HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 04.22.1986THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AG
APRIL 22, 1986
6:00 PM
n
I. Executive Session Under Art. 6252-17 Sec. 2 (g) Personnel.
2. Workshop (note: workshop will last until 7:00 PM)
Consent Agenda:
3. Minutes
4. Bills over $5000.00
5. B.R.A Regional Water Study
6. V.F.W Park Building
7. Ordinance - Rezoning Block "D" lots 8-2, block "J" lots
1-26 block "L" lots 1-4, Block "E" Lots 2-8 Sierra Vista
Section One from RS to RM -1 - 2nd Reading
8. Ordinance - Rezoning Block "A" Lot 1 Sierra Vista Section
Three from RS to RM -2 - 2nd Reading
9. Ordinance - Signature authority - 2nd Reading
Regular Agenda:
10. Police Facility Change Order - Hugh Anderson
11. Library Agenda: - Parker McCollough
A) Approval of Grant Application
B) Discussion of Present Building
C) Progress Report
12. Airport Agenda: - Allyn Moore
A) Airport FBO Bids
B) Lease Terms - Square Footage Lease Amounts
C) Lease Agreement - Hanger D
D) Airport Rules and Regulations
13. Crisis Center Services Proposal - Bill Stubblefield
14. Authorize Fiscal Agent to Proceed with Library Bond Issue -
Monty Nitcholas
15. Planning Items - Randall Gaither
A) Consent Items:
1) Briarwood Section One Amended - Resubdivision Plat
2) Briarwood Section Four - Final Plat
3) 1603 Northwest Blvd - Variance from Parking Requirements
4) 203 Thousand Oaks Blvd - Variance from Sign Requirements
B) Planning Report
1) Mokan Expressway Funding Study - Randall Gaither
16. Resolution - Texas Water Commission/W.C.M.U.D. #7 & #8 -
Randall Gaither
17. Application for Water Service to Westinghouse Road - Darrell David
18. Consider Ordinance Authorizing Mayor to execute an easement
on FM 2243 to the State of Texas - Joe McMaster
19. Discuss Budget - David Quick
20. Sewer Plant Expansion Engineering Selection - Frank Reed
21. IH 35 Access Road Naming - Frank Reed
22. Swimming Pool Operation - Frank Reed
23. Over -size utility lines at Crystal Knoll - Allyn Moore
Misc.
0
0
City of Georgetown
Planning Report
City Council Meeting
April 22,1986 7:00 pm
Planning Items:
A. Consent Items:
1. Briarwood Section One Amended — Resubdivison Plat
2. 1603 Northwest Blvd— Variance from Parking Requirements
3. 203 Thousand Oaks Blvd—Variance from Sign Requirements
B. Planning Report:
1. Memo—Mokan Study
8
0
Ll
J
BRIARWOOD SECTION ONE, AMENDED:
2, Block A
Location N_r
RESUBDIVISION PLAT OF LOT
Applicant: Thomas G Foust, Jr
2609 Williams Dr
Georgetown, Tx 78628
869-4145
Agent: G.W.Schmidt & Co.
600 A Forest St
Georgetown Tx 78626
863-4594
Request•
Approval for resubdivision of Briarwood Section one, Amended, Lot
2, Block A, a 0.72 acre lot recorded in Cab. D, Slide 337-338.
Variances have been requested to eliminate specific side and rear
PUE, allow existing parking to remain in front yard of lot 2B and
to reduce required off-street parking spaces by 10%.
F3,2
Facts: Facts:
Location: This tract is located on the southeast corner of the
intersection of Briarwood Dr, and FM Road 2338 (Andice
Rd). It is within the City limits and also within the
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
Surrounding Uses: The surrounding area is undeveloped woodland
Proposed Use: Professional Offices
Development Plan: District 4b. This area is designated for
normal residential use.
Present Zoning: C -2A Commercial First Height District. The
proposed use does conform.
History:
A office building currently exists on the proposed Lot 2B site.
The original subdivision was platted May 8, 1980 and amended by
plat filed in October, 1980. City Council has previously
approved the concept of the requested trade-off on water
availability. The Planning and Zoning Commission by a 5-0 vote
recommended approval of this plat conditional upon the following
concerns being worked out with staff prior to Council action:
1. A stormwater detention facility should be planned to serve
both the proposed Lots 2A and 2B. An easement for this
facility including outflow easement if needed, shall be
shown on the plat and a stormwater facility maintenance
agreement filed with the plat.
2. A common access and driveway easement should be planned to
serve the parking spaces of lots 2A, 2B, and 1 and have one
approach connecting to Briarwood Dr, and one approach onto
Williams Dr.
3. A 10' Road Widening Easement shall be dedicated along the
southeast line of Lot 1 and 2A.
4. The requested trade-off for the water connection shall be
approved after the applicant has proven ownership of both
properties and executed written agreement with the City.
5. Any variances required shall be requested per Ordinance
requirements.
6. Staff and City Engineers comments shall be satisfied.
Analysis:
Land Use- The existing and proposed uses for these lots are good
examples of the type of low traffic demand, non -retail
commercial facilities appropriate for this portion of
Andice Rd.
kccess and Parking -Previous concerns about driveway access and
Utilities— The applicant has requested a variance from the Water
Availability policy. Since this lot has already put
into service its one allowed tap (the existing office
building), the builder would not be able to get either
another tap or a building permit for the second
structure. He has proposed a precedent setting
swap—out", promising to withhold any request for water
service for his Lot 24 Block A, of Rocky Hollow Estates
which was recorded as a duplex residential use) if. he
is allowed to transfer its approved water tap
connection to Lot 2A of this resubdivision. Approval
of this procedure may present tracking" problems for
both the Planning and Building Inspection departments
and will set a precedent regarding the implementation
of the Water Availability Policy. Some rules or
guidelines must be established by which proposals of
this nature can be determined.
In this case it does appear that the impact of the
proposed transfer, in terms of peak hour and average
day usage, is equitable and not detrimental to the
existing service system. It should be noted, however,
that until the improvements associated with the Lake
Georgetown Treatment Plant are operational, fire flow
capacity as recommended by the State Fire Insurance
Board cannot be met for even the already existing uses
in this general area.
Sanitary Sewer and electrical service are available to
the site. However, the Reata lift station downstream
from this area is currently overloaded. The Public
Works Division is working on a solution to this problem
and any participation by this development shall be
determined in conjunction with construction plan
approval.
A variance has been requested to eliminate some side
and rear lot utility easements required by the
subdivision ordinance. Staff has no objection to thLs
request subject to field verification of existing
parking layout have been addressed by the revised plan
utilizing a common access and parking area between the
two lots. A variance has been requested to allow
existing parking to remain in the new front yard of lot
2B and to allow the reduction in the number of spaces
required by 10% for both lots. Staff endorses this
request due to the safeLy benefits derived from
eliminating spaces too close to the drive approach and
allowing the preservation of an existing stand of Oak
trees. The previously requested 10' Road Widening
Easement has been deleted after discussion with the
State Highway Dept.
