HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 04.08.1986THE CIZY Of GEORGETCWN
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 8, 1986
7:00 PM
1. Minutes
2. Bills over $2,000.00
3 Canvas Electicn Returns and certify results
4. Swear in mayor, council members and mayor pro -tem
5. Award computer software bid - David Quick
6. Award banking services bids - David Quick
7. Award Crystal Knoll over -size utility line bid - Allyn Mcore
8. Ordinance - two hour parking to one hour parking - Emergency
Reading - Hugh Anderscn
9. Contract fcr legal consulting services - Randy Stump
10. Planning agenda items:
A. Consent Items:
1. Williamsburg village - Resubdivision Plat
2. Variance - section 3.05 of Subdivision Ordinance - The
Village at University Park
B. variance - building line encroachment - 3005 Gabriel View
C. variance - building line encroachment - 1257 Main
D. Ordinance - rezoning lot 5, 6 and west 82" of 7 & 8 block
9 - 2nd reading
E. Ordinance - rezoning 1405 & 1407 Williams Dr. from RS to
C-1 - 1st Reading
F. Serenada Oaks - Revised Preliminary Plat
H. Planning Report
11. Power Road Drainage Prcject - Ray Green
12. Historic Improvement Project change order #1 & #2 - Ray Green
13. 16th Street Drainage Project Change Crder #2
14. Ordinance - signature authority - lst reading - Frank Reed
15. Trench Burner - Allyn Moore/Phil Webb
16. Set Council Goal's Workshop
17. Executive Session Under Art. 6252-17 Sec. 2 (e) Litigation
18. San Gabriel Park Request - Roy Hcliday
Misc.
1 -
utility lines and final determination of the proposed
service connections for this development during
construction plan review.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the plat conditional upon the following:
1. All ordinance requirements being met and final construction
Approval as recommended by staff above.
It
plans being approved
2. Utilities being adequate
3. An easement for the stormwater detention facility including
outflow easement, if necessary, shall be shown on the plat
and a Drainage Facility Maintenance Covenant being filed
with the plat
4. The requested trade-off for the water connection shall be
approved after applicant has established ownership of both
properties and executed a written agreement with the City.
5. The following variances being granted;
a. To allow the existing parking spaces within the front
yard of lot 2B to remain,
b. To allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces
required for both lots by 10%,
C. To allow the elimination of required Public Utility
Easements upon confirmation by Public Works that these
easements are not necessary for existing and/or future
service.
City Council Action:(5-0)
Approval as recommended by staff above.
It
r
L
1603 NORTHWEST BLVD.—VARIANCE FROM OFF—STREET PARKING
REQUIREMENTS
I ,; -
Location Map
Applicant:
Request•
t
L.
M.M. Casey
PO Box 1113
Georgetown, Tx 78627
863-0526
1^2000'
Variance from Section 7.111 "Off—street Parking Requirements" of
Zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in the number of spaces
required from 31 to 19 for Tract "2" out of Nicholas Porter
Survey Abs. 497 recorded in Vol. 928 page 509 of County Deed
Records.
Facts•
Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of Northwest
Blvd. with Washam Dr.
Surrounding Area: Existing and proposed land use is
multi—family residential and office
warehouse.
Subject Property: Office use
Development Plan: District 4b
a T-:Xt. 2
Analysis:
This site is the former office of Parker & Rodgers Construction
Company which was the subject of a zoning change request on May
14th, 1985. The owner had initially requested an Industrial
zoning district classification but changed the request to
Commercial First Height district. Each of these requests were
denied by both P&Z and Council.
Applicant subsequently received a building permit to remodel the
existing structure which included the conversion of a portion of
the building formerly devoted to enclosed storage to office
space. No site plan was submitted with this permit application.
The Building Official contends that he assumed that the parking
requirement could be met by utilizing the yard area between the
existing building and the ROW of Washam Dr. However, the
approval for the curb cut and street work has been delegated to
the Public Works Division. Thus, after the interior remodeling
work was substantially complete, applicant sought approval for
the required 108 ft. curb cut which was denied by Public Works on
the grounds of traffic safety concerns. Planning staff agrees
that this type of parking arrangement does create traffic
problems and should be avoided whenever possible.
As indicated by the survey plat submitted with the request, there
is additional area on Tract "2" that could be used to fulfill the
requirements. However, the applicant has stated that this
portion of the lot is currently being leased under separate
contract and is not available for use by the future tenants of
the office building.
Staff Recommendation:
Granting of the variance to allow a reduction in the required
number of parking spaces from 31 to 19 with the following
conditions:
1. No further building_permits or utility connections shall be
issued for Tract 2 which will increase the number of
required parking spaces or further reduce the ability of the
applicant to eventually come into compliance with the
ordinance.
2. Tract "1" and Tract "2" shall not be resubdivided until
compliance with standard parking requirements is met for all
existing and/or newly created lots.
City Council Action: (5-0)
Approved as recommended by staff above.
I
c Sb.LL"
asphalt
N 4/' /3' E - 27i.1 '
S4/' /3 ' h/
As '
i
603 NORTHWEST BOULEVARD^^ITWOSTORY /YA some 8 CONCRETE
ZOO'S
si*Wc'-,,e s
S' 4/' /3 N'' - 325.00 '
Gr/As,y rrl e)v, •
TRACT 0/m
28,/54.5 SO. FT. - (0.6463 ACRES)
VOL. 928, PG. 509 DEED RECORDS
OF WILLIAMSON CIX/NTY, TEXAS
I
convetesvar- -
f
L dr U/LDIN4
is
GOYCr<d concrete
TRACT "2 "
37/0224 SO. FT. - (0.85/7 ACRES)
VOL. 928, PG. 509 DEED RECORDS
OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
i FufG
I TANKS
f(tL
cave 7ANf5
L.i __—dr y_nmlvarj
4W LVIN
I
B 91'4T 7
4lWl Aal WF
Gla 009 Row m I
maf mad amt D"x 7
A49 An I"
1 f1 L1 Q C)
viva anzm
6VXB1 'Nr1S/ry
ars arms
O.,rxH Bll9
3a1 W laavop
OMMeN1N0 '_
4
N 1
ON00fN1M1s _ .
9 mod
A 19 ,•?bozo
1061 0
b r -
jnM1 .
boz
So
rooz.0 a+ioss • + c .>
vozn 1h: - .
dti 549 M,4i,'.bb4 1 t -
l
I I
C Lill
A.3.
L
203 Thousand Oaks Blvd.- Variance from Sign Requirements
cation Map
Applicant:
Request:
William Ullman
919 Congress Ave
Austin, Tx 78701
480-5527
1"=2000'
WN
A variance from Section 2.0401 (14) "signs" of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow an "off -premises" sign on Lot 2B Thousand Oaks
Section Four as recorded in Cabinet H, Slide 125.
Facts:
Location: South of Thousand Oaks Blvd. on the west side of
IH -35. Lies in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone
inside City limits.
Surrounding Uses - An apartment complex is across Thousand Oaks
Blvd, to the north, a car wash is located on Lot 1 and
a laundry is on Lot 2A, to the west; and the detention
pond for Sierra Vista lies to the south.
Development Plan: District 9C. Commercial use is recommended
3. )n.
History:
The original plat of Thousand Oaks Section IV was recorded in
April, 1985. The resubdivision of Lot 2 was recorded April 14,
1986.
Analysis:
The previously referenced section of the Zoning Ordinance allows
only "signs used in connection with and on the same lot as the
establishment to which they refer." Thus, "off -premises" signs
or billboards are not permitted. A check of the records of the
Planning Dept. and the Building Official indicate that no
variance to this restriction has even been granted. Care should
be taken, therefore, due to the precedence represented by this
case in order to avoid the proliferation of advertising not
essential to the reasonable conduct of business.
The size and shape of lot 2B, especially in conjunction with its
location at the dead end of a collector street, will make the lot
difficult to develop. Thus, one can reasonable expect that the
search for an appropriate end user will require a much longer
time than a more "normal" commercial lot. Also, because Thousand
Oaks Blvd. does not connect through, the exposure of the existing
businesses on Lots 1 and 2A is severely limited. However, the
visual proximity of Lot 2B to IH -35 does present a viable use of
the property as advertising space. Allowing this use should
improve the usefulness of all three lots.
Another important fact is that Lots 2A and 2B are under the same
ownership. Thus by simply vacating the resubdivision plat of
lot 2, the proposed sign (except for references to the car wash)
would conform to ordinance requirements.
Staff Recommendation:
Granting approval of the variance with the following conditions:
1. All ordinance requirements including the most recent version
of the Texas Highway Beautification Act, except the
on -premises" requirement shall be met
2. The sign shall only advertise those uses on Lots 1 & 2A
Thousand Oaks Section Four,
3. The "reader board" portion of the sign shall be eliminated
see Exhibit A attached)
4. The sign shall be removed upon the occurrence of either of
the following:
a. At such time as Thousand oaks Blvd. is connected to a
frontage road along IH -35
b. Prior to this issuance of a building permit for Lot 2B
5. The sign shall be limited to two primary colors only. One
color for the letters and the second color for the
background and poles
6. The sign shall be located inside the platted setback area
see Exhibit B attached)
City Council Action:(5-0)
Approved with conditions as recommended by staff above.
11
0
N
Q$
41
0
THOUSAND ,$,-, OAKS BLVn
OWN&f;
7AMAROW PR0,Pter1fS
0 S&W1"NV PARKWAY
k1SrhV, 7E'V5 79710K
vi., plat have been rotated !,-, the Texas Plane Co -
Iles'. lot: 12,050.92 feet
ae r c i a I
e required along one si,!e of all streets for a
tet from school property,
ed on this plat as green b -It, drainage, common
Pf &.9 a P
R4AI L407701
M
X
R.O.W. kight of Way
B. L. building Line
1'. ti. E. Public Utility
Iron Pin Found
0 Irun Pin Set
U.C. Underground it -w,
s
T
kiI
2) One double pofe structure eritht sA
a) 4' z 12' double face "Mr. Laundry" signp internallyIlluminated.
b) 4' z 8' double face "Car Wash" Signs internallyilluminated.
one non -salvageable 3' x 8' double faced raaderboardonthe &aas structure.
