HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 02.11.1986I
10
11
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
REGULAR C,,OUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 11, 1986
7:00 PM
Minutes
Bills over $2,000.00
Certificates of Appreciation - Carl Doering
Award Water Plant Bids - Allyn Moore
Swimming Pool Lease - Baird Center
Library Building Bond Election Ordinance - Emergency Reading
Monty Nitcholas
Charter Election Ordinance - 1st Reading - Randy Stump
Officers Election Order - Pat Caballero
Investment Policy Resolution - Future Investment Policy -
David Quick
Reconsideration and Ratification of Subdivision Ordinance
Amendment adopted 1/14/86 - Ed Berry
Planning Items:
A. Consent Agenda
1. Stonehedge Section Three - Amending Plat
2. Windridge Village - Preliminary Plat
B. Ordinance - Zoning Change - River Ridge Section Two A,
Lots 18 and 19 Block R from RS to C-1
C. Quinland Estates - Preliminary/Final
D. Rivery - Preliminary Plat
E. River Hills Section Four - Final Park
F. San Gabriel Village - Concept Plan
G. River Oaks of Georgetown Office Park
H. Variance - Consideration of Legal Lot
Plat
acre tract located at southwest corner
College Street
I. Planning Report
12. Raintree Subdivision Variance -
13. Wastewater Plant - Allyn Moore
14. Ordinance - Award Sidewalk Bid -
15. Request for a hearing before the
16. Misc.
1 -
Final Plat
status for 1.16
of 2nd Street &
Allyn Moore
Second Reading
Texas Water Commission
City of Georgetown
Planning Report for the
City Council Meeting
February 11, 1986 7:00 pm
I. PLANNING ITEMS:
A. Consent Agenda
1. Stonehedge Section Three -Vacating & Amending Plat
2. Windridge Village - Preliminary Plat
B. Ordinance - Zoning Change - River Ridge Section Two A,
Lots 18 and 19 Block R from RS to C-1.
C. Quinland Estates - Preliminary/Final Plat
D. Rivery - Preliminary Plat
E. San Gabriel Village - Concept Plan
F. River Oaks of Georgetown Office Park - Final Plat
G. Variance - Consideration of Legal Lot status for
1.16 acre tract located at southwest corner of
2nd Street & College Street.
H. Planning Report
E
Zoning Change - River Ridge Two A
I.
Gob rie
0
Son Gobr/e/
IHe/ghts
o
R/ver Ridge /
Sec. one y
River Ridge p°J
Secf ion Two 2ti
I 9e
N
Georgetown
Location Map 1"= 2000'
Applicant: City of Georgetown
Request: Approval of zoning change for Lots 18 and 19
Block R of River Ridge Section Two A Subdivision
from RS Residential Single Family to C-1
Local Commercial District
Location: North of Leander Road (FM 2243) and east
of the intersection of River Ridge Drive
Analysis:
At the request of developer, planning departments
proposal for RM -3 District zoning for these sites has
been revised. Zoning is needed to conform more closely
with use shown on approved subdivision plat and results
from the recent annexation of the site.
Staff Recommendation: No opposition to request
P & Z Recommendation: (4-0)
approval of zoning change.
City Council Action:
Approved.
River Ridge TWO A -
page 2
s
V1
1
PIP RIVER1
SECTION RITWO 1
1
I
I
4i
42
le
OgM C'OMMEW
t
LOCATION MAP
SCALE. =2000
r • 35 \
HWy cam,- /• i
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS:
WHEREAS, an application has been made L4 the City CouncilforthepurposeofchangingtheZoningOrdib4nceonthefollowingdescribedrealestate:
vis Block
R as recorded in cabinet F Slides 365-68 of t e p a
records of Williamson County, Texas
AND WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed
change in the Zoning Ordinance to the City Planning Commissionforitsrecommendationandreport; and
WHEREAS, the City Council before adoRting this amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance,gave notice of such hearing by publishingsameinaweeklynewspaperintheCityofGeorgetown, Texas,
which notice of such matters as required by law including the
time and -place of hearing and which time was not earlier than
fifteen days from the day of such publication; and
WHEREAS, written notice of such matters as required by law
was given to all the owners of the land within 200 feet of the
above described property as required by law,,Iand
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended the
changing of said Zoning Ordinance on the above described propertyfromRS (residential single family) District to
C-1 (locaT commercial) District which said
meeting was held on the Qthday of_i February 19 86.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the
City of Georgetown, Texas, that the Zoning Ordinance, and the
Zoning Map of the City of Georgetown, be amended so that the
property described above shall be and the same is hereby changedfromRS (residential single family) District
to -(local commercial) District.
Read, passed and adopted this 11 day of FAhr„a,y 19 —aL.
Read, passed and adopted this day of 19
on the second reading. —'
Carl J. Doering, Mayor
City of Georgetown
ATTEST:
Pat Cabellero
City Secretary
Approved as to #orm:
i
Stump —& Stump
City ATtorney
Stonehedge Section Three - Vacating and Amending Plat
Location Map 1"=2000'
Applicant: Marbert G Moore, Jr.
PO Box 919
Georgetown, Tx 78626
Request: Approval for the vacating and amended plat of
Stonehedge Section Three.
Location: One mile east of Georgetown, just south of
Hwy 29.
Analysis:
The following changes have been made from the recorded
plat in the owner's certification:
1. Total acreage corrected to 26.74 from 32.21,
2. Deletion of incorrect portion of legal description
in certification of ownership,
3. Deletion of owner's title in notary's certification.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
P & Z Recommendation: (4-0)
approval of vacating and amended plat
City Council Action:
approved
Quinland Estates - Preliminary / Final Plat
Location Map 1"=2000'
Applicant: James Quinn
PO Box 411
Georgetown, Tx 78627
86 3^8525
Agent: G.W. Schmidt & Co.
600 Forest Street
Georgetown, Tx 78628
86 3-4594
Request: Resubdivision of a 5.01 acre unrecorded
subdivision situated in the David Wright
Survey A-13, City of Georgetown, Williamson
County, Texas
Quinland Estates - Page 2
Facts:
Location: The site is located north of the airport on
the south side of Brangus Road between Airport
Road and Cimarron Lane, outside the City
limits but within the E.T.J. and the Edwards
Aquifer Recharge Zone.
Surrounding Uses: large single family lots
Surrounging Zoning: Area is in E.T.J., therefore no
zoning is in force.
Existing Conditions: There is a single family residence
in the middle lot of the proposed
3 lot resubdivision that is
served by a well and a septic
system.
Proposed Use: 3 large, single family lots at a density
of 0.6 units/acre.
Utilities: No City utilities are requested.
Development Plan: District 4c. Single family, large
lot residences are recommended; the
proposal conforms substantially to
the plan.
Analysis,:
While no City services are requested for the three lots,
the potential annexation of this area supports a review
of utility related concerns. While the likelihood
of any short term Lextension of sewer lines to this area
is remote, mandatory hookup to future sewer service in
the area is probable. Wastewater systems should be
designed to accomodate this possibility.
The lots are some 150 feet from an existing 6" water
line. Water provision is necessary for adequate fire
protection and to ensure a safe potable water supply.
If water lines are extended, the water availability
note will apply to all three lots because Brangus Ranch
is not a platted subdivision. Due to the fact that
there is an existing residence, the City should consider
varying the Water Availability policy to allow one of
the three lots a water tap. If the existing well remains
in use, then- one of the newly created lots without water
service could be developed prior to the operation of the
Quinland Estates - page 3
water treatment plant. This would provide some immediate
incentive for the applicant to bear the cost of extending
the water line and provide some degree of fire protection
for the area.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat of Quinland
Estates conditioned upon:
1. The name of the plat shall be changed to Brangus
Ranch Section Two, and Lots renumbered as 31, 3B, 3'.
