Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 10.08.1985City of Georgetown Planning Report for the City Council Meeting October 8, 1985 7:OOpm Annexation Schedule Georgetown - Round Rock ETJ Demarcation Line Resolution Planning Agenda Items: A. Planning Consent Agenda 1.) Rolling Meadow Section One - Variance - Reinstatement of Preliminary Plat 2.) Crystal Knoll Terrace PUD Unit III - Final Plat and Site Plan 3.) Shell Addition - Resubidivision of Block 6 B. University Park Two PUD - Preliminary Plat and Site Plan C. Eagle's Nest Apts. - Variance - Building Line, Parking, Density D. River Hills - Concept Plan E. Planning Report MEMO To: Mayor, City Council From: Edward J. Barry, AICP - Director, Division of Community Development and Planning Date: October 2, 1985 RE: City of Georgetown Annexation Schedule for 1985 The following schedule for the annexation of Reata Trails Unit I has been prepared as requested by City Council: First Public Hearing November 12 Second Public Hearing November 26 First Reading of Annexation Ordinance December 10 Second Reading of Annexation 2nd Meeting Ordinance in December The areas listed below have also requested annexation. Information regarding all the areas proposed for annexation is included in the subsequent pages. The preceding schedule could be used for all the proposed annexations. Parkview Estates Sections I -IX River Ridge Sections IIA and IIB Thousand Oaks Section IV Remainder of University Park Section I Westwood Plaza Summary of Proposed Annexation Areas City of Georgetown, 1985 Single family 65.5 Subdivision Proposed Acreage Proposed # Proposed Use of Units Density Parkview Estates Single Family 42.57 166 3.90 Sections I -IX) Duplex 4.81 34 7.07 Multi -family 10.35 207 20.00 Commercial 22.22 Subtotal Total 79.95 407 7.05 Reata Trails Single family 65.5 206 3.14 Unit I River Ridge IIA Single Family 36.68 74 2.02 Four-plex 1.45 12 8.27 Commercial 2.00 Subtotal 40.13 86 2.25 IIB Single Family 6.46 10 1.70 Total 46.58 96 2.06 Thousand Oaks Commercial 1.017 Section IV University Park Flood Plain Section I and Road 6.36 Westwood Plaza Multi -family 8.86 90 9.84 Total 208.227 Areas Proposed For Annexation City of Georgetown, Texas Area Proposed For Annexation Park View Estates OW i - 1000' j N l RIVER Gp'EFi L F Area Proposed For Annexation River Ridge 2A & 2B 1" 1000' w 1V1_-- --- I IL J N0TI rNOT IN CITY IN CITY i^ - 1000' Area Proposed For Annexation Thousand Oaks, Section 4 Area Proposed For Annexation Portions of University Park, Section z4 L I Area Proposed For Annexation Westwood Plaza VARIANCE - Reinstatement of Preliminary Plat - ROLLING MEADOW SECTION I 1Alam[ "TT d ORGEjOW a / ' lIrL IV:TS West' p-,li i'• cud; wat l _, .'It• \ Tans a t I Location Map 1"=2000' Applicant: William Harshaw 1257 S. Main St Georgetown, Tx 869-1 392 Agent: Jim Spence 8140 MoPac, Bld. 3 Suite 240 Austin, Tx 346-0152 VARIANCE - ROLLING MEADOWS Page 2 Request: As required by Section 4.03 Part 8 of the City Subdivision Ordinance, applicant has requested an extension of the approval given this plat on April 23, 1985 in order to have more time in which to complete the construction plans. Facts: Location: Approximately 3/4 mile southeast of Georgetown, along the west side of Hutto Rd. Is in ETJ and outside Edwards Recharge Area. History: Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. Several previous requests of this type have been granted. The extensions allowed for previous requests have ranged from three to six months. The project under consideration involves considerable off-site utility improvements. MOKAN- On July 9, 1985 the City Council adopted a resolution which : 1) agreed to support the development of a facility known as the Mokan transportation corridor, 2.) Agreed to furnish all required right-of-way and adjust all utilities not furnished or adjusted by the Mokan transportation corporation. The conceptual roadway alignment map dated January 10, 1985 shows this future expressway with proposed R.O.W. of 300 to 400 feet along the eastern boundary of the proposed subdivision. Applicant should begin negotiation with the transportation corporation to determine impact on this proposal. Planning Staff Recommendation: Granting of request with a three month extension of approval. However, applicant shall be put on notice that due to the water availability policy no further extensions will be recommended by staff and that a final plat must be submitted for consideration prior to new expiration date of January 8, 1986. The impact of proposed Mokan Transit Corridor should be ascertained prior to submittal of final plat or the preliminary plats of other sections. City Council Actiok: (5-0) Granted with conditions stated above CRYSTAL KNOLL TERRACE UNIT III — FINAL PLAT iii 11 , THIS S1F rnY tom.•I 7 u v Location Map 1" = 2000' Applicant: The Jefferson Group PO Box 38 8 3 Beaumont, Tx 77704 409- 842-2358 Agent: Victor Turley 301 N. 3rd St. Temple, Tx 76501 817- 77 3-2400 a Request: Final Plat and Site Plan approval for Crystal Knoll Terrace PUD, Unit Three, a 28.86 acre subdivision out of a part of the Antonio Flores Survey being part of a 100 acre tract of Cecil M. Schneider, et ux, recorded in Vol. 517, Page 2:45. Variances are requested for Right Angle Lots 9-12 Blk 3, 4-6 Blk 5, and 29-3L Blk 6. Facts: Location: This tract comprises the Northeast corner of Crystalx'Knoll Terrace PUD which is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of County roads 151 and 152. This subdivision is within the E.T.J. and within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Crystal Knoll Terrace Page 2 Surrounding Uses: Agricultural use exists to the north and east; a row of 10 duplexes adjoins the property ori the southeast. Single family use is proposed in the approved final plat of Unit One to the south; and multifamily use is proposed to the west in the preliminary plat of Crystal Knoll Terrace PUD. Proposed Use: 119 duplexes comprising 238 living units at a density of 8.25 units per acre. Development Plan: District 5C recommends normal residential 4 duplexes/acre) and thus the proposed use is not in strict conformance with the plan. However, use does conform to that approved on the preliminary plat. History: Preliminary plat was conditionally _ approved on April 9, 1985. All conditions of approval have been met or are being resolved with staff. Analysis: The density of Section Three exceeds the maximum allowable density of 8 dwelling units/acre by approximately 38. Calculations based on land use type that would include the 10 duplex lots platted in Unit One reduce the average density to 8.1 dwelling units/acre which is still in excess of ordinance standards by three dwelling units. However, since the revised lot arrangement in block 3 around the park site creates an overlapping of back yards and side yards among Lots 8-11 and minimizes the rear yards of Lots 9 and 10,and since it is desirable to create a pedestrian access to the park from the west, then the redesign of Lots 9-14 to eliminate one lot (2 dwelling units) would reduce the density to approximate ordinance requirements, improve park accessibility and yard layout at the corner. The developer of this tract has been involved in the development of one of the City's three wells in the area. Council approval of Unit Two was conditioned upon the execution of an agreement with applicant that off-site water improvements meet the City Engineer's requirements for the use of all three new City wells. Substantial off-site wastewater improvments are also required in conjunction with this development. Crystal Knoll Terrace Page 3 While the developer has met the preliminary plat condition that a non -detention area park be provided in this subdivision, improvments to the park have not been shown. Also a detailed landscaping plan for this unit was not submitted and it is assumed that the landscaping of individual lots will follow that established in Units One and Two. However, this portion of the development does have some existing tree cover which should be conserved if possible. Therefore, it is desirable that proposed landscape and improvement plans for the Park and Detention/ Recreation Area, including existing trees, be submitted for approval in conjunction with construction plan review. Variances have been requested for several situations where side yards abut rear yards. This condition can always be eliminated by reducing the number of lots to provide larger corner lots. Variance has also been requested to allow reduction of minimum lot area from 7000 sq. ft. to a minimum of 6000 sq. ft. Since the project is being developed under the P.U.D. guidelines with adequate landscaping and common open space being provided in addition to the use of common driveways as shown on the site plan, the liveability of the residences is not diminished. Planning Staff Recommendations: Approval of final plat and site plan and the variance to allow right angle lots 9-11 Block 3, 4-6 Block 5, and 29-31 Block 6; and to reduce minimum lot area to 6000 sq. ft. conditioned upon the following comments: 1. Plat and Site Plan meeting ordinance requirements, 2. Drainage requirements being met and a Drainage Facility Maintenance Agreement being required, 3. Utilities being adequate (water availability note shall apply), 4. T.D.W.R. approval of a Water Pollution Abatement Plan is required, 5. Block 3 shall be redesigned to provide pedestrian access to the park from Magnolia Drive and increase the depth of Lots 9 & 10 to 1251, 6. The final landscape plan shall show existing trees and include both detention areas and street parkways, and show proposed improvements to the park 7. The final landscape and site plans shall be included with the construction plans, 8. Plat shall be resubmitted for survey review prior to recordation, 9. Building Permits for this subdivision shall not be issued until 508 of off-site utility construction is complete, 10. Improvements to County Roads are needed, 11. Off-site improvments shall meet City Engineer's specifications for conditions reflecting development of the three City wells in this area, P & Z Recommendation:(3-0) Approval conditional upon above City 6ouncil Action: comments being satisfied. 5-0) Approved as recommended above SHELL ADDITION - RESUBDIVISON OF BLOCK 6 Location Map 1"= 2000' Applicant: Douglas L. Anderson PO Box 752 Georgetown, Tx 78627-752 86 3-565 3 Agent: Steger & Bizzell, Inc. PO Box 858 Georgetown, Tx 78627-858 86 3-4521 Request: Approval for Resubdivision of a .22 Acre part of Block 6 of Shell Addition, situated in the William Addison Survey, Abstract 21. Facts: . Location: On the northwest corner of 4th Street and Pine Street, within the City limits and Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Surrounding Uses: Single family residences occupy the adjoining properties to the north and east, and directly across 4th Street to the south. The property across Pine Street to the west (as well as the southwest corner of Pine and 4th) is vacant. Shell Addition Page 2 Analysis: According to the applicants engineer the lot represented by this plat was "deed divided" prior to 1968. Thus, it is likely that this could be considered under the long standing "grandfather" policy as a legally established lot. This policy developed due to the fact that while the City has had a Subdivision Ordinance since February 14, 1955 this ordinance was not rigorously enforced until after passage of the current ordinance in 1977. However, the Planning Department strongly encourages the proper platting of all property within the City's jurisdication to ensure uniform development and accurate records for the future. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. All ordinance requirements shall be met, 2. Drainage requirements shall be met, 3. Utilities being adequate,water availability note shall apply, 4. Utility Plan shall be revised per City Engineers Comments prior to recordation. P & Z Recommendation: (3-0) Approved conditional upon above comments being satisfied. City Council Action:(4-0) 1 abstention Approved as recommended above by Planning and Zoning UNIVERSITY PARK SECTION TWO PUD - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN Request: Approval of preliminary plat and site plan of University Park Two, Planned Unit Development, a 81.18 acre tract in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21. Facts: Location: South of Hwy 29 and northeast of Hutto Road. Surrounding Area: Undeveloped land and proposed normal and small lot single family residential. 4 • • I J1 M. Wet 1 I ; UNIVERSITY PARK Two Vail 40 r...t 1 3 N y Location Map 1"=2000' Applicant: J.S.J. Joint Venture 3415 Greystone, Suite 304 Austin, Tx 78731 512 345-5413 Agent: Planned Development Concepts(Jeff Eastman) 3415 Greystone, Suite 304 Austin, Tx 78731 512 345 5486 Request: Approval of preliminary plat and site plan of University Park Two, Planned Unit Development, a 81.18 acre tract in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21. Facts: Location: South of Hwy 29 and northeast of Hutto Road. Surrounding Area: Undeveloped land and proposed normal and small lot single family residential. University Park Section Two PUD Page 2 Proposed Uses: a residential development of 404 small lot single family and townhouse apartment units with recreational facilities. Density is 5.66 dwelling units/acre. Development Plan: This area was designated as normal residential and schools and parks, thus the high residential densities planned do not strictly conform to the master plan. General Concerns: The primary issue on this project is the small lot size and non-standard configuration of the lot layout. Under the P.U.D. Ordinance it is up to the developer to demonstrate that any deviation from standard requirements will contribute to a "better" design. A second issue is the extent to which the street system will need to tie in to surrounding properties without destroying the unified neighborhood concept. Applicant must demonstrate that common areas and other amenities provide safe and usable recreational features in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality to promote a superior neighborhood design. Staff Recommendation: The plat and site plan should be resubmitted with all informational requirements of the PUD Ordinance met and the following comments satisfied. 1. Plat and support documents should conform to requirements to PUD Ordinance 2. The following ordinance requirements concerning lots have not beehmet: a. Area less than 6000 sq. ft. b. Front width less than 60 feet and/or average depth less than 100 feet C. Lots fronting on two non -intersection streets d. Lots placed at right angles to other lots e. 25 ft. front yard setback is reduced to either 10 ft, or 15 ft. (variance is requested) f. 7 ft. side yard setback is reduced to 5 ft. or zero ft. (variance is requested) g. Elimination of public utility easements along rear and side lot limits. Complete evaluation of these variances cannot be completed until a more detailed site plan is reviewed. However, in general, it is the recommendation of the staff that the size and shape of lots be increased: to accomodate the residential units described in the "Product Justification" section of proposal; to provide a minimum 15 ft. front _-yard; to provide minimum side yards as required for spacing of structures; to conform to standards for maximum coverage University Park Section Two PUD Page 3 by structures, maximum impervious cover, and required private open space; and to reduce or make special provisions for lots at right angles and double frontage lots. Staff has no objection to elimination of rear and side utility easements.] 