HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 09.23.1986September 23, 1986
The City Council of the City of Georgetown met
in Regular Session Session on the above date at
6:00 PM with Mayor Jim Colbert presiding. The
following council members and officials were
present: Council Member Eb C. Girvin, Council
Member Joan King, Council Member Marvin E.
Lackey, Council Member Bill Connor, Council
Member William C. Shell, City Secretary Pat
Caballero, City Manager R. Bob Gaylor (note:
Gaylor present during executive session and
workshop only), Director of Public Works Allyn
Moore, and Development and Planning Director Ed
Barry.
EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER ART. 6252-17 SEC. 2 (E) LITIGATION
Mayor Colbert announced that the council would
meet in executive session under Art. 6252-17
Section 2 (e) Litigation. After the executive
session the meeting was again open to the
public.
WORKSHOP - PRIVATIZATION - ALLYN MOORE
The Council held a privatization workshop with
the engineering firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee.
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
CONSENT AGENDA Motion by King and second by Lackey to approve
the consent items listed below with the
exception of item 13 which was considered and
voted on separately.
1. MINUTES To approve the September 9, 1986 minutes as
submitted by the city secretary.
2. BILLS OVER $5000.00
To approve the following bills.
Bills:
Freese & Nichols, Inc. 8/29/86 statement $ 5715.38
McMaster & Bain Attorneys 9/3/86 statement 8035.98
Rond c -
Executone 8/23/86 statement $ 13751.36
9/24/86 regular council meeting page 1 of 10
Frees & Nichols, Inc. 6/11/86 statement 10822.00
3. ORDINANCE - 1986 TAX RATE - 2ND READING
TO adopt on second and final reading the
following captioned ordinance.
ORDINANCE NUMBER 86-42
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE USE AND
SUPPORT OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN AND PROVIDING FOR THE INTEREST AND
SINKING FUND FOR THE YEAR 1986 AND APPROPRIATING
EACH LEVY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE." (Ordinance
Volume Number 20)
4. ORDINANCE - 2 HOUR PARKING - 2ND READING
To adopt on second and final reading the
following captioned ordinance.
ORDINANCE NUMBER 86-43
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 86-17 DATED
APRIL 8, 1986; CHANGING THE PERIOD OF TIME,
WHICH A VEHICLE CAN BE LEGALLY PARKED IN ZONES
SO MARKED AND DESIGNATED AS ONE (1) HOUR ZONES,
TO TWO (2) HOUR ZONES AS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION
22-42 OF THE GEORGETOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES PRIOR
TO ITS AMENDMENT BY ORDINANCE NO. 86-17 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FACILITATING PARKING IN THE DOWNTOWN
AREA DURING THE DOWNTOWN AREA SIDEWALK
RENOVATION PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION
AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE" (Ordinance Volume
Number 22)
5. ORDINANCE - AIRPORT AND AIRCRAFT RULES - 2ND READING
To adopt on second and final reading the
following captioned ordinance.
ORDINANCE NUMBER 86-44
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 AIRPORTS AND
AIRCRAFT OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN CODE OF
ORDINANCES, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND
SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE" (Ordinance Volume
Number 4)
6. ORDINANCE - CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE - 2ND READING
To adopt on second and final reading the
following captioned ordinance.
ORDINANCE NUMBER 86-45
9/24/86 regular council meeting page 2 of 10
AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V, SECTION 23-81, ET.
SEQ. OF THE GEORGETOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES, ALSO
KNOWN AS THE CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES ORDINANCE
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN ON JANUARY 10, 1984, AS AMENDED ON
JANUARY 23, 1984; RAISING THE CAPITAL RECOVERY
FEES TO $2,000.00; RAISING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE
MULTIPLIER FORM TWENTY-FIVE (25) CENTS PER
SQUARE FOOT FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE TO FIFTY (50)
CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT; AND CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE." (Ordinance Volume Number
23)
7. AWARD GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL BID
To award the 1986/87 fiscal year fuel bid to
Tex -Con Oil, the lowest bidder, at the following
rates:
Regular Gasoline - $.5975/gallon
Unleaded Gasoline - $.5975
Diesel - $46.50/gallon.
Other companies bidding: Wall Smith Petroleum,
Tolson Oil Company, and Lackey & Clark Oil.)
8. AWARD POLE LINE HARDWARE BID
To award the 1986/87 pole line hardware bid by
allowing the staff to select the lowest bidder
on each pole line hardware item, and to select
next low bidder in the item is not available
from the low bidder from among the following
companies: Priester Mell, Temple Inc., Graybar
and Techline.
9. AWARD UTILITY POLE BID
To award the 1986/87 utility pole bid to
Cavenhan Forest Industries, the lowest bidder,
at the following rates:
30' utility pole with #8
35" utility pole with #8
40' utility pole with #8
45" utility pole with #8
50' utility pole with
creosote 65.89 each
creosote 87.87 each
creosote - 109.68 each
creosote 132.11 each
8 creosote - $158.03
each.
Other companies bidding: Temple Inc., Conroe
Cresosting, and Southway Electric.
10. AWARD THREE PHASE PADMOUNT TRANSFORMERS BID
To award the 1986/87 three phase padmount
transformers be awarded to RTE Corporation, the
lowest bidder at the following rates:
150 KVA padmount transformer - $3,489.00 each
9/24/86 regular council meeting page 3 of 10
225 KVA padmount transformer - $4,430.00 each
300 KVA padmount transformer - $4,920.00 each
500 KVA padmount transformer - $6,546.00 each
750 KVA padmount transformer - $8,387.00 each.
Other company bidding: Temple Inc.)
11. AWARD SINGLE PHASE TRANSFORMERS BID
To award the 19866/87 single phase transformer
bid to RTE Corporation, the lowest bidder, at
the following rates:
25 KVA pole type transformer - $608.90 each
37.5 KVA pole type transformer - $798.90 each
50 KVA pole type transformer - $966.75 each
75 KVA pole type transformer - $1,491.80 each
100 KVA pole type transformer - $1,762.45 each
167 KVA pole type transformer - $2,520.80 each
50 KVA padmount transformer - $1,245.70 each
75 KVA padmount transformer - $1,720.80 each
100 KVA padmount transformer - $1,938.45 each.
Other companies bidding: Priester Mell and
Southway Electric.)
12. SIDEWALK PROJECT DEDICATION CEREMONY REQUEST
To affirm that the Sidewalk Project dedication
ceremony scheduled for October 11, 1986 from
3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. is an Official Main
Street sponsored event thereby enabling the
City's liability insurance to be used in
securing a permit for the ceremony.
13. FOREST COURT (FORMERLY OLD TOWN PARK) - PRELIMINARY PLAT
Motion by Lackey and second by Shell to approve
Forest Court preliminary plat subject to the
following: 1) All ordinance requirements being
met. 2) Utilities being adequate, a) The
Utility Concept Plan shall depict the electrical
layout of the site. b) Written verification
from GMA that the expected peak flow from Forest
Court does not have a significant impact on the
immediate downstream collection system. c)
Applicant participation in improvements on
downstream of Forest Court, being
determined prior to final plat approval and
documented on the Utility Layout Plan. d)
Applicant shall install a manhole at the
intersection of the three 6 -inch sewer lines
near the Forest and Short Street intersection.
3) The building line along the Forest Street ROW
shall be 25 -feet, and the corner lots shall be
adjusted to meet ordinance requirements. 4)
Requested stormwater variance shall be granted
9/24/86 regular council meeting page 4 of 10
only after the submittal of sufficient
information indicating no adverse impact on the
existing system. 5) The following variances are
hereby granted: a) Elimination of the 10 -foot
rear PUE s for Lots 2-8, subject to confirmation
that said PUE's are not needed to serve this or
adjacent development. b) Excessive depth to
width rations for Lots 3-6. 6) No driveway cuts
to Forest Street. 7) Buffering shall be provided
between existing occupied lots and proposed
lots. 8) Subject to planning staff verification
Of ROW through the area. Motion carried by
unanimous vote.
14. G.B.F. SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT
To approve G.B.F Subdivision Preliminary Plat
subject to the following: 1) All ordinance
requirements shall be met. 2) The exact
location of Airport Clear Zone shall be shown on
the plat and verified by the Public Works
Division prior to submittal of the final plat.
3) A Detailed Development Plan shall be
submitted with the final plat in conformance
with Section 6.04" of the Subdivision Ordinance.
C) 5 4) A drainage
fpdah
shall be submitted with the
naTpl-a y ricient to evaluate the impact of
any increase in stormwater runoff on both this
and adjacent properties. 5) A Drainage
Facilities Maintenance Covenant shall be
recorded with the plat. 6) A note restricting
access to one approach on each of the adjacent
streets shall be added to the final plat. 7)
Utilities shall be adequate, a) The Water
Availability Note shall apply. b) Water system
improvements required to provide adequate fire
protection shall be identified by the city
consulting engineers and applicants
participation determined by the Public Works
Division prior to final plat approval.
REGULAR AGENDA
15. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - MAYOR COLBERT
Mayor Colbert recommended the following
committee appointments:
Board of Electrical Examiners
Phillips S. Baker (Three year term, expires March 31, 1989.)
Ronald L. Chappell (Three year term, expires March 31, 1989.)
9/24/86 regular council meeting page 5 of 10
Historic Preservation Committee
Fred Ford (Three year term, expires December 31, 1989.)
Tourism Task Force
Robert Gaylor, City Manager
Larry Bingham (Representing the Chamber of Commerce)
Sharon McCarty (Representing the Downtown Georgetown Association)
Eugenia M. Harrell (Representing the Heritage Society)
Rick Eason --(-Representing the Cabinet of Southwestern University)
Sandy langford'r McKinnon (Representing the citizenry)
Motion by King and second by Shell to approve
L the recommended committee appointments and the
confirm the appointments. Motion carried by
unanimous vote.
16. CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT/GEORGETOWN HERITAGE SOCIETY
CONTRACT - JACK GREGOIRE
Motion by King and second by Shell to: 1) Amend
the Certified Local Government Program to
include a $4,000.00 contribution from the
X Georgetown Heritage Society for the Printing of
V a Renovation/Design Manual. 2) Authorize the
mayor to sign an agreement with the Georgetown
Heritage Society concerning the
Renovation/Design Manual. Motion carried by
unanimous vote.
17. AWARD LEASE SPACE BID - ED BARRY
Motion by Connor and second by King to award the
Lease Space Bid to house Planning And
Development and Public Works to the low bidder,
Thousand Oaks, for $0.75 per square foot.
Voting went as follows; yes: Girvin, King and
Connor; no: Lackey and Shell. Motion carried.
18. AUTOMOBILE PURCHASING DISCUSSION - TERRY JONES
Purchasing Agent Terry Jones asked the council
if the city should pursue an agreement with the
State of Texas for the purchase of automobiles.
Motion by Connor and second by Lackey to table
this item until Jones can determine if local
dealerships would be prevented from bidding
under the terms of this agreement. Motion
carried by unanimous vote.
19. VARIANCE - ENCROACHMENT INTO STREET R.O.W. - WILLIAMSON
COUNTY JAIL - RANDALL GAITHER
The council considered a request from Williamson
County Commissioners Court to allow to remain a
chin -link, security fence which surrounds the
9/24/86 regular council meeting page 6 of 10
Minimum Security Addition to the County Jail
site and which was constructed some S to 6 feet
into the right-of-way of 4th Street between
Austin Avenue and Main Street. Motion by Connor
and second by Lackey to table this item until
the county passes a resolution stating that they
assume full liability for the fence in its
present location. Motion carried by unanimous
vote.
20. VARIANCE 1907 S. MAIN STREET, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK - RANDALL
GAITHER
The council considered a request from Bill
Dozier for a Variance from Section 2.0203(b),
Side and Rear Yard Regulations, to allow
construction of a storage shed roof some 4 feet
j within the required rear and side yard of the
residence located at 1097 Main Street. Motion by
Connor and second by Girvin to grant the
variance. Voting went as follows: yes: Girvin,
King, Connor and Shell; abstain: Lackey. Motion
carried.
21. ORDINANCE - AMENDING SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR REVIEWS - 1ST
READING - RANDALL GAITHER
Motion by Lackey and second by Connor to
acknowledge the first reading of the following
captioned ordinance. Motion carried by
unanimous vote.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 82-30
PASSED AND APPROVED ON THE 9THE DAY OF NOVEMBER,
1982 WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES FOR THE PLANNING
AND ENGINEERING REVIEW OF PLATS, PLANS ZONING,
SPECIAL PERMITS, ANNEXATIONS, MAPPING AND
DISTRIBUTION OF AERIAL MAPS BY AMENDING ARTICLE
I SECTION 2 "REZONING AND RELATED LAND USES" TO
ADD THE R-0 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT"
22. PLEASANT VALLEY - REINSTATEMENT OF FINAL PLAT - RANDALL
GAITHER
Motion by Lackey and second by Shell to approve
the reinstatement of Pleasant Valley Final Plat
subject to the following: 1) All conditions of
approval established with the original Final
Plat approval shall be met. 2) This
reinstatement shall expire December 11, 1986.
Failure to record the plat by this date will,
require that the Final Plat be resubmited asj'an
9/24/86 regular council meeting page 7 of 10
new Final Plat, subject to all application
CI feed. 3) New signatures shall be required for
cit approvals of the reinstated plat. 4) Prior
t recordation of -the lat the Public works
Division and the UC* consulting engineers
shall verify that the dr nage plans comply with
the city Drainage Ordnance. Voting went as
follows: yes: Girvin, Lackey, Connor and Shell;
no: King. Motion carried.
23. ORDINANCE - REZONING 101 TALLWOOD FROM RM1 TO RM3 - RANDALL
GAITHER
The council considered an application form Nancy
Reavis for approval of rezoning from RM -1, Multi
family, to RM -3 Office and Service Use for Lot
1, Block G, of San Gabriel Heights, Section 5
101 Tallwood). Motion by Shell and second by
Connor to approve rezoning. Voting went as
follows: yes: Connor and Shell; no: King, Giry}}n
and Lackey. Motion failed" ji.t5 kaCVLNA 15 cbictrxw,
24. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN - JOHN WARDEN
Motion by King and second by Girvin to adopt the
Historic Preservation Committees recommendation
to accept the Historic Preservation Plan in
compliance with the Certified Local Government
grant agreement with the understanding that the
regulatory elements contained in such plan are
not hereby effective. Such regulatory elements
may be adopted only by future council action.
Voting went as follows: yes: Girvin, King,
Lackey and Shell; abstain: Connor. Motion
carried.
25. WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL PARK - CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE CREDITS
FUNDING - ED BARRY
Motion by Connor and second by Girvin to refund
to Twin Creek Properties $20,830.50 for Capital
Recovery Fees Credits associated with the
construction of a 20 inch water main located
within Williams Commercial Park with the proviso
that a cash refund is made due to the fact that
the development is not large enough in size to
generate Capital Recovery Fees sufficient to
cover these credits and that this is not meant
to establish a precedent for the refund of
Capital Recovery Fees in the future. Motion
carried by unanimous vote.
26. MAPPING SERVICES AGREEMENT - ED BARRY
Motion by Connor and second by Lackey to
9/24/86 regular council meeting page 8 of 10
authorize the mayor to enter into a mapping
services agreement with Camp, Dresser and McKee,
Inc. for the preparation of Base Maps for the
City of Georgetown subject to the following: 1)
That any and all computer data generated as a
result of this agreement shall become the
property of the City of Georgetown and that the
city shall have the right to view the
information without cost. 2) The agreement
shall be approved by the city attorney. Motion
carried by unanimous vote.