2. All Ordinance requirements shall be met,
3. Utilities being adequate: a) the Water Availability
note shall apply to lots 3-C and 3-D, b) applicant
shall extend City water service to ultimately serve
all three lots including fire protection. Scope
and extent of required improvements shall be approved
by Public Works Division,
4. Drainage requirements shall be met,
5. An approved Water Pollution Abatement Plan being
approved by T.W.C.,
6. Plat shall be resubmitted for survey review prior
to recordation.
P & Z Recommendation: (3-1)
approved, conditional upon above comments being met.
City Council Action:
Approval conditional upon above comments being met with
the amendment that condition 3.a. shall be revised to
read "the Water Availability Note shall apply" and condition
3.b. shall be revised to read " a note shall be added
to plat indicating that the City has no obligation to
extend water service to these lots.
Notation**
Staff was instructed to prepare a policy on extension of
City utility service which provides for an equitable
solution to•this problem.
WINDRIDGE VILLAGE - PRELIMINARY PLAT
Location Map 1"=2000'
Applicant: Tim L Wright, President
West of the Tracks Development Co., Inc.
213 West 8th
Georgetown Tx 78626
863-4525
Agent: G.W. Schmidt & Co.
600-A Forest St
Georgetown, Tx 78626
86 3-4594
Request: Preliminary Plat approval for Windridge Village,
a 10.97 acre subdivision situated in the William
Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21.
Facts:
Location: Between the eastern extremes of 2nd and 3rd
Streets (just east of Holly Street) and MK & T
Railroad. The tract is within the City limits
and the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
1_._ ...
Windridge Village - page 2
Existing Zoning - RS, residential, single family.
Surrounding Uses: This tract is surrounded by undeveloped
and agricultural land, as well as single
family residences and a fuel storage
facility which is a non -conforming use.
Proposed Use: 40 Sinqle Family residences on 6000 sq. ft.
lots at a density of 3.65 dwelling units/acre.
Development Plan: District 6a. This tract lies in an
undesignated area of the development plan
but is Consistent with existing zoning.
Analysis:
The applicant voluntarily withdrew from the January
agenda in order to address problems related to drainage,
utilities, and subdivision layout.
Drainage - Most of the drainage details will be resolved
with the engineers in the construction plans, however
several additional easements will be required on the plat.
Lot 17, Block "B" is a detention pond that will require an
access easement between lots 11 & 12 Block "A" for maintenance.
The rear of Blocks "A" and "C" may require drainage
easements to accomodate runoff.
Utilities - While the proposed 8 inch water line appears
adequate to provide required flows, the Engineers recommend
that an additional source be provided to protect the
residents during maintenance and emergency conditions
and that additional fire hydrants be provided.
City utility plans propose a 30 inch water line parallel
to the rear of Block "B". The applicant should coordinate
with the Public Works Division regarding the easement
needed for the construction of this line.
The existing wastewater line is inadequate to handle the
loads resulting from already permitted structures.
The construction of the planned Park lift station will
alleviate this condition. Sewer connections for Windridge
Village will -not be available until this situation is
corrected.
Lot La+out - Constraints due to the shape of the property
and existing facilities necessitate some odd shaped lots.
Variances should be requested for right angle lots and
those lots exceeding the required maximum 2.5:1 depth
to width ratio. Lots 1-11 and 16-19 Block "C" as well
as Lot 2 Block "B" are adjacent to the MKT rail line.
I n
Windridge Village - page 3
The limited size of the lots indicates that the homes
will be constructed in close proxiiaity to the tracks.
A solid buffer should be provided to minimize the
nuisance due to dust and noise from the trains, and to
reduce the access that children in the subdivision will
have to the tracks.
In order to provide adequate access to the subdivision
the applicant will be required to perform the following
off-site road improvements:
2nd Street - from Pine to the subdivision
3rd Street - from Holly to the subdivisions
Holly Street from 2nd to 3rd Street.
Additionally a variance must be requested for the
centerline radius on 2nd Street which is 310 ft. as
opposed to the required 800 ft. for major streets.
The landscape section of the Zoning Ordinance states
that subdivision planning must give priority to preservation
of Large and Mature Trees and that these trees must be
shown on preliminary and final subdivision plats. A
cursory inspection of the site reveals that it is hevily
vegetated. This information is not shown on the plat.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
Approval of plat conditioned upon:
1. Ordinance requirements being met
2. Drainage requirements being met
a) as indicated in the City engineer's report
b) access to the detention area shall be provided
3. Utilities being adequate
a) water availablity note shall apply
b) improvements to provide adquate fire protection
shall be required
c) the deed reference and the field notes for the
existing 15" wastewater line shall be indicated
on the plat
d) the proposed relocation of the electric transmission
line shall be approved by the Public Works
Department and indicated on revised utility
layout
e) the 30" water line proposed by the City's Water
Facilities Plan shall be coordinated with the Public
Works Department
4. Variances shall be requested for the following lots
that don't meet Ordinance requirements Right Angle lots
11-13 Blbck A, 6-8 Block A, and 13-15 Block C.Lots
exceeding 2.5:1 depth to width ratio Lots 4 and 5
Block A
Windridge Village - page 4
5. The applicant shall construct to City standards the
following off-site street improvements:
2nd Street - from Pine to the subdivision
3rd Street - from Holly to the subdivision
Holly Street - from 2nd to 3rd Streets.
6. A proposal for buffering to mitigate both noise and
visual impacts of M.K.T. Railroad shall be provided
along southern perimeter of site with the final plat
submittal and considered to be part of the subdivision
improvements
7. Plat shall conform to requirements of the Landscape
Ordinance
8. Plat and utility layout shall be revised and resubmitted
to comply with the above comments prior to being placed
on Council agenda.
P & Z Recommendation: (5-0)
approval conditional upon above comments being met, with the
following amendment: item No) shall read "A proposal for
buffering to mitigate both noise and visual impacts of M.K.T.
Railroad shall be provided along southern perimeter of site
with the final plat submittal and considered to be part of the
subdivision improvements. Buffering shall also be provided
around gas storage tanks."
City Council Action:
Approval with conditions . as recommended by P & Z
above.
RIVERY - PRELIMINARY PLAT Revised Report
RESIDENTIAL
N
COUNTRY
CLUB
0
RESIDENTIAL
rte
RESIDENTIAL
FIRE
STATION
W
a
2TH ST. Z
r
PARK
SQUARE
r]
PARK
r
06
CCXXF
OURSE
UNIVERSITY
Location Map 1"= 2000'
Applicant: Luedtke Aldridge Partnership
400 W 15th Street
1525 United Bank Tower,
Austin, Tx 78701
472-3400
Agent: Same
Request: Preliminary plat approval for the Rivery,
a 259.4 acre Multi -use development. Variances
have been requested towaive detention requirements,
allow block lengths in excess of 1200 ft, to
allow small lot single family residential uses and
reduce road width and centerline radii.
Facts:
Location: Along the south bank of the North Fork of the San
Gabriel River between IH -35 and the Middle Fork of
the San Gabriel River.
Rivery - page 2
Surrounding Uses: IH -35 borders the property to the east;
a proposed multi -family development
and existing large lot single family
homes adjoin;.the southern border;
undeveloped land, the Middle Fork of
the San Gabriel River, and the Georgetown
Country Club border the property to
the west; and Country Club Estates
a single family subdivision) and
the North Fork of the San Gabriel River
border the property to the north.
