HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 06.10.1986THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JUNE 10, 1986
6:00 PM
6:00 PM - Council/Staff Workshop
7:00 PM - Regular Council Meeting
Consent Agenda
1. Minutes
2. Bills
3. Electric Rate Ordinance - 2nd Reading
4. CDBG Resolution
Regular Agenda
5. Central Business Planning District - Westside Neighborhood
Group/W.H. Bonner
6. Annexation of GISD School Sites - Michael Lauer
7. Budget Amendment Ordinance - Emergency Reading - Randy Stump
Planning Items
8. 404 Ridgewood Drive - variance Fence Height
9. Ordinance - Abandonment of 10; Utility Easement in Williams
Commercial Park Subdivision - 1st Reading
10. Ordinance - Abandonment of 10' Alley in Block 5 Southside
Addition (North of 19th Street between Chruch and Ash - 1st Reading
1 -
404 RIDGEWOOD DRIVE - VARIANCE - FENCE HEIGHT
Location Map 1"=1000,
Applicant: Dr. & Mrs. Patrick F. McGehearty
404 Ridgewood Dr.
Georgetown, Tx 78628
Request:
Granting of request for variance from the six foot height
restriction of Zoning Ordinance Section 8.302 to allow an
existing twenty-six foot section of eight foot high fence, along
the westerly portion of the back lot line of Lot 16, Block C, San
Gabriel Heights V, 404 Ridgewood Drive.
V-*
Location: On the east side of Ridgewood Dr. just north
of Ridge Oak Dr. of San Gabriel Estates,
Section V. within the City limits and
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
Surrounding Area: Normal lot single family.
Existing Site: Normal lot single family.
404 RIDGEWOOD - page 2
Development Plan: district 9b. Use complies with plan.
Analysis•
As described in the attached letter, the applicant has
constructed an 8 foot section of fence for 26 feet of their 80
foot back lot line. Their reasons for doing so were to:
1. shield their view of a storage shed their neighbors to
the rear has alledgedly indicated they intend to build
2. to protect their privacy from uphill neighbors, and
3. to block out a "patio light" from another uphill
neighbor.
The Building Inspector has no objection to this variance from the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.302.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval as requested.
City Council Action: (3-2)
Request for variance approved
4-
1-
f ),til,%II I;N/I I ( * 1 JIgq )K II Mit I"
To: Planning Department Date:ZA-`-t
Subject: Request of Variance - 6Flewgc-
A request for Variance - -hopi;F is being requested
by:
Address)
Lot No. )i/ Blk: C --
ReasonReason for Rqst:
Please provide the Building Department with a copy of the final
action taken the Planning b Zoning Commission or City Council.
FRANK E. WINEINEINEG R
Building Official
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN POST OFFICE IIM 400 GEORGETOWN. rEXAS 78o26 TELEPHONE %12: moi_Sii3
h;U{I VpiPIIIWII lUM"'PR
May 22, 1986
Dear City Leaders,
We request a variance to have an eight foot fence in our
backyard. We present the following reasons:
Our neighbors told us that they plan to build a
storage shed along that property line. We hope
that the fence will hide the shed completely
from our view.
Our neighbors said that the shed might have a metal
roof. We feel that would give us an unpleasant
glare on sunny days.
Our neighbors already have an elevated deck which
allows them to easily look over a six foot fence.
We are downhill from these neighbors on sloping
terrain which increases the problems of privacy.
Other neighbors one house away are on even higher
ground. They have a six foot fence, but at night
we see their patio light shining like an unpleasant
spotlight.
Therefore, we request a variance to have an eight foot fence
on our property at 404 Ridgewood Drive.
Thank you,
r
Dr. Patrick McGehearty
Mrs. Sylvia McGehearty
404 Ridgewood Drive
Georgetown, TX 78628
I/J
1 --- _, -
6
C
F- /"IG J't.¢ave
404
1•) ORDINANCE -ABANDONMENT OF 10' UTILITY EASEMENT IN WILLIAMS
COMMERCIAL PARK SUBDIVISION
Location Map 1"= 2000'
Applicant: Ercel Brashear
Twin Creek Properties
2402 Williams Dr
Georgetown, Tx 78628
863-0593
Request•
As indicated on the attached petition, the applicant has
requested the approval of an Ordinance abandoning that portion of
a 10' Utility Easement and Right -of -Way recorded in Vol. 577,
Page 708 County Deed Records which also lies within the
boundaries of Williams Commercial Park Subdivision as recorded in
Cab. G., Slide 183-184 of County Official Records.
Williams Commercial Park - page 2
The plat of Williams Commercial Park was
1984. One condition of that approval was
water line be relocated and the easement
line be vacated.
Recommendation:
approved August 8,
that an existing City
associated with this
Approval of request subject to the confirmation of the Director
of Public Works that all necessary relocation of City facilities
and easements have been accepted and approval for form of
Ordinance by City Attorney. Second reading of ordinance shall
not occur until these conditions have been met.
City Council Action: 5/27/86
ITEM NOT PLACED ON AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 6/10/86
5-0)
Approval as recommended above.
WHEREAS, Petitioner, Twin Creek Properties, is the owner of
the Williams Commercial Park Subdivision in Williamson County,
Texas, and is requesting that said easement be abandoned as it
relates`to said property; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has now determined that it
does not need the full easements and rights of way first above
mentioned.
NOW, THEREFORE, Petitioner requests the City Council of the
CITY OF Georgetown, Texas, to abandon that portion of the
following easement as it relates to the Williams Commercial Park
Subdivision:
Easement dated September 11, 1973 from Russell and Irene
Parker to the City of Georgetown, recorded in Vol. 577, Page 708,
Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas.
Said easement being attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and "B"
respectfully.
BE IT FURTHER REQUESTED that the Mayor of the City of
Georgetown be authorized and directed to execute an ordinance on
behalf of the City of Georgetown conveying the right, title and
interest of the City in and to said property and conveying to
Twin Creek Properties that portion of the easement that runs
through the Williams Commercial Park Subdivision located in
Williamson County, Texas.
TWIN CREEK PROPERTIES
BY:
Ercel Brashea President
Ercel Brashear, Inc. Managing Partner
State of Texas
County of LUI-I-IAh sC n:
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally
appeared NCC 2 ACrg PA.P 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 S -AL OF OFFICE, this day of
19
Notary Public -kState of Texas
Printed name of Notary Pbld
My commission expires /,
PETITION
1x
A PETITION REQUESTING THE ABANDONING OF THAT
PORTION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY
6` LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF WILLIAMS
j .• COMMERCIAL PARK SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN CAB.
G, SLIDE 183-184 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS SAID EASEMENT BEING
RECORDED IN VOLUME 577, PAGE 708 DEED RECORDS OF
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND REQUESTING THE
APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN BY WHICH ORDINANCE SAID
EASEMENTS WOULD BE OFFICIALLY AND FORMALLY
ABANDONED BY THE CITY AS THEY RELATE TO THF.
WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL PARK SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, Petitioner, Twin Creek Properties, is the owner of
the Williams Commercial Park Subdivision in Williamson County,
Texas, and is requesting that said easement be abandoned as it
relates`to said property; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has now determined that it
does not need the full easements and rights of way first above
mentioned.
NOW, THEREFORE, Petitioner requests the City Council of the
CITY OF Georgetown, Texas, to abandon that portion of the
following easement as it relates to the Williams Commercial Park
Subdivision:
Easement dated September 11, 1973 from Russell and Irene
Parker to the City of Georgetown, recorded in Vol. 577, Page 708,
Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas.
Said easement being attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and "B"
respectfully.
BE IT FURTHER REQUESTED that the Mayor of the City of
Georgetown be authorized and directed to execute an ordinance on
behalf of the City of Georgetown conveying the right, title and
interest of the City in and to said property and conveying to
Twin Creek Properties that portion of the easement that runs
through the Williams Commercial Park Subdivision located in
Williamson County, Texas.
TWIN CREEK PROPERTIES
BY:
Ercel Brashea President
Ercel Brashear, Inc. Managing Partner
State of Texas
County of LUI-I-IAh sC n:
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally
appeared NCC 2 ACrg PA.P 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 S -AL OF OFFICE, this day of
19
Notary Public -k State of Texas
Printed name of Notary Pbld
My commission expires /,
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AND ABANDONING
THAT PORTION OF A 10 FOOT UTILITY
EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY ONLY AS IT
RELATES TO THE WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL PARK
SUBDIVISION (CAB. G, SLIDE 183-184),
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, SAID EASEMENT
BEING OF RECORD IN VOLUME 577, PAGE 708
DEED RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY,
TEXAS, AND EXCEPTING AND RESERVING UNTO
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, ITS SUCCESSORS
AND ASSIGNS THE ABANDONED PORTION OF THE
EASEMENT IF THERE ARE ANY FUNCTIONING
UTILITY LINES OR APPURTENANCES LOCATED
ON SAID ABANDONED PORTION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REPAIRING, REPLACING,
RESTORING, REMOVING, RELOCATING AND
MAINTAINING, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FROM
TIME TO TIME, EXISTING UTILITY LINES
INCLUDING SEWER, DRAINAGE, WATER PIPING
AND ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION LINES AND
APPURTENANCES ON, UNDER, ACROSS OR OVER
SAID ABANDONED PORTION.
WHEREAS, Twin Creek Properties is the owner of the
Williamson Commercial Park Subdivision recorded in Cabinet G
Slide 183-184 Official Records of Williamson County, apart of
which is affected by the above mentioned easements; and
WHEREAS, said owner has petitioned the City of Georgetown
for the abandonment of said easements as they related to the
Williams Commercial Park Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has determined that it does
not need the full easements and rights of way first above
mentioned,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, that the City hereby abandons and
vacates those portions of the easement being of record in Volume
577, Page 709, Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, except
that the City of Georgetown reserves and excepts unto itself, its
successors, and assigns, any part of the abandoned portion of the
easement if there are any utility lines or appurtenances thereto
located on said abandoned portion for the purpose of repairing,
replacing, restoring, removing, relocating and maintaining, as
may be necessary from time to time, any existing utility lines
including sewer,drainage, water piping and electric distribution
lines and appurtenances on, under, across or over said abandoned
portion.
READ, PASSED AND APPROVED on first reading this 27th day of
May, 1986.
READ PASSED AND APPROVED on second and final reading this
day of , 19_
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
BY:
Jim Colbert, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Secretary
APPROVED FOR FORM:
City Attorney
Stump & Stump
zX h; 6; -f "A
FLELU NOTES FOR ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENT
BEING a 10 foot wide strip of land situated in the Nicholas Porter Survey,
Abstract No. 497 in Williamson County, Texas; said land being a part of an
easewent described in Volume 577, Page 708 of the Deed Records of William-
son County, Texas, also being a part of Williams Commercial Park, a sub-
division of record in Cabinet C, Slide 183 of the Plat Records of William -
boa Cuuury, Texas, and being were particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point in the Southedsc right-of-way line of River Bend Drive
as shown on the above -referenced Williams Commercial Park plat;
THENCE, in a westerly direction, crossing the Northwest right-of-way line
of River Bend Drive and the Southeast line of Lot 1, Block B of the said
Williams Commercial Park, crossing the Southwest line of said Lot 1 and the
Noctheasr right-of-way line of Dawn Drive, crossing the Southwest line of
said Dawn Drive and the Northeast line of Lot 1, Block A, Williams
Cuiww:rcidl Park to a point in the most northerly West line of the said Lot
1, Block A, for the termination hereof.
E -9172-o l
124/lh
W
0
n
I
I^
k G\1 T C•
I
114 Ar
h 9
GP'
40. 7.
S l•_ ?
09. _
r4l
s 4
S mss•
I -I 9Gi
Y? C.AL.`I!N
c
RIVER' F
SEND
N 48'46 16 700.
t41. W ft- L j A'- , !7
g03 Ac
S tj Z
tt Se•
S0'
1 /
lssvr c
7 lel Vff"I -i*''!
I
114 Ar
J
GP' a y i• I
u
FQ 6: oy vs•
1
LEGEND:
tet`
Iron pin found
Iran pin set
9— Electricat Line
RISE C
1 j
I
I
a
I
GP' a y i• I I
Hi Vr
1
LEGEND: I
Iron pin found
Iran pin set
9— Electricat Line
a
C.) ORDINANCE—ABANDONMENT OF 10' ALLEYWAY RUNNING ALONG ALL OF BLOCK
5 SOUTH SIDE ADDITION
Location Map
Applicant: William E & Lorry L Bailey
Ewel McDonald
Annie L Chambers
Martin & Rose Aleman
Mr & Mrs Albert Bielss
Request•
As indicated on the attached petition, the applicants have
requested that the City of Georgetown vacate and abandon a 10'
alleyway in Block 5 of Southside Addition recorded in Vol. 73
Page 454 County Deed Records.
Location: North of 19th Street between Church St. and Ash St.
Southside -page 2
Discussion•
The plat of Southside Addition was recorded in 1895 (see attached
copy). This plat does not indicate the use for the 10' strip
between the north and south halves of Block 5. Nor is there a
specific dedication statement associated with the plat. However,
historically the City has considered many of the streets and
alley" areas to be public right-of-way. Thus, in order to clear
up possible title problems the requested action is warranted.
Planning and Public Works staff have reviewed the request and
find no existing public use nor future public need for this 10'
strip of land. Applicant should be put on notice that typically
an abandoned R.O.W. reverts to adjacent owners to the center line
i.e. 5 ft.) of the R.O.W. being abandoned.
Recommendation:
Granting of the request and approval of the Ordinance, conditional upon
City Attorney approval prior to second reading.
City Council Action:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 5/27/86
ITEM WAS NOT PLACED ON AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 6/10/86
5-0)
Tabling of item pending further review andapproval by City Attorney.