27. SAN JOSE PROJECT FINAL ACCEPTANCE - RAY GREEN
No action taken on this matter.
28. CHANGE ORDER POLICY - LAKE GEORGETOWN WATER TREATMENT PLANT -
ALLYN MOORE
Motion by Connor and second by Shell to: 1)
Approve change order number 1 to the Lake
Georgetown Water Treatment Plant for
modifications to the plant entrance for a cost
of $2,744. 2) Authorize the staff to approve
change orders to the Lake Georgetown Water Plant
not to exceed $S,OOOs Motion carried by
unanimous vote.
29. FREESE & NICBOLS WATER CONTRACT AMENDMENT #2 - ALLYN MOORE
Motion by Lackey and second by Shell to
authorize the mayor to sign an amendment the
Freese & Nichols Water Contract subject to the
approval of the agreement by the city attorney.
Motion carried by unanimous vote.
30. AWARD SAN GABRIEL PARK WATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT
PRESELECTION BIDS - ALLYN MOORE
Motion by Connor and second by Shell to award
the San Gabriel Park Water Treatment Plant
Equipment Preselections Bids as follows. Motion
carried by unanimous vote.
Sequoia Spur Booster Pump Station, Vertical
Turbine Pumping Units - Peabody Floway for
35,937.00
San Gabriel Park Water Treatment Plant, Lime
Feed Equipment - Portec Kolberg for $155,065.00
San Gabriel Park Water Treatment Plant, Vertical
Turbine Pumping Units - Peabody Floway for
100,160. with a concurrently signed change
order in the amount of $9,733. for deletion of
plant water pumps.
San Gabriel Park Water Treatment Plant,
Clarification Equipment - Walker Process for
9/24/86 regular council meeting page 9 of 10
627,000. with the provision that a letter
rescinding the restrictions is included in the
contract documents.
31. FREESE & NICHOLS SHORT TERM GOALS - ALLYN MOORE
Motion by Lackey and second by King to authorize
the mayor to sign a letter agreement with Freese
and Nichols to perform an evaluation of water
distribution system short term goals subject to
the approval of the agreement by the city
attorney. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
32. AWARD NORTHFORK INTERCEPTOR BID - ALLYN MOORE
Motion by Connor and second by Shell to award
the North Fork Interceptor Bid (4687 feet of
21 -inch sewer main manholes and appurtenances,
and 3300 feet of 16 inch water mains, with
fittings) to Parker & Rogers Construction
Company, Inc., the low bidder, for $396,761.
Motion carried by unanimous vote. (Note: Other
companies bidding: Garney Co., Jack Flaghan,
Holt and Sons, Conex, Sabine Consolidated and
Underground Utilities.)
ADJOURN Motion by Connor and second by Lackey to
adjourn. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
TIME 10:10 PM
Mayor Jim Colbert
Pat Caballero, City Secretary
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
I , being the current City Secretary of the
City of Georgetown do hereby certify that the above meeting of
the City Council of the City of Georgetown convened in a meeting
open to the public and notice of said meeting, giving the date,
place, and subject thereof, having been posted as prescribed by
Article 6252-17, Section 3A, VATCS, and that the above minutes
9/24/86 regular council meeting page 10 of 10
are the true and correct minutes of said meeting.
Dated this day of 19
City Seal)
City Secretary
9/24/86 regular council meeting page 11 of 10
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: John Warden, Planning Department
Date: September 2, 1986
Subject: Historic Preservation Plan
The draft Historic Preservation Plan will be introduced to the
Council on September 9 with a summary presentation by the staff.
The Executive Summary of the plan is attached.]
The Planning and Zoning Commission is expected to have given its
conceptual approval of the plan on September 2, with a
recommendation that the Historic Preservation Committee hold a
public hearing on the complete plan in its regular meeting on
September 15. The Plan will then be brought back to Council for
final approval on September 23, in compliance with the City's
Certified Local Government grant agreement.
Action requested of Council is to refer the Historic Preservation
Plan to the Historic Preservation Committee for public hearing
and recommendation back to Council.
MEM''OR A////N D////UM
To: Mayor and City Counci
From: Edward J. Barry, AICP rector
Division of Development nd Planning
Allyn Moore P.E. - Director
Division of Public Works
Date: September 2, 1986
Subject: Lease Space bids for Division Operations
On Friday August 22, 1986 the City opened bids on lease space to
house all of the Development and Planning Division's operations
as well as the administrative functions of Public Works.
Specifications for the space required among other things:
1. A minimum area of 4200 square feet
2. All space at ground level and under one roof
3. Designated parking for at least 36 vehicles
4. A one-year renewable lease
These requirements are mandated by the fact that at least twenty
eight (28) city staff members will be assigned to this area. The
floor area requirements will permit space utilization comparable
to current levels. At present, the operations to be placed in
this lease space have a total of twenty-two (22) employees in
roughly 3700 square feet of area. A minimum of thirty five (35)
vehicles - 26 employee and 9 city vehicles - will need to be
accommodated by the new site. Ground floor level was desirable
to comply with federal regulations that require public buildings
to be easily accessible to the handicapped. The contiguous and
under one roof provision was stipulated in order to improve
operations and productivity. It is felt that these are the
minimum requirements necessary to meet the needs of the
Divisions' operations.
Three (3) separate bids were received in response to our request,
all of which address our requirements in varying levels of
completeness. Attached is a comparison of the bids received.
The individual responses are listed in relation to the twenty
20) specific requirements enumerated in our bid specifications.
Included, also is a list of the bid specification. The three
sites are located in different parts of the city. The Weir
Building is on South Austin Avenue just north of Steger and
Bizzell's offices. Thousand (1000) Oaks is off Leander Rd. just
south of San Gabriel Estates and 505 W. University is just east
of the existing HEB store.
After evaluating the bids and checking each site, it is our
opinion that the Thousand Oaks location provides the best bid.
It has the lowest per square foot cost and could most easily
accommodate our operations. Its bid was for 4400 square feet of
office space, however, the drawbacks to this site are the 30-45
day delay for finish -out, its location on Leander Road and the
uncertainty of lease costs in subsequent years. Nevertheless,
with all factors considered we would recommend the Council's
approval of the Thousand Oaks bid. Upon approval of the bid a
lease contract would be executed. The City Attorney will review
and approve this document.
Please review this material and let us know if you have any
questions.
LEASE SPACE BIDS - AUG. 22, 1986
1 12 MONTH LEASE YES YES YES
2 MINIMUM 4200 SQ. FT. YES(?) YES(4400 SQ. FT.) YES
3 CENTRAL HEAT 84 AIR YES YES YES/FIN.OUT
4 UTILITIES PAID BY CITY YES YES NO
5 JANITORIAL PAID BY CITY YES YES NO
6 MIN. 36 OFF- STREET PARKING SPACES 21+15 IN 30 DAYS YES YES
7 SURFACED/DESIGNATED PARKING LOT YES YES YES
S WINDOW TREATMENTS YES YES YES/FIN.OUT
9 CARPETING YES YES YES/FIN.OUT
10 PAINTED WALLS YES YES YES/FIN.OUT
it SOUND -PROOFING YES YES YES/FIN.OUT
12 UNDER ONE ROOF YES YES YES
13 ON GROUND FLOOR/ HANDICAP ACCESS. YES YES YES
14 MIN. 10 OFFICES YES YES YES
15 19 STAFF OCCUPANCY YES YES YES
16 BID GOOD FOR 30 DAYS YES YES YES
17 OCCUPANCY ON SIGNING LEASE YES NO/30-45 DAYS YES/C.O. ISSUED
18 RENOVATIONS NEGOTIATED AFTER BID YES/5 DAY PAY YES N/A
19 25 VISITS DAILY YES YES YES
20 ANNUAL RENEWAL OPTIONS YES YES YES
kd:l"ViQ0I6i-'li
ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONS
0.90/SQ. FT.
USABLE AREA IS
4085 SQ. FT.
2nd YR. $1.00/SQ.FT.
3rd YR. $i.07/SQ.FT.
0.75/SQ. FT.
ABLE TO ACQUIRE
LARGER AREA
ABILITY TO DESIGN
SPACE TO OUR NEEDS
0.6B/SQ. FT.
1 MO. FREE RENT
0.8067/SQ.FT.)
ABLE TO ACQUIRE
LARGER AREA
ABILITY TO DESIGN
SPACE TO OUR NEEDS
0.73/SQ. FT. IF
UTILITY/JANITOR
COSTS DEDUCTED
PER PHONECALL 6/25)
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION To Mall In Window Envelope Fold at Guide Marks.
512-80-9121
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
wrox-.11111MQ1111
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78627
Equal Employment Opportunity"
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION
BID OPENING DATE
1M 10 a.m. Aug. 22, 1986
THIS IS NOT AN ORDER
DATE DIEUVERr REOUIRED QUOTATION NO. CONTACT PERSON
Terry Jones
PHONE EXT. DATE QUOTATION MAILED
August 11, 1986
VENDOR SUMMARY OF QUOTATIONS
Thousand Oaks
4100 Churchill Downs
Austin, Texas 78746
ITEM QUANTITY VEND NO. t VFND011 N0.2 VENDOR NQ e
beginning 9-1-86 thru 8-31-87. The following specifications
must be met or exceeded for the bid to be considered.
Specifications:
Tom Pilgrim
706 Rock Street
Georgetown, Texas 78627
1. Term of the lease will be 12 months (from 9-1-86
thru 8-31-87).
2. Must have a minimum of 4200 sq. ft.
3. Central air condtioning/heat will be required.
Management Systems, Inc.
1717 N. IH -35 Suite 120
Round Rock, Texas 78664
4. All utilities will be furnished by the lessee.
5. Janitorial services will be furnished by the lessee.
DELIVERY
6. A minimum of 36 free, off-street parking spaces
t. TERMS 2. F.O.S. City of Georgetown
unless otherwise noted.
J. SHIPMENT VIA 4. SHIPPING WEIGHT S. DATE SHIPMENT CAN BE MADE
PLEASE QUOTE ON THIS FORM. YOUR BEST PRICE. TERMS. AND DELIVERY. ON THE ARTICLES DESCRIBED BELOW. VENDOR MUST FILL IN COLUMNS t THROUGH 7 TO RECEIVE
WSIDERATION. SIGN YOUR FIRM NAME AND OFFICIAL SIGNATURE AND MAIL COMPLETED FORM BACK TO BUYER.
F Ml 1 fINJSIOFR SII0.STITIITF OFFERS IF DIFFERENCES M SPECIFICATIONS ARE EXPLAINED.
ITEM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION 6. UNIT PRICE 7. AMOUNT
The City of Georgetown is interested in leasing office
space for the Planning and Zoning Division -for a period
beginning 9-1-86 thru 8-31-87. The following specifications
must be met or exceeded for the bid to be considered.
Specifications:
1. Term of the lease will be 12 months (from 9-1-86
thru 8-31-87).
2. Must have a minimum of 4200 sq. ft.
3. Central air condtioning/heat will be required.
4. All utilities will be furnished by the lessee.
5. Janitorial services will be furnished by the lessee.
6. A minimum of 36 free, off-street parking spaces
will be required.
7. Parking area to be a permanent, sealed surfaced lot
in close proximity to office, with individual spaces
marked and lot designated for lessee's sole use.
8. Any exterior windows to have a method for sun glare
protection (i.e. drapery, blinds, etc.) and be clean
and in satisfactory working condition.
9. Lessor should provide a good commercial grade carpet
in new or like -new condition in all office areas
except storage rooms.
INUM MUST m VENDOR K) NUMBER (ENTER IN THE KOCK PILOVIDBD IF Nor SHOWNJ
FAILURE TO MANUALLY SIGN BID WILL DISQUALIFY IT.
SIGN BY OFFICIAL TITLE PHONE NUMBER
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION To Mall In Window Envelope Fold at Guide Marks.
512-863-9121
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
P.O. BOX 409
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78627
Equal Employment Opportunity"
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION
BID OPENING DATE
3:00 PM
THIS IS NOT AN ORDER
DATE DELIVERY REOUIREO QUOTATION NO. CONTACT PERSON PHONE EXT. DATE QUOTATION MAILED
VENDOR SUMMARY OF OUOTATIONS
10. All interior walls to be painted textured sheetrock,
ITEM QUANTITY VENDOR NQ 1 YENUOA No. t VEND011 No. 3
to be freshly painted and spot painted as needed.
11. Interior walls to be such as to enable a normal
conversation not being overheard in adjoining
offices or areas.
12. Lease space must be internally contigious and all
under one roof.
13. All space must be at ground floor level and handi-
cap accessible.
14. A minimum of ten (10) individual offices will be
DELIVERY
required.
1. TERMS 2, F.O.B. City of Georgetown
unless Olhemise noted.
3. SHIPMENT VIA A. SHIPPING WEIGHT S. DATE SHIPMENT CAN BE MADE
PLEASE QUOTE ON THIS FORM. YOUR BEST PRICE. TERMS. ANU UEuvLHC UN mE AHInlLEi ULx.nIoMU MCL rv. VCNU MwF rIu n. —UM110 I ............. ., ......
NSIDERATION. SIGN YOUR FIRM NAME AND OFFICIAL SIGNATURE AND MAIL COMPLETED FORM BACK TO BUYER.
ITEM OUANTITY DESCRIPTION 6. UNIT PRICE 7. AMOUNT
10. All interior walls to be painted textured sheetrock,
wood paneled or equal. Sheetrock walls and trim
to be freshly painted and spot painted as needed.
11. Interior walls to be such as to enable a normal
conversation not being overheard in adjoining
offices or areas.
12. Lease space must be internally contigious and all
under one roof.
13. All space must be at ground floor level and handi-
cap accessible.
14. A minimum of ten (10) individual offices will be
required.
15. Nineteen employees will occupy the above lease
space.
16. Bids should be good for 30 days after opening.
17. Occupancy upon execution of lease.
18. Any renovations required will be negotiated after
successful bidder is selected.
19. An average of 25 general public visits pet day
will be made to this location.
20. Option clause: Annual options
Upon proper notice of intention to exercise this
option, and by mutual agreement between lessee and
BID$ MUST GIVE VENDOR m NUMBER (ENTER IN THE BLACK PROVIDED IF Nor BHOWNJ
FAILURE TO MANUALLY SIGN BID WILL DISQUALIFY IT.
SIGN BY OFFICIAL TITLE PHONE NUMBER
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION To Mail ID Window Envelope Fold at Guide M&AE
512-863-9121
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78627
Equal Employment Opportunity"
I REQUEST FOR QUOTATION
THIS IS NOT AN ORDER
DATE DELIVERY REWIRED OUOTATION NO. CONTACT PERSON PHONE EXT. DATE QUOTATION MAILED
VENDOR SUMMARY OF QUOTATIONS
lessor at that time, this lease may be renewed for
ITEM QUANTITY VEND011 NO. I YENDOII NQ 2 YENDOII ND. e
conditions. Lessee shall give lessor notice of
intention to exercise this option at least 30 days
prior to expiration of this lease.
Bidders should include a copy of the lease agreement for
review by the City Staff. Office space to be considered
must be in the Georgetown vicinity.
DELIVERY
1. TERMS 2. F.O.B. City of Georgetown
unless otherwise noted.
