning for the site in order to sell a portion of the frontage for development of an assisted living facility and to lay out commercial lots along the remaining frontage. Because the Future Land Use Map shows this area as Low Density Residential, approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was needed to proceed forward with any of the zoning districts that would allow this type of development. Staff could not find justification for support of a future land use change to a commercial designation; the property is not at a major or minor node as is typically necessary for the commercial designations. However, after further discussions with the property owner, it was determined staff could support a change to a mixed-use Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 8 Item # J Planning & Development Staff Report Gatlin Creek PUD Page 2 of 8 designation, provided a Planned Unit Development was developed for the property ensuring a mixture of uses and requiring some type of internal roadway circulation to alleviate the numerous driveway conflicts that would have been allowed with standard zoning. The property is heavily treed and has a significant amount of Heritage Trees (over 200). The property owner worked with staff to establish a hierarchy or prioritization of the trees to establish different levels of preservation for each subgroup and allow some flexibility with development at time of Site Plan. The Protected Tree requirements of the UDC are not affected and will remain applicable to the development of this property. Gatlin Creek PUD Summary: 1. The PUD establishes a C-1 base district. 2. The PUD divides the property into three different Development Zones as follows: Zone A: 15.7 acres within the proposed loop road designed to be the retail hub of the development. Zone B: 73.1 acres outside of the loop road including the north and rear portions of the property set up to be predominantly residential and assisted living type uses. Zone C: 32.8 acres located at the southern portion of the property allowing residential, retail, and office uses. 3. The PUD provides for an internal roadway to provide access and circulation on site. 4. In addition to the uses allowed in the C-1 district, the PUD allows single-family residential in Zones B and C. Also, indoor kennels are allowed in Zones B and C with approval of a Special Use Permit. 5. The PUD establishes perimeter setbacks exceeding those of the UDC, 100 feet adjacent to residential properties. 6. Commercial, retail, service, or office buildings in Zone A are allowed to exceed 25,000 square feet. 7. Impervious coverage for the development is identified as 70% to be applied to the comprehensive area of the PUD. However, any single-family residential lots are limited to 45% impervious coverage. 8. A Master Sign Plan will be required for the project. The PUD establishes that the development will be allowed up to two subdivision entry signs that may be placed in a median in the public right-of-way of the loop road. Additionally, the PUD allows the subdivision entry sign to increase to eight feet (from 6’). Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 8 Item # J Planning & Development Staff Report Gatlin Creek PUD Page 3 of 8 9. Water quality and detention are allowed and may be located within the floodplain or inundation easement with the approval of the CORPS of Engineers, TCEQ, and the City. 10. Heritage Tree Preservation Requirements are amended as follows: 30”+ Single Trunk Heritage Trees: Removal requires City Council approval with 3:1 mitigation. <30” Single Trunk Heritage Trees: Removal requires standard process of Heritage Tree Removal Permit and 3:1 mitigation. Double Trunk Heritage Trees where each trunk is less than 26”: May remove up to 20% with 2:1 mitigation. Multi Trunk Heritage Trees where each trunk is less than 26”: May remove up to 40% with 1:1 mitigation. 11. Curb Cuts: The UDC would allow up to five curb/road cuts. The PUD, however, proposes to limit this to two roadway intersections and two additional driveway cuts. 12. Parkland: The development will follow standard parkland dedication requirements. The Parks Director has indicated that at this time, fees-in-lieu of parkland dedication would be preferred at this location. Site Information Location: The approximately 122-acre property is located on the east side of Williams Drive, just south of the Sun City entrance at Del Webb Boulevard and north of Sedro Trail. Physical Characteristics: The property is currently undeveloped with approximately 2,536 feet of frontage along Williams Drive. The site’s elevation drops significantly towards the rear portion of the property where it backs up to the US Army Corp of Engineers property surrounding Lake Georgetown. The rear of the property is encumbered with a significant amount of 100-year floodplain as well as an inundation easement for the lake. The property has significant tree coverage, including over 200 Heritage Trees. Surrounding Properties: The properties immediately adjacent to this site include the Casa Loma, Fountainwood Estates, and Olde Oak residential subdivisions. Also, the property backs up to the US Army Corp of Engineers property that surrounds Lake Georgetown and the Gunn property. Across Williams Drive are several undeveloped lots in the Chaparo Estates subdivision as well as property developing as the Legacy at Georgetown and Colonial Real Estate. Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 8 Item # J Planning & Development Staff Report Gatlin Creek PUD Page 4 of 8 The surrounding zoning, existing uses and future land uses include: Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North ETJ (no zoning) Low Density Residential Casa Loma Subdivision, Fountainwood Estates South AG & ETJ (no zoning) Low Density Residential & Open Space Olde Oak Subdivision East AG & C-3 Low & Moderate Density Residential undeveloped, developing (Legacy at Georgetown and Colonial Realty) West AG & ETJ (no zoning) Low Density Residential & Open Space Fountainwood Estates, US Army Corp of Engineer Property Property History The property was brought into the City’s limits via a series of annexations. The first of these was in 1995 when the first approximately 42 acres along Williams Drive was included in a larger City initiated annexation along FM 2338 (Ordinance 95-12). In April of 2010 an additional 18.61 acres was brought into the City via a voluntary request for annexation by the property owner – at the time for a potential development prospect (Ordinance 2010-11). The last of the property, the remaining 60.24 acres, was voluntarily annexed into the City in February of 2011 in anticipation of the applications currently under consideration (Ordinance 2011-05). The properties were assigned the default zoning of Agriculture (AG) upon annexation. 2030 Plan Conformance Currently, the subject property is designated as Low Density Residential on the City’s future land use map (see Exhibit 2). As noted, the applicant is also seeking approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of this property from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Community (see the Staff Report for CPA- 2011-001). As shown, the PUD is in conformance with the Mixed Use Community land use category proposed in the companion Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Mixed Use Community land use designation is intended for large tracts of undeveloped land, which are appropriate for larger scale, creatively planned communities, where a mix of residential type and densities are complemented by supporting retail, small to medium scale office development, and integrated open spaces, where appropriate. Development in this category is best served by a Planned Unit Development or via the Mixed Use zoning standards. Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 8 Item # J Planning & Development Staff Report Gatlin Creek PUD Page 5 of 8 If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this property is not approved, it will not be appropriate to approve this PUD for the property as the existing Low Density Residential category primarily supports residential at a 1.1 to 3 dwelling units per acre density, although, this category may also support complementary non-residential uses along arterial roadways such as neighborhood serving retail, office, institutional, and civic uses, even if not depicted on the Future Land Use Map. The 2030 Plan includes a Growth Tier categorization that identifies where growth is desired to occur over the next two decades or more, heavily focused on the delivery of municipal services. This particular property straddles two Growth Tier categories, Tier 1A and Tier 2. Tier 1A 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. Tier 2 is primarily for areas of the ETJ where growth and the provision of public facilities are anticipated beyond the next 10 years. Proposed Zoning District The PUD, Planned Unit Development District, is intended to allow flexibility in planning and designing for unique or environmentally sensitive properties, which are to be developed in accordance with a common development scheme or planned associations of uses. PUD zoning is designed to accommodate various types of development, including a combination or mix of uses. The proposed C-1 base 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 would include townhouse/multifamily dwellings and group living situations, institutional uses, restaurants, hotels, and retail sales. In order of intensity, the C-1 District is the middle of the three Commercial districts (CN, Neighborhood Commercial and C-3, General Commercial). Utilities Water: The property is currently in the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District’s water service area. The City of Georgetown is currently evaluating the possibility of managing the Chisholm Trail service area in the future. Under either scenario, the developer will be required to provide water pressure levels meeting the minimum City of Georgetown standards for fire flow and domestic water service. Wastewater: The City of Georgetown provides wastewater service within this area. However, the developer has been made aware of their responsibility for any extensions or upgrades necessary to serve this property. Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 8 Item # J Planning & Development Staff Report Gatlin Creek PUD Page 6 of 8 Electric: This property lies within the Pedernales Electric Cooperative’s electric service area. Transportation The site has extensive frontage along Williams Drive, approximately 2,536 feet. The PUD proposes a loop road off of Williams Drive that will extend to the core of the property and provide access to the rear development, so additional access along Williams Drive will be limited. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this proposed development was a requirement of the PUD zoning. The loop road and driveway access onto Williams Drive were reviewed with the TIA. At the time of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 6th, final traffic impact analysis (TIA) results had not yet been received, and the recommendation from the Commission was subject to receipt of those results. Staff has since received confirmation of the TIA approval from our consultant. A summary of the TIA results are attached as Exhibit 7 that indicates any future potential for a signal light at this development will be at the cost of the developer and identifies several areas that will require road improvements in the future due to this development as well as other area development. Those improvements include: 1. Exclusive southbound right turn lane at Williams Drive and Shell/DB Woods Road in 2019. Pro rata share of improvements is 76%. 2. Exclusive left turn land and shared right-through-left-turn lane at Williams Drive and Wildwood Drive in 2019. Pro rata share of improvements is 1.9%. 3. Exclusive eastbound and westbound left turn lanes at Williams Drive and Shell/DB Woods Road in 2029. Pro rata share of improvements is 16.5%. 4. Dual westbound left turn lanes and exclusive northbound right turn lane at Williams Drive and Wildwood Drive in 2029. Pro rata shares of improvements are 13.3% and 0.5% respectively. 5. Signal timing modifications at Williams Drive and Woodlake Drive in 2029. Pro rata share of improvements is 11.4%. 6. Signal timing modifications at Williams Drive and Del Webb Boulevard in 2029. Pro rata share of improvements is 15.3%. 7. Installation of traffic signal, once warranted, at Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road in 2029. Pro rata share of improvements is 13.6%. Future Application(s) There is a companion application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment under consideration, to which this application is reliant on. Following these applications, it will Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 8 Item # J Planning & Development Staff Report Gatlin Creek PUD Page 7 of 8 be necessary to obtain approval of preliminary and final plats, construction plans and site plans, for each portion of the development, in addition to any necessary building permits in order to proceed further with development within this PUD. Staff Analysis Staff is supportive of the proposed PUD as it provides for development of the property in a more comprehensive manner than would be required for straight zoning of the property. Provided the companion Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved, the PUD fullfills the expectation of a mixture of uses that the Mixed Use Community requires. Per 2030 Plan Goal 1.E, it provides an innovative form of compact, pedestrian friendly development and per Goal 1.E.3, it promotes the development of community activity centers with complementary mixed uses (e.g., neighborhood-oriented retail, higher density residential). While typicaly staff would not support a PUD that includes regulations that would allow for the removal of Heritage Trees, as mentioned, this property has more than 200 Heritage Trees. Staff understands that during development, the applicant would have ended up making requests for Heritage Tree Removal. By creating a prioritization of the trees, the applicant has some idea going into a project what the expectations are for designing around the Heritage Trees and staff has some assurance that the most desired trees will be preserved. Finally, establishing entry roads and internal circulation reduces driveways and bring more traffic movements onto the site, as opposed to Williams Drive. Without a PUD, there is not a mechanism to require an internal roadway and, although unlikely, the property could develop with a series of driveways along Williams Drive, adding to potential conflicts along the increasingly busy roadway. Special Considerations None Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of 37 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on February 19th and on April 20th. There have been twenty-two public comments received at the time of this report – all in opposition (see Exhibit 5). Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 8 Item # J Planning & Development Staff Report Gatlin Creek PUD Page 8 of 8 Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map Exhibit 5 – Public Comments Meetings Schedule March 6, 2012 – Planning and Zoning Commission May 8, 2012 – City Council First Reading May 22, 2012 – City Council Second Reading (pending) Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 8 Item # J C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETO W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETO W N Georgetown ETJ G e o r g e t o w n E T J Georgetown ETJ TRAIL OF THE FLOWERS JI M H O G G PAR K R D Y E L L O W R O S E T R L J IM HOGG P A R K R D VINCA DR A C A CIA W A Y DEWBERRY DR DEL WEBB BLV D PURPLE SAGE DR WILLIAMS DR DEL WEBB B L V D PENNY L N WOODLAKE DR SEDRO TR L O L D E O AK DR B O N N I E R O S E LI A T R I S L N D A N D E LION DR S LAKEWOODS DR LANTANA DR L A KEVIEW L N WHITEWING W A Y B L A ZIN G S TAR DR H ESTER H O L L O W P L O V E R P A S S SCHOOL DV O L D E O A K D ROLDE O A K D R C A S A L O M A C I R A L L E N C I R J I M H O G G P A RK RD JIM HOGG PARK RD 0 1,250 2,500Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1REZ-2011-004 REZ-2011-004 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # J C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N WILLIAMS DR RM 2338 0 2,400 4,800Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Legend Thoroughfare EC EF EMA EMIA ERF PC PF PFR PMA PMIA PR Future Land Use Institutional Regional Commercial Community Commercial Ag / Rural Residential Employment Center HIgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2REZ-2011-004 REZ-2011-004 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # J C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETO W N Georgetown ETJ Georgetown ETJ DAISY PATH WOODLAKE DR SEDR O TRL BLUESTEM DR VINCA DR A C A C I A W A Y R E D P O P PY TRL SU N DAY SC H O OL D R T H IS T L E T R L DEWBERRY DR WILLIAMS DR WOODSTOCK DR LI A T R I S L N P E N N Y L N B L A ZIN G S T A R D R D A N D E LI O N D R SCHOOL DV HESTERHOLLOW LAKEVIEW LN LANTANA DRDEL W EBB BLV D O L D E O A K D R C A S A L O M A C I R A L L E N C I R JIM HOGG PARK RD 0 1,200 2,400Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ REZ-2011-004 LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Zoning Information Exhibit #3 REZ-2011-001 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # J CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETO W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OF GEORGETO W N Georgetown ETJ G e o r g e t o w n E T J Georgetown ETJ WILLIAMS DR PENNY LN COLUMBINE CT BLUESTEM DR VINCA DR A C A C IA W A Y SEDRO TRL R E D P O P P Y T R L R E D P O P P Y T R L T H IS T L E T R L DEWBERRY DR HESTERHOLLOW JIM H O G G P A R K R D LI A T R I S L N LANTANA DRBLAZING S T A R D R SCHOOL DV D A N D E LIO N D R LAKEVIE W LN D E L W E B B B L V D DEL W EBB BLVD O L D E O A K D R ALLE N CIR C A S A L O M A C I R JIM HOGG PARK RD 0 1,000 2,000Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4REZ-2011-004 REZ-2011-004 Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 3 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 4 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 5 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 6 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 7 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 8 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 9 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 0 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 1 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 2 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 3 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 4 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 5 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 6 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 7 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 8 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 9 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 0 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 1 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 2 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 3 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 4 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 5 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 6 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 7 o f 2 8 It e m # J At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 8 o f 2 8 It e m # J Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / March 6, 2012 Page 1 of 5 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 06, 2012 at 6:00 PM Council Chambers 101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Commissioners: Ercel Brashear, Chair; Porter Cochran, Annette Montgomery, John Horne and Roland Peña. Commissioners in Training: Scott Rankin Commissioner(s) Absent: Sally Pell and Robert Massad Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director, Carla Benton, Planner; Mike Elabarger, Planner; Valerie Kreger, Planner; David Munk, City Engineer and Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary. Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m. Chair Brashear called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 6. Public Hearing and possible action on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Community for 121.64 acres out of the Jones Survey, to be known as Gatlin Creek, located at 4900 Williams Drive. CPA-2011-001 (Valerie Kreger) 7. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1) for 121.64 acres out of the Jones Survey, to be known as Gatlin Creek, located at 4900 Williams Drive. REZ-2011-004 (Valerie Kreger) The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone staff report was presented as combined. Staff report by Valerie Kreger. The applicant has requested to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Community. The applicant intends to develop a mix of uses including commercial, office, and residential. This application was initially received during the annual 2030 Plan amendment cycle in 2011, but was stalled in order for the applicant to prepare a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to support the requested land use change. The proposed PUD documents are now complete and included in an accompanying application which seeks to establish a PUD utilizing a C-1 base district. Because this application was received during an annual review cycle, the super majority vote that is applicable to out-of-cycle requests is not required with this item. The rezoning of this property is subject to approval of a TIA, which is still awaiting final submittal and approval. The rezoning request, if acted on by the Planning & Zoning Commission, will not move forward for City Council consideration until the TIA has received final approval. Staff’s support of this application is contingent on the PUD rezoning, and as Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 3 Item # J Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / March 6, 2012 Page 2 of 5 such, staff would recommend the Commission make approval of this item contingent on approval of the rezoning and require this item move forward to City Council on the same schedule as the PUD application. The applicant has requested a rezoning from Agriculture (AG) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1). The applicant intends to develop a mix of uses including commercial, office, and residential. The TIA for the project has been reviewed, but still awaits the final submittal for approval. The rezoning request, if acted on by the Planning & Zoning Commission, will not move forward for City Council consideration until the TIA has received final approval. Chair Brashear invited the applicant to address the Commissioners. Phillip Wanke representing the applicant stated the idea is to consolidate the commercial to the center of the track and propose a larger building in the center, possibly a grocery store. Chair Brashear Opened the Public Hearing. Michael Conner, 117 Casa Loma Circle state he is against the rezoning and does not want total commercial. He is also concerned with the impact this development will have on Lake Georgetown. Dennis McNutt, 311 Allen Circle stated he believes in property owner rights, but feels the development is so large; it will obstruct the water drainage to Lake Georgetown. John Cowman, Leander stated he is a land rights advocate, but need to work on land transition and compatibility standards need to be addressed. Mr. Cowman believes in the process, but feels this plan is not ready to be moving forward. He is not for this plan and feels there needs to be a good neighbor policy in place. Rene Broom, 309 Allen Circle strongly objects with the rezoning. She stated this development is up to 70% impervious coverage and will affect Lake Georgetown. This development is also in the 100 year flood plain and should only allow low density development. David Wolf, applicant feels there is misinformation. Engineering study for the water drainage has not been completed. Steve O’Conner, 313 Allen Circle stated he is concerned with the drainage and the flooding and afraid flooding with effect his home. Chair Brashear Closed the Public Hearing. Phillip Wanke, representing the applicant stated they are addressing the stormwater concerns and the development is regulated by TCEQ to make sure there is no water run off. FEMA will also have to approve the water drainage. Project Website has wrong information regarding the drainage. Water quality features will include a wet pond. Mr. Wanke feels the water drainage will not impede the neighbors. David Munk, Development Engineer for the City of Georgetown, stated the City requires a Professional Engineer to design the water drainage for this development. Flood plan control has to be through the Corp of Engineer. Mr. Munk stated the City does a lot of water quality, but TCEQ and Corp has to be happy with the development before it can move forward. Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 3 Item # J Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / March 6, 2012 Page 3 of 5 Motion by Commissioner Cochran to recommend to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 121.64 acres in the Issac Jones Survey, to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Community, contingent on the simultaneous consideration of the associated PUD rezoning application. Second by Commissioner Horne. Approved. (5-0) Motion by Commissioner Montgmoery to recommend to the City Council approval of a request to rezone 121.64 acres in the Issac Jones Survey from the Agriculture (AG) District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1) District, contingent on the resubmittal and final approval of the TIA prior to City Council consideration. Second by Commissioenr Horne. Approved. (5-0) Meeting Adjourned. 9:20 Attachment number 7 \nPage 3 of 3 Item # J Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 3 Item # J Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 of 3 Item # J Attachment number 8 \nPage 3 of 3 Item # J Ordinance Number: Page 1 of 2 Description: Gatlin Creek PUD Rezoning Date Approved: May 22, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 2011-_____ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the Zoning District Map adopted on the 4th Day of April 2002 in accordance with the Unified Development Code passed and adopted on the 11th Day of March 2003, to rezone 121.64 acres of the Issac Jones Survey, from the Agriculture District (AG) to Planned Unit Development District (PUD) with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1); repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City Council for the purpose of changing the zoning district classification of the following described real property ("The Property"): 121.64 acres of the Issac Jones Survey, as recorded in Document Numbers 9612381 and 2009090679 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the zoning district classification to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and Whereas, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days for the first day of such publication; and Whereas, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and Whereas, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and Whereas, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on March 6, 2012, recommended approval of the requested zoning change for the above described property from the Agriculture District (AG) to Planned Unit Development District (PUD) with a base zoning district of Local Commercial (C-1). 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 and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Attachment number 9 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # J Ordinance Number: Page 2 of 2 Description: Gatlin Creek PUD Rezoning Date Approved: May 22, 2012 further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. The Zoning District Map of the City, as well as the Zoning District for the Property shall be and the same is hereby changed from the Agriculture District (AG) to Planned Unit Development District (PUD) with a base zoning district of Local Commercial (C-1), in accordance with Exhibit A (PUD Development Plan with Exhibits A-I) incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect on the date of final adoption by City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 8th day of May, 2012. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 22nd day of May, 2012. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ______________________ _________________________ Jessica Brettle By: George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 9 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # J 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN GATLIN CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPEMENT 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 All definitions referenced in the Unified Development Code of the City of Georgetown, Ordinance No. 2003-16, as subsequently amended and codified in Title 17 of Georgetown Code of Ordinances (the “Code”), shall apply to interpretation of the terms of this Planned Unit Development for the Gatlin Creek (this “PUD”). Any terms not defined in this Development Plan shall be construed by applying the Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, subject to the approval of such interpretation by the director of Planning and Development Services of the City of Georgetown. 2. PROPERTY 2.1 This PUD applies to approximately 122 acres of land located within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Georgetown, Texas, which land consists of three (3) lots being 121.64 ACRES OUT OF THE ISSAC JONES DURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 232, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, which are collectively herein defined as the “Property”, and which are legally described as follows: JAMES DAVID WOLF, et al. TRACT THREE, PARCEL ONE DOC. #2009090679 O.P.R.W.C. 1.64 acres JAMES DAVID WOLF, et al. TRACT THREE, PARCEL TWO DOC. #2009090679 O.P.R.W.C. 100.5 acres JAMES DAVID WOLF, et al. DOC. #9612381 O.R.W.C. 19.54 acres Attachment number 10 \nPage 1 of 28 Item # J 2 3. APPROVAL CRITERIA 3.1 This PUD is intended to conform to the approval criteria of Sections 3.06.030 and 3.06.040 of the Code. Section 3.06.030 of the Code provides that the following criteria shall be considered by City Council for zoning changes: (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 of the Code 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) An orderly and creative arrangement of all land uses with respect to each other and to the entire community; (b) 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; (c) The provisions of cultural or recreational facilities for all segments of the community; (d) The location of general building envelopes to take maximum advantage of the natural and manmade environment; and (e) The staging of development in a manner which can be accommodated by the timely provision of public utilities, facilities and services. 4. APPLICABILITY OF CITY ORDINANCES 4.1 This PUD shall be applicable to zoning as it applies to all portions of the Property. All design, development, and use criteria not specifically covered by this PUD shall be subject to the applicable provisions of the Code. All design, development and use of the Property shall generally conform to the PUD described herein and, unless superseded, amended or controverted by the terms of this PUD, to a Local Commercial District (C-1), which is the zoning designations most similar to and compatible with the design, development and use proposed for the Property. Residential Single Family Detached is an allowable use in Zone B and Zone C on the Property. Attachment number 10 \nPage 2 of 28 Item # J 3 4.2. In Addition to permitted uses for base zoning district in Chapter 5 of the Code and this PUD, the following shall be permitted uses for the Property: (a) Indoor Kennels with a special use permit in Zone B and Zone C. 5. DEVELOPMENT ZONES 5.1 Improvements on the Property shall be designed and developed in three Zones as shown on Exhibit “B”,being Zone A, Zone B and Zone C. 5.2 Zone A represents approximately 15.7 acres of land comprising the Property and is generally depicted as the area within the loop road of the Development. Zone A is primarily the retail portion designed as the hub of the development. 5.3 Zone B consists of approximately 73.1 acres of land and is generally depicted as the Northern section outside the loop road of the Property. Zone B is predominately Residential and Assisted Living/Nursing Home. 5.4 Zone C consists of approximately 32.8 acres of land and is generally depicted as the Southern section outside the loop road of the Property. Zone C is primarily Residential, Retail and Office. 5.5 Improvements on the Property shall be designed and developed in accordance with Sec. 4.1 with the following restrictions: (a) All commercial uses except office shall not be within 50’ of existing residential adjacent to the Property on the Northern most corner and Williams Drive for a distance of 100’ from Williams Drive; and not within 100’ of all other existing residential uses adjacent to the Property (Ref. Exhibit D). (b) Commercial uses excluding office may not exceed the following percent of the Zone area with a maximum 25% for the overall Property: Zone A – 100% Zone B – 10% Zone C – 25% 5.6 A proposed rendering of the project which remains subject to modification as permitted under this PUD and the Code is depicted in Exhibit “C”,attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The final number, size, use and location of Buildings may vary on the final site plan(s).Proposed Building Setbacks are depicted on Exhibit “D”, attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes. 5.7 The final site plan(s) shall be subject to City approval according to Section 3.09 of the Code. This PUD allows for multiple site plans or subdivisions within the Property in order to allow for phased development. City approval shall be based upon Attachment number 10 \nPage 3 of 28 Item # J 4 each individual site plan, provided that, taken together, all site plans provide for an integrated mixed use development on the Property. 5.8 Under this PUD, “Building Height” shall be defined according to Section 7.03.030(D) and will be designed and developed to comply with building height limitations prescribed under Table 7.03.020. 5.9 Setbacks are not required between Residential and Multifamily uses as part of the development. Setbacks are not required between Office and Commercial as part of this development. Setbacks excluding those shown on Exhibit D are subject to the UDC requirements. 5.10 Impervious cover shall not exceed seventy (70) percent as applied to the aggregate sum of the building and improvement footprints compared to the comprehensive area of land comprising the Property. Individual site plans for the Property shall tabulate cumulative totals relative to impervious cover for the Property. In no case, shall a site plan be approved by the City if it causes the impervious cover on the comprehensive area of land comprising the Property to exceed seventy (70) percent. However, platted Single Family Residential lots will conform to the 45% impervious cover per the UDC. Property shall meet the requirements of 11.02.020.A.1, Low Impact Design by incorporating a Regional Water Pond for Water Quality, Vegetative Filter Strips along the inundation easement on the property and providing a maintenance agreement for these elements. Property shall meet the requirements of 11.02.020.A.3, Preservation of Natural Areas by preserving the entire area on the Property within the inundation easement by allowing only trail, water quality development and park improvements in this area. 6. SIGNAGE STANDARDS 6.1 A Master Sign Plan, meeting the requirements of Chapter 10 of the UDC, shall be required for this development at time of Site Plan. This PUD proposes additional signage standards that, where in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 10, shall prevail. The Master Sign Plan will serve to implement signs uniformly as a means of clear visual communication, and is intended to cause the designs of any signs on the Property to be complementary to the natural environment, and to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety. 6.2 Signs may only convey the name of the businesses, logos and the products or services offered within the Property, provided, however, that temporary construction signs, signs advertising portions of the Property for sale or lease, and temporary signs announcing special events on any portion of the Property shall be permitted. 6.3 Subdivision entry signs, monument signs, walls, fencing, architectural features, as well as sign design and lettering, along the public right-of-way adjoining Attachment number 10 \nPage 4 of 28 Item # J 5 the Property will be homogenous and will consist of a standard design to ensure that the comprehensive signage for the Property does not dominate the streetscape. All signs shall be constructed of materials and colors compatible with those utilized on the Buildings’ facades so as to blend into the environment and the development scheme of the Property in general. 6.4 Billboard signs shall not be erected on the Property. 6.2 Up to two (2) Subdivision Entry Signs may be designed, developed and placed in a median in the public right-of-way of the loop road of the Property, more specifically at Williams Drive at two major roadway intersections, subject to site triangle analysis and approval of a License to Encroach. Subdivision Entry Signs on the property shall not be subject to a 5-foot setback from the public right-of way, provided the signage does not obstruct the site triangles. Where advertising four (4) or more tenants, each Subdivision Entry Sign may be a maximum of eight (8) feet in height and be allowed a maximum of sixty four (64) square feet for each of the two (2) permitted sign faces to advertise the tenants of the development. Refer to “Exhibit I” for Signage details. 6.3 Signage for the remainder of the development, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Code. 6.4 When a portion of the development is designed as pedestrian oriented plaza surrounded by restaurants, office, retail or any combination of these, all with direct access to the pedestrian promenade, the need may arise for informational kiosks | message centers to help orient pedestrians to the available services and events of this style of development. 7. WATER QUALITY & DETENTION 7.1 Water Quality. The Property is located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone according the TCEQ USGS Quad Map. The Property must comply with the requirements of Chapter 11 of the Code and the Edwards Aquifer Rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Water Quality and Detention are allowed and may be located within the floodplain or innundation easement with the approval of the CORPS of Engineers, TCEQ and the City. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & TREE PRESERVATION 8.1 The Plan will comply with the tree preservation and environmental protection standards detailed in Chapter 11and Chapter 8 of the Code, except as otherwise specified in this PUD. 8.2 Due to the great number of Heritage Trees on this Property, Heritage Trees on this Property are allowed to be removed as follows: Attachment number 10 \nPage 5 of 28 Item # J 6 Single Trunk Heritage Trees (30”+ diameter) – Removal requires City Council Approval at time of Site Plan review and 3:1 mitigation ratio Single Trunk Heritage Trees (<30”) – Removal requires approval of a Tree Removal Permit at time of Site Plan review following standard UDC procedures for such and 3:1 mitigation ratio Two Trunk Heritage Trees (each trunk <26”) – Maximum removal of 20% of the trees allowed with 2:1 mitigation ratio Multi Trunk Heritage Trees (each trunk <26”) – Maximum removal of 40% of the trees allowed with 1:1 mitigation Due to the uncertainty of the final water quality and detention plans, the Urban Forrester shall have full responsibility for approval of all tree removal and mitigation, including heritage trees, associated with these facilities. 8.3 It is an overriding goal of this development to preserve as many quality trees as feasible, protected and heritage, along and generally for a minimum distance of 100' from the Williams Drive R.O.W. 9. ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE 9.1 The Property has approximately 2,536 feet of frontage along Williams Drive, a 5 lane arterial roadway. The City of Georgetown transportation criteria require that a driveway or intersection on an arterial be separated by a minimum of 425 feet based upon the posted speed limit of 50 miles per hour, unless a waiver is approved by the City Engineer. The Property, under this definition is allowed five (5) curb / road cuts however under this PUD, the Property shall have two (2) roadway intersections and two (2) curb cuts on Williams Drive. 9.2 Intersection Safety Lighting and necessary traffic signal infrastructure may be installed at the intersection of Williams Drive and the loop road of the Property in preparation for a traffic signal when the intersection meets warrants. 9.3 No additional Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) or TIA update will be required for this PUD, provided that the total peak-hour trips for the entire development as outlined in the submitted TIA are not exceeded. The peak-hour trips for the submitted TIA are from the 8th Edition of Trip Generation. For the purposes of assessing allocated peak-hour trips as it relates to this requirement, all future peak- hour trip generation calculations will be based on the 8th Edition of Trip Generation. 10. PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULAR CIRCULATION 10.1 The improvements within this PUD will be designed to maximize pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the Property. Attachment number 10 \nPage 6 of 28 Item # J 7 This PUD will include pedestrian and vehicular circulation plans designed to provide access to all areas within the Property and will incorporate homogenous design features for all Buildings and other improvements and appurtenances within the Property. 10.2 After final approval of this PUD, the general alignment of proposed internal pedestrian and vehicular circulation may be modified from the proposed rendering shown in Exhibit “C” to accommodate Building locations on the approved site plan(s) and for the protection of trees and fire safety requirements. A schematic presentation of suggested internal pedestrian and vehicular circulation is depicted in Exhibit “C”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. It is the intent of this PUD that vehicular streets internal to the Property and depicted as such in Exhibit “C” be considered as public streets. Design Details for public streets on the Property shall conform to Chapter 12 of the Code. 10.3 Connectivity to the property to the undeveloped Northwest is not required as it was platted with the Fountainwood Estates, Phase 7 plat, has a Lakeview Lane address and noted in the plat note 23 that resubdivision of more than 16 lots is not allowed. Right Of Way will be dedicated to allow connectivity to the adjacent to the property to the Southeast, Williamson County Appraisal District ID Number R079841 10.4 Pedestrian walkways on the Property are planned to connect through the CORPs of Engineers property and to their trail system with the CORPs approval, ultimately providing connectivity to the City’s trail system. 11. LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE, COMMON RECREATION AREA & PARKLAND 11.1 Landscape Maintenance. A property owners’ association will maintain landscaping and irrigation in the rights of way and common areas on the Property. 