11 07
Qhce
203 1 ct.ra-„c -. --- - —
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Randall Gaither, Chief Current planning
Date: April 16, 1986
RE: Roadway Alignment Study for the Proposed MORAN
Roadway
On May 14, 1985 Council passed a resolution approving the
concept of the MORAN Roadway and agreeing to participate
in the acquisition of R.O.W. and relocation of utilities
for the project. Recently the MORAN Associ.ati.on has
presented two alternate alignments (see Exhibit IA & 1B
attached) to the Planning Department and requested a
recommendation as to which of the routes is preferred by
the City. Also requested is the City's preference as to
which type of roadway constructed.(i.e. Expressway or
Parkway as described on Exhibit 2 & 3 attached) should
be These alternatives were created primarily in response
to the concerns of property owners along the route of
Alternate A who have City and/or County approved
stibdi.visions which are severely impacted by this proposal.
After reviewing each of these proposals, (see Exhibit 4
attached) staff has determined that a reasonably founded
recommendation cannot be inade on this matter without a
much more detailed assessment of the potential impacts of
this decision. Furthermore, given the number, scope, and
priority of tasks already underway and scheduled for
completion during 1986 it is not possible for staff to
perform a reliable study of this magn.i.tude within the
required time period wi.thout delaying project already
underway.
Therefore, there are several alternatives from which to
choose. The first is to essentially do nothing and let
the MORAN Association make this determination. The second
is to hire an outside consultant specializing in this type
of work to prepare an impact analysis and recommendation
for presentation to Council. Even if the second option is
chosen, some staff time will be required to describe a
general scope of work, select a consultant or group of
candidates, and coordinate with whichever firm is
selected.
An option of last resort would be for staff to perform the
study including public hearings at the expense of delaying
work on other project.
LJ
rAL
0
t
In summary, we request council direction regarding the
routing and design of the proposed MORAN Roadway. The
options are:
1. Inform MORAN that the City has no preference
2. Select one of the alternatives without- further study
public hearings may or may not be included)
3. Begin the selection process for a consultant to
perform a study and make a recommendation.
4. Delay other active projects and staff to perform
study including any desired public hearings.
We were pleased to meet with you and other City of Georgetown staff the
other day to discuss the MOKAN project. As we discussed, we have begun to
investigate two basic alignments in the Georgetown area (see enclosed
sketch).
Alternative A is the alignment originally conceived in earlier studies and
follows Hutto Road and the Inner Loop roadway currently under construction.
MOKAN would then extend across SH29, the San Gabriel River, and interchange
with IH35 at SH195.
Alternative B extends east of the existing Indian Creek development and
intersects SH29 approximately one mile east of Alternative A. This
alternative also would tie into IH35 at the SH195 interchange.
Both alternatives are approximately the same length. We have not yet
evaluated construction costs, although there is no apparent reason that
they would be substantially different. The San Gabriel River crossing
profiles are quite similar.
We realize there are important land development and utility service issues
you need to evaluate for your community. We would appreciate your review
of the alternative MOKAN alignments and any other comments you may have
that would affect the design of this facility. If we can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (713) 875-9292. We look
forward to hearing from you soon.
Very truly yours,
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF
eco 'e
ames P. Anglin
JPA/bjm
Enclosure
AmIkIl b Enpinaen Pk,nnere Sulk, 700, 575 Weed Grwrra Road, Houston, Tom T70N, 777 8754M
Partnere James F Finn PE. Paul L Heineman PE. Gerard F Fox PE. Browning Crow PE. Charles T. Hennigan PE. Edgar B. Johnson PE, Daniel J. Watkins PE,
Daniel J. Sppai PE. John L Colon PE, Francs X. Hall PE. Robert S. Coma PE. Donald A. Guides PE, William Love AIA. Pill) D. Miller PE. James L Tow. Jr. PE.
Hugh E. Schap PE. Cary C. Goodman AIA. Gordon H Slaney. Jr. PE
Aaeoclabe Daniel J Appel PE. Robert W. Richards PE. Don R. On PE, Frederick H. Sterbenz PE. Robert B. Kdlmar PE. Kendall T. Lincoln CPA. Jack P. Shedd PE,
Roberts W. Smithem PE Richard D. Beckman PE, Harry Q Bertosse PE, Ralph E. Robison PE. Cecil P. Counls PE. Stephen G Goddard PE. Harvey K. Hammond. Jr. PE.
Stanley I Masi PE. Roden W Anna PE. Walter Sharko PE. James O. Russell PE, Ross L. Jensen AIA. Frank T Lamm PE. Alexander F Silady PE. John W. Wight PE.
Thomas K. Dyer PE. Ronald W. Astons AIA, H. Jerome Buller PE. Busse M. Carriere PE. Michael P. Ingardia PE. Bernard L. Prince PE, Stephen B. Quinn PE,
Saul A, Jacobs PE, James A. Smah. Ronald F. Turner AIA. C Frank Hamner, III, Ewing H. Miller FAIA, Douglas C. Myhre PE. Cad J. Mellea PE
OWk Alexandria. VA, Atlanta. GA. Austin, TX. Bacon Rape, IA, Boston, MA. Casper, Wry, Charleston, SC, Charleston, W. Chicago. IL, Clevebnd. OH. Dallas. TX,
Denver, CO, Fainted, NJ, Houston, TX, Indianapolis. IN. Kansas City, MO. Lexington. KY. Lexington, MA, Los Angeles, CA, Miami FL, Milwaukee, WI,
Mmneapons, MN, Newark, DE. New York, NY. Orlando, FL. Overland Park, KS. Philadelphia, PA, Phoenix, AZ, Raleigh, NC. Seattle. WA, Tampa. FL. Tulsa. OK
69.11
Aj 9tl A N Ek11/13/T / R
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN BERGENDOFF
January 16, 1986 41, 1py
Mr. Mike Lauer t,
Georgetown Planning Department
City Hall
Georgetown, Texas 78726 e,
RE: MOKAN Highway
Alignment Studies
Dear Mike:
We were pleased to meet with you and other City of Georgetown staff the
other day to discuss the MOKAN project. As we discussed, we have begun to
investigate two basic alignments in the Georgetown area (see enclosed
sketch).
Alternative A is the alignment originally conceived in earlier studies and
follows Hutto Road and the Inner Loop roadway currently under construction.
MOKAN would then extend across SH29, the San Gabriel River, and interchange
with IH35 at SH195.
Alternative B extends east of the existing Indian Creek development and
intersects SH29 approximately one mile east of Alternative A. This
alternative also would tie into IH35 at the SH195 interchange.
Both alternatives are approximately the same length. We have not yet
evaluated construction costs, although there is no apparent reason that
they would be substantially different. The San Gabriel River crossing
profiles are quite similar.
We realize there are important land development and utility service issues
you need to evaluate for your community. We would appreciate your review
of the alternative MOKAN alignments and any other comments you may have
that would affect the design of this facility. If we can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (713) 875-9292. We look
forward to hearing from you soon.
Very truly yours,
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF
eco 'e
ames P. Anglin
JPA/bjm
Enclosure
AmIkIl b Enpinaen Pk,nnere Sulk, 700, 575 Weed Grwrra Road, Houston, Tom T70N, 777 8754M
Partnere James F Finn PE. Paul L Heineman PE. Gerard F Fox PE. Browning Crow PE. Charles T. Hennigan PE. Edgar B. Johnson PE, Daniel J. Watkins PE,
Daniel J. Sppai PE. John L Colon PE, Francs X. Hall PE. Robert S. Coma PE. Donald A. Guides PE, William Love AIA. Pill) D. Miller PE. James L Tow. Jr. PE.
Hugh E. Schap PE. Cary C. Goodman AIA. Gordon H Slaney. Jr. PE
Aaeoclabe Daniel J Appel PE. Robert W. Richards PE. Don R. On PE, Frederick H. Sterbenz PE. Robert B. Kdlmar PE. Kendall T. Lincoln CPA. Jack P. Shedd PE,
Roberts W. Smithem PE Richard D. Beckman PE, Harry Q Bertosse PE, Ralph E. Robison PE. Cecil P. Counls PE. Stephen G Goddard PE. Harvey K. Hammond. Jr. PE.
Stanley I Masi PE. Roden W Anna PE. Walter Sharko PE. James O. Russell PE, Ross L. Jensen AIA. Frank T Lamm PE. Alexander F Silady PE. John W. Wight PE.
Thomas K. Dyer PE. Ronald W. Astons AIA, H. Jerome Buller PE. Busse M. Carriere PE. Michael P. Ingardia PE. Bernard L. Prince PE, Stephen B. Quinn PE,
Saul A, Jacobs PE, James A. Smah. Ronald F. Turner AIA. C Frank Hamner, III, Ewing H. Miller FAIA, Douglas C. Myhre PE. Cad J. Mellea PE
OWk Alexandria. VA, Atlanta. GA. Austin, TX. Bacon Rape, IA, Boston, MA. Casper, Wry, Charleston, SC, Charleston, W. Chicago. IL, Clevebnd. OH. Dallas. TX,
Denver, CO, Fainted, NJ, Houston, TX, Indianapolis. IN. Kansas City, MO. Lexington. KY. Lexington, MA, Los Angeles, CA, Miami FL, Milwaukee, WI,
Mmneapons, MN, Newark, DE. New York, NY. Orlando, FL. Overland Park, KS. Philadelphia, PA, Phoenix, AZ, Raleigh, NC. Seattle. WA, Tampa. FL. Tulsa. OK
69.11
Til
EOENrnitt U.S.