D. SHIPMENT VIA C SHIPPING WEIGHT 5. DATE SHIPMENT CAN BE MADE
PLEASE QUOTE ON THIS FORM. YOtIH NISI PHIL[, ItHMJ. ANU l LnfeNl. Irl In[ nNI A.LCJ lea. '.. .1.vcnlln -.1 1.1 In
NSIDERATION. SIGN FOUR FIRM NAME AND OFFICIAL SIGNATURE AND MAL COMPLETED FORM BACK TO BUYER.
G Mnl l rY ofnFC V` uzMnn ITF I EVPIF MFFFRFN .FS IN SPFCIFIGTN)NS ARE EXPLAINED_
ITEM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION S. UNIT PRICE T. AMOUNT
lessor at that time, this lease may be renewed for
a period up to 12 months under the same terms and
conditions. Lessee shall give lessor notice of
intention to exercise this option at least 30 days
prior to expiration of this lease.
Bidders should include a copy of the lease agreement for
review by the City Staff. Office space to be considered
must be in the Georgetown vicinity.
NDB MUST GIVE VENDOR 10 NUMBER (ENTER IN THE BLOCK PROVIDED IF NOT SHOWN)
FAILURE TO MANUALLY SIGN BID WILL DISQUALIFY IT.
SIGN BY OFFICIAL TITLE PHONE NUMBER
PLEASANT VALLEY - VARIANCE - REINSTATEMENT OF FINAL PLAT
PROJECT #00029
Location Map 1"= 2000'
Owner/Applicant: Kenneth McCalla, Jr., Managing Venturer
3933 Streck Avenue
Austin, Texas 78759
Agent: Steger and Bizzell
P.O. Box 858
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Request: Approval for reinstatement of the Final Plat
for the Pleasant Valley subdivision, a 29.62
acre subdivision approved by City Council on
June 11, 1985, but not recorded with the
County Clerk of Williamson County six months
following Council approval.
Facts•
Location: West of F.M. 1640, approximately one-half
mile south of Georgetown Railroad. Is within
the ETJ and the Edwards Aquifer Recharge
Zone.
AEASANT VALLEY—RFiIISTATEMENT 2
Surrounding Uses: Primarily undeveloped rural property to the
west, with large lot single—family
residential to the immediate north, east, and
south.
Existing Use: Streets, utilities, and drainage improvements
are substantially complete.
Proposed Use: An average lot single—family residential
development, with a density of 2.94
residential units per acre.
Development Plan: District 8b. The proposed use of normal
single—family residential substantially
conforms to the plan.
History: On May 7, 1985, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved the Final Plat request of
Pleasant Valley, as did the City Council on
June 11,1985, each with the following
conditions of approval:
1. Plat meeting all ordinance requirements,
2. Drainage requirements being met and
approved by the City Engineer,
3. Utilities being adequate,
4. Provision of adequate water storage if
required by the City Engineer to balance
the pressure plane during peak flows,
5. Off—site improvement of the Smith Branch
Interceptor to accommodate peak flows of
wastewater discharge from this
subdivision to the already surcharged
condition of the above mentioned
facility,
6. The street named Cactus Valley Lane be
changed,
7. Variances granted at the preliminary
stage are still applicable,
8. Variance requested to allow the angle'of
intersection of Cactus Valley Lane to
exceed five degrees from perpendicular
shall be granted.
By Section 4.04(15) of the Subdivision
Ordinance, the applicant had six months
following the June 11, 1985, City Council
approval of the Final Plat for Pleasant
Valley to file the approved final plat with
the County Clerk of Williamson County. The
December 11, 1985, deadline for such approval
was not met by the applicant, as ordinance
requirements and conditions of approval were
not yet completed. The Texas Water
PLW ANT VALLEY -REINSTATEMENT 3
Commission was only able to approve the
Subdivision Sanitary Sewage Collection System
on June 9, 1986. In light of these problems
that delayed the filing of the final plat
before December 11, 1985, the applicant now
requests a final plat time extension for
final filing to reinstate the final plat.
Analysis: The case folder for this Final Plat documents
that the applicant made a good faith effort
to complete ordinance requirements Council
conditions of approval. The staff has no
objection to the reinstatement of the final
plat. However, those conditions previously
established with the approval by the City
Council should still be applicable for final
plat filing. Additionally, there should be
established a reasonable limit to this
reinstatement. A time limit set at December
11, 1986, should give the applicant
sufficient time to record this plat, while
corresponding to the maximum allowable
extension under Section 4.04(15) of the
Subdivision Ordinance had the extension
request been submitted prior to the
expiration date of the plat.
All of the required City signatures of
approval were obtained prior to the
expiration date of the plat. However,
because the approval of this plat has
technically expired, new signatures should be
required to authenticate this reinstatement.
This item was referred to the City Attorney
on August 21, 1986. As of September 2, 1986
no response has been received.
Staff Recommendation: (August 26, 1986)
Approval of the reinstatement of the Pleasant
Valley subdivision subject to the following
conditions:
1. All conditions of approval established
with the original Final Plat approval
shall be met,
2. This reinstatement shall expire December
11, 1986. Failure to record the plat by
this date will require that the Final
Plat be resubmitted as a new Final Plat,
subject to all application fees,
3. New signatures shall be required for City
approvals of the reinstated plat.
PI EASANT VALLEY—REINSTATEMENT 4
Cl
City Council Action: (September a, 1986)
Tabled untiel September 16, 1986 meeting.
NOTE: Mayor Colbert appointed Council members Connor and
Shell to a study committee to examine this request and be prepared to sagas
report their findings at the September 16, 1986 special Council
meeting.
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City CouncilFrom: Edward J. Barry, AICP ector
Division of Development nd Planning
Date: September 2, 1986
Subject: Amendment to Capital Recovery Fee Ordinance
Attached are copies of recommended amendments to the Capital
Recovery Fee (CRF) Ordinance. These changes have been proposed
by staff as an interim step in addressing the need for refining
our entire Capital Recovery Fee system. The City Attorney has
prepared and approved these ordinance revisions. Four major
areas of the existing ordinance would be changed by adoption of
the ordinance. They are:
1. Section 1 raises the level of Capital Recovery Fees for
Wastewater from $500.00 to $1000.00 thus increasing the
combined CRF for both water and wastewater from $1500.00
to $2000.00.
2. Section 2 revises the square frontage multiplier for
residential uses for wastewater service from $0.25 per
square foot to $0.50 per square foot so that it is
consistent with the changes proposed in Section 1 above.
3. Section 3 proposes to grant the City Council the
authority to extend the use of CRF Credits beyond the
five (5) year limit when the City Council determines it
is prudent and wise to do so.
4. Section 4 would permit the City Council to apply any and
all of a project's CRF towards credits due regardless of
the type of utility improvements made when the City
Council determines it is prudent and wise to do so.
These are the same changes that were included with my Memo
of August 19, 1986 concerning the Tri -Tract CRF Credits Agreement
which was distributed to you a few weeks ago.
Please review these changes and let us know if you have any
questions.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V, SECTIONS 23-81, ET. SEQ. OF THE GEORGETOWN
CODE OF ORDINANCES, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES ORDINANCE
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN ON JANUARY 10,
1984, AS AMENDED ON JANUARY 23, 1984; RAISING THE CAPITAL RECOVERY
FEES TO $2,000.00; RAISING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE MULTIPLIER FROM
TWENTY-FIVE (25) CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE TO FIFTY
50) CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT; ALLOWING EXTENSION OF TIME FROM THE FIVE
5) YEAR TIME LIMITATION FOR USE OF CREDIT, UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN TO
THE CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER PROVISIONS THEREIN CONTAINED, AND
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown has passed an ordinance
providing for capital recovery fees (C. R. F.) for water and wastewater service
on or about January 10, 1984; ("Original C. R. F. Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has amended that original C. R. F. ordinance on
or about January 23, 1984; ("Amended C. R. F. Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, due to the influx of development in this area requiring
substantial monetary commitments by the City to expand the City water and waste-
water system, the City Council of the City of Georgetown deems it in the best
interest of the City to raise the Capital recovery fees from FIFTEEN HUNDRED
1,500.00) DOLLARS to TWO THOUSAND ($2,000.00) DOLLARS, and the square footage
requirements from TWENTY-FIVE (25) CENTS per square foot to FIFTY (50) CENTS per
square foot for wastewater services;
WHEREAS, the Original and Amended C. R. F. Ordinances are incorporated
under Article V, Sections 23-81, et. seq. of the Georgetown Code of Ordinances
Code").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of
Georgetown, Texas:
Section I: That Section 23-81 of the Code, also known as Section I of the
Original C. R. F. Ordinance be amended, so that the capital recovery fee of
500.00 for wastewater per living unit equivalent be changed to $1,000.00 for
wastewater per living unit, so that the total capital recovery fee for water and
wastewater per living unit equivalent is $2,000.00.
Section II: That Section 23-82, Paragraph 1, of the Code, also known as
Section II, Paragraph 1 of the Original C. R. F. Ordinance be amended so that
the square footage will be multiplied by $0.50 for wastewater service instead of
0.25 as stated therein.
Section III: That Section 23-88(2) of the Code, also known as Section II
of the Amended C. R. F. Ordinance be deleted and replaced with the following:
To qualify for a Capital Recovery Fees credit, the Applicant shall
first, prior to any construction, file a written application
containing such information as the City Council shall direct. Such
application shall br considered by the City Council for approval or
disapproval. No credit shall be allowed after FIVE (5) years from the
date of the application. Provided, however, that in those instances
where a development project is of a size, scope and magnitude that the
five year limitation would impose undue hardship on the developer, the
City Council, upon finding of good and just cause after hearing, may
determine it to be in the best interest of the City to extend the
period of time during which credits may be used by the Applicant
beyond the five year limit set forth above for a reasonable length of
time that may be determined by the Council to be just and equitable.
The responsibility for requesting such credit and/or extension shall
be solely that of the Applicant and not of City."
Section IV: That Section 23-88(4) of the Code, also known as Section IV of
the Amended C. R. F. Ordinance shall be deleted, and replaced with the
following:
4) No Capital Recovery Fees credit shall be allowed except relative
to the particular utility that has been installed by Applicant. If
the construction qualifying as application for credit was on a water
line then credit shall be limited to Capital Recovery Fees for water
distribution line service. If the qualifying construction was on a
sewer line then the only credit that can be allowed because of such
construction shall be on Capital Recovery Fees for sewer collection
line service. Provided, however, that upon hearing and a finding of
good cause by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, said
City Council may determine that it is in the best interest of the City
of Georgetown to allow credits against any or all portions of a
development project's capital recovery fees, including water and
wastewater fees; and said City Council may, at its discretion, allow
said credits against capital recovery fees. Said City Council shall
have sole discretion in determining whether good cause exists; and in
making such determinations, said City Council shall consider whether a
development project is of such a size, scope and magnitude that
enforcing the limitation of credits as hereinbefore set forth would
create undue hardship on the Applicant of said development project.
Section V: If any provision, section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, or the application of the same to any person or set of circumstances
is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, void, or invalid (or for any
reason unenforceable), the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance
or this application to other persons or set of circumstances shall not be
affected thereby, it being the intent of the City Council of the City of
Georgetown in adopting this Ordinance that no portion hereof or provision or
regulation contained herein shall become inoperative or fail by reason of any
unconstitutionality or invalidity or unenforceability of any other portion,
provision or regulation.
Read, passed and adopted. this day of , 1986.
Read, passed and adopted this
second reading.
ATTEST:
PAT CABALLERO
City Secretary
Approved as to form:
STUMP & STUMP, City Attorney
BY:
RANDY STUMP
day of
JIM COLBERT, Mayor
City of Georgetown
1986, on the
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council0From: Edward J. Barry, AIC Pirector
Division of Development nd Planning
Date: September 2, 1986
Subject: Easement Request by Grace Episcopal Church
The Reverend Mark T. Crawford, Vicar of Grace Episcopal Chureh
located at 1316 E. University Ave. has requested the City to
grant the Church an access easement across our property on which
is located the James St. Water Tower. It is the Church's desire
to use this easement for ingress and egress to a parking lot
behind their sanctuary. Enclosed is a copy of Reverend
Crawford's request along with an appraisal of the value of this
easement in the amount of $260.00. City staff has reviewed and
analyzed this request and find no significant problems in
granting the easement. See attached letter from Allyn Moore to
Attorney Dale Illig dated July 16, 1986. Also, the City Attorney
has reviewed this matter and discussed it with Dale Illig, the
Attorney representing the Church. City Attorney Stump has not
indicated any problem with this request.
6rarr TE'vi,irn,va1 T4urr4
1316 East University Avenue (512) 863-2068
P. 0. Box 246
GEORGETOWN. TEXAS 78626
August 18, 1986
Mr. Bob Gaylor
City Manager
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, TR 78627
Dear Mr. Gaylor:
Please find the enclosed appraisal of a 30 foot wide joint use easement
across the northernmost portion of the approximate 0.47 acre site
owned by the City of Georgetown. We believe the amount of $260.00 is a
fair market value of the easement and request that the city accept
this offer.
We would appreciate it if you were to bring this offer for approval by
the City Council. If you need additional information please contact me.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Mark T. Crawford
Vicar
MTC:ks
Encl.
Terramark
REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS
105 River Wood
Georgetown, Texas 78628-8342
August 13, 1986
Mark Crawford
Vicar
Grace Episcopal Church
1316 East University Ave.
PO Box 246
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0246
RE: Proposed 30' wide ingress -egress easement (approximately 0.12
acres) along the north side of the City of Georgetown's Water
Tank Lot for Grace Episcopal Church's access to James and 13th
Streets.
Client: Grace Episcopal Church
Dear Father Crawford:
Pursuant to your request, we have inspected and appraised the above
referenced property for the purpose of estimating the encumbered fee
of a 30' wide joint use easement (entailing approximately 0.12 acres
of surface area) across the northernmost portion of the approximate
0.47 acre site owned by the City of Georgetown and presently utilized
with an above ground water storage tank and corresponding well. This
preliminary letter is intended to convey our conclusions. After our
research and analysis of relative information reflecting upon the val-
ue of said property, it is our opinion that the Market Value of the
encumbered fee interest of said proposed 30' ingress -egress, joint use
easement, as of the effective date of August 6, 1986, approximates the
following:
TWO HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS
260.00)
Furthermore, it is our opinion that the proposed 30' wide easement
should not adversely affect the market value of the remainder of the
approximate 0.47 acres parent property.
Georgetown 512-863-6038 Austin 512-255-2805 512-479-0800
Mark Crawford, Vicar
August 13, 1986; Page Two
We trust that this preliminary
will suffice for you immediate
process. If you so desire and
setting forth our rationale and
are based will be prepared.
Respectfully submitted,
letter transmitting our conclusions
needs and aid in your decision/planning
advise, a more detailed letter/report
criteria upon which our conclusions
TERRAMARK
71YlC tiv-`t'°
Kenneth W. Gilbert, MRA -Mf LA -MSA
KWG:KWG:pw
Attachments: Property Survey Plat (portion)
Qualifications of Appriasers
OIL
VIL
RESUME AND PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS
OF
KENNETH W. GILBERT, MSA — MRA — MFLA
Kenneth W. Gilbert is founder and co—owner of Terramark. Terramark provides
real estate appraisal and counseling services with the bulk of its activities
concentrated within Texas and oriented toward the analysis of commercial, in—
dustrial, and rural properties. Primary telephone numbers for Terramark are
512-863-6038 (Georgetown) and 512-255-2805 or 512-479-0800 (Austin).
Kenneth W. Gilbert has been actively and exclusively engaged in the apprais—
al, development, and sales of commercial, industrial, rural, and residential
properties since June, 1971. Since 1972, he has been licensed by the State
of Texas as a Real Estate Broker (License Number 155898-02) and holds a B. S.
degree in Agri—Business from Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas
1972).