Utilities— The applicant has requested a variance from the Water
Availability policy. Since this lot has already put
into service its one allowed tap (the existing office
building), the builder would not be able to get either
another tap or a building permit for the second
structure. He has proposed a precedent setting
swap—out", promising to withhold any request for water
service for his Lot 24 Block A, of Rocky Hollow Estates
which was recorded as a duplex residential use) if. he
is allowed to transfer its approved water tap
connection to Lot 2A of this resubdivision. Approval
of this procedure may present tracking" problems for
both the Planning and Building Inspection departments
and will set a precedent regarding the implementation
of the Water Availability Policy. Some rules or
guidelines must be established by which proposals of
this nature can be determined.
In this case it does appear that the impact of the
proposed transfer, in terms of peak hour and average
day usage, is equitable and not detrimental to the
existing service system. It should be noted, however,
that until the improvements associated with the Lake
Georgetown Treatment Plant are operational, fire flow
capacity as recommended by the State Fire Insurance
Board cannot be met for even the already existing uses
in this general area.
Sanitary Sewer and electrical service are available to
the site. However, the Reata lift station downstream
from this area is currently overloaded. The Public
Works Division is working on a solution to this problem
and any participation by this development shall be
determined in conjunction with construction plan
approval.
A variance has been requested to eliminate some side
and rear lot utility easements required by the
subdivision ordinance. Staff has no objection to thLs
request subject to field verification of existing
DRAFT
2 ( iz~e
THE STATE OF TEXAS
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
AGREEMENT REGARDING CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE CREDITS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES
1. PARTIES. That this Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into on
this—Uay of August, 1986, by and between the City of Georgetown, Texas, a
municipa T corporation ("City") and P & W Interests, a Texas general partnership,
Williams-NPC/Georgetown Joint Venture, a Texas joint venture, Georgetown
Partners Number 1, LTD., a Texas Limited Partnership, and the Dick Matz Agency,
hereinafter referred to collectively as
Participants", whether one or more) for the purposes and considerations
hereinafter described;
1.01 AUTHORITY OF PARTIES. All of the persons signing this Agreement hereby
represent to the other parties executing this Agreement that such person has the
capacity and authority to sign this Agreement on behalf of the party it
represents.
1.02 SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. The City and predecessors of the participants
herein on February 28, 1985, entered into an agreement for the construction of
certain water and wastewater facilities more fully described therein
Facilities") entitled "Agreement Regarding Water and Wastewater Facilities and
Services" ("Previous Agreement"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
A" and incorporated by reference herein for all purposes.
The Participants as defined in the Previous Agreement have been succeeded
in interest by the Participants herein, who expressly acknowledge by this
instrument assumption by each of the Participants herein of all of the duties,
responsibilities, and liabilities under said Agreement as successors in interest
to the following parties:
a) Greenwood/Harkins owned a 52.72 acre tract, now owned by P & W
Interests, a Texas general partnership;
b) Twin Creek Properties Joint Venture, a Texas general partnership,
owned a tract of 25.471 acres, now owned by Williams-NPC/Georgetown Joint
Venture, a Texas joint venture;
c) Walter R. Carrington owned tracts of 23 acres and 57.75 acres, now
owned by Dick Matz Agency, ;
d) Gabriel Group Joint en ure, a Texas general partnership, owned a
259.4406 acre tract, now owned by Georgetown Partners Number 1, Ltd, a Texas
limited partnership (Georgetown Partners").
PURPOSES. The parties have entered into this Agreement for the following
purposes:
a) Pursuant to the terms of the Previous Agreement, Participants are
obligated to advance certain funds for the construction of the Facilities as
defined therein;
b) The Facilities are being oversized at the request of the City to
provide utility capacity in excess of what is required by Participants for their
proposed developments;
c) That under the various ordinances and other applicable policies of the
City, Participants, upon compliance with such ordinances and policies, may be
entitled to capital recovery fee credits ("CRF Credits") from the City for the
oversizing of the Facilities;
d) Under Paragraph XV of Previous Agreement, City and Participants have
reached an agreement regarding the amounts of credits due to Participants and
the method of distribution thereof;
e) This Agreement is intended to provide the sole method of Reimbursement
by City to Participants through Capital Recovery Fee Credits for oversizing of
Facilities, and that no other cash or method of financing is contemplated nor
intended;
3. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT. It is a condition precedent to City's obligations
hereunder that Participants completely satisfy and perform their duties and
obligations under the Previous Agreement. No change in Participants' duties and
obligations shall be allowed without written approval of City Council.
Page 1 of 5 Pages
x
4. CONSIDERATION. City and Participants, in consideration of (1) the mutual
promises, covenants and agreements set forth herein and in the Previous
Agreement, (2) the benefits derived by both City and Participants under this
Agreement, and (3) other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, do hereby agree to the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth.
5. AMOUNT OF CREDITS.
Amount of Credits defined. Upon the completion by Participants of all
of their duties, responsibilities and obligations under the Previous Agreement,
the total Amount of Credits under Capital Recovery Fee Ordinance due to the
Participants from the City ("Amount of Credits") is approximately $859,495.00.
Provided, however, that such amount of credit is subject to (a) adjustment as
set forth below, and (b) the other terms, provisions and conditions of this
Agreement.
2) Calculation of amount of credits. The formulas used to calculate the
amount of credits due are as follows:
a) Formula: A -B=C
A = Cost of City Specified System
B = Cost of System Required to Serve Participants
C = Amount of Credits due to Participants
b) Data Used. A schedule setting forth the Participant's and City's
share of the estimated costs of Facilities, including the cost of professional
services, is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and incorporated herein for all
purposes ("Cost Schedule").
3) Adjustments.
a) Amount of Credits. It is understood and agreed by the parties
hereto that the Cost Schedule was prepared in August of 1986, based upon
estimated costs of completion of Facilities. The parties hereto agree that once
final construction contracts for the Facilities have been let, the Cost Schedule
shall be revised to properly reflect the actual total Amount of Credits due to
Participants from the City, and to properly reflect the actual construction
costs as indicated in the construction contracts. Further, upon completion and
acceptance of Facility by the City, the Cost Schedule shall be finally revised
to properly reflect the actual total Amount of Credits due Participants from the
City, and to properly reflect the actual costs of Facilities as built.
Provided, however, the Amount of Credits shall be subject to the limitations set
forth under (4) Limitations, below.
b) Procedures. The allocation of revised cost between Participants
and City shall be calculated according to the formula above and the method set
forth under the column labeled Methodology on the Cost Schedule. Any change
orders or variations from the Cost Schedule will not be effective until approved
in writing by Participants' Project Manager designated in Previous Agreement and
the City Council.
4) Limitations.
a) Monetary Limits. Although the Amount of Credit may be adjusted
up or down as reflected above, in no event shall the total amount of credits
available to Participants be more than $945,000.00. Further, it is understood
and agreed by the parties hereto that this Agreement is entered into by the City
and Participants based upon the representation that the City's only
responsibility to Participants is for reimbursement through Capital Recovery Fee
Credits under applicable City ordinances and policies, and that no other cash or
credit is intended. In addition, Participants represent to City that their use
of the Amount of Credits within the time periods provided below are based on a
buildout schedule ("Buildout Schedule") attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and
incorporated by reference herein. The Buildout Schedule is attached hereto for
the sole purpose of evidencing the figures upon which the computations set forth
herein are derived, and any change in the Amount of Credits or the time periods
of the Buildout Schedule attached hereto shall in no way affect this Agreement.