IAdl mnlgreek _
15 •.
High Sle ia
r _
Mokall
N
pll • _ 9Kos _
M Kgn/ -
AEW -1146/ T /8
0000
C;bo
15 0
0 000
a .
TRANSPORTATON TEftMINA
ppyo
pO00 IL'
rXygQ
l f: I
Scenic I '
Easement
PROPOSED i
ROW -
I
I
iPROP
rR0.w.
I
I
i
Scenic
Easement
NOTES:
Wri
Tran a twa y
f Scenic
a Easement
MOKAN
I
IPROPOSE
ROW
of
US183 TO OUTER LOOP
PARKWAY SECTION
IM
400' minimum R.O.W.
TranJ_ NOKAN
I
l n ii1
OUTER LOOP TO IH35
FREEWAY SECTION
I. Ultimate Lane requirements will be
determined by project traffic analysis.
2 Width of scenic easement to be
determined by SDHPT.
Vanes
36' 32'
PROP
I
R.O.W.' .
I
l;
t
I
Seeni c
Easement
MOKAN
EXHIBIT 2
DESIC;N OPTIONS
TYPICAL SECTIONS
HNTB
HOWARD NEEDLES TAUMEN 5
5000' desirable minimum between interchon
2000' minimum weave
Minor Arterial
P0 n
t5ecl
ons `
eeo
MOKAN
Parallel Collector
Major
Arterial
MOKAN - Parkway Section
1500'
desira
Major
Arterial
1
1200
Minor Arterial/ desirableCollector
r:7
Major
Arterial
I
Major
Arterial
AN
MOKAN - Freeway Section
with Frontage Roads Not to scale
MOKAN
EXHIBIT 3
D65t6iN OPT 10NS
Interchange Spacing/
Ramp Locations
HNTB
HOWARD NEEDLES TAWIEN a BERGENDC
MOKAN-r=XHISI-C 4
List of Preliminary Planning Concerns Regarding
PK
MOKAN ROW Alignment
pet ed 6y Glt"C 0" + Plan 7-)epar-Tn ent Ap,;1,1994O
I. Western Route (Alierna4 A)
A. Positive Aspects
1. Less impact on productive agricultural land
2. Less likely to promote sprawl
3. City presently "controls" subdivisions along route
route within ETJ)
4. Some ROW (50-125 ft) existing along route5. No existing housing would be displaced by route6. Scenic Vista of City from Hwy 297. Alignment within present sewer service area
8. Shares inner loop alignment
B. Negative Aspects
1. Noise impacts from ridge
2. Several major landowners along route prefer not to have
the road on their property
3. A portion of the route drains into the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone
4. Interference with proposed subdivisions
a. Stonehedge-streets 6 utilities have been installed
but impact could be minimized by shifting alignmenttothewest. Impacts of this route would include:
i) minor changes in interior road network of
Stonehedge
ii) movement of TP 5 L high voltage line
iii) buffering of development will be needed
b. Rolling Meadow/Rolling Hills- these preliminary plats
would require 125 ft. minimum dedication if:
i) MOKAN is centered on Hutto ROW
ii) Parkway design is used
c. General
i) How is the;landowner tc be compensated for
cost -ofROW (ie the holding land)
ii) What is the City's liability:
a) for holding land (ie takings)
b) if MOKAN falls through
c) if alternate route is chosen
d) if development in proposed route occurs
C. Other
What are the geographical boundaries of a potential RUD?
How would a HUD effect the City's effective tax rate?
Would the route affect the impact or likelihood of a RUD?
ZZ. Eastern Route (Afterna4t, B
A. Positive Aspects
1. Basin provides good noise buffer
2. Interchange at Hwy 29 easily engineered3. Out of Recharge basin for the Edwards Aquifer4. Route would have less visual impact on landscape
B. Negative Aspects
1. No sewer service in near future
2. Promotion of short to mid-term Urban Sprawl/Binodalization3. Several existing homes in ROW
4. Re-routing of inner loop would be required
5. City presently has no subdivision control over foute
south of the river
6. Consumption of farmland
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT
AND REQUESTING THAT THE TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
WITHHOLD APPROVAL OF THE PETITION FOR THE FORMATION
OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS 7
AND 8 UNTIL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE
PROPOSED DISTRICTS ON THE HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE
OF THE AREA'S RESIDENTS ARE DETERMINED.
Whereas, the Berry Creek Ranch, Ltd. partnership has
petitioned the Texas Water Commission for creation of two
contiguous Municipal Utility Districts on FM 2238 that are one
half mile outside the City of Georgetown's extraterritorial
Jurisdiction; and
Whereas, the City Council desires to ensure the most
appropriate and beneficial use of land, water and other natural
resources, in order to preserve, promote, protect and improve the
public health, safety, comfort, order, convenience and general
welfare; to prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid undue
concentration or diffusion of population and urban land uses; to
facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of
transportation, water, wastewater, school, park and recreation
facilities and housing and employment opportunities; to conserve,
utilize and protect cultural resources, consistent with the
public interest; and
Whereas, the formation of the proposed Municipal Utility
Districts could significantly impact the quality and volume of
the City's groundwater, the use and condition of the City's
infrastructure, and the demand for City services;
Whereas, the Texas Water Commission has scheduled a public
hearing on the proposed Municipal Utility Districts for May 7,
1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
THAT the City of Georgetown requests the Texas Water
Commission to delay granting approval of the petition until the
petitioners can reasonably assure the commission that:
a. the proposed districts will not cause a significant
degradation in the quality of the water in the
Edwards aquifer through the recharge of salts,
organic chemicals, or any other contaminant,
b. the timing of development and the intensity of land
use in the proposed districts will not result in the
depletion of public groundwater supplies,
t
C. the proposed districts will not result in excessive
demands upon the City's schools, fire protection
service, roads, parks, library, or any other
facilities or services.
d. the specific and general concerns of the City as
indicated on Attachment "A" to this resolution have
been satisfactorily addressed.
Read, Passed and Approved this __ day of
19
ATTEST:
Pat Cabellero
City Secretary
Jim Colbert, Mayor
11 ATTACHMENT "A"
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 17, 1986
RE: Williamson Co. MUD's 7 and 8
The Planning Department has recently received notification of the
petitions for two contiguous Municipal Utility Districts (MUD's)
on the north side of Andice Road approximately 2.5 miles past the
City limits on that road and roughly one half mile outside the
City's ETJ. The 897 acres included in the MUD's are planned for
approximately 1560 single family residences, 680 multifamily
residences and 28.5 acres of office and commercial use. The
size, location and nature of the proposed districts merit further
evaluation by the City.
The proposals should be evaluated on the basis of their impacts
on:
a) the quality of City water supplies
b) the volume of City water supplies
c) City facilities
d) the ultimate size of Georgetown and its service area
a) Water Quality -- Wastewater for the MUD'S will be
collected, treated and disposed of via irrigation near the
banks of Berry Creek. Because of the property's location on
the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and the high
susceptibility of the aquifer to contamination, the
likelihood of a degradation of the quality of the City's
groundwater supply is high. More of the details of the
proposed wastewater treatment plans are required for a full
evaluation of the projects' potential impacts on groundwater
quality.
Specifically, the treatment standards, the methods of
controlling the infiltration of salts and organic chemicals,
and relationship of the irrigation area to the floodplain
should be determined. Three sinkholes that drain into the
aquifer are of significant concern. The two on-site
sinkholes in district eight do not drain significant areas,
but the petitioners have proposed the location of
multifamily structures in the basin. Runoff from the
parking lots could provide a concentrated source of
contamination. Of greater concern is location of the MUDs'
irrigation basin just 200 feet upstream of an in -stream
sinkhole that, according to the petitioners' hydrological
study, provides an appreciable amount of recharge.
b) Water Quantity -- Chisholm Trail Water Supply Corporation
is the proposed source of 100% of the MUDS' water. The
impact of this proposal on the City's water supply is
dependent upon both the source of the water Chisholm Trail
chooses to supply and the timing of the demand in relation
to the City's increased surface water availability from
Stillhouse Hollow.
c) City Facilities -- The creation of a new population center
in such close proximity to the City will undoubtedly
increase the demands on the City's roads, fire department,
schools, parks, library, and other facilities without
contributing to the tax base. The addition of over 7600
people to the region with no planned services or amenities
other than roads, water and sewers will certainly place an
additional hardship on the residents of the City who must
pay for those services. Both the Superintendent of
Georgetown Independent School District and the City's Fire
Marshal have indicated that they do not have adequate
facilities to serve this new population. The GISD
Superintendent has also expressed scepticism that the MUDS
could be served without an increase in the tax rate.
d) City Size -- The MUD is a mechanism used to finance
utility systems in remote areas. The district issues bonds
which are retired with fees and taxes assessed to the
property owners. Neighboring municipalities assume the
balance of the debt if the property is annexed before the
bonds are paid off. The proposed bonded indebtedness for
the two districts is $22,185,000 or roughly 1.4 times the
City's current total bonded indebtedness. The tax liability
and the possible incompatibility of the utility systems can
effectively prevent the City from growing beyond the
boundaries of the MUD.