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS/DESIGNATIONS
Master Senior Appraiser (MSA); National Association of Master Appraisers
Master Residential Appraiser (MRA); National Association of Master Appraisers
Master Farm and Land Appraiser (MFLA); National Association of Master
Appraisers
Candidate Member; International Society of Real Estate Appraisers
REAL ESTATE AND APPRAISAL COURSES/SEMINARS.
Course No. Title Institution
627 Principles of Appraisal NAMA
636 Practice of Appraisal NAh1A
637 Farm & Land Appraisal NAMA
649 Commercial Appraising NAMA
102 Applied Residential Evaluation SREA
201 Income Property Valuation SREA
R41—b FLHBB R41—b Seminar SREA
1—A Appraisal Principles AIREA
AGR 477 Farm & Ranch Appraisal SHSU
AGR 462 Land Problems SHSU
AGR 371 Land Surveying SHSU
AGR 383 Marketing SHSU
ECO 261 Economics I SHSU
ECO 263 Economics II SHSU
BA 468 Banking SHSU
N/A Principles'of Real Estate ASRE
RESUME AND QUALIFICATIONS OF KENNETH W. GILBERT CONT'D
TYPES OF APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENTS
1. Vacant/unimproved properties 11.
2. Farm and ranch properties 12.
3. Residential subdivisions 13.
4. Commercial/industrial subdivisions 14.
5. Planned Unit Developments (PUD) 15.
6. Municipal Utility Districts (MUD) 16.
7. Feasibility studies 17.
8. Condemnation 18,
9. Expert Witness Testimony 19.
10. Office building complexes 20.
Apartment complexes
Office condominiums
Shopping centers
Hotels/motels
Industrial/warehouse complexes
Medical clinics
Restaurants
Nursing homes
Variety of special use properties
Single & multi—family residences
These appraisal assignments have entailed work in the North, Central, South,
East, and Rio Grande Valley regions of Texas, as well as out of State.
Kenneth W. Gilbert has qualified as an expert witness to real estate values
in various courts of law dealing with condemnation as well as other legal
proceedings.
CLIENTELE PARTIAL LIST
Action Mortgage Co.—Round Rock
Allied Jetero Bank—Houston
Aztec S & L—Copperas Cove
Bank of San Jacinto Co.—Coldspring
Bank of the Hills—Austin
Barron & Graham, Attys.—Austin
Brazos Savings—Bryan
Capital City Savings—Austin
Capital Mortgage Bankers—Austin
Cameron Brown Co.—Austin
Certified Savings Assn.—Georgetown
Citizens State Bank—Georgetown
Citizens State Bank—Giddings
City National Bank—Houston
Colbrado Co. Federal S & L—Columbus
First Bank & Trust—Cleveland
First Federal S & L—Austin
First Federal Savings—Laredo
First Federal Savings—Temple
First National Bank—Georgetown
First National Bank—Round Rock
First Tx. Bancorp, Inc.—Georgetown
Franklin Savings—Austin
Georgetown National Bank—Georgetown
City of Granger, Texas (HUD)
InterFirst Bank—Austin
Koons, Rasor, Fuller & McCurley,
Attys.—Dallas
Lee Savings Association—Giddings
Lone Star Life Insurance Co.—Dallas
Lumberman's Invest. Corp.—Dallas—Austin
MBank—Round Rock and Austin
Mid—Tex Mortgage Co.—Georgetown & Llano
North American Mortgage Co.—Austin and
Houston
Peoples State Bank—Shepherd
Round Rock ISD—Round Rock
Smithville S & L—Smithville & Giddings
Texas American Bank—Austin
Texas Commerce Bank—Austin & Houston
Town & Country Bank—Austin
Trinity National Bank—Trinity
Trinity River Authority of Texas
Trinity Valley S & L—Cleveland
United Bank—Austin
United Savings Association of Texas
University Savings—Austin
Western 6 Motels—California
Williamson County, Texas
Womack & McClish, Attys.—Austin
RESUME AND PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS
OF
KAREN W. GILBERT, MRA — MSA
Karen W. Gilbert is associated with Powell, Osenbaugh and Associates on
a specific assignment basis. Mrs. Gilbert holds a B.A. Degree from Sam
Houston State University, and is a licensed real estate broker. She is
currently an associate director of the Greater Georgetown Chamber of
Commerce, and an affiliate member of the Williamson County Women's
Council of Realtors.
As well as single family residential appraisal, Mrs. Gilbert has also
appraised small residential income property (multi—family), vacant
land, commercial/income producing property, has done "Recertification
of Value/Satisfactory Completion" inspections, and feasibility studies.
These appraisal assignments have entailed work in Georgetown, Round
Rock, Hutto, Leander/Cedar Park, various areas of Austin, the Lake
Travis area, the Oak Hill area, and Hays County.
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Master Residential Appraiser (MRA); The National Association of
Master Appraisers (Certification #02241)
Master Senior Appraiser (MSA); The National Association of Master
Appraisers
Affiliate, Williamson County Women's Council of Realtors
REAL ESTATE AND APPRAISAL COURSES/SEMINARS
Course 627, Principles of Appraisal, NAMA
Course 636, Practice of Appraisal, NAMA
Course 637, Farm and Land Appraisal, NAMA
Course 649, Commercial Appraising, NAMA
Course IA, Real Estate Appraisal Principles, AIREA
Course 1B, Basic Valuation Procedures, AIREA
Course 8, Residential Valuation, AIREA
Course 2, Standards of Professional Practice, AIREA
Seminar, R41—B and the Appraiser, SREA
Real Estate Finance, American College of Real Estate
RESUME — Karen W. Gilbert
Page 2
CLIENT LIST
The following is a list of clients for whom Mrs. Gilbert has provided
appraisal and consultation services:
Certified Savings Association — Georgetown, Texas
First National Bank of Round Rock — Round Rock, Texas
Lumberman's Investment Corporation — Austin, Texas
First Federal Savings & Loan Association — Austin, Texas
Capitol City Savings Associaton — Austin, Texas
InterFirst Bank Fort Worth — Fort Worth, Texas
Cameron Brown Company — Austin, Texas
North American Mortgage Company — Austin, Texas
MBank Round Rock — Round Rock, Texas
Action Mortgage Company — Round Rock, Texas
Republic Bank South Austin — Austin, Texas
Christopher/Winston Builders — Houston, Texas and Austin, Texas
InterFirst Bank Austin — Austin, Texas
Round Rock National Bank — Round Rock, Texas
Texas Commerce Bank Austin — Austin, Texas
Bank of the Hills — Austin, Texas
Austin Savings Association — Austin, Texas
Joe Carothers Construction — Copperas Cove, Texas
Shanklin Properties, Inc. — Georgetown, Texas
Mid—Tex Mortgage Company/Peoples Savings & Loan — Georgetown, Texas
Williamson County, Texas
First Taylor National Bank — Taylor, Texas
First National Bank — Georgetown, Texas
Stump and Stump, Attorneys at Law — Georgetown, Texas
Connor and McCullough. Attorneys at Law — Georgetown, Texas
Windsor Savings Association — Austin, Texas
Town and Country Bank — Austin, Texas
Round Rock ISD — Round Rock, Texas
Doyal, Hairston and Walsh, Attorneys at Law — Austin, Texas
Farmers State Bank — Bertram, Texas
First Texas Investors — Round Rock, Texas
July 16, 1986
Mr. Dale Illig, Attorney
707 Rock Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
COMMUNITY OF OPPORTUNITY"
Ref: James Street Water Tower Site, Easement Request
Dear Mr. Illig,
Cyeaz-q- FP, scn psi C k,,-
This letter is to confirm our conversation regarding the request for an
easement across our James Street Water Tower site to serve as access to a
parking lot for Grace Episodical Church. After visiting with my Water
Sewer Department, we believe that an access road can be installed without
detriment to City facilities. It will be necessary to provide some
engineering for the access drive in order to address certain problems. In
order to avoid encroachment on private property, the north line and the
east line of the cities tract needs to be surveyed and marked. There is a
16 inch water line under the area the church proposes to use. Probably a
house service line feeding from the 16 inch line will be encountered
during construction and will need to be lowered. Also, there is a valve
on the 16 inch line and the box for that valve will require adjustment.
These problems are not large.
Of more significance, there is an overflow drain from the tower that
exists near the curb of James Street. There will have to be some
redesigning or realigning of this drain pipe.
When the engineers are ready to visit the site the City crews will be more
than willing to assist in locating the underground utility lines in that
area.
THE CITYOF GEORGETOWN POST OFFICE BOX 409 GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78627-0409 TELEPHONE 512/863-5533
AN EQUAL OPPORMNITY L%JPI.OI'ER
James Street Water Tower Site, Easement Request
page 2
In the area of remuneration for the easement, we would suggest that you
visit with the City Attorney, Randy Stump or the City Manager, Bob Gaylor.
We would ask that you submit construction plans to us for review and
approval prior to commencing any work on that site. In the meantime, if
we can be of additional service please contact us.
Sincerely,
Allyn Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
AM/rw
cc: Mark Crawfield Vicar, Grace Episodical Church
Bob Gaylor, City Attorney
Randall Gaither, Planning Department
Randy Stump, City Attorney
THE CITY OF
REGULAR COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER
6:00
GEORGETOWN
MEETING AGENDA
23, 1986
PM
6:00 PM Executive Session Under Art. 6252-17 Sec. 2 (e) Litigation.
6:30 PM Workshop - Privatization - Allyn Moore
7:00 PM Regular Council Meeting
Consent Agenda
1. Minutes
2. Bills over $5000.00
3. Ordinance - 1986 Tax Rate - 2nd Reading
4. Ordinance - 2 Hour Parking - 2nd Reading
5. Ordinance - Airport and Aircraft Rules - 2nd Reading
6. Ordinance - Capital Recovery Fee - 2nd Reading
7. Award Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Bid - Terry Jones
8. Award Pole Line Hardware Bid - Terry Jones
9. Award Utility Pole Bid - Terry Jones
10. Award Three Phase Pad Mount Transformers Bid - Terry Jones
11. Award Single Phase Transformers Bid - Terry Jones
12. Sidewalk Project Dedication Ceremony Request - Jack Gregoire
13. Forest Court (formerly Old Town Park) - Preliminary Plat -
Randall Gaither
14. G.B.F. Subdivision - Preliminary Plat - Randall Gaither
Regular Agenda
15. Committee Appointments - Mayor Colbert
16. Certified Local Government/Georgetown Heritage Society
Contract - Jack Gregoire
17. Award Lease Space Bid - Ed Barry
18. Automobile Purchasing Discussion - Terry Jones
19. variance - Encroachment into Street R.O.W. - Williamson County
Jail - Randall Gaither
20. variance 1907 S. Main Street - Side and Rear Setback - Randall
Gaither
21. Ordinance - Amending Schedule of Rates for Reviews - lst
Reading - Randall Gaither
22. Pleasant valley - Reinstatement of Final Plat - Randall Gaither
23. Ordinance - Rezoning 101 Tallwood From RMI to RM3 - Randall Gaither
24. Historic Preservation Plan - John Warden
25. Williams Commercial Park - Capital Recovery Fee Credits
Funding - Ed Barry
26. Mapping Services Agreement - Ed Barry
27. San Jose Project Final Acceptance - Ray Green
28. Change Order Policy - Lake Georgetown Water Treatment Plant -
Allyn Moore
29. Freese & Nichols Water Contract Amendment #2 - Allyn Moore
30. Award San Gabriel Park Water Treatment Plant Equipment
Preselection Bids - Allyn Moore
31. Freese & Nichols Short Term Goals - Allyn Moore
32. Award Northfork Interceptor Bid - Allyn Moore L3 4
Misc.
T
r
0
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 7:00 P.M.
Planning Items:
Consent Agenda:
1. Forest Court (formerly Old Town Park) - Preliminary Plat
2. G.B.F. Subdivision - Preliminary Plat
Regular Agenda:
3. Williamson County Jail Site - Approval for Encroachment into
Street ROW
4. 1907 S. Main Street - Variance - Side and Rear yard setback
5. Ordinance - Amending Schedule of Rates for Reviews - 1st
Reading
6. Pleasant Valley - Reinstatement of Final Plat
Proposal from Haynie and Kallman, Inc., Round Rock, Texas. Their
final product would meet the request for proposal. Their lump
sum price would be $35,000.00, and their completion time would be
five months. However, we considered a very serious drawback the
fact that the City would have to invest considerable funds in a
Hewlett Packard CADD System specifically oriented to use Holguin
and Associates software, and neither of these two parameters are
acceptable. The Hewlette Packard equipment is extremely
expensive to operate and maintain, requires a high level of skill
to operate and is extremely expensive. The Holguin and
Associates software is a very specialized item and has certainly
received only a marginal acceptance in the CADD field. This
software/hardware package would not be compatible with the system
being set up by the City.
Proposal from Espey, Huston and Associates, Inc. of Austin. We
have looked at samples of their product and the quality of their
work would, in all likelihood, be quite acceptable. However,
their estimated budget would be $56,000.00 for maps with lots and
blocks with no dimensions. If dimensions are included their
price would be $88,000.00. Their time for completion would be
five months for the first option and six months for the second
option. If the alternative with dimensions were deferred until a
later date, the total cost would be $92,000.00 and time would end
up totalling eight months. The equipment on which the work would
be done would be compatible with the CADD System being prepared
by the City.
Proposal from Gilbreath McDill and Associates, Inc. of
Georgetown. Their proposal satisfies our request. However,their
compensation for services would be $90,000.00 with additional
costs for other options we might elect to purchase. Their time
for completion would be six months. The data produced by this
firm would be compatible with the proposed new City CADD System.
Proposal from Freese and Nichols, Inc. of Fort Worth. We have
reviewed samples of their work and find it to be satisfactory.
However, their estimated fee is in the range of $95,000.00 to
125,000.00. Based on a salary with a multiplier for expenses.
Their total projected time would be 40 weeks. The data they
furnish would be compatible with the proposed new City CADD
System.
Having reviewed these proposals, we find only two of them to be
appropriate in terms of fee. Those being Haynie and Kallman, and
Camp, Dresser and McKee. However, we find the Haynie, Kallman
proposal to be unacceptable in terms of the hardware and software
they would be using, and the inability to translate that data to
the system we will be establishing for our own internal services.
RECOMMENDATION
Our recommendation is that the award for this work be given to
Camp, Dresser and McKee based on their fully adequate response in
terms of quality of product, time, price and in terms of the
ability to translate their data to the proposed new mapping
system in the City of Georgetown.
dapping Proposals 2
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: John Warden, Planning Department \ _ w
Date: September 16, 1986
Subject: Historic Preservation Plan
The Historic Preservation Plan presents a program of suggested
future activities to conserve Georgetown's historic resources.
The Plan has been prepared over the last three months with
funding by a matching grant from the Texas Historical
Commission. Under the terms of the grant agreement, the Plan is
to be produced, accepted and printed by September 30, 1986.
The Historic Preservation Committee held a public hearing on the
plan in its September 15 meeting. Following discussion of
particular regulatory elements suggested in the Plan for future
consideration, the Committee recessed its meeting until September
17, when it will make a recommendation to Council.
The H.P. Plan is a suggested "work program". Implementation of
its various parts will require varying levels of public and
private resources, public review, and Council approval. In
particular, if the three sample ordinances in the plan are to be
implemented, there should be study and public hearings by the
H.P. Committee prior to their consideration by Council. The
staff has reassured the Committee of the appropriateness of its
role in that process, and we have acknowledged members' concerns
with the nature and extent of regulations discussed. Staff will
be prepared to discuss the Plan's content in as much detail as
Council members desire.