Proposed Uses: 18 large single family lots at a density
of .9 units/acre;•,
106 normal single family lots at a density
of 3.05 units/acre;
50 zero lot line single family lots
at a density of 4.8 units/acre;
412 multi -family units at a density of
15.7 units/acre;
5.3 acres of Neighborhood Commercial Use;
43.1 acres of R & D Office;
74.1 acres of Commercial Office Use; and
27 acres of Greenbelt. The overall
residential density is 6.4 units/acre.
Development Plan: District 39. Large lot single family
development is recommended in the plan;
the proposed use does not conform
with the plan, but does substantially
conform to the approved Concept Plan.
History
The concept plan was conditionally approved by the
City Council on 4/9/85 for roadway layout and land -uses
only. The applicant is participating in a joint utility
development project with the City commonly referred to
as the "Tri -Tract Agreement".
Analysis:
The Rivery subdivision represents the largest single plat
and second largest single development presented to the
City to date. It is highly urban in both the type, and the
intensity of its land use, as well as the form in which the
development appears to be conceived. The range of land
uses is from natural open space (Tract 12 Greenbelt) to
light industrial (R & D Office) and includes most possibilities
in between. This proposal is further complicated by the
extensive amount of off-site infrastructure required
and its location within an "environmentally sensitive"
area as destribed in the City's Development Plan. Furthermore,
it is located near the geographical center of the
Georgetown planning area at perhaps the highest exposure
point visually to both residents, and those who pass through
the City. Due to these complications and the sheer quantity
Rivery - page 3
of information submitted for review, the scope of this
analysis ( and thus the recommendations which follow
from it ) will be limited to the less technical and more
general aspects of the submittal primarily involving land
use density and compatibility, environmental impacts on
adjacent property and the City as a whole, and the plat
document itself. It shall also attempt to point out
areas of inconsistency,incompleteness, and/or potential
controversy as opposed to areas deemed to be satisfactory.
For more technical and/or detailed responses particularly
as relates to: utilities, stormwater run-off, traffic
impact, streets, and the "Development Guidelines" see the
City Engineer's Report and mark-up copies of individual
submittal documents.
Residential Land Use. - This element comprises roughly
358 of the total development and is divided into four
housing types:
1.) 18 half acre estate single-family lots
2.) 106 average single-family lots ranging from
6000 to 12,000 sq. ft.
3.) 50 small single-family lots containing at least
5,000 sq. ft. of area
4.) 412 apartment and/or condominium units at 16
units/acre.
Thus, a total of 586 housing units are proposed at a
gross density of 6.4 units/acre excluding streets.
This is a small residential element compared to most
multi -use projects but is reflective of the extensive
off-site infrastructure improvements proposed and the
high exposure location of the property. The most
significant changes which have occured relative to the
approved Concept Plan for this project are:
1.), The acreage designated to multi -family has
increased from 19.3 acres to 26.2 acres and
the density increased from 10 to 16 units/acre.
2.) Tract 6B has been changed from multi -family to
small lot single-family detached units
3.) Individual lots and local streets are indicated.
It appears fMm the data submitted that the lot layout,
net residential density and impervious cover limits
proposed by Rivery's Environmental Standards do meet
those required by the City's PUD Ordinance. However,
there are differences between this proposal and the
impervious cover limits proposed by the Planning Department's
Environmental Standards Criteria". City recommends
a maximum of 408 impervious coverage as opposed to
608 for the Rivery. Also the transfer of impervious
coverage allowance from one site to another, as indicated
for Tract 6B is not recommended.
Rivery - page 4
Other issues within the residential area which must be
addressed are:
1) Lots placed such that a side yard is adjacent
to multiple rear yards (right angle lots)
2) Lots having frontage on two non -intersecting streets
3) The intended use of the L.C.R.A. easement
4) An indication of all building lines and public
utility easements required
5) Acceptable buffering of adjacent land uses
especially along River Hills subdivision and the
perimeter of Tract 6B
6) Recreational amenitites for Tract 6B
7) The relationship of the lot and street layout to
various development constraints such as steep
slopes, existing vegetation, required utility and
drainage easements etc.
8) The "Standards for Zero Lot Line Subdivisions"
should conform to the standards previously
approved by the City for University Park Section
Two.
Retail Commercial Uses- One lot of 5.6 acres or 28
of the total site is proposed for the development. No
indication has been given as to the type of retail/
service function to be achieved. However, this site
should be designed so as to provide "a needed service or
convenience" for both the resident and working
populations within the development. The site selected is
well positioned to serve this function, but depending on
the final use type and density of the office tracts, it may
not be large enough to provide the level of service
required and still meet parking and landscaping requirements.
Also, pedestrian access to this site from all other tracts,
including the greenbelt area, must be included. The
L.U.E. conversion factor for this use meets the recommendations
of the IH -35 Joint Venture Agreement. However the 0.22
Floor Area to Land Area Ratio is a bit too high considering
the City's parking requirements (0.18 is more in line
with other similar developments) and the impervious cover
allowance of 75% exceeds the 60% recommended by the
Planning Departments "Environmental Standards Criteria".
Commercial Office Use- The location of this use along
the ridge of the North San Gabriel River and flanking the
Boulevard entry off IH -35 makes it the most critical in
terms of environmental and image impact. Thus the
primary concerns for this area are the intensity of use
and the overall image and character of the ultimate site
improvements. An additional concern is the long range
status of the San Gabriel River Valley.
The draft restrictive convenants or "Development Guidelines"
go a long way in providing the kinds of controls regarding
architectural harmony, pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
Rivery - page 6
is apparently proposed as an open space park to be jointly
owned by all property holders in Rivery, with limited
improvements and with the ultimate goal of dedication to
the City. The portion of the River downstream of this
new bridge has been subdivided and incorporated into the
Commercial Office lots as some form of Private/Limited
Public recreation area. A more specific proposal for
both of these areas is needed to fully evaluate this
situation. It may be that a better use of this area
would be as an outright Parkland dedications in anticipation
of annexation prior to January 1987.
Streets- The overall layout of streets conforms to
the revisions requested at Concept Plan stage except for Knight's
Spring Drive which may be aligned too close to the adjacent
property line to be effective as a residential collector
street connecting (possibly indirectly) with Hwy 29.
The City Engineer has not recommeded final approval for
ROW widths and alignment until average daily trip volumes
have been submitted for review. These volumes will
depend to a great extent on the resolution of building
height and density issues. The proposed improvements to
the IH -35 frontage road were spoken to in the engineering
report but not shown on the plat. Very little detail
was provided -regarding the extension of Rivery Boulevard
across the San Gabriel River to Williams Drive. The
details of this design will be very critical in terms of
impact on the existing neighborhoods served by it.
A request has been submitted for variance allowing the
reduction of the minimum centerline radius for arterial
and collector streets from 800 ft. to 500 ft. City
engineer has indicated no objection to radii shown for
these streets except Rivery Blvd at Hillview Dr. which
shows a radius of 410 ft. No variance has been submitted
for centerline radii of local streets, yet there are five
instances where this is below the normal 300 ft. However,
the areas all occur on what may be considered to be
loop" streets for which the Ordinance gives exception
to this requirement-,
Drainage- An elaborate system of stormwater drainage
including filtration has been proposed. The City Engineer
has not recommeded approval of the drainage plan most
notibly the variance from detention requirements, until
further information is submitted for review. The 100
year flood plain for the North Fork San Gabriel River is
based upon preliminary data from the Soil Conservation
Service and has not been verified by the City. The flood
plain for the Middle San Gabriel has not been shown.
Several smaller drainage easements have not been indicated.