11.2 Parkland Dedication. Fees may be paid in lieu of parkland dedication, pursuant to the Code at submission of individual site plan(s) or subdivision, in an amount equal to $250 per new dwelling unit, except that, for each structure containing more than four (4) dwelling units, the fee shall be in an amount equal to $200 per dwelling unit. 11.3 A minimum of 280 square feet of improved common recreation area per dwelling unit shall be provided for all Multi-family development on this Property. The required recreation area shall meet the basic needs of a local park, be approved by the Director, and shall include a minimum of either: two (2) children’s play areas, picnic areas, trails (walkways or bike trails) or landscaped sitting areas, or one (1) game court area, turf playing field, swimming pool, or recreational building. The common recreation area shall be designed to adequately serve the number of Attachment number 10 \nPage 7 of 28 Item # J 8 dwellings within the development, according to accepted City standards set by the Parks and Recreation Department. All equipment and other improvements must be of commercial quality and required private yard, open space or parkland dedication. The common recreation area shall be privately constructed, maintained and operated by the developer or an owner’s association. The person or entity responsible for ownership, maintenance and operational responsibilities shall be noted on the plat and/or on a separate instrument recorded in the Official Records of Williamson County. 12. BUILDING REGULATIONS 12.1 All Buildings designed for and constructed on the Property for non- residential use will comply with the Non-Residential Design Standards set forth in Section 7.04 of the Code unless otherwise provided for in this PUD. 12.2 Commercial, retail, services and office buildings within Zone A may exceed 25,000 square feet. 13. EXTERIOR LIGHTING 13.1 Exterior Lighting on the Property and its Buildings will comply with the requirements set forth in Section 7.05.020 of the Code related to outdoor lighting unless otherwise described in this PUD. 14. PUD MODIFICATIONS 14.1 This PUD represents the allowable uses and design standards for the three Zones contained within the Property. The concept plan depicted in Exhibit “C”, and the proposed pedestrian and vehicular circulation depicted in Exhibit “C” are general in nature and do not represent final designs. Minor modifications, as approved by the Director of Planning, to Building sizes, uses and locations, as well as to amenity areas and to pedestrian and vehicular circulation, are allowed without amendment to the PUD, providing modifications conform to the general intent of the PUD, uses authorized by this PUD or to applicable provisions of the Code. Attachment number 10 \nPage 8 of 28 Item # J 9 15. LIST OF EXHIBITS 15.1 The following exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference: A. Property Map with Existing Tract or Lot Lines Designated B. Property Map with Zone Designations Outlined C. Property Map with Conceptual Land Use Plan & Circulation D. Property Map with Building Setbacks Outlined E. Tree Survey and Tree Details F. Typed Field Notes Identifying the Property on Letter-sized Paper G. Tabulation of Total Square Footage and Residential Density H. Existing Natural Features I. Signage Details Attachment number 10 \nPage 9 of 28 Item # J 55 8 + 0 0 5 5 9 + 0 0 56 0 + 0 0 561 + 0 0 56 2 + 0 0 5 6 3 + 0 0 5 6 4 + 0 0 5 6 5 + 0 0 5 6 6 + 0 0 5 6 7 + 0 0 5 6 8 + 0 0 5 6 9 + 0 0 57 0 + 0 0 571 + 0 0 57 2 + 0 0 5 7 3 + 0 0 5 7 4 + 0 0 5 7 5 + 0 0 5 7 6 + 0 0 5 7 7 + 0 0 5 7 8 + 0 0 5 7 9 + 0 0 58 0 + 0 0 58 1 + 0 0 58 2 + 0 0 5 8 3 + 0 0 5 8 4 + 0 0 5 8 5 + 0 0 L30 L31 N 37° 5 4 ' 1 6 " W 298.5 0 ' N 19°23 ' 1 0 " W 216.92 ' L 3 2 N 29° 4 6 ' 3 7 " W 274.1 4 ' L33 L34 L35 L 3 6 L37 L38 L39 L40 L41 L 4 2 L 4 3 L 4 4 N 17°56 ' 0 4 " W 200.43' N 7 0 ° 3 4 ' 5 4 " E 2 0 6 . 6 2 ' L 4 5 N 6 8 ° 1 1 ' 1 1 " E 2 7 9 . 3 8 ' N 6 8 ° 1 1 ' 1 1 " E 2 1 7 . 5 7 ' L 4 6 L 4 7 N 6 7 ° 1 4 ' 3 9 " E 2 8 1 . 7 6 ' L 4 8 L 4 9 L 5 0 L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 L 5 4 N 7 1 ° 0 4 ' 0 8 " E 2 9 8 . 2 6 ' L 5 5 C2 S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 94 2 . 8 9 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 48 3 . 0 3 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 5 3 . 1 8 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 85 7 . 6 8 ' L 5 6 L 5 7 S 6 7 ° 5 6 ' 3 0 " W 1 0 8 5 . 6 4 ' L 5 8 S 6 8 ° 1 3 ' 1 3 " W 4 3 5 . 7 0 ' S 6 7 ° 5 9 ' 1 1 " W 2 2 2 . 9 4 ' S 6 8 ° 0 5 ' 3 2 " W 5 0 2 . 1 8 ' S 6 7 ° 5 1 ' 0 6 " W 7 0 7 . 8 1 ' FE E T 75 15 0 3 0 0 0 B M W G R O U P N AGatlin Creek Planned Unit DevelopmentPROPERTY MAP Co n c e p t u a l s i t e pl a n . Fi n a l s i t e p l a n m a y v a r y . Attachment number 10 \nPage 10 of 28 Item # J 55 8 + 0 0 5 5 9 + 0 0 56 0 + 0 0 561 + 0 0 56 2 + 0 0 5 6 3 + 0 0 5 6 4 + 0 0 5 6 5 + 0 0 5 6 6 + 0 0 5 6 7 + 0 0 5 6 8 + 0 0 5 6 9 + 0 0 57 0 + 0 0 571 + 0 0 57 2 + 0 0 5 7 3 + 0 0 5 7 4 + 0 0 5 7 5 + 0 0 5 7 6 + 0 0 5 7 7 + 0 0 5 7 8 + 0 0 5 7 9 + 0 0 58 0 + 0 0 58 1 + 0 0 58 2 + 0 0 5 8 3 + 0 0 5 8 4 + 0 0 5 8 5 + 0 0 L30 L31 N 37° 5 4 ' 1 6 " W 298.5 0 ' N 19°23 ' 1 0 " W 216.92 ' L 3 2 N 29° 4 6 ' 3 7 " W 274.1 4 ' L33 L34 L35 L 3 6 L37 L38 L39 L40 L41 L 4 2 L 4 3 L 4 4 N 17°56 ' 0 4 " W 200.43' N 7 0 ° 3 4 ' 5 4 " E 2 0 6 . 6 2 ' L 4 5 N 6 8 ° 1 1 ' 1 1 " E 2 7 9 . 3 8 ' N 6 8 ° 1 1 ' 1 1 " E 2 1 7 . 5 7 ' L 4 6 L 4 7 N 6 7 ° 1 4 ' 3 9 " E 2 8 1 . 7 6 ' L 4 8 L 4 9 L 5 0 L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 L 5 4 N 7 1 ° 0 4 ' 0 8 " E 2 9 8 . 2 6 ' L 5 5 C2 S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 94 2 . 8 9 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 48 3 . 0 3 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 5 3 . 1 8 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 85 7 . 6 8 ' L 5 6 L 5 7 S 6 7 ° 5 6 ' 3 0 " W 1 0 8 5 . 6 4 ' L 5 8 S 6 8 ° 1 3 ' 1 3 " W 4 3 5 . 7 0 ' S 6 7 ° 5 9 ' 1 1 " W 2 2 2 . 9 4 ' S 6 8 ° 0 5 ' 3 2 " W 5 0 2 . 1 8 ' S 6 7 ° 5 1 ' 0 6 " W 7 0 7 . 8 1 ' ZO N E ' A ' ZO N E ' B ' ZO N E ' C ' FE E T 75 15 0 3 0 0 0 B M W G R O U P N BGatlin Creek Planned Unit DevelopmentDEVELOPMENT ZONES Co n c e p t u a l s i t e pl a n . Fi n a l s i t e p l a n m a y v a r y . Attachment number 10 \nPage 11 of 28 Item # J 55 8 + 0 0 5 5 9 + 0 0 56 0 + 0 0 561 + 0 0 56 2 + 0 0 5 6 3 + 0 0 5 6 4 + 0 0 5 6 5 + 0 0 5 6 6 + 0 0 5 6 7 + 0 0 5 6 8 + 0 0 5 6 9 + 0 0 57 0 + 0 0 571 + 0 0 57 2 + 0 0 5 7 3 + 0 0 5 7 4 + 0 0 5 7 5 + 0 0 5 7 6 + 0 0 5 7 7 + 0 0 5 7 8 + 0 0 5 7 9 + 0 0 58 0 + 0 0 58 1 + 0 0 58 2 + 0 0 5 8 3 + 0 0 5 8 4 + 0 0 5 8 5 + 0 0 L30 L31 N 37° 5 4 ' 1 6 " W 298.5 0 ' N 19°23 ' 1 0 " W 216.92 ' L 3 2 N 29° 4 6 ' 3 7 " W 274.1 4 ' L33 L34 L35 L 3 6 L37 L38 L39 L40 L41 L 4 2 L 4 3 L 4 4 N 17°56 ' 0 4 " W 200.43' N 7 0 ° 3 4 ' 5 4 " E 2 0 6 . 6 2 ' L 4 5 N 6 8 ° 1 1 ' 1 1 " E 2 7 9 . 3 8 ' N 6 8 ° 1 1 ' 1 1 " E 2 1 7 . 5 7 ' L 4 6 L 4 7 N 6 7 ° 1 4 ' 3 9 " E 2 8 1 . 7 6 ' L 4 8 L 4 9 L 5 0 L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 L 5 4 N 7 1 ° 0 4 ' 0 8 " E 2 9 8 . 2 6 ' L 5 5 C2 S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 94 2 . 8 9 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 48 3 . 0 3 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 5 3 . 1 8 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 85 7 . 6 8 ' L 5 6 L 5 7 S 6 7 ° 5 6 ' 3 0 " W 1 0 8 5 . 6 4 ' L 5 8 S 6 8 ° 1 3 ' 1 3 " W 4 3 5 . 7 0 ' S 6 7 ° 5 9 ' 1 1 " W 2 2 2 . 9 4 ' S 6 8 ° 0 5 ' 3 2 " W 5 0 2 . 1 8 ' S 6 7 ° 5 1 ' 0 6 " W 7 0 7 . 8 1 ' A SS I S T E D L I V I NG M U L T I -F A M I L Y R ES I D E N T I A L F L OO D P L A I N I NN U N D A T I O N E A SE M E N T W A T E R Q UA L I T Y C O N T R O L S D E T E N T I O N R ES I D E N T I A L O FF I C E C O MM E R C I A L W I LL I A M S D R I V E C L U B H O U SE E X I S T I N G T R A I L FE E T 75 15 0 3 0 0 0 B M W G R O U P N CGatlin Creek Planned Unit DevelopmentLAND USE PLAN & CIRCULATION Co n c e p t u a l s i t e pl a n . Fi n a l s i t e p l a n m a y v a r y . Le g e n d Ve h i c u l a r R. O . W . Pr i v a t e D r i v e Po t e n t i a l P r i v a t e D r i v e Pe d e s t r i a n Pa t h w a y Attachment number 10 \nPage 12 of 28 Item # J 1 0 0 ' C O M M E R C I A L B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K 1 0 0 ' C O M M E R C I A L B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K 50 ' B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K INNUN D A T I O N E A S E M E N T INNUND A T I O N E A S E M E N T FE E T 75 15 0 3 0 0 0 B M W G R O U P N DGatlin Creek Planned Unit DevelopmentSETBACK EXHIBIT Co n c e p t u a l s i t e pl a n . Fi n a l s i t e p l a n m a y v a r y . Attachment number 10 \nPage 13 of 28 Item # J E Attachment number 10 \nPage 14 of 28 Item # J E Attachment number 10 \nPage 15 of 28 Item # J E Attachment number 10 \nPage 16 of 28 Item # J E Attachment number 10 \nPage 17 of 28 Item # J E Attachment number 10 \nPage 18 of 28 Item # J E Attachment number 10 \nPage 19 of 28 Item # J F Attachment number 10 \nPage 20 of 28 Item # J F Attachment number 10 \nPage 21 of 28 Item # J F Attachment number 10 \nPage 22 of 28 Item # J F Attachment number 10 \nPage 23 of 28 Item # J Attachment number 10 \nPage 24 of 28 Item # J Attachment number 10 \nPage 25 of 28 Item # J G GatlinCreekDevelopment ProjectYields February9,2011 TotalProperty: 121.6 ac LandUse Commercial 134,000 sf ffi f Total YIELD Office 78,000 sf MultiFamily 280 units Clubhouse 1,000 sf Residential 228 units NOTE:THISINFORMA TIONISBASEDONASSUMPTIONS ANDESTIMATESANDREPRESENTSNO REGULATORYAPPROVALS.Planallocation aresubjecttochange. Attachment number 10 \nPage 26 of 28 Item # J 55 8 + 0 0 5 5 9 + 0 0 56 0 + 0 0 561 + 0 0 56 2 + 0 0 5 6 3 + 0 0 5 6 4 + 0 0 5 6 5 + 0 0 5 6 6 + 0 0 5 6 7 + 0 0 5 6 8 + 0 0 5 6 9 + 0 0 57 0 + 0 0 571 + 0 0 57 2 + 0 0 5 7 3 + 0 0 5 7 4 + 0 0 5 7 5 + 0 0 5 7 6 + 0 0 5 7 7 + 0 0 5 7 8 + 0 0 5 7 9 + 0 0 58 0 + 0 0 58 1 + 0 0 58 2 + 0 0 5 8 3 + 0 0 5 8 4 + 0 0 5 8 5 + 0 0 L30 L31 N 37° 5 4 ' 1 6 " W 298.5 0 ' N 19°23 ' 1 0 " W 216.92 ' L 3 2 N 29° 4 6 ' 3 7 " W 274.1 4 ' L33 L34 L35 L 3 6 L37 L38 L39 L40 L41 L 4 2 L 4 3 L 4 4 N 17°56 ' 0 4 " W 200.43' N 7 0 ° 3 4 ' 5 4 " E 2 0 6 . 6 2 ' L 4 5 N 6 8 ° 1 1 ' 1 1 " E 2 7 9 . 3 8 ' N 6 8 ° 1 1 ' 1 1 " E 2 1 7 . 5 7 ' L 4 6 L 4 7 N 6 7 ° 1 4 ' 3 9 " E 2 8 1 . 7 6 ' L 4 8 L 4 9 L 5 0 L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 L 5 4 N 7 1 ° 0 4 ' 0 8 " E 2 9 8 . 2 6 ' L 5 5 C2 S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 94 2 . 8 9 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 48 3 . 0 3 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 5 3 . 1 8 ' S 5 6 ° 4 5 ' 0 3 " E 85 7 . 6 8 ' L 5 6 L 5 7 S 6 7 ° 5 6 ' 3 0 " W 1 0 8 5 . 6 4 ' L 5 8 S 6 8 ° 1 3 ' 1 3 " W 4 3 5 . 7 0 ' S 6 7 ° 5 9 ' 1 1 " W 2 2 2 . 9 4 ' S 6 8 ° 0 5 ' 3 2 " W 5 0 2 . 1 8 ' S 6 7 ° 5 1 ' 0 6 " W 7 0 7 . 8 1 ' 90 0 900 900 90 0 898 8 9 6 896 896 896 89 8 90 0 89 8 90 0 89 8 8 9 8 898898 898 89 6 898 89 6 89 6 896 896 89 8 898 8 9 8 8 9 4 8 9 2 89 2 89 2 89 4 89 4 89 2 89 0 8 9 0 8 8 8 8 8 6 88 4 89 0 88 8 8 9 2 8 9 4 884886 88 8 8 9 0 888888 89 0 89 0 88 8 886 888 89 0 890 89 0 89 2 89 4 892 890 888 886 89 2 894 89 2 89 2 89 0 89 0 88 8 88 8 886 896 89 4 8 9 2 89 0 88 8 8 8 6 88 4 882880 87 8 8 7 6 87 4 87 2 87 0 86 8 884 882 880 878 87 6 87 4 87 2 87 0 86 8 86 6 86 4 86 2 86 0 880 878 876 874 872 870 866 864 862 860 858 856 852 848 844 840 854 850 846 842 838 836 89 8 89 6 89 4 892 8 9 0 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 4 8 8 2 8 8 0 8 7 8 87 6 8 7 4 87 2 8 7 0 868 866 864 8 6 2 8 6 0 858 8 5 6 8 5 4 852 850 848 84 6 84 4 8 4 2 8 4 0 8 3 8 8 3 6 8 3 4 8 3 2 8 3 0 8 2 8 8 2 6 824 8 2 2 8 2 0 818 8 1 6 814 812 8 1 4 816 8 1 6 8 1 6 8 1 4 812 810 818 820 822 824 826 828 830 832 834 83 8 88 4 88 2 880 87 8 876 87 4 872 870 868 866 864 862 860 858 856 854 852850 848 846 844 842 840 838 836 8 3 4 83 2 8 3 0 828 826 828 826 824 838 834 832 840 87 6 87 2 86 8 86 4 86 0 856 85 2 84 8 846 842 838 834 832 8 3 2 8 3 4 8 3 8 84 0 84 2 8 4 6 84 8 85 0 852 85 485685 8 FE E T 75 15 0 3 0 0 0 B M W G R O U P N H Gatlin Creek Planned Unit Development EXISTING NATURAL FEATURES Co n c e p t u a l s i t e pl a n . Fi n a l s i t e p l a n m a y v a r y . FEM A 1 0 0 Y R F L O O D P L A I N Attachment number 10 \nPage 27 of 28 Item # J MAX. 8' - 0" PR O J E C T LO G O PR O J E C T LO G O SI G N A R E A MA X . 6 4 S . F . VARIES W/DESIGN 10' - MAX.NO T E : T H I S I S A G R A P H I C R E P R E S E N T A T I O N A N D D O E S N O T S P E C I F Y W A L L D E S I G N O R M A T E R I A L S . TR A N S I T I O N TO P R O J E C T BO U N D A R Y FE N C I N G TR A N S I T I O N TO P R O J E C T BO U N D A R Y FE N C I N G PR O J E C T EN T R Y W A L L PR O J E C T LO G O MAX. 8' - 0" PR O J E C T LO G O PR O J E C T LO G O SI G N A R E A MA X . 6 4 S . F . 10' - MAX.NO T E : T H I S I S A G R A P H I C R E P R E S E N T A T I O N A N D D O E S N O T S P E C I F Y W A L L D E S I G N O R M A T E R I A L S . TR A N S I T I O N PR O J E C T EN T R Y W A L L PR O J E C T LO G O SI G N I N T E G R A L W I T H W A L L O P T I O N ME D I A N S I G N O P T I O N A SS I S T E D L IV I N G M UL TI-FAM IL Y R E S I D E N T I A L F L OO D P L A I N I NN U N D A T I O N E A S E M E N T W A T E R Q U A L I T Y C O N T R O L S D E T E N T I O N R E S I D E N T I A L O FF I C E C OM M E R C I A L W I LL I A M S D R I V E C L UB HOUSE E X I S T I N G T R A I L A SS I S T E D L IV I N G M UL TI-FAM IL Y R E S I D E N T I A L F L OO D P L A I N I NN U N D A T I O N E A S E M E N T W A T E R Q U A L I T Y C O N T R O L S D E T E N T I O N R E S I D E N T I A L O FF I C E C O M M E R C I A L W I LL I A M S D R I V E CC L UB HOUSEE E X I S T I N G T R A I L FE E T 75 15 0 3 0 0 0 B M W G R O U P N I Gatlin Creek Planned Unit Development SIGNAGE DETAILS Co n c e p t u a l s i t e pl a n . Fi n a l s i t e p l a n m a y v a r y . LE G E N D 1 GA T L I N C R E E K D E V E L O P M E N T E N T R Y S I G N 2 GA T L I N C R E E K D E V E L O P M E N T E N T R Y S I G N DE V E L O P M E N T E N T R Y S I G N S P E C I F I C A T I O N S MA X I M U M T O T A L S I G N A R E A ( 2 S I G N F A C E S X 6 4 S Q F T ) : 1 2 8 S Q F T MA X I M U M H E I G H T O F S I G N F A C E : 8 F T MA X I M U M N U M B E R O F S I G N S A L L O W E D O N T H E L O T ( S ) I N C L U D E D I N TH E P L A N : 2 S I G N S 2 1 Attachment number 10 \nPage 28 of 28 Item # J City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve appointments to the Emergency Notification Citizen Task Force -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager and Robert Fite, Fire Chief ITEM SUMMARY: On April 24, 2012, the City Council authorized the creation of a Citizen Task Force Committee to evaluate the current system, examine other types of emergency notifications, research best practices from the Region and State, review the success stories from the recent 14 Dallas tornadoes, and eventually recommend options to the City Council and provide funding source solutions. The Task Force will be comprised of an eight (8) member board made up of one (1) appointed person from each council district, and one (1) appointee from the Mayor. Appointees with knowledge of emergency management are recommended. Immediately after appointment, the Task Force will begin the evaluation process not to exceed 45 days. A report and recommendation will be presented to the City Council at the July 10th Council meeting. The recommended appointees to the Task Force are as follows: Mayor- Meg Johnson District 1- Simone Pollard District 2- Billy Kurtz District 3- Earl J. Kilbride District 4- Dan Dodson District 5- David Biesheuvel District 6- Karen Lee Davis District 7- Jennifer Aaron FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # K City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action regarding a report and recommendation from the 2012 Compensation Committee -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ITEM SUMMARY: On March 27, 2012, the Mayor appointed members to a committee charged to review and bring forward recommendations regarding City Council compensation. According to the City Charter, this commitee is required to meet at least every two years: Sec. 2.15. - Remuneration to Mayor and Council. The Mayor shall name a committee, composed of qualified voters, whose responsibility will be to review, at least every two (2) years, the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers, and make recommendations regarding those salaries. The report of the committee shall be made at a regular Council meeting and shall require an official act by Council to either enact, alter or reject the recommendations. In all cases where action alters existing salaries for Mayor and Councilmembers, the changes in salaries will begin immediately following the next election of City officials. The members of the 2012 Compensation Committee are Barbara Pearce (Chair), Bill Connor, Steve Fought, Ben Oliver and Virginia Lazenby. The committee met on April 4, 2012 and April 18, 2012. They have prepared a report outlining their recommendation, which is attached to this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ATTACHMENTS: 2012 City Council Compensation Committee Report Cover Memo Item # L At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 o f 2 It e m # L At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 2 o f 2 It e m # L City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action to authorize Task Order No. JPA-12-001 in the amount of $259,450.00 with JPA Real Estate Consulting, Georgetown, Texas, for right of way acquisition services in connection with the proposed TxDOT FM 1460 Improvement Project -- Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: On March 27, 2012, Council approved the Agreement for Right of Way Procurement (90/10 Agreement) with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to fund right of way acquisition and utility relocation for improvements to FM 1460 from Quail Valley Dr. to north of Westinghouse Road, which was approved by GTEC on March 21, 2012. The agreement provides for TxDOT to pay 90% of the cost of right of way acquisition and utility relocation and the local public agency to pay the remaining, standard 10%. This will result in having TxDOT construction plans, with cleared right of way and utilities, ready for bid in FY 2014. Subject to GTEC and Council approval of the proposed task order, as well as final approval and execution of the 90/10 Agreement by TxDOT, right of way acquisition and utility relocation efforts will commence as quickly as possible thereafter. GTEC BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTEC Board for Council approval at the April 18, 2012, GTEC Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend GTEC and City Council approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT: GTEC has $1.5 million approved in the 2011/12 TIP for the FM 1460 Project, any amount over this will come from previously sold voter approved bonds for FM 1460. SUBMITTED BY: Terri Calhoun/Ed Polasek ATTACHMENTS: JPA 12-001 Task Order Cover Memo Item # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 o f 9 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 2 o f 9 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 3 o f 9 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 4 o f 9 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 5 o f 9 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 6 o f 9 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 7 o f 9 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 8 o f 9 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 9 o f 9 It e m # M City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance to amend the Code of Ordinances Section 13.04.083, Residential Distributed Generation Rider, to expand the definition of distributed generation to address commercial customers, as well as accommodate a Renewable Distributed Generation Incentive Program, which includes the program criteria, funding source and calculation of the rebate amount -- Kathy Ragsdale, Environmental and Conservation Services Director and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: When the Residential Distributed Generation Rider was adopted in 2006, the options for distributed generation were very limited and very expensive. But, over the last 6 years, technology has consistently become more effective and efficient, and is now providing a wider range of options, at a considerably lower cost. To accommodate these advances, proposed changes to the current rider include the following: Ø Additional qualifying distributed generation technology that is limited to renewable generation The new rider includes, not only Wind and Solar, but also biomass, geothermal, and hydrogen fuel cells. Ø Additional qualifying customer classes The rider is expanded to include small commercial and commercial locations. Large commercial and industrial customers may participate, but will require separate, more comprehensive contracts. Ø An Incentive Program to encourage ownership of Renewable Distributed Generation within the City’s electric distribution system; specifically, Net Metering and Cash Rebates Currently, the rider is structured to incentivize the utilization of renewable generation through net metering. The addition of another option; a cash rebate to help defray the large upfront cost of the installation of Solar Panels, will give customers whose only obstacle to a renewable generation system is a large installation cost, a chance to participate. Ø Rate calculations, eligibility, and criteria for incentives and renewable generation “buy back” The rider will now include specific criteria for each incentive, to ensure that customers can determine which incentive provides the most benefit to them. Ø Dedicated funding for incentives Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) are received when renewable energy is purchased by the City. Within the electric industry, these credits are a commodity and can be bought and sold. This proposal dedicates the revenue received from the sale of these RECs to the funding of incentives for renewable generation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending these amendments, in order to make it possible for GUS electric customers to take advantage of the benefits of distributed generation, if they so choose. COMMENTS: The customers’ participation in this program is a benefit to both the customer and the utility. Customers are able to supplement their grid produced electric consumption with renewable power to reduce their monthly electric bills. The utility benefits by a reduction in its peak electric demand, which reduces the need to Cover Memo Item # N purchase additional unscheduled power, when it is at a premium. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is $112,500 dedicated to the Distributed Renewable Generation Rebate Program. Rebates are funded from the sale of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) that are earned by the City for the purchase of renewable energy. The revenue from the monthly $1 Energy Efficiency Fee, which is dedicated to energy efficiency through a Special Revenue Fund (SRF,) is also available, if needed. SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Solar Rebate Ordinance - 1st READING attachment A to solar ordinace - clean copy Redline copy of attachment A to solar ord Cover Memo Item # N Ord No. ___________ Distributed Generation Ordinance Date Approved: 5.22.2012 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 13, SEC. 13.04.083 ENTITLED "DISTRIBUTED GENERATION RIDER" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN TEXAS; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The current Distributed Generation Ride was established in 2006; and WHEREAS, The current rider is no longer adequate to effectively regulate and manage the distributed generation process; and WHEREAS, The City of Georgetown wishes to develop a more comprehensive ordinance that addresses the wider range of options that new technology has made available; and WHEREAS, The City of Georgetown recognizes the benefits of renewable generation and wishes to incentivize its use based on its efficiency; and WHEREAS, The City of Georgetown wishes to strive to make this process self- supporting through the sale of Renewable Energy Credits; and WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Georgetown wishes to amend the current Distributed Generation Rider and adopt proposed ordinance, effective on May 22, 2012 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 complies with the Vision Statement of the City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 2. Chapter 13.04.83 “DISTRIBUTED GENERATION RIDER” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown, Texas is hereby amended as stated. 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 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # N Ord No. ___________ Distributed Generation Ordinance Date Approved: 5.22.2012 application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10) ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 8th day of May, 2012. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 22th day of May, 2012. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ______________________ ______________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary By: George Garver, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # N Sec. 13.04.083 Distributed Renewable Electric Generation A. Availability: This rider is available only to Residential and Small Commercial customers that own distributed renewable electric generation (D-REG) facilities of 10 kW or less that are located on within the Georgetown Utility System’s (GUS) electric service area and are connected to GUS’s electric distribution system. The D-REG facility shall exclusively serve a single residential or small commercial premise connected to the GUS electric distribution system. 1. Customers shall be required to review and complete the City’s Interconnection Package and execute a distributed generation contract with the City to install a D-REG system. 2. Non-Residential customers that are 10 kW or larger may purchase or install a D-REG system, but must negotiate a more comprehensive contract with the City, before construction can begin. B. Application: This rider is available to customers with a solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydrogen fuel cell or any renewable energy powered device that generates ten kW or less of electric power at a voltage of 600 volts or less from a residential or small commercial electric service at a customer’s premise or at an off-site location that is connected to the City’s electric distribution system. C. METHOD OF CHARGE. 1. Definitions. NET Meter = City generated kWh less D-REG generated kWh that is used at the premise DEL = City generated kWh that is Delivered to and used at the premise RCVD = D-REG generated kWh that is Not used at the premise and pushed out to the grid REC = Total renewable kWh generated by the D-REG system STANDARD RATE: The current adopted electric rate for the applicable rate class for which the electric service qualifies. 2. Customer shall pay a monthly customer charge equal to the fixed cost associated with maintenance of the distribution system and administration. D. INCENTIVES. To encourage the installation of qualifying renewable generation, there are incentive programs for which qualifying applicants may apply, in order to defray a portion of the costs associated with the installation of a D-REG system. Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 5 Item # N 1. RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS. a. In order to qualify for a renewable energy incentive, customers must assign all rights to any and all environmental attributes and/or credits, including any renewable energy credits (RECs,) carbon off-set credits, or similar environmental credits derived from the renewable energy production associated with this rebate, to the City for the City’s use, as it may choose. b. Customers may petition, in writing, to retain the environmental attributes and/or credits, including any RECs, carbon off-set credits, or similar environmental credits derived from the renewable energy production in order to achieve or maintain LEED Certification or any other energy efficiency designation requiring the retirement of RECs in the customer’s name. c. Revenue from the sale of RECs, by the City, is designated for renewable energy incentive programs sponsored by the City. 2. NET METERING. Net Metering is an incentive program that is available to qualifying customers that have signed a distributed generation contract with the City and have successfully connected a D-REG system to GUS’s electric distribution system. a. Customer must purchase the REC meter that is installed and used by the City to register the renewable kWh generated at the premise. b. If a premise uses more electricity than the D-REG system produces, within a single billing month, the customer pays for the non-Netted, GUS provided electricity at the standard rate: (DEL kWh - RCVD kWh) x standard rate c. If a premise uses less electricity than the D-REG system produces, the customer is provided a credit equal to the standard rate for every D-REG generated kWh that flow back to the City’s electric distribution system: (DEL kWh - RCVD kWh) x standard rate d. Payment for D-REG power is only available in the form of a credit against the customer’s utility bill. Cash will not be paid for D-REG generated kWh. e. D-REG credit balances for excess generation, still due when a customer disconnects all utilities from the City of Georgetown, and is not transferring to another City account, will forfeit the credit amount. e. Net metering is effective for the life of the D-REG system. f. Net metering is not available to D-REG systems that are awarded a GUS rebate, Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 5 Item # N 3. REBATE. A rebate is an incentive that is available to qualifying customers that have signed a distributed generation contract with the City and have successfully connected a D-REG system to GUS’s electric distribution system. a. Funding for rebates is limited to availability. Rebate offerings will be announced as they become available, and will remain active until the allotted funding is depleted or until the program is discontinued by the City. b. Calculation of Rebate. i. The GUS Rebate Application must be completed, signed and returned to the City before a rebate will be issued. ii. The rebate is based on the smaller of the Panel Rating and the Inverter Rating (if they are different) and the efficiency of the system currently being installed. iii. A single rebate paid to a customer will not exceed $7,500. iii. Payment to a customer will not exceed a total, cumulative system rebate of $12,000. c. The City may, at any time, discontinue a program or any of its components, change guidelines, or increase / decrease rebate calculation methods, without prior notice. d. Once funds are depleted, no additional applications for participation will be accepted until the next fiscal year, or until more funding becomes available. e. There is no waiting list for inactive or future programs. Applications that are submitted, but not addressed, before program funding is depleted, must resubmit the following year. i. Rebates are paid on a first come basis, within the pool of qualifying applicants. ii. Application for rebate will not be accepted retroactively to any offering period. f. Rebates are for residential and small commercial customers, only. g. Rebates are applicable for retrofits, only. New construction does not qualify for this rebate. h. All system equipment must be purchased. No leased or lease/purchase equipment will qualify for a rebate. i. The rebate application form must include a copy of the itemized and dated invoice from the contractor or retailer. Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 5 Item # N j. D-REG systems will only qualify for this rebate once per 12-month period. After 12 months, an application for rebate may be submitted for expansion of the D-REG system. E. CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS. 1. The contractor that installs the prescribed and approved D-REG system must be registered as a City Authorized Contractor at the time of the installation. 2 . To become a registered program installer, the c ontractor must submit a GUS Rebate Program Contractor Registration Form, which includes the installer’s NABCEP certification, to the Program Manager. F. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERCONNECTON: 1. Applicant must be the homeowner or property owner at the location being improved. 2. A D-REG system will not be designed to generate more energy than the average annual usage of the home for which it provides power. 3. All installations and improvements must be at locations with electric service provided by GUS and must meet all applicable national, local, and manufacturers’ codes and specifications. 4. All necessary permits must be acquired from the City prior to installation. 5. The City does not compensate the installer for the equipment installation or for processing the necessary paperwork. 6. A pre-inspection by the City that entails a site evaluation of the proposed location for the D-REG system may be required. 7. Post-inspections by the GUS Building Inspection department are required on all installations, before the issuance of the rebate. Failure to follow these or other requirements of the City building code may render the system ineligible for the incentive and the system will not be allowed to interconnect with the City electrical grid. G. REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) SYSTEMS: 1. Customers must provide a copy of their system design analysis, as calculated by PV Watts, the online calculation tool used for estimating the energy production and cost savings of grid connected PV systems. (This analysis is used to verify the optimal placement of the panels.) a. 100% - 80% of optimal placement = Full per DC Watt rebate Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 5 Item # N b. 79% -70% of optimal placement = Full per DC Watt rebate x .66 c. No incentive is provided for efficiency less than 70% 2. The City Interconnect package must be reviewed, completed and approved by City staff, prior to installation PV system. 3. A pre-inspection site evaluation of the proposed location for the PV system to verify that the orientation and shading of the buildings are appropriate for adequate solar energy capture and conversion may be required. This evaluation may be performed on-site or by using the Google Maps satellite and street view applications or an equivalent online mapping service. 4. All equipment must be new when installed and must come with, at the least, a five (5) year warranty on the inverter and a (15) fifteen year warranty on the panels. 5. The itemized and dated invoice from the contractor or retailer that is included with the application form must include the serial numbers for all panels and inverters. 6. Requests for rebates must be received by the City within thirty (30) days of installation. 7. Payments will be made to the property owner that purchased the qualified equipment, unless authorized, in writing, by the program manager and the property owner. Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 5 Item # N Sec. 13.04.083 Distributed Renewable Electric Generation A. Availability: This rider is available only to Residential and Small Commercial customers that own distributed renewable electric generation (D-REG) facilities of 10 kW or less that are located on within the Georgetown Utility System’s (GUS) electric service area and are connected to GUS’s electric distribution system. The D-REG facility shall exclusively serve a single residential or small commercial premise connected to the GUS electric distribution system. 1. Customers shall be required to review and complete the City’s Interconnection Package and execute a distributed generation contract with the City to install a D-REG system. 2. Non-Residential customers that are 10 kW or larger may purchase or install a D-REG system, but must negotiate a more comprehensive contract with the City, before construction can begin. B. Application: This rider is available to customers with a solar, or wind, geothermal, biomass, hydrogen fuel cell or any renewable energy powered device that generates ten kW or less of electric power at a voltage of 600 volts or less from a residential or small commercial electric service at a customer’s premise or at an off-site location within the City’s electric service area and that is connected to the City’s electric distribution system. join parallel with the City. C. Method of Charge. The customer shall be entitled to a Produced Energy Credit based upon the energy produced and delivered by the power producing facility into the City’s Electric Utility System during a specific billing period. In a billing month, if the customer uses more energy than their distributed generation system produces, the additional electricity consumed is billed at the standard residential rate for the service. If the customer uses less energy than the distributed generation system produces, the excess energy that flows back into the electric grid earns credits equal to the City’s estimated avoided fuel costs. These costs will be updated on a yearly basis. D. Contract Period. As stated in the contract between the City and the customer. C. METHOD OF CHARGE. 1. Definitions. NET Meter = City generated kWh less D-REG generated kWh that is used at the premise DEL = City generated kWh that is Delivered to and used at the premise RCVD = D-REG generated kWh that is Not used at the premise and pushed out to the grid REC = Total renewable kWh generated by the D-REG system STANDARD RATE: The current adopted electric rate for the applicable rate class for which the electric service qualifies. Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 5 Item # N 2. Customer shall pay a monthly customer charge equal to the fixed cost associated with maintenance of the distribution system and administration. D. INCENTIVES. To encourage the installation of qualifying renewable generation, there are incentive programs for which qualifying applicants may apply, in order to defray a portion of the costs associated with the installation of a D-REG system. 1. RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS. a. In order to qualify for a renewable energy incentive, customers must assign all rights to any and all environmental attributes and/or credits, including any renewable energy credits (RECs,) carbon off-set credits, or similar environmental credits derived from the renewable energy production associated with this rebate, to the City for the City’s use, as it may choose. b. Customers may petition, in writing, to retain the environmental attributes and/or credits, including any RECs, carbon off-set credits, or similar environmental credits derived from the renewable energy production in order to achieve or maintain LEED Certification or any other energy efficiency designation requiring the retirement of RECs in the customer’s name. c. Revenue from the sale of RECs, by the City, is designated for renewable energy incentive programs sponsored by the City. 2. NET METERING. Net Metering is an incentive program that is available to qualifying customers that have signed a distributed generation contract with the City and have successfully connected a D-REG system to GUS’s electric distribution system. a. Customer must purchase the REC meter that is installed and used by the City to register the renewable kWh generated at the premise. b. If a premise uses more electricity than the D-REG system produces, within a single billing month, the customer pays for the non-Netted, GUS provided electricity at the standard rate: (DEL kWh - RCVD kWh) x standard rate c. If a premise uses less electricity than the D-REG system produces, the customer is provided a credit equal to the standard rate for every D-REG generated kWh that flow back to the City’s electric distribution system: (DEL kWh - RCVD kWh) x standard rate d. Payment for D-REG power is only available in the form of a credit against the customer’s utility bill. Cash will not be paid for D-REG generated kWh. Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 5 Item # N e. D-REG credit balances for excess generation, still due when a customer disconnects all utilities from the City of Georgetown, and is not transferring to another City account, will forfeit the credit amount. e. Net metering is effective for the life of the D-REG system. f. Net metering is not available to D-REG systems that are awarded a GUS rebate. 3. REBATE. A rebate is an incentive that is available to qualifying customers that have signed a distributed generation contract with the City and have successfully connected a D-REG system to GUS’s electric distribution system. a. Funding for rebates is limited to availability. Rebate offerings will be announced as they become available, and will remain active until the allotted funding is depleted or until the program is discontinued by the City. b. Calculation of Rebate. i. The GUS Rebate Application must be completed, signed and returned to the City before a rebate will be issued. ii. The rebate is based on the smaller of the Panel Rating and the Inverter Rating (if they are different) and the efficiency of the system currently being installed. iii. A single rebate paid to a customer will not exceed $7,500. iii. Payment to a customer will not exceed a total, cumulative system rebate of $12,000. c. The City may, at any time, discontinue a program or any of its components, change guidelines, or increase / decrease rebate calculation methods, without prior notice. d. Once funds are depleted, no additional applications for participation will be accepted until the next fiscal year, or until more funding becomes available. e. There is no waiting list for inactive or future programs. Applications that are submitted, but not addressed, before program funding is depleted, must resubmit the following year. i. Rebates are paid on a first come basis, within the pool of qualifying applicants. ii. Application for rebate will not be accepted retroactively to any offering period. f. Rebates are for residential and small commercial customers, only. g. Rebates are applicable for retrofits, only. New construction does not qualify for this rebate. Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 5 Item # N h. All system equipment must be purchased. No leased or lease/purchase equipment will qualify for a rebate. i. The rebate application form must include a copy of the itemized and dated invoice from the contractor or retailer. j. D-REG systems will only qualify for this rebate once per 12-month period. After 12 months, an application for rebate may be submitted for expansion of the D-REG system. E. CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS. 1. The contractor that installs the prescribed and approved D-REG system must be registered as a City Authorized Contractor at the time of the installation. 2 . To become a registered program installer, the c ontractor must submit a GUS Rebate Program Contractor Registration Form, which includes the installer’s NABCEP certification, to the Program Manager. F. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERCONNECTON: 1. Applicant must be the homeowner or property owner at the location being improved. 2. A D-REG system will not be designed to generate more energy than the average annual usage of the home for which it provides power. 3. All installations and improvements must be at locations with electric service provided by GUS and must meet all applicable national, local, and manufacturers’ codes and specifications. 4. All necessary permits must be acquired from the City prior to installation. 5. The City does not compensate the installer for the equipment installation or for processing the necessary paperwork. 6. A pre-inspection by the City that entails a site evaluation of the proposed location for the D-REG system may be required. 