The action requested of Council is acceptance of the Historic
Preservation Plan on September 23. The Plan will then be printed
and distributed in compliance with the Certified Local Government
grant agreement.
r
P. 0. Box 97
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0097
September 17, 1986
Mayor Jim Colbert
City of Georgetown
P. 0. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
Re: Preservation Plan
Page 1 of 2
Dear Mayor Colbert:
After reviewing and holding a public hearing to discuss the Historic
Resource Conservation Plan for Georgetown, Texas, the Historic
Preservation Committee gives its whole -hearted endorsement of the concept
embraced by the plan. It is an excellent base for a program working
toward the goal of mapping out a basic preservation strategy for
Georgetown. We see it as a way of ensuring that our city retains its
historical character which is an integral ingredient of our special
quality of life.
This plan constitutes a work plan, a compilation of proven preservation
tools that merit further research when the time is appropriate. These are
techniques that have worked to varying degrees in other cities and states,
have already had some application in Georgetown, an example being the
Courthouse Historic District, and hold potential for future expanded
utilization here. It will be used as a working tool by the Planning
Department when they draft the Historic Preservation element of the
Comprehensive Plan and by groups and individual citizens as an
authoritative source for possible directions for our preservation efforts.
Page 2 of 2 September 17, 1986
The endorsement of this work is not to be construed as the blanket
approval of any specific implementing legislation or program contained
within the plan document. The committee stresses its strong desire to be
intimately involved with the actual implementation of any of the possible
tools proposed for consideration that are applicable to our purpose or
jurisdiction.
Respectfully yours,
r I
David L. Voelter, Chairman
Historic Preservation Committee
City of Georgetown
xc: Councilmembers: Joan King
Marvin Lackey
Wiggy Shell
Bill Connor
Eb Girvin
Bob Gaylor, City Manager
Jack Gregoire, Main Street
DLV/sl
Memorandum
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Randall Gaither, Chief — Current Planning
Date: September 16, 1986
Subject: Ordinance Amending Ordinance #82-30 Rates for Planning
and Engineering Review
Attached please find a copy of the draft ordinance referenced
above. Since the City has adopted a new zoning district, that
being the R-0 Residential Office District, staff is recommending
that this addition be included in the rate schedule in order to
properly assess fees for future requests of this type in an
equitable manner.
The only change from the current ordinance proposed by this
amendment is to add the "R-0" District to that rate currently
assigned for zoning changes to RM -2, RM -3 and R—P Districts. The
review of the Site Plan, which is a requirement of the R-0
District, will be considered as an additional fee as covered by
the existing Section III of Ordinance #82-30.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE. AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
82-30 PASSED AND APPROVED ON THE 9TH DAY
OF NOVEMBER, 1982 WHICH ESTABLISHES
RATES FOR THE PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
REVIEW OF PLATS, PLANS, ZONING, SPECIAL
PERMITS, ANNEXATIONS, MAPPING AND
DISTRIBUTION OF AERIAL MAPS BY AMENDING
ARTICLE I, SECTION 2 "REZONING AND
RELATED LAND USES" TO ADD THE R-0
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS, THAT ARTICLE I, SECTION 2, "REZONING AND RELATED LANDUSES" is hereby amended to read as follows:
2. For changes to District RM -2, RM -3, R=0 or R—P;-he sum
of $50.00 up to one acre and the additional sum of!',$50.00
for each extra acre of area or fraction thereof not to
exceed $2,000.00
READ, PASSED, AND APPROVED on first reading this 23rd day ofSeptember, 1986.
READ, PASSED, AND APPROVED on second and final reading thisdayof19
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
BY:
Jim Colbert, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pat Cabellero, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stump•& Stump, City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Edward J. Barry, AICP - Director
Division of Development and Planning
Date: September 15, 1986
Subject: Capital Recovery Fee Credits for Williams Commercial
Park
As you recall, the City Council approved Capital Recovery Fee
Credits (CRFC) for the above project in the amount of $20,830.50
on August 28, 1986. At that time a question arose as to how this
amount would be realized by the developer in light of the fact
that this project is not large enough in size to generate CRF
sufficient to cover these credits. At that meeting the Council
instructed staff to investigate the matter and report back with a
recommendation for resolving the situation.
Attached is a memo from Public Works Director Allyn Moore stating
that this 20 inch water main is necessary in order for the City
to obtain maximum benefit from the new Surface Water Treatment
Plant. Also, had not the developer installed this line the City
would have had to construct this main at its own cost. The
conclusion of Allyn Moore's memo is that due to these facts
payment from the City's funding sources for the Surface Water
Treatment Plant Improvements would be appropriate for covering
the CRFC due this project.
There appears to be two major options for reimbursement of the
CRFC outside the scope of the normal procedure. One is for the
City to pay the total amount of the credits at this time.
Funding would come from either the bond or CRF accounts used for
paying for the new Surface Water Treatment Plant. As a result
CRF would be collected for this project as usual at the time that
permits/taps are requested. A second choice would have the CRFC
paid through a combination of City payment as in #1 above and the
project's own CRF. Two alternatives under this approach result
from the question of how much of the project's CRF would be
allocated to retire the credits. Since this development has only
three (3) lots the number of LUE's that would be utilized would
be in the range of three to six (3-6). Based on this assumption
the alternatives for option 2 are:
2A) Only that portion of CRF attributable for water line
improvements as per our current policy would be usable. Thus
the distribution of funding would be:
Total CRFC = $20,830.50
Project CRF = (3 x $500) to (6 x $500)
1,500 to $3,000
City Portion = $20,830.50 - ($1,500 to $3,000)
19,330.50 to $17,830.50
2B) All CRF would be assignable from the project if the Council
elects to exercise its prerogative under the ordinance
amendments scheduled for second reading on Sept. 23, 1986.
This would result in the following payment arrangement:
Total CRFC = $20,830.50
Project CRF = (3 x $2,000) to (6 x $2,000)
6,000 to $12,000
City Portion = $20,830.50 — ($6,000 to $12,000)
14,830.50 — $8,830.50
Depending upon which option is selected by the Council the City's
initial up—front cost would range from a low of $8,830.50 under
alternative 2B with 6 LUE's to a high of $20,830.50 under option
1. Long term costs remain the same for the City at $20,830.50.
The easiest, simplest solution to this matter and the one
recommended by staff is Option 1. Variations 2A or 2B present a
more complicated method for settling this issue. Selection of
one of these two choices would require a decision on how many
LUE's will be used by the project and then monitoring the
issuance of taps/permits to ensure that if this number is
exceeded only the amount of CRF eligible for reimbursement are
returned.
To summarize, staff recommends that the City pay from either bond
funds or CRF accounts the total amount of $20,830.50 of agreed
credits.
101 TALLWOOD - LOT 1, BLOCK G, SAN GABRIEL HEIGHTS V - REZONING
FROM RM -1 TO RM -3 Project #00537
47I l 1 6 _ oOl N I
R; VIE
A T E S
RIVER RIDGE
SECTION 111
Location Map
Applicant:
N 113AEJJRI
T
TIO I /
i
ECTION
Nancy Reavis
1001 E. Rock Core
Round Rock, Tx
255-0994
Agent: Clare Mashburn
607 N. Austin Avenue
Georgetown, Tx 78626
863-9541
IGHT
A
jGTW
A1P T
SIERRA VISTA
1"=1000'
Request: Approval for rezoning from RM -1 Multi -family
to RM -3 Office and Service Use for Lot 1,
Block G, of San Gabriel Heights, Section 5.
Facts:
Location: On the northwest corner of the Tallwood Drive
and Leander Road (FM 2243) intersection. Is
in the City Limits and on the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone.
101 Tallwood-Rezoning 2
Surrounding Area: A one-story professional doctor's office lies
adjacent, in a C-1 zoning district to the
west. Single-family residences abutting the
tract to the north lie in an R -S zoning
district. A duplex located across Tallwood
Drive at the corner with Leander Road is
zoned RM -1. A single vacant lot and single-
family residences follow to the north along
Tallwood Drive, zoned R -S. Across Leander
Road, to the south of the subject property in
the R -S zoning district is the Junior High
School and single-family residences along
Rockcrest Drive (see Exhibit A for area map
and surrounding zoning districts).
Existing Site: A duplex being used for out-patient care of
senior citizens and as an office for coor-
dinating similar activities in other George-
town homes. The lot is zoned as RM -1, which
does not prohibit the use of the home for re-
sidential out-patient care, but does prohibit
the use of the home for office activities.
Proposed Use: Applicants want
as an office to
activities, and
rezone this lot
to validate the
this site.
to continue to use this home
coordinate their Georgetown
so are thereby seeking to
to the RM -3 zoning district
existing office activities at
Development Plan: District 9b. The plan recommends residential
multi -family use. The existing use and pro-
posed use substantially conform to the plan.
History: On March 5, 1985, the applicant requested a
zoning change from R -S Residential Single-
family to C-1 Local Commercial. The Planning
and Zoning Commission disapproved the re-
quest, as did the City Council on March 12,
1985, based on the following concerns:
1. Promotion of commercial strip development
along Leander Road,
2. Commercial encroachment into an existing
residential neighborhood,
3. Inadequate parking and increased traffic
congestion on Leander Road,
4. Deed Restrictions prohibit commercial
usage.
On April 9, 1985, the property was rezoned
from RS to RM -1. On June 4, 1985, the
Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to
reconsider a zone change request to RM -3, to
101 Tallwood-Rezoning 3
allow professional offices. The RM -3
request, downgraded from the original C-1
zone change request in March 1985, if
approved, would have allowed the applicants
to continue their office activities without
the commercial zoning designation. The above
listed concerns, however, were again ex-
pressed by the Commission and Council, as
well as new concerns that approval of the
request would constitute illegal spot zoning.
The request was tabled due to the failure of
the applicant to appear with the intent of
rescheduling the request to the July agenda.
When the applicant was notified, he chose to
withdraw reconsideration of the case.
Notification: Only two notification forms have been re-
turned to the Planning Department. One re-
turned form did not express comments in
objection nor in favor of the zone change
request, but did request that the neighbor-
hood remain attractive. The other comment
form was returned in objection to the rezon-
ing request, stating concerns about neighbor-
hood appearance and aesthetics.
Analysis: The fundamental issue of this case is to
determine which zoning district offered by
the current ordinance will produce the
appropriate transition use between the
arterial street and the existing single-
family uses. If the use proposed by the
applicant is allowed by this district, the
issue then becomes how best to redevelope the
site to accommodate the use.
The concerns raised by staff, the Planning
and Zoning Commission, and Council in 1985
are still valid for this zone change request.
If this request is approved, the City and the
surrounding neighborhood has no guarantee
that this property will be used in the same
relatively unobtrusive manner as is presently
the case. The current activities are very
quiet and exist seemingly unnoticed by the
neighborhood, and thereby present no threat
to the neighborhood. The applicant, however,
may wish to relocate or may go out of busi-
ness, leaving only the RM -3 zoning district.
The new property owner who locates at this
site may wish conduct activities that are
allowable within an RM -3 zoning district, but
that will create more obtrusive impacts upon
the neighborhood.
101 Tallwood-Rezoning 4
Approval of single -lot rezoning requests from
strictly residential zoning districts to
zoning districts where commercial activities
are permitted often leads to future rezoning
requests, particularly along arterial
streets, as Leander Road is classified. Pro-
perty owners see an opportunity to convert
to more lucrative uses, and take a cue from
the Commission and City Council that such
conversions will be accepted. Precedents,
once initiated are difficult to reverse.
Approval of the RM -3 rezoning request proba-
bly will not lead to immediate commercial
encroachment into the existing residential
neighborhood, but is likely to at some point
in the future. Additionally, this zoning
change would likely promote commercial strip
development along Leander Road.
The existing and proposed use of this site
for office activities requires that the site
have 14 off-street parking spaces. The site
probably has insufficient space to meet such
a requirement and would require a variance.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, the front
yard of this site is along Tallwood Drive.
However, the site has developed in a manner
that suggests that the Leander Road yard is
the front yard. Parking would have to be
placed along the front yard off of Tallwood
Drive or in the side yards (see Exhibits A
and B). The required off-street parking and
the associated traffic and congestion would
decrease the livibility for surrounding resi-
dences. Irregardless of the use of this site,
the existing drive approach onto Leander Road
should be removed.
Staff Recommendation: (September 2, 1986)
Disapproval for the requested zoning change from RM -1 to RM -3.
Consideration may be given to the approval of a Special Permit
for use as a convalescent facility. The property itself will not
be operated as a convalescent center, but will be used as a main
office for out-patient care facilities operated from residences.
101 Tallwood-Rezoning 5
At the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission, this
office may be considered as a convalescent facility, and so
subject to the following conditions:
1. Small office use in support of convalescent activities shall
be allowed,
2. The drive approach onto Leander Road shall be removed,
3. The off-street parking requirement shall be set at one space
per bed and one space per full-time employee.
Note: See Also optional staff recommendation attached.
P&Z Recommendation: (September 2, 1986) (4-1)
Disapproval
City Council Action: (September 23, 1986) (3-2)
Motion to approve with conditions of optional staff
recommendation denied.
K
rC iIIlv° I .o a F mol .
hr .'L• ri
r,
g O/
I 1 I O u Ir` 6vrL//
gg X
X007 R9GJOD''/
900 co
try ra rr rd o A Q .Oo
1. avrJ D
co
IV xr r %Y.
v t+•.t,vj n%//.—Hi ri9/6'ti -YF/Y_ _
F=/D — 0017.4J
rizZ .c ney k -V
u.e• ,
r °
ir _ .ti.. ....
1•'. v>otf
c rv,c.
IIJ,'
t - / re., ° ra •,.•t . ca. t
yZIt
F , 1.• .
1• d roar
J °s. re,. °e°y0 a _ .M, .,.
I >
eqo, ,.
a
tc • O••. \ - _ .oe t• +rr
it
e N
O e
e n, I.•"' • O , ,
1 .. • 4 •• V t O, eO'y +Z e' O >
rj
v Z
pZ y - 9 2 Z 7 • . r•
E a g ^ 2 : I ee F;:
r; ;\ ^,' /,
DOOM
t'' 0 oe` `•<''_ ••• 0 w a ,.
3nIC0 r - — ; ..•ri 71 •, ,; ! . i
IL8
r 1 ` :
i, 1
L <G
e-•
s ''<, .
t _
n ,..r,', %'
2' ';.';
i -ice \
is , ^
r
t p v' y w
i. \
a 74
InM l rW2tY AB No.$it_ »,
JEY PERFORMED FOR NANCY
IMPROVEMENT SURVEYSURVEY OF I OT / A&- K %e SAN LAlR/EC tE/tNTS. SeG7i^'1 c/YE
OF RECORD IN "'
n nE ris OF THE P, AT RECORDS OF s
COONTY,TEXAS.
ATTACHED
SCALE
PERIMETER DESERIPTIOM' EN PIN ND
NOT REQUIRED LEGENDt ANO PIN SETa
5'.
TALLW 000 DRIV %
Il ' IDT rl C{/(L Q. SiCAP /l YG ,!y' ! 11
1 SIN rld[I ytlY.,TS y
W({Ju/j/N CavNTY, TpYR3 O 0'
T-7 I
U' NII TLLLWOOD DRIVE
0 ! ' Lfi SRREY' FiCINE
V eoriciJC FER
II
I1
THAT
cvuc
j
ON ROADS W PLACE,
I
REGISTERED
E
I
BY CERTIFY
I
N 1A I'..