One possibility that the City should investigate is that
the MUDs may become an independent municipality. The
existence of both the infrastructure for utilities and
services as well as the procedures for billing and taxing
residents increase the likelihood of incorporation. The
Planning Department is currently working with staff to
establish ultimate service areas and is not yet able to
recommend appropriate boundaries to the Council or to
determine the effect of the proposed MUDS on those
boundaries.
e
City of Georgetown
Planning Report for the
City Council Meeting
April 8, 1986 7:00 pm
Planning Items:
A. Consent Items
1. Williamsburg Village - Resubdivision Plat
2. Variance - Section 3.05 of Subdivision Ordinance -
The Village at University Park PUD
B. Variance - Building Line Encroachment - 3305 Gabriel View
C. Variance - Building Line Encroachment - 1257 South Main
D. Ordinance - Rezoning - Lot 5,6 and west 82' of Lots 7 & 8
Block 9, Revised City of Georgetown Map - 2nd Reading
E. Ordinance - Rezoning - 1405 & 1407 Williams Dr. from RS
to C-1 - 1st Reading
F. Serenada Oaks - Revised Preliminary Plat
G. Planning Report
E
1 oca )lion Map Aor
Apr,/ % /986 C.y
uwn a. .nt .weawn.
City of Georgetown, Texas """""°'"• =`
A.1) WILLIAMSBURG VILLAGE - VACATING AND RESUBDIVISION Plat
Location Map
Applicant: Zared Corporation
Rt 4 Box 4284
Belton Tx 76513
Agent: Victor Turley
301 N. 3rd Street
Temple, Tx 76501
869-7961
Request:
1"=2000'
Approval of the vacating and resubdivision plat of
Williamsburg Village a 10:3 acre subdivision recorded in
Cabinet H, Slide 85-87 of the Official Records of Williamson
County, Texas.
Facts:
Location: At the southwest corner of Booty's Crossing
Road and Williams Drive.
Surrounding Area: Is commercial and undeveloped. Existing
zoning is C -2B (commercial second height
district).
Williamsburg Village -vacating & resub. - page 2
Proposed Use: Three retail commercial lots
Development Plan: District 4A - Proposed use substantially
conforms to Development Plan.
History:
Plat was conditionally approved by Council on July 9, 1985
and recorded March 20, 1986.
Analysis:
The purpose for this resubdivision is to divide the existing
Lot 2 at the corner of Booty's Crossing Road into two
separate lots, one of which is to be developed as a
restaurant. Lot 1 is currently under construction for a
90,000 sq. ft. shopping center.
There are two basic impacts caused by this plat. The first
involves some minor modifications to the drainage and
utility construction plans. Applicant has agreed to revise
and resubmit plans. The second involves potential traffic
problems associated with the proliferation of small lots
with individual access points to a major thoroughfare.
In order to maximize the capacity of a roadway and provide
for future sequential signalization only access points
with a "collector street" status should be allowed direct
access to Williams Drive. This means that the amount of
traffic in trips per hour should be at the collector
street level rather than the local street level. Ideally
these connections should be :-based upon the design speed
of the roadway, but generally for 40 mph about 200 to
300 ft. is adequate. This concern on this site has been
addressed by providing common access easements for the
two smaller lots so that all shopping center traffic
can use the same approaches to the thoroughfares.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the resubdivision with the following conditions:
1. All ordinance requirements being met and utilities being
adequate
2. Applicant shall comply with the Landscape ordinance.
P & Z Recommendation: (5-0)
approval as recommended by staff above.
City Council Action: (5-0)
Approved by consent as recommended by P & Z above
2) Variance - Section 3.05 of Subdivision Ordinance -
The Village at University Park PUD
M
ti ti
s.•
s,+
I
Location Map 1"=300'
Applicant: JSJ Joint Venture
3415 Greystone, Suite' 304
Austip, Tx 787 31
345 5413
Agent: Planned Development Concepts (Jeff Eastman)
3415 Greystone, Suite 304
Austin, Tx 787a
345 5486
Request:
The granting of a variance from Section 3.05 of City
Subdivision Ordinance to allow the issuance of utility
and/or building permits prior -to -completion of required
improvements. on Lots 6-9 Block "L" of -The Village at
University L'ark_PUD a resubdivision of University Park Section
One.
SaAysBray, i _ yaJ•.
00 16`
Oo00000da o
o OaaOtliln p1
oo. aoeoA n82
M
ti ti
s.•
s,+
I
Location Map 1"=300'
Applicant: JSJ Joint Venture
3415 Greystone, Suite' 304
Austip, Tx 787 31
345 5413
Agent: Planned Development Concepts (Jeff Eastman)
3415 Greystone, Suite 304
Austin, Tx 787a
345 5486
Request:
The granting of a variance from Section 3.05 of City
Subdivision Ordinance to allow the issuance of utility
and/or building permits prior -to -completion of required
improvements. on Lots 6-9 Block "L" of -The Village at
University L'ark_PUD a resubdivision of University Park Section
One.
The Village at
University Park - page 2
Facts:
Location: South of Hwy 29 and northeast of Hutto Rd.
Surrounding Areas: Undeveloped land and proposed average
and small lot single family residential.
History:
Plat was recorded August 5, 1985. On January 28, 1986
the City Council unanimously approved the granting of
variance allowing early issuance of building permits,
for twelve lots in University Park Section One, subject
to the following conditions:
The following criteria will be met prior to issuance or
a building permit:
1. A performace bond issued to the City of Georgetown
will guarantee the completion of all unfinished
improvements necessary for City acceptance of sub-
division.
2. The public streets fronting the lots on which the
model parks are to be built will be paved such that
the lots will have access to exisiing public streets.
3. The City will not issue Certificates of Occupancy
until all subdivision improvements have been completed
and accepted by the City of Georgetown Public Works
Department.
4. All other criteria the City of Georgetown has for
issuance of building permits will be met.
5. Applicant to pick up cost of land acquisition ($2,250)
of adjacent reserve strip and pick-up cost of connection of
street & utilities systems through acquired reserve strip to
his project.
Analysis:
This request may be considered as a technical correction
to the previously granted request described above. It
appears that either the applicant has changed his mind
as to which lots are to be used for model homes, or the
original letter of request was in error. Therefore, this
request represents a shift in the previously granted
approval from Lots 33^35 to Lots 6-9 of Block "L".
The Village at
University Park - page'
33
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the request to allow issuance of building
permits prior to completion of subdivision improvements
on Lots 6-9, Block "L" Resubdivision of University Park
Section One subject to the same conditions previously
established for Lots'33=36, Block "L" provided that Lots
33-36 shall not be granted building permits prior to
completion of subdivision improvements.
City Council Action: (5-0)
Approved by consent as recommended by staff above
B. 3005 Gabriel View - Variance - Encroachment into Building
Setback
Location Map
Applicant: Joe B McMaster
PO Box 127
Georgetown, Tx 78626
86 3-05 31
Request
Variance from Section 2.0203(b) Side Area Regulations
of the City Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1' encroachment into
the 7' side yard area of Lot 16, Block "A", RiverBend
Unit II subdivision Cabinet D Slide 88-90.
Facts:
Location: On the west side of Gabriel View Drive on the
curve north of John Thomas Dr.
Development Plan -District 5
Site and Surrounding area- Zoned RS Residential Single
Family District and all uses are single family
residential.
3005 Gabriel View - page 2
The subdivision plat was filed in 1975 under a previous
subdivision ordinance, which did not required PUE along
each property line.
Analysis:
Applicant has filed a letter of "no objection" from
adjacent property owner with the Planning Department.
The Building Official has recommended approval of request
due to site constraints. Review of the site sketch
indicates that the only option available to avoid variance
would be to :
1. Reduce the size of the house,
2. Shift structure to southeast approximately 21.
The second option is not desirable due to the already
tight distance between the entry to the garage and the
property line. Thus, a reduction in the size of the
structure is the more feasible solution.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
Variance not be granted. Structures should be designed
and sited to accommodate both site constraints, and
ordinance requirements in order to avoid conflicts.
City Council Action: (5-0)
Variance granted as requested
O
ai
w ti y
MUTHA
Do
M NMLE
0
o
STP.2£T
ll C44T
6p
MC MASTaR,
LOT (, aLocr- A
eiOLQ okiiT -rr
iikI,Aiu',Il} (.) .,PI, )1t111,'V10...
To: Planning Department Date: 3/MA 2cH %86
Subject: Request of Variance - Seining Gkam9e
A request for Variance-d4mimg G+a ge is being requested
by: 1 JR , J . /' / c %L'//S T"E/' _ for
Address)
Let No. IL Bik:___A_ Addition: R) ek L&FI V 1'
R•-asoa for Rgst: J1J1/ 9Ei1/E/L4L LRry int_ 4,6 &mu -p
BEES L G,fT/oN _PRE&.QTS MuGX _ /Iody.,r E/Y7-
Piease provide the Building Department with a cooy of the final
action taken by the Planning b Zoning Commission or City Council.
xre,x 44
FRANK E. WINEINGER 64,11t -DIN Kt
Building Official GLJ/f NXT ?r t:A5 1 f4
N6lyXx m,4 Tv RrryXT `!S
J rt ren rIE X.s i/o mt J Tior/s.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN POST OFFICE Box .uw GF.ORGFTOWN. TEAS 78020 TELEPHONE 512.•803-5533
AN 1QUAL CWMMLO.wIv LAIMOYMI
LAW OFFICES OF
JOE B. MCMASTER, P.C.
JOE B. MCMASTER
LEE NORTON BAIN
CYNTHIA WHITLOW
JOHN B.MCMASTER
Mr. Randall Gaither
Planning Department
City of Georgetown
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas
Gentlemen:
MCMASTER & BAIN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
114 WEST EIGHTH STREET, POST OFFICE BOX 627
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626
April 1, 1986
78627-0409
AREA CODE 512
TELEPHONE 863-0531
255-3709
In re: Reauest for variance
I am building my house at 3005 Gabriel View. In order to
preserve the nice trees located on the lot to the fullest extent,
I need a variance from the seven (7) foot building set back to a
six (6) foot set back. A plat is attached.
I'll appreciate your favorable consideration as soon as
possible.