3. The following ordinance requirements regarding streets have not been met: a. Private streets are allowed in PUD's but should have a minimum 50 foot R.O.W. especially if they contain utilities. Complete review of substandard roadway widths will require submittal of typical street and utility layout cross-section. b. 75 ft. street center line radius on Rachel Court should be increased and requested variance not granted. C. Horn Court exceeds 600' maximum length for cul-de- sac and should be connected to Snyder Court and the request for variance not granted. Similar redesign should be considered for Hyer Court and Merritt Court. 4. Recommend providing street access to adjacent properties to the north, east and southeast. 5. Variance must be requested and justified for proposed reduction of off-street parking requirements for three bedroom units. 6. Additional water storage facilities are required to adequately accommodate the development. 7. Water Availability Note shall apply to this subdivision ie. No building permits shall be issued until the proposed water treatment facilities are operational or an acceptable alternate source is'provided) 8. The preliminary site plan and/or support documents should provide all informational requirements of Section 2.809 of PUD ordinance 9. The site plan, typical lot layout, and architectural illustrations should be co-ordinated to provide an accurate indication of all facets of the development. 10. A landscape plan should be submitted. P&Z Recommendation: (5-0) Approval of preliminary plat and site plan conditional upon the requirements of the PUD Ordinance being met as worked out with the Planning Dept. and described in the comments above. City Council Action (5-0) At meeting of July 23, request to approve preliminary plat and site plan was tabled and refered to staff for reconsiderat- ion after presentation by applicant regarding the concept of the Planned Unit Development and its proposed application at University Park. University Park Section Two PUD Page 4 Staff Reconsideration: At a meeting with Planning staff and applicant on July 30, see letter of July 31 attached to application for sub- division) certain criteria was established to serve as guidelines for further review in response to Comments 1 through 5 and 8 through 10. In summary these criteria are as follows: 1.) Comments 1, 8, and 9 shall be met by the submittal of required information 2.) Comment 2 a - Lot areas ranging from 4500 sq. ft. to 6000 sq. ft. are acceptable for product types 4 and 5. Lot areas ranging from 4000 sq. ft. to 4500 sq, ft. will be allowed on a case by case basis as judged by the "fit" of the building on the site. 3.) Comment 2 b - Minimum lot frontage shall be 35 ft. 4.) Comment 2 c - Double frontage lots shall have a minimum rear yard of 25 ft. 5.) Comment 2 d - Lots placed with side yards adjacent to rear yards shall be eliminated where possible 6.) Comment 2 e - 15 ft. setbacks from all street R.O.W. shall be established by plat. Variances may be recommended up to a minimum of 10 ft. for front yard setbacks on a case by case basis 7.) Comment 2 f - 5 ft.side yards shall be allowed 8.) Comment 2 g - Utilities shall be designed to allow for the elimination of side and rear P.U.E. 9.) Comment 3 a - Streets shall be redesigned to meet normal standards 10.) Comment 3 b - 75' centerline radius on Rachal Court should be increased to 200 ft. 11.) Comment 3 c - Recommend connecting long cul-de-sac to form "loop" 12.) Comment 9 - Future through streets shall be provided both to North and East (minimum ) and a second access provided for the present 13.) Comment 5 - Attempts to fulfill off-street parking requirements should be made 14.) Comment 6 - Water storage improvements are needed 15.) Comment 8 - Water Availability note shall apply 16.) Comment 8 & 9 - See discussion with comment 1 17.) Comment 10 - Landscape concept shall be submitted 18.) Additional requirements - the instruments regarding the deed back" of side yards must be approved by City Attorney. 125 ft. street intersection off -sets shall be met. The nature of the proposed "ammenities" should be more fully described. Analysis: The latest version of the plat and site plan appeat to generally satisfy the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission in conjunction with modified PUD Ordinance criteria established by agreement between planning staff and applicant. Gross residential density allowances have been met and the common recreational University Park Section Two PUD Page 5 spaces (at least in area terms) seem to off -set the small size of most lots. The key factors required to "improve the livability" of this development are; the successful integration of street, drainage, and utility systems with the landscaping and recreational facilities, the implimenta- tion of a uniform architectural theme with high quality, low maintenance construction, and the serving of a housing market with sufficient flexibility so that the "product mix" of each product type can be adjusted to successfully fit the variations of the individual lots created. Therefore, in order to provide this flexibility and yet maintain order and control, it is recommended that an additional level of site plan review be added to the approval process. This review should occur after the recording of final plat and prior to the issuance of building permits and would consist of a layout at appropriate scale of all lots fronting on individual residential streets and showing all improvements to be constructed along that street including landscaping, building layout, streets, drains, and utilities. The process shall insure conformance with normal City Codes and policies and the previously described criteria established for this project while also providing administrative variance authority for the reduction of the 15 ft. front building line to a minimum of 10 ft. and the off-street parking requirements for three and four bedroom units as requested by applicant. It is further suggested that the Planning Commission be established as the appeals body in the event that staff and applicant cannot successfully resolve these issues. Staff Recommendation: Approval of preliminary plat and site plan with the following conditions: 1.) All ordinance requirements being met, 2.) All drainage requirements being met, 3.) Utilities being adequate. Water Availability Note shall apply, 4.) Water Pollution Abatement Plan being approved, 5.) Additional water storage facilities are required to adequately accommodate this development, 6.) Preliminary landscape plan shall be submitted for staff approval prior to submittal of final plat, 7.) Final site plans shall be at a scale of 1"=50' for each product type and shall reflect the "ideal" product mix within each type, 8.) Construction phasing plan and schematic grading plan shall be submitted with final plat, 9.) Stormwater facility maintenance covenant shall be requested, 10.) Site plan for Product Type III "Townhouses" shall be subject to standard review process, 11.) The following variances shall be granted under the PUD Ordinance and as outlined in the analysis section of this report: University Park Section Two PUD Page 6 a.) lot area less than 6000 sq. ft. b.) lot frontage less than 60 ft. c.) lot depth less than 100 ft. d.) lots with frontage on two non -intersecting street e.) lots at right angles f.) reduction of front setback to 15 ft. g.) reduction of side setback to 5 ft. except for 15 ft. on corner lots h.) elimination of side and rear public utility easements i.) corner lot width less than 5 ft. wider than average interior lot j.) street centerline readius less than 300 ft. -on Rachel Court and Steel Court k.) street centerline readius less than 800 ft. -Morrow Drive 12.) Authorization shall be granted to planning staff to grant the following variances on a case by case basis in conjunction with streetscape plan review with Planning and Zoning Commission acting as appeals body: a.) further reduction of front building line to 10 ft. b.) Reduce off-street parking requirements for three and four bedroom units to two spaces/unit. City Council Action: (4-1) Approved as recommended by staff above with the exception that condition twelve (12) above be deleted EAGLE'S NEST APARTMENTS - VARIANCE REQUEST Location Map 1"=2000' Applicant: Clay St. Joint Venture G.L. Smith and David Dacy 3135 Honey Tree Lane Austin, Tx 78731 Agent: Cox/Croslin and Associates (Ron Kelley) 6907 Capitol of Tx. Hwy Austin, Tx 78731 346-8420 Request: Site plan approval for Eagle's Nest Apartments, a 1.22 acre tract out of the east side of Lot 1, Block 7, of the Gabriel Heights addition, cabinet B, slides 5-7. This approval requires the following variances: 1. to grant a reductic 25 feet to 15 feet. Request is yard from 2. Zoning Ordinance 6.106 Yard Regulations- Request is to grant approval for construction of three parking spaces in the requested 15 foot front yard. 3. Density Standards- Request is to grant an increase in the maximum allowable density standard recommended by the Planning Department from 20 Living Units per Acre to 26 Living Units per Acre. Eagle's Nest (page 2) Facts: Location: West of IH 35, east of Park Lane, on the south side of Clay Street. Surrounding Uses: Mini Storage warehouses and a duplex are to the northwest; Georgetown Inn is to the southwest; a Texaco service station is to the southeast; and across the street (NE) is vacant land. Surrounding Zoning: Residential Multifamily (RM -3) to the Northwest and Local Commercial District C-1) on all other sides. Existing Zoning: C-1 Local Commercial District Proposed Use: 32 one and two bedroom apartments at a density of 26 units per acre Development Plan: Commercial use is recommended, the proposed District 4b use and existing zoning are substantially in conformance with the plan. History: The site is a part of Lot 1, Block 7, of the Gabriel Heights Subdivision as recorded September 2, 1964. This lot was formed by metes and bounds on April 15, 1975, Vol. 608, page 390. The most recent research of the planning department reveals this to be an unplatted resubdivision, however in the pre - development conferences the applicant and staff had reason to believe that 1977 was the cut off date for metes and bounds resubdivision. The covenants filed on the record plat require a front building setback of 30 feet. These covenants can be changed by a majority vote of property owners after January 1, 1974. Analysis: All three requested variances revolve around one central issue, over utilization of the site. If the standard density of 20 units/acre is used, the number of units would be reduced to 25 and the required parking spaces reduced to 37. Thus, if the number of units proposed were reduced by 7 and the number of parking spaces reduced by 11, then no variances would be needed. It should also be noted that this reduction in impervious cover would reduce the amount of stormwater run-off and compliment applicants request for administrative variance from stormwater detention requirements. It should also be noted that if this property were rezoned to RM -3 District, which would allow the proposed use, then a 15 foot front yard would be allowed. However, the parking therein would still be in violation. Eagle's Nest page 3 With regard to the density standard, this project as proposed does meet the minimum lot size required for 32 living units under Ordinance Section 2.03032.(a) which requires 1.16 acre minimum lot area as compared to the 1.22 acres of this site. Clearly, the application of "standards" or guidelines in the review of development proposals carries less authority than do the "restrictions" of the Zoning Ordinance. However, they do serve an important role in the creation of a more consistant and uniform development climate throughout the community. The primary justification presented by the applicant for the granting of these variances is that "various City officials" have given direction that the development be reviewed under RM -3 District regulations. According to the applicant this direction was received intermittantly beginning in 1980 and as recently as 1984. Section 11.206 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the Board of Adjustment City Council) as the authority to hear and decide appeals where there is alleged to be error in any determination by the administration official. Planning Staff Recommendation: Variance #1 Area Regulations- No objection Variance #2 Parking in front yard - Denial Variance #3 Density standards - Denial Council Action: Withdrawn at Council per request of Sept. 10, 1985 applicant. Council Action: Withdrawn at Council per request of Oct. 8, 1985 applicant. RIVER HILLS - CONCEPT PLAN Locat Applicant: Walter Carrington Company 5609 Adams Austin, Tx 512 454-6601 Agent: David Holt - Holford Group 9501 Capital of Tx Hwy North Austin, Tx `7Y 75 °r 512 346-8181 Request: 2000' Concept Plan approval for River Hills of Georgetown, a57.7 acre multiuse development, out of the C. StubblefieldSurveyandtheJ.B. Pulsifer Survey No. 36. Facts: Location: Bordering on the west side of IH -35 between theN. San Gabriel River and Hwy 29. Outside of, but contiguous to City limits and within Edwards RechargeZone. Surrounding Uses: Undeveloped land and large lot single-family and duplex residential Proposed Use: 15.2 acres of multi -family, 4.7 acreas of professional office, 7.6 acres of local retailcommercial, 2.5 acres of commercial, and 27.7 acres of large lot single family residential. River Hills Page 2 Development Plan: District 3A- Large residential is recommended. Proposal does not conform to plan but Council approval of IH -35 utility agreement implies flexibility in this area. History: Site is part of the IH 35 Joint Venture Utility Agreement and requires City approval of concept plan to fulfill requirements of contract. At the P & Z meeting of June 4, 1985, the Concept Plan evoked considerable objections from the adjacent home owners (large lot single family area). They protested that developer had sold them lots with assurances that surrounding uses would be similar to theirs. It was their contention that the change of land use to multifamily, office and commercial was detrimental to their property values as well as the quality of life they had been led to expect when they purchased their property. Resubmittal was recommended in order that objections regarding land use incompatibility be addressed. The portions of the plan labeled Section One, Section Two, and Section Three are existing recorded plats. Section Four was a portion of the overall concept plan but has not been filed for record. Analysis: This plan was presented and discussed at both the August and September Planning and Zoning Commission hearings. No action was taken at either of those meetings