AN ON•TNE-GROUND FEDERAL SURMSUR X E ADMINISTRATIONISUPERVISIONAND
7P
x
L1 IS CORRECT ANOISCORRECT
pEYMIClES
Om g
CONFLICTS,
rrs w
h C R
V
J F
d i
N
IN
ON ROADS W PLACE,
FLOOD STATEMENT I HEREBT CERTIFY THAT THEREGISTEREDPROPERTYWITHINTHEBOUNDARIESSHOWNHEREON
BY CERTIFY wn WITHIN A SPECIAL
TLY REPRESENTS THE BOFTTIEANON•TNE-GROUND FEDERAL SURMSUR X E ADMINISTRATIONISUPERVISIONANDU.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT,COMMUNITY PANEL NAAAVFF mw> w
L1 IS CORRECT ANOISCORRECT
pEYMIClES
EFFECTIVE DATE IVE ' " OR OTHER
AS SNOW- HEREON. CONFLICTS,
rrs w FLOOD HAZARD OETERWNATIDN
ON ROADS W PLACE,
EXCEPT AS SHOWN
HEREON AND SAID
NIOKRTF HAS ACCESS
ATOANDFROM
DEDICATED ROADWAY,5lepar Q BiZZell ,IDG
EXCEPT AS SHOWN
HEREON. CONSLLTNG ENGINEERS-SUiVEYLT6
R. q W • oRfQTO.Tllf rel,
EXHIBIT B
In
9 .s;/ta/d as ficin puv
Kl('7 3 q+u coy wrJ JC'rotu /) pa -Ov; f4/
r yf jf acp ss»a> a-rn r- iu yuq p noc..-y
at' JJs "°C/-fa•.vv vfko rGo dry+ l l2 '
sawgr-1
yk Pvlq ; .Y -a
ttooul
fj y+-s aids U fa
aV i'!yro t4j J
r4 o) r -o srp
s"', (9
SasDd.rtd
a} '°j' 440 ,"A "9 )1"is 9ar.Wa+d .10 ..(.pl!nq
r !? ra uw, , s , pug +17a11ice
rizDr !l 1Kq U/Pk .
l vrwD72
UY
rv+5 1-0\
asC1 '
O
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE "ZONING ORDINANCE" PASSED AND ADOPTED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GDORGEIM, TEXliS, CN THE 12TH LY\YOFFEBRUARY, 1968, AMENDING A PART OF THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF
THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE: TO CHANGE THE PROPERTY OF Count v HealthServices, Inc. IN THE Clemment Stubblefield SURVEYABSRRACTNO• 558 IN THE CITY p UWk4- 'iGFN, FROM RS
Residential Single DISTRICT TO RM3 Multi fame y
DISTRICT AS HEREINAFM SET EVRTH:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORIETCM, TEXAS:
H REAS, an application has been made to the City Council for the purpose ofchangingthezoningordinanceonthefollowingdescribedrealestate:
Being Lot 1 Block G of San Gabriel Heights
Sect. 5 with a street address of 101 Tallwood
more fully described in attached field notes - Exhibit W.
AND WHEREAS, the City Council has sutmitted the proposed change in the ZoningOrdinancetotheCityPlantingCommissionforitsrecamendationandreport; and,
UXdA% the City
gave f such hearCOumil, before adopting this amenxhnent to the Zoning Ordinance, hearing by publishing same in a weekly newspaper in the City ofGeorgetow4Texas, which notice stated the time and place of hearing and which timewasnotearlierthanfifteendaysfromthefirstdayofsuchpublication; and
WHEREAS, written notice as given to all the owners of the lots within 200 feetoftheabovedescribedpropertyasrequiredbylaw; and
W123MAS, the City Planning Commission has recamended the charging of said ngOrdinanceon
the
aboveict ohe Property fran RS Single Family
n
RM 3 Multi Famil
which said meeting was held on the 4th day of June 19
District
Texas W'D ! BE IT OR NIN D by the City Council of the City of Georgetawn
amended so that t
Zoning and the Zoning Map of the City of Georgetown be
f Party described above shall be and the sane is hereby re'ovedRSSingleFamily
Multi Family District to RM3
District.
Read passed and adopted this day of 19onthefirstreading.
Read Passed and adopted this
on the second reading. day °f 19_
RiYOR
CITY OF GEORGETGPN
PAT n`n ALL`05 i
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED As TO FORM:
WILLIAMSON COUNTY JAIL SITE - APPROVAL FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO CITY
STREET R.O.W.
e' A, s s k L' z
4IMFi
Location Map 1"=300'
Applicant: Williamson County Commissioners Court
1st Floor Williamson County Courthouse
Georgetown, Tx 78626
869-4457
Agent: Don Wilson, County Judge
let Floor, Williamson County Courthouse
Georgetown, Tx 78626
869-4457
Request: Approval to allow to remain a chain—link,
security fence which surrounds the Minimum
Security Addition to the County Jail site and
which was constructed some 5 to 6 feet into
the right—of—way of 4th street between Austin
Ave. and Main Street. (See Attached Letter)
Location: Block 13 of the Revised City of Georgetown
Map, Vol. 36, Page 321 County Deed Records,
and bounded by 3rd St., Main St., 4th St.,
and Austin Ave.
Williamson County Jail 2
Surrounding Area: Predominantly Single Family residential in
use and zoning. However, C2A - Commercial
zoning exists for one lot depth each side of
Austin Ave.
Existing Site: Currently public use for County Jail and
Office annex. Zoned C2A - Commercial on west
half and RS -Residential on east half. No
change in use is proposed.
Development Plan: District 1 - conforms to existing zoning.
Utilities: Water, Wastewater, and Electric by City.
History: On May 27, 1986 the City Council took the
following action for the site in question:
The Director of Community Development and
Planning shall authorize the issuance of a
building permit for a temporary 1700 sq. ft.
addition to the present Williamson County
Jail subject to the following: 1) That the
building permit be issued immediately. 2)
That a variance(s) be requested for any
violation(s) to the building codes of the
City of Georgetown (including lot setback
requirements) through standard operating
procedures for such variance requests. 3)
That the variance shall expire December 31,
1989 at which time the temporary structure
shall be removed."
Analysis: A review of the as built site plan for the
County Jail and Office facility indicates no
violation of the zoning ordinance. Thus, the
variance procedure required by said ordinance
is not necessary.
However, this document does indicate that the
security fence built around the jail addition
does encroach some 5 ft. to 6 ft. into the
right-of-way of 4th St. (See copy from site
plan attached). It is also noted that a 6
ft. wood fence around the trash area shows to
be encroached about 7 ft. into the same ROW.
This fence is not covered by the permit for
the Minimum Security Addition and appears to
have existed for several years.
Section 1.04 Streets and Public Property of
the City Charter states that relative to
street rights-of-way "...the City shall have
the power ... to abate and remove in a summary
manner any encroachment thereon." Even
Williamson County Jail 3
though there are no procedures which
explicitly cover this type of situation, it
seems that Council Action on this matter is
required to legitimately determine the status
of the encroachment.
The only justification for the fence in its
current location which has been presented to
staff is that the fence needed to be far
enough from the building to prevent a
potential escape by prisoners which might
gain access to the roof of the annex
building. According to the site plan this
distance is currently between 13 and 14 ft.
The eave of the structure projects some 2 ft.
beyond the walls and is approximately the
same height as the fence. The fence is some
10-12 ft. high topped with barbed wire.
A relocation of the fence to the property
line would decrease the fence to building
distance to eight feet. It is reasonable to
assume that this would increase the
possibility of a prisoner being able to jump
the fence, although it would still be a
formidable task. It should also be noted
that the fence to the west is only 9 to 10
ft. from the building and of similar
construction. Thus, if the fence were
removed from City property it would be only
one to two feet closer to the building than a
similar fence existing to the west.
Both the Public Works staff, and Building
Official have recommended that this request
not be approved. The primary reason being
that of establishing a precedence for future
similar requests. Additionally, the
justification for the encroachment seems to
be insubstantial.
The Planning Staff concur with this
recommendation and feel that there is no
violation of the spirit and intent of the
unspecified variance granted on May 27, 1986
because: a building permit was issued, the
facility has been constructed, the fence and
its current location does not seem to be a
requirement of the effective use of the
facility, and no mention of possible
encroachment into a street was mentioned at
the previous hearing.
Williamson County Jail 4
Staff Recommendation: (September 12, 1986)
The request to allow the fence to remain encroached into the
street ROW should be denied unless the Council can establish a
finding of fact that said fence in its current configuration is
necessary for the reasonable functioning of the Minimum Security
Addition to the County Jail.
City Council Action: (September 23, 1986) (5-0)
Tabled pending receipt of resolution from County commissioners
accepting liability associated with the encroachment.
I, DON H. BIZZELL , DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DRAINAGE PLAN
HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND COMPLIES WITH
THE CITY OF AUSTIN DRAINAGE MANUAL AS ADOPTED a AMENDED
BY THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN.
PREPARED BY:
DON H. BIZZELL Aug. IIj
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No.28762 DATE
Don Wilson
County Judge
1 st Floor
Williamson County Court House
Georgetown, Texas 78626
512-869-4457
September 3, 1986]
Th• Honorable Jim Colbert
Mayor, City of Georgetown
P 0 Box 409
Georgetown, Tx 78627
Dear Jim,
Pursuant to the letter that I received from you dated
July 9, 1986, instructing me to file a site plan and a
request for variance on the construction of the temporary
minimum security facility adjacent to the County Jail, we
did employ an engineer who did develop a site plan (including
dranage study) and submit it to the Planning Department.
In compliance with the letter I received from Mr. Randall
Gaither of the Planning Department dated June 2, 1986, concerning
the steps and requirments necessary to comply with city
procedures we have prepared the necessary letters addressed
to all citizens living within 200 feet of the requested
variance and prepared the advertisment to be placed in the
newspaper.
Today, after reviewing the site plan filed with the Planning
Department, Mr. Gaither informed me that "in his opinion the
County did not need a variance; it only needs permission from
the City Council to place the fense surrounding the minimum
security facility 3 feet onto the City's right-of-way."
Mr. Gaither informed me that he would request that an item
be placed on the next City Council agenda so that the Council
could grant this permission, if they so desired.
If you will check item 23 in the City Council meeting of
May 27. 1986, this specific permission is not memtioned. I
believe that the motion that was passed could be intrepted
as granting this permission, but that would be upto you.
If the decision is that the specific permission was not
granted to the County to use 3 feet of the City right-of-way
until December 31, 1989, then we are requesting that this
permission be granted.
Sincerely yours,
C
Don Wilson, County Judge
cc Randall Gaither
NO1 Pmd FO'-"'a.Paym Em .se
G.B.F. — PRELIMINARY PLAT
z
Location Map
Project #00529
Site aPKu CI OWN
noleAPAL
A 'RWKr
Owner/Applicant: Grace Bible Fellowship
301 Toledo Trail
Georgetown, Texas 78626
863-8502
Agent: Steger and Bizzell
P.O. Box 858
Georgetown, Texas 78627
863-0866 L
U
1"= 1000'
Request: Approval of a Preliminary PLat for G.B.F., a
4.10 acre subdivision situated in the David
Wright Survey, Abstract No. 13, from the West
Georgetown Development Corporation, as
conveyed by deed recorded in Volume 849, Page
257, of the official records of Williamson
County, Texas.
G.B.F.-PRELIMINARY PLAT 2
Facts•
Location: To the southeast of the intersection of
Serenada Drive and Sequoia Trail East, to the
north of the Georgetown Municipal Airport.
Is in the ETJ and the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone.
Surrounding Uses: Large lot single-family residential to the
north, with the Serenada Racquet Club to the
east, and the Georgetown Municipal Airport to
the south. Adjacent property to the west and
the Clear Zone for the airport runway to the
southwest is vacant.
Proposed Use: A church and associated parking lot
Development Plan: District 4d. The plan recommends large lot
residential development for the subject
property. A large lot church would seem to
be consistent with the plan and with
residential development.
Utilities: The applicant is requesting City provision of
water and electrical services. Wastewater
systems are proposed to be handled through an
individual on-site wastewater system.
Analysis•
Land Use: The southwest corner of the subject property
is depicted on the preliminary plat as
encroaching upon a portion of the airport
clear zone. The encroaching portion of the
subject property is situated within the
25 -foot rear and side setback lines, and thus
not a buildable portion of the property.
However, there appears to be a discrepancy in
the location of the clear zone for the
airport runway, as well as the horizontal
zone elevations. The Airport Zoning Map
indicates that the clear zone would extend
over approximately half of the subject
property. The Georgetown Airport Board
reviewed the preliminary plat request at its
August 25th meeting and recommends to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council, relative to the clear zone issue and
the platting of this property, that a plat
could be located within the clear zone. The
Airport Board recommends that the City staff
resolve the clear zone boundary discrepancy
and strictly enforce height restrictions on
the final plat and site plan.
G.B.F.-PRELIMINARY PLAT 3
Streets: The subject property is located near the
intersection of the future extension of
Northwest Blvd. collector street and Serenada
Drive. According to the City Development
Plan, Northwest Blvd. is to be a collector
street and Serenada Drive shall be upgraded
to a collector street. Access to the church
site from these streets will thereby need to
be limited to one location along each street
in order to facilitate the movement of
traffic. The final plat will need to reflect
this requirement restricting acces streets.
In addition to the 25 -foot setback from the
western property line and the 5 -foot
dedication for street widening for Serenada
Drive, a similar setback should be shown
along future Northwest Blvd.
Drainage: The final plat and site plan for this
subdivision shall depict the location and
facilities required to accommodate off-site
drainage and on-site detention of
stormwaters. The stormwater information
presented to the staff and Commission is not
sufficient to meet ordinance requirements and
enable staff to accurately gauge the impact
of the proposed plat on surrounding areas.
Facilities proposed to handle stormwaters, as
well as all hydrologic calculations to
accommodate these stormwaters is a
preliminary plat requirement.
Utilities: Water service analysis indicates that water
pressures appear to be below 20 psi at the
site and surrounding area. The existing
distribution network does not appear to have
adequate capacity for delivering 750 gpm fire
flow to the site during peak flow conditions.
This low pressure condition can be corrected
with system improvements similar to those on
the updated Master Plan, "Proposed 2005 Water
Distribution System." These master plans,
however need to be reevaluated to reflect the
City's plan to move the proposed elevated
tank to a site adjacent to the proposed
Sequoia Spur Pump Station. The consulting
engineers recently submitted a proposal to
the City for approval to study new tank
location and its impact on the master plan
line improvements. The City is currently
considering approval for the study.
G.B.F.-PRELIMINARY PLAT 4
Staff Recommendation: (September 2, 1986)
Approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. All ordinance requirements shall be met,
2. The exact location of the Airport Clear Zone shall be shown
on the plat and verified by the Public Works Division prior
to submittal of the final plat,
3. A Detailed Development Plan shall be submitted with the final
plat in conformance with Section 6.04 and 6.05 of the
Subdivision Ordinance,
4. A drainage plan shall be submitted with the final plat
sufficient to evaluate the impact of any increase in
stormwater runoff on both this and adjacent properties,
5. A Drainage Facilities Maintenance Covenant shall be recorded
with the plat,
6. A note restricting access to one drive approach on each of
the adjacent streets shall be added to the final plat,
7. Utilities shall be adequate,
a. the Water Availability Note shall apply,
b. Water system improvements required to provide adequate
fire protection shall be identified by the city
consulting engineers and applicants participation
determined by the Public Works Division prior to final
plat approval.
