Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 12.10.1985THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA DECEMBER 10, 1985 7:00 PM CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes 2. Bills over $2,000.00 3. Award MKT Railroad Bores Bids REGULAR AGENDA 4. Hearing from Public 5. Authorize Lake Water Treatment Plant Bids - 6. Housing Authority Report - Ernest Lincoln 7. Award Police Renovation Bids - Hugh Anderson 8. Award Police Radio Bids - Hugh Anderson 9. Council Approval of Charter Admendments Allyn Moore n,. 10. Reinstatement of Hygeia Final Plat - B. Brightwell 6 E. Mealy 11. Certified Local Government Application - Ed Barry 12. Subdivision Regulation Amendment - Ed Barry 13. Rabbit Hill Water Supply Corporation 14. Capital Recovery Fee Credit Process - Ed Barry 15. Planning Items A. Consent Items 1) Variance - Building Line Encroachment - 803 Stagecoach 2) Variance - Reinstatement of Final Plat - Riverview Mall 3)Thousands Oaks Section 4 - Resubdivision Plat and Site Plans 4) Dennis P. McCoy - Revised Preliminary Plat B. Scenic Oaks P.U.D. - Concept Plan C. Planning Report 1) Northwest C.B.D. Land Use Plan D. Annexation Ordinances - 1st Reading 1) Reata Trails Unit One 2) Westwood Plaza 3) River Ridge Section 2A, 2B, and Three and City Water Tank Tract 4) Thousand Oaks Section Four and Sierra Vista Detention Pond 5) Portions of University Park Section One and Mahan Tract 6) Parkview Estates and the Pope Tract 7) IH -35 Area from current City Limits to Berrys Creek 16. Food Sanitation Ordinance - 2nd Reading 17. Set Workshop Agenda for December 14, 1985 18. Misc. 19. EMERGENCY ITEM - EXECUTIVE SESSION - VTSC ARTICLE 6252-17 SECTION POSSIBLE LITIGATION* A. CHARTER ELECTION B. SIDEWALK PROJECT C. APPLE -CREEK ITEM OF URGENT PULBIC NECESSTTYI DUE TO PENDING LEGAL ACTION City of Georgetown Planning Report for the City Council Meeting Planning Items: Imo\ 1. Consent Agenda: A. Variance - Building Line Encroachment - 803 Stagecoach B. Variance - Reinstatement of Final Plat - Riverview Mall C. Thousand Oaks Section 4 - Resubdivision Plat and Site Plans D. Dennis P. McCoy - Revised Preliminary Plat 2. Scenic Oaks P.U.D. - Concept Plan 3. Planning Report A. Northwest C.B.D. Land Use Plan 4. Annexation Ordinances - 1st Reading A. Reata Trails Unit One B. Westwood Plaza C. River Ridge Section IIA, IIB, and III and City Water Tank Tract D. Thousand Oaks Section Four and Sierra Vista Detention Pond E. Portions of University Park Section one and Mahan Tract F. Parkview Estates and the Pope Tract G. IH -35 Area from current City Limits to Berry's Creek VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 803 STAGECOACH - BUILDING LINE ENCROACHMENT W,h4 W poyo 2338 P{ R y VD tJ2 C P4W rcCPO a` O SppAN+ 261 uEp" y s oP[ p SP t CRf51 R Location Map Sa 1• GEORGETOWN o wep° E a MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ry pOp w•A Zt \ I A'-" I r^rirp,as / 90A 0 'r Iy PO u000Fl COUNTRY I IlpV.. Applicant: Thomas G Foust, Jr Foust Builders 110 Briarwood Drive Georgetown, Tx 78628 869-4145 1"=2270' Request: A variance to allow an existing residence to remain encroached some 18" into the recorded 7' building line on the south side of Lot 131 Block "C" Reata Trails, Unit II (803 Stagecoach). Facts: Location: West side of Stagecoach Drive between Blue- bonnet Trail and Cactus Trail Surrounding Uses: Normal lot single family residences Existing Use: Normal lot single family residences Development Plan: Normal lot single family District 4a. Fees: $250.00 variance fee has been paid. Variance - 803 Stagecoach - page 2 Analysis; The applicant maintains that this home was accidentally placed approximately 18" over the building line when the foundation was moved to prevent damaging the roots of a large live oak tree. Planning Staff Recommendation: No objection to granting of variance. P & Z Recommendation: (5-0) Approved City Council Action: (5-0) Approved by consent VARIANCE - REIMSTATEMENT OF FINAL PLAT - RIVERVIEW MALL 5AW N A Location Map 1"=1000' Applicant: Riverview Mall Associates 8802 Bull Hollow Austin, Tx Agent: Robert G Miller 4422 Pack Saddle Pass, Suite 203 Austin, Tx 78745 440-1121 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 June 25, 1985 in order to have more time in which to complete the construction plans. Facts: Location: Between IH -35 and Riverside Drive, south of Williams Drive. Area is commercial and single family residential. Zoning is C-1 (Local Commercial District) 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. VARIANCE - RIVERVIEW MALL - PAGE 2 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 March 25, 1986. City Council Action: 1000 Oaks Section Four - Resubdivision of Lot 2, Block A Location Map 1"= 2000' Applicant: Tamaron Properties 10 Sundown Parkway Austin, Tx 79 372 34 3-4512 Agent: Steger & Bizzell PO Box 858 Georgetown, Tx 78627-858 86',-4521 Request: Final plat approval for the resubdivision of Lot 2 Block A a 0.6 acre tract in 1000 Oaks Section Four Subdivision in the Stubble - filed Survey, A-558. Facts: Location: South of Thousand Oaks Blvd. on the west side of IH 35. Lies in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone outside but contiguous to City Limit. WN 1000 Oaks - page 2 