pending a written opinion from City Attorney relatve to a petition filed in District Court concerning the project. Attorney has advised staff to proceed as normal with this proposal. Concept Plan has not been changed since first put on hold. The proposal submitted covers the non-residential frontage strip of Section One (i.e. Parcel One, Two, and Four), Section Two (i.e. Parcel Three), and Section Four (i.e. Parcel Five and Six). Parcel Three is shown to remain in its current platted configuration with no change in land use. Parcels On Two, and Four are to remain in the same con- figuration the only difference being a greater 101el of specificity of the proposed commercial use and an associated utility allocation. Staff has no problem with Parcel Three as is. The primary concerns relative to Parcels One and Two -are that an attractive "Front" is secured along IH -35, that traffic conflicts be reduced, that buffering of adjacent residential lots be accomplished and that site development be sensitive to the environment. The same general concerns hold for Parcels Four, Five, and Six but are deemed to be mgre critical because of existing homes on adjacent Tots. Therefore, consideration should be given to specific controls for this area in the form of use restrictions, height and setback limits, and a 50 foot wide natural greenbelt. River Hills Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Approval of Concept Plan for land use type with the following conditions: 1. All ordinance requirements being met 2. All provisions of the _Agreement Regarding Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services shall be met 3. The document entitled "Environmental Standards Criteria" shall be used to evaluate future plats and plans 4. Access along IH -35 shall be restricted and coordinated with T.D.H.P.T. Plans 5. A uniform architectural and landscaping theme shall be maintained on lots fronting on IH -35 and implimented through site plan review 6. The following conditions should apply to parcels 4,5,& 6: A. The 50 ft. greenbelt shall remain in its existing natural condition, and be extended through parcel four B. The 100 ft strip adjacent and parallel to this greenbelt shall be used for landscaping, parking and driveways only. Construction in the west half of this area shall avoid the destruction of existing trees C. RM -3 District zoning should be requested upon annexation and used to evaluate site plans 7. Actual density of development shown shall not be approved except in conjunction with site plan review 8. A landscaped buffer shall be established between Parcels One and Two and adjacent residential lots 9. Specific land use shall be indicated on preliminary plat/plans, R & D designations shall be dropped from consideration P&Z Recommendation: (2-1) Approved conditional upon comments above being satisfied. City Council Action: Withdrawn at Council per request of applicant' MEMO To: Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Edward J. Barry, AICP Director, Divi on of Community Development and Planning Date: October 15, 1985 Re: Legal lot status of Unrestricted Reserve B of Thousand Oaks Subdivision Sometime ago a question arose as to whether or not Unrestricted Reserve B of Thousand Oaks Subdivision was a legal lot in compliance with the requirements of the City of Georgetown's subdivision ordinance. In order to resolve the issue the City Council directed then City Attorney Joe B. McMaster to research the matter and render an opinion. This he did in a letter addressed to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager, dated September 3, 1985. (see attached) Essentially Mr. McMaster said the Unrestricted Reserve B is not a part of the approved subdivision and therefore is required to satisfy the requirements of the City's subdivision regulations by obtaining an approved subdivision plat prior to a building permit or utility service connection being issued for the property. Mr. McMaster's opinion is consistent with the Planning Department's interpretation of the facts and requirements in this case. Consequently, the Planning Department's position has been that a plat for the property known as Unrestricted Reserve B must be submitted and approved before a building permit or utility service connection will be issued for this land. As you also know the City is currently involved in attempting to secure additional road right-of-way off of this tract of land for the Leander Road widening project. In recent weeks discussions have been held with Mr. Jerry Katz, one of the owners of this property, regarding the issues of platting and right-of-way acquisition. Of course Mr. Katz and his partners differ with Mr. McMasters decision in this case and contend that their property is a legal lot and platting is not required. Mr. Katz requested that since Mr. McMaster is no longer City Attorney that this case be re -reviewed by our current legal council Stump & Stump. After discussing the request with City Manager Frank Reed it was decided that further legal review of the matter was not necessary. Mr. Katz was informed of this decision in a letter dated September 27, 1985. The property owner's main concern in this matter is the application of the water note which would be placed on the property through platting. There is also the concern with the amount of time involved in processing a plat. The owners wish to proceed with the development of their commercial project, for which a site plan is currently under review, in the shortest time possible. This memo was prepared to make you aware of the status of this case and also because Mr. Katz has indicated his desire to make a presentation on this matter to the City Council at your meeting of October 22, 1985. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning this case. LAW OFFICES Or JOE 8. MCMASTER, PC JOE 8. NC -ASTER LEE NORTON GAIN CYNTHIA WHITLOW JOHN 6, MCMASTER Mayor Carl J. Doering City Council Members City Manager Gentlemen: MCMASTER & BAIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW u+ WEST EIGHTH STREET, POST OFFICE BOX 627 GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 September 3, 1985 MEA CODE 612 TELEPHONE 663.OS3, 256-3709 In re: 3.6396 acre tract in the C. Stubblefield Survey, Williamson County, Texas The question has been presented to me for an opinion on whether or not the subject tract is "platted" in compliance withVernon's Annotated Civil Statutes Article 974a, Section 8. Said section prohibits the City from furnishing utilities to any tractwithintheCitywhichhasnotbeenplattedfirst. In my opinion said tract is not platted and therefore 974a, Section 8 prohibits the City from serving said tract withutilitiesuntilitisplatted. The basis for this opinion is as follows: 1) In April, 1980, the 147th Judicial District Court ofTravisCounty, Texas, rendered its judgment holding among otherthingsthefollowing: 1. That Unrestricted Reserve "A" is not a lot withinthesubdivision (Thousand Oaks) and is not included within thePlatofthesubdivision (Thousand Oaks); and 2. That the Unrestricted Reserve "A" was excluded fromtheThousandOaksSubdivisionwithoutrestrictionastothefuturesubdivisionanddevelopmentofUnrestrictedReserve "A", which can be undertaken unilaterally (without the consent fromownersofThousandOaks) by the owner of said tract and; 3. That since Unrestricted Reserve "A" was not a partoftheplatorsubdivision (Thousand Oaks) no consent from theownerofUnrestrictedReserve "A" was required in order forThousandOaksSubdivisiontobevacatedandreplatted. Since the Court interpreted the dedication language andotherfactsandproofsasindicatedaboverelativetoUnrestrictedReserve "A" and since the exact language is found inallthedocumentationsrelativetoUnrestrictedReserve "B" (thetractinquestion) the determinations made by the Court regarding Mayor Carl J. Doering City Counsil Members City Manager September 3, 1985 k Unrestricted Reserve "A" would apply equally to UnrestrictedReserve "B". In short the Court found that Unrestricted ReserveA" was not a part of Thousand Oaks Subdivision but was insteadexcludedtherefrom. Some time ago the owners of UnrestrictedReserve "A" sought to plat (not replat) the 18.5787 acre tractandpresentedtheCitywithacopyoftheCourt's judgment whichIamincludingalongwiththisreportforyourexaminationasthebasisfortheCitvofGeorgetown's considering the 18.5787 acretractasunplattedandsubjecttobeingplatted (not replatted). It is true that the Court judgment mentions onlyUnrestrictedReserve "A" (18.5787 acres) and makes no mention ofUnrestrictedReserve "B" (3.6396 acres) but since the languagethroughoutthehistoryofthededicationprocessrecordsisidenticalwithrespecttothetwotractsandsincebothownersofthetwotracts, Carl Burnett and Wallace Luerson, were parties to that suit, in my opinion, the judgment settlesthematteranditsettlesitonthesideofneitherofthosetractsbeingapartofThousandOaksSubdivision. IfUnrestrictedReserve "B" (3.6396 acres) is not a part of theThousandOaksSubdivisionweareleftwithnoalternativebuttoconsideritasunplattedacreagewhichmustbeplattedbeforewecanservethetract Section 8. with utilities pursuant to Article 974a, a Very truly yours, Joe B. McMaster JBM:lp Enclosure CC: Renee Hanson City Planning Department MEMO To: Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Edward J. Barry, AICP Director, Divi Community Development and Pla Date: October 15, 1985 Re: Establishing a Development Regulation Study Committee The City of Georgetown has experienced a great deal of change over the past few years as the result of increased urban development. These changes have forced the community to adopt new ways of doing things. One such example is the method of reviewing and approving requests for development permission. The procedures followed are those that have been established by City Ordinance and which are found to a large extent in the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations ordinance. Originally the existing zoning ordinance was adopted in 1968 while a new subdivision regulation ordiannce was passed in the early 1980's. Over time these ordinances have been amended in order to keep pace with current needs and address new areas of concern. As these documents are revised there very often arise problems with internal consistency and these are usually not found until after the change is adopted. These problems then require additional amendments to correct the situation. Eventually the problems are compounded and the ordinances become rather unwieldy. In order to correct this type of situation it becomes necessary to address the problem in a comprehensive fashion. The "Goals and Objective" document approved by the City Council contains seventeen separetely listed goal statements relating do the need to address possible deficiencies in our current zoning and subdivision ordinances. Due to the number and range of these goals statements there appears to be an iM entified need to review the adequacy of the City's current development regulations. Even though it would entail an 'enormous amount of work, it is my suggestion that because of the interrelations of these two sets of ordinances we attempt to tackle both of them at the same time. I would recommend the following format be followed in undertaking this project. First, a study committee composed of area citizens representing all segments and interests in the community be appointed to provide direction to the staff in the preparation of the revised ordinances. Attached is a listing of groups/interests to be represented on the committee with the number of persons to be appointed. It is strongly urged that this be an advisory sub -committee of the Planning Commission with one of the Planning Commissioners in the role of Chairing the Committee. If the Council wishes to follow this approach then applications can be taken for membership on this committee in accordance with adopted City policy and the group officially appointed in late November. An organizational meeting would be held in early December to review the general purpose and responsibility of the Committee. The next meeting would most likely be scheduled for after the holidays in early January 1986. At this second meeting the staff would review some particular areas of concerd involving the ordinances and discuss possible elements to be covered in the revised codes. A third session in late January would be to obtain comments from the committee as to what they think needs to be included in the ordinances. Then staff would begin to draft proposed ordinances responding to these comments and general planning requirements. Additional committee meetings could be held as needed during this ordinance preparation stage. Drafts of the ordinances would be scheduled for completion by late April or early May at which time they would be presented to the committee for review and comment. From this point on the process becomes more open ended. Several revisions to the documents may be necessary to reach a generally supported set of proposed regulations. Public comment may also be included at this stage. After the committee reaches a consensus the ordinances would be given to the Planning and Zoning Commission to hold public hearings and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Council may also wish to hold additional public hearings before making a decision about the proposed codes. Of course, at any point in the review process revisions could be made to the proposals. Following this process and with the support of City staff it is felt that we could develop a set of complimentary developmept regulations which will satisfy local citizens concerns and insure the continued quality development of our community. I would be happy to discuss this with you at your conv4nience. 2 Proposed Structure of the Development Regulation Study Committee Interest City k Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Park & Recreation Board Preservation Review Committee Parking & Traffic Committee Airport Board Business & Development Developers Real Estate Banking & Finance Chamber/KGB Downtown Georgetown Assoc. Other Business Special Neighborhood Association GISD Southwestern University Georgetown Heritage Society County Minorities Environmentalists Arch./Engineer Professional i Other At larga e/Property Owners Representatives 1 -Chairperson) Total i 8 2 2 1 1 1 1 10 W. 2 40 3 2 1 1 1 2 10 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 McLESTER • GRISHAM • GARDNER I N V E S T O R S, I N C. 3 nrtnher 4, 1985 City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78026 Attn: Ed Morris, Director of Planning Re: River Ridge Sections Three A, B, 8 C (76.0 Acres) Dear Mr. Berry, Please include all of the above in your upcoming annexation to the City of Georgetown. Respectfully Submitted, Gary Dayton Project Manager Enclosed: Field Notes 8 Plat OCT 7 ,98s GD:ab 9044 1011YVII If ROAD AUSTIN, TEXAS 78759 15121346-4580 1-800.531-5031 C 6f.LT m tit Ir 1 11 wrs 01""9 0' qi is 100.00' 19.39• Y. s9.a9• 3. D' S2\ ZiE 90.61• N H ES h1 6 c n 9 90.33'30• Y21.62' 21.95• 22.25' 20.23' 6 13.02.22' 6 p 6 t 3 5 50 SHAM • GARDNER x M1 HENT CORP. 90• n9 p11A 1. s9.