Rivery - page 5
landscaping and other site elements which will result
in a very functional and aesthetically pleasing site.
However, there are a significant quantity of shoulds
as opposed to shalls) in the document which may limit
its effectiveness.
The primary staff concerns for this use type are:
1) The proposal to revise the L.U.E. conversion factor
from 1 L.U.E./1000 sq. ft, gross floor area to 1 LUE/2000
sq. £t. gross floor area. This effectively doubles
the allowable density on each site which can only
be translated into some combination of hiaher
structures, increased impervious coverage, less
preservation of existing vegetation, more disturbancee
of each site due to cut and fill, and greater impact
on traffic.
2) The allowance of 140 ft. office buildings with 5
level parking structures on the two lots along IH -35.
3) The allowance of 70 ft. office buildings with'3
level parking structures sited along the ridge of the
San Gabriel River.
4) The allowance of up to 758 impervious cover on these
sites. On sites with large areas of "undevelopable"
land this means that the entire site above the
bluff line may be paved.
5) The lack of clarity regarding the intended use and ownership'
of the North San Gabriel River Valley at the rear or
these lots.
Research and Development Office Use - This activity is
generally located near the center of the project
except for Tract 7A which is located adjacent to residential
areas both on-site and in the adjacent River Hills Sub-
division'. Special restrictions on this lot will be necessary.
Another primary consideration for this area is just
exactly what does R & D office mean. According to the
Development Guidelines" the only difference in the
controls for these sites as opposed to Commercial Office
sites is a reduction in the highest unit from 70 ft. to
55 ft. and the elimination of controls dealing with
Mailboxes, Signage, Lighting, and accessories. By contrast,
the City of Austin's Research and Development District
regulations divide these uses into three catagories
labled as "testing, warehousing; or assembly" services'.
Furthermore, the restrictions of Austin Ordinance are much
more oriented to industrial types of land use than those
restrictions proposed by Rivery.
Thus, it would ser_n that if these types of uses are planned,
then the type of regulations of Austin Ordinance would apply.
Open Space Use - This area comprises the North Fork San Gabriel
River Valley'from the IH -35 bridge to Georgetown Country Club.
Rivery has proposed to divide this space into,two somewhat
different uses using the proposed Rivery Boulevard bridge as the
dividing line. Tract 12 labeled as Greenbelt
Rivery - page 7
Utilities. -The utility layout has not indicated all
improvements required by the IH -35 Joint Ventrue Agreement
and must be revised. Some utility easements required
for the on-site system have not been shown on the plat.
Fire protection systems have not been addressed on the
Utility Plan. The City Engineer has identified several
areas of concern relative to the impact of the project on
the existing system. Some of these areas do not directly
affect the approval of the Preliminary Plat but should be
considered prior to final plat approval.
The most significant of these issues is that the demands
represented by this development cannot be fully met by
either the existing water supply system or the wastewater
treatment plant. This indicates the need for a realistic
phasing schedule to be established so that the City has
sufficient lead time to incorporate improvements to
these facilities. The most significant utility related
issue at this time involves the LUE conversion rates
proposed which essentially attempt to show that there will
be less demand on utilities per square foot of gross
building area for commercial uses and less per dwelling
unit for multi -family uses. The bottom line of this issue
is that there is no precise way to determine actual rates
of flow (i.e. demand) until these demands are actually
generated. The consensus of staff is that these
conversion rates should remain as established by the
Agreement for planning purposes. Furthermore, these
allocations should be fixed for each individual lot and
carried with these properties to final build out as
maximum allowable utility impact regulations.
Miscellaneous - Due to the fact that this property is
outside,the City limits and therefore outside of the
authority of the zoning and many other Ordinances,
annexation is strongly recommended by the staff.
Annexation would enable the City to -exercise greater
authority to ensure high quality attractive, and
environmentally sound development along the IH -35 corridor
in order to promote the overall image of the City.
The owner should submit a letter requesting annexation.
THE APPLICANT VOLUNTARILY WITHDREW FROM THE JANUARY
AGENDA AFTER RECEIVING A COPY OF THE FOLLOWING
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The LUE conversion rates shall match those included in
the IH -35 Joint Venture Agreement as maximum allowable
figures for planning purposes and strictly applied
to individual Tracts within the development. Adjustments
or revisions to these allocations shall be amended
under the same procedure as originially approved.
Rivery - page 8
2. Variance from stormwater detention requirements shall
not be granted until it has been shown to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that the potential
impact of this decision is not detrimental to
downstream conditions and the cumulative impact of
additional variances of this magnitude is acceptable.
3. A development constraints map shall be submitted to
indicate the reasoning underlying design decisions
regarding street layout, lot layout, and land use.
4. The small lot residential area shall conform to the
basic restrictions established with the approval of
similar uses, and in conformance with the City's PUDOrdinance.
5. Maximum impervious cover requirements shall conform
to those indicated in the document entitled "Environmental
Standards Criteria" developed by the Planning Department.
6. Heights of structures shall be limited to 40 ft.as
required by the C -2A Zoning District.
7. Research and Development uses shall conform to
City of Austin Ordinance Number 84 dated February 21, 1985
except as otherwise approved.
8. The detailed alignment and configuration of the Rivery
Boulevard extension should be indicated on the
preliminary plat including ROW acquisition requirements.
9. The T.I.A. shall be revised & resubmitted
to satisfy City Engineer Comments.
10. The Utility layout shall be revised and resubmitted
to satisfy City Engineer's Comments.
11. All drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the
plat.
12. Pedestrian access easements connecting use areas to the
open spaces shall be indicated on the plat.
13. The North San Gabriel River bank below the bluff
shall be dedicated as a public park with pedestrian
and maintenance access provided to be accepted by the
City upon annexation.
14. Mechanisms for the buffering of different land uses
both on-site and off-site shall be included in the
Development Guidelines"
15. Knights Spring Drive shall be designed as a residential
collector street and aligned to allow future
extension.
Rivery - page 9
Since receiving these,comments the applicant met with
staff. The following list summarizes reponses to the
comments:
Comment # Response
1 Comment not addressed; current proposal
indicates 171% of the maximum allotted
L.U.E.'s calculated by City method
2,3 Comments not addressed
4 Comment addressed satisfactorily
5 Impervious coverage figures were increased
by 5% on the multi -family tracts and decreased
by 5% on Zero lot line tract. The basic
difference still exists
6,7 Comments not addressed
8 A sketch of one alternative has been included
in the TIA report (see Attached Figure 4. 1.)
9,10 Needed information has been submitted.
Review not complete
11 Some easements added. Others needed
12 Some added. Others recommended
13 No change
14 Satisfactorily addressed
15 ROW has been widened. No change in alignment
Staff Recommendation:
I) VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1) Granting of variance to exceed 1200 ft block
length in commercial areas
2) Street widths and curb radii shall conform to
City Engineers recommendations (includes local
streets)
3) Granting of Varinance for minimum single familylotsizeonTract6BsubjecttostandardspresentedinAppendixCof "Preliminary Engineering Report"
and conformance to City's PUD Ordinance
4) Variance from stormwater detention requirements
shall be defered until construction plan review.
All required detention/filtration facilities
shall be contained in easements and indicated
on final plat.
A
Rivery - page 10
II) PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Approval of preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1) All Subdivision ordinance requirements shall be met,
2) Utilities being adequate
3) Approval of a Water Pollution Abatement Plan by T.W.C.