Surrounding Uses: An apartment complex is platted across Thousand Oaks Blvd. to the north, a car wash is located to the west; and the detention pond for Sierra Vista lies to the south. Proposed Use: Two commercial lots. Development Plan: Commercial use is recommended; the District 9c proposed use substantially conforms to the plan. History: The original plat of Thousand Oaks Section IV was recorded in April, 1985. The resubdivision was disapproved by P&Z on October 1, 1985 primarily due to questions as to the usability of Lot 2B. Applicant has since submitted a site plan for this lot. Analysis: This subdivision is currently in process for annexation. The owners should request C-1 zoning upon annexation. Full analysis of this and all commercial plats is dependent upon the review of a site development plan. Site plans have been submitted for lots 2A and 2B that substantially conform to City ordinances. While the boundary of the flood plain on lot 2B must be clarified before site plan approval, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed resubdivison would create a usable lot. While the applicant has not pursued the joint development scheme suggested by the Planning Department, he has minimized potential traffic hazards by limiting access to Thousand Oaks Blvd. to three driveways. The proposed use of Lot 2B for mini -storage units is not objectionable given the general location as long as a reasonably high quality of architectural and landscape design is used in its construction. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Resubdivison Plat of Lot 2 Block A Thousand Oaks Section IV conditioned upon: 1. Plat meeting all ordinance requirements 2. Drainage requirements being met 3. Utilities being adequate (Water Availability Note shall apply to Lot 2B) 4. An approved Water Pollution Abatement Plan is required by T.W.C. 5. Cl Local Commercial District zoning subsequent to annexation. 6. A site development plan shall be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of building permits, indicating: 1000 Oaks - page 3 a. Compliance with the drainange ordinance b. Compliance with the landscape ordinance C. The front yard of each lot shall be along Thousand Oaks Blvd. d. Access shall be restricted to one 24 ft. approach for each lot and the approach for Lot 2B shall. be 175 ft. minimum from the IH -35 ROW, except as approved by City. e. Drive approach access to IH -35 shall be prohibited and the 25' building setback area reserved for drainage, utilities, and landscaping. P&Z Recommendation: (5-0) Approval conditional upon above comments being met. City Council Action: (5-0) Approved by consent with the conditions as listed above DENNIS P McCOY SUBDIVISION - Revised Preliminary Plat a 1 S° jA rte\ Gf 1 Location Map Applicant: McCoy Realty Corporation IH -35 North PO Box 1028 San Marcos, Texas 78867 Agent: Steger 6 Bizzell, Inc. PO Box 858 Georgetown, Tx 863 4521 Request: LOCATION MAP Scale I =2000 1"=2000' Preliminary Plat approval for Dennis P. McCoy Subdivision, a 12.89 acre subdivision situated in the Francis A. Hudson Survey, A-295. Farts: Location: Adjacent to the east side south of its intersection and includes the existing Supply Center (Lot 1),Is to existing City Limit and Aquifer Recharge Area. of IH -35 frontage road, with County Road 116 McCoys Building outside but contiguous within Edwards Dennis P McCoy -Page 2 Surrounding Uses: To the south, this tract is bordered by the proposed South Georgetown Business Park, which includes Mini -Ware- house units; Commercial property lines to the north and undeveloped to the east. Proposed Use: Seven commercial lots of one acre or more. Development Plan: This area is not specified on the plan District 8c but the proposal is consistant with surrounding uses. Analysis: The major issues relative to this site are: access to Lots 3-6, drainage ordinance requirements, utility service(particularly fire protection) and aesthics. The plat indicates a 60 ft. wide 1.07 acre strip which may be some kind of access way but its use is not specified. If this is to become a public street as required by ordinance) it will require a redesign at its intersection with IH -35 and a temporary turn- around at the eastern end. Applicant has proposed individual detention facilities to be constructed with each lot but has not provided information regarding location, size, or outflow characteristics of these facilities. City engineer has recommended that a "regional" facility be designed for the entire subdivision instead. As with all proposals not connecting to City utilities, the enforcement of street and drainage construction requirements can best be insured by completion prior to plat recordation. Another issue regarding this site (as well as all the IH -35 frontage property from Westinghouse Road to Leander Road) is how to promote an attractive entry into the City in an area which is not being served by City utilities and thus does not qualify as a likely annexation candidate. Until an area is annexed, the City Zoning Ordinance including landscape requirements, sign controls and building code requirements can be enforced only through voluntary compliance of the developer. Additionally, the only land use control mechanism