PETITION
PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN VACATE AND ABANDON A 10 FT.
ALLEYWAY RUNNING ALONG THE ENTIRE BLOCK
5 OF THE SOUTH SIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS,
ACCORDING TO THE MAP OF SAID ADDITION
RECORDED IN VOI.IIME. 73, PAGE 454 DKED
RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBITS
A & B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART
HEREOF:
TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
We the undersigned Petitioners, pursuant to Article 1016
V.A.C.S., being all of the abutting owners of real property of a
certain alleyway described on Exhibits "A & B" attached hereto in
the City of Georgetown, Texas, hereby request said Council to
abandon and vacate said alleyway as described on Exhibits "A & B"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference for all
purposes.
The status of ownership of the abutting property is asfollows:
William E & Lorry L Bailey -South portion of Northwest 1/4
Block 5 Southside Addition Vol. 936, page 501
Ewel McDonald -Northeast 1/4 Block 5 Southside Addition
Vol , page
Annie L Chambers -West portion of southwest 1/4 Block 5
Southside Addition Vol. 425, page 643
Martin & Rose Aleman-East portion of southwest 1/4 Block 5
Southside Addition, Vol 428, page 377
Mr. & Mrs. Albert Bielss-North 1/2 of Lot 2 & 4 Block 5
Southside Addition, Vol 533, page 421
The reason for this request is as follows:
This alleyway described in Exhibits "A & B" has not been
utilized by the City of Georgetown for more than 25 years and
there are certain improvements belonging to the owners situated
on said alleyway and the City of Georgetown has no need for said
alleyway.
This is a request for the vacating and abandonment of all of
said alleyway. It is understood that the City shall also reserve
and except unto itself, its successors and assigns any part of
the abandoned portion of the alleyway if there are any
functioning utility lines or appurtenances thereto located on
said abandoned portion of the alley for the purpose of
maintaining, repairing, replacing or removing any existing water, drainage, sewer, electric or any other utility lines as may benecessaryfromtimetotime.
WHEREFORE, said Petitioners pray that the Planning and
Zoning commission make its recommendation to the City Council
that the certain 10 ft. alleyway be abandoned and that the Citv
Council for the City of Georgetown vacate and abandon all of said
alleyway in accordance with the law as got out above, and furtherSavingandExceptinganypartoftheabandonedportionofthe
alleyways if there are any functioning utility lines or
appurtenances thereto located on said abandoned portion.
Owner
State of Texas
County of
Before me, a Notary Public, on this day personally appeared
UMIla.rn E.Au:kt/, known to me to be the person whose
name is subscri ed 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
this acJ - day of _ T-ebruar.r , A.D. 19 8•(o
Notary Public, Stat of Texas
My commission expires / T/D-
i
Owner
State of Texas
County of
Before me, aNotary Public, on this day personally appeared
Lorr%4 L 1. cl,.6W known to me to be the person whose
name &s subscrib d 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
this day of _hrvozn A.D. 19 F!CL—/
Notary Public, Stat# of Texas
My commission expires I
Sa,, 11 gp )
j
o—
n
4! Gc/ y r, v /A S
cpulfjS G4E /1 X. -t/%
4.36
0/
P'
Owner
State of Texas
County
Before me, a Nota-r/y Public, on this day personally appeared
t;P/!%%/.r17a 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
this 2fday of a A.D. 19 .
Notary Public, State of Texas
My commission expires ",2r/ P9
Owner
State of Texas
County of 44J, /1j'CLp%fin
Before me, a Notjry Public, on this day personally appeared
L -a- J 12 T /"1)ni1 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
this day of f A.D. 19/
i
Notary Public, State of Texas
My commission expires
Owner
State of Texas
County of
Before me, Not Public, on this day personally appeared6PRieTsknowntometobethepersonwhose
name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration
therein e pressed. Given under hand and seal of office
this day of Y eL4- , A.D. 191FL_.
Owner
Statu of Texas
County of
e
Notary Public,jStat*6 of Texas
My commission expires //-a0 Fy
Yah
DOROTHY E. JONES1)p_sC Notary Public -State of Teta
n
Y/ r,mmmion h9im Nw. " 19U
Before me, a Notary Public, on this day personally appearedpeslkee-f B 1 e /ss 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 considerationthereinImpressed. Given under y hand and seal of officethis day of d- 7 A . 19 9t/
Notary Public, ate.'f Texas
My commission expires //- -3o- rf
Yy
DOROTHY E. JONES
firm Public State of Tens
r v, r T-.,,, sn es -. tees
Liv /Ni,7 o y
f/k s
Lord
vo (/.Me 53 J
P6. y
qL
Retc'z, 34
Owner
State of Texas
Countv of
Before mea-.Notary Puolic, on this day personally appeared
i ; , %. , • Z//?42 17 E-;, aj known to me to be the person whose
name is subs'tribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration
therein expressed. G'en under my hand and seal of office
this h day of .. A.D. 19_,E4.
Not ry lic, State of Texas
4r /--?/
My commission expires
X CCy n cL C (-170 yJ7_cJX
Owner
S -atv ul 'ruxas
County of
IANA DAMS
IWA uMc SLY d l 0-K, ly to aia FHn+ YM M If/
Before me / Notary public, on this day personally appearedZ?z Li J 'ftiiX enc c known to me to be the person whose
name is su scribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
to me that he executed the same..for the purposes and considerationthereinexpressed. Given under my hand and seal of officethisdayof / f', A.D. .19 F6/
j llr i )17 of
Notcyry Pu c, State o
M'Ocommi ssion expires
0:0, M Canmiuwny My Ilb
Owner
State of Texas
County of
Before me, a Notary Public, on this day personally appeared
Martin Aleman 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
this 21st day of March , A. D. 19 86
Notary Public, State of Texas
My commission expires
Owner
La Lu ul '('vriJ5
County of
Before me, a Notary Public, on this day personally appeared
beman 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 considerationthereinexpressed. Given under my hand and seal of office
this 21st day of March A.D. 19 86 /
r
c S
SOLA,
0150 x/ S Gt/ G l crrl forte
VotUm e377
D r o -
1a, GFc- o.S
z ''-'cam--zl J l`-'•--j'` -
NeJtary Public, State of Texas
My commission expires
EXN/3/7- "A
THE GUARANTEE ABSTRACT COMPANY. INC.. OFFICE IN COURTHOUSE. GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Un e.el
A r-%
r Aha^dcna.¢••,
Avel0)-6st-
i
Ar
c L;nk L c R R Rcscrva tion
N
PAGE
R-
LLMai o
8 /eck S n{ 5.
is:Tlor/-Ci y orCreo/,elo
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AND ABANDONING
THAT CERTAIN ALLEYWAY RUNNING ALONG THE
ENTIRE BLOCK 5 OF THE SOUTH SIDE
ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS,AS RECORDED IN
VOLUME 73, PAGE 455 DEED RECORDS OF
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBITS "A &
B", ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART
HEREOF;
WHEREAS, William E & Lorry L Bailey, Ewel McDonald, Annie L
Chambers, Martin & Rose Aleman, and Mr. and Mrs. Albert Bielss
being all of the abutting owners of land to that alleyway more
particularly described on Exhibits "A & B"; and
WHEREAS, said owners have petitioned the City of Georgetown
for the abandonment of said alleyway as it relates to the South
Side addition to the City of Georgetown, Williamson County,
Texas, as recorded in Volume 73, Page 454, Deed records of
Williamson County, Texas; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has not utilized said
alleyway for twenty-five years or more and petitioners own
certain improvements situated on said alleyway and the City of
Georgetown has no need for said alleyway;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, that that certain alleyway described
in Exhibits "A & B" is hereby vacated, closed and abandoned, save
and except that the City of Georgetown reserves and excepts unto
itself, its successors and assigns any part of the abandoned
portion of the alleyway if there are any functioning utility
lines or appurtenances thereto located on said abandoned portion
with the right to maintain, repair, replace, or remove, as may be
necessary from time to time, any existing water, drainage,
sewer,electric or other utility lines and appurtenances on,
under, across or over said abandoned portion.
READ, PASSED AND APPROVED on first reading this Z 7 ' day
of M4u , 1986.
READ PASSED AND APPROVED on second and final reading this
day of , 19
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
BY:
Jim Colbert, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Secretary
APPROVED FOR FORM:
City Attorney
Stump & Stump
THE GUARANTEE ABSTRACT COMPANY. INC.. OFFICE IN COURT HOUSE. GEORGETOWN. TEXAS.
UndeveIga'a't
Alk R
0
M.rtmro.7
rT6
b° Fisher
3
f
Avc lul1 'Sf-
L;n4 Lrn, P R Rcserva Ron
PAGE
F
3/oc.F 5 aF
II
1I
r.
S`
e TJTH 5, D _ A=
T111'
1TL I
r rirrr
Sco Ce S<.<. •ob q
INOR1. a r Ikam m m
aa• -a.aar s
q I Y
City of Georgetown
City Council Meeting
June 24, 1986 7:00 pm
Planning Items:
Consent Agenda
1. Windridge Village - Final Plat
2. Crystal Knoll R.S.U. - Preliminary / Final Plat
3. Apple Creek - Preliminary / Final Plat
4. 808 Cielo - Variance - Existing Building Line Encroachment
5. Hygeia - Ordinance rezoning from RS to I - 2nd Reading
6. Briarwood IV - Final Plat
Regular Agenda -
7. Consider - Policy on Abandonment of City Rights -of -Way -Randy Stump
8. Ordinance - Abandonment of 10 foot Ally in Block 5 Southside
Addition (North of 19th Street between Church and Ash) - 1st
reading
9. 509 Spring Valley Road - Variance from Setback Requirements
of Zoning Ordinance (Existing)
10. 510 E. 15th Street - Variance from Setback Requirements of
Zoning Ordinance (Proposed)
11. Little Oak Park - Appeal of Final Plat
WINDRIDGE VILLAGE -- REVISED FINAL FLAT
Location Map, 1" 2000'
Applicant: Tim L Wright, President
West of the Tracks Development Co., Inc.
213 West 8th
Georgetown, Tx 78626
863-4525
Agent: G.W. Schmidt & Co.
600 A Forest Street
Georgetown, Tx 78626
863-4394
Fequest__
Revised Final plat approval for Windridge Village, a 10.97 acre
subdivision situated in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No.
21. Variances are requested for right angle lots anu lots
exceeding the 2.5:1 depth to width ratio, reduction of center
line radius on 2nd Street, and Lot depth less than 100 feet.
Wi.ndr-idge Village- page
Facts.
Location: Between the eastern extremes of 2nd and 3rd
Streets (just east of Holly Street) and MK
T Railroad. The tract is within the City
limits and the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
Existing Zoning: RS Residential Single family
Surrounding Uses: This tract is surrounded by undeveloped and
agricultural land, as well as single family
residences and a fuel storage facility whict
is a non -conforming use.
Proposed Use: 40 single family residences on 6000 sq. ft.
lots at a density of 3.65 dwelling
units/acre.
Development Plan: District 6a. This tract lies in an
undesignated area of the development plan bu'
is consistent with existing zoning.
Utilities: City service is requested for water, sewer
and electric.
Review Response: Written review comments have been received
from Fire Marshall, Building Dept. and City
Engineer. Verbal comments have been receive.,
from Public Works Engineering. No comments
have been received from Police Chief, Water- .'.
Sewer Dept., Electric Dept. or other
utilities. One adjacent property owner has
expressed concern verbally regarding the
drainage impact. (see copy of response
attached).
History: Preliminary plat was conditionaliv approved
by Council on February 11, 1986, with many o
the conditions rolating to utilities and
drainage. A previous version of this plat
was denied by P&Z on May 6, 1986 due to
failure to meet ordinance requirements and
conditions of preliminary plat approval.
Staff had also recommended at that time that
the construction plans be approved by staff
prior to revised final plat submittal. Sinc.:
it was clearly indicated that this; is not an
ordinance requirement, this portion of the
recommendation was intended to be a more or
less voluntary condition subject to the
acceptance of the applicant. The reason for
the position was to clear up several issues
Windridge Village - page 3
which, from the staff perspective, could ha,
altered the confiyuration of the lots shown
on the plat. Subsequent to P&Z action,
discussions between staff and applicant have
indicated Lhat several of the previous
objections could have been avoided through
better communication between applicant and
staff and internally within City staff. This
includes the failure of planning staff to
transmit certain review comments to the
applicant. The remainder of previous
objections have been resolved on the revised
plat insofar- as is normally required for t -hi_:
stage of the review process. Planning Staff
accepts its full share of respon_;ibility for
this lack of communication and requests that
the Planning and Zoning Commission consider
the revised final plat subject to the
following report. No additional fees have
been charged to applicant for this
resubmittal.
Land Use - No problem with land use type and density.
However, as was indicated in previous
reports, several lots are irregularly shaped
and/or bisected by easements to such an
extent as to make them marginally usable. 0.
particular- concern are Lots 1, 7 & 16 Block:
A} Lots 9-11 & 17--19 Block C, and all lots i
Block D. Even though these lots may be show..
to meet the letter of the ordinance, it
should be noted for the record that future
requests for variances from setback:
requirements cannot be legitimately justifies
due to lot shape or size. A plat note
regarding this issue should be required.
As previously required, a proposal for
buffering of future residences from existing
nuisances to the south and west of the
subdivision has been submitted (see the
Miscellanwou_;" section of this report.)
Streets - Streets are acceptable as shown on plat.
However, to fulfill ordinance requirements,
written requost for variance of toe center-
line radius:, for 2nd Street should be
submitted as requested in the last planning
report. Off-site street improvements shall
be required aw shown on plat. Access for
corner lots in the development should be
controlled by plat notation such that
driveway access shall be relegated to the
lower volume street.