4) All provisions of the Agreement Regarding Water
and Wastewater Facilities and Services shall be met
5) A revised preliminary plat shall be submitted
for staff review with the following revisions:
a) Proposed Development column of Land Use Summary
chart shall be revised to reflect LUE conversions
established by IH -35 Joint Venture Agreement.
b) Street width and alignments as recommended
by City engineer,
c) Clear indication of all drainage and utility
easements,
d). Pedestrian access easements shall be indicated
in conjunction with all drainage easements
leading into the flood plain of the San
Gabriel River,
e) The greenbelt and floodplain (Lot 12) along
the San Gabriel River shall be dedicated
as a public park to be accepted by the City
upon annexation,with pedestrian and maintenance
access provided.
f) The greenbelt and drainage easement at
the rear ofr Tracts 8-11 shall be removed
from individual lots and designated as
common open space to be maintained by a
property owners association with pedestrian
and maintenance access provided.
6) The following shall be addressed with the
submittal of the final plat:
a) Justification for the variance from
detention per City Engineer's comments,
b) Plan for street improvements as identified
by T.I.A.
c) Revised utility layout per City Engineers
comments to include a layout for electric
service,
d) The detailed alignment and configuration
of the Rivery Blvd. extention to Williams
Dr.
e) A realistic phasing sequence for the build
out of the project.
7) A Detailed Development Plan approved by P&Z
and City Council shall be submitted for each
tract prior to application for building
permits -,which satisfies previously indicated
staff comments number 4,5,6,7 and 14.
8) A Detailed Development Plan shall be submitted
for staff approval for Tracts 1, 2a, 2b.
P&Z Recommendation:(5-0) approved conditional upon the
above comments being met, with the following amendments:
Item 5a) shall read "Proposed Development column of Land Use
Rivery page 11
Summary chart shall reflect LUE conversions to 1297 LUE's. Lue's
to be defined as water flow only, rather than density.
item #6b) shall read "Plan for street improvements as
identified by T.I.A. (Williams Dr. intersection only)."
item #7) shall delete the following: "which satisfies
previously indicated staff comments number 4,5,6,7, and 14."
City Council Action:
Approval of plan and granting of variances subject to
the conditions as stated under Staff recommendation above
with the following amendments:
Condition 3 shall read "Approval of Water Pollution
Abatement Plan by T.W.C. prior to final plat approval,"
Condition 5.e. and 5.f. shall be deleted and replaced
with the condition that; 5.e. "An instrument ready to
file shall be presented with the fianl plat which
dedicates for public use of and provides pedestrian
and maintenance access to the area shown on the
preliminary'plat as Parcel 12 and also the Greenbelt
and Drainage Easement portions of Parcels 8-1117',
Condition 6.b. shall be amended to read that a plan
for street improvements as identified by T.I.A. for
the Country Club Rd, Rivery Blvd, Williams Dr. area
shall be submitted with final plat,
Condition 7'shall read " A Detailed Development plan
shall be'submitted for staff approval for each tract
prior to application for building permit",
Condition 8 shall read "The Construction Plans for the
Subdivision shall include details for drainage and
buffering for Tract 1, 2A, 2B."
San Gabriel Village - Concept Plan
THE SITE
f
94
Location Map
Owner: P&W Interests
August Petersen, Trustee
1600 First City Centre
816 -,Congress
Austin, Tx 78701
474-1483
Agent: Andy Miller
P & W Interests
1600 First City Centre
816 Congress
Austin, Tx 78701
ZnUl Rept- 2ji
1"=@2000'
Request:
Approval of a conceptual plan for San Gabriel Village,
20.77 acres and 31.98 acres out of the Nicholas Porter
Survey, Tracts 67 and 68.
Facts:
Location: This tract is bounded by IH=35, the North
and South forks of the San Gabriel River and
Austin Ave (Hwy 81). Approximately 10 acres
of the eastern portion lies within the City
of Georgetown City Limits. This property lies
in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
San Gabriel Village - Concept Plan - page 2
Surrounding Uses: To the west (across IH -35) lies the
Rivery, a proposed multi -use develop-
ment. The proposed River Oaks of
Georgetown Office Park Subdivisison
borders it to the south. The North
and South Forks of the San Gabriel
River encompass the remainder of the
tract eastward to Austin Avenue.
Existing Zoning: Ten acres of the eastern portion of the
site is zoned C-1 Local Commercial
District.
Development Plan: District 2. This area was designated
for schools and parks, therefore it
does not comply with the master plan.
However, the approval of the IH -35
Joint Venture Utility Agreement
implies more intense land use.
Utilities: This applicant is participating in a joint
utility development project with the City
commonly referred to as the "Tri -Tract
Agreement" for water and wastewater
services. An approved concept plan is a
requirement of that agreement. Applicant
has indicated the electrical service is
undecided".
Analysis:
Much like the Rivery and the other Tri -Tract subdivisions
along IH -35 and the San Gabriel River the site of San
Gabriel Village is highly visible and environmentally
sensitive. The following analysis will address the site
concerns related to road layout and conceptual land uses
only. More detailed analysis of utilities, traffic,
flow and drainage will accompany the preliminary plat
review.
Road layout- The site is presently only accessible from
Hwy 81 between the bridges over the North and South
Forks of the San Gabriel River. To avoid future traffic
problems resulting from this potentially dangerous
intersection, this access should serve limited volumes
of traffic. The long range primary access to the site
should be along a future frontage road along IH -35.
One access point to this road is shown on the plan but
a second connection may be required depending upon final
traffic projections.
The completion of the IH -35 frontage road between Hwy 29
and the 'North San Gabriel River is essential to provide
adequate access to all three tracts between the rivers.
San Gabriel Village - page 3
i.e. River Oaks- San Gabriel Plaza, River Oaks of
Georgetown Office Park, and San Gabriel Village).
The current submittals reflect little coordination between
the three developments. A joint effort to work with
T.D.H.P.T. to improve the frontage road is strongly
recommended.
However, if development of this site is to proceed
prior to the completion of the frontage road then an
interim solution to the access problem must be found.
The unnamed street shown on the plan should be designed
as a local street. The timing of development should be
restricted so that only the portion of this development
which generates traffic volumes equal to the capacity
of this roadway can be built until the frontage road is
complete. This unnamed street should be shown to
extend through to the Riveroaks Office Park tract
and construction associated with a second phase of
development. During the first phase of the development
and until the frontage road is complete this street
would be used for emergency vehicle access from Hwy 29.
Land Use- The type of land use indicated on the Development
Plan is generally acceptable. However, the applicant
should be cautioned that there is currently a tremendous
amount of general office space under development in
Georgetown which may delay the absorbtion of this
project. The density of the project is
of major concern due to the aesthetic and environmental
conditions of the site. The plan indicates that buildings
40 ft. to 60 ft. are to be constructed throughout
the site. It is likely that the view of downtown from
IH -35 along this area will be completely eliminated
as a result. Also some of the building/parking areas
on the plan are shown over areas of steep slope and/or
fragile rock outcrops. Specific and detailed site
studies will be required in order to evaluate the
impact of this construction.
The maximum allowable use of the site as measured by
utility demand is set forth in the IH -35 Joint Venture
Agreement. However, these figures should not be
equated with the maximum use a given site will be able
to reasonably accommodate given other constraints: One
obvious area of conflict is in the chart converting
L.U.E. allowances to either dwelling units (DU) or
gross leasable floor area (GLA). It appears
that the total density proposed by applicant exceeds
that stated in the Agreement by roughly 30%. At the
time of building permit application, peak flow calculations
based on specific building uses and plans will also be
used to determine allowable demands for commercial sites.
Specific commercial use densities will not be approved
until that time and shall conform to the Agreement Regarding
Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services.