P&Z Recommendation: (September 2, 1986) (5-0)
Approval subject to conditions listed above being met.
City Council Action: (September 23, 1986) (5-0)
Approved subject to the conditions listed above by consent.
ORDINANCE NO. S
AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V, SECTIONS 23-81, ET. SEQ. OF THE GEORGETOWN
CODE OF ORDINANCES, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES ORDINANCE
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN ON JANUARY 10,
1984, AS AMENDED ON JANUARY 23, 1984; RAISING THE CAPITAL RECOVERY
FEES TO $2,000.00; RAISING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE MULTIPLIER FROM
TWENTY-FIVE (25) CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE TO FIFTY
50) CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT; PROVIDING ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT APPLIED
AGAINST BOTH WATER & WASTEWATER ACCOUNTS, UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, OTHER
PROVISIONS THEREIN CONTAINED, AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown has passed an ordinance
providing for capital recovery fees (C. R. F.) for water and wastewater service
on or about January 10, 1984; ("Original C. R. F. Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has amended that original C. R. F. ordinance on
or about January 23, 1984; ("Amended C. R. F. Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, due to the influx of development in this area requiring
substantial monetary commitments by the City to expand the City water and waste-
water system, the City Council of the City of Georgetown deems it in the best
interest of the City to raise the Capital recovery fees from FIFTEEN HUNDRED
1,500.00) DOLLARS to TWO THOUSAND ($2,000.00) DOLLARS, and the square footage
requirements from TWENTY-FIVE (25) CENTS per square foot to FIFTY (50) CENTS per
square foot for wastewater services;
WHEREAS, the Original and Amended C. R. F. Ordinances are incorporated
under Article V, Sections 23-81, et. seq. of the Georgetown Code of Ordinances
Code").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City ofGeorgetown, Texas:
Section I: That Section 23-81 of the Code, also known as Section I of the
Original C. R. F. Ordinance be amended, so that the capital recovery fee of
500.00 for wastewater per living unit equivalent be changed to $1,000.00 for
wastewater per living unit, so that the total capital recovery fee for water and
wastewater per living unit equivalent is $2,000.00.
Section II: That Section 23-82, Paragraph 1, of the Code, also known as
Section II, Paragraph 1 of the Original C. R. F. Ordinance be amended so that
the square footage will be multiplied by $0.50 for wastewater service instead of
0.25 as stated therein.
Section III: That Section 23-88(4) of the Code, also known as Section IV of
the Amended C. R. F. Ordinance shall be deleted, and replaced with the
following:
4) No Capital Recovery Fees credit shall be allowed except relative
to the particular utility that has been installed by Applicant. If
the construction qualifying as application for credit was on a water
line then credit shall be limited to Capital Recovery Fees for water
distribution line service. If the qualifying construction was on a
sewer line then the only credit that can be allowed because of such
construction shall be on Capital Recovery Fees for sewer collection
line service. Provided, however, that upon hearing and a finding of
good cause by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, said
City Council may determine that it is in the best interest of the City
of Georgetown to allow credits against any or all portions of a
development project's capital recovery fees, including water and
wastewater fees; and said City Council may, at its discretion, allow
said credits against capital recovery fees. Said City Council shall
have sole discretion in determining whether good cause exists; and in
making such determinations, said City Council shall consider whether a
development project is of such a size, scope and magnitude that
enforcing the limitation of credits as hereinbefore set forth would
create undue hardship on the Applicant of said development project.
Section IV: If any provision, section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, or the application of the same to any person or set of circumstances
is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, void, or invalid (or for any
reason unenforceable), the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance
or this application to other persons or set of circumstances shall not be
affected thereby, it being the intent of the City Council of the City of
Georgetown in adopting this Ordinance that no portion hereof or provision or
regulation contained herein shall become inoperative or fail by reason of any
unconstitutionality or invalidity or unenforceability of any other portion,
provision or regulation.
Read, passed and adopted this 9th day of September, 1986.
Read, passed and adopted this day of tpr,. 1986, on the
second reading. — -
iMJ
OL Rif-
Mayora
City of Georgetown
ATTEST:
PAT CABALLERO
City Secretary
Approved as to form:
STUMP & STUMP, City Attorney
BY:
RANDY TMP
1907 S. MAIN STREET - VARIANCE - SIDE YARD SETBACK
Project #00540
Location Map
1
t
t
1"-300'
Applicant: Bill Dozier
1907 S. Main Street
Georgetown, Tx 78626 -
Request: Variance form Section 2.0203(b), Side and
Rear Yard Regulations, to allow construction
of a storage shed roof some 4 feet within the
required rear and side yard.
Facts•
Location: At the northeast corner of 19th and Main
Streets.
Surrounding Area: Adjacent properties all zoned RS, and
developed as single family residential.
Existing Site: A single family residence. A slab
foundation, poured by a prior tenant exists
within the required yards of this lot.
1907 S. MAIN 2
Notification: Eighteen notification forms were mailed to
adjacent property owners. The staff has
received one form in favor of the variance
request and none in opposition.
Analysis: The applicant is constructing a two—story, 8
foot x 12 foot storage room and child's play
room adjacent to the existing slab, in
conformance with required setbacks.
Additionally, applicant wishs to construct a
shed roof to project from this new building
over the existing concrete pad within the
side and rear yard setbacks, a distance of
four feet each way. The roof would not be
supported with any columns or walls
constructed within the seven foot setbacks.
The overhanging roof over the existing
concrete pad is requested by the applicant to
allow for covered storage. According to the
Building Official the ordinance allows roof
eaves to overhang two feet into yard areas.
Thus, the applicants request is to be allowed
to extend the roof overhang two feet closer
to the side and rear property lines than is
normally permitted under the ordinance.
Staff Recommendation: (September 16, 1986)
Approval of the requested variance from the required side and
rear yard setback to allow for roof overhang in excess of 2 feet,
conditional upon the following:
1. No columns or walls within the 7 foot side and rear yard
setback to support the overhanging roof shall be allowed.
2. No portion of the requested shed roof shall be closer than
three feet from the property line of the lot.
City Council Action: (September 23, 1986) (4-0. 1 abstained)
Approved granting of the variance as recommended by staff above.
u.11A 111::\'lll uh (WA)KI7IN111—
To: Planning Department Date: Z
Subject: Request of Variance - Zoning Change
A request for Variance age is being requested
by:/i !a ! L L 1%7; 2 for
Lot No. Y Blk:—-4 Addition:
Reason for Rqst:
Please provide the Building Department with a copy of the final
action taken by the Planning b Zoning Commission or City Council.
FRANK
n
OfficialWINEINGE
Building Official
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN POST OFFICF Rf 1X a(x) GFORGFTOWN. rEXAS Tao?o TFI.FPHONE
i --0o:-4
S
I
Q
3
t
N i3
v
i> 7
907 M4/N 57.7667-
SOUT.v elO_n
I, 006/ y B/ZZ9K4.C- ,REGISTERED
PUBLIC SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT THE ABOVE PLAT CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE
PROPERTY AS DETERMINED BY AN ON -THE -GROUND
SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND
DIRECTION ON THE /51' DAY OF,4uBu57' , 19t4_;
THE PROPERTY PLATTED HEREON IS CORRECT AND
THERE ARE NO APPARENT DISCREPANCIES ,CONFLICTS,
SHORTAGES IN
OFAREA , BOUNDARY LINE
CONFLICTS, ENCROACH-
P."C,' MENTS ,OVERLAPPING
11 OF IMPROVEMENTS,
VISIBLE UTILITY LINES
R;'"' ,
OR ROADS IN PLACE ,
EXCEPT AS SHOWN
Y HEREON, AND SAID
PROPERTY HAS ACCESS
ST TO AND FROM A
b •('•,_I. DEDICATED ROADWAY,
EXCEPT AS SHOWN
v HEREON,
0
N
57oiS F Q /sr fiii/Z
AV v s p,v0 y r,
AO R /f7 - i b
M
r.: •n
IC
G d •
5 4'
1
1
A PR R
fan/CPOU
pJ
SOUT.v elO_n
I, 006/ y B/ZZ9K4.C- ,REGISTERED
PUBLIC SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT THE ABOVE PLAT CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE
PROPERTY AS DETERMINED BY AN ON -THE -GROUND
SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND
DIRECTION ON THE /51' DAY OF,4uBu57' , 19t4_;
THE PROPERTY PLATTED HEREON IS CORRECT AND
THERE ARE NO APPARENT DISCREPANCIES ,CONFLICTS,
SHORTAGES IN
OFAREA , BOUNDARY LINE
CONFLICTS, ENCROACH-
P."C,' MENTS ,OVERLAPPING
11 OF IMPROVEMENTS,
VISIBLE UTILITY LINES
R;'"' ,
OR ROADS IN PLACE ,
EXCEPT AS SHOWN
Y HEREON, AND SAID
PROPERTY HAS ACCESS
ST TO AND FROM A
b •('•,_I. DEDICATED ROADWAY,
EXCEPT AS SHOWN
v HEREON,
0
N
57oiS F Q /sr fiii/Z
AV v s p,v0 y r,
AO R /f7 - i b
M
FLOOD STATEMENTS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE
PROPERTYWITHIN THE BOUNDARIES SHOWN HEREON
S ,VoT WITHIN A SPECIAL
FLOOD HAZARD AREA AS IDENTIFIED BY THE
FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT. COMMUNITY PANEL NO'16 86 -OG
EFFECTIVE DATES -,OR OTHER
FLOOD HAZARD DETERMINA ION AS SHOWN HEREON.
There may however be dry creekbeds that will
carry floodwater during heavy rainfalls. In
order to locate these areas, a complete
engineering drainage study would need to be
done. l
Steger BI Bizzell , ine.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS -SURVEY(
P0. BOX 558• GEORGE TOWN, TEXAS TW27
IC
FLOOD STATEMENTS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE
PROPERTYWITHIN THE BOUNDARIES SHOWN HEREON
S ,VoT WITHIN A SPECIAL
FLOOD HAZARD AREA AS IDENTIFIED BY THE
FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT. COMMUNITY PANEL NO'16 86 -OG
EFFECTIVE DATES -,OR OTHER
FLOOD HAZARD DETERMINA ION AS SHOWN HEREON.
There may however be dry creekbeds that will
carry floodwater during heavy rainfalls. In
order to locate these areas, a complete
engineering drainage study would need to be
done. l
Steger BI Bizzell , ine.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS -SURVEY(
P0. BOX 558• GEORGE TOWN, TEXAS TW27
Forest Court - Preliminary Plat Project #00502
Location Map 1"=2000`
Applicant: Van Vahrenkamp and G. Brian Christi
1209 W. 5th Street
Austin, Tx 78703
327-7137
Owners: J. Alton Baurele, H. Mickey Giles, and Van Vahrenkamp
1209 West 5th Street
Austin, Tx 78703
327-7137
Agent: James H. McDill
Gilbreath, McDill & Associates, Inc.
115 E 7th
Georgetown, Tx 78626
863-9862
FOREST COURT -PRELIMINARY PLAT 2
Request: Approval of the preliminary plat for Forest
Court, a 1.85 acre tract out of Outlot 1,
Division A, Block F of the Darymple Addition,
Williamson County, Texas. Variances are
requested for:
1. Waiver of stormwater detention
requirements
2. Elimination of 10 -foot rear yard Pubic
Utility Easement dedication requirements.
Facts• ,
Location: The site is located within the City limits.
It is near the northeast corner of the
intersection of Forest and 16th Streets and
is within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
Surrounding Area: Surrounding zoning is RS Residential Single
Family. Single family residences lie
adjacent to the east and at the northwest
corner as well as west across Forest Street.
A 2.0 acre City park is adjacent to the
south. A vacant 1.85 acre tract is adjacent
to the north.
Existing Site: Largely vacant with heavy overgrowth.
However, one small single family structure in
poor condition is on the northwest corner.
Proposed Use: Eight normal single-family detached
residences. The site is presently zoned RS
Residential Single-family.
Development Plan: District 8a. The plan recommends normal
single-family development for the subject
property. The proposed use substantially
conforms to the plan.
Utilities: City services have been requested for water,
wastewater, and electrical services.
History: On May 5, 1986, the applicant submitted a
preliminary plat, site development plan, and
zone change request for the Old Town Park
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Planning
and Zoning Commission review. The requested
PUD was to have allowed for 20 small lot
single-family detached residences. The
request was denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission by unanimous vote on the grounds
that the request was incompatible with the
surrounding residential development and did
not meet all of the ordinance requirements.
FOREST COURT -PRELIMINARY PLAT 3
Analysis:
Land Use: The applicant is attempting to create an
economically viable infill project for this
long neglected problem site. Single- family
detached housing has been chosen due to both
market conditions and an attempt to be more
compatible with surrounding uses. The
subdivision would create eight normal
single-family residential lots with a gross
density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. Such
a design appears to be consistent and
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
The home located to the north of Lot 1 along
the eastern side of Forest Street employs a
25 -foot setback from Forest Street. Part 6,
Section 6.102 of the Georgetown Zoning
requires that "where the rear yard of a
corner lot abuts the side yard of an adjacent
lot, such corner lot shall provide a side
yard along the side -street of such tract
equal in width to the depth required for the
front yard of such adjacent lot". The
applicant has shown only a 15 -foot setback,
where the above Zoning Ordinance regulation
specifies that a 25 -foot setback is
required. The Planning and Zoning Commission
may, in the exercise of its discretion,
permit the front yard of this lot to be only
15 -feet in width. The applicant has not,
however, requested such a variance from the
Commission.
The applicant has not requested a variance to
exceed the 2.5 lot depth to width ratio
specified in the Subdivision Ordinance. Also
the Subdivision Ordinance requires that all
corner lots have a 75 -foot width or be at
least 5 -feet wider than the average interior
lots. The plat should be revised to show a
continuous 25 -foot setback along Forest
Street and the lot lines adjusted to meet
ordinance requirements. The staff has no
objection to the approval of this variance.
Streets: The preliminary plat indicates a 50 foot wide
public street ROW with 30 feet of paving,
with a cul-de-sac . This configuration is
acceptable for the accommodation of emergency
service vehicles.
FOREST COURT -PRELIMINARY PLAT 4
Drainage: Applicant is requesting a stormwater
detention variance, as runoff is to be
increased only 3.6 cfs and the cul-de-sac
stormwater is to be tied via an underground
system into the recently installed City
underground drain system downstream of this
site. Care must be taken to ensure that this
new system is not overloaded, thus requiring
the submittal of a drainage plan. The Public
Works Division recommends this underground
system due to the very flat nature of the
site. The detention variance request could
not be fully evaluated by the consulting
engineers at this time, as sufficient
information was not supplied and because
calculations combining on- and off-site
drainage flows did not provide sufficient
data. However, the concept appears to be
workable.
Utilities: Analysis of simulated on-site peak hour and
750 gpm fire flow indicates adequate site
pressure. Pump operation or elevated
storage capacity appears to be sufficient.
However, in order to provide the Southside
region with water treated at the Groundwater
Treatment Plant, distribution system
improvements may be necessary. These
improvements shall be included in the City's
overall Capital Improvements program, and no
special participation from this applicant/
project should be required.
The expected peak sewage flow from Forest
Court should not have a significant impact on
the immediate downstream collection system.
The Engineer (GMA) must provide, in writing,
verification that this assumption is true.