JBM:lp
my yours,
KcMaster
pQR
G cge
own
C. 1257 South Main Street - Variance - Building Line
See location map preceeding)
Applicant: Larue Hemberger
1257 South Main
Georgetown Tx 78627
869-2505
Request
Variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 2.0203 Part l.b.
to allow the construction of a detached accessory building
some 10 ft. into the required 10 ft. street side yard.
Also, a variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 2.0203 Part
l.c. to allow an increase from 308 to approximately 32%
in the area of lot covered by structures is requested.
Facts:
Legal Description: Lot 1 and the South 65' of Lot 2, Block I
of the Logan Addition as recorded in
Cabinet A, Slide 26 of the Plat records
of Williamson County, Texas.
Location: Inside City limits,at northeast corner of the
intersection of 16th Street with Main Street.
Development Plan - District 1
Zoning District - RS Residential single family
Existing & Surrounding Land Use - Appears to be single family
residential
History:
On March 11, 1986 Council unanimously denied the requested
variances pending resolution of the status of an alley
ROW shown to be crossing the property.
Analysis:
According to a copy of a deed recorded in Vol. 172 page
161 of County Deed Records the alley shown on the survey
plat was relocated 60' east from its original position
on October 23, 1915. Therefore, this concern has been
resolved.
The existing garage encroaches across the full 10 ft.
street side yard and the deck at the rear of the house
is 2' too close to the side property line (Zoning Ordinance
Section 6.204). Applicant has indicated that existing
garage is to be demolished.
1257 South Main Street - page 2
Applicant has also indicated that the use of the proposed
structure is for storage of antique automobiles and various
other items.
An analysis of the site indicates that there are at least
two options available to avoid the necessity for a variance.
The first would be to reduce the proposed size of the
structure by 10 ft., thus providing the required street
side yard and reducing the coverage by structures to'30%
assuming the existing garage is demolished.
A second option is to rotate the structure ninety degrees
and construct adjacent to the 7' interior side yard lines.
This arragement will accommodate a 24x50 ft. structure with
no variance. However, it will restrict vehicular entry into
the structure from the narrow end unless the relocated
15' alley can provide access.
Staff Recommendation:
Denial of request.
City Council Action: (5-0)
Denial of request
L. r- -nry tMcD FOR I zu a {Ent E2GB2 JOB N0.
APROVEI E T -:SURVEY OFj/u,:den Eowe¢o i;s¢ Q o Wicsy Ma¢cnrz6r
0
OF' RECOR0:Afi Vet me '35,3. FlmP 24.4 OF THE — peec> RECORDS OFW!u si.a ao t COUNTY,TEXAS.
PERIMETER DESCRIPTION. ATTACHED SCALE: I` -SO'
NOT REQUIRED LEGEND: IRON PIN FOUND •
IRON PIN SET O
r
e f T N
2
e ,T Lsr Sid f- _ // s'z
U dwvem, y z 3, ss r9
t
a Kr< rem I ti o £al e,7 -
IN
TN
dig' 3( t
3 9 e
of . :•;
yZ,1' i I i `;"• ec c,r n c lei; R.bJG (512
oR
J +
n w. gin•,., vl+rlo , /
9-vf a er
a ro 32
K, aaYti i.p g
P'....,.. - *.s. irl / - 'l.• '?vim
cS'Ug/S%c/ A/`fefndo f iQr ri9- , c7_3
vim
u(c,nlM;, 14 14,11401lvIn..
To: Planning Department Date:
Subject: Request of Variancertg-6k+a»gc—
A request for Variance., is being requested
by:
Address) ,/j
Lot No. 74]k:— 4ddition:
Reason for (qT Crx7<40Ec
III Li ve.
for
Please provide the Building Department with a copy of the final
action taken by the Planning b Zoning Commission or City Council.
FRANK E. WINEING
Building Official
THE CITY OF GEORGETOCS'N POST 0111(1 h+-)A4uo (,FOR(,IIURN-I7-S-4ti's62o 1TLEI'MW 512'80-5511
Mg V nm,nra
57 , ' AA4--7-
Yl-Qot_ S a. Q.® X,, S Ct . car V --t r Q- ci
b cl1CtVN.
a
0cx-1ct.ttcst -ir +41-% }ollOvJt" V2aJOtitS:
51, tnn t l t A w O t to %+v -.a a-' tp ar
Z . S+ 45 ra -. o- j =..,+j $,I- r. -Lo
3. S -I Q Y -CL o f lo k, 'k-4 i I J
STU r c, O* GO I Q't 3 Y'a-U t 8 •.a. S w 11.0 i t V
Z h., -.J.,- -i Illk" -tin1Sa..,
1.
vaQ VLQ-i j b 50Y -S rl ..wr ltk
SJ
Io M
f4..tt.sir tOwtas mwAa w iWtru45 t Utcitn,.
7 Vl-a^tit S 'tw C>AQ Q.K.C9., tm r ^+1/' :"l` N.a. C:L"
3/a/
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE "ZONING ORDINANCE"
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, ON THE 12TH
DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1968, AMENDING A PART OF
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE ORIGINAL
ORDINANCE; TO CHANCE THE PROPERTY OF
CRAIG M. BROWN IDI THE NICHOLAS PORTER
SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 497 IN THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, FROM R -S RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY DISTRCIT TO C-1 LOCAL COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT WITH USE RESTRICTIONS AS HEREINAFTER
SET FORTH:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
TEXAS:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to the City Council for
the purpose of changing the zoning ordinance on the following
described real estate:
All of Lots 5 & 6 and the west 82.0 feet of Lots 7 & 8,
Block 9, Revised City of Georgetown Map as recorded in
Volumed 1 of the Deed Records of Williamson
and more fully described on the attached plat - Exhibit A.
WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change has requested
of said City that such change of zoning district classification
be made conditioned on use of said tract only for:
1. Sale of goods and products at retail which serve the
local area as projected by the Northwest C.B.D. Plan
2. Commercial Parking Facilities
3. Professional Offices
AND WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed
change in the Zoning Ordinance to the City Planning Commission
for its recommendation and report; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, before adopting this amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance, gave notice of such hearing by publishing
same in a weekly newspaper in the City of Georgetown, Texas,
which notice of such matters as required by law including the
time and place of hearing and which time was not earlier than
fifteen days from the day of such publication; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended the
changing of said Zoning Ordinance on the above described property
from R -S Residential Single Family District to C-1 Local Commercial
District which said meeting was held on the 4th day of March, 1986.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the
City of Georgetown, Texas, that the Zoning Ordinance, and the
Zoning Map of the City of Georgetown, be amended so that the
property described above shall be and the same is hereby
changed from R -S Residential Single Family District to C-1
Local Commercial District subject to the condition evidenced
by the supplemental application executed by Craig M Brown
dated the day of , 19 86, which is recorded
in Volume Page of the Official Records of Williamson
County, Texas, for notice purposes. Said condition being that
if said tract of land described above ever is used for any
purpose except:
Sale of goods and products at retail which serve the
local area as projected by the Northwest C.B.D. Plan,
2. Commerical Parking Facilities,
3. Professional offices.
then, such zoning shall ipso facto revert to the former zoning
of RS Residential Single Family without the necessity of any
action by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Georgetown, and accordingly the zoning ordinance and zoning map
shall designtate same.
Read, passed and adopted this 11 day of
Read, passed and adopted this day of
on the second reading.
ATTEST:
Pat Cabellero
City Secretary
Approved as to Form:
Stump & Stump
City Attorney
March
Carl J. Doering, Mayor
City of Georgetown
1986.
1986 ,
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION
FOR ZONING CHANGE
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
WHEREAS, Craig M Brown, of Williamson County, Texas is
the owner of the following described prperty, to wit:
All of Lots S and 6 and the west 82.0 feet of
Lots 7 & 8, Block 9 Revised City of Georgetown
Map as recorded in Volume 26 Page 321 of the Deed
Records of Williamson County, Texas as shown on
the attached Exhibit "A,"
WHEREAS said owner has petitioned the City of Georgetown
for a chance in zoning from RS Residential Single Family to
C-1 Local Commercial District and;
WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting on March 11, 1986,
applicant requested that the classification be given and
further assured and represented to the City Council that use
of the above described property would be limited to:
1. Retail sale of goods and services which serve the
local area as projected by the Northwest C.B.D.
Plan,
2. Commercial Parking Facilities,
3. Professional Offices
only, and owners further represented to the City Council
that should said City Council grant the requested zoning
change from RS Residential Single Family to that any use other
than those listed above upon said tract then would cause
the zoning classification of the above described property
to ipso facto revert to the former zoning of RS Residential
Single Family without the necessity of any action by the
Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown,
Texas, and
WHEREAS, the undersigned does hereby manifest his intent
that this agreement as to the City Council of the City of
Georgetown's passing of the aforesaid change to the zoning of
the above described property as herein requested by applicant
in return for the undersigned's agreement as to use restrictions
and automatic reversion upon use restriction violation as
herein described be binding on the undersigned, his heirs,
legal representatives, devisees,, assigns and grantees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown did
permit such application to be made and thereafter acted
favorable on such petition or application for a zoning
change; and
WHEREAS, said owners desire to put down in writing said
condition subsequent;
THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that we, the
undersigned owners hereby agree as follows:
a) That said application and said zoning change to C-1
from RS is further restricted by this agreement that
said property will only be used for the following
purposes, to -wit:
1. Retail sale of goods and services which serve the
local areas a projected by the Northwest C.B.D.
Plan,
2. Commercial Parking Facilities,
3. Professional Offices
b) That any use excpet as listed in (a) above upon said
tract shall cause the zoning classification of the
property to automatically revert to RS Residential
Single Family without necessity of any action by the
Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown,
Texas.
c) That this agreement is intended to be and shall be binding
on the undersigned, his heirs, legal representatives,
devisees, assigns and grantees of the undersigned applicant.
d) That a copy of this document shall be recorded in the
Official Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the
purpose of providing notice.