San Gabriel Village - page 4
Another area of concern is that amount and location
of impervious cover (i.e. buildings and parking areas).
While the plan indicates an average impervious cover
proposed of about 558, if the flood plain and other
non -buildable portions of the site are removed then
approximately 758 of the net site area will be covered.
This exceeds the 508 recommended by staff for slopes
under 158 gradiant in the "Environmental Standards
Criteria". Again, this element can not be fully
evaluated until a site grading and drainage plan
has been submitted.
Due to its proximity to the City limits, annexation
is strongly recommended. This would enable the City
to exercise greater authority, through zoning to control
the development of this site, which significantly
impacts the future image of the City. The applicant should
submit a letter requesting annexation.
Once annexed, R -P zoning would suit its mixed-use nature
and help create the needed balance between land use
types, intensity, impervious coverage, building heights,
utility demands and traffic flows.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the concept plan for land use type and
roadway layout with the following conditions:
1. The road through the site shall be designed as a
local street which connects through to Riveroaks
of Georgetown Office Park Subdivision,
2. The deveiopment shall be divided into a minimum of
two phases with phase one being limited to that
which will generate traffic volumes commensurate
with the on-site street capacity,
3. The flood plain shall be removed from individual
lots and designated as common open space to be
maintained by a property owners association,
with pedestiran and maintenance access provided,
4. An Environmental Impact Study shall be submitted
with the preliminary plat indicating all site
conditions necessary to evaluate the environmental
impact of the proposed development including impact
on scenic view corridors and Blue Hole/Imhoff Park,
5. A Detailed Development Plan shall be approved by
P & Z and Council prior to applicaiton for building
permits.
6. A Water Pollution Abatement Plan being approved
by T.W.C.,
7. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted with
the preliminary plat,
8. All provisions of the IH -35 Joint Venture Utility
Agreement shall be met. Development Summary Chart
shall be revised per Agreement,
San Gabriel Village - page 5
9. A frontage road along IH -35 being completed prior
to approval of phase two of development,
10. The intersection design of the access of Hwy 81
shall be approved by T.D.H.P.T, prior to City
approval of preliminary plat,
11. The street and utility layout being approved by
Division of Public Works.
P & Z Recommendation: (5-0)
approved conditional upon the above comments being.met, with
the following amendments: item #1) shall read "The road through
the site shall be designed as a local street which connects
through to Riveroaks of Georgetown Office Park Subdivision,
if the frontage road is not built" item #2) shall read "The
development shall be divided into a minimum of two phases with
phase one being limited to that which will generate traffic
volumes commensurate with the on-site street capacity, as
determined by the T.I.A." item #8) shall delete "Development
Summary Chart shall be revised per Agreement" and insert in
Its place "to reflect LUE conversions to 369 LUE's with
LUE's to be defined as water flow only, rather than density".
item #9) shall read "A frontage road along IH -35 being completed
prior to approval of phase two of development, or an acceptable
alternative provided." item #3) is to be negotiated with
staff before the preliminary plat stage.
City Council Action:
Approval subject to applicants acknowledgment of
notification that the conditions above as recommended
by Planning and Zoning shall be satisfied with future
submittals.
Riveroaks of Georgetown Office Park - Final Plat
A35,Z-
P' IkI
Sl
f
HOUSE
COUR
0 D
HwPY 29
Location Map 1"=2000'
Applicant: Walter R Carrington Company
5609 Adams
Austin, Tx 78731
454 6681
Agent: Mudd & Associates, Inc.
1507 S IH -35
Austin, Tx 78741
442 6702
Request
Final Plat approval for River Oaks of Georgetown
Office Park, a 21.26 acre tract situated in the J.B.
Pulsifer Survey No. 36.
Facts:
Location: East of and adjacent to IH -35 just north
of San Gabriel Plaza and Hwy 29, bounded
by the South San Gabriel River to the east.
Riveroaks of Georgetown - page 2
Surrounding Uses: Undeveloped property of participants
in IH -35 Joint Venture Utility
Agreement.
Proposed Use: Office / Commercial
Development Plan: District 2. Land use deviation from
that recommended by Development Plan
was approved with Concept Plan.
History:
This tract is part of the IH -35 ("Tri -Tract") Joint
Venture Utility Agreement, which requires that a
special set of provisions be met, such as the submittal
of a concept plan, which was conditionally approved
on June 4, 1985.
On November 5, 1985 P & Z disapproved the preliminary
Plat due to failure to meet Ordinance requirements and
previous conditions of approval for Concept Plan.
On November 26, 1985 the City Council amended its approval
of the Concept Plan and approved the Preliminary Plat
subject to the following conditions:
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 Regardinq Water and
Wastewater Facilities and Services shall be met, and
capacity being available.
3. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted for
information only and access coordinated with T.D.H.P.T.
plan,
4. Accurate limits of 100 year flood plan shall be
determined,
5. Good faith effort shall be made by applicant to
comply with environmental provisions of Agreement
Regarding Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services,
6. A Sixty (60) foot wide public right-of-way to be
dedicated by applicant connecting with north boundary
of existing access easement on the south side of
applicant's tract and extending south to north across
applicant'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 this tract (indicated as Greenwood -
Harkins tract) dedicates and completes a connecting
street of equal City standards from Highway 81
to applicant's tract, and
Riveroaks of Georcetown - page 3
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 set
forth above are satisfied.
Analysis:
There are several problems relating to access of this
site. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that "each
lot shall be provided with adequate access to an existing
or proposed public street by frontage on such street." As
shown on the plat, this lot has frontage on the ROW
of IH -35 but not access to the street or driving portion
of the road. The only other way in and out of the site
is a 60 ft. access easement platted with River Oaks
subdivision in 1980. This easement is currently only
marginally improved and crosses a major ravine and
floodway.
It is the opinion of staff that in order for this to
be considered as proper access, this easement must be
dedicated as a public ROW and improved to City
standards. This opinion has been substantiated by the
County Commissioners for this area.
Even if the above is accomplished this site will have
only one access point. Furthermore, the land to the
north (identified as P & W Interests on plat) will be
left without access through this property to Hwy 29.
One condition of preliminary plat approval was the
establishment of a street with 60' ROW through the
site. The primary function of this road is to provide
emergency access both to this site and adjacent
properties until such time as the IH -35 frontage road
is operational. A note on the plat indicates a "reserved"
area to be described by separate agreement with the City.
This ROW should be shown on the plat
and be constructed to meet City Standards for construction
with the design changes previously approved.
The traffic impact analysis which applicant agreed to
submit as a condition of preliminary plat approval
has not been received.
Until such time as a site plan is submitted for review
the following items cannot be evaluated: actual utility
demand, traffic impact, fire protection requirements,
stormwater detention/filtration requirements, the density,
the amount of impervious coverage (particularly as it
Riveroaks of Georgetown - page 4
relates to the steep slopes of this tract), the
intended heights of buildings, the number and location
of parking spaces and drives, the architectural presentation
of the site and its impact on the scenic corridors
from and along IH -35, the conservation of soils, vegetation
and provisions of additional landscaping that may be
required to enhance aesthetics and provide buffering
both visually and for noise abatement).
The drainage data submitted has several deficiences
which should be addressed during construction plan review.
Neither the critical water quality zones (CWQZ), nor
the water quality detention -sedimentation basins have
been shown. Also, more information is needed to verify
both the boundaries of the 100 yr. flood plain of the
feeder creek and the flowrates used in establishing
such boundaries.
Establishing accurate limits of the critical water
quality zone is necessary for the location of the
proposed sewer line. Its present location as indicated
on the final plat puts it not only in the CWQZ, but also
in the flood plain. Public Works Division must approve
this routing in conjunction with construction plan
review.