The City's Wastewater Master Plan requires
capacity improvements on Interceptor 1,
downstream of Forest Court. Forest Court
will be required to participate in these
improvements. The nature of this partici-
pation should be determined by the Public
Works Department prior to final plat
approval.
The Forest Court subdivision has proposed to
discharge sewage into one of three 6 -inch
lines that intersect at the Short and Forest
Street intersection. Because of the
increased flow toward this junction, the
applicant will be required to install a
FOREST COURT -PRELIMINARY PLAT 5
manhole at this intersection for better
maintenance of these three lines.
Additionally, the electrical layout needs to
be depicted on the Utility Concept Plan for
Final Plat approval. The Public Utility
Easements indicated at the rear of Lots 2-8
are not required for the provision of utility
lines. The request for a variance that
10 -foot PUE's not be required along the rear
property lines of Lots 2-8 is reasonable.
Summary: The Forest Court subdivision, as proposed,
represents a solution to a problem site which
should also be compatible with surrounding
neighbors. Approval of this request would
also establish a precedent for future infill
developments. As long as the existing infra-
structure capacity for normal lot residential
use exists, infill development should be
encouraged, in order to maximize the utili-
zation of these facilities. The Forest
Court project appears to be far more
compatible with surrounding land uses than
did the Old Town Park PUD request that was
denied by the Commission earlier in 1986.
Staff Recommendation: (September 2, 1986)
Approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
1. All ordinance requirements being met,
2. Utilities being adequate,
a. The Utility Concept Plan shall depict the electrical
layout for the site,
b. Written verification from GMA that the assumption that
the expected peak flow from Forest Court should not have
a significant impact on the immediate downstream
collection system.
C. Applicant participation in improvements on Interceptor 1,
downstream of Forest Court, being determined prior to
final plat approval and documented on the Utility Layout
Plan,
d. Applicant shall install a manhole at the intersection of
the three 6 -inch sewer lines near the Forest and Short
Street intersection.
3. The building line along the Forest Street ROW shall be
25 -feet, and the corner lots shall be adjusted to meet
ordinance requirements,
4. Requested stormwater variance shall be granted only after the
submittal of sufficient information indicating no adverse
impact on the existing system,
FOREST COURT -PRELIMINARY PLAT 6
5. The following variances should be granted:
a. Elimination of the 10 -foot rear PUE's for Lots 2-8,
subject to confirmation that said PUE's are not needed to
serve this or adjacent development,
b. Excessive depth to width ratios for Lots 3-6.
P&Z Recommendation: (September 2, 1986) (5-0)
Approval subject to the conditions listed above, with the
following amendments and additions:
2b. Written verification from GMA that the expected peak flow
from Forest Court does not have a significant impact on the
immediate downstream collection system.
6. No driveway cuts to Forest Street.
7. Buffering shall be provided between existing occupied lots
and proposed lots.
City Council Action: (September 23, 1986) (5-0)
Approved subject to the conditions recommended by the Commission
above with the amendment that #8) the staff determine whether or
not a street ROW exists between 12th and 16th Street prior to
approval of final plat.
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Randall Gaither - Chief Current Plannin
Date: September 16, 1986
Subject: Reinstatement of Pleasant Valley Subdivision
As you recall, at the Council meeting of September 9, the
referenced item was tabled and referred to a Council
Sub -committee in order to clarify and resolve various issues
which had been brought forth. This sub -committee met and
instructed staff to concentrate its efforts on some resolution of
the drainage issues presented. Other issues such as perimeter
fences, utility service connections, and deed restrictions were
to be considered as items to be resolved between the developer
and his neighbors.
To this end staff attempted to set-up a meeting with the
three parties on Friday, September 12 but could not contact the
Pierces in time. However, they were contacted on Friday and
they, along with the developer, were asked to attend a
rescheduled meeting on Monday, September 15. After first
agreeing to this meeting, staff was informed late Friday
afternoon that the Pierces had a conflict and could not attend.
The meeting was held as scheduled with members of the
Planning and Public Works staff, as well as, the developer's
engineer in attendance. The outcome of the meeting was that all
agreed that the construction required by the City approved plans
was not complete and a complete assessment of its ultimate
performance cannot be made until that time. Developer agreed to
regrade the areas where water currently ponds to insure positive
run-off in conformance with plans. Developer also agreed to
consider minor modifications to the outflow and dissipator
structures so that:
1. They are more effective in returning storm run-off less
than the 25 year frequency event to a sheet flow
condition,
2. Are more substantial in nature so that the designed
configuration is easier to maintain over time.
Finally, the developer has been made aware that the
improvements will not be accepted by the Public Works Division
until all required work is complete and functioning properly.
This includes any design changes that may be agreed upon by both
the developer and City Public Works Division.
Reinstatement -Pleasant Valley 1
In summary, staff reaffirms its recommendation for approval
with the conditions of the planning report of August 26, 1986.
Any modifications to improve the current drainage situation shall
be handled under the direction of the Public Works Division prior
to City acceptance of improvements and shall be in conformance
with the Austin Drainage manual, shall attempt to discharge
run-off from the subdivision in a "sheet flow" condition, and
shall attempt to eliminate erosion and excessive sedimentation.
Reinstatement -Pleasant Valley 2
PLEASANT VALLEY - VARIANCE - REINSTATEMENT OF FINAL PLAT
PROJECT 100029
ITY
Location Map
Owner/Applicant:
HORIZON
COMMERCIAL
P, PARK h
i
PLEASANT r
VALLEY 'ia\
y_
l ADD.
jR A B EB IT H0L\W \
1"= 2000'
Kenneth McCalla, Jr., Managing Venturer
3933 Streck Avenue
Austin, Texas 78759
Agent: Steger and Bizzell
P.O. Box 858
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Request: Approval for reinstatement of the Final Plat
for the Pleasant Valley subdivision, a 29.62
acre subdivision approved by City Council on
June 11, 1985, but not recorded with the
County Clerk of Williamson County six months
following Council approval.
Facts:
Location: West of F.M. 1640, approximately one-half
mile south of Georgetown Railroad. Is within
the ETJ and the Edwards Aquifer Recharge
Zone.
PLEASANT VALLEY—RF'VSTATEME,NT 4
Surrounding Uses: Primarily undeveloped rural property to the
west, with large lot single—family
residential to the immediate north, east, and
south.
Existing Use: Streets, utilities, and drainage improvements
are substantially complete.
Proposed Use: An average lot single—family residential
development, with a density of 2.94
residential units per acre.
Development Plan: District 8b. The proposed use of normal
single—family residential substantially
conforms to the plan.
History: On May 7, 1985, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved the Final Plat request of
Pleasant Valley, as did the City Council on
June 11,1985, each with the following
conditions of approval:
1. Plat meeting all ordinance requirements,
2. Drainage requirements being met and
approved by the City Engineer,
3. Utilities being adequate,
4. Provision of adequate water storage if
required by the City Engineer to balance
the pressure plane during peak flows,
5. Off—site improvement of the Smith Branch
Interceptor to accommodate peak flows of
wastewater discharge from this
subdivision to the already surcharged
condition of the above mentioned
facility,
6. The street named Cactus Valley Lane be
changed,
7. Variances granted at the preliminary
stage are still applicable,
8. Variance requested to allow the angle of
intersection of Cactus Valley Lane to
exceed five degrees from perpendicular
shall be granted.
By Section 4.04(15) of the Subdivision
Ordinance, the applicant had six months
following the June 11, 1985, City Council
approval of the Final Plat for Pleasant
Valley to file the approved final plat with
the County Clerk of Williamson County. The
December 11, 1985, deadline for such approval
was not met by the applicant, as ordinance
requirements and conditions of approval were
not yet completed. The Texas Water
PLEASANT VALLEY—REINSTATEMENT 3
Commission was only able to approve the
Subdivision Sanitary Sewage Collection System
on June 9, 1986. In light of these problems
that delayed the filing of the final plat
before December 11, 1985, the applicant now
requests a final plat time extension for
final filing to reinstate the final plat.
Analysis: The case folder for this Final Plat documents
that the applicant made a good faith effort
to complete ordinance requirements Council
conditions of approval. The staff has no
objection to the reinstatement of the final
plat. However, those conditions previously
established with the approval by the City
Council should still be applicable for final
plat filing. Additionally, t -here should be
established a reasonable limit to this
reinstatement. A time limit set at December
11, 1986, should give the applicant
sufficient time to record this plat, while
corresponding to the maximum allowable
extension under Section 4.04(15) of the
Subdivision Ordinance had the extension
request been submitted prior to the
expiration date of the plat.
All of the required City signatures of
approval were obtained prior to the
expiration date of the plat. However,
because the approval of this plat has
technically expired, new signatures should be
required to authenticate this reinstatement.
This item was referred to the City Attorney
on August 21, 1986. As of September 2, 1986
no response has been received.
Staff Recommendation: (August 26, 1986)
Approval of the reinstatement of the Pleasant
Valley subdivision subject to the following
conditions:
1. All conditions of approval established
with the original Final Plat approval
shall be met,
2. This reinstatement shall expire December
11, 1986. Failure to record the plat by
this date will require that the Final
Plat be resubmitted as a new Final Plat,
subject to all application fees,
3. New signatures shall be required for City
approvals of the reinstated plat.
PLEASANT VALLEY -REINSTATEMENT 4
City Council Action: (September 2, 1986)
Tabled pending Council sub -committee and staff review of the
issues presented at public hearing and returning with a
recommendation.
NOTE: See copy of memo to Council from Chief Current Planning
dated September 16,1986 attached.
City Council Action: (September 23, 1986) (4-1)
Approved the request for reinstatement subject to the conditions
as recommended by staff above and additionally that prior to City
acceptance of the drainage improvements that the Public Works
Division and the City's consulting engineer shall verify that the
drainage plans comply with the City Drainage Ordinance.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Councilarr /
WITHDRAWS AT TUF oc.,.rr^ the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 23th day of September, 1986.
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #: PLEASANT VALLEY - VARIANCE - REINSTATEMENT OF
FINAL PLAT PROJECT #00029
Applicant: Kenneth McCalla, Jr
Owner: same
Request: Approval for reinstatement of the Final Plat for the
Pleasant Valley subdivision, approved by City Council
on June 11, 1985, but not recorded with the County
Clerk of Williamson County six months following
Council approval.
Approval of the reinstatement of the Pleasant Valley subdivision
subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of approval established with the original
Final Plat approval shall be met,
2. This reinstatement shall expire December 11, 1986. Failure
to record the plat by this date will require that the Final Plat
be resubmitted as a new Final Plat, subject to all application
fees,
3. New signatures shall be required for City approvals of the
reinstated plat.
4. The drainage issues associated with the City Drainage Manual
requirements will be followed, and will be checked and approved
by the Public Works Division and City consulting Engineer (Freese
Nichols) prior to final acceptance of drainage improvements.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council APPROVES =MR/
the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 23th day of September, 1986.
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #: 101 TALLWOOD - LOT 1, BLK G, SAN GABRIEL
HEIGHTS V - REZONING FROM RM -1 TO RM -3 Project #00537
Applicant: Nancy Reavis
Owner: same
Request: Approval for rezoning from RM -1 Multi -family to RM -3
Office and Service Use for Lot 1, Block G, of San
Gabriel Heights, Section 5.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council APPROV /
the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 23th day of September, 1986.
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #: 1907 S. Main Street — Variance — side yard
setback. Project #00540
Applicant: Bill Dozier
Owner: same
Request: Variance from Section 2.0203(b), Side and Rear Yard
Regulations, to allow construction of a storage shed
roof some 4 feet within the required rear and side
yard.
Approval of the requested variance from the required side and
rear yard setback to allow for roof overhang in excess of 2 feet,
conditional upon the following:
1. No columns or walls within the 7 foot side and rear yard
setback to support the overhanging roof shall be allowed.
2. No portion of the requested shed roof shall be closer than
three feet from the property line of the lot.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City CounciPPROVESJ /
the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 23th day of September, 1986.
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #: G.B.F. — Preliminary Plat Project #00529
Applicant: Grace Bible Fellowship
Owner: same
Request: Approval of a Preliminary Plat for G.B.F.
Approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. All ordinance requirements shall be met,
2. The exact location of the Airport Clear Zone shall be shown
on the plat and verified by the Public Works Division prior
to submittal of the final plat,
3. A Detailed Development Plan shall be submitted with the final
plat in conformance with Section 6.04 and 6.05 of the
Subdivision Ordinance,
4. A drainage plan shall be submitted with the final plat
sufficient to evaluate the impact of any increase in
stormwater runoff on both this and adjacent properties,
5. A Drainage Facilities Maintenance Covenant shall be recorded
with the plat,
6. A note restricting access to one drive approach on each of
the adjacent streets shall be added to the final plat,
7. Utilities shall be adequate,
a. the Water Availability Note shall apply,
b. Water system improvements required to provide adequate
fire protection shall be identified by the city
consulting engineers and applicants participation
determined by the Public Works Division prior to final
plat approval.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council /TABLES/
@*fW0R*V3 PT @112i0nnT1' ^^ '^u U' ADDT 194 the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 23th day of September, 1986.
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Project name & #: WILLIAMSON COUNTY JAIL SITE - APPROVAL FOR
ENCROACHMENT INTO CITY STREET R.O.W.
Applicant: Williamson County Commissioners Court
Owner:
Request: Approval to allow to remain a chain-link, security
fence which surrounds the Minimum Security Addition
to the County Jail site and which was constructed
some 5 to 6 feet into the right-of-way of 4th street
between Austin Ave. and Main Street.
Tabled pending receipt of resolution from County commissioners
accepting liability associated with the encroachment.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
The City of Georgetown City Council APPROVES /QAatrR'/
the request listed
below. WITNESS OUR HANDS this 23th day of September, 1986.
Mayor, -City of Georgetown
Project name & #: Forest Court Project #00502
Applicant: Van Vahrenkamp & G. Brian Christi
Owner: J. Alton Baurele, H. Mickey Giles, and Van Vahrenkamp
Request: Approval of the preliminary plat for Forest
Court, a 1.85 acre tract out of Outlot 1,
Division A, Block F of the Darymple Addition,
Williamson County, Texas. Variances are
requested for:
1. Waiver of stormwater detention requirements
2. Elimination of 10 -foot rear yard Pubic Utility
Easement dedication requirements.
Approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
1. All ordinance requirements being met,
2. Utilities being adequate,
a. The Utility Concept Plan shall depict the electrical
layout for the site,
b. Written verification from GMA that the expected peak flow
from Forest Court does not have a significant impact on
the immediate downstream collection system.
C. Applicant participation in improvements on Interceptor 1,
downstream of Forest Court, being determined prior to
final plat approval and documented on the Utility Layout
Plan,
d. Applicant shall install a manhole at the intersection of
the three 6 -inch sewer lines near the Forest and Short
Street intersection.
3. The building line along the Forest Street ROW shall be
25 -feet, and the corner lots shall be adjusted to meet
ordinance requirements,
4. Requested stormwater variance shall be granted only after the
submittal of sufficient information indicating no adverse
impact on the existing system,
see page two attached
Forest Court Conditions of Approval Continued
5
6
7
E
The following variances shall be granted:
a. Elimination of the 10 -foot rear PUE's for Lots 2-8,
subject to confirmation that said PUE's are not needed to
serve this or adjacent development,
b. Excessive depth to width ratios for Lots 3-6.
No driveway cuts to Forest Street.
Buffering shall be provided between existing occupied lots
and proposed lots.
Staff to determine whether or not a street ROW exists between
12th and 16th Street prior to approval of final plat.
page 2