EXECUTED this day of , 1986 .
r
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day
personally appeared known to me
to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the
same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the
day of , 19 86.
Notary Public, State of Texas
printed name of Notary
My Commission expires
E. REZONING 1405 & 1407 WILLIAMS DRIVE
Location Map 1"=1000'
Applicants: (Lot 3) G.W. Walker
1407 Williams Dr
Georgetown Tx 78628
86 3- 3902
Lot 4) Charles B Stockton
PO Box 210
Georgetown Tx 78627
86 35477
Request:
Rezoning of Lots 3 & 4 Block 1 of Gabriel Heights, as
recorded in Cabinet B Slide 5 of the Plat records of
Williamson County, Texas from RS Residential Single Family
to C-1 Local Commercial District.
Facts:
Location: On the northeast side of Williams Drive,
southeast of Shannon Lane between the
Jehovah's Witness Church and the Certified
Savings Branch Office.
Rezoning - 1405 & 1407 Williams Dr - pg 2
Surrounding Uses: In addition to the two uses specified
above, the Northside Elementary School
adjoins the northeast boundary of
this property, single family houses
are located to the north and across
Williams Drive.
Surrounding Zoning: RS and RM -3 as shown on the attached
map.
Existing Use: Two single family residences
Existing Zoning: RS Single family residential
Analysis:
General Area- Increased traffic noise and declining
traffic safety have created a dilemma along Williams
Drive. The noise from traffic on the City's only
Northwest arterial is reducing the desireabilitv of
adjacent property for use as residences. Two basic
solutions to this problem are:
A. Buffer and screen residences from the traffic,
B. Find a compatable replacement use.
Buffering the properties through the use of extensive
landscaping is the simplest and least expensive method
of reducing traffic impacts on Williams Drive residences.
Sufficient setbacks for buffers are necessary to ensure
adequate visability for vehicles entering Williams Drive.
Admittedly, transition to a use for properties such as
this is rapidly approaching its time. However, such
transition should be done in a very controlled environ-
ment and under a uniform plan which mitigates negative
aspects of the change without losing the positive
aspects of the existing uses.
Changes in zoning that allow uses more compatible with
higher traffic volumes can significantly increase those
volumes. Strip commercialization of Williams Drive will
decrease the safety and capacity of the roadway by
increasing both the volume of traffic and the number of
turning movement conflicts.
To minimize the number of points of conflict,commercial
development should be confined to major intersections
and to the greatest extent possible, use shared access.
Concentrating commercial development serves the purposes
of improving both traffic safety and the aesthetics of
a road. Burnet Road provides an excellent example of
what Williams Drive could become without proper planning.
Rezonining 1405 & 1407 Williams Dr. - page 3
In addition to the resultant traffic problems, commercialization
of Williams Drive could decrease the desireability of
the surrounding neighborhoods. The 1981 supplement to the
Comprehensive Plan included the following:
The single family nature of Williams
Drive from Morris Drive to Golden Oaks
Drive/Power Road is considered an
integral part of the district's goal
toward neighborhood preservation.
Further development of this part of
Williams Drive with higher intensity
land uses could be detrimental to the
viability of the surrounding neighbor-
hoods and possibly result in a com-
mercial strip from Interstate 35 to
Serenada Drive.
Site Analysis- The site of the proposed zoning is
adjacent to a school, a church, and the branch office
of a bank. It is also close to the off -set inter-
sections of Country Club and Shannon Lane. While this
intersection currently causes a traffic problem, the
traffic is projected to more than triple in the next
10 years.
A traffic signal will soon be installed at the intersection
of Country Club and Williams Drive. Any change in land
use in the vicinity of the signal should be evaluated
for its impact on this project in order to avoid reducing
its effectiveness.
The applicants were informed of the traffic problems
and the desire to preserve the residential character
of the surrounding neighborhoods to the greatest
extent possible, however, the submittal does not
address proposed land use or proposed methods of
addressing area concerns.
Summary of Findings -
1. Existing traffic problems are likely to increase
over the next decade,
2. Commercial use of this site will aggravate
traffic problems,
3. Submittal failed to address traffic concerns,
4. Preservation of the adjacent residential
neighborhoods is a desireable objective,
Strip commercialization will reduce the livability
of these neighborhoods,
5. The applicants have not presented any proposals
for the use of the site and the requested district
allows a broad range of uses.
Approval of land use changes such as this and similar
requests should only be done conditional upon conformance
to an overall plan, tighter land use restrictions than
currently afforded by the Zoning Ordinance, and a
specific use site plan being approved after thorough
evaluation of impacts.
Rezoning -1405 & 1407 Williams Dr. Page 4
Planning Staff Recommendation:
Disapproval of request to rezone Lots 3 & 4, Block 1
of Gabriel Heights from RS to C-1.
P & Z Recommendation: (5-0)
Disapproval of request for zoning changes.
Approval of request for Council to authorize the Planning
Department to set up a :public hearing for Planning Commission
to gather imput from area property owners as the beginning
step to the formulation of a comprehensive plan for the area
along Williams Drive from IH -35 to Booty's Crossing Road.
City Council Action: (4-0) 1 abstain
Table the request pending approval of plan
4-0) 1 abstained
Planning Department instructed to prepare a public hearing of
the Planning and Zoning Commission within 3D days to gather
input from the neighborhood effected by a proposed plan
to govern the transition of the area each side of Williams
Drive from IH -35 to Power Road from single family to a more
compatible land use. Within 30 days of said hearing the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall develop a specific
proposal to achieve this goal and hold a second public
hearing to approve this proposal. The proposal shall then
be presented to the Council for approval.
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE "ZONING ORDINANCE" PASSED AND
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS, ON THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1968, AMENDING A PART
OF THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE:
TO CHANGE THE PROPERTY OF Charles B. Stockton S G.W. Walk
IN THE Nicholas Porter SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 497
IN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, FROM RS Residential SingT—
Family DISTRICT TO - oca ommercia
DISTRICT AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to the City Council for
the purpose of changing the zoning ordinance on the followingdescribedrealestate:
Mot 3, Block 1, Gabriel Heights,Georgetown-1407
Williams Dr, and 2) Lot 4, Block 1, Gabriel Heights,
Georgetown -1405 Williams Dr. as recorded in Cabinet B
Slide 5 of plat records of Williamson County, Texas
more fully described in attached plat- fthibit "A"
AND WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed change
in the Zoning Ordinance to the City Planning Commission for its
recommendation and report; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, before adopting this amendment to
the 'Zoning Ordinance, gave notice of such hearing by publishingsameinaweeklynewspaperintheCityofGeorgetown, Texas,
which notice of such matters as required by law including the
time and place of hearing and which time was not earlier than
fifteen days from the day of such publication; and
WHEREAS, written notice of such matters as required by law wasgiventoalltheownersofthelandwithin200feetoftheabovedescribedpropertyasrequiredbylaw; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended the
changing of said Zoning Ordinance on the above described propertyfromRSResidentialsinglefamilyDistricttoC-1 Local
Commercial District which said meeting wasHeldonthe1stdayofApril1986
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the CityofGeorgetown, Texas, that the Zoning Ordinance,and the ZoningMapoftheCityofGeorgetown, be amended so that the propertydescribedaboveshallbeandthesameisherebychangedfrom . RS Residential Single family District to C-1
Loca Commercia District.
Read, passed and adopted this 8 day of April 19 86.
Read, passed and adopted this day of 19onthesecondreading. —
ATTEST:
Pat Cabellero
City Secretary
Approved as to Form:
Stump & Stump
City Attorney
Carl J. Doering, Mayor
City of Georgetown
rcn,i a—A 11/nc
r
ya
GABRIEL HEIGHTS
r
ADD;TION TO (,ITV of rfORGETOwlf,TEXAS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT
1 Cab. a. SIidt 5
SCALE Inc
M - 40 • 9391. I pp Y q .M q0
1= aI- A, . 5 6 7 8 9 ° 10 "—
PARK LANE
1L\ / ••
t
rt1NN -- Ica-
4)1
e Ito If
7 8 9
BL_0i,K 4
Lp
wi 1 •.I i• • - ZF. .4 !
Tro I
o M o
e{^
GEORGETOWN IN
I - ., . • p.1R 9 6 .
s
J -
c •, - 9
ISI a-i I
1 •
Q:. _
r II v
w '
s••` °°p •
SJJ•f0'f
i
a• \ xf oo I w. — eo r
y •
1r
I lvnsw9 t..e - .
I _ oryl: I Q
i hunt E•Mwpn• i' a. aOONBLOCKIOfHpp(!.1( ....w.. Z NR•fR f
1C igarrpYPUR
q.'i;;SQ..E. 411
In--T-0p ::.%N.:::i.:, n;:.: 'D<e:::y:.;:i?i GC ONGf fOMV
s t . Cn s • . w _ r tyV" [ii's'..,,.i`:;'':i. ;
4 •o _ _ _
G "' • w
i1 EO .: :. „ !IMMESH S
i
1 .__ii. • _e.!ke,"??i 1wITR[SSFS f
r E-210-' L-. 5 33-40 E 92. 434
WILLIAMS DRIVF (RM 21AR)
4 a- qr or •r. •
wf r••npr npP pr :•npHr•.•N w vw fZ! 'np• t! b Jr3 urrp • ip•r pr ry
ntp S ---l. A•f pOn 4, 41T
Ezon/i//l- LoisA3'S6,
1-/e.yb lr,Q ei: bion
7- 9
F. SERENADA OAKS — PRELIMINARY PLAN
a (\
c kU cw
d SERENADA2 U Y
s
SITEX V LIA1 150i
CCS
OAK CRESaSTATES^`
GOLD
Location Map
Applicant: Gil Johnson.