(sl>t 346-2200 69 W I RIVER RIDGE SEG. n -A NO A wEwttCE' W, 0\yy,ii9 661ie rte- a i B. © y99°5171 "W 0I d s. /95 91• FILE k CT r9ez-^ p. ,/O9 CO, Y / n r 6 r 0 ^ CA43.t'JS GD E / p / lot.i9' 2 539'3212%t' 6036/' ( O Fes" OW DEQ/LAT/ON 55? 32 '/V B s •CONSULTI ENGINEER! ec: » MEMO To: Mayor, and Members of the City Council From: Edward J. Barry, AICP-Director, Div is' 1of ommunity Development and Pla i !v Date:October 15, 1985 1 Re: Rezoning of City Property within Block 16 of the Revised City of Georgetown Map As requested at the September 24, 1985 Council Meeting, this office has investigated the feasibility of the referenced action. The purpose of this investigation is: 1. To determine the restrictions currently existing on this property as set forth in the "Urban Renewal Plan" and the method by which these restrictions may be altered. 2. To recommend a course of action regarding the rezoning. 1. The area in question is that portion of Block 16 Revised Georgetown Map which is currently owned by the City. This area is located between 3rd and 4th Streets and between Forest St. and Martin Luther King Ave. (see attached Map 1) This property was apparently acquired through the Urban Renewal Program of the 1970's. The exact boundaries of City owned property in this block have not been determined due to a conflict in information between the City Tax Office and the Williamson County Appraisal District records. This determination is the first step required for any zoning change proposal. However, Block 16 of the City Map corresponds exactly with Block W of the recorded Urban Revewal Plan. A cursory search of the Williamson County Plat records indicates that the resubdivision plat for Block "W" was never filed, but the restrictions on the property as established through the Urban Renewal Plan as adopted by City Council on June 12, 1972 and as amended by City Council on May 13, 1980 do apply and, according to a ruling by the City Attorney,in a letter dated May 28, 1985, do superceed the City Zoning Ordinance. The following is a summary of existing restrictions: 1. Zoning District is RL -Residential which is generally restricted as "no building or land shall be used except for uses allowed in the RS District of the City of Georgetown Zoning Ordinance." For a complete list of these uses see the attached copy of Zoning Ordinance attached. The following is a summary of maximum allowable restrictions under the Urban Renewal Plan: I. Zoning District is which is generally land shall be used, shall be erected or otherwise provided allowed in the C-1 Zoning Ordinance." designated as B -Commercial restricted as "no building or and no building hereafter structurally altered unless in this plan, except for uses District of the City of Georgetown For a complete list of these uses see copy of Zoning Ordinances attached. It should be noted that public use buildings such as the proposed County Judical Annex are allowed under both the above City Zoning Districts. This land is currently RS through the City Zoning scheme. The City owned property in question is currently zoned RL by the Urban Renewal Plan. Thus the intended use by the county would be a use permitted by right at the present time and negating the need to rezone the property. While reclassification to a B district as outlined in the Urban Renewal Plan is not required to accomodate the judicial annex, if the property was rezoned" as such the proposed use would still be allowed. The method for amending the Urban Renewal Plan "zoning" classification is established by the Plan as having to follow the City zoning amendment process as set forth in the City's adopted zoning ordinance. However, there is question as to whether or not the Urban Renewal scheme can be amended only within the limits of the classification system imposed by the Urban Renewal Plan or if we can change the Urban Renewal districts to one of the zones under the City zoning format (i.e. can we only change from RL to RH or B -Urban Renewal Plan System or is it possible to go from RL/RH/B - Urban Renewal to RM-3/C2A/C2B/I as allowed by Georgetown's zoning ordinance.) Consequently, a more thorough analysis of the Urban Renewal Plan and possibly consultation with the City Attorney will be required to determine if the standard District Amendment process is sufficient or if other criteria must be followed. 2. Regarding a recommended course of action relative to the rezoning, it appears that rezoning of this area is not required to allow the use currently being proposed by the County. Furthermore, rezoning to the highest designation allowed within the Urban Renewal Area would permit some uses which would be both obnoxious to surrounding residential areas and inconsistent with any plans to create a "Planned District" which uses the proposed judicial annex as the "anchor" and encourages compatible support uses physically limited by a pedestrian corridor. Additionally, it would be inconsistent with good zoning practice to rezone small portions of the block as commercial, leaving others as residential. Therefore, if the City approves a zoning change on its own property, then a similar zoning change approval would be expected for other lots within the general area. Therefore, any changes in the zoning of the City property within Block 16 of the Revised City of Georgetown Map is not recommended unless the change is consistant with an overall development plan as proposed with the rezoning proposal for 414 Rock St, and is defined by the area from 3th Street to the San Gabriel River between Austin Ave and Martin Luther King Drive. s v a y. 77-s1 I ' Li C, pas a F t r d r Fs -- F Ct r.. tJ Jr1 1J.__.._._ _ _ _.__1 L 70 I U 9 ? f•• 70 upy r 70 _ jTp AI gpUI111 1 il...l,...i ll l i Section 2.02: R -S Single -Family District Regulations.' r 2.0201 Use Regulations. A building or premises shall be used only for the following purposes: 1. Single-family dwellings. Residential use of tem- porary structures and trailers is prohibited. 2. Public parks, public libraries, public element- ary and high schools and pablic buildings. 3. Private schools with a curriculum similar to public elementary and secondary schools. 4. Churches. 5. Golf courses, but not miniature courses or driving tees. 6. Such telephone facilities as are provided for in the Acts of the Fortieth Legislature, 1927, Chapter 283, Section Ba. 7. Fire station, police station, artesian well, pumping station, lake, boat docks, boat house, water supply reservoir, filter bed, water tank, tower or stand pipe. B. Railroad right-of-way, railroad tracks, bridges, water tanks, signals and other railroad appur- tenances,u n including railroad yards, classification tracks, storage tracks, passen- ger station, freight station, coaling facili- ties, fuel oil tanks or roundhouses. 9. Electrical facilities and electrical energy facilities, transformers, relay and substations, poles, wires, and electrical transmission and/or distribution lines and distribution appurte- nances,but n including office buildings or storage facilities. 10. Transitional uses as may be permitted by the R,rd of Adjustment.. 11. Two -Family dwellings provided that not less than 1/3 of the block frontage of that side of the block in which the two-family dwelling is proposed ,or of the block frontage directly oppo- site thereto is, at the time of request for a building permit, comprised of lots used for two- family, multiple -family, commercial and/or in- dustrial purposes. 12. Two -Family dwellings by Special Permit as pro- vided in Part Three hereof. (,',•,. Z.2a) 13. Greenhouses and nurseries not primarily engaged in retail trade. 14. Home. occupations. Section 2.04: C-1 Local Commercial District Regulations 2.0401 Use Regulations. A building or premises shall be used on7v for the following purposes: 1. Any use permitted in the "R -M" District. . Residential use of trailers and temporary structures is prohibited. 1 2. Sale of goods and products at retail except- ing automobiles, trailers, mobile homes, motorcycles, farm equipment and machinery and earth -moving and heavy construction equipment. 3. Shops for repair and servicing of bicycles, typewriters, electrical, radio and televi- sion appliances, keys and similar articlese 4. Dressmaking, millinery, tailoring, shoe repair, laundry, dry cleaning and similar trades. 5. Banks. 6. Animal hospitals and clinics where there are no open kennels. 7. Commercial schools. B. Undertaking establishments. 9. )''Commercial parking lots. 10. ,Bowling alleys and other indoor commercial recreation. 11. Offices and office buildings (n6a` are limitations). 12. Motels and hotels. 13. Theatres, but not drive-in. 14. Signs (advertising) used in connection with and on the same lot as the establishment to which they refer. No sign shall have a height greater than any building onithe premises upon which it is locatedL No sign shall be within any required yard:. The area of all signs on a lot shall not exceed a quantity of square feet that is greater than twice the quantity of feet in the front- age of the lot upon which it (or they) are located. No sign shall use flashing or ro- tating lights or lighting devices. No sign shall be lighted so as to be a nuisance to the occupants of any.nea"rby or adjoining properties in a "R" District. MEMO To: Mayor, Members of City Co From: Edward J. Barry, AICP -JDir, Division of ity Development and Planning Date: October 16, 1985 Re: River Oaks of Georgetown Office Park - Concept Plan Applicant for the referenced project which was conditionally approved by Council on June 25, 1985 has requested that the project be reconsidered in order to modify the conditions of approval associated with the plat. The applicant contends that he was unaware that any of the comments of the planning report (see copy attached) were attached as conditions of plan approval. It appears that this "misunderstanding" has arisen primarily due to the fact that the Council minutes of the June 11, 1985 meeting indicated that no conditions of approval were attached to the Concept Plan for River Oaks - San Gabriel Plaza which lies immediately adjacent and south of the Office Park (see copy attached). DAVID B ARMBRUST FRANK B. BROWN IV SAMUEL D. BYARS SHARLENE N. COLLINS THOMAS JACKSON MORTON SUE BROOKS LMS LINDA S. WIEGMAN RICHARD T SUTTLE. JR ROGERS.COX W AYNE S. HOLLINGSWORTH SUZANNE L. MANN Mr. Ed Barry Director of Planning Georgetown, Texas ARMBRUST & BROWN ATIpRNEYS Al LAW 2800 ONE AMERICAN CENTER 800 CONGRESS AVENUE AUSTIN. TEXAS 78701 October 9, 1985 W WTEHS TELEPHONE NUMBER 499-3610 Re: Reconsideration of concept plan for River Oaks Office Park Dear Mr. Barry: Our firm represents and I am writing to you on behalf of Walter Carrington, the applicant in the above referenced concept plan submittal. On June 25, 1985, the City Council approved this concept plan. According to the minutes several conditions were attached to this approval. My client understood that the approval was made as the concept plan was submitted with no conditions attached. To clear this dispute we hereby request that the concept plan be reheard by the City Council at its meeting on October 22, 1985. If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to call. As always your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. RTS/jr:mm A:6-1085.13 cc: Rhett Dawson t'rsh, CULL 61 M"."t1 d 7"Z5)1985 277 designated as drainage easement and flood plain. 7) Lot 37, Block 'U' shall be singlefamily. A 30' access easement shall be provided to City property from Tower Drive. 8) The Leander road elevated tank must be completed to adequately serve this development. 9) Participation in improving the overloaded segments of Smith Branch Interceptor shall beconsidered. 10) Variance to Street Center Line Radii less than 300 feet on Rover Down Road and Tower Drive. 11) Variance to Street Center Line Radii less than 800 feet River Ridge Drive. 12) Variance to eliminate 100 foot tangent between reverse curves Rover Down Road, Rimrock Drive Ridge Run, River Ridge Drive. (Redesign wherefeasible. 13) Variance to block length over 1200 feet for Block 'V'. 14) Cul-de-sac in excess of 600 f et - River V'ew Cove. 15) Variance to exceeed depth to widt ration - Lots18 - 32, Block 'U' Lots 4 6 5, Block 'Y'. 16) Variance to lots at right angles for Block 'U', Lots 12 and 17; Block 'S' Lots, 9 and 10; Block V', Lots 1, 24 and 33. Motion carried byC% unanimous vote. 7 Q 17. RIVERVIEW ESTATES - PRELIMINARY PLAT Q Motion by Colbert and second by Ring to approve Riverview Estates Preliminary Plat with the following conditions and variances: 1) Plat meeting all ordinance requirements. 2) Plat meeting all drainage requirements. 3) Utilities being adequate. 4) A Water Pollution Abatement Plat is required by the Texas Department of Water Resources. 5) Street, lot layout and street names shall tie in to layout in proposed River Ridge II. 6) Redesign setback from 30 foot gas easement in lots 1-12, Block 'B'. 7) the following right angle lot, shall be redesigned: Block 'A', Lots 8 6 9; Block 'C' Lots 3-5, Block D', Lots 9 L 10. 8) Variances are granted for the following right angle lots: Lot, 3-5, 10-12, 17-19 and 24-26, Block 'E'. 9) Variances are granted for the following right angle lots: Lot 18, Block 'B'. Variance to Lot 15, Block '6' exceeds maximum width to depth ratio. 10) Lots 1-6, Block 'P' exceed maximum width to depth ratio. 18. RIVEROARS OF GEORGETOWN OFFICE PARE CONCEPT PLAN Motion by Connor and second by Shell to approve the RiverOaks of Georgetown Office Park Concept Plan with the following conditions: 1) plat meeting all ordinance requirements. 2) Plat meeting all drainage requirements. 3) Utilities being adequate. 4) A Water Pollution Abatement Plat is required by the Texas Department of Water Resources. 5) All provisions of the Agreement Regarding Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services shall be met. 6) A Traffic Impact Analysis hall be submitted and access coordinated the T. D. H. P. T. plan. 7) Existing City Electric Line shall be relocated at expense of applicant if requested. 8) Accurate limits of 100 year flood plan shall be determined. 9) Uniform architectural theme shall be demonstrated in conjunction with site plan. 10) RM -3 District Zoning should be requested upon annexation. 11) Access to the property to the .north should be considered. Motion carried by unanimous vote. No action taken on this matter. 20. PLANNING REPORT Planning staff member Randal Gaither reported on the quantity of Commercial Property available for retail development within the .City ofGeorgetown. 21. DISCUSSION CHARTER AMENDMENTS Renee Ranson reported that she had spoke with representatives of the Georgetown Municipal Police Association and the Citizens for Open Government about their charter revision petition. She indicated that they were willingtodelaythepetitionrequestuntiltheei" hav 18. RIVEROAKS OF GEORGETOWN OFFICE PARK - REVISED CONCEPT PLAN. Location East of and adjacent to IH -35 just north of Riveroaks Sub- division. Surrounding us8 is largely undeveloped. Iswithinenvironmentallysensitivearea. Master Plan District 2. Acreage: 21.3 Proposed use is office commercial. Area is part of IH -35JointVentureUtilityAgreementandrequiresCityapprovalOfconceptplantofulfillrequirementsofcontract. COMMENTS: I. Plat approval conditioned upon: A. Ordinance Requirements being met. B. Drainage Requirements being met. C. Utilities being adequate. D. Water Pollution Abatement Plan required byT. D. W. R.. II. All provisions of the A2ement Regardi and Wastewater Facilities and ServicesFemet. III. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted andaccesscoordinatedwithT. D. W. P. T. plan. IV. Existing City Electric Line shall be relocated at expense of applicant if requested. V. Accurate limits of 100 year flood plan shouldbedetermined. VI. A uniform architectural theme should be demonstrated in conjunction with site plan review. VII. "Regulations for Environmentally sensitive Areas" should be met including: (see list for SanGabrielPlaza) VIII. RM -3 (Residential Multi -family) District zoningshouldberequesteduponannexation. IX. Access to the property to the north should beconsidered. RECOMMENDATION: 1r ->f!2 cl-5- Q) Approval of Plan for type of land use conditional upon theabovecommentsbeingsatisfied. Density and land use detailsshallbereviewedwithsiteplaninconjunctionwithplatsubmittal. I 11. RIVER OAKS: SAN GABRIEL PLAZA - CONCEPT PLAN Location Northeast corner of the intersection of IH -35 with Hwy. 29. Surrounding use is residential, commercial and mostly unde- veloped. Master Plan District 2. Acreage: 25.4 Proposed use is retail and office commercial and unknown. Area is part of the IH -35 Joint Venture Utility AgreementandrequiresCityapprovalofconceptplantofulfillre- quirements of contract. COMMENTS: I. Approval shall be conditional upon: A. Ordinance requirements being met. B. Drainage requirements being met. C. Utilities being adequate. D. Water Pollution Abatement Plan is required by T. D. W. R.. II. All provisions of the Agreement Regerdino Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services shall be met. III. A Traffic Impact Analysis should be submitted, and access co-ordinated with T. D. H. P. T. Plans. IV. Land use for Out Parcels should be described. V. Letter of approval from B. R. A. should be submitted. VI. Existing City electric line shall he relocated only at the expense of applicant. VII. Accurate limits of the 100 year flood plain should be determined. VIII. A uniform architectural theme should be demon- strated in conjunction with site plan review. IX. -Regulations for Environmentally Sensitve Areas should be met, including: A. Limits for impervious cover. B. Preservation of existing landscape and vistar... C. Construction upon steep slopes and floodways. D. Management of storm water run-off. E. Size and scale of proposed buildings. F. Construction methods. X. Parking areas should be partially obscured bylandscapingalongIH -35 and Hwy. 29. XI. C-1 (Local Commercial District) zoning shouldberequesteduponannexation. XIS. Variance from parking requirements should be considered in conjunction with site plan re- view and granted only if applicant can show that the reduction of this requirement is substantiated by the environmental constraintsOfIXabove. RECOMMENDATION: P 6 Z (4-0) Approval for land use types and conceptual layout only. Actual layout and density shall be considered with sitePlanreview. Comments above shall be satisfied. iron, COunc,I Miti.wics 0f Tw, ,V Ill IT95 273 6) Change name of Cactus Valley Lane. 7) Variance granted at the preliminary state will apply. 8) Variance has been requested to allow the arngle of intersection at Cactus Valley Lane and Pleasant Valley Drive to exceed 5 degrees from perpendicular. Voting went as follows: YES: Colbert, Connor and Shell. NO: King. Mntion carried. (Ord. Book Riveroaks - San Motion by Connor and secnded by Colbert to apprve SanGabrielPlaza - Gabriel Plaza Concept Plan as submitted. Motion carriedConceptPlanbyunanimousvote. Revised Preliminary Motion by Connor and seconded by Colbert to approve Reata Plat - Reata Trails Trails Section Four Revised Preliminary Plat with theSectionIVfollowingconditionsandvariances: 1. Plat meeting all ordinance requirements. 2. Drainage requirements being met. 3. Utilities being adequate. 4. Required sidewalks shall be show on construction plans. 5. Driveways for Blcok "L" shall be common for two lots. 6. Minimum finished floow elevations shall be shown on final plat for lots adjacent to flood plain. 7. The rear building line and 10' PUE of all lots inundated by the 100 year flood plain should be shifted to the flood limit. 8. A revised utility concept plan is required per engineers comments. Water line proposed for the Northwest Blvd. shall be ductile iron. 9. Variance granted for the following: a) Hedgewood Drive street center -line radius. b) Lots 1 and 2, Block "H" lots are right angles. c) Lots 1, 2, 11 and 12, Block "J" lots at right angles. d) Lot 1, Block "L" lots are right angles. e) Lot 5, Block "J" exceed maxim® width to depth ratio. f) Lots 1-14, Block "L" exceed maximum width to depth ratio. Motion carried by unanimous vote. Riverview Mall - Motion by Connor and seconded by King to approve: Partial Vacation A) Partial Vacation Cedar Oaks Subdivision. 6 Resubdivison of B) Vacation of Riverview Mall Subdivision Cedar Oaks and C) Resubdivision Plat and Site Plan with the following con - Vacation and Be- ditions and variances: subdivision of 1) Plat meeting all ordinance requirements. I Riverview Mall 2) Drainage requirements being met. C Final Plat and 3) Utilities being adequate. Site Plan 4) Vacating of existing plats required. 5) Riverside Drive shall be constructed to the south line of the property. 6) Landscaping concept should be extended into Q Phase I area. 7) The following shall be included in the contrauction plans for the project: a) Site Grading and Drainage Plan. b) Landscape plan. c) Existing Tree Survey. d) Riverside Drive Street Improvements. e) Utility Improvements. 8) Granting the following variances: a) Reduce the building line along IH -35 from 25' to 10'. b) Reduce the building line along Riverside Drive from 25'to 22'. c) Allow parking in the front yard area. d) Allow reduction in the required number of parking spaces by 28. Motion carried by unanimous vote. Ord. Book I Revised Preliminary Motion by Connor and seconded by Colbert to approve Reata Plat - Reata Trails Trails Section Four Revised Preliminary Plat with theSectionIVfollowingconditionsandvariances: 1. Plat meeting all ordinance requirements. 2. Drainage requirements being met. 3. Utilities being adequate. 4. Required sidewalks shall be show on construction plans. 5. Driveways for Blcok "L" shall be common for two lots. 6. Minimum finished floow elevations shall be shown on final plat for lots adjacent to flood plain. 7. The rear building line and 10' PUE of all lots inundated by the 100 year flood plain should be shifted to the flood limit. 8. A revised utility concept plan is required per engineers comments. Water line proposed for the Northwest Blvd. shall be ductile iron. 9. Variance granted for the following: a) Hedgewood Drive street center -line radius. b) Lots 1 and 2, Block "H" lots are right angles. c) Lots 1, 2, 11 and 12, Block "J" lots at right angles. d) Lot 1, Block "L" lots are right angles. e) Lot 5, Block "J" exceed maxim® width to depth ratio. f) Lots 1-14, Block "L" exceed maximum width to depth ratio. Motion carried by unanimous vote. r MEMO To: Mayor, City Council From: Edward J. Barry, AICP We ctor, Division of Community lopment and Planning Date: October 15, 1985 Re: City of Georgetown Annexation Schedule for 1985 The following schedule for the annexation of Reata Trails Unit I has been prepared as requested by City Council: First Public Hearing Second Public Hearing First Reading of Annexation Ordinance Second Reading of Annexation Ordinance November 12 November 19 December 10 2nd Meeting in December The areas listed below have also requested annexation. Information regarding all the areas proposed for annexation is included in the subsequent pages. The preceding schedule could be used for all the proposed annexations. Parkview Estates Sections -IX River Ridge Sections IIA and IIB Thousand Oaks Section IV Remainder of University Park Section I Westwood Plaza Parkview Estates Sections One through Nine are recommended for annexation in order to insure application of the zoning ordiance controls to building permit applications. Additionally, the area designated as the Pope Tract should be considered for involuntary annexation to create a more continuous and identifiable City jurisdiction. 2. River Ridge Section Two is recommended for annexation to insure zoning application. 3. Thousand Oaks Section IV is recommended for annexation to insure zoning controls. Additionally, the involuntary annexation of the Sierra Vista detention basin which lies adjacent to the south should be considered to create a more continuous jurisdictional boundary and to increase the City's ability to enforce required maintenance. 4. The remainder of University Park Section I is recommended for annexation to increase the City's ability to enforce required maintenance. The involuntary annexation of the triangular property identified as the Mahan Tract should be considered to create a more continuous jurisdictional boundary. 5. Westwood Plaza is recommended for annexation in order to promote orderly growth and expansion of City jurisdiction. Pope Tract j, Area Proposed For Annexation Park View Estates 0 1" 1000' RIVER SPN i t River Ridge III+ G. r I t - N' 1" = 1000' Area Proposed For Annexation River Ridge 2A & 26 u I It I I P « tl T Fav +R • f O 1F, Sierra Vista Detention Basin it r i-/ Ifl' t 1 NOT L7 rNOT IN CITY J IN i CITY f/FOR I , 5i l/ f N I 1" = 1000' Area Proposed For Annexation Thousand Oaks, Section 4 i Mahan Tract I Secti n I Areas Proposed for Annexation N 1" 1000' Area Proposed For Annexation Portions of University Park, Section I t r 1 Jf NIEL, - rpgK SAN GA9 i N 1"al i Area Proposed For Annexation Westwood Plaza Resolution Setting a Public Hearing on a Proposed Annexation A RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATES, TIMES, AND PLACES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO CAUSE PUBLIC NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS: Section 1. On the 12th and 19th days of November, 1985, at 7:00 o'clock in the City Council Chamber of the City Hall of the City of Georgetown, Texas, the City Council will hold a public hearing giving all interested persons the right to appear and be heard on the proposed annexation by the City of Georgetown, Texas of the following described property, to -wit: See Exhibit "A" Section 2. The Mayor of the City of Georgetown, is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of such public hearing to be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the city and in the above described territory not more than twenty days nor less than ten days prior to the date of such public hearing, in accordance with the Municipal Annexation Act (Article 970a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes). PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ATTEST: City Secretary ayor 19 Exhibit "A" Reata Trails Unit One, a 78.00 acre subdivision of record in Cabinet C, Slide 368-370 of the plat records of Williamson County, Texas. Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS, THAT: The City of Georgetown, Texas proposes to institute annexation proceedings to enlarge and extend the boundary limits of said city to include the following described territory, to -wit: Reata Trails Unit One, a 78.99 acre subdivision of record in Cabinet C, Slide 368-370 of the plat records of Williamson County, Texas. Public Hearings will be held by and before the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas on the 12th and 19th days of November, 1985 at 7:00 o'clock in the City Council Chamber of the City Hall of the City of Georgetown, Texas, for all persons interested in the above proposed annexation. At said time and place all such persons shall have the right to appear and be heard. Of all said matters and things, all persons interested in the things and matters herein mentioned, will take notice. By order of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas this the day of , 19 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk or Secretary Resolution Setting a Public Hearing on a Proposed Annexation A RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATES, TIMES, AND PLACES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO CAUSE PUBLIC NOTICEOFSUCHPUBLICHEARING: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS: Section 1. On the 12th and 19th days of November, 1985, at 7:00 o'clock in the City Council Chamber of the City Hall of the City of Georgetown, Texas, the City Council will hold a public hearing giving all interested persons the right to appear and be heard on the proposed annexation by theCityofGeorgetown, Texas of the following described property, to -wit: See Exhibit "A" Section 2. The Mayor of the City of Georgeto n, is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of such public hearing to be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the city and in the above described territory not more than twenty days nor less than ten days prior to the date of such public hearing, in accordance with the Municipal Annexation Act (Article 970a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes). PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 19 ATTEST: City Secretary ayor Exhibit "A" Tract 1 River Ridge Sections IIa and IIb, comprising a total of 46.5 acres as recorded in Cabinet F, Slide 365-370 of the plat records of Williamson County, Texas Tract 2 Parkview Estates Sections 1-9, comprising a total of 79.95 acres as recorded in Cabinet G, Slide 39-58 of the plat records of Williamson County, Texas Tract 3 Westwood Plaza, a 9.14 acre tract described in Volume 1029 Pages 317-324 of the deed records of Williamson County, Texas Tract 4 A 6.63 acre portion of University Park Section One, a 64.54 acre subdivision of record in Cabinet G, Slide 162-166 of the plat records of Williamson County, Texas; the portion being further described as: Beginning at a 1" iron pipe found at the most southerly corner of the above mentioned tract and being in the east R.O.W. line of Hutto Road; said point bears N 190W 8232 ft., S 71°W 4222 ft., N 19°W 3450 ft., S 72°W 3292 ft., and S 28051'E 1777 feet from the S.E. corner of the William Addison Survey; Thence N 24°30'W 606.47 feet along Hutto Road to a point for corner; Thence N 82°54'30" W 123.00 feet along Hutto Road to a point for corner; Thence N 6°24'20"E 302.61 feet, 140 feet from and parallel to an existing 12" Sanitary sewer line located in an easement and right-of-way line of record in Vol. 538, Pg. 202 of the Deed Reocrds of Williamson County, Texas; Thence N 16°21'30" E 809.68 feet parallel to said sanitary sewer line to a point in a curve to the left; Thence, 108.90 feet along the arc of said curve and said eastline (Delta=16°51'49", R=370 feet, Tan=54.85 ft.) and whose long chord bears N 7055'35" E 108.51 feet to a point for corner; Thence S 21°38'30" E 307.01 Feet to a point for corner; Thence S 6°31'W 882.05 feet along said east line to a point for corner in the beginning of a curve to the left; Thence 600.89 feet along the arc of said curve and eastline (Delta=31'01', R=1110 ft., Tan -308 ft.) and whose long chord bears S 8059'30" E 593.58 feet to a point for corner; Thence S 65°30' W 10.00 feet to the place of beginning and containing approximately 6.63 acres. Tract 5 Thousand Oaks Section Four a 1.017 acre subdivision of record in Cabinet G, Slide 6-7 of the plat records of Williamson County, Texas. Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS, THAT: The City of Georgetown, Texas proposes to institute annexation proceedings to enlarge and extend the boundary limits of said city to include the following described territory, to -wit: Tract 1 River Ridge Sections Ila and IIb, comprising a total of 46.5 acres as recorded in Cabinet F, Slide 365-370 of the plat records of Williamson County, Texas Tract 2 Parkview Estates Sections 1-9, comprising a total of 79.95 acres as recorded in Cabinet G, Slide 39-58 of the plat records of Williamson County, Texas Tract 3 Westwood Plaza, a 9.14 acre tract described in Volume 1029 Pages 317-324 of the deed records of Williamson County, Texas Tract 4 A 6.63 acre portion of University Park Section One, a 64.54 acre subdivision of record in Cabinet G, Slide 162-166 of the plat records of Williamson County, Texas; the portion being further described as: Beginning at a 1" iron pipe found at the most southerly corner of the above mentioned tract and being in the east R.O.W. line of Hutto Road; said point bears N 19°W 8232 ft., S 71°W 4222 ft., N 190W 3450 ft., S 720W 3292 ft., and S 28°51'E 1777 feet from the S.E. corner of the William Addison Survey; Thence N 24030'W 606.47 feet along Hutto Road to a point for corner; Thence N 82°54'30" W 123.00 feet along Hutto Road to a point for corner; Thence N 6°24'20"E 302.61 feet; 140 feet from and parallel to an existing 12" Sanitary sewer line located in an easement and right-of-way line of record in Vol. 538, Pg. 202 of the Deed Reocrds of Williamson County, Texas; Thence N 16°21'30" E 809.68 feet parallelto said sanitary sewer line to a point in a curve to the left; Thence, 108.90 feet along the arc of said curve and said eastline (Delta=16051'49", R=370 feet, Tan=54.85 ft.) and whose long chord bearsN7°55'35" E 108.51 feet to a point for corner; Thence S 21°38'30" E 307.01 Feet to a point for corner; Thence S 6031'W 882.05 feet along said east line to a point for corner in the beginning of a curve to the left; Thence 600.89 feet along the arc of said curve and eastline (Delta=310011, R=1110 ft., Tan=308 ft.) and whose long chord bears S 8059'30" E 593.58 feet to a point for corner; Thence S 65030' W 10.00 feet to the place of beginning and containing approximately 6.63 acres. Tract 5 Thousand Oaks Section Four a 1.017 acre subdivision of record in Cabinet G, Slide 6-7 of the plat records of Williamson County, Texas. Public Hearings will be held by and before the City CounciloftheCityofGeorgetown, Texas on the 12th and 19th days of November, 1985 at 7:00 o'clock in the City Council Chamber of the City Hall of the City of Georgetown, Texas, for all persons interested in the above proposed annexation. At said time and place all such persons shall have the right to appear and be heard. Of all said matters and things, all persons interested in the things and matters herein mentioned, will take notice. By order of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas this the day of 19 yor ATTEST: ty Clerk or Secretary Resolution Setting a Public Hearing on a Proposed Annexation A RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATES, TIMES, AND PLACES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO CAUSE PUBLIC NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS: Section 1. On the 12th and 19th days of November, 1985, at 7:00 o'clock in the City Council Chamber of the City Hall of the City of Georgetown, Texas, the City Council will hold a public hearing giving all interested persons the right to appear and be heard on the proposed annexation by the City of Georgetown, Texas of the following described property, to -wit: See Exhibit "A" Section 2. The Mayor of the City of Georgeto(on, is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of such public hearing to be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the city and in the above described territory not more than twenty days nor less than ten days prior to the date of such public hearing, in accordance with the Municipal Annexation Act (Article 970a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes). PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 19 ATTEST: ty Secretary Mayor Exhibit "A" In lieu of field notes the following tracts will be generally described. Field notes will be included with the Public Notice. Tract 1 IH -35 Right -of -Way from the existing City limits north of the City to Berry Creek. At the southern portion of this proposed annexation area a wedge of private property measuring 34 feet at the widest point must be included to meet state annexation requirements. Tract 2 Detention Basin for Sierra Vista, south of Thousand Oaks Section IV. Tract 3 Mahan Tract, forming a triangle of land north of previously annexed University Park Section I along Highway 29 on the east side of the City. Tract 4 Bobby Pope tract, surrounded by Parkview Estates along Highway 971 on the northeast side of the City. MEMO To: Mayor, Members of the City Counc From: Edward J. Barry, AICP - Direct 0 ivision of Commun Development and Planning Date: October 16, 1985 Re: Proposed Annexation - IH 35 North from existing City Limits to Highway 195 Per Council request of October 2, 1985 this office has investigated the feasibility of the referenced action. As shown on the attached maps there is a section of the IH -35 R.O.W. which is less than the required 500 foot width. Thus, in order to conform to the criteria of the Municiple Annexation Act the annexation of some privately owned land will be needed. Two basic options in this regard are avail- able. One is to annex the full width needed (i.e. 34 ft) from one side of the highway. The other is to annex a portion from each side (for example, 17 ft. from each side). A field inspection of this area indicates that the subject property each side of IH -35 is currently undeveloped farm land. Another restriction on the annexation proposed involves the requirement that all territory annexed must first be within a municipalities E.T.J. Thus the portion of the area proposed for annexation which lies roughly north of Berry's Creek Bridge to Highway 195 will need to be annexed under separate ordinance. The minimum time separation between the two annexation ordinances is not specified in the Municiple Annexation Act and thus may be subject to an interpretation by T.D.C.A. in the event of a protest to this annexation. n. • •._' ''t `jtl ia! ,v;:'f s^`4°' 'J;.r,J'/ ' .^-.Gtc _ ` ,:, 'i.t qv' to 4 tog T Oil rL, J F kk J 1( ' kms' atc ""'! fir rm'p •• - > Y 6. " t'ri t ,w, t -• . r r •, i y i 1sli:M ,i _ K 6pn cx nw 50// d/ 76/%70. 7 Z%'f8Z ,f 00100.5. 0 SOD B/if69 ' -SF,f0, 67 • p 7&10 7C, 05/ . 7d xs virvVJ ON3 JN No/1J3s 31 v1 SN7.L N/ lroUd N193a ro Dv N193B 33rpiid p/y-1 A7003V ON3 I OOZ V1 S 45 4 f(i.P"e:Z. ZiL I Ell '4'B n f!• 1'7/7 6'98lCB7019 a..Od V;v %c11 7F i,6'cDIJ EZ/tEE7 '°ISJO` SOD! yry'SYP3an $ {DSIV ? 7?T7S8/ Zff'Gf6 71 Z 77,gZ7/D'PL !P8?'0!^ as s I4! ZSP %o^ i l P, xn p 7 7.iJ uyo/ I 7f'60 /ZL9'L75'7C rc ':? c.f60!ZG'r,e di. •':d 0y 7'.0. aNnJ L747 IIN o o sl af>S 777'758/ 7 yfcc/ 7'n J /by//•npaar ,ILf'0£6 O 3 n S s ':'c n tl.' 00.0£,0 i/'oa'D it d' 7 wnry.u! ,00.0£.0 ' LarrtYX uud {/ o0.U.6 F^'1 '771 a Ip 1 wl NI 777'758/ v yb, OSli iC / /ua:ur YFS Xid''iCisZLf'cfb 07.O.. x./0.s?/'IIF l6Kd?SB7cyopavn Nl11 I ° S Y rzcr7 anm9'7N rL/ J :6917:0, SZN NG:J 6•s SM-PKVYy_ P'NZ 3az./P I:\ 7 au/7.V1 6Yl c, I I ZyN 1GGr r•, Bs7 . c/ci- 1 1W 5G7 i —111 d °°—IY GP%l Oy7 x-— 1 yy1 — I 1 v' gsl -------nO%;1—N i0 ami J°0 i7A R'C`S. sr. 07 PN1-- jy_ e rGh'rl ,n •a.a,vyI 9t 6) o .o •C •po°y . Y7car°cce .0V56F .3apu/Omay7F i,6'cDIJ EZ/tEE7 '°ISJO` SOD! p X49• 7?T7S8/ Zff'Gf6 71 Z 77,gZ7/D'PL !P8?'0!^ as s I4! ZSP %o^ Oc.u.4; P, xn p 7 7.iJ uyo/ I 7f'60 /ZL9'L75'7C rc ':? c.f60!ZG'r,e di. •':d 0y 7'.0. aNnJ L747O ,% go a6Pd PSP l0n °wPIV w1d Lino J Sa/:d 000' • ra:c-j J7.G Bs.' bard GLP:/ fFf£B7 crg,°r 9664JL7 'a5 POP 2. d PSPicn paw xn !a L'a;:4N Sn040H 6wro fw TE%AS-WILLIAMSON CO. >, 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC, fRHr `F6 •p) 00 48 2840000EEEi IN •il, 10. 41 j a< nlmkkrwlr: 11 . I N0 itmUPilClIALI sat 1,1000 1 i fir•.•I M . i Planning Consent Agenda RIVER RIDGE SECTIONS THREE B AND THREE C - FINAL PLAT PROJECT S 3-a RIVER RIDGE SECTION TWO LOCATION MAP &' SCALE' 1 =200U' ! z Location Map v 1"=2000' Applicant: River Ridge Development Joint Venture 9049 Jollyville Rd. 11105 Austin, Tx 78759 512 346-4580 Agent: Austin Consulting Engineers 911 Jollyville Rd., 11200 Austin, Tx 78759 512 346-1333 Request: Final Plat approval for River Ridge Section Three B and Three C 22.845 and 22.359 acre tracts out of Joseph Thompson Survey, A-608 The following variances have been requested in addition to those granted with the preliminary plat: 1. Section 5.01-12 Reverse Curves: Eliminate the required 100 ft. tangent between reverse curves - Ridge Run Drive, Ridge Run Court, Rimrock Dr. 2. Section 5.02-8.c. Front Facing: Allow adjacent lots to be placed at right angles - Block "Y", Lots 14-17 and 33-35 Block "W", Lots 32-34. RIVER RIDGE SECTIONS THREE B AND THREE C - FINAL PLATS page2 Facts: Location: West of River Ridge Two between Leander Road and the South fork San Gabriel River. Is in the E.T.J. and Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Surrounding Uses: Single family to the east; south and west- Riverview Estates; undeveloped to the north. Proposed Use: Section III B - 90 single family lots, with a density of 3.9 dwelling units/acre. Section III C - 72 single family lots with a density of 3.2 dwelling units/acre. Development Plan: District 9-B. Normal residential is recommended by the plan. Proposal conforms to the plan. History: The preliminary plat of River Ridge III was passed on June 25, 1985 by the City Council. Comments I-V have been satisfactorily addressed; comments VI and VII to be completed with construct- ion stage. The following variances were granted at preliminary plat stage: B. Street Centerline Radii less than 800' - River Ridge Dr. D. Block length over 1200 feet - Block "V" E. Cul-de-sac in excess of 600 feet -River View Cove. F. Exceed depth to width ratio- Lots 7-21, Block U (III C); Lots 31-32, Block Y (III B) G. Lots at right angles- Block "U", Lots 22, 27 (III C);Block "V", Lot 21-23 (III C); Block "V" Lot 10 (III B). Analysis: A condition of approval of preliminary plat was to redesign where feasible" streets with reverse curves to provide the required 100' tangent between curves. Some of these situations have been eliminated, but three instances remain. City engineer has recommended that these curves be redesigned to provide some tangent even if the full 100 ft. cannot be met. Another preliminary condition was that those lots placed at right angles in Block "W" and Block "Y" be redesigned to avoid this situation. In Block "W" Lot 33 can easily be enlarged so that this is eliminated with the resulting loss in area being absorbed by Lots 37 through 34 but with no loss in number of lots. In Block "Y" the elimination of Lots 14 and 17 and redistribution of area gained through other lots on the block can achieve elimination of lots at right angles. Lots 33-34 cannot be readily redesigned to avoid this situation, however the elimiation of one lot would increase the buildable area to more closely approximate other lots in the block. RIVER RIDGE SECTIONS THREE B & C page 3 A significant change has been made on the final plats for both subdivisions, in that the flood plain area formerly shown as common area/park has been eliminated. Applicant has indicated that this was done to avoid the need to establish a Homeowners Association for future maintenance of the area, and to avoid limiting its use by the general public. Applicant desires to dedicate this area to City for a public park.However, it seems unlikely that City will accept such dedication until the area is annexed. Therefore, the issue becomes what is the best mechanism to accomplish this goal. It appears that rather than leave this as unplatted area it would be better to designate it as a restricted lot with the 50 ft. frontage on River Down Road as shown on plat of Section Three C. The lot should be labled as Flood Plain, Drainage and Access Easement. This provides continuity with the similar situation in River Ridge Two and provides an accurate legal description for future acceptance as a public park. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the plat of River Ridge Section Three B with the following conditions: 1. All ordinance requirements shall be met, 2. Drainage Requirements shall be met, 3. Utilities being adequate, 4. A Water Pollution Abatement Plan being approved by T.D.W.R., 5. Street, lot and utility layouts shall tie in to proposed Riverview Estates Subdivision, 6. Acknowledgment that Leander Road elevated tank is required to serve this development, 7. Downstream improvments to Smith Branch Sewer Interceptor may be required, 8. Flood Plain area shall be reinstated with Section III C as Flood Plain, Drainage and Access Easement and given a Lot designation 10. Variances granted at preliminary shall apply, 11. Variance for reverse curves shall be granted with the condition that some tangent (as determined in construction plan review) be provided, for Rimrock Dr. 12. Variance for rightangle lot ll not be granted except for Lots 32-34 Block 'W" conditional upon the elimination of one of these lots. 3/3Z•n rerise(& / y P 6 Z Recommendation: (3-0)r 7T0- ,S/ioa s sOes.r Approval conditional upon comments above being satisfied. City Council Action: (5-0) Approval with conditions as shown above and the addition of condition that electrical service shall be provided by City of Georgetown. River Ridge Sections Three B & C page 4 Staff Recommendation: Approval of the plat of River Ridge Section Three C with the following conditions: 1. All ordinance requirements shall be met, 2. Drainage requirments shall be met, 3. Utilities being adequate, 4. A Water Pollution Abatement Plan being approved by T.D.W.R., 5. Street, lot and utility layouts shall tie in to proposed Riverview Estates Subdivision, 6. Acknowledgment that Leander Road elevated tank is required to serve this development, 7. Downstream improvments to Smith Branch Sewer Interceptor may be required, 8. Flood Plain area shall be reinstated with Section III C as Flood Plain, Drainage and Access Easement and given a Lot desination, 9. A street stub and water line should be constructed to access the main body of lot in 8 above, 10. Variances granted at preliminary shall apply, 11. Variance for reverse curves shall be granted with the condition that some tangent (as determined in construction plan review) be provided, 12. P & Z Recommendation: (3-0) Approval conditional upon the above comments being satisfied. City Council Action: (5-0) Approval conditional upon the above comments being satisfied and the addition of the condition that electrical service shall be provided by City of Georgetown. RIVER HILLS - CONCEPT PLAN