currently available is the Land Development Plan of April, 1983 which does not provide recommendations for all areas of the E.T.J. This is the case for Dennis P. McCoy Subdivision. However, given its location along a regional transportation corridor the use proposed seems reasonable. The major thing to avoid along this strip is the proliferation of small scaled, unplanned retail uses which tend to increase the number of signs, Dennis P. Mc Coy - page 3 driveways, architectural styles, and general clutter. Though most of these lots would not access directly onto the IH -35 frontage road, they would be visible and thus a reflection of community image. In summary therefore, the following is noted: a. The subject property is contiguous with the City limits, however due to an inability to provide City utility service annexation is not recommended at this time. b. This site lies along the "gateway to Georgetown" and such should be developed to the highest possible standards in terms of architectural character and site attractiveness, particularly the access road frontage. C. The developer should include a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site layout. d. The plat does not indicate the location of storm - water detention facilities and/or drainage easements. e. At such time as City water and sewer service are available to this site, all service lines and appurtenances including fire protection, will be made at the owners expense. Staff Recommendation: Disapproval of plat pending the meeting of all Ordinance requirements and issues as discussed in analysis section of this report. Preliminary plat review fees shall be repaid upon subsequent submittal. P&Z Recommendation: (5-0) Tabled at meeting of November 5, 1985 so that staff could review revised plat. Revised Staff Report Analysis: The revised layout for this proposal is a significant improvement over previous submittal. Access to all lots is adequate and street conforms to all requirements except for a decrease in the maximum center line radius from 800 ft. to 500 ft. Due to the location of this curve, staff will have no objection to a variance if requested with final plat. Drainage is still a concern in that individual lot rather than centralized facilities are proposed. Also there are apparently some drainage easements that are required but not shown. The question of which lot will be obligated to detain the increased run-off from the street has not been answered as well as the general location and volume of detention ponds and outlet structures. Some mechanism must be found to insure that site development and detention plans will comply Dennis P McCoy - page 4 with Ordinance requirements. As noted in the previous report, architectural quality and landscaping is a concern especially adjacent to the frontage road. Restrictive covenants and the designation of a landscape easement in this area would be a possible mechanism to achieve this goal. Utility service, especially fire protection, is an issue if this project is to be considered for future annexation. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1. All ordinance requirements shall be met 2. All drainage requiremets shall be met 3. Utilities being adequate: a. Water Availability Note shall apply b. A plan for fire protection should be provided 4. A drainage facilities maintenance convenant shall be required prior to recordation 5. Restrictive convenants should contain architectural controls and landscaping criteria. 6. Subdivision Ordinance Section 4.04 Part 13 b & c shall be satisfied. P&Z Recommendation: (5-0) Approval conditional upon the above comments being met, with the addition of the following comment: 7. Variance on Fox Drive to have a centerline radius of 500'. City Council Action: (5-0) Approved by consent with conditions as listed above SCENIC OAKS - CONCEPT PLAN Location Map 1"=2270' Applicant: Metroplex Properties 2144 Bee Caves Rd Austin, Tx 78746 328-42 30 Agent: J.A. Sullivan & Associates 1901 East 51st, Suite 200 Austin, Tx 78723 472-9110 Request: Consideration of Concept Plan for Scenic Oaks Retirement Community P.U.D., three parcels totaling 13.2 acres out of the Clement Stubblefield Survey, Abs. 558. Facts: Location: North and west of Scenic Drive near its inter- section with 17th Street across from Westside Elementary School and north of Georgetown Community Hospital. Is inside City Limits and the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and includes a portion of the South San Gabriel River. Surrounding Uses: Single Family residences, Westside School, Georgetown Community Hospital and undeveloped land. Scenic Oaks - page 2 Proposed Use: A multi -family residential retirement community of 152 units. Overall density is 11.51 dwelling units/acre. Current Zoning: RS, Residential Single Family District. A zoning change to R -P Residential Planned District is required. Development Plan: Area is designated for public use District 8a schools and parks. This proposal does not conform to the plan. History: 2.851 acres of this tract is still owned by the City of Georgetown and is under bid by the applicant. A preliminary plan for a PUD on the remaining 10 plus acres was conditionally approved by both P & Z and Council in December, 1984. The property was subsequently sold to the current applicant who is attempting to assimilate the adjacent City owned property into a new proposal. The approval for the previous proposal has since expired, however the folloldung conditions of that approval appear to be applicable to the current proposal: 1. Property must be platted 2. Property must be rezoned to R -P Residential Planned District and all required support documents submitted. 