Participants also understand and agree that City is relying on the
representations set forth above and would not have executed this Agreement but
for such representations. Therefore, Participants understand and agree that the
only method available for their recovery of funds expended under Previous
Agreement is through the Capital Recovery Fee Credits.
b) Time Limits. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto
that Participants shall have available the amount of $806,500.00 of Capital
Recovery Fee Credits to be used within five (5) years after the occurrence of
one of the following two events, whichever may occur first: (1) the completion
and City approval of all water and wastewater projects under Previous Agreement;
Page 2 of 5 Pages
WIN
or (2) by July 1, 1987 ("Beginning Date".) However, based upon good cause shown
to City, it is understood that the 259 acre tract owned by Georgetown Partners
is a much larger development than all of the other tracts involved. Therefore,
for good cause shown, City will allow an extension of three (3) years, totaling
a period of eight (8) years from the Beginning Date, for Georgetown Partners
sole benefit.
The Amount of Credits to be used within that additional three (3) year period
shall be calculated by subtracting the Amount of Credits to be used within five
5) years ($806,500.00) from the total Amount of Credits due, as adjusted,
estimated to be ($859,682.00). Thus, for example, based upon the estimated
figures used in this Agreement at the time of its execution, Georgetown Partners
would be allowed $53,182.00 of CRF credits to be used within that additional
three (3) year period. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, however, in
the event any such credits are not used within the time period allocated
Participants set forth above, then and in that event such credit shall be lost
by such Participants.
6. PROCEDURAL IMPLEMENTATION.
Basis. As in icated herein, up to the total Amount of Credits agreed
to be available for Participants as provided herein, is to be credited against
the Capital Recovery Fees ("CRF") required by City ordinances before the
development on each of the Participants' tracts involved.
2) LUE Conversions. Under Previous Agreement, Participants were
allocated and limited to certain living unit equivalents as defined in that
Agreement ("LUE"). In accordance with the City ordinances the amount of Capital
Recovery Fees to be generated by development of each Participant's tract shall
be determined under City's ordinances.
3) Implementation. After approval of a final plat on a tract for which
construction shall be commenced, and satisfaction of the City's other ordinance
requirements, upon application for a building permit, the amount of CRF's
determined by City to be used by the Participant under the applicable City
ordinances shall be credited against the total Amount of Credits outstanding for
the entire Tri -tract projects. Upon request b, Participants, the City shall
have a reasonable time to calculate the amount of CRF credit due, and to process
said request. Further, upon Participants requesting a building permit, the
Participant shall furnish City with the amount of CRF credit believed to be due
by Participant. No use of utility capacity shall exceed the amount allocated
under Previous Agreement as to each particular tract.
7. ALLOCATION OF CREDITS.
Participants' Agent. Within sixty (60) days after the letters of
credit are posted by Participants as required in the Previous Agreement, the
Participants shall appoint an agent ("Participant's Agent") for collection of
all amounts due from the City under this Agreement. Participant shall give
written notice to the City of the name and address of the Participant's Agent
and a general description of the duties to be performed by the Participant's
Agent on behalf of the Participants. It is understood and agreed by the City
and Participants that the amount of credits to be provided by the City to the
Participants shall not be construed to affect an assignment of such credits from
Participants to the Participants' Agent. It is further understood and agreed by
the parties hereto that Participants' Agent shall have the minimum obligations
of (1) maintaining accurate records of the Amount of Credits used, the Amount of
Credits outstanding, and any assignment of CRF credits to third parties; (2)
filing quarterly reports with the City setting forth the status of the Amount of
Credits used, the Amount of Credits still outstanding, on each of the Tri -tract
properties as set forth in Previous Agreement; (3) develop a standard assignment
form satisfactory to the City Attorney to be used by any assignees of
Participants; (4) to be the individual or entity responsible for further dealing
with the City on the Amount of Credits used, outstanding, assigned and for other
such matters in the implementation of this Agreement.
2) Allocation of Credits.
a) Within Tract Boundaries. Subject to state law, city ordinances,
policy and comprehensive plan at the time of the application of the building
permit, each Participant may allocate LUES within the corresponding acreage of
that Participant's tract.
b) Between Tracts. The Participants are limited, by the Tri -tract
Agreement to the amount of LUES to be used on each tract. However, as to CRF
Page 3 of 5 Pages
Al
credits, Participants may transfer unused CRF credits between themselves, but
limited to the boundary of the total Tri-tract properties as defined in the
Previous Agreement. Provided, however, that the City shall have no liability
for any transfer of credits between Tri-tract Participants, and any such
transfer shall provide for an indemnity agreement holding City harmless from any
transfer thereof before such transfer shall be effective. Such indemnity
agreement shall be in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. Any allocation
or transfer of credits between Participants or their assigns shall not extend
the time limitations set forth herein.
3) Assignments of Credit to Third Parties. CRF credits are not
assignable to third parties for use outside of the Tri-tract properties defined
in the Previous Agreement. However, Participants may transfer all or any part
of their credits to third parties, for use on any of the Tri-tract properties as
defined in the Previous Agreement. The form for such assignment shall be
standardized, and approved by the City and Participants' Agent, and shall be
filed with the building permit application to the City. Further, the City shall
have a reasonable time to process such assignment form with building permit
application.
4) Limited City Duty. City is not responsible for the determination of
the ownership of CRF credits; City is hereby authorized to presume ownership by
presentment of an executed assignment form (developed and approved as set forth
above) without further verification from Participants' Agent or any other party;
Participants hereto agree to hold City harmless and indemnify City, its council
persons, officers, employees and agents from any and all liability predicated on
the City's allowance of credit to third party assignees based upon the City's
acceptance of CRF credit issued under the assignment form.
8. LIMITATIONS OF CREDIT USE.
Third Party Interference. As indicated by Previous Agreement, events
beyond City's control that interfere with the provision of utility services and
use of credit shall not make City liable in any way to any Participants, or any
one claiming under or through said Participants.
2) City Interference. In the event of a moratorium established by City,
City shall allow Participants a reasonable period of time, not to exceed the
remaining time period Participants would have been entitled to under this
Agreement. As used herein, the term "moratorium" refers to any written
authorization by the City Council of the City of Georgetown to suspend existing
utility services to the tracts defined in the Previous Agreement. Provided,
however, Participants recognize and agree that any other interference by City or
action by the City which would limit the credit use by Participants, shall in no
way make City its council persons, officers, employees or agents liable to
Participants, their representatives and assigns. Further, it is understood by
the parties hereto that as indicated by the Previous Agreement, the City makes
no guaranty of capacity to Participants.
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
TIT—Uli—er—Tmprovements. Any and all other improvements outside the scope
of the Previous Agreement and required to provide the level of service necessary
and adequate to serve each of the Tri-tract properties at the time of this
Agreement, or in the future, shall be the sole responsibility of Participants.
It is further understood by the parties to this Agreement that such other
improvements will be necessary, but are not covered by this Agreement.
2) Subject to Laws. This Agreement is subject to applicable State law,
City codes and ordinances, and other applicable ordinances, laws, statutes,
regulations and codes as they now exist, and as they may be amended from time to
time in the future.
3) Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in
this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, unenforceability
shall not affect any other provision of the Agreement, and this Agreement shall
be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision has never
been contained in this Agreement.
4 )' Venue. The obligations and undertaking of each of the parties of this
Agreement shall be performable in Williamson County, Texas, and- this Agreement
Page 4 of 5 Pages
shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Texas.
5) Attorney's Fees. In the event that either of the parties default in
the performance of its obligations hereunder, the non -defaulting party may begin
an action for relief as may be provided at law and/or equity. In addition, upon
determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defaulting party is
in default under this Agreement or the Previous Agreement, the defaulting party
shall pay the non -defaulting party court costs and attorneys fees.
6) Total Agreement. This Agreement, together with the Previous Agreement
contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein
granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any prior agreements, promises,
negotiations, representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement or the
Previous Agreement are of no force or effect. Any oral representations or
modifications concerning this Agreement or the Previous Agreement shall be of no
force or effect, except a subsequent modification signed by the parties to be
charged.
7) Modification. This Agreement may be modified, altered or terminated
only through an instrument in writing approved by (i) a majority of the members
of the City Council of the City or such bodies as may succeed the City Council
and (ii) the Participants or their successors or assigns, holding record title
to a majority of the acreage owned by Participants described in the Previous
Agreement.
8) Binding Nature. This Agreement and Previous Agreement shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their heirs, successors
and assigns, as the case may be, and all future owners of all or any part of the
property subject to this Agreement.
EXECUTED this day of August, 1986.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
ATTEST: BY:
PAT CABALLERO, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
Page 5 of 5 Pages
JIM COLBERT, Mayor, acting pursuant
to a resolution approved by the
City Council
Dated:
PARTICIPANTS:
P & W INTERESTS
a Texas general partnership
BY :
AUGUST PETERSON,
Managing Partner
WILLIAMS - NPC/GEORGETOWN
JOINT VENTURE
FY6
STANLEY W I LL I AM ,
Joint Venturer
NASH PHILLIPS/COPUS - SAN ANTONIO, INC.,
a Texas Corporation Joint Venture
RM
DICK MATZ AGENCY
BY:
Ito I
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
RECLI,':-L' i
AGREEMENT REGARDING WATER AND WASTFWATER
FACILITIES AND SERVICES
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
WHEREAS, certain owners of land outside the city limits of
the City of Georgetown, but within it's extraterritorial
jurisdiction, hereinafter referred to collectively as
Participants" and hereinafter more specifically identified, own
real property which is not presently served with City of
Georgetown utilities, but which said City plans to serve with
such utilities at some indefinite future date: and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown hereinafter referred to as
City" has agreed that certain capital improvements may be
constructed as set forth on the attached exhibits in accordance
with plans and specifications approved by the City if
Participants construct same at their sole cost and expense; and
WHEREAS, the parties, based on the engineering and ether
information available to them, are of the opinion that the
utility service of such area by City is practical and workable;
and
WHEREAS, said City deems it to its best interest to enter
into this agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that these
parties in consideration of the undertakings and cpmmitments
herein set forth agree as follows;
I.
The parties to this agreement other than the City are as
follows:
A. Dean M. Greenwood and Wayne R. Harkins (Hereinafter
v Greenwood/Harkins"),
who own fifty-two and seventy-two one
hundredths (52.72)
acres of land situated east of IH -35 in
Williamson County, Texas, said property being shown as "Tract 1"
on the Exhibit "1"
attached hereto and made a part hereof anbeinghereinafter
sometimes referred to as "Greenwood/HarkinTract".
B. Walter R. Carrington (hereinafter "Carrington"), whcownsatractof
approximately twenty-three (23) acres situatedeastofIH -35 in Williamson County, Texas, Tract 2" on the which is shown as
said attached Exhibit andhereinafterreferred is sometimes
to as the "Carrington East Tract" Carrington also owns tracts totallin
and sevent g approximately fifty-sevenY -five one hundredths (57.75)
acres of land situatedwestofIH -35 in Williamson County, Texas,
which is shown asTract3•
on said Exhibit and is sometimes referred tohereinafterasthe "Carrington West Tract..
C•
Twin Creek Properties Joint Venture, a Texas generalPartnership (hereinafter "Twin Creek-),
which owns a tract oftwenty-five and four hundred seventy-one one thousacreswhiandths (25.471)
Texasch
is situated east of IH -35 in Williamson County, described as Lot 1, River Oaks Subdivision, and saidPropertybeingshownas "Tract 4"
on said Exhibit and issometimesreferredtohereinafterasthe "Twin Creek Tract. - D.
Gabriel Group Joint Venture, a Texas general partnershiphereinafter "Gabriel Group*), P ),
which owns a tract of two hundredfifty-nine and four thousand four hundred six ten -thousandths259.4806)
acres situated west of IH -35 in Williamson County, Texas,
which is shown as *Tract 5"
on said Exhibit and issometimeshereinafter
referred to as the "Gabriel Group Traet•, Greenwood/Harkins, Carrington, Twinn Creekarereferred and Gabriel Grouptohereincollectivelyas •participants•. SaidpartiesotherthanGabrielGrouparereferredtohereingc,Qllectively as "South Fork Ownerso.
ZI.
South Fork Owners have entered into Articles ofVentureofSouth JointForkInterceptorceptorJointVenturewherein
g
other things, said Parties anion
form a joint venture, appoint A. Paul
Williams as its manager, set forth the Venture's objectives and
like agreements.
A. Paul Williams is also designated as Project Manager by
Participants.
Participants hereby represent to City that A. Paul Williams
as such manager may deal with City under this agreement on behalf
of all said Venturers (called Participants herein) and that City
shall receive written notice actually delivered to the Georgetown
City Manager before any termination or change in such authority
is made by said venturers. On such notice Participants may
substitute another to act as Project Manager.
III.
At the sole cost and expense of Participants, City shall
construct certain wastewater collection and transmission
facilities indicated on Exhibit "2" attached hereto and made a
part hereof for all purposes. Said facilities shall consist
generally of a thirty inch (30") gravity flow line referred to as
the Park Interceptor which shall extend from the junction of
lines hereinafter identified as the South Fork Intercept -pr and
the North Fork Interceptor near Highway 81 at said Highway's
North San Gabriel River crossing to a lift station in San Gabriel
Park; a lift station in San Gabriel Park having a capacity of
three thousand six hundred (3,600) gallons per minute; and a
eighteen inch (18") force main from said lift station to the
Georgetown Wastewater Treatment Plant.
After the bids are awarded but prior to the execution of
contracts, Participants agree to deliver to City Letters of
Credit issued by banks, and worded as shown on Exhibit "7",
Paget), attached hereto, which form is satisfactory to the legal
J.. counsel of City, or construction cash in order to assure City of
the full and timely performance of Participants hereunder. Such
Letters of Credit shall be issued by a Bank in Travis County or
Williamson County with assets totaling at least One Hundred
Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00). The amounts of the Letters of
Credit will be determined by adding the amount of such contracts
plus a contingency amount of ten percent (10%) of such contract
amount.