Staff Recommendation:
Disapproval of final plat subject to following conditions:
1. Approval conditioned upon:
a) Ordinance requirements being met,
b) Drainage requirements being met,
c) Water Pollution Abatement Plan approved by T.W.C.
2. All provisions of the Agreement Regarding Water
and Wastewater Facilities and Services shall be met,
anu capacity being available,
3. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted for
information only and access coordinated with T.D.H.P.T.
plan,
4. Accurate limits of 100 year flood plan shall be
determined,
5. Good faith effort shall be made by applicant to
comply with environmental provisions of Agreement
Regarding Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services,
6. A sixty (6 foot wide rig t -of -way to be
dedicated by applicant connecting with north boundary
of existing access easement on the south side of
applicant's tract and extending south to north across
applican'ts tract and that:
1) such right-of-way shall be improved to City
standards at such time as property owners located to
north of this tract (indicated as P & W Interests
tract) dedicates and completes a connecting street
of equal City standards from Hwy 81 to applicant's
tract, and
t:.
Riveroaks of Georgetown - page 5
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-35is 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 set forth above are satisfied,
7. Item six above shall be shown on the plat of
record and included in subdivision construction
plans,
S. Stormwater detention/filtration areas shall
be shown on the plat as determined by construction
plans,
9. A Drainage Facility Maintenance Covenant shall
be recorded with the plat.
P & Z Recommendation: (4-1)
Approved conditional upon above comments being met, with
the following amendment: item #7) shall read "item number
six above to be done through a Development agreement that
is agreeable to City Attorney."
City Council Action:
Approval conditional upon above conditions being met
as recommended by Planning & Zoning Commission, except
that item 8 be deleted and replaced with; 8.)"Applicant
shall add to General Note #4 after the word Manual
the phrase 'And submitted for City approval prior to
issuance of building permits upon this land'."
CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE FROM PLATTING REQUIREMENTS
OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR 1.16 ACRE TRACT LOCATED
@ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 2nd STREET & COLLEGE STREET
te, A9
2 ND
Location Map 1"=400'
Applicant: John Roth
PO Box 386
Georgetown, Tx
86 3-7 325
Request: Determination of "legal lot" status of the
above referenced property.
2nd and College Streets - page 2
Purpose:
If it is found that the lot is a "legal lot" then applicant
would be exempt from the subdivision platting requirement
of the City's Subdivision Ordinance as a prerequisite
to obtaining building and utility connection permits.
If, on the other hand, it is found that the lot is not
a "legal lot" then the submittal of a subdivision plat
for City approval prior to issuance of said permits
is required and the Water Availability Note would be
applied as a condition of approval.
Facts:
Location: Southwest corner of the intersection of
2nd Steet with College Street. Is inside
City limits and Edwards Aquifer Recharge
Zone.
Existing Zoning: RM -3 Residential Multiple -Family District
Surrounding Uses: V.F.W. Park to north and single
family residential to other directions.
Proposed Use: Multiple -family Residential
History: Is presented as "Sequence of Events" in
applicants request attached to this report.
Analysis:
Staff has found no evidence to dispute the facts presented
by applicant as "Sequence of Events". It appears that
this property did exist as a freestanding lot which
included both tracts shown on'the survey plat(including
the drainage easement) dated March 20, 1985 and as
recorded in Volume 518 page 176 of the Deed Records
of Williamson County. Thus, a "legal lot" as defined
by the established operating policy of the Planning
Department did exist at that time. The area of this
lot is that described in Volume 518, page 176.
This policy states that a property may be considered
a "legal lot" under the Subdivision Ordinance if this
property is, at the time of building permit application,
the same property described by metes and bounds in a
recorded Deed which transaction occurred prior to
May 10, 1977. This is the date on which the current
Subdivision Ordinance was adopted by City Council.
This policy has been used by the Planning Department
primarily because the Subdivision Ordinance adopted
February 14, 1955 was not strictly enforced. Thus, this
date of May 10, 1977 is used as the cut-off date for
grandfathered" lots within the City.
Therefore, the building permit issued to Paul Cothran
on October 17, 1977 would have been for the grandfathered
lot described in Volume 518, Page ±76 which includes
2nd & College Street - page 3
the drainage easement and the Roth tract.
The impact of the December 13, 1977 zoning change is
less clear. Under Part Twelve of the City's Zoning
Ordinance it states that district boundaries are to be
street, alley, and property lines unless otherwise shown"
This leaves open the possibility that the property in
question was not considered to be an already established
legal lot" at the time of the zoning change because
of the provision allowing district lines to be "otherwise
shown". Section 12.102 indicates how to determine
the district boundary when the property "has been or
may hereafter be divided into blocks and lots ". Thus,
the district line may shift to match newly created
property lines. Finally, Section 12.103 allows that the
scaled measurement of the Official Zoning Map may be
used to establish a district boundary in unsubdivided
property. This indicates that zoning may be applied to
property prior to subdivision platting.
However, Section 12.104 states that when a district line
divides a property into two parts the boundary shall
be construed to be the property line nearest the
least restrictive district. In this case the least
restrictive district is the RM -3 designation which
covers the Roth tract. The property line closest to
this district is the line covered by the district along
2nd Street and along College Street. What this then
implies is that the rezoning of this property does not
take effect for the purposes of the issuance of building
permits until a subdivision occurs because the only
way a new west property line can be created (as governed
by the Subdivision Ordinance) is to file a subdivision
plat. The new line created should conform to the
boundary as described in the rezoning ordinance.
Summary of Findings:
1) The City, by the construction of a drainage channel
across the property, did physically divide the property.
2) This physical division did not create two separate
legal lots under the Subdivision Ordinance.
3) The sale of the portion of the property west of this
drainage channel on September 22, 1977 did constitute
a violation of the Subdivision Ordinance because
no plat was approved or recorded.
4) Zoning district lines may exist prior to the subdivision
of property.
5) The consumation of a rezoning action which is bounded
by a property line which is not in compliance with
the Subdivision Ordinance cannot occur until such
time as the property line in question has been
legally established by the filing of a plat.
2nd & College Street - page 4
Planning Department Recommendation:
The approval and recordation of a resubdivision
plat for the property in question is required
to create a second legal lot. This plat should also
include that portion of the land west of the drainage
channel as described by volume 518 page 176 of the
Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas recorded
May 24, 1969.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to declare both properties as legal lots under
the Subdivision Ordinance was approved.
I am requesting an interpretation of whether or not the property located
the southwest corner- of the 2nd Street and College Street intersection is
legal lot". According to the City of Georgetown Planning Department, if
at
a
a
piece of property in the City limits or the ETJ has been changed in any way
since May 10, 1977 and has not been platted it is considered an illegal lot.
The sequence of events involving the subject property lead me to believe,
contrary to the Planning Departments view, that the subject property is def-
initely a "legal lot".
Sequence Of Events:
Summer 1976 The City of Georgetown was given an easement by Mr. and
Mrs. David Cothran (the previous owners of the subject
property). The easement cut throught the property and
physically separated it into two parts. The easement is
a 20 foot wide concrete structure used for drainage.
May 10, 1977 The new Subdivision Ordinance was approved by the City.
Sept. 22, 1977 The Cothrans granted the unusable portion of land on the
27 V Zz(P514' west side of the drainage easement to their brother Paul
D.. Cothran.
t. 17, 1977 Paul Cothran received a building permit for the property
that was granted to him (502 East 2nd).
Dec. 13,1977 The subject property was rezoned from RS to RM -3. The
minutes from the City Council meeting clearly describe
the property as being everything from the west side of
the drainage easement east to College Street.