3. Adequate access for fire protection shall be required 4. No parking shall be allowed within the 100 year flood plain. Analysis: Due to its location in an "environmentally sensitive" area along the San Gabriel River and its proximity to existing view corridors from IH -35 and State Hwy 29, this tract warrants special consideration in the following areas: 1. The proposed siting of four-story buildings in this visual corridor from IH -35 toward downtown Georgetown may detract from the image of the City. The 48 ft. height of the proposed structures exceeds that permitted by ordinance. (i.e. 3 stories or 40 ft.) by eight feet. Also, the required maximum height within 200 ft. of an exisitng residence (i.e. 2h stories or 351) is exceeded by 13 ft. Thus, variance from these limits will be required. A study of the impact of this proposal should be submitted in justification of such a request. This analysis should demonstrate the visual impact from both IH -35 and State Hwy 29 as well as the area immediately surrounding the site. Scenic Oaks - page 3 2. The location of this development on the relatively steep slopes of the flood plain of the river presents drainage problems which must be carefully addressed relative to the quality of stormwater run-off and prevention of erosion. The source and accuracy of the developer's flood plain information must also be ascertained. 3. Providing water service to this property is also problematic as it lies in an area which will be in the lower pressure plain upon completion of the Leander Road storage tank..Excess pressures will result from this upper pressure plane service. Resolving this condition will require special engineering consideration in conjunction with required distribution line improvements. 4. The relocating of an existing City of Georgetown power line and 20' ea$ement will be necessary to accomodate Rbuilding'= sites in their current configuration. The Electric Department has indicated that the line may be moved only if the developer:; assumes the cost for both the engineering and construction of the relocation. Written approval for the location of a gazebo and unspecified landscaping within the existing 100' LCRA easement is required to insure that no interference is created with the power line. S. A sanitary sewer trunk line crosses the southeast corner of this property but is too high to serve the project by a normal connection. Therefore, applicant has proposed the installation of a lift station to solve this problem. This facility should be owned and maintained by the applicant and designed to provide adequate safeguards to prevent environmental damage in the event of malfunction. Additionally, it appears that segments of existing distribution lines must be improved to serve this proposal. 6. The number of parking spaces is insufficient. 304 spaces are required and only 266 are provided. Due to its nature as a retirement community however, a variance to reduce the parking requirement by 108 should be considered upon request. The driveways in these parking areas (as well as apparent lack of space between buildings) do not appear to be adequate to permit access by fire equipment vehicles. 7. As a final consideration, the overall density of this development (i.e. 11 units per acre) exceeds the maximum of ten allowed by the P.U.D. Ordinance. A reduction in number of units could help to solve the excessive height problem, without an increase in impervious coverage.- Scenic Oaks- page 4 Staff Recommendation: Acceptance of the concept plan with the following conditions to be addressed with subsequent submittal: 1. All ordinance requirements being met 2. Drainage requirements being met 3. Utilities being adequate: a. Water Availability Note shall apply b. Water Service plan shall address pressure problem C. Sewer service plan shall address lift station design and required downstream improvments 4. Rezoning from RS to RP shall be requested in conjunction with the submittal of a preliminary plat and site plan 5. Any variances from ordinance requirements shall be specifically requested and justified per Ordinance Section 5.10 6. Parking,driveways and building spacing shall be designed according to fire codes to insure accessibility by fire vehicles 7. Agreement on the part of the developer to accept the cost of relocating the City of Georgetown power line. 8. Density shall be reduced to 10 living units per gross acre as required by Ordinance. 9. Request for Variance from the height limits established by PUD Ordinance shall be justified by a study of the visual impact of the proposal. P & Z Recommendation: (4-0) 1 Abstain Approval conditional upon the above comments being met. City Council Action: (5-0) Approval conditional upon the above comments being satisfied.