9005 A Cullen Lame
Austin, Tx 78748
282-0715
Agent: Richard Kern
1214 E Hwy 79_
Round Rock, Tx
244-9111
Request:
1"=2000'
Preliminary plan approval for Serenada Oaks, a 87.8
acre subdivision out of the David Wright Survey A-13.
Variances have been requested to waive curb and gutter
street requirements, allow excessive depth to width
ratios, and allow street intersections to vary more
than 51 from perpendicular.
Facts:
Location: North of Andice Rd. between Serenada Country
Estates and Serenada West Section Three.
The tract is outside the City limits, but
within the ETJ and Edwards Aquifer Recharge
Zone.
Serenada Oaks - page 2
Surrounding Uses: Large lot single family residences
surround the property to the north,
east, and south. Adjacent tracts
along Andice Road remain undeveloped.
Faith Lutheran Church is located
on the opposite side of Andice Road.
Proposed Uses: 151 mixed lot single family residences
at a density of 2 dwelling units per
acre and a 7.4 acre commercial lot
adjacent to Andice Road.
Development Plan: District 4d. Large lot single family
residences are recommended; the proposed
use substantially conforms with the
plan, except for the commercial lot.
Utilities: The applicant is requesting City provision
of water, wastewater, and underground
electric service.
History:
On July 9, 1985 the City Council disapproved a plat on
this tract. The previous plat proposed a density of
3.98 dwelling units per acre. The previous proposal
did not sufficiently address necessary off-site waste-
water improvements. Public opposistion was strong. On
February 4, 1986 a preliminary plat was submitted to
Planning and Zoning. The plat was withdrawn for further
work by the developer.
Analysis
Land Use- The applicant's proposal for larger single
family residential lots is more compatable
with the development plan and the adjacent
land uses than previous proposals for this
tract. The proposed lots are roughly half
the size of the surrounding lots but the
subdivision is oriented to minimize the
impacts of the density differential. Also,
substantial building setback lines have been
added in excess of City minimums and the
deed restrictions have been coordinated with
adjacent owners. The commercial lot adjacent
to Andice Road represents the first deviation
from the Development Plan for Georgetown
adopted by City Council on March 11, 1986.
However, this type of use designation has
been indicated on previous proposals for this
site even though none of which was approved.
Applicant is still encouraged to find a
non-commercial" use for this 7.4 acre parcel
such as higher density residential, church,
lodge, school or recreational facility.
Serenada Oaks - page'3
The specific use of this and similar sites is a concern
due to both traffic,and aesthetic considerations which
result from the proliferation of continuous stips of
hap -hazard commercial uses along major roads. However,
an amendment to the development plan would be favorably
received if applicant agrees to conform to the requirements
of the "PUD Ordinance" with the submission of a detail/
site development plan for P & Z and Council approval,
restrict access to Andice Road, and provide a 25 ft.
landscape easement and Building Line along the road.
In spite of the improvements over the last submittal,
several issues remain in the areas of streets and utilities.
Streets and Drainage -
The applicant has proposed the construction of'3D and 40
foot roads including a 2 ft. concrete ribbon curb on
each side in conjunction with drainage swales between
the pavement and building area. The City's Subdivision
Ordinance requires that a minimum of 26 ft. of pavement with
similar drains for suburban subdivisions with lots
1 acre or larger. However for lots less than one acre
the standard is'3D foot streets with curb and gutter.
Thus, a variance is required for the roadway design
proposed. While the staff endorses the use of ribbon
curbs and wide grass lined swales for drainage purposes,
this type of design requires careful engineering and strict
control over driveway construction. Parking on the grass
adjacent to the streets will destroy the vegetation
that makes the roadside swales effective for detention
and filtration of stormwater.
The applicant has proposed the omission of culverts
from driveways to facilitate maintenance of the drainage
swales throughout most of the subdivision. To avoid
stranding residents during rainstorms, culverts should
be employed wherever the 25 year storm produces flows
that exceed 8 inches in depth. However, flow depths
of this magnitude should be avoided whenever possible
to facilitate maintenance.
The Public Works Division has objected to this particular
application of the concept of using grassy swales in
lieu of standard curb and gutter citing the following
issues:
1. A majority of the lots have drain channel frontage
ranging from 80' to 90' thus a standard 20' driveway
will result in only 60' to 70' of grassy area between drives.
This may defeat the primary objective of flow
velocity reduction and filtration,
Serenada Oaks - page 4
2. There is insufficient control within the existing
system to assure that subsequent owners will not install
substandard driveway culverts which would be detrimental
to the drainage plan as designed and add maintenance
costs,
3. No separation between utility areas and drainage
areas has been indicated,
4. Concern that over the long haul individual homeowners
will not adequately maintain the drainways,
5. Uncertainty as to the long term structural integrity
of the ribbon curb and shoulder.
The detention/common areas are to be used in conjunction
with the drainage swales, contained in drainage easements
at various locations within the property in order to
return the water to sheet flow. County regulations
require that adjacent property owners with septic systems
must approve such easements as all septic systems must
be set back 75' from drains. Due to reports of extensive
caves on the tract, a filtration medium may be necessary
in applicable detention basins to prevent contamination
of the Edwards Aquifer.
A commercial lot is proposed along Andice Road. In
order to reduce the traffic problems that accompany
strip commercial development, the tract should be limited
to residential uses or non -retail commercial uses with
no direct access to Andice Road.
Utilities -
Water service for this development cannot be provided
until the water treatment facilities are operational.
Electrical service for the development is currently
inadequate and the applicant must submit a proposal to
the Electric Department to ascertain service conditions.
The major issue for this request is the provision of
City sewer service. This was the main consideration for
the disapproval of previous proposals. The City must
approve the inclusion of this site into the proposed
area of service. The consensus of staff is that this
area should be offered sewer service for environmental
reasons and that this service should be by gravity main
along the Pecan Creek to Briarwood Section Four. However,
it will be a precedent in that it represents the first
extension of sewer into the Serenada area. There are
several areas of concern associated with this decision.
The first concern is the amendment to the Wastewater
Master Plan. How much of the Pecan Creek watershed should
Serenada Oaks - page 5
be included in this system and what will be the design
flow for the purposes of providing future capacity in
the distribution system, if any? What is the impact
of this addition on the existing downstream facilities
including distribution lines, the Reata lift station,
Park lift station and treatment plant? And finally,
how are the required improvements, if any, to be funded
and when should they be constructed? These issues,
including water and electric service, need to be addressed
in a "Utility Service Agreement" prior to final plat
approval.
A second area of concern is that created by the States
Aquifer Protection Rules" which requires existing
septic systems within 300 feet of a Wastewater line be
connected to that line within 120 days after receiving
notice from the City that capacity is available. A
policy regarding this situation is needed for this and
similar future situations.
A third problem is that of the off-site utility easements
required to connect this development to the nearest
City sewer line using gravity flow lines. Without
the power of condemnation, the applicant can be effectively
prohibited from developing this site by owners of
downstream property from whom easements are required.
Finally, a fourth problem is that the extension of
sewer service further up the Pecan Creek basin will
inevitably result in requests for higher intensity
development not in conformance with the Development Plan.
This development, if approved, will further increase
concerns regarding traffic, stormwater run-off, utility
demand, and land use incompatibility. It is even
conceivable that the environmental "savings" afforded
by the use of organized sewer collection systems will
be off -set completely by the increase in aquifer contamination
from urban stormwater run-off.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the Preliminary Plan of Serenada Oaks with
the following conditions:
1. The Development Plan shall be amended to reflect
non -single family residential use for the 7.4 acre
parcel provided that applicant agrees to:
a. Limit access to Andice Road to one common approach
with the property adjacent to the southeast,
b. Establish a 25' landscape easement and building
line along Andice Road
Serenada Oaks - page 6
C. Conform to the requirements of the PUD ordinance,
d. Restrict the use of the site to non -retail activities
such as residential, institutional, and recreational
type activites,
2. A variance for lots 22-24, Block A with depth to
width ratio in excess of 2.5 to 1 shall be granted
3. A variance waiving curb and gutter requirements
shall be denied
4. A variance for street intersections less than 5°
from perpendicular shall be granted as recommended
by City Engineer upon more detailed evaluation
5. Water, Sewer, and Electrical service shall be
extended to the site subject to the conditions contained
in a "Utility Service Agreement" approved by Division
of Public Works. The principle terms of the agreement
shall be approved by Planning and Zoning and Council
prior to submittal of final plat. The final
agreement, approved by Public Works and the
City Attorney, shall be submitted with final plat.
6. The plan shall be revised to meet all ordinance
requirements and aforementioned conditions of
approval for staff review and approval prior to submittal
of final plat.
P & Z Recommendation: (5-0)
Approval conditional upon above comments being met, with the
following amendments: #l.d.) shall read "Recommend the use
of the site be non -retail activities such as residential,
institutional, and recreational type activities"
3) shall read "A variance waiving curb and gutter requirements
shall be deferred pending further engineering review and to be
determined in conjunction with approval of the "Utility
Service Agreement" "
Additional comment # 7)to read "Change the name of Blanco to
Sevilla."
City Council Action: (5-0)
approval as recommended by P & Z above
Mr. Chris Mealy
President of the Serenada Homeowners Association
804 Austin, Ave.
Georgetown, Tx. 78627
RE: Serenada Oaks
Dear Chris:
The purpose of this letter agreement to to outline the
committments and warranties which I am making to the owners of
the lots in Serenada Country Estates, Serenada West and Serenada
East through you as the president of their home owners
association. These warranties and committments concerning
Serenada Oaks, which I am currnetly sole owner, are as follows.
1. The deed restrictions which will be recorded with all the
residential final plats are shown in the attached deed
restrictions.
2. I will notify you at least two weeks in advance
of any meetings concerning Serenada Oaks
with the City of Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
as well as the Williamson County Commissioner's Court.