March 29, 1985 A zoning verification was received by the Planning Dept.
The verification refered to the subject property as being
zoned RM -3.
It is my contention that the City has, by its actions, considered the subject
property one in its own. First of all, the City divided the property with a
20 foot wide drainage easement. Second, a building permit was issued for the
portion of property on the west side of the easement without at that time re-
quiring a plat to be filed. And finally rezoning the subject property knowing
full well the ownership situation and never once during the process mentioning
the need to file a plat.
d R oltN
g63-7315
i f i.i 11:1
CITY COUNCIL
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Counci APPRO"S/DISAPPROVES/TABLES/
WITHDRAWS the request listed below.—f
WITNESS OUR HANDS this 11 day of February 19 86
Mayor, Vty Counc
City_of Georgetow,
APPLICANT City of Georgetown
LOCATION north of Leander Rd (FM 2242) and east of the intersectio
of River Ridge Dr.
REQUEST zoning change from RS to C-1 (Residential single family to
Loral cnmm(-rClal)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
approved
0
CITY COUNCIL
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Counci APPROVES/DISAPPROVES/TABLES/
WITHDRAWS the request listed below.
WITNESS OUR HANDS this 11 day of February , 19 86
Mayor, Cio Counci
PRO ECT Genie;y Wel Village -Concept Plan
APPLICANT P & W Interests
LOCATION Bounded by IH- 35 the North and South forks of the San Gabriel
river and Austin Ave (Hwy 81)
REQUEST approval of concept plan
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Approval subject to applicants acknowledgment of
notification that the conditions below shall be
satisfied with future submittals:
1. The road through the site shall be designed as a
local street which connects through to Riveroaks
of Georgetown Office Park Subdivision,if the frontage road
is not built,
2. The development shall be divided into a minimum of
two phases with phase one being limited to that
which will generate traffic volumes commensurate
with the on-site street capacity, as determined by the T.I.A.
3. The flood plain -shall be removed from individual
lots and designated as common open space to be
maintained by a property owners association,
with pedestiran and maintenance access provided,
4. An Environmental Impact -Study shall be submitted
with the preliminary plat indicating all site
conditions necessary to evaluate the environmentalimpactoftheproposeddevelopmentincludingimpactonscenicviewcorridorsandBlueHole/Imhoff Park, 5. A Detailed Development Plan shall be approved byP & Z and Council prior to applicaiton for buildingpermits.
6. A Water Pollution Abatement Plan being approvedbyT.W.C.,
7. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted withthepreliminaryplat,
8. All provisions of the IH -35 Joint Venture Utility _ Agreement shall be met. Development summary chart shall be
revised to reflect LUE conversions to 369 LUE's with LUE's to be
defined as water flow only, rather than density.
9. A frontage road along IH -35 being completed prior to approval
of phase two of development, or an acceptable alternative
provided.
item #3 is to be negotiated with staff before the preliminary
plat stage.
CITY COUNCIL
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City CounciV APPROVES/DISAPPROVES/TABLES/
WITHDRAWS the request listed below.
WITNESS OUR HANDS this 11 day of February 19 86
mayor, Ci Counci
City of Georgetown
PROJECT Stonehedge Section Three -Vacating & Amending Plat
APPLICANT Marbert G Moore, Jr .
LOCATION One mile east of Georgetown, just south of Hwy 29.
REQUEST Approval for the vacatingand amended plat of Stonehed e
Section Thrpp
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
approved
E
CITY COUNCIL
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Counci AP40PROVES/ SAPPROVES/TABLES/
WITHDRAWS the request listed below.
WITNESS OUR HANDS this 11 day of February 19 86
Mayo, Ci y Council -
City of Georgetown
PROJECT Quinland Estates-Preliminary/final plat
APPLICANT T,mpq Quinn
LOCATION north of the airnnrt on thec..••t a
nr naus Rd hptwpen
airport Rd and Cimarron Lane outside the city limits
REQUEST resubdivision of Ouinland Estates.- preliminary/final
plat approval
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
approval conditional upon the following conditions being met:
1. The name of the plat shall be changed to Brangus RanchSectionTwo, and Lots renumbered as'3A,'33, 3:
2. All Ordinance requirements shall be met,
3. Utilities being adequate:
a) the Water Availability Note shall applyb) a note shall be added to plat indicating that the Cityhasnoobligationtoextendwaterservicetotheselots
4. Drainage requirements shall be met
5. An approved Water Polluction Abatement Plan being approvedbyT.W.C.
6. Plat shall be resubmitted for survey review prior to
recordation
I) PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Approval of preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1) All Subdivision Ordinance requirements shall be met,
2) Utilities being adequate
3) Approval of Water Pollution
to final plat approval
4) All provisions of the Agrei
and Wastewater Facilities
Abatement Plan by T.W.C. prior
s met
5) A revised preliminary plat shall be submitted
for staff review with the following revisions:
a) Proposed Development column of Land Use Summary
chart shall be revised to reflect LUE conversions
established by IH -35 Joint Venture Agreement.
b) Street width and alignments as recommended
by City engineer,.
c) Clear indication of all drainage and utility
easements,
CITY COUNCIL
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council 6PPROVES ISAPPROVES/TABLES/
WITHDRAWS the request listed below.
WITNE/S S- OUR HANDS this 11 day of February 19 86
Mayor, C nc '
City of Georgeto
PROJECT Riveroaks of Georgetown Office Park -final plat
APPLICANT Walter R Carrington company
LOCATION East of and adjacent to IH -35 just north of San Gabriel Plaza
and Hwy, bounded by the Sout San Gabriel River to the east
REQUESTFinal plat approval
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Approval conditional upon conditions below being met:
1. Approval conditioned upon:
a) Ordinance requirements being met,
b) Drainage requirements being met,
c) Water Pollution Abatement Plan approved by T.W.C. 2. All provisions of the Agreement Regarding Water
and Wastewater Facilities and Services shall b
and capacity being available,
a met,
3. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted for
information only and access coordinated with T.D.H.P.T.
plan,
4. Accurate limits of 100 year flood plan shall be
determined,
5. Good faith effort shall be made by applicant to
comply with environmental provisions of Agreement
Regarding Water and Wastewater Facilities and Services, ty-7ioUi6. foot wide public right-of-way to be
dedicated by applicant connecting with north boundaryofexistingaccesseasementonthesouthsideof
applicant's tract and extending south to north across
applicants tract and that:
1) such right-of-way shall be improved to City
standards at such time as property owners located to
north of this tract (indicated as P & W Interests
tract) dedicates and completes a connecting street
of equal City standards from Hwy 81 to applicant'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-35is 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 set forth above are satisfied,
7. Item six above shall be done through a Development Agreement
that is agreeable to City Attorney.
Riveroaks of Georgetown - page 2
8. Applicant shall add to General Note #4 after the
Word Manual the phrase "And submitted for City
approval prior to issuance of building permits upon
this land".
9. A Drainage Facility Maintenance Covenant shall be
recorded with the plat.
0
CITY COUNCIL
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council APPROVES/DISAPPROVES/TABLES/
WITHDRAWS the request listed below.
WITNESS OUR HANDS this 11 day of Fehr,ar}, 19g6_
Mayor, Cidzy Counci
City of Georgetown
PROJECT 2nd and 0ollecre Street (Southwest Corner)
APPLICANT John oth
LOCATION Southwest corner of the intersection of 2nd Street with
REQUEST Determination of "leaat le)t,, ¢tat tha nrpna t
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Motion to declare both properties as legal lots undertheSubdivisionOrdinance.
t
8