It is the intent of the parties that City will proceed to
have such projects completed and that all cost and expense
incident thereto shall be paid by Participants. No such expenses
shall be incurred without the consent and approval of
Participants acting by and through their said manager.
Participants shall each sign off showing their consent prior
to the execution of the contract between said City and the
successful bidder or bidders.
IV.
South Fork Owners shall construct at their sole cost, those
certain wastewater collection and transmission facilities
indicated on Exhibit "3" hereto. Said facilities are described
generally as a collection line known as the South Fork
Interceptor which consists of a twenty-four inch (24") gravity
flow line from the southeast corner of the Twin Creek Tract(Tract
4) (being the intersection of said tract with the South San
Gabriel River) to a lift station to be built an the
Greenwood/Harkins Tract (Tract 1); a lift station having a
capacity of one thousand five hundred (1,500). gallons per minute
to be situated on said Tract; a force main from said lift station
to a high point on such Tract near IH -35; and a twenty-seven inch
27")
gravity flow line from said high point to a junction with
the North Fork Interceptor near Highway 81 at its North San
Gabriel River crossing. .
V.
South Fork Owners shall also construct at their sole cost, a
certain water distribution line indicated on Exhibit "3" hereto.
Said line consists of a twelve inch (12") main which shall extend
from an existing six inch (6") main at Highway 29 at a point on
the Twin Creek Tract (Tract 4) in a northerly direction along the
east right-of-way of IH -35 to a point on the Greenwood/Harkins
Tract (Tract 1) which is approximately 1,500 feet north of the
southwest corner of said tract, and thence in an easterly
direction parallel to the wastewater line described above, to tie
to an existing twelve inch (12") main at Highway 81.
VI.
Carrington shall construct at his sole cost, that certain
wastewater collection line indicated on Exhibit "4" hereto which
consists of a twelve inch (12") line from a point in the
Carrington west Tract just north of Springhollow Street, crossing
IH -35 by means of a bore under said highway to a junction with
the South Fork Interceptor near the common boundary of the Twin
Creek Tract and the Carrington East Tract.
VII.
At the sole cost and expense of Gabriel Group, City shall
construct certain wastewater collection and transmission
facilities indicated on Exhibit "5" hereto. Said facilities are
referred to as the North Fork Interceptor and consist of the
diversion of what is known as the "Big Country Club Lift
Station", crossing the North San Gabriel River in a southerly
direction by means of an inverted syphon; a twenty-four inch
24") gravity line from said syphon along the south side of the
North San Gabriel River to a point just west of IH -35; crossing
the North San Gabriel River in northerly direction by means of a
second inverted syphon to a point in an existing wastewater line
easement owned by City; and a twenty-four inch (2411) gravity flow
line from said point to a junction with the -South Fork
Interceptor near Highway 81 at its North San Gabriel River
crossing.
After the bids are awarded but prior to the execution of
f
contracts, Participants agree to deliver to City Letters of
Credit issued by banks worded as shown on Exhibit "7" (Page 2)
attached hereto, which form is satisfactory to the legal counsel
of City, or construction cash in order to assure City of the full
and timely performance of Participants hereunder. Such Letters
of Credit shall be issued by a Bank in Travis County or
Williamson County with assets totaling at least one hundre
Million dollars ($100,000,000.00). The amounts of the Letters o
Credit will be determined by adding the amount of such contract
plus a contingency amount of ten percent (108) of such contrac
amount.
It is the intent of the parties that City will proceed tc
have such projects completed and that all cost and expense
incident thereto shall be paid by Participants. No such expense:
shall be incurred without the consent and approval of
Participants acting by and through their said manager.
Participants shall each sign off showing their consent prior to
the execution of the contract between said City and the
successful bidder or bidders.
VIII.
Gabriel Group and Carrington shall construct at their solecost,
according to plans and specifications approved by City, that certain water distribution line indicated on Exhibit "5" hereto which consists of an extention of a twelve inch (1211)
mainfromNorthwestBoulevardtoWilliamsDrive, a sixteen inch (16")
main to extend from an existing twelve inch (12" main north of
the North San Gabriel River, west of IH -35, extending in a
southerly direction on land owned by Gabriel and Carrington to an
existing twelve inch (12") main at Riverhills Drive on the west
side of IH -35 and a twelve inch (12")
main under IH -35 to loop
into the proposed twelve inch main on the east side of IH -35ashereinprovided.
The above improvements will allow limited service. Full
service requires an additional water source and additional
n.
improvements.
Additional pumping will be required to serve thehigherelevationswithwater.
IX.
The lines,
facilities and appurtenances indicated on said
Exhibits relative to projects are all subject to the engineeringanddesigntobedonehereunderpriortoconstruction. Such
101 PARQUE CIRCLE - VARIANCE - OFF-STREET PARKING Project 1100531
f
SITE
i
6 q11
A raex.
Sep
Location Map 1"=2000'
Applicant: Dennis Freeman
5750 Balcones Dr. Suite 207
Austin, Tx 78731
459-6200
Agent: Donna Edgeman
5750 Balcones Dr. Suite 207
Austin, Tx 78731
459-6200
Request: Variance from Section 7.101, Off-street
Parking Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,
to allow a reduction in the required number
of spaces form four to two for Lot 10, Block
F, Section 1 of Parkview Estates.
Facts•
Location: 101 Parque Circle, a corner lot with Parque
Vista Drive, one block north of FM 971,
Parkview Estates Section 1
101 Parque Circle E
Surrounding Area: Zoning is R -S and RM -1. Existing and
proposed land use is for single and two
family residential.
Existing Site: Proposed two family residential. Zoning
District is RM -1.
Development Plan: District 5-C. Use substantially conforms to
plan.
Note: Developer owes $7059.29 in development review
fees as of 8/19/86.
Analysis: This vacant lot, as well as all adjacent lots
within 200 feet of the subject property are
owned by the applicant, who wishes to
construct a two family dwelling with 3
bedrooms per unit at this site. The property
is less than one block north of the
intersection of FM 971 and Parque Vista
Drive, which is one of only three entrances
into this subdivision. If granted, a
variance would increase the likelihood for
parking along Parque Vista Drive. Parque
Vista Drive is functionally a collector
street, as it emanates from an arterial
street and distributes traffic to a large
portion of the subdivision and should be as
parking free as possible.
Additionally, the Parkview Estates Section
One plat specifically states that, "any
corner lot with access to a local street must
use the local street for driveway access".
The subject property is located on Parque
Circle, a local street, at the corner of
Parque Vista Drive, a collector street. The
applicant has shown driveway access onto
Parque Vista Drive, and would thereby be
required a variance for such a driveway. Due
to it's close proximity to the subdivision
entrance, such a driveway would be a safety
hazard for passing traffic and the owner of
the home on this lot. The applicant has not
specifically required such a variance for
driveway location, but this would be required
based upon the site plan submitted for this
request. Denial of the driveway location
request would mean the applicant would only
have one of the required four off-street
parking spaces.
101 Parque Circle 3
Finally, approval for this off-street parking
variance request would also establish a
precedent and require similar treatment for
similar requests.
Staff Recommendation: (August 26, 1986)
Denial of the requested variance for off-street parking, and
denial of a variance to allow driveway access to the collector
street (Parque Vista Dr).
City Council Action: (August 26, 1986) (5-0)
Denied the requested variances
p N N N .,i O d`! JO NY .i Oj JIyO 4Z< • 30 1 O so lf`n1 L BB {'•'>E 10
mom'
W r -1 °,I $e,e N 20.0 f S. y5 r
N N(.-IZo i 4 <sl w gzss
m ` \ '
Z Crsa•°E F„ q Ip
I V o.d,., o.eZ 'o.0 2s•oo sca 79.79- 6$ yt
v '
0.
el• .0 S c e' e
114. .
o1;
9•
Jr Nppy'
41.2' J\ \\
eEJ+
NS•
e,f
o.' i R •? .
mp ,
J
mrz' - ° ,
C•
Nes?••1,
1
8 Ru.a
CP.E.- CO• ,
O3
n 1y4.•F10
V
V B1• • li'
J4 dfl•
CL 7
9 O•'C a` ! r01 q J iV J'
Y nr°e '7n7/ ,' \ e•• 3. `. ,,: e: W a v.ita o\: 0031 !ti h N T !°0 9 • @• c w , `t. m4, „w H '•. (W 05• L I• ' .
4 ! o°.fes of c3vs\, paPo nc`.
o, £\
5m iSDm .
J 1 3.30 m
ii, u W M :'x eV • 4 Oq.V '?a o O .
ff i - ta.J N 1`Nm': pe
Q , o o+6y-.11 J 0• rNII1CeoO
38 l0 3911` '•^N W/aWA ti ' m p \ F {L. _ ,.5 7°°
tn o II
xP I P„E,a;y tl .,/l \
ic•
cet. of 6.
vd
z
a 12 ,
o so •5 Is q o0 3 c_3
zel' ;
J
41 h. y¢lo•p.U.E.\ \\ 4re• u¢. ." ErE 1I lil./V •17 N •o
i P'srj55. 3:E_ _>
eo Zo.00 2< 50 `rr5f'ie9- ' /
J5 j4q'l11 9-•w;Pa
O R' . 111.47 W9•s5 \ II _4 ipB__34. f4 1
1 & ri In
14'6.1 \ t P 4 B 3 0• x+• E14 L' 15 V N
NSa44r / r .hs' IY+N W, NT,B -) IPD.W.) n•se.,o 43 n r ,a•.,c Jn _ xu l } Ityx A; e•leo m3394 - `' ° I I•h Pml 0 " IMJ NM „ 7
97 ./4 - Fi • '€i C /t W •3 yl Pa°.I . % a 2, • h a B 1,1'[UE. Vy4'6.1
1'3 QB, d O \'•.Mu ',
P 0: t•M •On I • O >•II 1` •fNp. "I • r
70.00 c• i a \ 1s oN 1, °a•0• M 0 O•J g f v, m ,iii I-I R/sB•e E
F TO. Q7T 34.11. r * •e' yam.\ 0 O N r rMN °V
I /a L 2 3 •T • '4 '4 ae Oi .P •'n J. In , eY N I . 2 I . 124FIf4 ? . a ro b rvWP•Z<°09c /s. /, !
P o 2t N ro o c• ee • fW
o ° ' . Sc 074 2 = z< u•u(2 I. r.. w p
47 •" >a 46 ''8 o n Te F srs e! /
91. \ < y.N iti3 N 1 6G 3o g y J vW 5
0 6£ 't^ * E. -I .00 80.00 1 yl t/9'a L.111n5.0o To.00
lu.f. s sZ . b 45 4iE R 11 .00- 70.o as. rt30.
o0pB.l...
14zr&,r
W100,00- 7 25 UE
npY -
7' 4Y.
qioC•b f, y815739 P.U.E. f
oN'W, 6
o,
NJNw c1,N 0 Jn
N j N/3 1'''" \ c R' N •Nn^4 I N 'i ay ^
E
n IF' _ :IIY.27-- n (b 11 9,} o Y ^P' '+ w 25 B.L.Q. °' O !4'B L. 6.i olE
v v
q' I .}
3 d3/ Ili I/ rtii I ° g'a'B. */.`96rE
u7r•35_ ` a 40.00 -65.00 44L--I t r 1°. '
i9'8.L
VOL. 4,.r r v. ,y I4ro• 4u is 0 ° v
j7 rj G'
1 /
P E. I
s PARXIE CIRCLE„;'
p D p135 l0 2 O
X • h d P• Z
51
4o.eq _G5.00, 67.85 ^ W 0 C
3 c' r ^ r -:3 lo' P _ o0°j m 1' I 5 ;'- a 3\ r10 mmnN .,in 2
a o ' WN I 'g •, I.._/148'o'kboE
h a vol, ; m°: ° No c o m e,L. to
D I ry i•t„ w"pv`1.p'; Q3 tW: Z h ;:WL m 'N
y
0) n kbar .I E., m , .i.. .N Tyle M1e ui n u "A 0
NQI • I'ct OVi II• ' YYm°. L10 1.6 A
2s WY4.fWSfy,riP.FSHf,N 'te0 ,O Jo I;mO .,,11 ON t\•1•yaW ie E
lo'P•U.E.s B.L. _ ivu aJl 1a ;Jv u\n .j-•-CJ jP 9 r.'+• _ .
561.
9/. 29 ro'U.U Y 70.00'<- ZY-'iv / 111
51.9.19 c6..41 261. Z9 SL3 .
1 40 q'G Cr q- 3 41. 9 7-
3 41. 44
51URt, ""J'S by. C,496WI Air 91PPEL fMVEYING CDMPaW:'
i'A. KING f3Y CAAirAirDIOr * CO
2-'gcfq CAPS"?.l U TEvgj NWY.
AU5TfAI,7E,CNS '1075Z
SHEET / v3
r
k
2
t10ccNu'Wel.k
J OW. H.
i
o ' S'g
Al
1,91
EXHIBIT B
6
IN1•
PLEASANT VALLEY - VARIANCE - REINSTATEMENT OF FINAL PLAT
PROJECT #00029
Location Map
1 s. G T W N. / '\
ADD.
A0 BIT
1"= 2000'
Owner/Applicant: Kenneth McCalla, Jr., Managing Venturer
3933 Streck Avenue
Austin, Texas 78759
Agent: Steger and Bizzell
P.O. Box 858
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Request: Approval for reinstatement of the Final Plat
for the Pleasant Valley subdivision, a 29.62
acre subdivision approved by City Council on
June 11, 1985, but not recorded with the
County Clerk of Williamson County six months
following Council approval.
Facts:
Location: West of F.M. 1640, approximately one-half
mile south of Georgetown Railroad. Is within
the ETJ and the Edwards Aquifer Recharge
Zone.
PLEASANT VALLEY—REINSTATEMENT 2
Surrounding Uses: Primarily undeveloped rural property to the
west, with large lot single—family
residential to the immediate north, east, and
south.
Existing Use: Streets, utilities, and drainage improvements
are substantially complete.
Proposed Use: An average lot single—family residential
development, with a density of 2.94
residential units per acre.
Development Plan: District 8b. The proposed use of normal
single—family residential substantially
conforms to the plan.
History: On May 7, 1985, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved the Final Plat request of
Pleasant Valley, as did the City Council on
June 11,1985, each with the following
conditions of approval:
1. Plat meeting all ordinance requirements,
2. Drainage requirements being met and
approved by the City Engineer,
3. Utilities being adequate,
4. Provision of adequate water storage if
required by the City Engineer to balance
the pressure plane during peak flows,
5. Off—site improvement of the Smith Branch
Interceptor to accommodate peak flows of
wastewater discharge from this
subdivision to the already surcharged
condition of the above mentioned
facility,
6. The street named Cactus Valley Lane be
changed,
7. Variances granted at the preliminary
stage are still applicable,
8. Variance requested to allow the angle of
intersection of Cactus Valley Lane to
exceed five degrees from perpendicular
shall be granted.
By Section 4.04(15) of the Subdivision
Ordinance, the applicant had six months
following the June 11, 1985, City Council
approval of the Final Plat for Pleasant
Valley to file the approved final plat with
the County Clerk of Williamson County. The
December 11, 1985, deadline for such approval
was not met by the applicant, as ordinance
requirements and conditions of approval were
not yet completed. The Texas Water
PLEASANT VALLEY—REINSTATEMENT 3
Commission was only able to approve the
Subdivision Sanitary Sewage Collection System
on June 9, 1986. In light of these problems
that delayed the filing of the final plat
before December 11, 1985, the applicant now
requests a final plat time extension for
final filing to reinstate the final plat.
Analysis: The case folder for this Final Plat documents
that the applicant made a good faith effort
to complete ordinance requirements Council
conditions of approval. The staff has no
objection to the reinstatement of the final
plat. However, those conditions previously
established with the approval by the City
Council should still be applicable for final
plat filing. Additionally, there should be
established a reasonable limit to this
reinstatement. A time limit set at December
11, 1986, should give the applicant
sufficient time to record this plat, while
corresponding to the maximum allowable
extension under Section 4.04(15) of the
Subdivision Ordinance had the extension
request been submitted prior to the
expiration date of the plat.
All of the required City signatures of
approval were obtained prior to the
expiration date of the plat. However,
because the approval of this plat has
technically expired, new signatures should be
required to authenticate this reinstatement.
Staff Recommendation: (August 26, 1986)
Approval of the reinstatement of the Pleasant
Valley subdivision subject to the following
conditions:
1. All conditions of approval established
with the original Final Plat approval
shall be met,
2. This reinstatement shall expire December
11, 1986. Failure to record the plat by
this date will require that the Final
Plat be resubmitted as a new Final Plat,
subject to all application fees,
3. New signatures shall be required for City
approvals of the reinstated plat.
City Council Action: (August 26, 1986)
Item pulled from the City Council agenda
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council j%
From: Edward J. Barry, AICP — Director V
Division of Development and Planning
Date: August 19, 1986
Subject: Tri—Tract Capital Recovery Fee (CRF) Credits Agreement
For several months now we have been working in an attempt to
reach an agreement with the owners of the Tri—Tract properties
concerning their level and use of Capital Recovery Fee (CRF)
Credits. With the direction provided by the Council
Sub—Committee on this matter, we feel we have now achieved
consensus on the major provisions for the agreement. Attached is
the latest revision of a draft proposal for resolving this
situation. This agreement has been proposed by the City Attorney
based on decisions made in conjunction with the Council
Sub—Committee, City staff and members of Tri—Tract. We have
attempted to have the agreement follow the provisions of the
original Tri—Tract agreement, CRF and CRF Credit Ordinances and
policy. Some revisions to the ordinances are necessitated and
copies of the changes are attached for your review.
Essentially, the agreement provides for a total of
approximately $859,682 in CRF Credits based on the actual cost
difference between the system the City required and that needed
by Tri—Tract. The bulk of these credits ($806,500) would have to
be used within five (5) years while the remaining ($53,000+)
balance could be used only on the Rivery site over the course of
an additional three (3) years. A maximum cap of 10% over these
credits ($945,000) is also provided for in the agreement. The
methodology and use of the credits is set forth in exhibits which
are attached to the agreement. Freese & Nichols has verified the
methodology employed in determining the cost share arrangement on
this project and they are currently engaged in reviewing and
certifying the actual dollar amounts. Only in the event of a
City imposed moratorium would extension of the "life" of the
credits be permitted. Also attached is a letter from City
Attorney Randy Stump to Attorney John Boyle outlining several
issues in this case.
In summary the attached draft agreement is one which the
City staff believes to be a fair, reasonable and workable
proposal for both the City and the members of Tri—Tract. Please
review this material and we will plan to discuss it in your
Council meeting of August 26, 1986. In order to brief you and
answer any questions which you might have prior to next Tuesday's
regular Council meeting, we will be contacting you shortly to
schedule an individual meeting with you, a representative from
the Council Sub—Committee and staff.
LAW OFFICES
STUMP & STUMP
803 Main Street - P.O. Box 286
Georgetown, Texas 78627
512) 863-5594
TO: Mayor, City Council & City Manager DATE 8-20-86
SUBJECT: Tri -Tract CRF Agrt (draft)
CRF ORD Amendment
Please find enclosed current drafts of the following:
1) Tri -Tract Capital Recovery Fee Agreement (dated 8-20-86)
2) Amendments proposed to the Capital Recovery Fee Ordinance
dated 8-20-86)
Please also be advised that the Agreement is being reviewed by John
Boyle of Jenkins, Hutchison & Gilcrest in Dallas, as I had indicated previously.
The Agreement may be subject to revision, with your approval, upon recommendations
by Mr. Boyle. I expect his phone call late this afternoon and shall report to
you any suggested revisions in the Agreement.
As I have previously indicated to you, Mr. Boyle also happens to have
considerable expertise in C.R.Fee matters. I intend to discuss the Ordinance
CITY COUNCIL
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council APPROVES /
the request listed below.
WIT ES,S OU
Hj
D this 8th day of April 19 86
Mayor, City Council
City of Georgetown
PROJECT Williamsburg Village -vacating & Resubdivision
APPLICANT Zared Corporation
LOCATION southwest corner of Booty's Crossing Rd & Williams dr.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All ordinance requirements being met and utilities
being adequate
2. Applicant shall comply with the Lnadscape ordinance
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF
The City of Georgetown City Counci 1<iiPROVE
WITH5 the request listed below.
WITNESS OUR HANDS this 8 day of April 1986
I U, W
Mayor, City of Geo getown
Project -name & #: Variance -Section 3.05 of Subdivision Ord. -The Village at
Applicant: JSJ Jt. Venture University Park PUD
Owner: Planned Development Concepts
Request: 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 Park PUD a resubdivision
of University Park Section One.
Conditions of approval:
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
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Counci APPROVES EISA PRGVES/TAPTRG
WTTNDRAWS AT -THE REQUEST ffl' the request listed below.
WITNESS OUR HANDS this _8 day of April , 19 86.
JL -L ' 01ti
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project_name & #: 3005 Gabriel View -Building Setback Encroachment
Applicant:Joe B McMaster
Owner: same
Request: variance from section 2.0203(b) Side Area Regulations of
the City Zoning Ordi-ance 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.
Variance granted as requested
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council DISAPPROVES.TAW.ES4
the request listed below.
WITNESS OUR HANDS this 8 day of April 1986
L
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project:name & #: 1257 South Main Street -Building Line Variance
Applicant: Larue Hemberger
Owner: Same
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' street side yard. Also,
a variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 2.0203 Part l.c.
to allow an increase from 308 to approximately' 328 in the
area of lot covered by structures is requested.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF
The City of Georgetown City Council '3 TABLES
the request listed below.
WITNESS OUR HANDS this 8 day of April , 1986
O L
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project:name & #: 1405 & 1407 Williams Dr.- rezoning
Applicant: G.W.Walker and Charles B. Stockton
Owner: same as above
Request: rezoning of Lots 3 & 4 Block 1 of Gabriel Heights from
RS to C-1 (Residential single family to Local Commercial)
4-0) 1 abstain
Table the request pending approval of plan.
4-0) 1 abstain
Planning Department instructed to prepare a public hearing of the
Planning and Zoning Commission within 30 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 & hold a second public hearing
to approve this proposal. The proposal shall then be presented to
the Council for approval.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Counct PnPROVF
T"" '—" " -
Y
n the request listed below.
WITNESS OUR HANDS this S_day of April 19 86.
lam_ v
Mayor, City of orgetown
Project:name & #: Serenada Oaks -preliminary plan
Applicant: Gil Johnson
Owner: Gil Johnson
Request: preliminary plan approval. Variances requested to waive
curb and gutter street requirements, allow excessive depth
to width ratios, and allow street intersections to vary more
than 5° from perpendicular.
5-0) approval conditional upon the conditions listed below.
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 Rd. to one common approach with the
property adjacent to the southeast,
b. Establish a 25' landscape easement and building line along
Andice Rd.
C. Conform to the requirements of the PUD ordinance
d. Recommend the use of the site be non -retail activities
such as residential, institutional, and recreational type
activities
2. A variance for lots 22-24 Block A with depth to width ration in
excess of 2.5 to 1 shall be granted
3, 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"
4. A variance for street intersections less than 50 from perpendicular
shall be granted as recommended by City Engineer upon more detailed
evaluation
5. Water, Sewer, and Electrial 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 requirments
and aforementioned conditions of approval for staff review
and approval prior to submittal of final plat.
7. Change the name of Blanco to Sevilla
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City CouncilCPPROV S/4YBAPPROVES /TABLES/
VITRDR: cW -AT -TH-E-REQUEST-OF -THE APPLICANT -the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 22 day of April, 1986.
Mayor, City o orgetown
Project name & #:203 Thousand Oaks Blvd. -Variance from Sign
Requirements.
Applicant:William Ullman
Owner:same
Request:Variance from Section 2.0401 (14) "signs" of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow an "off -premises" sign on Lot 2B
Thousand Oaks Section Four.
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)
A 7 ro fu EtYJ
MAxtm wm '3
IV.. ";
121
44f—
wf_ _ ...uc tie.0.r..:... si
p _N
ILip
T' ..
I7T.T T+1T v i AT
TH u AN D
Z
ons u
19 ail NV11Qs
Ago • ITOO
8
o All L
2) One double pope structure vithi
a) 4' z 12' double face "Mr.
illuminated, Laundry" sign, internally
b) 4' z 8' double face "Car Wa-Sh" sign. internally
L
illuminated.
one non -salvageable V z d' double faced readerboardonthesanestructure.
003
1
91
010`
23
phi •
bbo
i S
C';rs
OWNae:
7AMaRON FROOCRT/ES
O SI.Nlt9WN Y/ORHW,Oy
UST/N/ rIVS 7B7jV
is plat have been rotated ! -.the 'Texas Plane Co -
lies: lot: 12,U50.92 fec•L
ercisI
e required along one si.'.e of
et from school property.
d on this plat as green b.lt,
all streets for a
drainage, common
i
RJON V
414
52z,.rs'
zpSB.
Z
Pv
LEGEND
k.U.W.
v66'3630
ft. L.
n•_
k1 f ,r Y l 6'q -]8.l CT_.
Iron Pin Found
o
I v' `•! r...'. LLt ,•
o ry -'• i Fi
Underground ji•r.',
nut. /S
IIsja.`'
i1.St :1
C •r:
2811—VA r£s
SA
W)`
A^G_i''k=i:b'f : B•iC/ j
rw.`[._. Y 9'^,;. 03.07•_..'
TJ
THOUSAND~ OAKS_ BLVD. 111C_
phi •
bbo
i S
C';rs
OWNae:
7AMaRON FROOCRT/ES
O SI.Nlt9WN Y/ORHW,Oy
UST/N/ rIVS 7B7jV
is plat have been rotated ! -.the 'Texas Plane Co -
lies: lot: 12,U50.92 fec•L
ercisI
e required along one si.'.e of
et from school property.
d on this plat as green b.lt,
all streets for a
drainage, common
i
RJON V
414
52z,.rs'
zpSB.
Z
Pv
LEGEND
k.U.W.
v66'3630
ft. L.
n•_
k1 f ,r Y l 6'q -]8.l CT_.
Iron Pin Found
o
I v' `•! r...'. LLt ,•
o ry -'• i Fi
Underground ji•r.',
nut. /S
2811—VA r£s
SA
W)` 79.96 __ L ' rw.`[._. Y 9'^,;. 03.07•_..'
P 77-P
phi •
bbo
i S
C';rs
OWNae:
7AMaRON FROOCRT/ES
O SI.Nlt9WN Y/ORHW,Oy
UST/N/ rIVS 7B7jV
is plat have been rotated ! -.the 'Texas Plane Co -
lies: lot: 12,U50.92 fec•L
ercisI
e required along one si.'.e of
et from school property.
d on this plat as green b.lt,
all streets for a
drainage, common
i
RJON V
414
52z,.rs'
zpSB.
Z
Pv
LEGEND
k.U.W. kight of Wayft. L. Building Lino
N.U.E. Public U[ilily E..•
Iron Pin Found
o Irun Pin set
U.C. Underground ji•r.',
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Counci(cAPPROVE /-D3-S-APPROVER--H-ABLES/
fTlm irccm nF TxF APPLICANT the request listed
below. WITNrESSS \_ ODR HANDS this 22 day of April, 1986.
ul -- `
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #:1603 Northwest Blvd. -Variance from Off -Street
Parking Requirements
Applicant:M.M. Casey
Owner:same
Request:Variance from Sec. 7.111 "Off -Street Parking
Requirements" of Zoning Ordinance to allow a reductin in
the number of spaces required from 31 to 19 for Tract "2".
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 buildi_ng_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
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council'QjPPROVE PPROVEH-/T*ttES/
WIT the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 22 day of April, 1986.
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #:Briarwood Section One, Amended: Resubdivision
plat of Lot 2, Block A
Applicant:Thomas G Foust, Jr.
Owner:same
Request: Approval for resubdivision of Briarwood Section one,
Amended, Lot 2, Block A, Variances have been requested
to eliminate specific side and rear PUE, allow existing
parking to remain in front yard of lot 2B and to reduce
required off-street parking spaces by 10%.
Approval of the plat conditional upon the following:
1. All ordinance requirements being met and final construction
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.