3. Access to this project for construction equipment will be from
Andice Rd. only and not from any existing street in Serenada Country
Estates or Serenada West.
4. I will remove only those trees necessary to construct roads,
utility improvements and detention ponds. The trees on the
individual lots will be pr-otected by the deed restrictions. The
deed restrictions require a vegetative site plan be approved by
the Architectural Control Committee.
5. I will make some improvements to the existing drainage problem
on Sequoia Trail downstream of my property which is agreeable to
all parties involved, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Hagara, Mr. Jim
Conomos, and Commissioner Rister. At the meeting on the site on March
27, 1986 it was tenatively agreed to install 3-18" corragated metal
pipes under the pavement. They will be located further south of
the location of the existing 18" drain pipe. The exact location
is yet to be decided. If any channelization work is needed I
will also pay for this up to 200 feet in length.
I will include a letter- of credit for this
work in the first plat which I file with the County. I will
reimburse Williamson County for these improvements and reasonable
expenses when I begin work on Phase I of Serenada Oaks.
N
9
Page 2
Chris Mealy
March 28, 1986
In addition to this, if the placement of these new culverts
requires that a similar amount of culverts be placed under the
driveway to Mr. Hagara's property, Lot 45, Unit 1, Serenada
Country Estates in Williamson Co., I will pay for these culverts
and driveway improvements in the public R.O.W. at the time of
construction of this driveway or when I begin construction on my
roads whichever is later. If these improvements have already been
completed and paid for by the lot owner I will reimburse the
owner of the lot, at the time I begin construction of the roads
in Phase I of Serenada Oaks, for the costs and reasonable expenses
incurred in installing the driveway culverts.
6. Blasting is not planned for this project at this time. It is
my intent to install all the utilites by use of a rock saw and
the road excavation by means of track loaders. If blasting is
required for some reason in any area, the nearby homeowners will
be notified, a blasting permit will be obtained from either
Williamson Co. or Georgetown, and the contractor doing the work
will be licensed and bonded and insured up to at least $300,000
in liability damage. At this time it is my intent to construct
the entire subdivision with no blasting.
johletse.ric
arely,
it o nson
PROPOSED DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR SERENADA OAKS
1. The property hereby conveyed shall be used for residential
purposes only and no part of same shall ever be used for anybusinessorcommericalpurposeor• for carrying on a trade or
Profession.
2. The property shall not be divided or• resubdivided or cut into
smaller parcels or tracts for the purpose of creating additionallots. Only one single family dwelling shall be erected on anylotandanyminoradjustmentsinthelocationofboundarylines
between lots by owners thereof must be approved in writing by theArchitecturalControlCommitteehereinafternamed. No road access
easements either written or by proscription may be granted by anylotownertotheexteriorofthesubdivisionwithoutprior
written permission by the Architectural Control Committee.
3. The residences constructed on Blocks B, C, D, E, F, shall have
a living area of not less than one thousand five hundred square
feet(1,500 sq.ft.) exclusive of garages, carports and porches and
a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the outside
construction shall be of brick, stone Or masonary. Such single
family dwellings shall not exceed two stories in height and if
such structure includes a carport, the carport shall not face
toward or be open toward the front of the lot.
The residences constructed on Blocks A, 6, 11 shall have
a living area of not less than two thousand square feet (2000 sq. ft.) exclusive of garages, carports and porches and a minimum of
seventy five percent (75%) of the outside construction shall be
of brick, stone or masonary. Such single family dwellings shall
not exceed one story in height and if such structure includes a
carport, the carport shall not face toward or be open toward thefrontofthelot.
4. Any detached building, gar -age, carport, shed or structure or
addition to the first residence must be of all new material and
must be of equal construction and architectural design as the
residence. Any variation from this restriction must have prior
written approval of the Architectural Control Committee.
5. Except for fences, no buildings or str•uctur-es of any nature
shall be located closer than twenty-five (25 ft.) to anypropertylinewhichabutsastreet, nor- closer• than ten feet (10ft.) to any side or back property line. Variation from these
requirements may be granted in individual cases where tract size
or topography make these requirements impractical but any such
variation must have the prior written approval of the
Architectural Control Committee.
6. Any dwelling or other structure commenced on the subject
Property shall be completed with reasonable diligence and in all
0 Page 2
Serenada Oaks Deed Restrictions
events shalll be completed as to its exterior within six (6)
months from the commencement of construction. No building
material of any kind shall be placed or stored on the subject
property until the owner is ready to commence construction.
7. All residences shall be constructed with a driveway of
concrete at least ten feet (loft) in width running from the
street to the improvements. parking of automobiles or other
vehicles of any type on streets within the subdivision is
prohibited. No driveway culverts shall be allowed except as
indicated on the final plat. Driveway approaches shall be
designed and sealed by a Texas registered professional engineer.
S. No trailer, trailer house, mobile home, camper, prefabricated
house, basement, tent, shack, garage, garage apartment shall ever
be used as a dwelling, temporary or permanent, nor shall any of
such vehicles be stored or parked on the property without written
consent of the Architectural Control Committee.
9. The residence and other buildings must be kept in good state
of repair and must be painted when necessary to preserve the
attractiveness thereof.
10. No part of the property shall ever be used for outside,
unenclosed storage of any nature or be used or maintained as
dumping ground for rubbage or debris or fuck. Trash, garbage on
other waste shall not be permitted except in sanitay containers.
All incinerators or can or other equipment for storage or
disposal of such materials shall be kept in a clean and sanitary
condition and behind tract improvements so that they are not
readily visible from the street. The property shall be kept free
and clear of weeds and tall grass such as will be in keeping with
the other property in development at a particular time. Cars or
other vehicles may not be stored on the subject property nor
shall any car or vehicles that is not in running condition and
readily used be allowed to remain on the subject property.
11. No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised
or kept on the premises execpt those that can be classified as
household pets and none can be kept, bred or maintained for
commerical purposes, except that, subject to prior written
approval of the Architectural Control Committee a limited number
of livestock may be kept for personal pleasure or hobby, the
variety and number of which shall be at the sole and exclusive
discretion of the Architectural Control Committee. No barn or
other structure nor housing such livestock shall be erected
without the express permission of the Architectural Control
Committee first being obtained. If such permission is ever
granted, the committee shall also pass upon the size, type of
construction, and location on the subject property of the proposed
structure.
Page 3
Serenada Oaks Deed Restrictions
12. No fenced of barbed wire may be erected. No fence or wall
may be permitted near any street line within twenty five feet (25
ft.) or higher than four feet (4 ft.) unless the Architectural
control committee, in its discret ion, approves such fence or wall
in writing prior to its erection.
13. An easement ten feet (10 ft.) in width adjacent to the
property line an around the entire perimeter of the subject
property is expesssly reserved for the purposes of constructing
and maintaining conduits, telephones, electric light poles,
towers and other equipment to supply any public or private
utility services. If any rusubdivision of the subject property
is ever permitted by the Architectural Control Ciommittee, the
creation of adequate utility easements will likewise be a
prerequisite to the approval of any such resubdivision.
14. All buildings shall be equiped with approved sanitary plumbing
fixtures and plumbing installation meeting the requirements of
the National plumbing Code and shall have sewage disposal and
water supply facilites meeting the requirements standards of the
State of Texas Deprtment of Health and the City of Georgetown.
15. No building shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot
until the construction plan specifications and a site plan
showing the building location, and vegetation to be removed and
saved approved by the
Arehitectur-eal Control Committee as the quality of workmanship
and materials, harmony of external design with existing
structures, and as the location with respect to topography,
finish grade elevation and tree preservation.
16. No building shall be constructed on the property until
provisions have been make for drainage of surface water to
offsite.
17. The Architectural Control Committee is composed of Gil
Johnson, Richard Kern and one member of the Serenada Homeowners
Association. A majority of the committee may designate a
representative of the committee to act for it. In the event of
death or resignation of any member• of the committee, the
remaining shall have full authority to designate a successor.
The Serenada Homeowners Association shall always have the right
to have at least one of its appointed members sit on the
Architectural Control Committee of Serenada Oaks Home Owners
Association.
Neither the members of the committee, or its designated
representative, shall be entitled to any compensation for
services performed pursuant to this covenant.
Page 4
Serenade Oaks Deed Restrictions
18. The Architectural Control Committee's approval or
disapproval, as required in these covenants, shall be in writing.
In the event the committee, or its designated representative,
fails to approve or disapprove within thirty (30) days after
plans and specifications have been submitted to it, or in any
event, if no suit to enjoin the construction has been commenced
prior to the completion thereof, approval will not be required
and the related covenants shall be deemed to have been fully
complied with.
19. Membership in the Serenada Oaks Homeowners Association is
mandatory. Membership dues and maintenance and operation
assessements shall be established by a simple majority of the
lots in the homeowners association. One lot has one vote.
These dues and fees shall be paid by the individual
property owner into an escrow account maintained by the mortgage
company responsible for payment of taxes on this property. The
mortgage company shall have the right of collection of these fees and
assessements as stipulated in the deed of trust.
The fees and assessments shall be equally distributed among all
recorded platted lot owners.
20. The Serenada Oaks Homeowners Association has the
responsibility to maintain the two detention pond, common areas
in Serenada Oaks residential area. These two detention pond,
common areas shall be maintained such that they continue to
operate safely and adequately as a detention pond. The
ponds with common area shall be kept in a state of good
appearance. The grass shall be kept mowed.
The homeowners association also has the responsibility for
maintaining the street light system in a state of good repair and
for paying the cost of electric service of these lights until
the land is annexed by the City of Georgetown.
21. Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity
against any per -son or persons violating or attempting to violate
any covenat either to restrain violation or to recover damages.
22. Invalidation of any one of these covenants by ,judgement or a
court order shall in nowise affect any of the other- provisions,
which shall remain in full force and effect.