7. Post-inspections by the GUS Building Inspection department are required on all installations, before the issuance of the rebate. Failure to follow these or other requirements of the City building code may render the system ineligible for the incentive and the system will not be allowed to interconnect with the City electrical grid. G. REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) SYSTEMS: Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 5 Item # N 1. Customers must provide a copy of their system design analysis, as calculated by PV Watts, the online calculation tool used for estimating the energy production and cost savings of grid connected PV systems. (This analysis is used to verify the optimal placement of the panels.) a. 100% - 80% of optimal placement = Full per DC Watt rebate b. 79% -70% of optimal placement = Full per DC Watt rebate x .66 c. No incentive is provided for efficiency less than 70% 2. The City Interconnect package must be reviewed, completed and approved by City staff, prior to installation PV system. 3. A pre-inspection site evaluation of the proposed location for the PV system to verify that the orientation and shading of the buildings are appropriate for adequate solar energy capture and conversion may be required. This evaluation may be performed on-site or by using the Google Maps satellite and street view applications or an equivalent online mapping service. 4. All equipment must be new when installed and must come with, at the least, a five (5) year warranty on the inverter and a (15) fifteen year warranty on the panels. 5. The itemized and dated invoice from the contractor or retailer that is included with the application form must include the serial numbers for all panels and inverters. 6. Requests for rebates must be received by the City within thirty (30) days of installation. 7. Payments will be made to the property owner that purchased the qualified equipment, unless authorized, in writing, by the program manager and the property owner. Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 5 Item # N City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Second Readingof an Ordinance for Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to Office (OF) District for Chaparro Estates, Lots 1,2,3,5 & 6, part of a Resubdivision to be known as Chapriel Place, Block A, Lots 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 5-A and Block B, Lot 1-B, located at the intersection of Williams Drive and Sedro Trail -- Carla Benton, Planner II and Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner(action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant has requested to rezone the property from Agriculture (AG) District to Office (OF) District to provide for potential development. Public Comments:No comments have been received. At the Planning and Zoning meeting of April 3, 2012 a Public Hearing was held with speakers expressing concerns regarding Site Plan issues such as landscape, buffering, and drainage. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:The Public Hearing was opened at the April 3, 2012 Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning by a vote of 7-0. Special Considerations:None Public Hearing and First Reading:At the City Council meeting of April 24, 2012 after conducting the Public Hearing, the Council approved the proposed rezoning by a vote of 7-0. Recommended Motion:Approval of the Second Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to Office (OF) District. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Carla Benton ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Location Map Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Aerial Map P&Z Minutes Ordinance Exhibit A Exhibit B Cover Memo Item # O Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report Chaparro Est./Chapriel Place Rezoning Page 1 of 4 Report Date: March 21, 2012 File No: REZ-2012-003 Project Planner: Carla Benton, Planner II Item Details Project Name: Chaparro Estates/Chapriel Place Location: Williams Drive and Sedro Trail (See Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 22.01 acres Legal Description: Chaparro Estates, Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6, part of a pending Resubdivision to be known as Chapriel Place, Block A, Lots 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 5-A, and Block B, Lot 1-B Applicant: David Coombs, P.E. Property Owners: Bradley Cockrum, Eric Adelman, Bill Nations, MML Horizon Investments LLC, and Steve Faught Contact: David Coombs, P.E. Existing Use: Undeveloped land and office Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG) District Proposed Zoning: Office (OF) District Future Land Use: Low and Moderate Density Residential Growth Tier: Tier 1A Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested to rezone the property from Agriculture (AG) District to Office (OF) District to provide for potential development. Site Information Location: The properties span approximately one half mile along the north side of Williams Drive, including one lot southeast of Sedro Trail, and four lots northwest of Sedro Trail. Physical Characteristics: Overall, the terrain of the property is relatively flat and while certain areas contain protected trees, including ten (10) Heritage Trees, the 22.21 acres is fairly clear. An existing office is located on Lot 1-B and a house is located on Lot 5-A, but all other lots are vacant. Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # O Planning & Development Staff Report Chaparro Est./Chapriel Place Rezoning Page 2 of 4 Surrounding Properties: The surrounding properties include undeveloped land, residential subdivisions and The Legacy Assisted Living Facility, currently under construction. Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North Agriculture (AG) and Residential Single-Family (RS) Districts Low and Moderate Density Residential Residential (Sun City) South Agriculture (AG) and Office (OF) District Low Density Residential Undeveloped land and residential (proposed Gatlin Creek development) East Agriculture (AG) District Low Density Residential Undeveloped land and residential West General Commercial (C-3) and Agriculture (AG) Districts Low and Moderate Density Residential Undeveloped land and (The Legacy Assisted Living) (See Exhibits 2 and 3) Property History Lots 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 5-A, and 1-B were previously platted with the Chaparro Estates Subdivision in 1980. A Preliminary Plat for Resubdivision of Chaparro Estates, Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6 and 8.97 acres in the J. Fish Survey, was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 1, 2011. A rezoning was requested for Lot 3-A in 2002 to change the zoning from A to C-2A (C-3), but it was denied. 2030 Plan Conformance The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the 2030 Plan land use designation of Low and Moderate Residential, as those designations include complementary non-residential uses along arterial roadways such as neighborhood-serving retail, office, institutional, and civic uses. 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. Proposed Zoning District The intent of the OF District is to provide a location for general office and service activities. Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # O Planning & Development Staff Report Chaparro Est./Chapriel Place Rezoning Page 3 of 4 Typically allowed OF uses may include general and professional offices, medical/dental offices, personal services such as salons for tanning, beauty, barber, nails, day spas, studios such as photography and dance, printing, banking, and document storage facilities. Utilities Electric service is provided by Pedernales Electric Cooperative, water and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve this property. Transportation The lots are located along a major arterial. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not deemed necessary for review of this rezoning, but may be required with the Site Plan application for development of the individual lots. Future Application(s) The following applications will be required to be submitted: · Final Plat of Chapriel Place subdivision, to be processed administratively; · Site Plan and Construction plans for each lot, to be processed administratively; · Building permits for construction; and · Certificate of Occupancy for all new structures. Staff Analysis Staff is supportive of the request to rezone from AG to OF for the following reasons: 1. The Future Land Use designation of Low and Moderate Residential supports office uses located along arterial roadways. 2. The existing zoning of the surrounding area is primarily AG District and an RS District within Sun City Georgetown subdivision. While the majority of property surrounding these tracts is AG, the base district for all annexations, future rezonings will address actual future development. The proposed OF District for approximately 22 acres contains 5 developable lots, is generally considered to provide relatively low traffic generation, and is considered appropriate adjacent to residential uses being a transitional use between residential and commercial areas. 3. The surrounding developed uses, include Legacy Assisted Living (currently under construction), existing residential subdivisions, the proposed Gatlin Creek mixed use development (currently under rezoning consideration), and undeveloped land. The proposed office use provides a compatible buffer between residentially developed areas, an arterial roadway, and commercial development. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning to Office District as it is compatible with the Future Land Use, the rezoning is from a low density district of AG to a transitional district, Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # O Planning & Development Staff Report Chaparro Est./Chapriel Place Rezoning Page 4 of 4 and would allow appropriate development of the property. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of 27 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on March 18, 2012. No public comments were received at the time of this report. Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map (2012) Meetings Schedule April 3, 2012 – Planning and Zoning Commission April 24, 2012 – City Council First Reading (pending) May 8, 2012 – City Council Second Reading (pending) Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # O C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN G e o r g e t o w n E T J G e o r g eto w n E T J DEWBERRY DR A L P I N E C T VINCA DR L I A T R I S L N WILLIAMS DR PENNY LN SEDRO TRL D A N D E L I O N D RRED POPPY TRL R E D P O P P Y T R L O L D E O A K D R REZ-2012-003 0 560 1,120Feet Coordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1 REZ-2012-003 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # O C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN G e o r g e t o w n E T J G e o r g eto w n E T J DEWBERRY DR A L P I N E C T VINCA DR L I A T R I S L N WILLIAMS DR PENNY LN SEDRO TRL D A N D E L I O N D RRED POPPY TRL R E D P O P P Y T R L O L D E O A K D R REZ-2012-003 0 540 1,080Feet Coordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Legend Thoroughfare EC EF EMA EMIA ERF PC PF PFR PMA PMIA PR Future Land Use Institutional Regional Com mercial Community Com mercial Ag / Rural Residential Employm ent Center HIgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Us e Com munity Mixed Us e Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2REZ-2012-003 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # O C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN G e o r g e t o w n E T J G e o r g eto w n E T J REZ-2012-003 R E D P O P P Y T R L A L P I N E C T VINCA DR L I A T R I S L N DEWBERRY DR WILLIAMS DR PENNY LN SEDRO TRL D A N D E L I O N D R O L D E O A K D R 0 540 1,080Feet Coordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ REZ-2012-003 LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Zoning Information Exhibit #3 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # O C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN G e o r g e t o w n E T J G e o r g eto w n E T J R E D P O P P Y T R L A L P I N E C T RED POPPY TRL VINCA DR L I A T R I S L N DEWBERRY DR WILLIAMS DR PENNY LN OLDE O AK D R SEDRO TRL D A N D E L I O N D R O L D E O A K D R 0 540 1,080Feet Coordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4REZ-2012-003 REZ-2012-003 Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # O Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / April 3, 2012 Page 1 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM Council Chambers 101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Commissioners: Ercel Brashear, Chair; Porter Cochran, Annette Montgomery, Sally Pell, John Horne, Roland Peña and Robert Massad Commissioners in Training: Scott Rankin Commissioner(s) Absent: Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: Staff Present: Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Jordan Maddox, Long Range Planner; Carla Benton, Planner; Mike Elabarger, Planner; Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; David Munk, City Engineer; Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary. Chair Brashear called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Brashear stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker form to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3) minutes, unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins. Regular Agenda: 11. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to Office (OF) District for Chaparro Estates, Lots 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6, part of a Resubdivision to be known as Chapriel Place, Block A, Lots 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 5-A and Block B, Lot 1-B, located at the intersection of Williams Drive and Sedro Trail. REZ-2012-003 (Carla Benton) Staff report by Carla Benton. Utilities will be brought in at the time of the development. Low and Moderate Residential Land Use is compatible with the proposed Office District. Office use is an appropriate use for the property as this is a transitional use between residential and non-residential. Typical uses include office uses; general, professional, medical, dential , personal services; salons for tanning, beauty, barber, nails, day spas, studios; photography and dance, printing, and banking. Staff is supportive of the application due to compatibility of location, Future Land Use, and transitional nature of office use. No written comments but did have calls concerned with Site Plan issues such as buffers, landscape, flooding and drainage issue. Invited the applicant. David Coombs, representing the applicants, stated the issues would be addressed through the drainage studies and Site Plan applications. Proctor Sherwin, 243 Red Poppy Trail spoke, and would like a list of everything that can and cannot be built and the building height restrictions. Staff will work with Mr. Sherwin to provide the requested information. JC. Toncliff, spoke with concerns regarding with flooding and drainage issues. Coombs stated TCEQ will require a drainage study and any issues will be addressed. Motion by Montgomery, 2nd by Cochran. Approved. (7-0) Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # O ORDINANCE NO. ____________ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the Zoning District Map adopted on the 4th Day of April 2002 in accordance with the Unified Development Code passed and adopted on the 11th Day of March 2003, to rezone Chaparro Estates, Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6, part of a pending Resubdivision to be known as Chapriel Place, Block A, Lots 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 5-A, and Block B, Lot 1-B, from Agriculture (AG) District to Office (OF) District; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City Council for the Purpose of changing the Zoning District Classification of the following described real property ("The Property"): Chaparro Estates, Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6, part of a pending Resubdivision to be known as Chapriel Place, Block A, Lots 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 5-A, and Block B, Lot 1-B, as recorded in Deed Reference Volume 903, Page 150, Volume 898, Page 791 and Document Numbers 2006099425, 2008063314 and 2006036533 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Base Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and Whereas, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days for the first day of such publication; and Whereas, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and Whereas, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and Whereas, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on April 1, 2012, recommended approval of the requested zoning change for the above described property from Agriculture (AG) District to Office (OF) District; and 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 Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # O 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 overall vision, goals and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is consistent with the policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. The Base Ordinance and the Zoning Map of the City, as well as the Zoning District for the Property shall be and the same is hereby changed Agriculture (AG) District to Office (OF) District in accordance with Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Field Notes), and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect on the date of final adoption by City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 24th day of April, 2012. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 8th day of May, 2012. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ______________________ _________________________ Jessica Brettle By: George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # O C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITY OF GEORGETOWN G e o r g e t o w n E T J G e o r g eto w n E T J DEWBERRY DR A L P I N E C T VINCA DR L I A T R I S L N WILLIAMS DR PENNY LN SEDRO TRL D A N D E L I O N D RRED POPPY TRL R E D P O P P Y T R L O L D E O A K D R REZ-2012-003 0 560 1,120Feet Coordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1 REZ-2012-003 Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # O At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 9 \ n P a g e 1 o f 2 It e m # O At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 9 \ n P a g e 2 o f 2 It e m # O City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance on a Rezoning amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Sun City Neighborhood 59, situated on 96.99 acres near the future extension of Pedernales Falls Drive -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: This rezoning request corresponds with a proposed plat to allow 168 standard Sun City residential lots on approximately 96 acres in Sun City. A rezoning and plat were approved in 2007 for the same neighborhood, but the number of lots and the lot configuration have changed, prompting the need for this rezoning. The request is in conformance with the Sun City Development Agreement and Concept Plan and the City’s 2030 Plan. There is companion Preliminary Plat to this rezoning request that has been conditionally approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pending this rezoning. Planning and Zoning Commission At their April 3, 2012, regular meeting, the Commission unanimously (7-0) recommended approval of the rezoning request for Sun City Neighborhood 59. In addition, the Commission unanimously (7-0) approved the companion preliminary plat, which will be effective on final reading of the rezoning ordinance. City Council Council approved the amendment on first reading at the April 24, 2012, meeting. Recommended Motion Approvethe rezoning request to amend the existing Planned Unit Development known as Sun City Neighborhood Fifty-Nine. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time SUBMITTED BY: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Development Plan Exhibit B1 - Exhibit "G" of Development Agreement Exhibit B2 - Plat Staff Report Cover Memo Item # P Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report Sun City Neighborhood 59 Rezoning Page 1 of 3 Report Date: March 23, 2012 Item: 5 File No: REZ-2011-026 Project Planner: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner Item Details Project Name: Sun City Neighborhood 59 (Revised ‘12) Location: Future Pedernales Falls Drive extension Total Acreage: 96.99 acres Legal Description: 96.99 acres in the Foy Survey Applicant: Simon Gonzales, AECOM Property Owner: Pulte Homes (Brent Baker) Existing Use: Vacant Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) - amended Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential Growth Tier: Tier 1A Applicant’s Request This rezoning request corresponds with a proposed plat to allow 168 standard Sun City residential lots on approximately 96 acres in Sun City. A rezoning and plat were approved in 2007 for the same neighborhood, but the number of lots and the lot configuration have changed, prompting the need for this rezoning. The reason for the request of a new plat and PUD is to address the change in lots and lot configuration the neighborhood and accommodate development standards approved in the development agreement (see Exhibits B and B1). Site Information Location: The 96-acre site is located in the northwestern portion of the Sun City development, adjacent to the Cowan Creek Golf Course and at the terminus of the future extension of Pedernales Falls Drive from the proposed Neighborhood 56. Surrounding Properties: The subject property is immediately surrounded by undeveloped floodplain and golf course land, but there are 2 small Sun City neighborhoods across Cowan Creek from the site. Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 3 Item # P Planning & Development Staff Report Sun City Neighborhood 59 Rezoning Page 2 of 3 The surrounding zoning, existing uses and future land uses include: Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North PUD (Sun City Neighborhood 20) Moderate-Density Residential (MDR) Residential and Open Space South NA, Out of City and Sun City Neighborhood 11 MDR Residential and Floodplain East AG, Agriculture MDR Open Space West NA, Out of City MDR Vacant and Golf Course Property History The property was annexed in 2006. The development falls under the regulations of the 1999 Subdivision Regulations and the Sun City 9th Amended Concept Plan/ 9th Amendment to the Sun City Development Agreement. 2030 Plan Conformance The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the 2030 Plan’s anticipation of moderate density residential development. Proposed Zoning District The proposed revision to the Neighborhood 59 PUD increases the total number of residential lots from 155 to 168. The proposal is consistent with the aforementioned regulations and is shown to be residential/golf on the adopted Sun City Concept Plan. The attached Development Plan describes the applicable standards in the traditional format for Sun City residential developments. Utilities Wastewater, water, and electric will be served by the City of Georgetown. The applicant is currently addressing the utilities for the site and there are no anticipated issues regarding capacity or improvements. Transportation Staff expressed to the applicant that there were concerns about limited ingress and egress into this particular neighborhood, because of only one connecting street. The staff concern related to access in the event of an emergency. The location of the site represents significant challenges due to the topography and floodplain surroundings. The applicant contended that there is no cost-feasible alternative to providing additional vehicular access to the site beyond a planned golf cart path that will connect Neighborhood 59 to Sun City Blvd, across Cowan Creek. Due to the geographical limitations, the Fire Code allows for some discretion regarding entrances and exits. Staff is encouraged by the addition of the cart path back to Sun City Blvd as it is Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 3 Item # P Planning & Development Staff Report Sun City Neighborhood 59 Rezoning Page 3 of 3 anticipated that a number of N. 59 residents and their guests will have golf carts or access to golf carts in the event that Pedernales Falls Drive is incapacitated. Sun City has an approved Traffic Impact Analysis that accounts for the amount of traffic this neighborhood and the entire Sun City project will generate. Future Application(s) There is a companion preliminary plat currently in process that will have to be approved prior to the development of the site. Staff Analysis Staff Recommendation and Basis: Staff supports the rezoning based on the consistency with the applicable regulations and conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Special Consideration: None Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments Public notices were sent out to the 19 property owners that were located within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning boundary. Public notice was posted in the Williamson County Sun newspaper on March 18th. There have been no official public comments received at the time of this report. Proposed Meetings Schedule April 3, 2012 – Planning and Zoning Commission April 24, 2012 – City Council First Reading (tentative) May 8, 2012 – City Council Second Reading (tentative) Attachments Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – Development Plan Exhibit B1 – Exhibit G of Development Agreement Exhibit B2 – Plat and Field Notes Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 3 Item # P Sun City 59 PUD Page 1 of 3 Ordinance No. ____________ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the Zoning District Map adopted on the 4th day of April, 2002 in accordance with the Unified Development Code passed and adopted on the 11th day of March, 2003, for 96.99 acres out of the Frederick Foy and Daniel Monroe Surveys, amending the Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Sun City Neighborhood Fifty-Nine; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City Council for the purpose of changing the zoning district classification of the following described real property ("the property"): 96.99 acres, out of the Frederick Foy and Daniel Monroe Surveys, located on Pedernales Falls Drive, to be known as Sun City Neighborhood Fifty-Nine, as recorded in Document Numbers 1996055666, 1997052930, 1996019468, and 1995058177 of the Official Records of Williamson County, hereinafter referred to as "the property"; Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed change to an existing Planned Unit Development to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration in a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and Whereas, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days for the first day of such publication; and Whereas , written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and Whereas, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and Whereas, in compliance with the Unified Development Code, a Development Plan was submitted in conjunction with the requested change of the Planned Unit Development district, attached as Exhibit B; and Whereas, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on April 3, 2012, recommended the amendment to the PUD, Planned Unit Development, known also as Sun City Neighborhood Fifty-Nine, more specifically the replacement of the previously-approved Development Plan with Exhibit B; Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 3 Item # P Sun City 59 PUD Page 2 of 3 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 is in full compliance with the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other 2030 Comprehensive Plan policies. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Planned Unit Development and Development Plan satisfy the approval criteria of the Unified Development Code. Section 3. The Zoning District Map of the City, as well as the Zoning District for the Property shall be and the same is hereby PUD, Planned Unit Development, with a Base District of RS, Residential Single-Family, for Sun City Neighborhood Fifty-Nine; in accordance with Exhibit A and Exhibit B2 attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. Section 4. The Development Plan accompanying the Planned Unit Development, attached hereto as Exhibit B, including Exhibits B1 and B2, is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, to replace the previous PUD approved in 2007. Section 5. 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 6. 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 7. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect on the date of final adoption by City Council. Passed and Approved on First Reading on the 24th Day of April, 2012. Passed and Approved on Second Reading on 8th Day of May, 2012. Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 3 Item # P Sun City 59 PUD Page 3 of 3 Attest: The City of Georgetown: ______________________ _________________________ Jessica Brettle George Garver City Secretary Mayor Approved as to Form: ______________________ Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 3 Item # P C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N G e o r g e t o w n E T J S U N C IT Y B L V D S U N C I T Y B L V D ARMSTRONG D R D O V E H O L L OW TRL P R I S T INE LN D O V E H O L LOW TRL P O T T E R LN F O R T P A R K C V T B D HARNESS L N L A N D M A R K I N N C TPEDERNALES F A L L S D R T B D S A D D LE TRL CHRISTMAS M OUNTAIN DR TBD D A VIS M O U NTAIN CIR L O N G H O R N T R L TBD CO W A N C R E E K D R M O O N R I V E R D R G R E AT FRONTIER D R GREAT FRONTIER DR POTTER L N P O TTER LN K I N G F I S H E R D R C A T H E D R AL MOUNT AIN PASS D A V I S M O U N T A I N CIR CON-201 1 - 0 4 2 PP-2011-012REZ-2011-026 0 725 1,450Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ REZ-2011-026/PP-2011-012 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # P EXHIBIT B Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood 59 (revised ’12) PUD Standards 1 Sun City Neighborhood Fifty-Nine (Revised ’12) Planned Unit Development Development Plan A. Property This Development Plan covers approximately 96 acres of land located within the city limits of Georgetown, Texas, described as 96.99 acres out of the Frederick Foy Survey, to be known as Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Fifty-Nine, as revised in 2012. B. Purpose In accordance with Unified Development Code Section 4.04.030 (5) "Development Plan", the following is a summary of the design standards for the development of Neighborhood Fifty-Nine of Sun City Texas. The standards are consistent with those outlined in Exhibit G of the Sun City Texas Planned Unit Development Standards of the Sun City Texas Development Agreement - Amendment No. 9 (attached hereto as Exhibit B1 and incorporated herein). C. Development Plan 1. Miscellaneous a. A Plat for Neighborhood Fifty-Nine has been submitted to the City of Georgetown. A copy of this plat is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit B2. b. The platted area is intended to be developed as a residential neighborhood designed as detached single-family lot development. c. All 168 residential lots within Neighborhood Fifty-Nine shall be developed as detached single-family residential lots consistent with the development standards contained herein. i. Neighborhood Fifty-Nine shall be developed with 168 detached single-family residential units classified as standard lot development. d. The plat depicts the 100-year flood plain and existing topography. Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 3 Item # P EXHIBIT B Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood 59 (revised ’12) PUD Standards 2 e. The neighborhood shall be developed in accordance with the City Council approved Development Agreement for Del Webb / Sun City. 2. Proposed Acreage and Usage a. The neighborhood size is 96.99 acres b. The number of units within the neighborhood is 168. c. The density of the neighborhood is 1.73 units per acre. 3. Lot Configuration and Setbacks a. The plat illustrates the street and lot configuration, building setbacks as well as the density for the neighborhood. The neighborhood is designed with the building setbacks outlined within the development agreement as follows: i. Front 20 feet ii. Rear 20 feet iii. Corner Side 20 feet iv. Side 5 feet v. Interior Side 5 feet b. The neighborhood has been designed as standard lot development. c. Exhibit G of the approved Development Agreement outlines lot size, impervious cover and building coverage requirements for the standard single family product. These standards are carried forward as follows: i. The minimum lot size allowed shall be 6,000 square feet in accordance with the approved Development Agreement. ii. Impervious cover shall be 65% for standard lots. Maximum impervious coverage for the overall development shall be 40%. iii. Building coverage shall be 40% for standard lots. Maximum building coverage for the overall development shall be 30%. Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 3 Item # P EXHIBIT B Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood 59 (revised ’12) PUD Standards 3 iv. Impervious cover and building coverage calculations are prepared for each platted area, as well as the overall development platted to date. The table will be updated and provided to the City staff. 4. Circulation Street cross-sections are in compliance with those outlined within Exhibit G of the Development Agreement. 5. Parkland / Open Space In accordance with Development Agreement, public parks are not required within the neighborhood. 6. Public Facilities There are no public facilities, i.e., schools or fire station within the neighborhood boundary. List of Exhibits Exhibit "B1" Exhibit G of the Sun City Texas Development Agreement 8th Amendment Exhibit “B2” Plat and Field Notes Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 3 Item # P Exhibit B1 Exhibit “G” of the Development Agreement City of Georgetown - Revised by City Council March 28, 2006 Page 1 of 9 Sun City Georgetown Planned Unit Development Varied Standards for Subdivision Regulations and Unified Development Code 1. The standards and criteria set forth in this Exhibit G, including the additional standards in Exhibit G-1 and the roadway and utility specification in Exhibits G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5 and G-8, will be applicable to the development of the Project. 2. All streets within the Project are classified as “minor”. Typical cross-sections and utility assignments for a minor arterial, a neighborhood collector, a residential collector and a local street are attached as Exhibits G-2, G-3, G-4 and G-5, respectively. Standard utility assignments for local streets are shown in the attached Exhibit G-8. 3. Del Webb is authorized to create non-standard private lots within the median of a public street to place manned entry houses or similar entry features near the entries to the Project on F.M. 2338 and on Highway 195. These entry features will eventually be located on non- standard private lots surrounded by public right-of-way, and will meet the requirements of Section 24032-D of the Subdivision Regulations. The private lots need not satisfy subdivision criteria for lot size and setbacks. The street designated as Texas Drive on the preliminary plat for Phase 1 of the Project will be allowed an alternative roadway section design that will be considered during the construction plan review, and will be considered during the construction plan review, and will be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Owned Utilities. 4. The Project will include an extensive network of walking trails, bike trails and/or sidewalks. 5. The City approves the use of 6-inch diameter fire leads in dead-end conditions of less than 600 feet in length (such as cul-de-sacs). A maximum of one fire hydrant may be located on a 6-inch diameter dead-end line. 6. Water lines in dead-end conditions may be smaller than 6 inches in diameter when not required for fire protection, and in no case shall they be less than 4 inches in diameter, unless approved by the City. Fire hydrants shall not be installed on lines that are smaller than 6 inches in diameter. 7. Del Webb is authorized to create non-standard lots within the Project for open space, golf course, buffer zones, karst features, and preserve areas. Del Webb will restrict these non- standard lots from any building construction. Del Webb or its successors or assigns is responsible for maintaining these non-standard lots. These non-standard lots may be final platted prior to the final platting of the adjoining streets shown on a preliminary plat. 8. The City approves block lengths that exceed the criteria for block lengths when the block includes creeks, natural drainageways, buffer zones, open spaces, and golf courses. Item # P Exhibit B1 Exhibit “G” of the Development Agreement City of Georgetown - Revised by City Council March 28, 2006 Page 2 of 9 9. The City approves Del Webb’s plans to preserve existing trees and vegetation within medians and public right-of-ways, and to supplement existing plant life with the planting of additional trees and vegetation in medians and public right-of-ways. Del Webb or its successors or assigns is responsible for landscape maintenance in medians and public right- of-ways within the Project. 10. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans for certain non-residential areas shall be required prior to detailed development plan approval and are not required prior to preliminary plat approval. 11. Detailed development plans are not required for single-family residences within the Project. 12. The City may review and approve Del Webb’s detailed development plans and building permits for construction yards and construction staging areas, which are considered specially permitted uses within the R-P District of the Project, provided that Del Webb shall maintain ownership of these areas until access to these areas is provided through dedicated public right-of-way and all applicable Development Regulations have been satisfied. In lieu of meeting the landscape requirements of the Development Regulations for temporary construction yards and construction staging areas, Del Webb shall provide adequate buffering, taking into account existing vegetation and distance to residential areas from adjacent land uses, as approved by the Director of Development Services. Del Webb shall secure detailed development plans and building permits as necessary for development of the construction yards and construction staging areas. Del Webb agrees that any construction yards and construction staging areas within the Project shall not remain more than two years beyond the term of this Agreement. 13. The City approves the use of flag lots within the Project. Flag lots may utilize a 10-foot wide access or a shared 20-foot wide accessway between two lots. 14. Swimming pools constructed on residential lots shall be allowed within the required rear yard setback areas so long as they are located at least three (3) feet from the property line; no privacy fence shall be required, provided that fencing (which may be wrought iron or similar type fencing) shall be required to satisfy other city requirements regarding safety. (Added by First Amendment to Development Agreement, 1-14-96, Doc. No. 9606700). Item # P Exhibit B1 Exhibit “G” of the Development Agreement City of Georgetown - Revised by City Council March 28, 2006 Page 3 of 9 Applicable Regulations City Del Webb Subdivision Regulations 24060 Preliminary Plat Approval Expires in 12 months No expiration dates so long as Development Agreement in effect UDC 3.08.050-J Preliminary Plat Approval Expires in 18 months unless phased and each additional phase is 12 months Subdivision Regulations 33030 (Table 33030-A) Design Standards for Streets Median not addressed for minor arterials Allow median UDC 12.03.020 Median not addressed for major collectors or lower streets Subdivision Regulations 33030-I Arterial Street Center Line Curve Radius 2000’ min. 1200’ min. with 45 m.p.h. design speed* * Sharper curve radii are approved for the F.M. 2338 entry feature area UDC 12.03.020-B2 Arterial Streets Curves in arterial streets shall be designed in accordance with the design speed standards in AASHTO Manual Subdivision Regulations 33030-J Collector Street Center Line Curve Radius 600’ min. 300’ min with appropriate speed limit designation UDC 12.03.020-B3 Collector Street Curves Curves in collector streets shall be designed in accordance with the design speed standards in AASHTO Manual Subdivision Regulations 33030-K Local Street Curves 250’ min. radius, except for loop or partial loop streets For loop, partial loop cul-de- sac streets, minimum radius to accommodate 30 m.p.h. design speed UDC 12.03.020-B4 Local Street Curves Curves in local streets shall be designed in accordance with the design speed standards in AASHTO Manual Item # P Exhibit B1 Exhibit “G” of the Development Agreement City of Georgetown - Revised by City Council March 28, 2006 Page 4 of 9 Applicable Regulations City Del Webb Subdivision Regulations 33030-N Dead-End Streets Cul-de-sac Length 500’ maximum length Request for 800’ to be reviewed for adequate fire flows and lot size UDC 12.03.050-C5 Dead-End Streets Prohibited except to permit extension of the street. Temporary turn- arounds shall be required where stub exceed one lot or 100 feet in length and signs shall be provided. UDC 12.03.020-B7 Cul-de-sac Length No more than 200 ADT for any street longer than 200 feet Turn-arounds shall have a minimum paved radius of 50 feet for single- family and two-family and use 60’ for other uses UDC 12.03.030 Local Street Connectivity Requirements Requires interconnected street system to provide for adequate access for emergency and service vehicles; enhance walkability by ensuring connected transportation routes Five total access points shall be provided which are: 1. Del Webb Blvd at Williams Drive 2. Sun City Blvd at SH 195 3. Sun City Blvd at Ronald Reagan Blvd. 4. The local street designated as West Majestic Oak Lane in preliminary plat of Woodland Park West subdivision will be connected to a local street within Neighborhood 51; and 5. Oak Branch Dr. in Shady Oaks subdivision will be connected to Sun City Blvd as a local street. UDC 12.03.040 Collector Street Connectivity Requirements All collector-designated streets shall connect on both ends to an existing or planned collector or higher-level street. Collector streets may terminate into local streets. Capacity requirements for collectors are met. Item # P Exhibit B1 Exhibit “G” of the Development Agreement City of Georgetown - Revised by City Council March 28, 2006 Page 5 of 9 Applicable Regulations City Del Webb UDC Table 12.03.030 Street Connectivity Computation Requires a connectivity ratio of 1.20 Waived in its entirety. UDC 12.03.050-B3 Required Subdivision Access Points Subdivisions of 300 lots or greater shall be required to provide four or more access points to the existing or proposed public roadway system Five total access points shall be provided which are: 1. Del Webb Blvd at Williams Drive 2. Sun City Blvd at SH 195 3. Sun City Blvd at Ronald Reagan Blvd. 4. The local street designated as West Majestic Oak Lane in preliminary plat of Woodland Park West subdivision will be connected to a local street within Neighborhood 51; and 5. Oak Branch Dr. in Shady Oaks subdivision will be connected to Sun City Blvd as a local street. UDC 12.03.050-C Relation to Adjoining Street Systems Provide connectivity to other neighborhoods existing streets in adjacent or adjoining areas shall be continued in the new development in alignment therewith Five total access points shall be provided which are: 1. Del Webb Blvd at Williams Drive 2. Sun City Blvd at SH 195 3. Sun City Blvd at Ronald Reagan Blvd. 4. The local street designated as West Majestic Oak Lane in preliminary plat of Woodland Park West subdivision will be connected to a local street within Neighborhood 51; and 5. Oak Branch Dr. in Shady Oaks subdivision will be connected to Sun City Blvd as a local street. UDC 12.03.020 Landscape Easement Table and Diagram A 5’ landscape easement will be required along all Rights of Way (ROW) Will provide open space lots preserving trees. UDC 8.03 Street Trees Street trees will be located in the landscape easement planted at one tree for every 50 feet Will provide open space lots preserving trees. Item # P Exhibit B1 Exhibit “G” of the Development Agreement City of Georgetown - Revised by City Council March 28, 2006 Page 6 of 9 Applicable Regulations City Del Webb Subdivision Regulations 34020 E Easements 10’ P.U.E. for all lots adjacent to public Rights of Way (ROW). 