WILLIAM X ST p vEa it PARK ui Z COURT HOUSE 7 HWY 29 Location Map 1"=2000' A22licant: Walter Carrington Company5609Adams Austin, Tx 512 454-6601 Agent: David Holt - Holford Group 9501 Capital of Tx Hwy NorthAustin, Tx-7t75cr 512 346-8181 Request: Concept Plan approval for River Hills of Georgetown, a57.7 acre multiuse development, out of the C. StubblefieldSurveyandtheJ.B. Pulsifer Survey No. 36. Facts: Location: Bordering on the west side of IH -35 between theN. San Gabriel River and Hwy 29. Outside of, butcontiguoustoCitylimitsandwithinEdwardsRechargeZone. Surrounding Uses: Undeveloped land and large lot single-familyandduplexresidential Proposed Use: 15.2 acres of multi -family, 4.7 acreas ofprofessionaloffice, 7.6 acres of local retailcommercial, 2.5 acres of commercial, and27.7 acres of large lot single family residential. River Hills Page 2 Development Plan: District 3A- Large residential is recommended. Proposal does not conform to plan but Council approval of IH -35 utility agreement implies flexibility in this area. History: Site is part of the IH 35 Joigt Venture Utility Agreement and requires City approval of concept plan to fulfill requirements of contract. At the P & Z meeting of June 4, 1985, the Concept Plan evoked considerable objections from the adjacent home owners (large lot single family area). They protested that developer had sold them lots with assurances that surrounding uses would be similar to theirs. It was their contention that the change of land use to multifamily, office and commercial was detrimental to their property values as well as the quality of life they had been led to expect when they purchased their property. Resubmittal was recommended in order that objections regarding land use incompatibility be addressed. The portions of the plan labeled Section One, Section Two, and Section Three are existing recorded plats. Section Four was a portion of the overall concept plan but has not been filed for record. Analysis: This plan was presented and discussed at both the August and September Planning and Zoning Commission hearings. No action was taken at either of those meetings pending a written opinion from City Attorney relatve to a petition filed in District Court concerning the project. Attorney has advised staff to proceed as normal with this proposal. Concept Plan has not been changed since first put on hold. The proposal submitted covers the non-residential frontage strip of Section One (i.e. Parcel One, Two, and Four), Section Two (i.e. Parcel Three), and Section Four (i.e. Parcel Five and Six). Parcel Three is shown to remain in its current platted configuration with no change in land use. Parcels Ones Two, and Four are to remain in the same con- figuration the only difference being a greater level of specificity of the proposed commercial use and an associated utility allocation. Staff has no problem with Parcel Three as is. The primary concerns relative to Parcels One and Two are that an attractive "Front" is secured along IH -35, that traffic conflicts be reduced, that buffering of adjacent residential lots be accomplished and that site development be sensitive to the environment. The same general concerns hold for Parcels Four, Five, and Six but are deemed to be mare critical because of existing homes on adjacent lots. Therefore, considerationshouldbegiventospecificcontrolsforthisareaintheformofuserestrictions, height and setbabk limits, and a 50 foot wide natural greenbelt. River Hills Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Approval of Concept Plan for land use type with the following conditions: 1. All ordinance requirements being met 2. All provisions of the _Agreement Regarding Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services shall be met 3. The document entitled "Environmental Standards Criteria" shall be used to evaluate future plats and plans 4. Access along IH -35 shall be restricted and coordinated with T.D.H.P.T. Plans 5. A uniform architectural and landscaping theme shall be maintained on lots fronting on IH -35 and implimented through site plan review 6. The following conditions should apply to parcels 4,5,& 6: A. The 50 ft. greenbelt shall remain in its existing natural condition, and be extended through parcel four B. The 100 ft strip adjacent and parallel to this greenbelt shall be used for landscaping, parking and driveways only. Construction in the west half of this area shall avoid the destruction of existing trees C. RM -3 District zoning should be requested upon annexation and used to evaluate site plans 7. Actual density of development shown shall not be approved except in conjunction with site plan review 8. A landscaped buffer shall be established between Parcels One and Two and adjacent residential lots 9. Specific land use shall be indicated on preliminary plat/plans, R & D designations shall be dropped from consideration P&Z Recommendation: (2-1) Approved conditional upon comments above being satisfied. City Council Action: Withdrawn at Council per request of applicant on October 8, 1985 City Council Action: PECAN BRANCH SUBDIVISION - CONCEPT PLAN AZ b 161 • " pe'/ j THIS PROJECTTHIS HERE HWY. F. N. 971 P NNN9TD11 9NAVEL- 9EON wN MI l ,J a/ PIT _ t r Location Map 1"= 2000' Applicant: The Jefferson Group PO BOX 3883 Beaumont, Tx 77704 409 842-2358 Agent: Turley Associates, Inc 301 N. 3rd St Temple, Tx 76501 817 773-2400 Request: Consideration of Concept Plan for Pecan Branch a 120.63 acre subdivision Facts: Location: Northeast corner of the intersection of F.M. 971 and County Road 152. Surrounding Uses: Agricultural and large lot residences and proposed industrial park Proposed Use: 340 multifamily units at a density of 20 dwelling units/acre; 62 duplex residential units at a density of 6.9 dwelling units/acre; 155 patio homes at a density of 6.3 dwelling units/acre; and 160 single family residences at a density of 4 units/acre; a total of 717 units are proposed at an average density of 6.9 dwelling units/residential acre. PECAN BRANCH Page 2 Development Plan: District 5C. Area is not specified in the development plan but public use and normal single family residential use at 4 units/acre is recommended for adjacent areas. The proposed uses are not in conformance with the plan for adjacent areas. Analysis: Density- The gross overall density of this subdivision is 5.94 dwelling units/acre. Excluding the 16.7 acres of proposed commercial use, the density of the proposal is 6.9 dwelling units per acre. The development plan recommends 4 dwelling units/acre on adjacent land; to reach this density a reduction from 717 units to 483 dwelling units would be required. High density development generally reduces the costs of service provision on a per unit basis for both the developer and consumer. These savings are usually countered by the expense incurred by the public sector through the resulting increased demand placed on infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) and service (police, fire, etc.) functions as well as the natural environment. High density housing achieves efficiencies for the developers with minimal impact on the environment and public expenditures only when enough open space is provided to maintain overall densities at a reasonable level. While densities in excess of those set out in the development plan have been approved in the past, the deviations have complicated utility planning and in conjunction with widespread non- contiguous development proposals have contributed to existing water distribution and waste water collection problems. Land Use- While the developers of this tract have set aside 13.3 acres of "park" land, 100% of this land is within a narrow belt of the flood plain adjacent to single family residents. To serve the needs of the more intensively developed portion of the tract, a centrally located park is desireable. The parkland dedication ordinance proposed in the City's Parks and Recreation Plan does not consider flood plain land to be acceptable park land. Assuming an overall density of 4 units/acre, the proposed ordinance would require a park site of 3.62 acres outside of the floodplain. Provision of this park land, while not meeting the 5 acre minimum recommended by the study, would provide a site large enough for a large playing field and a playground/picnic area. The commercial lots proposed on the western portion of this tract should be designed to primarily serve the residential neighborhood proposed. In general 3-52 of a 100 acre residential tract should be dedicated to local PECAN BRANCH Page 3 commercial use. The developer's proposal of almost 14% of the 120 acre tract for commercial purposes exceeds this standard. Due to the relatively isolated nature and high populations proposed for Crystal Knoll Terrace and Pecan Branch, use of some of the proposed commercial tract for a day care center would seem appropriate. The proposal requests permission to develop patio homes on 4500 square foot lots. Deviation from the required 6000 square foot lots would necessitate the formation of a P.U.D. However, increasing lot sizes would reduce the overall density and reduce the need for P.U.D. restriction. Infrastructure- Road widening dedications will be required along both FM 971 (20 ft) and County Road 151 15 ft). Improvements to County Road 152 should be required in conjunction with this development. Interior streets should be redesigned to meet ordinance requirements and to provide access across Pecan Branch to the north. Failure to provide this access would significantly reduce accessibility for future development in this area. City of Georgetown utilities are requested on the application. Due to system wide supply problems, the water availability note shall apply. While the developer is assisting the City in the development of a well, the work was done so that another subdivision, Crystal Knoll Terrace P.U.D. could be served before the new water treatment plant becomes operational. Any capacity from the well that is allocated to this subdivision should be the difference between the peak demand of Crystal Knoll and the average yield of the well. The parameters of this allocation should be approved before the preliminary plat is submitted. According to City Engineers comments, the service population assuming full build out of all approved final plats to date exceeds the design capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. The addition of Pecan Branch to this demand will increase this differential by at least 10% of current capacity. When compared against the sewer service demand estimated from total building permits issued through March, 1985 approximately 15% of the treatment capacity is available. Full build out of Pecan Branch Subdivision will use about 60% of the remaining treatment capacity. It also seems likely that this proposal will require the addition of another lift station to the wastewater system. MOKAN- On July 9, 1985 the City Council adopted a resolution which: 1.) Agreed to support the development of a facility known as the Mokan transportation corridor, 2.) Agreed to furnish all required right-of-way and adjust all utilities not furnished or adjusted by the Mokan transportation corporation. The conceptual roadway alignment man dated January 10, 1985 (See attached map) show this future expressway with proposed R.O.W. of 300 to 400 feet bisecting the proposed subdivision. Applicant should begin negotiation with the transportation corporation to determine impact on this proposal. Applicant should also consider voluntary addition to Georgetown's E.T.J. Pecan Branch Page 4 The concept plan should be redesigned to address the following comments and resubmitted with the preliminary plat. 1. All ordinance requirements shall be met, 2. Drainage requirements shall be met, 3. Utilities being adequate, 4. A Water Pollution Abatement Plan being approved by T.D.W.R., 5. Gross overall density should be reduced to 4 dwelling units/acre, 6. Additional park land should be developed central to the residential areas, 7. A 20 ft. road widening easement shall be required along FM 971, 8. A 15 ft. road widening easement and roadway improvements to County Road 152 shall be required, 9. Commercial acreage should be reduced to approximately 10% of the site and a day care facility provided, unless more area can be justified by applicant, 10. The concept of lots less than 6000 sq. ft. shall not be approved unless justified with appropriate information and established design controls, 11. One east/west and one north/south secondary collector street shall be provided with the north/south street crossing Pecan Branch,providing access to future development to the north. 12. Impact o f proposed Mokan Transit Corridor should be ascertained prior to submittal of preliminary plat. P & Z Recommendation: (3-0) Approved :conditional upon above comments being satisfied. NOTE: At P&Z hearing applicant indicated that he would be willing to develop this project under the "PUD Ordinance".and provide a "substantial" amenities packaee in exchange for approval of an increase in gross density from 4 dwelling units/acre to that shown on the concept submitted which is approximately 6 dwelling units/acre. City Council Action: (5-0) Approval as recommended above with the exception that comment X15 shall be amended to read "Gross overall density should conform to P.U.D. Ordinance requirements and the project shall be designated as a P.U.D." CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council APPROVES/DISAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 day of NOVEMBER Mayor, City Co cil City of George own PROJECT vnnrnw,nn r 19 85 APPLICANT Donald G Paull LOCATION Lot 7 Block F San Gabriel Heights Section S between h South San Gabriel River and Leander Road, west of IH- 35. REQUEST_ Variance to allow a 1 foot encroachment across h buildingline. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council APPROVE/DISAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 day of November , 1985 Mayor, City Counit City of Georgeto n PROJECT VARIANCE -BUILDING LINE -712 CIELO DR LOT 7 Blk.3 Serenada East II APPLICANT Thomas Construction LOCATION South side of Cielo Dr. between Bosque Trail & Cava Rd. REQUEST Variance to allow an exist encroached some 71 into t setbae CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: residence to remain CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWNTheCityofGeorgetownCityCounciAPPROVES/ ISAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 Mayor, City Coifncil City of Georgetown PROJECT ZONING CHANGE - APPLICANT n.r;A ViAwol day of November 414 ROCK STREET 1985 LOCATION The west half and the southeast quarter of the block northwest REQoUEST Approval for zoning change for 414 Rock Street, Part of Lots 1, , , RS (R id n ial Singlefamily) fn M-3 (Residenfial Multi -family) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. That a public pedestiran accessway shall be provided through the property 2. That a site plan be submitted for approval by City Council 3. That construction over existing internal lot lines shall be allowed. CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Counci APPROVE /DISAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 day of Mayor, City Co ncil City of Georgetown PROJECT TXONS AT)T)TTTOM-DRF.T.TMTNDR APPLICANT James E Lvons Jr November FINAL PLAT 1985 LOCATION East of the intersection of 7th & Olive Streets on the north side of 7thStreet. REQUEST Approval of preliminary/ final plat with following variances: Variance rom a maximum o depthto wi t ratio an stormwater A+A„*ion requirements CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Ordinance requirements being met 2. Drainage requirements being met 3. Utilities being adequate a) water availablity note shall apply to Lot 2 b) improvements to provide adequate fire protection shall be required. CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council APPROV '/DISAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 Mayor, City Cotincil City of Georgetown PROJECT OAK CREST RANCHETTES APPLICANTFoust Builders, Inc. day of November:' , 19 85 t LOCATION Southeast corner of the intersection of Southcross Rd. and Spring valley Rd. in the-705-alEcrest III subdivision, east of the North Pnrtk can rahri of gyver;Incl -east e€ €i3 3g REQUEST Approval of resubdivision of Tract 12, Blk 2 Oak Crest Ranch- ettes, unit J.-L.L, and a variance for waiver of stormwater detention d11P to inCraAe in r.... -off ]-err tj7+3j; 5 9 F S. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All ordinance requirements shall be met 2. All drainage requirements shall be met 3. Utilities being adequate 4. Water Availability Note shall be applied to Lot 12A 5. Variance from stormwater detention requirements shall be granted CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of, Georgetown City Counci APPROV '/DISAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS the request listed below. WITNESS OUR'HANDS this 12 day of November 1985 2rL w Mayor, City,C uncil City of Georgetown PROJECT EDENPARC - CONCEPT PLAN APPLICANT Jonathan H. Bassan LOCATION On.the northeast corner of the intersection of County Rd, 188 and Hwy 29 and from Hwy 29 to the San Gabriel River REQUEST.- Consideration of Conceptual Plan CONDITIEJ RE AorNnance requirements being satisfied 2) Drainage requirements shall be met and a flood plain study being approved by City Engineer prior to submittal of preliminary plat 3) Utilities being adequate; a) Water Availability Note shall apply b) Sewer Availability shall require an expansion of the City's wastewater treatment plant in addition to the improvements proposed with this plan c) Electric service demands shall be considered in formulation of new "Service Plan" d) Water and Wastewater Master Plan Reports must be revised to reflect impact of this project. 4) Project shall conform to the procedural requirements of the P.U.D. Ordinance (i.e. Section 2.0802- 2.0810) with any deviations from said ordinance. specifically noted as a variance meeting the criteria established in P.U.D. Ordinance Section 2.0807 Parts 1 and 2 5) The types of land use shown shall be more specifically designated on a revised Conceptual Development Plan and the densities indicated shall be considered as "maximum allowable" subject to review of more detailed plats and site plans. 6) Research 6 Development uses shall conform to City of Austin Ordinance No. 84 except as otherwise approved. 7) A construction phasing schedule shall be submitted with the revised Conceptual Development Plan which shall coordinate with and be subject to the completion of proposed improvements to the City's water, waste- water and electrical systems as well as the Georgetown Inner Loop Road/MOKAN. see attached pages) 8) The submittal of Preliminary Development Plans per P.U.D. Ordinance Section 2.0809 part 2 shall correspond to the phasing schedule approved under condition #7 above, shall conform to an approved Development Concept Plan, and shall be able to exist independent of subsequent development phases. 9) Roadway layout shall be revised as recommended byCityEngineerandlistedin "analysis" section of this report except as otherwise shown below. 10) The R.O.W. dedication for MOKAN shall be approved by the MOKAN Corporation and any interim roadway needed in this dedication shall conform to the design of the "Georgetown Loop Road" 11) Potential improvements to County Road 188 shall be co-ordinated with the County Commissioners12) The status of the accessway to the unplatted lots surrounded by this development shall be determined and improved to City standards if in project area. 13) T.D.H.P.T. shall approve the Road Widening Dedication proposed along Hwy 29 14) Development of the western half of this tract shall not obscure the scenic vistas of surrounded propertyownersalongtheridge. P S Z Recommendation: (4-0) 1 abstention Approved conditional upon above comments being met. Edenparc - page 3 development", these forecasts appear to be approaching reality with the advent of Edenparc. The City's acceptance of such a development in this area will help to control growth through the issuance of utility and building permits. However, evaluating the demands on its water and wastewater systems - which far outstrip even the most recent forecasts - creates problems for utility planning which only a much more specific description of actual demands and the time of construction can alleviate. The proposed residential densities average 21 dwelling units/acre for multi -family and 8 dwelling units/acre for single family, the latter being twice the Development Plan standard for normal residential. The location of such intensive land use bordering the Smith Branch flood plain in an area immediately upsteam of its confluence with the San Gabriel River, is further complicated by the steep slopes which constitute a significant percentage of the 31.50 acre "Village Cluster" area. The positioning of the 14.25 acre Multi -family tract, with its associated parking lots and other impervious coverage, immediately above this steep area, would seem to create potential hazards in runoff especially when added to the highly dense single-family (Village cluster) area below. A reduction in the number of dwelling units seems to be reasonable due to topographic constraints and extremely close scrutiny given to drainage and erosion control, expecially from the multi -family units. Satisfactory determination of these conditions will require detailed site plan review. The City engineers have found the street network to be insufficient to handle the amount of traffic generated, particularly until such time as the completion of MOKAN and the extensions of Riverparc Drive to the east and west provides additional access. They recommend the following changes and/or additions regarding roadways: 1) A minimum two-lane extension from Hwy 29 be constructed until the MOKAN roadway is built. 2) Jeremy Ave, be expanded to 80 feet of R.O.W. and shifted to the east. 3) Extending Edenparc Drive with a 50' R.O.W. from Parc Drive to Riverparc Drive 4) A 60 ft. R.O.W. east -west roadway be provided between the 7.35 acre multi -family tract through the 17.45 acre Commercial tract from Reinhardt Blvd. to MOKAN R.O.W. 5) Pascale Dr•be upgraded to 60' R.O.W. 6) The 19.2 acre "Village Cluster" tract be provided with a second access. CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council THDRAW the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 day of iCJ.t N Mayor, City ouncil City of Georgetown APPROVES/DISAPPROVES/TABLES/ PROJECT WES BRANCH - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT Raymond E Mitchell November 19 85 LOCATION West of Andice Road (RM 2338) approximately 2.84 miles northwest of its intersection with IH -35. REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Withdrawn from agenda at the request of applicant in order to prepare off-site utility proposal CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council APPROVES/D SAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 day of November 1985 Mayor, City C06uncil City of Georgetown IN P.U.E. - 307 SHADY OAK DR. APPLICANT Stan and Donna Przygoda LOCATION 307 Shady Oak Dr. Lot 4 and San Gabriel Heights Section Two REQUEST variance CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: of Lot 3, Blk H the construction of a below ground into the rear u is 1 1 2 CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council APPROVES ISAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 day of November 19 85 Mayor, Citncil City of G or etownPROJECTAPARANCE-WATER AVAILABILITY POLICY -LOT 1, BLK 6, SHELL ADDITION APPLICANT pou las L Anderson REQUESTVariance for Lot 1. BLK 6 h 11 Addition from hVarianceforLot1. BLK 6 h 11 from haPr Availability Policy restricting building permits on new lots. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Council APPROVESIDISAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS the request listed below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 12 day of November 19 85 Mayor, City Co cil City of Georgetown PROJECT RIVER HILLS - CONCEPT PLAN APPLICANT Walter Carrignton Company LOCATION Bordering on the west side of IH -35 between the N. San Gabriel River and Hwy29 REQUEST Concept Plan approval CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Motion to table pending direction from City Attorney as the the legality of conditions CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Counci //A PPROVE /DISAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS the request listed below WITNESS OUR,HANDS this 12 day of November 1985 Mayor, City Co cil City of Georg own PROJECT RTVFRVTFW F.4TA - FINAL PLAT APPLICANT Philip J. Tremont LOCATION Between Leander Rd. (FM2243) and the South San Gabriel River, west of River Ridge Subdivision. REQUESTFina1 Plat approval with following variances 1)Lots at right angles Lots 2-6, 9-13,16-20, 23-27 Block F and Lots 16-18 Block G ' xcessive Meek. lenge. Bl eek G^^..a 1200 ft—ma;Fim3Am 1-aq-Fb i) nra;TLgo-va;ver CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: from stormwater detention requirements 4)Lots exceeding maximum width to depth ratio -Lots 1&2 Block A, Lots 1-6 Block E, and Lots 14 & 15 B1k.G Approval of the Final plat subject to the following conditions: 1. All ordinance requirements being met 2. Drainage requirements being met and drainage plan being approved by City Engineer 3. Utilities being adequate as noted in City Engineers review comments 4. A Water Pollution Abatement plan being approved by T.W.C. 5. Streets and lots shall tie to adjacent River Ridge III Subdivision and be shown on plat. 6. A notice concerning potential hazard of the existing gas line shall be added to plat and monuments identifying its location including a detail of the concrete cap to be built, shall be included in construction plans. 7. A landscape buffer shall be included in the construction plans for the setback area along Leander Rd and the east line of Block "A" 8. The flood plain/drainage easement of Block "E" shall also be identified as an access easement and given a single lot designation 9. Variance shall be granted for elimination of all side and rear P.U.E.'s which either cross or run adjacent and parallel to the 35' Gas Easement shown 10. Requested variance regarding lots and blocks shall be granted. 11. The detention variance should not be granted at this time. Staff shall consider this request during the construction plan review process with the intent of reducing, in so far as is possible, negative environmental impacts of direct discharge, including the need for filtration of stormwater run-off. Staff i a a u ure City Park CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City CouncilAPPROVESYDISAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS the request listed below. WITN(EESSS OUR HANDS this 2_ day of NovPmhmr 19 AS Mayo=, City Cou it City of Geor etown PROJECT RIVE HILLS - CONCEPT PLAN & RIVER HILLS SECTION FOUR - PRELIM Eff) APPLICANT Walter Carrington Company LOCATION Bordering on the west side of IH -35 between the N. San Gabriel River and HWY 29. REQUEST Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat approval CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All ordinance requirements being met, 2. All provisions of the Agreement Regardina Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services shall be met,and capacity being available, 3. A good faith effort shall be made by applicant to comply with environmental provisions of Agreement Regarding Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services 4. Access along IH -35 shall be coor mated with T.D.H.P.T. plans, 5. The following conditions shall apply to parcels 4,5, & 6(Section 4): A. The 50 ft. greenbelt shall remain in its existing natural condition, B. The 25 ft. strip adjacent and parallel to this greenbelt shall be used for landscaping, parking and driveways only. Construction in the west half of this area shall reasonably avoid the destruction of existing trees. 6. Specific land use shall be indicated on preliminary plat/plans, 7. At such time as Sec. 2 is developed as residential property, owner agrees to provide 6 foot opaque ornamental fence (i.e. 6 ft. cedar fence) along the boundary between Section 1 [commercial lots] and Section 2 [residential lots]. CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN The City of Georgetown City Counci APPROVES ISAPPROVES/TABLES/ WITHDRAWS 16he request listed below. WIT NE SS OUR HANDS this 26 day of Mayor, City Cou it City of Georgetown November PROJECT RIVEROAKS OF GEORGETOWN OFFICE PARK APPLICANT w.t .. n n_--___ __ - LOCATION East of and adjacent to 19 85 35 just north of San Gabriel Plaza and HWY 29, bounded by the south San Gabriel River to the east. REQUEST Revised Concept Plan and Prelimin ry Plat approval for River OakOfGeorgetownOfficePark CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Approval conditioned upon: a.) Ordinance requirements being met, b.) Drainage requirements being met, c.) Water Pollution Abatement Plan approved by T.D.W.R., 2. All provisions of. the Agreement Re ardin4 Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services shall be met, and capacity beingavailable, 3. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted for information only and access coordinated with T.D.W.P.R. plan, 4. Accurate limits of 100 year flood plan shall be determined, S. Good faith effort shall be made by applicant to comply with environmental provisions of Agreement Regarding Water andWastewaterFacilitiesandServices,, 6. A sixty (60) foot wide public right-of-way to be dedicated byapplicantconnectingwithnorthboundaryofexistingaccess easement on the south side of applicant's tract and extendingsouthtonorthacrossapplicant's tract and that: 1.) such right-of-way shall be improved to City standards at such time as property owners located to north of thistract (indicated as Greenwood - Ha•rkins tract ) dedicates and completes a connecting street(jf equal=City standardsfromHighway81toapplicant's tract,and 2.)such dedicated right-of-way across applicant's tract shall revert back to the owner of applicant's tract at such time as an access road adjacent to IH -35 is constructed and opened and curb cuts are provided, and 3.)said right-of-way applicant is dedicating herein shall be designed as a private drive and parking facility until such time as the conditions sbt forth above are satisfied.