Windridge Village - revised - page 4
Drainage Applicant has agreed to address previous
drainage concerns by the following;
1. A drainage easement has been indicated
along the south line of the property.
The emact dimension of this essement
cannot be determined until both the
design of the required drainage way and
the proposed buffer- yard have been
completed. Applicant has agreed to work
with the railroad to the extent possible
to provide adequate drainage along this
area which eliminates standing water,
protects adjacent: lots from flooding,
allows Lhe creation of the proposed
buffer yard, and minimized nagative
impact on downstream City property.
2. Similarly, run -oft discharge points front
Wright Lane and Lots 1-9 Block A shall br
controlled to meet the ordinance
requirement to "protect adjoining
property from any increase run-off".
Applicant agrees to obtain any required
off-site easements, to perform any
required of --site channelization, and to
indicate any additional on-site easement
on the plat prior to recordation.
3. If the re=solution of the items mentioned
above result in significant changes to
the plat submitted, the plat shall be
resubmitted to P&Z and Council for
approval.
4. Lot depth less than 100 feet - Lot 1,
Bloch: A.
Utilities - An easement fur the future 30" water line ha,,
been added to the: plat, west of the existing
sanitary sewer casement. This routing has
been app•ro4ed by Public Works and no further
participatic•n in Lhis line shall be
required. Howeder, a second connection to
water supply in still recommended by the Cit.
Engineer- to avoid loss of service to this
site during maintenance or emergency
conditions. Additional fire hydrants are
required along the proposed water lines to
the west of the property.
Windridge Village - pago 5
A previous condition of approval was tc
show the record volume and page of the
existing wastewater and electrical easement.
crossing the property. Applicant has
indicated that no such easement can be
located. Therefore, the indication of
easements, sufficient for pruoosed condiLio—
has been added to the plat and should be
considered sufficient to meet pravious
conditions. The costs associateO with the
relocation of existing power lire shall be
born by applicant:.
According to the City Engineers report,
existing downstream sanitary sewer- lines ar
currently overloaded. Therefore, service L.
this property will require the completion o:
downstream distribution line improvements
prior- to issuance of building permits. As
these improvements are already in process
through the IH -15 Joint Venture Project, it
is anticipated that the required wort:: will
completed by the time water service is
available Lu this project in the summer of
1987.
Variances Staff has no ub_,:_•ction to the following
requested variances:
1. Lots arranged at right angles - Lots G -i_
and 11--12, Block: A; and Lots 13 - 15,
Block C.
2. Lots exceeding 2.5:1 depth to width rat;.-,
Lots 4 & 5, Block: A
3. Reductio" :n the centerline radius of 2r•:.-
Street
r••:,
Street: from 800 feet to 310 Leet,
conditional upon establishinu a maximum
speed limit on the curve of 25 mph.
Miscellaneous - As required by a condition of preliminary
plat approval, applicant: has submitted a
proposal for the required buffer yards
adjacent to the railroad tracks and fuel
storage facility. This proposal is presenttv.-
as Attachment U following, and a counter
proposal from staff is presented as
Attachment *2.
Windridge Village - page 6
El' L,
A-1NT1G.W. SCHMIDT & CO. .,,,, , „ r
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Mr. Ed Barry, Director
Division of Community
City of Georgetown,
P.O. Box 409
600 Fwnt SI,mt
Gewgelw . Tk 70626
April 4, 1986 15121 869.4594
Development and Planning
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
Dear Mr. Barry:
RE: Proposed Final--I h
Windridge Village.
Submitted herewith is the proposed final plat and supporting
documentation for this subdivision.
In accordance with the conditions of approval of the preliminary
plat the following proposal is submitted regarding buffering the
site from the M.K.T. Railroad. The site, in its existing condi-
tion is heavily wooded, containing extensive tree cover of native
variety. Close inspection of the area in question, a 30 -foot
wide strip adjacent to the railroad, revealed good tree cover in
that area, as well as in a portion of the railroad. We propose
to leave this area undisturbed, in its existing condition, thereby
preserving the natural buffer, already in place. In addition we
would propose one of the following:
1) Requiring the construction of a 6 -foot high wooden fence
along the rear of each lot, so that the entire length of
the railroad will be separated from the lots. This
fencing will be constructed in conjunction with the
individual house construction and will be enforced with
deed restrictions and plat notations.
2) Planting shrubs along the property line in a manner
that will combine them with the existing.trees and
vegetation. This buffer would thereby serve as both
a greenbelt and barricade to pedestrian traffic from
the subdivision to the railroad. The specifics of
the proposed shrubbery are not presented at this time,
but could be the result of agreement between the City's
staff and the owner, following on-site inspections of
the existing conditions, etc. This alternate would be
furnished by the owner as part of the subdivision
improvements.
With respect to other aspects of this proposed subdivision, it is
intended that all city ordinances and requirements are complied
with, with the exception of variances requested in the subdivision
application, which deal with right-angle lots and depth -to -width
ratio.
If addtional information is required, please call.
Respectfully Submitted,
AX
jC!'
Glenn W. Schmidt, P.E.
cc: Mr. Tim Wright
file
GWS/ib
r;
Windr'idge Village -- page 7
Attachment
Windridge Village
Recommend buffer yard requirements adjacent to railroad R.O.W.
and fuel storage facility:
The minimum widths of the buffer yard shouli be 30 feet
from rear/side lot: lines. A six --foot, solid screen,
privacy fence constructed of masonry, pressure treater
wood, or a combination thereof having a gate for
maintenance access and luc.ated two -Feet beyond the
inside bank of any perimeter drainage swale: used to
ty--pass off-site run--of•f shall be built as part of the
subdivision construction. The remainder• or the buffer
yard (i.e. between the •fence and residential
structures) shall be landscaped to provide one
deciduous tree to 8'feet minimum height (new trees to
be ." min. caliper), one deciduous shrub like tree of
feet minimum height (new plants to be 1" min. caliper),
and two evergreens of .} ft. minimum height for each 100
linear feet of buffer yard. Existing plant material
shall be used to meet these requirements tc the maiimui
extent possible and all existing plants which fall
within these requirements -shall be shown on subdivision
construction plans and labeled as "to remain" or "to U.
removed". Any plant to remain which is destroyed pric.,
to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for future
structure shall be replaced with a similar plant within,
the framework of the above requirements.
Windridge Village - revised - page 8
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the revised final plat of Windridge Village
conditional upon the approval of required construction plans,
and:
1. All ordinance requirements being met,
2. Utilities being adequate, the water treatment plant and
overloaded downstream sanitary sewer lines being improved
prior to the issuance of building permits, and electrical
service plans being included in construction plans,
3. Drainage issues as presented in this planning report being
resolved on the construction plans, and a Stormwater Facility
Maintenance Covenant being filed with the plat,
4. Off-site street improvements as shown on plat shall be
included in construction plans,
5. Note regarding access restrictions being added to plat as
follows:
a. Lot 1, Block A and Lot 1 Block B shall access Second
Street only
b. Lots 7 and 12, block A shall access Gann Circle only
C. Lot 1 Block D and Lot 14, Block C shall access Windridge
Lane only,
6. Buffer yards shall be required adjacent to the MK & T
Railroad R.O.W. and along the west side of Lot 19, Block C,
which shall conform to the standard as presented in
Attachment #2 of the Planning Report,
7. Granting of variances as requested and indicated in this
report.
P & Z Recommendation: (5-0)
Approval with conditions as listed above.
City Council Action: (4-0)
Approved with conditions listed above by consent.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown Planning
and Zoning Commission will meet at 7:00 oIclockam. on the
4th day of February , 19 86 at its regular meeting
place in the City Hall at 103 West 7th Street, Georgetown,
Texas to consider the proposed preliminary RJA#/Plat
for Windridge Village Subdivision located
at the east end of 2nd and rd streets, north of the MKT
Railroad
As one of the owners of adjacent property you are invited
to be present at such meeting if you desire to discuss the
proposed plan.
SEE ATTACHED LOCATION MAP FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.
CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Dated: January 13, 1986
For further information phone the City Planning Department
at 86 3-7274 OR 255-604 3
I---------------------------------------------
PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENT
Project name 4t)//ypRrDGE
Name of respondent FeAn1K HfIo c -C
I am in favor
I object i/ori % /nrCcuV S Avy AY1G ^t <rRtlTt
Comments Z. AAArrr QU"Olr< ...,L, 86- TNS SAmC A S it IS rrJoA>, qu o
pvr A1.4 -DiReec776M 7o"meo/j / Dt r'Y 1TI0.+ f•fze-p o-) FORrM
I
T/hS waacv yr eXee TTtoF A"" otp o,,,re OVILd T''lq
If you wish to submit written comment it will be read before
the Planning and Zoning Commission at the above stated time
and place.
PLEASE REPLY TO: City of Georaetown
c/o Planning Department
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
7St9t100 996 WYI
CRYSTAL KNOLL TERRACE -- R.S.U. -• PRELIMINARY / FINAL PLAT
Location Map 1"=2000
Applicant- General Telephone Company
R.O. Pox 1001
San Angelo, Tx 76902
Agent., G.W. Schmidt
600 Forest Street
Georgetown, Tx 7862h
86.3_•-4594
Request:
Preliminary / Final plat approval ,for Crystal Knoll Terrace
R.S.U. (Relay Switching Unit), a .16 acre subdivision situated i,.
the Antonio Flores Survey, Abstract. No. 235, Williamson County,
Testas. A variance to waive stor-mwAler drainage requirements i>
requested.
Crystal Knoll - R.S.U. - page 2
Facts:
Location: Just north of (and adjacent to) the
Georgetown Memorial Cemetery on the west side
of County Road 152, between County road 151
and FM 971. Within the City's E.T.J. and the
Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
Surrounding Area: Georgetown memorial Cemetery to the south;
commercial portion of proposed Pecan Branch
concept plan to the east, undeveloped to the
west and the flood plain of Pecan Branch
Creek to the north.
Existing Site: Undeveloped
Proposed Use: Telephone Switching Facility (GTE)
Development Plan: District 5c. Plan indicates
public/semi-public use. The proposed use
conforms to the plan.
Utilities: Water service to be provided by Jonah Water
Supply corp. No sanitary or septic
facilities will be required or requested.
Pedernales Electric Co-op to provide
electrical service.
Analysis•
A major factor in the consideration of this plat is the almost
entirely "un -manned" nature of this Relay Switching Unit
R.S.U.), with it having no full time employees and only
intermittent maintenance operators on site.
Land use - The G.T.E. representatives who appeared for a
similar R.S.U. proposed with the plat of Little
Oak Park (May 6th Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting) assured surrounding home owners that the
operation of this basically computer controlled
unit would be a very unobtrusive use for this
property. The small size of the proposed
facility, coupled with a brick veneer exterior,
landscaping and assurances that there would be no
storage" parking of company trucks on the
property were offered as compatibility features
for the site within the neighborhood. Landscaping
with trees or bushes of a variety with some height
would provide at least partial screening and serve
to buffer this use.
Crystal Knoll - R.S.U. page 3
Traffic - At the May 6th meeting, GTE also indicated that
traffic impact on surrounding roads would be
minimal, with one operator visiting the site
perhaps once a week, with other possible
exceptions for yard maintenance, etc. Normally
the Planning Department discourages the creation
of small frontage lots on collector and arterial
streets due to the reduction in roadway capacity
and increased turning movement conflicts
associated with closely spaced driveways. Yet,
given the limited traffic generation of this
project and its public use function, the
significance of this concern is minimal. However,
a 15 ft. dedication for future road widening and
utility installation should be added along the
front of the property to comply with the
Thoroughfare element of the City's Development
Plan.
Drainage - City Engineers recommend approval for drainage and
granting of a variance from the stormwater
detention requirements. However, the City
Drainage Ordinance stipulates that variances may
be granted for increase in run-off which does not
exceed 10% of existing condition up to a maximum
of 5 cfs if adjoining property is not adversely
affected. The increase in run-off shown on the
drainage plan is only 0.53 cfs, but this
represents a 50% increase over existing
conditions.
Utilities - Due to the limited occupancy required for the
operation of this unit, there is no need for
wastewater disposal. Whatever water needed would
be supplied by Jonah Water Supply Corp. It is
unlikely that State Board of Fire Insurance
criteria for fire flows would be provided by this
system. The extension of this service to the site
would be extremely costly and following the
precedent set by previous similar cases, should
not be pursued. However, the Master Water Plan
indicates a future City water main extension along
County Road 152 therefore the existing 15 ft.
easement to Jonah Water Company should also be
designated as a general use Public Utility
Easement.
Miscellaneous- Section 4.01 of the Subdivision Ordinance required
that if only a portion of an existing tract of
land is being subdivided then a concept plan of
the entire tract is required. The plan is to
include all land under control of the developer
Crystal Knoll R.S.U. - page 4
GTE), as well as, that owned by the seller of the
tract being platted (Joe Zavala). If there are no
current plans for the development of the remainder
of the tract then requirement 6-8 of Section 4.01
are not required. Planning Commission review and
approval of this plan are not required.
Consideration should also be given to request
that the applicant place Deed Restrictions on the
property which would prohibit the erection of
towers and the like in excess of 35 feet in
height.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of Preliminary / Final plat conditional upon:
1. All ordinance requirements being met,
2. Pursuant to Section 6.04 (1-3) a Detailed Development Plan
shall be submitted for staff approval prior to recordation
which demonstrates the use of landscaping to comply with
drainage requirements, provide necessary security, and create
a visual buffer from adjacent uses.
3. Pursuant to Section 4.01 a Concept Plan shall be submitted
showing the perimeter of the 25.8 acre "parent" tract from
which this lot is being subdivided. If no plans for the
remainder of the tract are proposed, the items 6-7 and 8 of
Section 4.01 will not be required.
4. A 15 foot dedication for "Road Widening and Public Utility
Easement" shall be added to the front of the plat and the
building line pushed back.
5. Approval of the granting of a variance from the Aquifer
Protection Rules by the County being secured.
6. Applicant shall establish restrictive covenants which
prohibit the construction of towers and the like in excess of
35 feet in height.
P & Z Recommendation: (5-0)
Approval with conditions listed above, with the request for rear
building line to be cut from 10 feet to 5 feet addressed with a
Detailed Development Plan if needed.
City Council Action: (4-0)
Approved with conditions listed above by consent.
7
c.:
APPLE CREEK — PRELIMINARY/ FINAL PLAT
Location Map
Applicant: Terry R Hagood, A.E.C.
600 IH -35 South
Round Rock, Tx 78681
244-1546
1"=2500'
Owner: State Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.of Lubbock
1617 Broadway
Lubbock, Tx 79401
806) 765-8521
Request:
Preliminary/ Final plat approval for Apple Creek, a 12.98 acre
tract out of the Nicholas Porter Survey, Abstract #497, recorded
in Volume 612, page 868, Williamson County, Texas.
OAN
i
PARS
0 IOpO :600 O' ONE INCH FUUALS AWROXIMATELY 2W FEF'
M -.!S O 5 0 ONE JKH EOUALS APPROXIMATELY 5 MILES
Location Map
Applicant: Terry R Hagood, A.E.C.
600 IH -35 South
Round Rock, Tx 78681
244-1546
1"=2500'
Owner: State Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.of Lubbock
1617 Broadway
Lubbock, Tx 79401
806) 765-8521
Request:
Preliminary/ Final plat approval for Apple Creek, a 12.98 acre
tract out of the Nicholas Porter Survey, Abstract #497, recorded
in Volume 612, page 868, Williamson County, Texas.
Apple Creek. - page 2
Facts
Location: Adjacent to and east of IH• -35 and west of
Hwy. 81. Across from northwest wart of San
Gabriel Park. It is within city limits and
the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
Surrounding Area: Single family residences, except for
industrial use to north.
Existing Site: Construction of apartment site substantially
completed.
Proposed Use: Residential, Multi family with 10 apartment
buildings having either- ib or 24 units per
building. Gross density is 13.6 d.u./acre.
Development Plan: District 5a. The Comprehensive plan has
designated this area for industrial and
commercial. Use conforms to previously
approved site plan.
Utilities: City of Georgetown
History
The site plan for• this project was .approved May 8, 1984.
Flatting was required as a condition of this approval in order- t.
secure proper dedication of roadway=_ and public utility
easements.
Analysis•
Since the site construction plans for this development_ have been
previously approved and construction substantially complete, the
plat has been reviewed only for conformance with approved plans
and plat informational requirements. The two year period betweer.
the original plan approval and the submittal of the plat
illustrates in a very dramatic: tawhion the need to adhere to the
normal planning process and complete the review of alt related
development documents simultaneously, i.e. plat, site development
plans, &< public improvements construction plans.
Land Use - Conforms to that Oriyirrally appruved. It is
unclear exactly what lot 2 is to be used
for. Documents on file do not provide clear
indication and virtually no staff personnel
involved with the original approval are
currently with the City. However, it
Apple Creek - page 3
apparently whuuld be included ao part of thL
required common recreation area And so
indicated on the plat.
Street=_ - The alignment of Apple Creek Drive shown or,
the plat dues not conform exactly to that o
the originally approved site plan. However.
applicant has indicated that it matches the
as built street. This will be confirmed up..
the submittal of the "as built" constructio,
plans. Traffic, Parking and Safety Committnt
has indicated the possible future need for _.
traffic signal at its intersection with Hwy
81 as traffic volumes increase. A variance
has been requested to reduce the center- tin._
radius of Apple Creek: Blvd. from 840 feet 0.
667 feet in order to form a 90 degree
intersection with IH -35. The original
requirement for the extension of this stree.
resulted from a plan to secure a bridge
connection from Apple Creek Dr. Vo Northwest_
Blvd. west of IH -35. This variance should a:
granted only if the indicated alignment can
be shown to accommodate this option.
Drainage - Conforms with original plan. HC:wever, the
location of the stormwater detention facili'
should be indicated on the plat and a
Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenant
filed with the plat to assure future
maintenance.
Utilities - All utilities for the project haze been
constructed in substantial conformance with
approved plans. The Public Works Division
and Fire Marshall have requested that the
primary water service line loop. y through
Lot 1 be placed in a public utility easement.
for maintenance purposes.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the final plat of Apple Creek subdivision condition.;
upon the following:
1. Approval of "as built" site development construction plant.
and City acceptance of required public improvements
Drainage improvements being completed, the detention facili,
being shown on plat and a Stormwater Facility Maintenance
Covenant being filed with the plat
1. A PUE as required by Public Works and provision for -
maintenance access being indicated on the plat 4ur the water
main on Lot 1.
Apple Creek - page 0 Lf
4. The variance for reduction of the required center line radius
of Apple Creek Drive shall be granted conditional upon
applicant's submittal of an engineered plan showing the
relationship of this ROW to the existing Northwest Boulevard
and subsequent staff determination that a future bridge
crossing of IH -35 is not significantly impaired.
5. Lot 2 shall be labeled as "Common Open Space."
P&Z Recommendation: Approval conditional upon the above comments
being met and with the amendment that the applicant and adjacent
property owners meet and come to a resolution regarding the
placement of a fence between the site and adjacent single family
residences to east.
City Council Action: (4-0)
Approved with conditions listed above and amended to add a
condition that:
6. Fence to be constructed by applicant between this project and
adjacent single family uses to east.
Revised 9/3/85
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Notice is hereby given that the City'of Georgetown Planning
and Zoning Commission will meet at 7 o'clockpm, on the
3rd day of ,Tune 19 86 at regular meeting
place in the City Hal' at?n ^S,l as,
1
Georgetown,
Texas to consider the proposed Final PMM/Plat
for Apple Creek
Subdivision located
at 302 Apple Creek Drive, west of Highway 81, approximately 800 feet
south of intersection of Highway 81 with FM 971.
As one of the owners of adjacent property you are invited
to be present at such meeting if you desire to discus •the,
proposed plan.
SEE ATTACHED LOCATION MAP FOR FURTHER INFORMrATYON. a
CITY PLANNING AND ONING COMM:SiI01
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
o
Dated
For further nformation phone the Citv_ Planning Depar '
at 86 3-7274 OR 255-604 3
PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENT
Project name
Name of respondent
I am in favor
I object -1 r n^ J i zer-ti
Comments ,r/,, r - --'„ _ _d _
If you wish to submit written comment it will be read before
the Planning and Zoning Commission at the above stated time
and place.
PLEASE REPLY TO: City of Georgetown
c/o Planning Department
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Revised 9/3/85
Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown Planning
and Zoning Commission will meet at 7 o'clockpm. on the
3rd day of June 19 86 at its regular meeting
place in w
Georgetown,
Texas to consider the proposed Final 11AIMPl/plat
for Apple Creek Subdivision located
at 302 Apple Creek Drive, west of Highway 81, approximately 800 feet
south of intersection of Highway 81 with FM 971.
As one of the owners of adjacent property you are invited
to be present at such meeting if you desire to discuss the
proposed plan.
SEE ATTACHED LOCATION MAP FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.
CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Dated:
For further i ormation phone the City Planning Department
at 863-7274 OR 255-6043
Project name
Name of respo
I aa, in favor
PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENT
I object
Comments .r/ A ro a_ !7 , _ _•- _
O
If you wish to submit written comment it will b)red before
the Planning and Zoning Commission at the abov4e time
and place.
PLEASE REPLY TO: City of Georgetownc/o Planning Department
P.O. Box 409 \t
Georgetown, Texas 78627'Q4D9;
E05 CIELO - VARIANCE - BUILDING LINE ENCROACHMENT
Location Map,
Applicant:
Agent:
Reguest•
Warner Croft
808 Cielo
Georgetown T:: 78626
Same
1:=1000'
Approval of request for variance form 25` -Front building line
setback:, Subdivision Ordinance Section 5.04 - 1. For 808 Cielo..
Serenada East, Section II, Lot 2, Black: :, (see attached form)
Facts•
Location: On the east side of Cielo Drive between
Basque Trail and Cavu Road of Sevenada East,
Section 11. Within E.T.J. and Edwards
Aquifer Recharge Zone.
Surrounding Area: Large lot single family residential
Existing Site: Large lot single family resident.::
808 Cielo page 2
Development Plan: District 4c. Use complies with plan.
Analysis•
This residential building was constructed 20'6" from front
property line, an infringement of 4'6" into
the 25' front building line setback. The
applicant did not submit a letter of
explaination, thus we have no other
information other than the fact the building
was started in October of 1984. The required
fees have been paid.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval
P & Z Recommendation: (5-0)
Approval of request
City Council Action: (4-0)
Approval of request by consent
Y. 1 LN,111IN411 IIF 111Th IRMNIII-
To: Planning Department Date:
Subject: Request of Variance - Zoning Change
A request for Variance - Zerri-ng 6kang is being requested
by:,il ZIAiQfor
Address)_
Lot No. Bl k: ?j Addition:11—
Reason for Rqst:
Please provide the Building Department with a copy of the final
action tak n by the Planning G Zoning Commission or City Council.
FRANK E. WINEINGER
Building Official
r 0
THI°. CM OF GEORGETOWN POST OFFICI Hu\ .u>u GIOR(;F1OWN. FI:AAS Tvo?s 1FLFPHONF ,c KPIASAI
1 ,41 TPIM Ii's 111 un, IIM
Dwv t W 0.rvGzr C -" T
1
q5
l p'
I
f
I '
I
n
I
i
GS 1
r -
r
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE "ZONING ORDINANW PASSED APO
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 ORpp NANCE: n , TO CHANGE THE PROPERTY OF TRI PL EX -ii TEl.lyC L7P.h ,,JO{i,pINTHECLEMENTSTUBBLEFIELDSURVEY, A-558, THE -
WILLIAM ADDISON SURVEY, A-21, AND THE RUIDOSA
IRRIGATION CO. SURVEY, A-715 IN THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, FROM RS -RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO
I - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS:
WHEREAS, as application has been made to the City Council
for the purpose of changing the zoning district classification of
the following described real estate from a RS residential single
family District, to I Industrial District zoning
classification; said property being more particularly described
as follows, to wit:
HYGEIA, a 15.00 acre subdivision situated in
the Clement Stubblefield survey A-558, the
William Addison survey, A-21, and the Ruidose
Irrigation Co. Survey, A-715. City of
Georgetown, Williamson county, Texas as
recorded in Cab. H, Slide 100-101 of County,
Official Records.
WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed change
in the Zoning Ordinance to the City Planning and Zoning
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 stated the time and place of hearing and which time
was not earlier than fifteen days from the first day of such
publication; and
WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15)
days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and
Zoning Commission, to all the owners of the lots within 200 feet
of the above described property, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the
property for which such change is applied such sign(s) as
required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing, not less than fifteen (15) days before the
date set for said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a
meeting held on May 6L 1986 recommended the
changing of said Zoning District Classification as provided in
the Zoning Ordinance on the above described property from a RS
Residential Single Family District to I Industrial District
Zoning Classification.
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, as well as the Zoning
District described above shall be and the same is hereby removed
from the RS residential single family District to I
Industrial District Zoning Classification.
READ, passed,and adopted this 27 day of May. 19 86
READ, passed, and adopted this day of
19 , on the second reading.
Jim Colbert, Mayor
City of Georgetown
ATTEST:
Pat Caballero
City Secretary
Approved as to form:
Stump a d Stu
City Attorney
G.oq. e.ue a tl •e d T..•. Pw•. t Leet C.......
r ereJ :n rntwr M. •ere er<ar1. el va 1)u•en C......
L. assn. 4.re r.b....y te. IDb in bre. •1 b.n Ievo 1 U,ha
t s.p.... ....... :. r.l w. UT, Py ))), nese r....a. el v{)tlorsn
evn... ......
i 5 4
t,4U 4V /
I /
e NO/•GlL
N.N•LfC A/Ba,' I .terlr I .
kD
f
ise•' IIv
I
4°' A •
I
g 1
x c 1111 Ib
ly
JNSlW
wry•
I
aw
i A•1llJ' r NGT
eV' —
PL EX, o hbo'o Orlgh) 1, neral Po.InersnlpWriner
N Mealy. r
1 .yj0.
s
A
ti
e
yyn
Smith
J5°
t%
J4
J
II
BL.OJK Y>l
r I z
N.O. I•ZON
ypip ` / !t
LAI Jjb
1II W
I eU
I YY
I
LI
1 `I
PG Qb St pO'q atA ! DfR,t Sq)')g00 1, \ 1
I Ptsts, I
I I I [J/JriAt ,f0ra[. rC.% _ I
f I
I'
II ISI
IQ1JI4 3L0CAJ )L,l
HI
S
IW [yICIA4MEH ^,IAL 7a k PC ! I
LwdNGI" Fj JL /Ll .JcT/'_r[f I IV
i I
STATE OF TEXAS I
KNOW ALL MF:4 AT T9rcr PNr.EK7S
A
Note:
Shaded orea de.wles 100 -year
flood plain limih,
f
ise•' IIv
I 4 sO I
c1I. IA
x c 1111 Ib
JNSlW
wry•
I
o 4
wmg
i A•1llJ' r NGT
eV' —
I I I [J/JriAt ,f0ra[. rC.% _ I
f I
I'
II ISI
IQ1JI4 3L0CAJ )L,l
HI
S
IW [yICIA4MEH ^,IAL 7a k PC ! I
LwdNGI" Fj JL /Ll .JcT/'_r[f I IV
i I
STATE OF TEXAS I
KNOW ALL MF:4 AT T9rcr PNr.EK7S
A
Note:
Shaded orea de.wles 100 -year
flood plain limih,
LOCATIgN
Scale I = .
NOTES
1. Are.: 15.00
y. Nunb.e of lot
L.F. of .tree
A,_ Proposed ...:
5. Nvaber of Al.
6. The be.rinr.
Coordint. Sy
Any .rets ref
parks. recre.
firm dr car
aceuson,
E. until such t
istint II"
N.ple Street,
in • vster fl
9, Suilidnl Pen
this let anti
of Cwrtetevn
10. Access to Fa,
without the v
11. The 100 yet,
per F.T.A. H.I
1% This pl.t If,
ll. The asainun L
of Ceortetwn
026. N SlWk /alai -A
FINAL PLAT
HYGEIA
A 15.00 -ACRE SUBDIV
CLEMENT SrUBBLEFIL
WILLIAM ADDISON SUI
RUIDOSA IRRIGATION t
f
c
LOCATIgN
Scale I = .
NOTES
1. Are.: 15.00
y. Nunb.e of lot
L.F. of .tree
A,_ Proposed ...:
5. Nvaber of Al.
6. The be.rinr.
Coordint. Sy
Any .rets ref
parks. recre.
firm dr car
aceuson,
E. until such t
istint II"
N.ple Street,
in • vster fl
9, Suilidnl Pen
this let anti
of Cwrtetevn
10. Access to Fa,
without the v
11. The 100 yet,
per F.T.A. H.I
1% This pl.t If,
ll. The asainun L
of Ceortetwn
026. N SlWk /alai -A
FINAL PLAT
HYGEIA
A 15.00 -ACRE SUBDIV
CLEMENT SrUBBLEFIL
WILLIAM ADDISON SUI
RUIDOSA IRRIGATION t
BRIARWOOD SECTION IV - FINAL PLAT
Note: This is an update of a report prepared for the
December 3, 1985 Planning Commission Hearing.
M A
Location Map
Applicant: Timber Trek Development Co., Inc.
3609 Williams Dr.
Georgetown, Tx 78626
Agent: Steger and Bizzell
PO Box 686
Georgetown, Tx 78627
863-4521
Request•
1"=2000'
Final Plat approval for Briarwood, Section IV a 22.04 acre
subdivision situated in the David Wright Survey, Abstract No.
13. Variances have been requested for:
a. Hedgewood Drive - Center line radius less than 800'
b. Block "A" exceeding 1200'
C. Lot 40 Block "A" and Lot 15 Block "C" - lots at right angles.
Briarwood IV - page 2
Facts•
Location: Northeast of Williams Drive and Briarwood
Section Three, between Serenada Country
Estates and Reata Trails Section IV. Not
within City limits, but inside the E.T.J. and
the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
Surrounding Uses: Large lot single family residential to the
northwest in Serenada Country Estates; normal
single family residential to the northeast in
Resta Trails IV; duplex lots in Briarwood
Section 3 to the southwest; and vacant land
to the southeast.
Proposed Use: 80 single family residences at a density of
3.63 lots per acre. Average lot size is
7,500 square feet.
Development Plan: District 4b. Normal residential use is
recommended, the proposed use is
substantially in conformance with the plan.
Analysis•
The plat substantially conforms to the preliminary plat
conditionally approved by Council on August 13, 1985. The
conditions of approval included the addition of a sodded berm
along the common line with Serenada Country Estates. No
indication of this berm appears on the graphic portion of the
plat but it is referred to in General Note. #9. The final design
of this buffer maximizing existing vegetation should be included
in the Construction plans.
The flood plain area at the northeast corner of this plat raises
the issue of maintenance. As developed flood plain areas such as
that along the north edge of this plat are annexed, the City will
assume the responsibility for either maintaining or enforcing the
maintenance by private owners of an increasing amount of flood
plain. The Public Works Department could maintain these areas if
adequately funded or given the authority to assess property
owner(s) for maintenance. The maintenance could be left to the
property owners responsibility through either individual effort
or a property owners association. Staff has for some time worked
toward the establishment of a mechanism to solve this problem.
Currently, the mechanism of choice is the "Stormwater Facility
Maintenance Covenant" which is a restrictive covenant recorded
with the plat and setting forth a procedure whereby proper
maintenance can be enforced by the City through its Public Works
Department.
Briarwood IV - page 3
Deed restrictions for this subdivision have not been submitted.
The existence of platted land and floodplain on three sides of
this development supports the present layout. This layout
necessitates the requested variances. Staff has no objections to
the requested variances. Staff has no objections to the
requested variances. It should be noted however that if a 50
foot street stub was added at the current location of Lot 14,
Block "A" not only would this reduce excessive block length, but
also would provide for the possibility of future access west to
Serenada Drive. This would required acquisition of additional
ROW through Lot 33 of Serenada Country Estates, but would serve
to improve accessibility to the area.
Staff Recommendation
Granting of variances as requested and indicated on plat
allowing:
a. A radius of less than 800' but not less than 300' along
Hedgewood Drive.
b. Block "A" to exceed 1200' in length.
C. Lot 40 Block "A" and Lot 15 Block "C" to exist at right
angles to lots in the adjacent Reata Trails Unit Four.
Approval of Final Plat conditioned upon:
1. Subdivision Ordinance Requirements being met.
2. Drainage requirements being met.
3. Utilities being adequate: Participation in required
improvements to Sanitary Sewer Interceptor #7 and the Reata
Lift Station shall be determined prior to recordation of
plat.
4. The landscaped berm and drainage swale referred to by plat
note #9 shall be designated as a "Landscape, Drainage and
Public Utility Easement" on plat and its design included in
the construction plans for the subdivision.
5. A "Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenant" shall be
required.
P&Z Recommendation: (4-0) 1 abstain
Approval conditional upon above comments being met, with the
following change:
Planning staff and developers are to work out problems with Item
a before proceeding to City Council.
City Council Action: (3-1)
Approved with the above conditions and amended to add a condition
that:
6. Applicant shall pay the amount that would be required to
serve the project as if it were served independent of any
other proposed project.
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AND ABANDONING
THAT CERTAIN ALLEYWAY RUNNING ALONG THE
ENTIRE BLOCK 5 OF THE SOUTH SIDE
ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS,AS RECORDED IN
VOLUME 73, PAGE 455 DEED RECORDS OF
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBITS "A &
B", ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART
HEREOF;
WHEREAS, William E & Lorry L Bailey, Ewel McDonald, Annie L
Chambers, Martin & Rose Aleman, and Mr, and Mrs. Albert Bielss
being all of the abutting owners of land to that alleyway more
particularly described on Exhibits "A & B"; and
WHEREAS, said owners have petitioned the City of Georgetown
for the abandonment of said alleyway as it relates to the South
Side addition to the City of Georgetown, Williamson County,
Texas, as recorded in Volume 73, Page 454, Deed records of
Williamson County, Texas; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has not utilized said
alleyway for twenty-five years or more and petitioners own
certain improvements situated on said alleyway and the City of
Georgetown has no need for said alleyway;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, that that certain alleyway described
in Exhibits "A & B" is hereby vacated, closed and abandoned, save
and except that the City of Georgetown reserves and excepts unto
itself, its successors and assigns any part of the abandoned
portion of the alleyway if there are any functioning utility
lines or appurtenances thereto located on said abandoned portion
with the right to maintain, repair, replace, or remove, as may be
necessary from time to time, any existing water, drainage,
sewer,electric or other utility lines and appurtenances on,
under, across or over said abandoned portion.
READ, PASSED AND APPROVED on first reading this 7 h4 day
of /YJ4te , 19 86.
READ PASSED AND APPROVED on second and final reading this
day of , 19_
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
BY:
Jim Colbert, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Secretary
APPROVED FOR FORM:
City Attorney
Stump & Stump
THE GUARANTEE ABSTRACT COMPANY. INC.. OFFICE IN COURT HOUSE. GEORGETOWN. TEXAS.
Unkv6l
Alk 94
tar ,ndc-nm,e I+
0
Martin SO -7
a 60 -T6 0
Q Fisher
L;,78 Lone P.R Reservation
PAGE
le-
PEy2ogsr q&4mnx
eck 5 dl,
4w;X041, GiA wryeor e
I'D
Miso ism O's
VARIANCE - 509 SPRING VALLEY ROAD - BUILDING LINE ENCROACHMENT
FOi
Location Map 1"=1000'
Applicant: Tim Miller, Builder
11603 Gungrove Cr.
Austin, Tx 78750
258-0753
Agent: Leppin Engineering
2803 Williams Dr. Suite 106
Georgetown, Tx 78628
863-8160
Request•
Granting of a variance from the setback requirements of Zoning
Ordinance Section 2.0203 Side Yard to allow an existing
encroachment of a 6.2' (maximum) into the 10' P.U.E. and side
building line for the south easterly side lot line of Lot 13 of
Oak Crest Estates, Spring Valley Unit subdivision recorded in
Cab. B, slide 306 County Records.
509 Spring Valley — page
Facts:
Location: On the southwesterly side of Spring Valley,
between Randolph and Southcross Roads, just
north of the North Fork San Gabriel River.
Within the City Limits.
Surrounding Area: Single Family Residential and RS Zoning
District.
Development Plan: District 3b. Large lot residential. Use
complies with Comprehensive Plan.
Existing Site: Single Family Residential. RS Zoning
District.
Analysis:
In laying out the lot and building lines (with respect to
locating the site for the structure), the builder assumed that
they ran perpendicular to the Spring Valley Road right—of—way
see attached map). Based upon this presumption, the house was
laid out perpendicular to the front lot line, causing it to
encroach 6.2' (at the most extreme point) into the P.U.E. and
building line, as it angled to the rear of the lot. The variance
is needed to facilitate the sale of this property to a
prospective buyer.
Public Works: It has been verified that this encroachment does
not interfere with any of the utility or drainage features of the
affected area. Approval is thereby recommended.
Staff Recommendat
Approval of the variances as requested.
City Council Action: (4-0)
Approved the granting of variance
f Il%I%II I\'1I) 1q 1d'Pr IH 111\'II),
P
To: Planning Department Dater
Subject: Request of Variance -Zoning EtrarttJ
A request for Variance - 7nrin4rhanoa is being requested
by:
Address)
for
Lot No. J3 Blk: ` - Addition:
Building Official Ttif- id rum , L
oN L £FT si 4
Kix.
MOOM
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN POST OFFICE I(n\ alw GE0RGE10%%, N. FEX.AS 7y,110 TFUMONE 412. Sc AAS?}
Ip HI rl'p XI1\III 1\IIp I1hN
2803 Williams Dr., Suite 106
Georgetown. Texas 78628
LEPPIN ENGINEERING, INC.
O.G. Leppin, P.E.
President
To: GEORGETOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Phone 5121863-8160
Austin 255-7655
David W. Leppin
Vice NeW m
5-,A variance is requested for TIM MILLER BUILDERS for a house
at 53 Spring Valley Road, Lot 13 Oad Crest Estates, Spring Valley
Unit.
This variance is requested to allow an encroachment into the
P.U.E. and across the building line as indicated in the attached
survey.
The house was layed out measuring along the property line at
the street right of way and projected onto the lot at right angles
to that property line. Because the south boundry is not perpendicular
to the street and the house location was established at right angles to
the street the south property line and south side of the house converge.
Because the subject property is ready for sale any concideration
to expedite this request would be appreciated.
Respe fujly bmitted
0. G. LEPPIN, P.E. #17250
z
a
b SpRlglG
V
V I.
v /
N \
NS m
bil —j / rj • p `
so
eulLolxo lop' — a
Na aEACK too'
o i LINE
t
10 p' -
b N • 8
I O .
t 100'
IOp'
N 12 •O
f.
14 15 0:
w oz• aa' w iE '"
eer.eY
I
CREST Rr' .1 -VETTE -' "I
ASTATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
RUSSELL D. PARKER, do hereby certify that the
foregoing plot correctly represents on actuo/ survey
of this subdivision made on Me ground, and Ihot oil
h. lot corners hove been marked with iron stakes.
t WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on this the /sf. day
I of December, A.D. 1972,
Russell D. Parker, Reg. &blx Surveys No. 1661
11A I -T %F:; - LSP!
LEGEND!
PROPERTY LINE VOL 032/PAOE T99-000 DOES NOT APPLY.
IRON PIN FOUND
IRON PIN SET
VARIANCE - 510 E. 15TH - BUILDING LINE ENCROACHMENT
y'
4
s s
SysWs _„
Location Map
S -amu _ _-
Applicant: Martha Nagle
510 East 15th Street
Georgetown, Tx 78626
869-1706
Agent: David Voelter
109 1/2 E 8th
Georgetown, Tx 78626
863-9255
Request:
a r r
IP=1
j.-.-
mm n
aao rfr
1"=1000'
Granting of a variance from Zoning Ordinance 2.0203 Side Yard to
allow a proposed encroachment of 2' into the 7' side yard area
along the west side lot line of part of Block 9, Hughes Addition,
at 510 E. 15th Street.
Facts:
Location: On the south side of Fifteenth Street,
between Ash and College Streets. Within the
City Limits.
510 E. 15th — page ;Z
Surrounding Area: Single family residential. RS Zoning
District.
Development Plan: District 8b. Normal Residential use.
Complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
Existing Use: Single Family Residential RS Zoning District.
Analysis•
The applicant wishes to extend part of the west wall of her
residence to enlarge the kitchen/utility/den area. This
extension will cause a 2' encroachment into the 7' side building
line setback. The Building Inspector has no objection to the
granting of this variance.
Adjacent property owners within 200 feet have been notified. One
positive response has been received by the Planning Department as
of the writing of this report.
Staff Recommendation:
Given the apparent constraints of the existing structure relative
to the applicants need to improve the structure, staff has no
objections to the request. However, the applicant should be
required to specify in greater detail how these constraints have
created a hardship so that the Appeals Board (i.e. Council) may
use this information as "findings of fact" associated with the
action.
City Council Action: (4-0)
approved the granting of variance
7o: Planning Departir'tent
Subject: Request of Variance -
Date: Z2/f%9fv
A request for Variance - is being requested
by:%
Addr
Lot N
Reaso
for
Please provide the Building Department with a copy of the final
action tak n y the Planning Zoning Commission or City Council.
RAN E. G
OfficialBuildingOfficial
iHl. t-Ifl''tF I,It IRt kT(t\\-N I't J I't tllUl !t, J\ p., +.I"B'J I'I\\\ IINA%'On IIIII'IIt,VI ;12-'-;c tt
June 12, 1986
To: Mayor Colbert and members of the City Council
From: Martha A. Nagle
Re: Variance request for 510 East 16th Street
I am in the process of purchasing the residence at 510 East 15th Street.
Built in 1920 this structure has undergone at least 2 remodelings prior
to this time. The kitchen, however, was not a part of either remodeling
and has never been updated. Also, the present utility area is not much more
than a lean-to porch. I would like to enlarge and modernize the kitchen,
provide an inside utility room and open up the -west side of what is not a
den to include a small, multi -windowed dining area. David Voelter will
further explain the proposed addition. This new construction will "clean up"
the appearance of the west side of the above -captioned residence, extending
two feet into the side yard.
The property immediately to the west consists maiply of weeds and a dead
hackberry tree. A small stucco house is located at the rear of that proper-
ty the address of which is listed as "505 East 16th Street". (At this
point "16th Street" is only a 20' alley.) It is owned by Mr. Thomas Sandberg
currently a resident of a nursing home. Mr. Sandberg's daughter looks after
the property for her father. It is my understanding that the stucco house was
built when these two properties were used as one by a Mr. Anderson and may well
have been a servant's house. This property was subsequently subdivided and
the portion identified as 505 East 16th was sold to Mr. Sandberg. Incidentally,
Mr. Sandberg's lot is surrounded by a chain link fence. A section of this same
fencing, with gate, cuts across the center of the lot from east to west. Part
of an outbuilding, a dirt -floored carport used for storage,is attached to what
is shown as a woodshed on the site plan. Since this building has a continuous
roof, and since the stucco house west of the outbuilding was built by Mr. An-
derson, it seems reasonable to assume that the woodshed was sliced (figuratively)
when the west portion of the Anderson property was subdivided. While this out-
building itself is not part of this request nor of this hearing, understanding
the placement of the buildings may be of value.
Mr. Sandberg's daughter has been helpful and cooperative but does not have her
father's Power of Attorney and so is unable to speak for him with any weight of
law. Inasmuch as Mr. Sandberg himself has been a psychiatric patient for over
a year, trying to contact him seemed inappropriate.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
I
x
E. 15th St.
7 65.1 If
EXISTING UTI I Y
1
Ot
a
6D C
g
1
y._ ---y- ---4
i
n I
I,
n
N
N
z
V
Cy_
I
x
E. 15th St.
7 65.1 If
EXISTING UTI I Y
1
Ot
a
6D C
g 7' 56TbAC uNE
y._ ---y- ---4
i
I
I
nN
111
V
PROPOSED UTILITY N
AND DINING
l
VOELTER ASSOCIATES INC.
ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS AIA
V PO BOX 87 GEORGETOWN. TEXAS 78627-DO97
10912 EAST 8TH STREET 5128639255
W55T 31.17'
ALLEY
SITE PLANQ7SCALEV:20'
15 , ec
6D C
g 7' 56TbAC uNE
y._ ---y- ---4
VOELTER ASSOCIATES INC.
ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS AIA
V PO BOX 87 GEORGETOWN. TEXAS 78627-DO97
10912 EAST 8TH STREET 5128639255
W55T 31.17'
ALLEY
SITE PLANQ7SCALEV:20'
15 , ec
Memo
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Randall Gaither
Date: June 18, 1986 44
Re: Little Oak Park
The final plat of Little Oak Park, a five lot plat containing one
of the proposed GTE substation sites, and located at the
northwest corner of Cavu Road and Airport Road was denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission on June 3. The plat had technical
ordinance violations but the primary area of conflict was over
the applicant's verbal proposal to designate four of the five
lots for commercial use rather than single family use compatible
with the adjacent existing uses. The applicant has requested an
appeal of this decision by the City Council (see letter from
Capitol Area Builders, Inc., attached). The City Attorney has
been apprised of this situation and has indicated that he feels
that it is in the City's best interest to grant this appeal
request. Although not explicitly required by City Ordinance or
other statute, City Attorney feels that some sort of appeal
procedure should be available to avoid "due process" questions.
The following planning report is the same a was presented to
Planning and Zoning on May 6, 1986.
3. LITTLE OAK PARK-PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT
Location Map
Applicant: General Telephone Co.
Box 1001-7602
San Angelo, Tx 76902
Owner: Capitol Area Builders, Inc.
2000 S. Mays, Suite 300
Round Rock, Tx
255-8605
Engineer: Glenn W. Schmidt
600 Forest
Georgetown, Tx
863-4594
1"=2000'
Little Oak Park—page 2
Request•
Approval of Preliminary/Final plat for Little Oak Park, a 4.72
acre subdivision situated in the David Wright Survey, Abstract
13 Williamson County, Texas, as recorded in Volume 487 page 916
Deed Records of Williamson County. The following variances are
requested:
1. to change the 10 foot PUE at the rear of Lot 5 to a 5 foot
PUE in order to align with the 5 foot PUE on the side of Lot
4, and
2. to waive the Stormwater Detention requirements
Facts•
Location: The northwest corner of the intersection of Cavu Rd
with Airport Rd. It is inside the ETJ and on the
recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer.
Surrounding Uses: Single family residential and undeveloped
Proposed use: Five lots for which no use has been designated
except for Lot 5, which is for Phone Company
Equipment.
Development Plan: District 4E. Large lot residential use is
recommended for this area by the Development
Plan. Until the usage of these lots is
specified, no evaluation can be made.
Utilities: Proposed electric service is from City of
Georgetown. Developer plans to have on—site water
supply and sewage disposal system on Lots 1 through
4. Lot 5 will require no water or sewer service.
History: Similar plats in the immediate vicinity were approved
in early 1985 (ie. Air Country Estates Two, North
Country Air Estates)
Protest: Several phone calls in opposition to this proposal have
been received by the Planning Department. However, no
written protest has been submitted as of 4/29/86.
Analysis:
Land Use— The intended use for these lots has not been specified
as required by the City of Georgetown Subdivision
Ordinance Section 4.03. 4e, "New Features Inside of
Subdivision."
Little Oak Park -page 3
Identification and location of proposed uses
within the subdivision to include tracts intended
for multi -family dwellings, shopping
centers,churches, industry or other uses..."
Until such a designation has been made, the Planning
Department is unable to evaluate the impact of this
subdivision on the surrounding area.
Streets- A 15 ft. road widening dedication to include a 25 ft.
radius at Cavu Road will be required along the east
side of the subdivision to conform with the major
thoroughfare plan for Airport Road widening. No
improvements to this road should be required if the
lots are to be used for single family residences.
Regardless of the land use, common driveways should be
required for access to Airport Road between Lot 1 & 2
and between Lot 3 & 4. Redesign of lots to eliminate
all access to Airport Road should be considered.
Any further review will be based upon the determination
of land use and the possible submittal of site plans
for individual lots, if necessary.
Drainage- The drainage information submitted would give
reasonable cause to recommend a variance from
stormwater detention requirements provided the land use
is designated as large lot residential. Once again,
any other intended uses for these lots would have to be
evaluated on a case by case basis. However, a drainage
easement and construction plan to indicate any driveway
crossing structures are needed. The drainway should be
left in its natural state or modified with a grass
lined swale to improve environmental performance.
Utilities -A utility concept plan showing existing water and
wastewater lines, fire hydrants, etc. was not
submitted. The Fire Marshall has indicated that "water
facilities for fire suppression" are inadequate due to
lack of information. Public Works Division has not
responded in writing, but has indicated that there is
an 8" city water line running along the east side of
the subdivision. They also note that wells in this
area have historically been unreliable and that the
City has been forced to provide substandard service to
lots whose wells have failed in the past. City
Engineer has commented that system pressures in this
area are adequate for single family use although one
additional fire plug is needed. No evaluation for
commercial or multi -family use was performed. No
comments from the Electric Department were received.
Little Oak Park - page 4
Sewer service is not available to this property, nor
will it be in the forseeable future. The L.C.R.A. lire
shown on the plat should either be in an existing
easement, or an easement should be dedicated on this
plat. L.C.R.A. approval of plat is required.
Miscellaneous -No deed restrictions were submitted with the plat
or discussed by applicant.
Variances -The request for waiver of stormwater detention
requirements should not be granted until a land use has
been designated and construction plans approved. The
request to reduce the PUE along the west line of the
subdivision should not be approved until all utility
companies have submitted a signed waiver of need. Then
the easement can be eliminated altogther. Additionally,
it appears that a 20 ft. PUP, is needed along the north
side line of Lot 1 to provide access to any new easement
required.
Staff Recommendation:
1. The request for waiver of stormwater detention requirements
shall be denied due to lack of designated land use type.
2. The request to reduce the PUE along the western line of the
subdivision shall be denied until such time as signed waivers
are submitted from affected utility purveyors.
3. The approval of the plat of Little Oak Park shall be denied
until the following conditions are met:
a. Land Use shall be designated to conform to City
Development Plan
b. All drainage requirements are met including detention, if
required, easement dedication, and plans providing
non -flooded access to the building sites
C. Connection to the City Water System after completion of
City water treatment facilities 'is required by plat note
d. An easement to L.C.R.A. has been indicated
e. A 15 ft. Road Widening dedication including 25 ft, corner
radius at Cavu is shown
f. Common access easements have been provided on the common
line of Lots 1 & 2 as well as Lots 3 & 4
g. A Detailed Development Plan in compliance with Section 6
Additional Provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance shall
be required for each non -single family residential lot.
P&Z Recommendation: (4-0)
Tabled until next Planning and Zoning Meeting (June 3)
P&Z Recommendation: June 3, 1986. (5-0)
Disapproval of request
i
44.
1616
PNSSIN--G
THE p t,
PENELOPE LEMOV, Local municipalities are hittingBUSINESSEDITOR
builders with escalating impact
fees. But the buck doesn't stop f
there. The fees raise the cost of
new housing and an important
question: Are they fair?
72 BUILDER/JUNE 1986
hen Gary Gramling builds $125,000
houses in San Diego, his costs include
9,500 in development impact fees;
5,600 of that is earmarked for schools.
Across the country in Orlando,
Fla., home builder Roy Dye, whose av-
erage home price is $87,000, pays $4,000 a unit in impact
fees; $1,061 of that is a recently imposed road fee.
The impositions don't get any better when it comes to
sewer plants, water lines, bridges, fire stations, libraries,
parks and other infrastructure. From older inner cities
where infrastructure is crumbling to far-out Sunbelt suburbs
where sewers, libraries and fire stations don't exist, build-
ers are becoming the first line that revenue -strapped, tax -
shy government officials tap to pay for improvements or
additions to infrastructure.
A recent BUILDER survey of 500 home builders found
that nationwide close to one-half pay impact fees and that the
percentage is increasing rapidly. (For nearly 60 percent of
those builders the fees went into effect during the last five
years.) In the West, with California leading the way, two out
of three builders pay impact fees. Some, especially in South-
ern California, pay up to $10,000 a unit, while nationally, half
the builders pay impact fees of $1,000 to $5,000 a unit.
t •
s
11f
a:
I I r
v. q: "'" ' ,' ice"`- ' Y. ^ , /
1 II 'r•... -- y'
y
WHAT'S THE TAB
THOSE • PAY IMPACT FEES WERE ASKED:. W MUCH DO YOU PAY PER UNIT IN iMPACT FEES?
TOTAL FEES PER UNIT U.S. TOTAL EAST SO4JTH CENTRAL WEST
Less than $500 12% 15% 13% 24% 4%
500 to $1,000 24 35 36 22 11
1,001 to $3,000 37 19 38 32 45
3,001 to $5,000 13 8 3 25
More than $5,000 10 8 4 16 14
Don't know 4 23 1 3 1
BUILDER/JUNE 1986 73
PASSING THE BUCK
Whether fees total $1,000 or $10,000, no builders like
them, but none doubt that they'll continue to spread—most
quickly in high-growth Sunbelt states (they've already sur-
faced in Texas, North and South Carolina and Arizona) and
eventually north to the suburban rings of older revitalized
cities. Three Maryland counties surrounding Washington,
D.C., for instance, are in the process of adopting impact fees.
As impact fees spread they're also increasing in number
and dollar amount (see chart previous page), making builders
feel they are underwriting more than their fair share of the
infrastructure bill. In many communities builders find they
are being assessed for both on-site and off-site facilities. And
the increase in fees hurts. "Five years ago government fees,
including impact fees, were 10 to 15 percent of the cost of
building an average house in Orlando. Today they're 20 to 30
percent, and that's pushing our houses out of the reach of
more of our customers," says Dye. Questions also have been
raised about the fees' legality and efficacy, and what builders
can or should do about them.
Impact fees are in vogue for the simple reason that they
offer elected officials an easy, politically acceptable solution
to a difficult economic reality. The reality is that local com-
munities are strapped for money to pay for maintenance,
improvement or additions to infrastructure. In some areas,
past needs were ignored, so now there is not only new infra-
structure pressure but backlog as well. In Florida, for exam-
ple, the state needs $29 billion to improve existing
infrastructure and another $17 billion to meet new develop-
ment needs between now and the year 2000.
Backlog isn't the only complication, according to Profes-
sor James Frank of the Department of Urban and Regional
Planning, Florida State University. "You can't always say
whether it's accumulated backlog or that the system is opt-
mg for things it didn't do before," he says. The federal Clean
Water Act, for instance, requires all sewer treatment plants
to achieve a federally mandated treatment level that is
higher than that of many old systems. That kind of upgrading
effort takes millions of dollars.
Meanwhile, the federal government is bowing out of the
business of funding infrastructure. Federal spending (in con-
stant dollars) for capital facilities decreased from $4.6 billion
in 1965 to $3.3 billion in 1983, according to the Department
of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. State govern-
ments aren't granting much money for those purposes, ei-
ther. That puts the burden on local governments whose
taxpayers are in revolt: In several states residents are voting
for property tax limitations (such as California's Proposition
13 and Massachusetts's Proposition 2V2)and showing some
resistance to bonds for infrastructure development.
Times have changed," says Douglas Porter, director of
development/policy research for the Urban Land Institute.
Thirty years ago communities were interested in growth
and economic development and felt the more the better.
Today they don't like the changes that come with it and want
to make sure it doesn't affect their pocketbooks."
The political solution for local government is to pass the
infrastructure buck to builders who, in turn, are pressed to
74 BUILDER/NNE 1986
n choosing between the rock of a
moratorium and the hard place of
an impact fee, most prefer to pay
build some or all of the fees into the cost of the home. As one
Florida county official put it, "If faced with 100 builders
angry over impact fees and 10,000 homeowners angry about
increased property taxes, an elected official will act as you
would expect."
Sandy Not, president of Arvida Southern, a major Flor-
ida development and building company, puts it another way.
Impact fees are a way to tax the new -home buyer, who is
one of the few unrepresented groups in this country. It's the
coward's way out."
Not admits that impact fees are an improvement over
the exaction system. With exactions, local planners may ask
the developer to set aside land for a school, pay for roads and/
or, as Not has, build a $100,000 firehouse. While impact
fees are a public, formal and predetermined assessment that
every builder in a community pays, exactions are informal,
freewheeling and negotiable, and tend to apply to larger
developers during the zoning process.
Builders like Reid Hotaling of Summit Properties, a
Charlotte -based multifamily BUILDER 100 company,
greatly prefer the impact fee arrangement. "The exaction
fees aren't laid out in advance, and they're inconsistent. They
come after the fact of negotiating for the land so you can't
make decisions based on total cost. Impact fees are a fact of
life we can deal with."
While money is the overriding reason jurisdictions im-
pose impact fees, there are others. One is to control growth;
another is to make sure the development doesn't change the
nature of the community. "The motivation is less the making
of money or controlling growth but more the preservation of
a lifestyle or of a distinct physical amenity," says Professor
Louis Weschler of the Center for Public Affairs, Arizona
State University. Some communities also impose impact fees
out of what Weschler calls "the notion of net social benefit.
That is, that the benefits of development should be put into
the public sector and redistributed to the community."
These nonfiscal and often underlying reasons hint at a
threatening alternative approach: a building moratorium. In
choosing between the rock of a moratorium and the hard
place of an impact fee, most builders prefer to pay.
But not at fust. Many builders have gone to court to test
the legality of impact fees. Few have won. "In cases that
challenge the basic idea of an impact fee, the courts have held
that jurisdictions have legal authority to impose fees," says
Gus Bauman, NAHB's litigation counsel. Cases have been
won on a tax versus fee argument. A local government's
authority to impose a fee comes from the state's police
power to regulate development; a tax requires express statu-
tory authorization. "If a fee amount is not reasonably equiva-
lent to the cost of the activity regulated or if the monies
collected are deposited into the general treasury rather than
a special fund, the fee may be deemed a tax and Wiled to have
been illegally adopted," Bauman says.
According to Professor Frank, court cases, except for
some in California, have also bought a fair share argument,
ruling that impact fees be for new development only and not
for accumulated backlog.
i
WHERE THE MONEY GOES
WHAT ITEMS DO YOU PAY FOR TODAY? FIVE YEARS AGO?
SERVICES/ FACILITIES U.S. TOTAL EAST SOUTH CENTRAL WEST
WHO PAYS,
5 years
DOESN'T
5 years 5 years 5 years
EAST
5 years
Yes
Now ago Now ago Now ago Now ago Now ago
Water treatment 41% 28% 11% 11% 48% 26% 38% 38% 46% 23%
Water tap -ons 91 80 89 89 96 70 76 76 97 86
Sewer tap -ons 90 82 78 78 96 65 81 86 94 91
Sewage treatment 47 31 22 11 35 17 43 43 63 37
Roads 65 53 78 78 48 43 62 43 74 60
Electrical hook" 68 44 78 33 65 43 67 48 69 46
Schools 36 24 0 0 26 17 10 10 69 43
libraries 15 8 0 0 17 4 10 10 20 11
Day care centers 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0
Open space/porks, 57 39 33 33 56 26 38 19 74 54
recreational
facilities
Fire -fighting 30 16 22 11 35 9 19 19 34 20
facilities
WHO PAYS, WHO DOESN'T
DO YOU PAY IMPACT FEES?
U.S. TOTAL EAST SOUTH CENTRAL WEST
Yes 43.2% 26.5% 42.3% 35.2% 64.8%
No 56.8 73.5 57.7 64.8 35.2
BUILDER/JUNE 1986 75
t
PASSING THE BUCK
Harold Hill of Florida's Orange County government says thdt if it weren't
for impact fees, "This roadway wouldn't be here."
PAVING THE WAY
If there's one thing Harold Hill has it's job satisfaction.
Not that the manager of the Orange County, Fla., Office of
Capital Facilities Development likes assessing builders some
3,600 a unit in impact fees. Rather, it's that he used to be a city
planner and never saw his plans come to fruition. "But here," he
says, "I can go out and look at a roadway and say that in the
absence of this program, this roadway wouldn't be here."
The road impact fee, which went into effect in January, is
the third assessment Orange County has levied on builders since
1983. It comes at a time when, politically, the county, home of
Orlando, cannot raise taxes to pay for new infrastructure. Yet, as
Hill tells the story, there is a great need for new roads to support
burgeoning development.
The situation in Orange County was this. We could see
that surrounding communities that failed to provide infrastruc-
ture had intractable transportation problems. We couldn't stick
our heads in the sand and assume problems wouldn't happen to
us." Hill and other county officials evaluated the situation and
put a price tag on it. "We came up with development assessment
numbers that were so high—$3,100 a house—that we got ev-
erybody's attention," says Hall. The [Orange County Board of
County] Commissioners sent us back to the drawing board."
Meanwhile, alarmed builders and developers formed the Com-
mittee for Responsible Growth Management.
Hill and his group worked closely with the builders' commit-
tee. "We hired consultants, quantified what we needed, then
locked ourselves in a room. We came out with something that
didn't make any of us jump for joy, but the bottom line was that
the members recognized the magnitude of the problem."
Based on recommendations from the builders' committee,
county commissioners voted to build 52 percent of the needed
roads and finance it through a $1,061 per unit fee, which comes
on top of fire, law enforcement, water and sewer fees.
There have been dire predictions about what these impact
fees would do to development, but those haven't materialized.
We're still issuing permits; we're overrun with requests for
development."
76 BUILDER/JUNE 1986
hill fees may be legal,
builders argue they aren't fair
because they raise prices.
Overall, though, the court cases have had the untoward
effect of encouraging local governments to impose impact
fees. Says Frank, "The result of court cases has been the
courts saying they're all right under the following conditions.
That then presents innovative or new funding options that
local governments didn't have available previously."
While fees may be legal, builders still argue they aren't
fair because they raise the price of new housing. Where
impact fees are charged, builders say they treat the fees as
they do bricks and mortar: they're a cost of building a house.
Moreover, they're a cost incurred early in the building cycle
and thus financed through loans. "For every $10,000 in
impact fees builders don't have to pay, you'll see housing
prices decrease $12,000 to $15,000," says Bob Morris of
the San Diego Building Association. In Morris's area, impact
fees range from $5,000 to more than $15,000 a unit.
One builder shows his buyers the effect of fees on price.
Fresno, Calif., builder Joe Farina has presented new -home
buyers with a sticker price that itemizes his hard costs, soft
costs, profit margin and impact fees. Farina also keeps the
stickers on hand to show Fresno city fathers.
When we make noise about impact fees we want them
to understand how every dollar they add adds up," Farina
says. In one community, Farina's per unit breakdown is as
follows: $200 major sewer, $551 parks, $156 fire station,
85 traffic signal, $243 major streets, $164 bridge and
1,450 schools.
When those dollars are added at the low end of the
market, John Koelemij worries. "As long as the infrastruc-
ture burden is borne just by new construction and no provi-
sions are made in the community to share that burden, it will
destroy our ability to build affordable housing," says the
former NAHB president. "In the long run those fees may
come back to haunt us."
Orlando builder Dye notes that affordable housing is hit
harder than move -up or custom housing because in most
jurisdictions impact fees are assessed on a per-unit basis,
regardless of size and possible impact. "A $50,000 house
pays the same $4,000 fee as a $250,000 house," says Dye.
But are impact fees always added on to the price of a
house? When BUILDER's impact fee survey asked home
builders whether they passed the fees on, all builders said
yes. And yet, when pressed, some builders admit they can't
always pass on fee costs to buyers.
You can only sell a house for what the marketplace
says you can sell it for," says Steve McGill of San Diego's
McMillin Development. In some San Diego districts, McGill
notes, impact fees are increasing so rapidly that they may
double from one year to the next. "You try to recover the
impact fee costs but it's not always possible. You might have
to produce more volume or cut costs in other ways."
You might also pencil in smaller profit margins than five
years ago, says Gary Gramling of SunWest Builders, San
Diego. "We haven't yet seen sales prices increase to equal
impact fee increases," he says.
Some economists suggest that as impact fees become
established they will reduce land prices. In areas where im-
ON-SITE FEES OPF-srTE FEES
Has the number of on-sBe items Has the. number of off-site items
for which you pay impact fees
increased or decreased during
for which you impact fees
increased or ecreased during
the past five years? the post five years?
Increased 67.0% Increased 55.7%
Decreased 2.3 Decreased 1.1
Stayed the same 29.6 Stayed the some 27.3
Don't pay 1.1 Don't pay 15.9
pact fees are the rule, their theory goes, builders know up
front what fees they will have to pay and calculate that into
cost pro formas. Then they figure what they can sell the
house for. H costs are higher than selling price, the difference
will be made up in the land price.
Whether all of the impact fees get shifted back or some
forward is the unsettled question at this point, says Frank.
But it's clear to economists that all the costs can't be shifted
forward and that builders will find a compensating reduction
in the price of land."
Builders in high growth areas with impact fees say that
hasn't happened yet. "In the long term it should," says Reid
Hotaling. But in the short term it hasn't washed. Land is
driven up by market demand. When demand flattens out, the
price may go down, but we haven't reached that point."
Jan Winters, city manager of Loveland, Colo., says his
city's fees have increased by more than $5,000 per unit since
1980. During this period, housing increased by $4,000 or 6
percent, land prices not at all. "Other factors such as inflation
and interest rates more than offset the impacts attributable
to fees, but the movement of land and housing prices is
interesting," Winters says.
Ultimately, whether impact fees are fair or not is beside
the point. Builders can't build homes unless roads, sewers,
schools, bridges and fires stations are built, and impact fees
are a way of assuring that capital is available to pave the way
for new development. In an era that is politically and philo-
sophically attuning itself to user fees, impact fees are here to
stay. The ultimate fairness issue is really whether builders
and buyers) should carry the infrastructure burden alone.
But coming up with a creative or workable means is not
easy. There is no one answer since each state—and each
community within that state—has its own set of needs and
idiosyncratic regulations.
John Koelemij believes one answer for states like Flor-
DOLLAR AMOUNT RATE OF INCREASE
Hos the dollar amount of the NAwt percentage hos the cost
in ivicl al impact fees you pay of impact fees increased during
increased or decreased diurng the past five years?
the past fie years?
Less than 20% 22.2%
Increased 81.8%
20 to 40% 25.0
Decreased 2.3
More than 40% 45.8
Stayed the some 15.9
Don't know 7.0
ida lies in a transfer tax. "Many of the infrastructure costs
we face today are not caused by growth but by lack of proper
maintenance and support in the past," he says. "Ail property
transactions should be made subject to transfer fees to help
pay for infrastructure."
Others have suggested that states like Florida allow
communities a local option to impose a broad range of other
taxes, such as an increase in the per gallon gasoline tax, sales
tax and vehicle licensing fees—all of which would be ear-
marked for capital improvements. However, tax increases
don't fly too high in today's political environment.
Some states have looked to infrastructure bank pro-
grams that are based on revolving loan funds. Dave Fisher,
staff director for environment affairs at the New Jersey
Builders Association, explains that the New Jersey program
called Environmental Trust Fund) will receive a primary
infusion of funds from bonds and state funds.
Congress also is beginning to awaken to the growing
infrastructure problem. As a member of the Senate Budget
Committee's Private Sector Advisory Panel on Infrastruc-
ture Finance, Koelemij reports that the committee's chair-
man, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), has asked the panel to
study the problem and report recommendations.
Builders also are joining forces with local governments
to develop the how, wheres and on-whats for impact fees. Jay
Hasner, executive vice president of Palm Beach -based Hasco
Companies, helped form the task force that decided on the
recent impact fee structure for Palm Beach county. "Com-
mitment for infrastructure has to come up front so that
growth will be where we want it, and we have a community
we're proud of," he reasons. "We challenged impact fees in
1969, took the case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court
and lost. At that point you have to get with the program and
move forward." In short, Hasner suggests, it's better to be a
party to the process so builders' needs are factored in."
BUILDER/JUNE 1986 77
w.acwmenta: y
Cities Score Comeback in Opinion Polls
By NEAL R. PEIRCE
The American city has scored a spectacular
comeback in people's regard, affection and re-
spect. The only fly in the ointment is that most
Americans aren't yet ready to say they'd con-
sider living downtown.
That's the picture that emerges from a
national opinion survey by the Gallup Organ-
ization, released May I1 by the Urban Land
Institute (ULI) in connection with its 50th an-
niversary meeting in Orlando, Florida.
George Gallup, Jr., and William Caldwell,
the developer who heads ULI, told me they
were astounded by the upbeat tone of people's
feelings about the quality and future of their
neighborhoods and cities. Example: 81 percent
rated their own housing "excellent" or good,"
with most believing it would still be habitable a
half -century from now. And 82 percent pre-
dicted their city or town would become a better
place to live, or at least hold its own, over the
next 10 years.
And not only was their optimism, there were
indications of what Gallup calls "a swing to
social concern." By, margins of 67 to 82 per-
cent, his scientific cross-section of 1,008
Americans favored public subsidies for mass
transit, low-income housing and preserving
wilderness areas. By slightly lower margins,
they said they'd be willing to pay higher taxes
to pay for the subsidies.
If those are the true signs of the time, Ho-
ward Jarvis and the nation's other tax -cutters
can eat their heart out. The new wave of public
generosity appeared on the tax -deduction front,
too: 65 percent favored tax-free subsidies to
improve downtown areas, 80 percent endorsed
deductions to rehabilitate slum houses, 79 per-
cent wanted tax breaks to preserve open spaces
near cities.
But people showed discernment: While 75
percent wanted continued tax deductions on
mortgage interest for principal residences, only
30 percent favored those kinds of tax breaks for
vacation homes. The public seems to know a
wasteful tax subsidy when it sees one.
The poll indicated massive support for
historic preservation, a chief tool of urban re-
newal of recent years. But why? About 90
percent endorsed such reasons as retaining a
sense of the past, creating an historically in-
teresting environment, and attracting visitors.
Who should decide which buildings to pre-
serve? People were much more anxious to have
neighborhood or city control than a major voice
for the federal government.
Along with his national sample, Gallup
questioned just over 100 "opinion leaders"—
chiefly public officials and the developers who
form the core of Urban Land Institute member-
ship. And on the question "Would you con-
sider living in the downtown area of your
city?"—a curious division appeared. An over-
whelming 81 percent of the general public said
no." Gallup attributes96eir continuing fear of
center city to such'factors'ak clime and lower
public school standards. i
But on the very same question about down-
town living, 57 percent of opinion leaders said -
yes," they'd consider it. Peihaps opinion
leaders are more affluent, and can afford the
luxury housing now cropping up in many
downtowns. Or they ,may simply be more
aware of the enticements of revived down-
towns, from redone streets and plans to more
stores, museums, theaters and festival market-
places.
Downtown living, the poll showed, appeals
more to educated people: 19 percent of college
graduates would consider living downtown,
compared to just 8 percent of those who only
finished grade school. Also open to the idea
were 17 percent of I8 -to -34 year olds, com-
pared to only 9 percent of elderly people. If you
calculate that downtowns need attract only a
small minority of Americans in order to gener-
ate the neighborhood feeling so often lacking in
a city's center, then these are extraordinarily
positive --not negative ---findings.
Even if the throwaway mentality about old
cities is fading, they still face stiff competition.
The Gallup survey showed about half the pop-
tilation still prefers suburban shopping centers,
with just 15 percent opting for downtown de-
partment stores. And an overwhelming 87 per-
cent of people commute to work by car—only 6
percent by mass transit.
What has faded is the expectation that we'd
all keep dispersing to the open countryside,
leaving center cities to become what one
Columbia University academician back in 1971
called "physically obsolete, financially un-
workable, crime -ridden, garbage -strewn, pol-
luted, tom by racial conflict, wallowing in wel-
fare, unemployment and despair."
The Census Bureau finds that the widely
heralded rural exodus of the last decade has
ground to a halt. More people are now movingg
into cities and metropolitan areas than not of
them. Center cities, fast losing population in
the '60s and '70s, are for the most part holding
stable or even gaining a little. '
And what of the futurists' big favorite—
telecomr4hting". that would ler us all move to
some placid rural spot and do our work on a
computer linked to the office? The Gallup sur-
vey found people sour on the idea: 52 percent
said "it would'be impossible for me to work
this way," 24 percent thought just a portion of
their work could be done by electronic link, and
16 percent said "it would be possible,. but I
would not like it." Only 4 percent were. already
telecommuting.
It turns out that the reasons cities have al-
ways attracted mankind—commerce,
socialization, the excitement of eye-to=eye
contact—remain as alive as they ever were.
0 1986. wuhiea. Pau W.M Group
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council PPROVES
he request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 24th day of June, 1986.
3 O -CL
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #:Crystal Knoll Terrace - R.S.U. - Preliminary/
Final Plat
Applicant: General Telephone Company
Owner:
Request: Preliminary / Final plat approval for Crystal Knoll
Terrace R.S.U. (Relay Switching Unit). A variance to waive
stormwater drainage requirements is requested.
Approval of Preliminary / Final plat conditional upon:
1. All ordinance requirements being met,
2. Pursuant to Section 6.04 (1-3) a Detailed Development Plan
shall be submitted for staff approval prior to recordation
which demonstrates the use of landscaping to comply with
drainage requirements, provide necessary security, and create
a visual buffer from adjacent uses.
3. Pursuant to Section 4.01 a Concept Plan shall be submitted
showing the perimeter of the 25.8 acre "parent" tract from
which this lot is being subdivided. If no plans for the
remainder of the tract are proposed, the items 6-7 and 8 of
Section 4.01 will not be required.
4. A 15 foot dedication for "Road Widening and Public Utility
Easement" shall be added to the front of the plat and the
building line pushed back.
5. Approval of the granting of a variance from the Aquifer
Protection Rules by the County being secured.
6. Applicant shall establish restrictive covenants which
prohibit the construction of towers and the like in excess of
35 feet in height.
7. The request for rear building line to be cut from 10 feet to
5 feet addressed with a Detailed Development Plan if needed.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Counci PPROVES
the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 10th day of June, 1986.
1
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #: Abandonment of 10' Utility Easement in Williams
Commercial Park Subdivision
Applicant:Ercel Brashear/Twin Creek Properties
Owner:
Request: The applicant has requested the approval of an Ordinance
abandoning that portion of a 10' Utility Easement and
Right—of—Way recorded in Vol. 577, Page 708 County Deed
Records which also lies within the boundaries of
Williams Commercial Park Subdivision as recorded in Cab.
G., Slide 183-184 of County Official Records.
Approval of request subject to the confirmation of the Director
of Public Works that all necessary relocation of City facilities
and easements have been accepted and approval for form of
Ordinance by City Attorney. Second reading of ordinance shall
not occur until these conditions have been met.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City CouncicAPPRO
the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 10th day of June, 1986.
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #:404 Ridgewood Drive, Block C Lot 16 San Gabriel
Heights V
Applicant:Dr. & Mrs. Patrick F McGehearty
Owner:Same
Request:granting of variance from the six foot height restriction
of Zoning Ordinance Section 8.302 to allow an existing twenty-six
foot section of eight foot high fence, along the westerly portion
of the back lot line.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City CouncilNil S /TABLES
the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 10th day of June, 1986.
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #:Abandonment of 10' Alleyway running along all of
Block 5 Southside Addition
Applicant: William E & Lorry L Bailey
Ewel McDonald
Annie L Chambers
Martin & Rose Aleman
Mr & Mrs Albert Bielss
Owner:same as above
Request: The applicants have requested that the City of
Georgetown vacate and abandon a 10' alleyway in Block 5
of Southside Addition recorded in Vol. 73 Page 454
County Deed Records.
Tabling of item pending futher review and approval by City
Attorney.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council PPROV
the request listed
below. WITNEScSS OUR HANDS this 24th day of June, 1986.
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #:Windridge Village - Revised Final Plat
Applicant: Tim L Wright
Owner: West of the Tracks Development Co., Inc.
Request: Revised Final plat approval for Windridge Village.
Variances are requested for right angle lots and lots
exceeding the 2.5:1 depth to width ratio, reduction of
center line radius on 2nd Street, and lot depth less
than 100 feet.
Approval of the revised final plat of Windridge Village
conditional upon the approval of required construction plans,
and:
1. All ordinance requirements being met,
2. Utilities being adequate, the water treatment plant and
overloaded downstream sanitary sewer lines being improved
prior to the issuance of building permits, and electrical
service plans being included in construction plans,
3. Drainage issues as presented in this planning report being
resolved on the construction plans, and a Stormwater Facility
Maintenance Covenant being filed with the plat,
4. Off-site street improvements as shown on plat shall be
included in construction plans,
5. Note regarding access restrictions being added to plat as
follows:
a. Lot 1, Block A and Lot 1 Block B shall access Second
Street only
b. Lots 7 and 12, block A shall access Gann Circle only
C. Lot 1 Block D and Lot 14, Block C shall access Windridge
Lane only,
6. Buffer yards shall be required adjacent to the MK & T
Railroad R.O.W. and along the west side of Lot 19, Block C,
which shall conform to the standard as presented in
Attachment #2 of the Planning Report,
7. Granting of variances as requested and indicated in this
report.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Counci APPROV nTOAnn9nn99 /
1=1,nz7
WITHDRAWS 'T THF REQUEST n9 X-149 ARV414;, •the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 24th day of June, 1986.
C.
Mayor,- City of Georgetown
Project name & #:Apple Creek - Preliminary / Final Plat
Applicant: Terry R Hagood
Owner: State Federal LSavings & Loan Assoc, of Lubbock
Request: Preliminary / Final Plat approval.
Approval of the final plat of Apple Creek subdivision conditional
upon the following:
1. Approval of "as built" site development construction plans
and City acceptance of required public improvements
2. Drainage improvements being completed, the detention facility
being shown on plat and a Stormwater Facility Maintenance
Covenant being filed with the plat
3. A PUE as required by Public Works and provision for
maintenance access being indicated on the plat for the water
main on Lot 1.
4. The variance for reduction of the required center line radius
of Apple Creek Drive shall be granted conditional upon
applicant's submittal of an engineered plan showing the
relationship of this ROW to the existing Northwest Boulevard
and subsequent staff determination that a future bridge
crossing of IH -35 is not significantly impaired.
5. Lot 2 shall be labeled as "Common Open Space."
6. Fence to be constructed by applicant between this project and
adjacent single family uses to east.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Counci APPROV
the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 24th day of June, 1986.
q-'JkA-
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #:808 Cielo - Variance - Building Line
Encroachment
Applicant: Warner Croft
Owner: Same
Request: Approval of request for variance form 25' front building
line setback, Subdivision Ordinance Section 5.04 - 1. For 808
Cielo, Serenada East, Section II, Lot 2, Block 3.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council
the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 24th day of June, 1986.
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #:Briarwood IV - Final Plat
Applicant: Timber Trek Development Co., Inc.
Owner: Same
Request: Final Plat approval for Briarwood, Section IV a 22.04
acre subdivision situated in the David Wright Survey, Abstract
No. 13. Variances have been requested for:
a. Hedgewood Drive - Center line radius less than 800'
b. Block "A" exceeding 1200'
C. Lot 40 Block "A" and Lot 15 Block "C" - lots at right angles.
Granting of variances as requested and indicated on plat
allowing:
a. A radius of less than 800' but not less than 300' along
Hedgewood Drive.
b. Block "A" to exceed 1200' in length.
C. Lot 40 Block "A" and Lot 15 Block "C" to exist at right
angles to lots in the adjacent Reata Trails Unit Four.
Approval of Final Plat conditional upon:
1. Subdivision Ordinance Requirements being met.
2. Drainage requirements being met.
3. Utilities being adequate: Participation in required
improvements to Sanitary Sewer Interceptor #7 and the Reata
Lift Station shall be determined prior to recordation of
plat.
4. The landscaped berm and drainage swale referred to by plat
note #9 shall be designated as a "Landscape, Drainage and
Public Utility Easement" on plat and its design included in
the construction plans for the subdivision.
5. A "Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenant" shall be
required.
6. Applicant shall pay the amount that would be required to
serve the project as if it were served independent of any
other proposed project.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council ",PPSRO:ESY^Tc.nnnn,oc im.n,n i
WITHDRAWS AT THE REQUEST THE the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 24th day of June, 1986.
A 6v- (UL \,-
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #: 509 Spring Valley Road - Building Line
Encroachment
Applicant: Tim Miller, Builder
Owner: same
Request: Granting of a variance from
Zoning Ordinance Section 2.0203 Side
encroachment of a 6.2' (maximum) into
building line for the south easterly
Oak Crest Estates, Spring Valley Unit
Cab. B, slide 306 County Records.
the setback requirements of
Yard to allow an existing
the 10' P.U.E. and side
side lot line of Lot 13 of
subdivision recorded in
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Counci APPROVE /
the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 24th day of June, 1986.
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #: 510 E. 15th — Building Line Encroachment
Applicant: Martha Nagel
Owner: same
Request: Granting of a variance from Zoning Ordinance 2.0203 Side
Yard to allow a proposed encroachment of 2' into the 7' side yard
area along the west side lot line of part of Block 9, Hughes
Addition, at 510 E. 15th Street.