10’ P.U.E. not required on minor arterial and neighborhood collector due to extra R.O.W. provided. Additional easements for electric service will be provided. UDC 13.04.060 Easements 10’ PUE required along all Rights of Way (ROW) UDC 13.02 Open Space Parkland is required at a ratio of one acre for every 50 lots, fees are currently 250 per unit Pay 1/2 of the required fees at the time of platting and get credit for open space, trails, and golf course for the other half of required parkland Subdivision Regulations 33030-N Average Daily Trips on Cul-de- sac 200 Average Daily Trips (ADT) No maximum UDC 12.03.020B7b Permitted Cul-de-sacs 200 Average Daily Trips (ADT) Subdivision Regulations 33030-U (Table 33030-C) Street Lighting Standards 320 foot spacing Along arterials and neighborhood collectors, placed at 320’ intervals. In addition, street lights at intersections and at end of cul-de-sacs over 500’ in length. Additional requested street lighting may be installed in the future at no expense to the City. UDC 13.07.020 Street Lighting Standards Required at all intersections and at 300 foot intervals Subdivision Regulations 33030-X Pedestrian Circulation/Sidewalks Both sides of Arterials; one-side of collectors Sidewalks on both sides or 8’ wide sidewalks on one side for arterials and neighborhood collectors. No sidewalks required for residential collectors or local streets. A sidewalk along F.M. 2338 may be deferred until F.M. 2338 is widened at entry area or for ten (10) years from the date of approval of this Agreement by the City, whichever first occurs. UDC 12.02.020 Sidewalk General Requirements Both sides of all streets, as needed to provide access to commercial, employment areas, parks, greenways or streets Subdivision Regulations 33043 Spacing Between Driveways for Residential 125’ min on collectors No limit on residential collectors 12.03.010-D5 Spacing Between Driveways for Residential 125’ min on residential collectors Item # P Exhibit B1 Exhibit “G” of the Development Agreement City of Georgetown - Revised by City Council March 28, 2006 Page 7 of 9 Applicable Regulations City Del Webb Subdivision Regulations 33043 Spacing Between Driveways for Non-residential 300’ min on minor arterials 120’ on minor arterials at golf course clubhouses UDC 12.03.020 Spacing Between Driveways on Non-residential Driveway separation based on posted speed of roadway Subdivision Regulations 33044 Spacing Between Driveways and Intersections for Residential Streets 60’ min. on local streets 50’ min. on local streets on same side as corner UDC 12.03.010-C Spacing Between Driveways and Intersections for Local Streets Separation from the corner no less than 50 feet Subdivision Regulations 33044 Spacing Between Driveways and Intersections 75’ min. on collectors 50’ min. on residential collectors on same side as corner UDC 12.03.010-D Spacing Between Driveways and Intersections for Collector Streets Separation from the corner no less than 125 feet Subdivision Regulations 33051-A General Design Standards/Off- Street Parking Off-street parking spaces located behind front building At Phase 1 clubhouses and sales pavilion, the City staff will work with Del Webb to achieve an optimum balance between the 25’ front building line setback requirement and the preservation of tree and karst features. UDC 6.03.040 Non Residential Lot Dimensions Off-street parking spaces for non-residential uses are not allowed in the front setback only the side and rear of contiguous uses Subdivision Regulations 33056 Basic Off-Street Loading Regulations 1 space/buildings 5,000- 19,000sq. ft. 1 space minimum/buildings over 5,000 sq.ft. with full food and beverage service. UDC 9.05-C Off-Street Loading As needed and will be the minimum size of 12 feet by 54 feet Subdivision Regulations 33057 (Table 33057) Parking Facilities Design For parking pattern of 54o-74o, 22’ two-way lane width; 9’ (8.5’) parking space width; 21’ (16.5’) parking space length For parking patterns of 54o-90o, landscaped islands not addressed For parking patter on 54o-74o, 24’ two-way lane width; average 9.5’ parking space width; 20’ parking space length For parking patterns of 54o- 90o, parking spaces adjacent to landscaped islands may be 18’ long UDC 9.03.020 Parking Space and Parking Lot Design All spaces shall be 9 feet by 18 feet and drive aisles must be 26 feet one way drive aisle widths vary on degree of parking Item # P Exhibit B1 Exhibit “G” of the Development Agreement City of Georgetown - Revised by City Council March 28, 2006 Page 8 of 9 Applicable Regulations City Del Webb Subdivision Regulations 34010-C Block Length along arterial 1300’ min. 600’ min. to be considered on plat submittal Subdivision Regulations 34020-B Lot Dimensions Depth/width ratio between 2.5 and 1.5 No lot depth/width ratio Subdivision Regulations 34020-C Lot Orientation Lots facing each other increase width for lots when side abuts rear yard No restriction on orientation Subdivision Regulations 34020-C Double Frontage Lots Not permitted adjacent to collector Permit adjacent to collector streets (no access to collectors from such lots) UDC 6.04.010-C Double Frontage Lots May not have frontage on two non-intersecting local or collector streets, unless access is taken from the street of the lower classification Subdivision Regulations Table 34020 Lot Sizes 6,000 sq. ft. min. 4,620 sq. ft. for zero lotline lots, no more that 300 lots to be developed (12.0% of remaining lots), 5,000 sq. ft. for cluster lots, no more than 525 lots to be developed (21.0% of remaining lots). UDC Table 6.02.030 Housing Type Dimensional Standards 5,500 sq. ft. minimum Subdivision Regulations 34020-E Impervious cover 40% max. for each lot 75% for cluster lots; 75% for zero lotline lots*; 65% for single family lots. (40% max. impervious cover in overall development) UDC 11.02.010 Impervious Cover Limitations 50% maximum up to 65% if impervious coverage waivers are met. This is calculated on a Gross Site Area Subdivision Regulations 34020-E Building Coverage (maximum) 30% 50% for cluster lots; 70% for zero lotline lots*; 40% for single family lots. (30% max. building coverage in overall development) Sun City proposed Lot Development Sun City Sun City Sun City Sub Regs UDC Cluster** Zero Lotline** Standard Front 25’ 20’ 10’ 10’ 20’ Rear 20’ 10’ 5’ 5’ 20’ Corner Side 25’ 10’ 10’ 0’/10’ *** 20’**** Side 5/10’ 6’ 5’ 0’/10’ 5’ Interior Side 5/10’ 6’ 5’ 0’/10’ 5’ Item # P Exhibit B1 Exhibit “G” of the Development Agreement City of Georgetown - Revised by City Council March 28, 2006 Page 9 of 9 *Cluster homes (lots) are detached, single-family product aimed at a market segment seeking a smaller lot with less yard maintenance, but not necessarily at the sacrifice of a larger home. The setbacks for the Cluster Lots have been established to create a pedestrian scaled street scene and more clustered relationship between adjoining homes. Surrounding openspace will offset the increased impervious and building coverage for individual lots. (Revised by Eighth Amendment to Development Agreement, __________, Doc. No. _________.) *Zero Lotline homes (lots) are detached, single-family product aimed at a market segment seeking a smaller lot not at the sacrifice of a larger home. The homes will be oriented towards the side yard area, create unique outdoor living areas. Surrounding open space will offset the increased impervious and building coverage for individual lots. (Added by Eighth Amendment to Development Agreement, __________, Doc. No. _________.) **Neighborhoods 1 through 10 and Neighborhood 12A. For all residential properties within Neighborhoods 1 through 10 and Neighborhood 12A of Sun City Georgetown, as reflected in the final plats of such neighborhoods recorded in the Official Records of Williamson County, setback distances are to be measured to the outside face of the studs of the framed walls and any structural component, i.e. planter boxes that are constructed from the foundation up or along the face of the exterior wall surface into required front yards. **All Neighborhoods Finally Platted Subsequent to Neighborhood 12A. For residential properties within all other neighborhoods to be platted other than neighborhoods 1 through 10 and Neighborhood 12A, setback distances are to be measured in accordance with the City of Georgetown development standards in effect as of July 7, 1997, i.e. measured to the exterior face of the completed, finished wall to include stucco, brick, rock, man-made rock, wood siding and any structural component that is to be constructed from the foundation up or along the exterior wall surface. The roof overhang shall not extend more than twelve inches (12”) into a required yard and ornamental features, i.e. planter boxes may be allowed up to twelve inches (12”) into a required front yard as long as they are attached to the exterior wall and not an integral part of the wall starting with construction from the foundation. This measurement of setback distances should maintain consistency with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Georgetown. (Added by Second Amendment to Development Agreement, 9/23/97, Doc. No. 9743888.) Air conditioning units are permitted within side lot setbacks. ***10’ on street side to provide P.U.E. standards set above. (Added by Eighth Amendment to Development Agreement, __________, Doc. No. _________.) ****Note: On back-to-back corner lots only, 15’ setback is allowed on secondary front setbacks. Driveways on back-to-back corner lots must take access from the 20’ front yard. Item # P Exhibit B2 At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 o f 7 It e m # P § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Exhibit B2 At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 2 o f 7 It e m # P % % ([KLELW% At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 3 o f 7 It e m # P # # # # # # ([KLELW% At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 4 o f 7 It e m # P # # ([KLELW% At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 5 o f 7 It e m # P Exhibit B2 At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 6 o f 7 It e m # P Exhibit B2 At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 7 o f 7 It e m # P City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Second Readingof an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2011-60 pertaining to the annexation of 2011 Annexation Area 15, to correct the label of an exhibit that incorrectly annexed an unintended area -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney(action required) ITEM SUMMARY: In December 2011, the City Council annexed several areas of land, one of which is located along Shell Road north of Berry Creek. Area 15 contained many parcels eligible for annexation agreements, whereby property owners could agree to delay annexation with the City for a minimum of 15 years as long as they kept up an agricultural exemption on the land. Area 15 contained 7 such agreements, the exhibits for which were attached to the ordinance adopting the remaining property. However, one of the attached exhibits showing the location of Parcel # 365539 was accidentally labeled Exhibit A instead of Exhibit B-7. The language of the ordinance attributed an entirely different meaning to said exhibit than its intent, resulting in the property being included in the annexation instead of being excluded. The result of this unintended scrivener’s error is that action needs to be taken so that the owner of this parcel will not be unnecessarily taxed for the property as if the parcel had been annexed. Staff has been in contact with the Williamson Central Appraisal District and they are supportive of Council action to correct the problem, agreeing that it was not intentional that the property was included in the annexation of the area. Staff has attached an ordinance that will amend Ordinance No. 2011-60 to re-label the incorrect Exhibit A and, therefore, exclude the property from full-purpose annexation as originally intended. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 2011-60 (as adopted) Amending Ordinance Ordinance Exhibit A - Parcel Location Cover Memo Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 21 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 22 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 23 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 24 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 25 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 26 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 27 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 28 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 29 of 30 Item # Q Attachment number 1 \nPage 30 of 30 Item # Q Ordinance No.________________ Amending Ordinance No. 2011-60 (2011 Annexation Area 15) Page 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO._______________ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, Amending Ordinance No. 2011-60 Pertaining to the Annexation of 2011 Annexation Area 15, to Correct the Label of an Exhibit that Incorrectly Annexed an Unintended Area; Providing a Severability Clause; and Establishing an Effective Date. WHEREAS, on December 13, 2011, the City Council of the City of Georgetown adopted Ordinance No. 2011-60, which annexed the lands described therein into the city limits; and WHEREAS, Exhibits B-1 through B-6 of Ordinance 2011-60 depict parcels of land eligible for agricultural exemption agreements under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 43.035 that would be excepted from the adopting ordinance; and WHEREAS, an additional exhibit that was included as an attachment to the ordinance was intended to read “Exhibit B-7” but was incorrectly labeled as “Exhibit A;” and WHEREAS, as is shown on the attached Exhibit A to this ordinance, the land that was unintentionally not excluded by Ordinance No. 2011-60 by the mislabeling of said Exhibit, needs to be excluded from the final ordinance by virtue of having a completed, signed agreement with the City under Chapter 43.035; and WHEREAS, because of the several typographical errors in Ordinance No. 2011-60 and its related exhibits, which incorrectly resulted in land included in the annexation instead of being excepted, Ordinance No. 2011-60 needs to be amended and corrected. 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 declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated be reference herein and made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this is not inconsistent with or in conflict with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Ordinance No 2011-60 is hereby amended to provide as follows: All references in the Ordinance to “Exhibits B-1” and “Exhibits B-1 through B-6” shall by amended to state “Exhibits B-1 through B-7” and the exhibit labeled “Exhibit A” in the Original ordinance shall be amended and renamed “Exhibit B- 7.” Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions that are in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and no longer in effect. The portions of Ordinance No. 2011-60 not amended hereby remain in full force and effect and are unchanged by this Ordinance. Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # Q Ordinance No.________________ Amending Ordinance No. 2011-60 (2011 Annexation Area 15) Page 2 of 2 Section 4. If any provisions of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or applications 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 of Georgetown is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in accordance with the terms of the City Charter. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 24th Day of April, 2012. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 8th Day of May, 2012. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Jessica Brettle George G. Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # Q SHE L L R D BRENTW O O D D R LAS COLIN A S D R E D G E W O O D D R FAIRWOO D D R OAKLAND H I L L S D R I R365539 Streams City Limits Exhibit A R365539 0 220 440 Feet Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # Q City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 2.54 acres of the Flores A. Survey from the Agriculture (AG) District to General Commercial (C-3) District, located at 2815 and 2817 North Austin Avenue -- Mike Elabarger, Planner III and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The property was annexed into the City in 2005 with the default zoning designation of Agriculture (AG), and the applicant has requested to rezone the property to the General Commercial (C-3) District. The property is developed, with two structures, and because the site, lot, and structures were developed prior to annexation into the City and before the initial adoption, and current iteration, of the Unified Development Code (UDC), they are considered legal nonconforming per Chapter 14 of the UDC. See the attached Staff Report for further detail. City Council Meeting of April 24, 2012: This application had a First Reading of the Ordinance at the City Council meeting on April 24, 2012. A public hearing was held and closed, with no speakers. Staff made a presentation, there was no discussion, and the Council voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the request. Public Comment: To date, there have been no public comments made on this application, including at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on April 3, 2012, and the First Reading of the Ordinance before City Council on April 24, 2012. Planning and Zoning Commission Review/Recommendation : On April 3, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a vote of 7-0, recommended to the City Council approval of the rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to General Commercial (C-3) Districtas requested. Recommended Motion: Approval of the requested rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to the General Commercial (C-3) District for 2.54 acres in the Flores Survey. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact of this request was studied. SUBMITTED BY: Mike Elabarger, Planner III and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 - Existing Zoning Map Exhibit 4 - Aerial Map Ordinance Exhibit A - Location Map Ordinance Exhibit B - Legal Description ORDINANCE Exhibit 5 - P&Z Minutes Staff Report Cover Memo Item # R Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report 2815-17 N. Austin Avenue Rezoning Page 1 of 7 Report Date: March 29, 2012 File No: REZ-2012-002 Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Planner III Item Details Project Name: Blue Location: East side of North Austin Avenue, south of NE Inner Loop, at Exit 264 Northbound of IH-35 (aka at the Lakeway Blvd. bridge) (See Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 2.54 acres (adding on to an existing 4.5 acre C-3 District to create a +/- 6.5 acre District) Legal Description: 2.54 acres in the Flores A. Survey Applicant: Jerry Hunter Property Owner: Jerry Hunter Contact: Jerry Hunter Existing Use: Two structures, with a varying use history Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG) (per Annexation Ordinance 2005-97) Proposed Zoning: General Commercial (C-3) Future Land Use: Community Commercial (CC) / Employment Center (EC) Growth Tier: Tier 1B (Developing Growth Area) Overview of Applicant’s Request The property was annexed into the City per Ordinance 2005-97, as part of a City-initiated annexation process. With this action, the property was assigned the default zoning district of Agriculture (AG) per Section 4.03.010 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The property currently has a future land use designation of Community Commercial (CC) on the northern portion, and Employment Center (EC) on the southern end. The applicant recently purchased the property, which has had issues getting legal tenants during the past 18 months, and now wishes to rezone to a commercial district that provide it the most flexible and long-term solution. The requested General Commercial (C-3) District will address the applicant’s immediate needs, as well as future redevelopment needs. Because the property was created and developed prior to being annexed into the City (and the inception of the Unified Development Code in 2003), per Chapter 14 of the UDC, the property is considered legal nonconforming in regards to the site, lot, and structure. Specific aspects of any nonconformities will be identified and addressed during the reoccupancy process. Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 7 Item # R Planning & Development Staff Report 2815-17 N. Austin Avenue Rezoning Page 2 of 7 Site Information Property History: The property was annexed in 2005 (per Annexation Ordinance 2005-97) and given the default zoning of AG, Agriculture. Legal Lot status was evidenced by provision of two deeds with Williamson County that were both recorded on January 8, 1974, establishing the property as a 2.00 acre portion and a 0.57 acre portion of the Antonio Flores Survey, Abstract 235. It is unknown when the property was developed to the conditions observed today. The property has seemingly been developed as two separate areas. The northern portion contains an A-frame building that has been used by a landscaping contractor since before annexation (that use, “Landscape Supply Sales/Garden Center” is a permitted use in the AG district, as well as the proposed C-3 district). The rectangular building on the southern Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 7 Item # R Planning & Development Staff Report 2815-17 N. Austin Avenue Rezoning Page 3 of 7 (larger) portion of the property was most recently utilized by a tenant called ABC Supply (categorized today as a “Wholesale/Showroom” use, which is currently only permitted in the Business Park and Industrial Districts), but ceased operations in August of 2010. Since that time there were several attempts by realtors (and the previous property owner) to get a new tenant into this portion of the property, but none qualified under the allowed uses in the Agriculture zoning district or per the regulations concerning the change of uses on a legal nonconforming property. Due to the attempted leasings, sale, and now rezoning request for the property, the site and structure have not been deemed abandoned per UDC Section 14.01.060. Location: The property is located on the east side of North Austin Avenue, just south of NE Inner Loop. Currently, IH-35 Exit 264 Northbound exit ramp terminates directly across Austin Avenue from the northern portion of the property. This ramp and intersection is being removed and relocated further south, and the intersection to the north rebuilt and regraded in conjunction with the rebuilding/relocating of the Lakeway Boulevard bridge. Physical Characteristics: The property is generally a triangular shape, with 550 feet of frontage along North Austin Avenue. A subsetted 0.5 acre area was at some point created, most likely for tax purposes with the County, around the metal building on the southern portion; this ‘division’ does not impact how the City recognizes the property (as one property). The property has been utilized as two separate properties (a clearly defined fence line running east/west), with the northern end containing the A-frame building being separated from the southern portion, including the gravel parking area around the approximately 8,000 SF rectangular building. The southern end has two driveways to Austin Avenue, and the northern portion one driveway, with no interconnectedness between the two internally. See the graphic above, and Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map. Surrounding Properties: The property is almost at the southeast corner of North Austin Avenue and the NE Inner Loop road. The west boundary is North Austin Avenue, and the property comes to a point at the north end with a property owned by the City near the intersection of these roads. To the east is a 28-acre property with multiple zoning districts (General Commercial, Local Commercial, and a portion Industrial). See the chart below, the graphic above, and Exhibit 4 – Aerial map. Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North AG-Agricultural Community Commercial Vacant South AG-Agricultural Employment Center Residential East C-3 – Gen. Commercial Community Commercial, Employment Center Vacant West N/A – Austin Avenue N/A Roadway Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 7 Item # R Planning & Development Staff Report 2815-17 N. Austin Avenue Rezoning Page 4 of 7 Utilities All areas of the City and ETJ are placed within a Growth Tier policy category (see below) that identifies where to stage contiguous, compact, and incremental growth over a period of the next two decades or more. These Tiers dictate where the delivery of municipal services may be focused, and thus, where growth is desired to occur. This property is in Tier 1B. Tier 1A designates areas within the current city limits where some infrastructure systems are in place, can be economically provided and/or will be proactively extended, and where consolidation of the city’s development pattern is encouraged over the next 10 years through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Tier 1B designates areas within the present city limits that were recently annexed or subject to development agreements, which are presently underserved by infrastructure. Tier 1B will require the provision of public facilities to meet the city’s growth needs as Tier 1A approaches build-out, over the next 10 years. Tier 2 designates areas within the ETJ where growth and the provision of public facilities are anticipated beyond the next 10 years and where premature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inefficient development is discouraged by the City. Tier 3 designates areas within the ETJ where growth, annexation, and the extension of public facilities are anticipated beyond 20 years, and premature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inefficient development is discouraged by the City. * The City can change the Growth Tier designation through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process only during the Annual Update cycle. The Annexation Service Plan for this specific property contains the following provision (Exhibit C, X. (4), page 8 of 10): “X. Summary of Current Water and Wastewater Service Extension Policies 4. If any property in the annexed area is using a septic system – the property owner remains responsible for the operation and maintenance of the septic system. If the septic system fails before City wastewater services is extended to the property, then the property owner must either repair the septic system or pay to connect to the City service as it may then exist.” The property is currently served by an on-site septic system, which the applicant plans to continue to use. Therefore, the applicant did not have to submit for and receive a Utility Evaluation from the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) regarding wastewater service availability. The site is served by a 12” water line that runs at the front of the property on the east side of Austin Avenue. Having a septic system, and being a Tier 1B designee, the time horizon for connecting to wastewater lines is approximately ten years, or as nearby Tier 1A areas build out, or development agreements are made. The provision above clarifies the cost responsibilities for the property’s wastewater service. Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 7 Item # R Planning & Development Staff Report 2815-17 N. Austin Avenue Rezoning Page 5 of 7 Transportation The property has approximately 550 feet of road frontage, and three current curb cuts, on North Austin Avenue. Currently, the project to realign and rebuild the Lakeway Boulevard bridge and intersection with NE Inner Loop is underway. The new bridge will move south and form a ninety-degree at-grade intersection with NE Inner Loop at Austin Avenue. The current Exit 264 NB ramp that intersects with Austin Avenue will be moved approximately 1,000 feet southward, to a similar 90-degree intersection. With the above project, it is anticipated that the two northern-most driveways employed by this property will be unnaccessible due to construction of a retaining wall on the east side of Austin Avenue, but the existing southernmost entrance will be able to be maintained to serve the property. Should the property be redeveloped, the access could possibly be moved, depending upon the layout of the new development. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not deemed necessary for review of this rezoning, but the requirement may be triggered at some point with future applications. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Currently, the property is designated with the Community Commercial (CC) and Employment Center (EC) future land use categories; see Exhibit 2. As noted under the Utility section, the 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1B (Developing Growth Area), which is the portion of the City where infrastructure systems are not intended for improvement within the next ten years. Only the City can change this designation during an annual update process. Proposed Zoning District Currently, the property is zoned Agriculture (AG), the default zoning given a property upon annexation. The proposed district is described in the Unified Development Code (UDC) as: 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. Typical uses in this district would include service and retail, offices, restaurants, hotels, and entertainment/recreation options. In order of intensity, the C-3 District is the most intense of the three Commercial districts (CN, Neighborhood Commercial and C-1, Local Commercial, precede it). Table 7.03.020 of the UDC maintains that a C-3 District be a minimum size of five (5) acres; this property is adjacent (to the northeast) an existing 4.5 acre portion of land zoned C-3, which will create an approximately 6.5 acre district. Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 7 Item # R Planning & Development Staff Report 2815-17 N. Austin Avenue Rezoning Page 6 of 7 Future Application(s) The applicant has stated that they intend to reuse the property in as close to the existing condition as possible, with the expanded array of uses afforded by the C-3 District. Per Chapter 14 of the UDC, the property is currently considered legal nonconforming in regards to the site and structure. It has been determined that the legal nonconforming aspects of the site and structures will still need to be addressed, which could possibly require a Site Plan application if physical improvements were deemed necessary. Should the applicant, or a future property owner, seek to partially or completely redevelop the property, the following applications could possibly be required: · Subdivision Plats; · Site and Construction plans; · Building permits for construction; and · Certificate of Occupancy for any new structures and tenants. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff reviewed and analyzed this application from the following points-of-view, resulting in a position of support for the application: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning The general area around the intersection of North Austin Avenue, NE Inner Loop, and Lakeway Boulevard (the new bridge and configuration) is overlaid with a node of the Future Land Use category of Community Commercial (see Exhibit 2). While typically fulfilled with a C-1 (Local Commercial) designation it may be fulfilled with a C-3 designation in certain circumstances. In this case, the future land use surrounding the Community Commercial node is Employment Center, potentially supporting more intense commercial development than would residential development. Additionally, several other properties within this node, both adjacent and across IH-35, are already zoned C-3. This property, combined with an adjacent 4.5 acre portion of land zoned C-3, will create an approximately 6.5 acre C-3 zoning district. Utilities As noted, the property is already served by City water, but has – and plans to maintain - an on-site septic system. Having a Tier 1B designation, there is no immediate plan by the City to bring a wastewater line to serve this property. Should the applicant wish to redevelop and access those utilities, they would submit a Utility Evaluation, working with the Georgetown Utility System to determine how to serve the property with the necessary utilities. Should the City decide to make this a Tier 1A development area, then utility improvements for this area would likely be placed in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and the City would review development applications based on this possible change. Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 7 Item # R Planning & Development Staff Report 2815-17 N. Austin Avenue Rezoning Page 7 of 7 Economic Development There has been documented history of difficulties finding legal tenants that can meet the existing zoning district and stay within the parameters of the UDC regarding the legal nonconformities of the property. Approval of the C-3 District could rectify the issues associated with the allowed uses. Findings for Approval The rezoning request can be supported by Staff for the following reasons: 1. Future Land Use Map – In this particular location, with the Future Land Use designations of Community Commercial (a node) and Employment Center (surrounding that node) over the property, the proposed C-3 zoning can provide for more intense commercial uses in this non-residential planned area. 2. Adjacent Zoning Districts – Surrounding zoning includes General Commercial (C-3), Industrial (IN), Local Commercial (C-1), and the default Agriculture (AG) districts, which would all be complemented by this proposed rezoning. 3. Current and Future Use of Property– The proposed C-3 District will provide the applicant a wide variety of tenant options for the current state of the property, as well as future uses that would fulfill the Future Land Use categories should the property be redeveloped. Though done in the past, the City no longer considers or approves the “conditional” rezoning of properties, and therefore, cannot rezone the property for any specific use(s), or concept plan, presented by an applicant. Staff must consider the impact of all the permitted uses in the requested district (C-3) when evaluating a rezoning request as well as all site development possibilities. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of four notices were sent out to the owners of property within 200 feet of the subject property. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on March 18, 2012. As of the day of this report, there have been no comments submitted to staff. Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Map Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map Meetings Schedule April 3, 2012 – Planning and Zoning Commission April 24, 2012 – City Council First Reading (pending) May 8, 2012 – City Council Second Reading (pending) Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 7 Item # R N IH 35 NBL A K E W A Y D R N IH 35 FWY NB E X I T 264 NB NE INNER LOOP N AUSTIN AVE REZ-2 012-002 0 160 320Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1REZ-2012-002 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # R NE INNER LOOP N IH 35 NB N AUSTIN AVE L A K E W A Y D R N IH 35 SB I N D U S T R I A L P A R K C I R EXIT 264 NB EXIT 262 SB N IH 35 FWY SB N IH 35 FWY NB 0 300 600 Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Legend Thoroughfare EC EF EMA EMIA ERF PC PF PFR PMA PMIA PR Future Land Use Institutional Regional Com mercial Community Com mercial Ag / Rural Residential Employment Center HIgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Com munity Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2REZ-2012-002 REZ-2012-002 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # R N IH 35 NBL A K E W A Y D R N AUSTIN AVE EXIT 262 SB N IH 35 FWY SB N IH 35 FWY NB E XIT 264 N B NE INNER LOOP 0 225 450 Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ REZ-2012-002 LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Zoning Information Exhibit #3 REZ-2011-001 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # R EXIT 264 NB NE INNER LOOP N AUSTIN AVE 0 150 300 Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4REZ-2012-002 REZ-2012-002 Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # R Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / April 3, 2012 Page 1 of 3 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM Council Chambers 101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Commissioners: Ercel Brashear, Chair; Porter Cochran, Annette Montgomery, Sally Pell, John Horne, Roland Peña and Robert Massad Commissioners in Training: Scott Rankin Commissioner(s) Absent: Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: Staff Present: Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Jordan Maddox, Long Range Planner; Carla Benton, Planner; Mike Elabarger, Planner; Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; David Munk, City Engineer; Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary. Chair Brashear called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Brashear stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker form to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3) minutes, unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins. Regular Agenda 10. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to General Commercial (C-3) District for 2.04 acres of the Flores A. Survey, located at 2815 and 2817 North Austin Avenue. REZ-2012-002 (Mike Elabarger) Staff report by Mike Elabarger. The property was annexed into the City in 2005 with the default zoning designation of Agriculture (AG), and the applicant has requested to rezone the property to the General Commercial (C-3) District. The applicant recently purchased the property, which has had issues getting legal tenants during the past 18 months, and now wishes to rezone to a commercial district that provide it the most flexible and long-term solution. The requested General Commercial (C-3) District will address the applicant’s immediate needs, as well as future redevelopment needs. Because the property was created and developed prior to being annexed into the City (and the inception of the Unified Development Code in 2003), per Chapter 14 of the UDC, the property is considered legal nonconforming in regards to the site, lot, and structure. Specific aspects of any nonconformities will be identified and addressed during the re-occupancy process. The property has approximately 550 feet of road frontage, and three current curb cuts, on North Austin Avenue. Currently, the project to realign and rebuild the Lakeway Boulevard bridge and intersection with NE Inner Loop is underway. The new bridge will move south and form a ninety-degree at-grade intersection with NE Inner Loop at Austin Avenue. The current Exit 264 Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # R Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / April 3, 2012 Page 2 of 3 NB ramp that intersects with Austin Avenue will be moved approximately 1,000 feet southward, to a similar 90-degree intersection. With the above project, it is anticipated that the two northern-most driveways employed by this property will be inaccessible due to construction of a retaining wall on the east side of Austin Avenue, but the existing southernmost entrance will be able to be maintained to serve the property. Should the property be redeveloped, the access could possibly be moved, depending upon the layout of the new development. Chair Brashear invited the applicant to speak. The applicant was not present. Chair Brashear Opened the Public Hearing, no one came forward, and the Public Hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Massad to recommend to the City Council approval of the Rezoning for 2.54 acres in the Flores Survey, from the Agriculture (AG) District to the General Commercial (C-3) District. Second by Pell. Approved. (7-0) 17. Adjourn 9:09pm Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # R Ordinance Number:___________ Description: Rezone from AG to C-3 Date Approved: _______, 2012 Page 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the Zoning District Map adopted on the 4th Day of April 2002 in accordance with the Unified Development Code passed and adopted on the 11th Day of March 2003, to rezone 2.54 acres of the A. Flores Survey, from the Agriculture District (AG) to General Commercial (C-3) District; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City Council for the Purpose of changing the Zoning District Classification of the following described real property ("The Property"): 2.54 acres of the Antonio Flores Survey, as recorded in Document Number 2011087754 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the zoning district classification to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and Whereas, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days for the first day of such publication; and Whereas, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and Whereas, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and Whereas, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on April 3, 2012, recommended approval of the requested zoning change for the above described property from the Agriculture District (AG) to General Commercial (C-3). 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 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 of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # R Ordinance Number:___________ Description: Rezone from AG to C-3 Date Approved: _______, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Section 2. The Zoning District Map of the City, as well as the Zoning District for the Property shall be and the same is hereby changed from the Agriculture District (AG) to General Commercial (C-3), in accordance with Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Legal Description) incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect on the date of final adoption by City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 24th day of April, 2012. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 8th day of May, 2012. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ______________________ _________________________ Jessica Brettle By: George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # R N IH 35 NBL A K E W A Y D R N IH 35 FWY NB E X I T 264 NB NE INNER LOOP N AUSTIN AVE REZ-2 012-002 0 160 320Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1REZ-2012-002 Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # R At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 9 \ n P a g e 1 o f 2 It e m # R At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 9 \ n P a g e 2 o f 2 It e m # R City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending litigation that has been filed against the City or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including but not limited to this week's agenda items ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # S City of Georgetown, Texas May 8, 2012 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Municipal Court Judge Biennial Performance Evaluation ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # T