Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda CC 10.10.1995
John Pritchett 1009 Church Street Georgetown, Texas 7862610 - jo i'S' October 10, 1995 Georgetown City Council Georgetown, Texas Members of the Council: You have been asked to approve a zoning variance for the Main Street Baptist Church, which would allow them to add an additional two story, 8400 square foot building to their current campus. As a nearby neighbor, I am opposed to this proposal, based on the following concerns: PARKING If granted, this variance and additional structure will allow the church to accommodate more members at any given time. It does NOT, however, provide any provision for the additional parking that would be required. The church has stated it expects a growth in the range of 100 new members. This would reasonably mean a need for 40 to 60 new parking spaces. Currently, most of the church's parking is utilized during its active periods, and in fact, parking spills out into the surrounding business areas. These additional autos would, of necessity, use otherwise public street parking, as well as further encroach on neighboring merchant's parking. It is reasonable to expect that these additional cars would park on 1 lth Street east of the church, as well as on Church Street. My home is on the southeast corner of Church and 11 th streets, and would be directly impacted by this parking. DRAINAGE As I understood the proceedings of the Planning and Zoning meeting last week, this variance will allow the church to increase its impervious cover to 71 %. This will mean additional rain runoff will have to be shunted to 11 th Street. Currently, the corner of Church and 11 th develops and retains standing water for up to three days after a 1 /2" rain. This situation would be worsened by this additional runoff. Further, this would increase the erosion damage to 1 lth Street from Church Street east. Because this is the only access route for delivery trucks servicing the Weslyean facility, this pavement is already breaking down less than six months after repairs. The additional rain runoff would accelerate this damage, and force the city to frequently repair or resurface this street section. ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE The proposed footprint of the additional structure would create a narrow, long, low visibility corridor, running directly behind the building. This area would be ripe to become a haven for unsavory activity, particularly given that it would be one block from two convenience stores, and across the street from a laundromat. VARIANCE PRECEDENT Over the last ten years, we have seen parking in the central city area become much more difficult. We all expect significant growth in Georgetown in the future. Should you approve this variance, you will establish a precedent to further challenge our central city parking needs as well as rain runoff control. Members of the council, thank you for this opportunity to present you with my concerns, and thank you for considering them in your decision. John Pritchett STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION By Tom and Dina Parks 1006 Church Street COMMUNITY CONCERNS A. The Church's plans indicate the realignment of 1 Ith street; this will affect the parking at the Laundromat on the south of 11 th street in that the buffer zone from the end of the existing parking spaces to the street would be eliminated, putting patrons and their children at danger while unloading and loading laundry. This will create a traffic hazard. B. The Church has indicated an expected growth of at least 100 people. This will require approximately 50 additional parking spaces and the proposed plans do not allow for any additional parking. Church parking is already inadequate - the addition of a structure this size will further increase the need for additional parking and will increase the traffic through the residential area. C. The Church plans to direct stormwater from the new building on to 1 Ith street. The corner of 1 Ith and Church street already floods with moderate rain fall and causes standing water for days. The additional water from the church structure will only compound this problem. D. The seven foot area behind the proposed building and our property line will be out of sight and could become an area for graffiti and other undesired behavior during the hours the Church is unoccupied. This is concern for the safety of the residential and business area. E. We believe that the proposed changes in this transition zone between residence and commercial sections of this historical area will set a precedence for further encroachment into the residential area continue the trend away from a valuable mixed use central city which has been a key asset to the prosperity and appeal of central Georgetown. The city has zoning and coding regulations that serve to protect the historical integrity of Old Town and these should not be compromised. PERSONAL CONCERNS A. As it stands, the proposed building would totally obstruct our view to the west. It will block access to the usual and customary solar resources associated with residential property and in so doing diminish our ability to provide a greenbelt buffer for our residence. Further, it would invade the visible privacy of our residence by means of a two-story overview and compromise one of the essential benefits of home ownership. B. The proposed building will be 20 to 24 feet in height and only 7-feet from our property line and approximately 33-feet from the back of our residence. This will have a dramatic effect on the amount of sun light our yard and our trees will receive. One of the trees is a 35 to 40 foot producing pecan tree --the reduction in sunlight could have a harmful effect on this tree as well as the other trees. C. Also, due to the lack of sun light, our yard will not dry out after it rains. This continuous moisture will cause decay of the cedar piers on the exterior of our house and could cause minor to major structural damage. Although this is not a direct issue, we must call attention to the fact that the church's existing chain link fence and sidewalk encroach 2 to 3 feet over the adjacent property owners property lines. Any church property improvements should include correcting this oversight. In summary, we feel that the proposed 2-story building will impose an unnecessary hardship on our ability to enjoy our residence and could affect our property value and the ability to sell our property in the future. There are issues that significantly impact the surrounding community and require additional discussion between the church and concerned citizens. We ask that.this item be tabled until alternative options can be explored. NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS TUESDAY, October 10, 1995 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, will meet on Tuesday, September 26, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at the northeast corner of Seventh and Main Street in Georgetown, Texas. If you need accommodations for any type of disability, please advise in advance. Detailed explanatory information on the items listed below is compiled in an agenda packet which is distributed to the Mayor and each member of the Council. An agenda packet is also available at the Public Library, for the use of interested citizens. W rk --Call to order 5:30 p.m. A Receive and discuss recommendation of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee/Ed Barry Regular Session - (To convene Executive Session) Will begin no earlier than 6:30 p.m. Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session that follows. B Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney C Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property D Sec.551.075 conference with employee Regular Session - Will begin no earlier than 7:00 p.m. E Action on Executive Session items F Citizens wishing to address the Council G Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports • Special Meeting, October 18, 5:30 p.m. • Silver Circle Award • Herman Goldstein Award for Community Policing Consent Agenda Consent agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that council may act on with one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the consent agenda in order that the Council discuss and act upon it individually as part of the regular agenda. H Consideration of approval of meeting minutes --Regular Meeting of September 26, 1995/Sandra Lee City Council Agenda/October 10, 1995 Page 1 of 4 Pages Consideration of approval of an agreement between the City of Georgetown and David Ham & Associates for engineering services related to the design of the West 22nd and Leander Street Stormwater Trunk Line and Outfall Structure, in an amount not to exceed $8,000.00/Jim Briggs Consideration of approval of a Letter of Agreement to amend the standing engineering contract between the City of Georgetown and Roming-Parker Associates for engineering services related to the Dawn Drive Extension Project in the amount of $19,900.0051m Briggs K Consideration of approval of a construction and maintenance agreement between the City and the Texas Department of Transportation to allow the City to construct a sidewalk along the north side of Leander Road (FM 2243), from near Norwood West Drive to approximately 915 feet west of Norwood West Drive/Jim Briggs L Consideration of approval of an interlocal contract for professional services with the Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) regarding acquisition of public safety software/Elizabeth Gray M Consideration of a Short Form Final Plat of an 18.69 acre tract to be known as Hartman Acres; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma N Consideration of approval of a modification to the Detailed Development Plan for the Georgetown Church of Christ/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma O Consideration of of a resolution of intent to initiate annexation of an approximately 300.6 acre portion of the Sun City Georgetown Planned Unit Development, Phase 2, located in the W. G. Wilkinson, George Thompson, Abner Short, R. T. Jenkins, Mary Ann Lewis and Daniel Monroe Surveys/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg P Consideration of a Final Plat of 15.182 acres in the William Addison Survey, and a Resubdivision of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Lot 1, Block N; to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Four/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Q Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of 15.182 acres in the William Addison Survey, and a Resolution of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Lot 1, Block N; to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Four; and Variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma R Consideration of a Preliminary/Final Plat of an 11.659 acre Resubdivision of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Block J. Lot 31, to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Five; and Variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma S Consideration of a resolution of support for the City's application to the National Trust for Historic Preservation to be named in a 1996 Great American Main Street Award winner/Molly Alexander and Bob Hart City Council Agenda/October 10, 1995 Page 2 of 4 Pages Regular Agenda Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: (Council may, at any time, recess the regular session to convene in executive session at the request of the Mayor, a councilmember, or the City Manager.) T First Reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for the Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church from Intensity Level Four to Intensity Level Five/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg U Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma V First Reading of an ordinance to rezone River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 11 from RS, Residential Single Family to RM-3, Office and Service District, or any more restrictive classification/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma W Consideration of a Short Form Final Plat of a �mubdivision of both River Hills, Section One, Block E, Lots 18 and 19, and River Hills, Section Four, to be known as River Hills, Section 4A; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma X First Reading of an ordinance to rezone Legend Oaks II, Lots 1-6 from RS, Residential Single Family to C-2A, Commercial First Height or any more restrictive classification/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Y Consideration of a proposal for defining road segments and improvements in the Transportation Element of the Century Plan/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg Z Consideration of the road alignment for CR111 between the MKT Railroad and CR110/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg AA Consideration and possible action on a request for a Detailed Development Plan of Gabriel Heights Addition, Block 1, Lot 3A, and variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located at 1409 Williams Drive/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma BB Consideration of approval of a Variance to the platted building setbacks at Stonehedge Subdivision, Section One Block H, Lot 20 (a.k.a. Churchill Farms)/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma CC First Reading of an ordinance amending stormwater drainage rates/Susan Morgan DD Consideration of appointment of a Councilmember to serve on the Georgetown Public Library Long -Range Planning Committee/Elizabeth Gray City Council Agenda/October 10, 1995 Page 3 of 4 Pages EE Consideration of a nomination for the Williamson County Appraisal District Appraisal Review Board/Bob Hart FF Final comments and evaluation of meeting process Adjournment was posted on the CERTIFICATE OF POSTING City Secretary of the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting _ day of , 1995, at a.m./p.m. City Council Agenda/October 10, 1995 Page 4 of 4 Pages Council meeting date: October 10, 1994 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Workshop on proposed impact fees. ILI ITEM SUMMARY: The second step in the adoption of impact fees for Georgetown, requires the completion of a water and wastewater impact fee report. This study was completed by our consultant in July, with the assistance of the City's outside engineering consultant. The report analyzes the type and level of improvements necessary to accommodate Georgetown's anticipated growth over the next ten (10) years. These improvements have been costed out and allocated on a per unit basis to the expected development. This result is in the level of impact fees that can be charged. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee has met on several occasions to review this report and prepare recommendations as to the adoption of fees and their implementation. The workshop will allow for discussion of the impact fee report for water and wastewater improvements and the committee's recommendation for adoption and implementation of the fees. Staff and committee members will be in attendance to provide information concerning this issue. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: None. ATTACHMENTS: Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Report Staff Memo on Implementation of Impact Fees Minutes of Impact Fee Advisory Committee meeting Submitted Bv: Edward J. arry, AICP, Director Division f DevelODrrknt Services MINUTES IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING September 21, 1995 The meeting was called to order by Chair, Ercel Brashear at 6:30 p.m. Other members present were Mike Mersiosky, Cal Wilkerson and John Kuhn. Members absent were Cynthia B. Smith, Paul Weyrauch, Leon Douglas and Charles Parker. Also Present were Ed Barry, Staff. 1. Consideration of approval of the minutes from the August 17, 1995, meeting. John Kuhn made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Mike Mersiosky seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4-0. 2. Consideration of and possible recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Report. After the discussion, Mike Mersiosky made a motion that for subdivisions platted from January 1, 1990, forward, impact fees will be phased in as follows: First year Free, as per State Statute Second Year 50 % Third year Full price John Kuhn seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. /j mr MINUTES IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING August 17, 1995 The meeting was called to order by Chair, Ercel Brashear at 6: 35 p.m. Members present: Ercel Brashear, Mike Mersiosky, John Kuhn, Cynthia B. Smith and Paul Weyrauch Members absent: John Harrison, Cal Wilkerson, Leon Douglas and Charles Parker Also Present: Ed Barry, Staff, and Consultants, Jim Duncan, Mickey Fishbeck and Gwen Webb. The minutes of the July 27, 1995, meeting were reviewed and John Kuhn made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Paul Weyrauch seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5-0. Ed Barry presented an overview of the memo prepared on the four (4) topics on which the committee requested additional discussions as decided in their July 27, 1995, meeting. After extensive discussion, the committee made the following recommendation: The City adopt the equity impact fee amount of $2,300, and use water meters as the means to calculate fee amounts as set out in the CIP report prepared by the consultants. With respect to exemptions from paying impact fees, the committee established a four (4) part classification. Those subdivisions platted and developed prior to December 31, 1989, and all unplatted legal lots would be permanently exempt from the payment of impact fees. The second classification would address subdivisions platted from January 1, 1990, forward. These subdivisions will automatically be grandfathered as required by law for the first year from the payment of impact fees. The committee will discuss further how the payment of impact fees past the first year will be phased in for these subdivisions at a subsequent meeting. The third category covers subdivisions that are in the process of development and for which improvements beyond those needed for the subdivision are being constructed by the developer. The method for crediting these subdivisions in the amount of the over - sizing costs against impact fees should be included in the ordinance adopting impact fees for the City. Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes August 17, 1995 The fourth category is for all subdivisions developed after the adoption of the ordinance which will be subject to fees adopted by the community. Another policy area deals with the conversion of lots on septic systems to the City's wastewater service. The committee decided that if the City initiates extension of wastewater service, then exemption from impact fees should be provided. However, if the property owners initiate the extension of wastewater service, then impact fees should be paid. The last area for policy discussion concerns the point in the development process at which impact fees should be collected. There was discussion suggesting that impact fees be collected at the latest stage possible thereby setting final inspection as the point for collection. Other members suggested that in order to generate revenues and to make for as smooth a process as possible that fees should be collected at permit. After additional discussion, the committee elected to recommend that impact fees be collected at the time that building permits are issued for new construction. The committee wishes to conduct another meeting to finalize its recommendation and determine more specifically how certain types of projects should be addressed. The meeting concluded at 8:00 p.m. /j mr Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes August 17, 1995 MINUTES IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING July 27, 1995 In attendance: Cal Wilkerson Paul Weyrauch Mike Mersiosky Ercel Brashear John Kuhn Leon Douglas (Arrived late) Mickey Fishbeck Ed Barry Absent: Cynthia B. Smith John Harrison Charles Parker Meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. Paul Weyrauch made a motion to approve the November 29, 1994, minutes. Cal Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5-0. Mickey Fishbeck presented the Water/Wastewater Impact Fee report. Steve Richmond, John Gavurnik and Jack Hunnicut addressed the committee. After the discussion, the committee requested more information on the following issues: • Dollar amount of fee (tap vs. intensity); provide number of available lots already developed by subdivision and dollar amounts to be paid. • Exceptions/Phase-in • When is the fee collected • How to handle septic conversions The next meeting of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee will be August 17, 1995, at 6:30 p.m. /j mr Impact Fee Advisory Committee Minutes July 27, 1995 MEMORANDUM To: Impact Fee Advisory Committee From: Edward J. Barry, AICP - Director Division of Development Services Date: August 14, 1995 Subject: Review of major issues At the July 27, 1995, meeting of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, the proposed Capital Improvement Plan for water and wastewater impact fees was reviewed and discussed. At that time the committee raised several issues which it felt needed further consideration prior to a recommendation on adoption of impact fees being made for Council action. The committee recommended that four (4) main areas be discussed further and a staff report prepared outlining possible alternatives for consideration. This memo is intended to address those main issues raised by the committee. Specifically, the committee wanted the alternatives regarding the following four (4) main issues. The first dealt with the amount of the fee to be adopted and whether the method for calculating fees be based on water meter size or the City's land intensity program. Under state statute there is a mandatory one (1) year "Grandfather" provision for existing subdivided lots. A second issue dealt with whether or not the City should provide for a longer phase -in period and whether additional types of projects should be included. Conversion of septic systems to the City's public wastewater system and how that was to be achieved was a third area for consideration. Lastly, the committee was concerned about what point in the development process impact fees would be collected. Method for Setting and Collecting Fee As set out in the Impact Fee Report prepared by the consultant and dated July, 1995, there are two (2) ways in which the level of the fee could be determined. The traditional and most straightforward manner is by dividing total cost of anticipated improvements by the expected number of units to be served. This standard approach results in a water impact fee of $1,119, and a wastewater impact fee of $1,247 for a combined total of $3,066. However, as explained further in the report, the consultants also set out an alternative which for lack of better terminology is referred to as the equity fee. This approach results in a water impact fee of $1,325, and a wastewater impact fee of $1,098, for a combined total of $2,423. While certainly the higher number can be supported and will result in higher revenues for the City, it also appears to be at the top end of fees being charged by other municipalities in the region. Additionally, as stated in the report the equity model accounts for additional fees that will be collected through rate payments made by new customers that will be applied towards improvements necessary to serve them. Given this fact, coupled with the understanding that recent case law has tended to support more the equity model than the standard approach, it would appear that the reasonable alternative for the City is to consider the equity fee approach which would produce $2,423 per unit connecting to the City's water and wastewater system. Most cities determine the amount of impact fees based upon water meter size. However, in Georgetown, we have developed our intensity plan method which is based upon actual historical demands by various land uses in the community and will result in a differential fee between land use classifications having the same size water meter as compared to the water tap approach. Use of the intensity based methodology will allow for more accurate cost allocation based upon historical data and arguably result in a fairer system for all customers. It will also allow for a wide range of fees among projects with the same meter size which could lead to a question of the fairness of the system. One drawback in using the intensity based approach is the lack of sufficient land use categories that allow for accurate determination of the fee amount and thereby again raising the issue of fairness. On the other hand the use of water meters to determine level of service and thereby fee amount will provide a more uniform and consistent unit of measurement across land use types. Realize however that use of water meters deals more with averages across the system as opposed to the more accurate and true demand based upon land use type as allowed by land intensity model. The water tap approach is also based upon a dwelling unit demand which is converted by meter size for other land use types. Since the dwelling unit measure reflects average demand, it doesn't deal with real non-residential demand which may occur over more hours in the day and not truly reflect the actual pressure being placed on the City to provide treatment and supply. While the intensity based system appears the more desirable route, given the limitation as to the number of adequate land use classifications and the typical approach by municipalities adopting impact fees to use water meter sizes, it would appear that use of water meters in setting the level of impact fees is the better course to follow at this time. Phase -in Period As stated previously, State Statute requires that a one year grace period be provided for all existing platted lots from payment of impact fees. The committee wanted to explore whether Georgetown should have a longer phase -in period for existing platted subdivisions. A review of major subdivisions and level of development reveals approximately 1400 available lots that would be eligible for such a Grandfather provision. (See Exhibit A) Given the City's recent experience in the level of permit activity, this would result in a four (4) to five (5) year inventory of available lots to be developed. Thus, unless permit activity increases dramatically within the year after adoption of impact fees, only 20-25 % of the available lots in larger subdivisions in town would be covered by the exemption from paying impact fees. Based upon the proposed adoption of the equity impact fee amount of $2423, and assuming approximately 300 lots would take advantage of the one (1) year exemption, the remaining Impact Fee Advisory Committee August 17, 1995 Page 2 1100 lots would generate $2,665,300 in impact fees as they receive building permits. With the likelihood that the inventory of the existing lots would take longer than the one (1) year exemption period to be absorbed, then the use of a longer phase -in time may be something the community wishes to consider. A longer phase -in time coupled with a gradual increase in fees may make the adoption of impact fees on existing lot owners easier to accept. Recognize that the longer the phase -in period the lower the revenue generated by the City. With lower revenue generation, there will also be a lower ability for the City to expand the utility system to provide service in a quick and timely manner. Not charging for existing lots, gives capacity in the existing system to new units which is paid for by the current customers in the larger community and those costs are not recouped. Also, the longer the time frame in phasing -in impact fees will result in increased pressures on utility rates to provide the necessary revenues to expand service. This issue coupled with the timing of collecting impact fees argues for a short phase -in period in order to allow for necessary revenues to provide services as the community grows. Another dimension of the phase -in period was whether certain exemptions should also be considered. Developments such as churches and schools, new industrial or economic development projects may want to be considered for exemptions. Similarly, projects undertaken by other political subdivisions is an area needing further study. Lastly, given that existing platted lots receive a one (1) year grace period, there is also the parallel issue of unplatted but existing legal lots that exist in the community and whether they should be treated similarly to platted lots. I believe strong arguments could be made for treating legal lots although unplatted in the same manner as existing platted lots. Also, churches and the support they receive throughout the community may justify a waiver of impact fees as well. Prior to the committee meeting we will investigate how other communities deal with projects undertaken by other jurisdictions and the collection of fees. Conversion of Septic Systems The adoption of impact fees would apply to all properties within the service territory wanting to connect to the system. Thus, properties in Serenada, Oakcrest, Golden Oaks and other portions of the community where the City of Georgetown water is provided but currently wastewater service is unavailable, would be required when wastewater service becomes available to such properties to pay the appropriate impact fee. The question of extending service to the properties themselves may involve the creation of an assessment district. This would not in and of itself reduce the need to also pay impact fee at the time the sewer tap is made. One way to look at this is to realize that in a new subdivision, the homeowner will with the price of the house, be paying for the cost of public improvements installed in that subdivision to provide service. Additionally, the impact fee will be paid to address the cost associated with system -wide improvements for transmission and collection as well as treatment and Impact Fee Advisory Committee August 17, 1995 Page 3 supply. Thus, payment of the assessment would be for the "on -site" improvements and the impact fee to pay for the larger system -wide improvements. Requiring a one time lump sum payment of the impact fee, might discourage conversion to the City's system. This in turn may allow for continued use of improperly functioning septic systems and potential longer term contamination of the aquifer. Alternatively, the payment of impact fees could be made on an installment basis through the utility bill payment process similar to the payout options currently allowed on a limited basis. A homeowner wishing to connect to the system might be able to enter in to an agreement to pay the impact fee out over a period of time. For residential users the proposed wastewater impact fee of approximately $1100, the schedule without interest for a two (2) to (3) year payout would add between $30 and $45 to the monthly utility bill. Recognize that the selection of how impact fee in such situations is paid may affect the timing and financing of utility extentions. Point at Which Fee is Collected Under state law, impact fees are to be assessed at the time of platting. The collection of the fee can occur at one of several stages in the development process. The fee collection stages include the plat recordation, the issuance of building permits, connection to the utility system or issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. These will be addressed in turn. By collecting impact fees at the time that the plat is recorded, places the payment on the developer. This can result in a sizeable amount depending upon the number of lots being platted at a given time. It may also affect the number of lots and the size of subdivisions that are recorded such that large projects are discouraged and smaller project encouraged. It is to the City's advantage to collect fees at plat recordation because is allows for early revenue generation to fund the necessary improvements to provide for the services that new subdivisions will require. It also ensures that full costs of improvements are recouped early on and not dependent upon the build -out of a project over time. Collecting fees at building permit seems to be the most common point in the process at which the cities collect their impact fees. This is also the point in the process when most of the other individual fees are collected for building permits and utility taps. By collecting impact fees at building permit it might ease the payment of such fees and would place responsibility for such payment closer to the end user. However, this again would require the City to front end more of the utility expansion costs and possibly affect the timing and speed with which utilities are made available. As with the phase -in period the later in the process that the City collects its fees increases the need for the City to increase its rates in order to ensure the availability of adequate services. Currently, the City of Georgetown for its residential users has among the highest water rates for cities the same size in Texas. Likewise, delaying fee collection to building permit puts the City at greater risk at recapturing its fees and makes us more dependent upon the build out schedule of the project. Impact Fee Advisory Committee August 17, 1995 Page 4 The arguments for delaying fee payment to utility connection are similar only stronger to those for the collection of building permit. It does establish a closer link to what is actually being purchased by the end user but delays even to a later stage the collection of those fees. In Georgetown's situation, there would not be much time between the issuance of permits and utility connections as typically all fees are paid at one point in the process. Certificates of occupancies are typically not issued for single family homes and to require payment at this stage in the process would necessitate a revision for building code process. This would add another step in the building inspection approval stage. Again, while this is the point when actual demand on the utility system will begin to be generated, it also requires that all improvements to provide service are in place and requires the community to front end those improvement costs. Thus, while there are strong arguments on both sides for adopting the payment of impact fees at different stages in the process, a balance needs to be struck between reasonable time for developer/property owner and the City to ensure that costs are kept reasonable and the ability to extend services is facilitated. Similarly, the point of collection needs to be balanced against the phase -in period because the collection of fees has direct implications for the ability for the City to extend service. Therefore, while collection of impact fees at building permit stage would seem to be reasonable, this also argues for a shorter phase -in period than might be allowed if fees are paid at the recording of the plat. In summary, there are strong argument for the various alternatives in addressing these four (4) main policy issues. Although Georgetown's approach to guiding development is somewhat different than found in other communities, it is probably reasonable to adopt a more traditional approach to implementing impact fees thereby being consistent with surrounding municipalities. Thus, using water meters to determining impact fee levels and the equity approach resulting in a fee of $2423 per dwelling unit equivalent coupled with the balancing of the point of collection and phase -in period with provisions to accommodate conversions from septic systems would appear to be reasonable course of action. I and the Assistant City Attorney will be available at the meeting on Thursday evening to discuss these issues further. Should you have any questions between now and then, please feel to contact me. Impact Fee Advisory Committee August 17, 1995 Page 5 EXHIBIT A VACANT LOTS IN GEORGETOWN AREA SUBDIVISIONS as of 7-31-95 Subdivision Name Number of Open Lots (Estimate) Berry Creek 201 Churchill (Stonehedge) 1&2 62 Clearview Estates 1 26 Crystal Knoll Unit 1 90 Fountainwood 150 Parkview Estates Section 1 99 Pleasant Valley 46 Raintree 28 River Bend, Village of 30 River Ridge & Riverview Estates 228 Serenada East 10 Serenada South 25 Serenada West 24 Sierra Vista 1 &2 98 Smith Branch 59 University Park 98 Wood Ranch 107 Total Vacant Lots 1 1 This total does not include: Indian Creek, Legend Oaks, Oak Crest, Quail Valley, Reata Trails, River Hills, San Gabriel Heights, Sun City, Thousand Oaks, Williams Addition, or Serenada Country Estates. Many of these are almost fully built out. D95-0079.01 DEVELOPMENT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT PEES Prepared for: City of Georgetown, Texas PO Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409 (512) 930-3575 James Duncan and Associates 13276 Research Blvd., Suite 208 Austin, Texas 78750 (512) 258-7347 Prepared by. - July, 1995 Rimrock Consulting Company PO Box 163643 Austin, Texas 78716 (512) 442-1435 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY .i...YA:.`: i..v vh} , vi...•:.,.,.,. {.... {.N ...{.}+. {.•.Y.v: {.•. {.X..,..... {.. ...}t {...}. .ti {..tv Y. r.... :.}:.y; {. �.�.}}t A�C4.2?{{.}}X.v.K•{hv{a\'.}h!{.'41•J':•A:�\•:w} DEVELOPMENT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 1.0 INTRODUCTION The 70th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 336 (subsequently codified as Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code) regulating various types of utility fees, defined in the legislation as "impact fees". Such fees include not only traditional impact fees, but also capital recovery, lot, acreage, frontage and other typical utility fees, as well as facility dedication programs. The legislation laid out very specific requirements for the technical development of these fees as well as the procedures necessary for enactment of such fee programs. The City of Georgetown abolished water and sewer impact fees in 1990. With the expectation of high growth in the community due to the development of Sun City and other ongoing community growth, the City Council has decided to develop water and sewer impact fees, under the requirements of Chapter 395, in order to reduce the growth -related cost impacts on the community. James Duncan and Associates, in association with Rimrock Consulting Company, was engaged by the City to perform the technical study, required under State law, for the enactment of these fees. The study consists of two phases: Phase I considers the "land use assumptions", or planning basis of the capital improvements program and fees. Phase I was completed in December 1994 with a public hearing and adoption of land use planning assumptions. This report presents the technical results of Phase II of the study, which consists of capital improvements plans for the water and sewer utilities, and the development of impact fees. 2.0 TECHNICAL BASIS OF IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS 2.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS Chapter 395 requires the following elements be included in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) used as the basis for impact fees: • Table of service usage for each category of capital improvements and a conversion table of service- units per acre (or other measure) of at least residential, commercial and 1 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY �... ....... ...... ::......: �ti�:`::itiviaa:iiiair:eiei:�{�'i�i:ii�:i.:ii:?•��Se'•.••::.:�:i�:uivi::i:.:'ii:�:�iti�: %:{•:i};:}r'•:'. ....•............: .. .......ti ......... ..... .s.. > .. sty.., .: w•':i?�=:•:i�.'•',•'?: •'....... ......:.a-'`:'v �_ yi'�}::� •�... � {:i�:.:•: {:: : .. : ti. . n.r. �.. .. ''it{i:�:i:}............ .-.. .'>.....sv.s.>:�::vC?':..�....::�<<isiii%u.•.tix:,:�:;•:v:<.:.:w:}i:::ii»;•:i::}a•.ee'+tY industrial land uses • Projections of total service units for new development, within the service area: • At full buildout • Within 10 years or less • Description of existing capital improvements, including: • Existing capital improvements within the service area • Analysis of total capacity of existing improvements • Analysis of current usage of existing improvements • Analysis of commitments for usage of existing capacity • Costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand or replace facilities for existing needs • Description of capital improvements needed to serve new development within the next 10 years or less (based upon adopted service area, land use and unit usage assumptions), including: • All or portions of the existing CIP • All or portions of the future CIP • Costs associated with both existing and future CIP facilities needed for new development 2.1.1 Table of Service Usage The City's engineering consultant, Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM), provided service usage standards for the study. These are expressed in a number of gallons per capita and are shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY TABLE 2-1 CAPACITY DEMAND REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER FACILITIES FACILITY BASIS CAPACITY/CAPITA Supply Average Day 182 gallons/capita/daily Treatment Peak Day 297 gallons/capita/daily Pumpage Engineer's Analysis 495 gallons/capita/daily Ground Storage Key Fire Rate 130 gallons/capita Elevated Storage Key Fire Rate 55 gallons/capita Major Transmission Peak Day 297 gallons/capita/daily SOURCE: Camp, Dresser & McKee. TABLE 2-2 CAPACITY DEMAND REQUIREMENTS FOR SEWER FACILITIES FACILITY BASIS CAPACITY/CAPITA Treatment Max Month 102 gallons/capita/daily Pumpage Engineer's Analysis 255 gallons/capita/daily Major Collection Max Month 102 gallons/capita/daily SOURCE: Camp, Dresser & McKee. 2.1.2 Conversion Table Section 395.014(a)(4) of the Impact Fee Act requires: ... an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial .... 3 4TJAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY ............... ....:::.......... ....::::.:::.:::.:.::.:.::..:...::::.:::.::::::.:.,.:. }.},.}Y.<•}a}}h.}tn.}}W%{!4 }}}T}h}}%:,bM(.E[4.TMR.;.%.}:4X.}}X•:h}}SF}:.}Y:4•}P.\.'4}}}}}}%-0.'h8}}:.Y}}}%.:.%iA }v, a:.}:}:.}}'.;.}:.}}!.:}v.:.:vr:.}!•}}%.:v::::,v:}•:•:�•:tilw{{: •ii•:�:... .. 4....... ::::::::•:•::•: :. :; ::•:::: v.v::: •: .. ... .. ...... n........}4:::':t.. '•r' V}ti%}... \......n}�;%:y.}}}}}}:.v}}}��}<ti� i}}'!.:}i}}!h}}ti}:.+n:{.J;.S4:'iF:ufiC�SS>':� In order to comply with this provision of the law and utilize the City's unique Land Intensity Plan, the Consultants had to perform several steps: • Identify a "service unit" to measure both current and future demand • Calculate the number of service units currently served by each utility and determine the number of gallons of demand associated with each service unit • Identify the number of service units associated with each category of land use in the City's land use projections, consistent with the Land Intensity Plan 2.1.2.1 Service Unit Identification The first task for the Consultants was to identify a "service unit", which is defined as "a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements or facility expansions". Most typically, service units for water and sewer utilities are based upon the capacity attributable to water meters in the utility system. The reason for this is that water meters are physical elements, in various sizes, which limit the maximum capacity demand of various users. Table 2-3 shows the number of service units attributable to various meters in the City water system. 2.1.2.2 Service Unit Demand The next step was to calculate the approximate number of service units currently served by the City's water and sewer system. Table 2-4 shows the number of water meters of various sizes currently active in the City's water system, and the conversion of the capacity represented by the meters to service units. The table indicates that there are approximately 2.906 persons per service unit. Since the sewer service population is estimated at 18,833 (according to previously adopted land use assumptions), the number of service units is estimated to be 6,480. Using the estimate of 2.906 persons per service unit, the capacity demand requirements shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 were re -expressed as capacity demand per service unit. These service unit demands are shown in Table 2-5 and Table 2-6. 51 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY .................................::..:........................................... ::::.::.:.::::::::....................:........................................................:...:::....::::::::.:::::.:::.:;: ......,,......... >.,., ........,,..,....,..,......,,..........,,.................... ....,,,... ..,... TABLE 2-3 SERVICE UNIT EQUIVALENCIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES AND SIZES OF WATER METERS CONTINUOUS METER METER DUTY MAXIMUM RATIO TO TYPE SIZE RATE 3/4" METER WPM) SIMPLE 5/8" x 3/4" 10 0.667 SIMPLE 3/4" 15 1.000 SIMPLE ill 25 1.667 SIMPLE 1-1 /2" 50 3.333 SIMPLE ------------ 2" ------------ 80 -------------- 5.333 ------------ COMPOU ND ------------ 2" ------------ 80 -------------- 5.333 ------------ TURBINE 2" 100 6.667 COMPOUND ------------ 3" ------------ 160 -------------- 10.667 ------------ TURBINE 3" 240 16.000 COMPOUND ------------ 4" ------------ 250 -------------- 16.667 ------------ TURBINE 4" 420 28.000 COMPOUND ------------ 6" ------------ 500 -------------- 33.333 ------------ TU R B I N E 6" 920 61.333 COMPOUND ------------ 8" ------------ 800 -------------- 53.333 ------------ TU R B I N E 8" 1600 106.667 COMPOUND ------------ 10" ------------ 1150 -------------- 76.667 ------------ TU R B I N E 101, 2500 166.667 TURBINE 12" 3300 220.000 SOURCE: AWWA Standards C700, C701, C702, C703. 5 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees R/MROCK CONSULTING COMPANY _ w... ................ ;............... ;.;.................................... ......... 1 . {x..F...}.n}.<n .}}} .:}}ti .�h:!i ti y v •:: •:isv:i�::if:��::ti�M•::�i•i:;:t�!:ti•:<:w::!fiitiLv:{L�: ................. ...................... .. .... v.!NM•F...::�.v�v.•.::•�,}fi!.tr::.•n!r •fn•.v.:•.%4F TABLE 2-4 CURRENT METER COUNT AND ESTIMATION OF SERVICE UNITS Classification, Inside or Outside City Location.:...:_:.:Meter Size Number of Meters [a] Units per Meter Number of Service Units Residential, Inside 3/4" 4,534 1.000 4,534 Residential, Outside 3/4" 1,546 1.000 1,546 Residential, Inside 1" 159 1.667 265 Residential, Outside 1" 62 1.667 103 Residential, Inside 1-112, 17 3.333 57 Residential, Outside 1-1/2, 6 3.333 20 Residential, Outside 2" 4 5.333 21 Commercial, Inside 3/4" 397 1.000 397 Commercial, Outside 3/4" 8 1.000 8 Commercial, Inside 1" 70 1.667 117 Commercial, Outside 1" 2 1.667 3 Commercial, Inside 1-112, 46 3.333 153 Commercial, Outside 1-1/2" 2 3.333 7 Commercial, Inside 2" 41 5.333 2 Commercial, Outside 2" 2 5.333 11 Commercial, Inside 3" 8 10.667 85 Commercial, Inside 4" 3 16.667 50 Commercial, Outside 4" 2 16.667 33 School, Inside 3/4" 10 1.000 10 School, Inside 1" 3 1.667 5 School, Inside 1-112, 3 3.333 10 School, Inside 2" 16 5.333 85 School, Inside 3" 3 10.667 32 School, Inside 4" 4 16.667 67 School, Inside 6" 1 33.333 33 Industrial, Inside 3/4" 12 1.000 12 Industrial, Inside 1" 4 1.667 7 Industrial, Inside 1-1/2" 9 3.333 30 Industrial, Inside 2" 8 5.333 43 Industrial, Outside 2" 1 5.333 5 Industrial, Inside 3" 4 10.667 43 Industrial, Inside 4" 1 33.333 33 City Lift Stations 2" 1 5.333 5 Total 6 989 7 833 Population 22,767 Population per Service Unit 2.91 101 �uurce: c,'ry or Ueorgetown Finance Department. 4TJAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY TABLE 2-5 CAPACITY DEMAND REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER FACILITIES SERVICE UNIT BASIS FACILITY BASIS CAPACITY/SERVICE UNIT Supply Average Day 530 gallons/unit/daily Treatment Peak Day 864 gallons/unit/daily Pumpage Engineer's Analysis 1,440 gallons/unit/daily Ground Storage Key Fire Rate 378 gallons/unit Elevated Storage Key Fire Rate 160 gallons/unit Major Transmission Peak Day 864 gallons/unit/daily SOURCE: Camp, Dresser & McKee. TABLE 2-6 CAPACITY DEMAND REQUIREMENTS FOR SEWER FACILITIES SERVICE UNIT BASIS FACILITY BASIS CAPACITY/SERVICE UNIT Treatment Max Month 296 gallons/unit/daily Pumpage Engineer's Analysis 741 gallons/unit/daily Major Collection Max Month 296 gallons/unit/daily SOURCE: Camp, Dresser & McKee. 2.1.2.3 Land Use Conversion Table Table 2-7 and Table 2-8 show the peak water demand and average sewage flows, respectively, for various land uses, as shown in the City's Land Intensity Plan. For each land use, the service demand is divided by the value of a service unit (864 gallons/day for water, 247 gallons/day for sewer) to determine how many service units are applicable for each land use for each utility. 7 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY TABLE 2-7 SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION CHART FOR VARIOUS LAND USES WATER UTILITY LAND: USE: ACTIVITY. PEAK D" .:::. 'DEMAND GPD/Measure: (a) FEE SERVICE. UNITS P 864: GPD/Measure MEASURE Agriculture 1,157 1.34 Dwelling Un. Detached SF Residential, Large Lot 1,157 1.34 Dwelling Un. Detached SF Residential, Average Lot 998 1.16 Dwelling Un. Attached SF Residential 650 0.75 Dwelling Un. Multi -Family Residential 528 0.61 Dwelling Un. Mobile Home Residential 650 0.75 Dwelling Un. Lodging 192 0.22 1,000 Sq. Ft. Institutional 343 0.40 1,000 Sq. Ft. Church with Day Care 308 0.36 1,000 Sq. Ft. Church without Day Care 186 0.22 1,000 Sq. Ft. Recreational 34 0.04 Acre Medical Office 416 0.48 1,000 Sq. Ft. General Office 364 0.42 1,000 Sq. Ft. Retail, Mixed 650 0.75 1,000 Sq. Ft. Retail, Restaurant 1,560 1.81 1,000 Sq. Ft. Retail, Store 325 0.38 1,000 Sq. Ft. Employment Center 364 0.42 1,000 Sq. Ft. Warehouse 57 0.07 1,000 Sq. Ft. Mini -Warehouse 4 0.005 1 1 1000 Sq. Ft. (a) Source: Georgetown Century Plan, Land Intensity. JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Nl� Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY }MS•Y� .. }?t�4ik :. �}/.y!AM\ :i...!�4}f...:t!�}}}M}nKM HY,A.}fw.}}]dN6�PTN..}':.Y.{..!.,f:.}v.�.}}}}V.;..vf.V,InrO}n}}Od}M}Y.•�!r.a}}v.. • • • • • •v vCktiti::: • • • • • • • • • • : � : • � • � • � : fJ' v�•X{vu.M:fM..}}Y,.x}M}}vn........ }M.�i�\y..M. � ... � �.y.4 :..�'�rinnn��t��viw}t�� •riff!% .... . TABLE 2-8 SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION CHART FOR VARIOUS LAND USES WASTEWATER UTILITY LAND USE ACTIVITY PEAK DAY FLOW GPD/Measure (a) FEE SERVICE UNITS @ 247 GPD/Measure MEASURE Agriculture 289 1.17 Dwelling Un. Detached SF Residential, Large Lot 289 1.17 Dwelling Un. Detached SF Residential, Average Lot 250 1.01 Dwelling Un. Attached SF Residential 175 0.71 Dwelling Un. Multi -Family Residential 156 0.63 Dwelling Un. Mobile Home Residential 193 0.78 Dwelling Un. Lodging 61 0.25 1,000 Sq. Ft. Institutional 92 0.37 1,000 Sq. Ft. Church with Day Care 83 0.34 1,000 Sq. Ft. Church without Day Care 50 0.20 1,000 Sq. Ft. Recreational 5 0.02 Acre Medical Office 112 0.45 1,000 Sq. Ft. General Office 91 0.37 1,000 Sq. Ft. Retail, Mixed 163 0.66 1,000 Sq. Ft. Retail, Restaurant 480 1.94 1,000 Sq. Ft. Retail, Store 88 0.36 1,000 Sq. Ft. Employment Center 91 0.37 1,000 Sq. Ft. Warehouse 14 0.06 1,000 Sq. Ft. Mini -Warehouse 1 0.004 1 000 S Ft. (a) Source: Georgetown Century Plan, Land Intensity. JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY •�.•ry.::::::::•::ti lJ:::'::.-:: ''•i:::•:l:•'•::tiY:::•:•::•:::'::•:':i:•::•::l •': ••::V:•':V''f •:::::•i::' •:::.::� •:� :'::•:: :•:::•: ti' :•:::i::: J:: i:.V: =2.f.})r.CxYi:.+o-}x)sbn45aaa..s+r>:).+ao->.at-.....>wu,.>...:.C•.<.»<4�iiie.4n)x.s�...a.77.....�.>.>4h�...)n).)x.,).)).•.aa.,a[ia�)�.-u.)):;r.::+:C'.':..��e.)C}.)'A>))•.: � r{.)x4\�.)>»r..+S-d.a:.'.)v J:S))a)})}�?s:>.Y�,.iatiS:':i3!r:}tii�i+<isXitfiiiXi>Y)X?i)X�:+i+1.w:.•:G:+.:<Rii4�=i 2.1.3 Projected Service Units for New Development The estimated demand per capita shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 was applied to projected populations adopted after the City's hearing on land use assumptions to yield the estimated water and wastewater service demands shown in Table 2-9 and Table 2-10, expressed in service units. As required by the legislation, projections are shown for both 2005 and ultimate buildout. TABLE 2-9 ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE WATER UTILITY FACILITY TYPE VOLUME 1995 2005 ULTIMATE TOTAL SERVICE UNITS (a) 7,833 12,855 44,021 WATER SUPPLY AVG MGD: Estimated Demand (b) 4.151 6.813 23.331 Existing Capacity (g) 20.608 20.608 20.608 Excess/(Deficiency) 16.457 13.795 (2.723) WATER TREATMENT PEAK MGD: Estimated Demand (c) 6.768 11.107 38.034 Existing Capacity (g) 10.200 10.200 10.200 Excess/(Deficiency) 3.432 (0.907) (27.834) BOOSTER PUMP PEAK MGD: Estimated Demand (d) 11.280 18.511 63.390 Existing Capacity (g) 63.360 63.360 63.360 Excess/(Deficiency) 52.080 44.849 (0.030) GROUND STORAGE MG: Estimated Demand (e) 2.960 4.857 16.633 Existing Capacity (g) 5.750 5.750 5.750 Excess/(Deficiency) 2.790 0.893 (10.883) ELEVATED WATER STORAGE MG: Estimated Demand (f) 1.252 2.055 7.037 Existing Capacity (g) 2.500 2.500 2.500 Excess/Deficiency) 1.248 0.445 4.537 (a) 1995 service units based on count of equivalent 314, meters. 2005 and ultimate service units determined by design demand per capita Service Unit = 2.91 persons (b) Capacity Demand = 530 gallons/service unit/daily (c) Capacity Demand = 864 gallons/service unitldaily (d) Capacity Demand = 1,440 gallons/service unit/daily (e) Capacity Demand = 378 gallons/service unit (0 Capacity Demand = 160 gallons/service unit (9) Existing Capacity details are contained in Capital Improvements Program Inventory. 10 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY k.}. }}y{..{b.b. n }n ,.y.,v. ....n4.-..... ..{ }}}}}.b}:. .. }....1.../..... .{:.:.{ l:•'. .. r...... .. .. .........:.. :.:: ' is . }: r.v::::.:4'.•{...... .........,....r..............� .... n...,.1 }.:.' :. • �. .. Y.JdLV'r.• •.:....,...ef .:..�.+:{:;'{{}':rS:'r: {:v:<i::::::)[:•}:;'{ �: :: ': 'r:.}} TABLE 2-10 ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE WASTEWATER UTILITY FACILITY TYPE VOLUME „1995 2005 ULTIMATE TOTAL SERVICE UNITS (a) 6,480 12,855 44,021 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PEAK MGD: Estimated Demand (b) 1.921 3.811 13.051 Existing Capacity (d) 3.840 3.840 3.840 Excess/(Deficiency) 1.919 0.029 (9.211) WASTEWATER PUMPING PEAK MGD: Estimated Demand (c) 4.802 9.528 32.627 Existing Capacity (d) 16.100 16.100 16.100 Excess/ Deficien c 11.298 6.572 16.527 (a) Service units determined by design demand per capita served: Service Unit = 2.91 persons (b) Capacity Demand = 296 gallons/service unit/daily (c) Capacity Demand = 741 gallonslservice unit/daily (d) Existing Capacity details are contained in Capital Improvements Program 2.1.4 CIP Development for Existing and Future Needs Facility unit statistics shown in Table 2-5 and Table 2-6 were used to project facility needs for both existing and future customers. Table 2-9 and Table 2-10 show current needs for existing customers, as well as projected capacity needs for growth. No deficiencies for existing customers were identified by the City's consulting engineers. Table 2-11 and Table 2-12 present the inventory of facilities as required in Chapter 395. They show the required allocation of existing and future CIP facility needs for existing development; future development within the next ten years; and excess capacity for subsequent future development. For each generation Of utility customers, these tables show facility needs which will be met by Existing Facilities and Future Facilities. 11 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY ;.: i-..a..;k:.exr.......h.......:.,...........r...,r..L,.:.S;irrrura::.••:>•ra..xv:.:.....:rt.;.}r•�::a:.:;.�:rr.t•?n.:.:-xra,.>:.}:.>:r:a:.:.t.:r::••::s:•:.��u•:•.• .... •.4.. ;}.: - x .. ... v� . S.r.::<::;:,,::r•:.:{:irr.:r•:.i.}}:r.vr.. �:r,4}......:r ... •.�.'.. �. - � ~r.- �.. . r ' . r:x.h �. 4��r}.. •. �...\:: ��i{:!titi:`[ Cost allocations are also shown in Table 2-11 and Table 2-12. Cost estimates for each facility were taken from actual cost of existing facilities and projected costs of future facilities. Costs were expressed on a per -service unit basis. Finally, an appropriate cost share was attributed to 1995-2005 growth, as determined from capacity allocations shown. Total capital costs for 1995-2005 growth were then summed for each utility. TABLE 2-11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS WATER UTILITY FACILITY CONSTRUCT COST FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd or gals) 1995- 2005 CAPITAL COST TOTAL 1995- 2005 COST PER SERVICE UNIT (a) TYPE NAME TOTAL FOR CURRENT CUST. EXCESS < 10 YEARS EXCESS > 10 YEARS SUPPLY EXISTING FACILITIES Downtown Well #1 $15,403 MGD 1.440 Downtown Well #2 $18,397 1.720 San Gabriel Park Well #1 $14,705 3.600 San Gabriel Park Well #2 $6,127 1.500 14ein Well $20,104 0.900 i Lake Georgetown $104,144 6.000 Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir $0 (b) 5.448 Subtotal Existing Facilities $178,880 ' 20.608 4.151 2.662 13.795 $23,104 FUTURE FACILITIES Stillhouse Raw Water Line $5,605.765 5.448 Subtotal Future Facilities $5,605,765 5.448 0.000 0.704 4.744 $724,037 TOTAL WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES $5,784,645 20.608 4.151 2.662 13.795 $747,141 $148.77 12 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY ii''u$a►is�s::fi:'� ::i ti'i�::it�'t::r:'v:'. } }:::'r?::r i: }$y:}$$y:}i .....a... .......+.:.. s: >....... •a .. ..... ... .....: :. i}} TABLE 2-11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS WATER UTILITY 1995- FACILITY FACIUTY CAPACITY (mgd or gals) 1995- 2005 CONSTRUCT 2005 COST COST FOR EXCESS EXCESS CAPITAL PER TYPE NAME TOTAL FOR <' 10 > 10 COST SERVICE CUST. YEARS YEARS TOTAL UNIT (a) II REATMENT EXISTING FACILITIES MGD Lake Georgetown Treatment Plant $4,660,317 5.450 San Gabriel Park Treatment Plant $4,090,000 4.750 Subtotal Existing Facilities $8,750,317710.200 6.768 3.432 0.000 $2,944,471 FUTURE FACILITIES Lake Georgetown WTP Exp #1 $5,625,000 6.000 Lake Georgetown WTP Exp #2 $5,625,000 6.000 Lake Georgetown WTP Exp #3 $5,625,000 6.000 Subtotal., Future Facilities $16,875,000 18.000 0.000 0,907 17.093 $850,136 TOTAL WATER TREATMENT-'.$25,625,317 . 28.200 6.768 4.339 17.093 $3,794,608 $755.58 13 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY ............ .. .... .. TABLE 2-11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS WATER UTILITY (I FACILITY . .. ...... . .::.CONSTRUCT COST FACILITY CAPACITY (mqd or gals):2005 2005 CAPITAL COST TOTAL 1995 COST PER SERVICE UNIT (a)*... TYPE NAME TOTAL FOR CURRENT CUST. EXCESS < 10 YEARS EXCESS > 10 YEARS PUMPING EXISTING FACILITIES MGD Lake Georgetown Raw Water P.S. 1 $10,800 3.024 Lake Georgetown Raw Water P.S. 2 $10,800 3.024 Lake Georgetown Raw Water P.S. 3 $10,800 3.024 L Georgetown WTP HS Pump, Pi $13,480 3.744 L Georgetown WTP HS Pump, P2 $13,480 3.744 L Georgetown WTP HS Pump, P3 $13,480 3.744 L Georgetown WTP HS Pump, P4 $13,480 3.744 L Georgetown WTP HS Pump, PS $13,480 3.744 S. Gabriel WTP HS Pump, Pi $25,862 3.600 S. Gabriel WTP HS Pump, P2 $25,862 3.600 S. Gabriel WTP HS Pump, P3 $25,862 3.600 S. Gabriel WTP HS Pump, P4 $25,862 3.600 Sequoia Spur HS P.S., Pi $13,333 3.600 Sequoia Spur HS P.S., P2 $13,333 3.600 Sequoia Spur HS P.S., P3 $9,333 2.520 Southside Booster P.S., Pi $8,117 1.080 Southside Booster P.S., P2 $8,117 1.080 Southside Booster P.S., P3 $16,233 2.160 Southside Booster P.S., P4 $16,233 2.160 Airport Booster P.S., Pi $1,826 0.324 Airport Booster P.S., P2 $1,826 0.324 Airport Booster P.S., P3 $12,174 2.160 Airport Booster P.S., P4 $12,174 2.160 Subtotal Existing Facilities $315,946 63.360 11.280 5.116 46.965 $25,509 14 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Nl� Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY :::v::.:::.rw�..:...:r:.v::vi:4:�•:i:i:4}}:•:!�: s:...7:v:ti:: TABLE 2-11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS WATER UTILITY I FACILfTY CONSTRUCT COST FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd or gals) 1995- 2005 CAPITAL COST TOTAL 1 s95- 2005 COST PER SERVICE UNIT a ( ) .;:.TYPE NAME ; TOTALLCUST. FOR URRENT EXCESS < 10 YEARS EXCESS > 10 YEARS FUTURE FACILITIES Sun CityHigh Service P.S. 9 $437,500 8.210 Lake Georgetown HS P.S. 2 $625,000 6.000 ILake Georgetown HS P.S. 3 $625,000 6.000 Lake Georgetown HS P.S. 4 $625,000 6.000 Subtotal Future, Facilities $2,312,500 26.210 0.000 2.116 24.094 $186,710 TOTAL WATER PUMPAGE $Zq?P.446 89.570 11.280 7.232 71.059 $212,219 $4226 jjjjj� OUND STORAGE EXISTING FACILITIES MG Sequoia Spur Booster Storage $360,571 2.000 Southside Booster Ground Storage $150,000 1.000 IPark Plant Clearwell $250,000 2.000 Lake Plant Clearwell $145,000 0.750 Subtotal Existing Facilities (' 9 $905,571 ` 5.750 2.960 1.015 1.775 $159,853 FUTURE FACILITIES Sun City Ground Storage $625,000 2.000 Lake Georgetown Clearwell 2 $625,000 1.000 Lake Georgetown Clearwell 3 $625,000 1.000 ILake Georgetown Clearwell 4 $625,000 1.000 4.117 $441,305 Subtotal .Future Facilities 1 $2,500,000 5.000 0.000 0.883 TOTAL GROUND STORAGE $3,405,571 10.750 2.960 1.898 5.893 $601 ,158 s119.75 15 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY ,.: ., tie.... .. .......a�wa >..,,a......a .... .. TABLE 2-11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS WATER UTILITY 1995-' FACILITY FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd or gals) 1995- 2005 CONSTRUCT COST 2005 CAPITAL COST ..:. PER FOR EXCESS EXCESS TYPE, NAME TOTAL CURRENT < 10 > 10 COST SERVICE CUST. YEARS YEARS' TOTAL.:-:.:....:. UNIT (a) ELEVATED STORAGE EXISTING FACILITIES MG James St. Elevated Storage $820,000 0.500 Leander Rd. Elevated Storage $820,000 0.500 Central Elevated Storage $820,000 0.500 Rabbit Hill Elevated Storage $250.000 1.000 Subtotal Existing Facilities $2,710,000 2.500 1.252 0.558 0.690 $604.356 FUTURE FACILITIES Sun City Elevated Storage #1 $550,000 0.400 Sun City Elevated Storage #2 $962,500 0.700 Subtotal Future Facilities $1,512,500 1.100 0.000 ` 0,245 0.855 . $337,302 TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE < $4. 3.600 1.252 0.803 1 'S45 :: a941,659 $187.67 TRANSMISSION EXISTING FACILITIES MGD 1977 Lines $3,677,876 1983 Lines $309,743 1984 Lines $538,769 1985 Lines $183,790 1986 Lines $1,527,275 1987 Lines $4,976,501 Post-1987 Lines -----T $2,074,056 Subtotal Existing Facilities $13,288,010 9,200 6.768 0.517 1.916 ': $746,053 16 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY ..... ..... ... TABLE 2-11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS WATER UTILITY FACILITY CONSTRUCT.. COST FACILITY CAPACITY (rrKjd :or gals) 1995- 2005 CAPITAL COST TOTAL 1995-. 2005'. cost. - PER SERVICE UNIT (a) TYPE NAME TOTAL FOR CURRENT CUST. EXCESS < 10 YEARS EXCESS > 10 YEARS FUTURE FACILITIES 30' Sun City Water Main $1,681,258 12' Hwy 81 to Ind Pk & Crystal Knoll $272,500 24' Hwy 29 Line - IH35 to DB Wood $700,000 12' Williams Dr Improvements $32,500 16" Urban Central Tank Line $91,250 12" Oak Crest Tie Improvement $52,500 16' IH35 Crossing by the River $27,500 16" bored IH35 Crossing $140,000 24" SW Loop (Phase 1) $588,000 24' West Loop - Andice to Ddst. 12' $1,459,500 24' Sequoia Improvements $588,000 24' SW Loop (Phase 11) $441,000 24' bored IH35 Crossing $315,000 24" bored RR Crossing $105,000 24" bored BR 81 Crossing $105,000 24' Hwy 116 Improvements (Ph. 1) $409,500 24" Hwy 116 Improvements (Ph. 11) $231,000 24' IH35 Improvements $199,500 12' Leander Trunk Line $325,000 16" Crystal Knoll $342,500 17 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY :'ti•'r Il..a. }:4.a.k\.:wt4ax. ....... •: ]>' :tiY •..:: }1:: }i•. ••(.:• ..{ � is il::'{::{:�:1 •::{� ;,� •:}•: TABLE 2-11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS WATER UTILITY I , 1995- FACILITY FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd or gals) . 1995^ 2005 CONSTRUCT 2005 COST COSY FOR EXCESS EXCESS ::.CAPITAL PER I TYPE NAME.`. TOTAL CURRENT < 10 > 10 :>' -COST SERVICE CUST. YEARS YEARS TOTAL UNIT (a) ITRANSMISSION FUTURE FACILITIES (ConL) 24' D.B. Wood Rd. Improvements $577,500 Shell Improvements $350,000 IBerry Creek Improvements $700,000 1 Subtotal Future facilities - $9,734,008 18.000 0.000 3.823 14.177 $2,067,161 TOTAL TRANSMISSION $23,022,017 27200 6.768 4.339 16.093 $2,813,214 $560.17 . WATER. CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL.$64 688 496' $9.10g.999 51,814 MM (a) Assumes the following gals per service unit conversion factors: Supply: 530 gallons/day Treatment: 864 gallons/day Pumpage: 1,440 gallons/day Ground Storage: 378 gallons Elevated Storage: 160 gallons Transmission: 864 gallons/day (b) There are no capital costs included in BRA charges to the City. 4TJAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY .w. \ }}::.' .....i>::......... ,..,.}'.S:S..r...........w ..f.. •. }}'.}}}' }..+;.,:1:' i.}!:.':-...Y\:i....}�:..� 4T:S}.....w..«......}...}.:}ti�:#:J'.:-..::5?YM1.H:.::}'t.::f::'......}}..:.Yt1):::tiw:::C:w�:}:'.}Y41 TABLE 2-12 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM INVENTORY AND COSTS WASTEWATER UTILITY FACILITY` CONSTRUCT COST .. FACILITY CAPACITY 1995- 2005 CAPITAL COST TOTAL 11995- 2005 COST PER SERVICE UNIT (a) TYPE ' ' NAME TOTAL FOR CURRENT CUST. EXCESS < 10 YEARS EXCESS > 10 YEARS TREATMENT EXISTING FACILITIES MGD San Gabriel WWTP $3,070,028 2.500 Dove Springs WWTP $2,300,000 1.240 Berry Creek WWTP 1 $125,000 0.100 Subtotal Existing Facilities ' $5,495,028 3.840 1.921 0.607 1.312 $868,139 FUTURE FACILITIES Dove Springs WWTP Expansion $3,125,000 1.260 Pecan Branch 1 $3,450,000 1.500 Pecan Branch 2 $2,500,000 1.000 Berry Creek WWTP 2 $750,000 0.300 Subtotal Future .Facilities $9,825,000 4.060 0.000 1,283 2,777 $3,105,994 .. .... TOTAL. WASTEWATER TREATMENT $15,320,028 7.900 1.921 :` 1.890 4.089 $3,974,133 T ::-33 19 OZ 0£•bSS 98l'9b£S l8Z'S l$ lL8.9 LL I.O 'S"ZL•b Zz l'0 Z08'v 000"0 66e•9L .. _ (q) 3JVdWnd 831VM31SVM 1V1O1 66Z'0 OOS'Le$ sa!l!!!oe ajnlnj pRjojgnS ;. (q) suollelS 4n ja410 990"0 00S'Zt$ uo!suedx3 MelAJ8A!8 uo!suedx3 peojp% 1 eez"o 000'SZ$ S31inlOV3 3anlnU S06'OEe$ b69'9 b09'b Z08'b 00l'9l l$ sa! ! !os 6w l l d .: 3s 3.1E)olgnS z6L"0 LGI'St' L$ S1a6p!8 Janl8 OZ9"0 000'9S$ S1 1SOM l �Jed S£HI ZE17'0 000'9S$ 'S1 lSe3 >Ped W0V S l l'0 0$ (0) •S1 MalAJaA18 090,1 000'SL$ (loeilul) 'S'l joldeoialul 000"0 000'OZZ$ 'S"1 40uej8 41!Ws Z6L'0 000'SZ$ 'S1 40ueJ8 ueoed ZSZ'0 000'Ob$ S1 41S l v peoil1ea Sze' l 000'S9$ S1 gnlo k4uno:D Z6L"0 0$ (0) "S1 Mjo14lnoS b8S' t 000' LS$ S1 '1S �OOs� OZL'0 0$ (0) 'S1 sWJed II!401n4o Zeb"0 000'SS$ 31 s>!eO uaplo!D 09e"0 000'9e$ swelll!M 1799"0 000'98$ "S1 e6p!8 JeAlu b8 l "S 000' bOz$ S 1 Need 96e'O 000'Lb$ 000'z9$ S101Ua0S I 09e"0 •S1 peo8 JaA18 GON S311nIOVd DMISIX3 (e) 11Nn gV101 S8V3A S»b3A •Isno 301AH3S 1SOO 0l < Ol > 1N38bno 83d IVI]dVO SS30X3 SS3OX3 Ho -A 1SOO . SOOZ SOOZ.: -swt Amvdvo A1nIoVd -S661 ku—iiin u3ivm3isvm S1SOO GNV AHO1N3ANI WVNJOUd S1N9W3nOHdWl IdlidVO z 1-3 319VI \•?:Y::::•}}.Y.`::� �•1::�:.•"'•}rv...:\•.•:\:1^::.v:S•::1`:•:�:`.`C•::':Y:ti:ti•.YV�::�:`.Y•: Y.:•::ti•::'...�...:::.... :'•Yti•: ti. :•x ANddW00 ONI17nSN00 NOONWItI sap- joedwl.uMoja5joaE);•:.::•:;•::::.>:<;.; S91VIDOSSV GNV NVONnO S3Wb'!' DAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY 5¢. >} 7bN\}}O�h:\.}ti}}}}..-1.}s.}Z�y.,l.}}>b>}4 Wi.v}}>L'.>F}>Y,M}>Y}Y,.}:.}bW:?}'+4'.'.'.»Y.iJril:::::ii}::}>}}}!{:::>}:.}'.:.»::>vi:ii>L:.}'.•.> ..:...:::•. .. }}>. a...�.:...,.::.,.a.r:->}>::.}:.>}>..r..t?:.}:.wa:a}:+.x•»}Siii::6aii�iin:.>iiix�,>}:,u,.yM1"s i}e.}� .... v: TABLE 2-12 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM INVENTORY AND COSTS WASTEWATER UTILITY FACILITY FACILITY CAPACrrY: - 1995- �ss5- CONSTRUCT 2'005 COST TYPE COST` FOR.::EXCESS EXCESS CAPITAL PER NAME . T OTAL CURRENT:_ _ <' 10 > 0 COST SERVICE COST: YEARS YEARS TOTAL UNIT �a) COLLECTION EXISTING FACILITIES MGD f 1982 Lines $1,691 493 1983 Lines $77,839 ' 1984 Lines $67,276 1985 Lines $129,456 Post-1985 Lines $3,290.761 Subtotal Existing Facilities $5,256,825 7.300 1.921 1.228 3.000 $884,350 FUTURE FACILITIES Pecan Branch $1,740,900 21" Smith Branch Interceptor Ph. 1 $434,075 10' Hart Street Collector Ph. 1 $174,623 30" Smith Branch Interceptor Ph. 2 $1,650,873 15' South Fork Interceptor Ph. 1 $377,873 12' West Street Collector Ph. 1 $283,855 21' Smith Branch Interceptor Ph. 3 $511,638 21' Smith Branch Interceptor Ph. 4 $579,664 8" William Dr. Lift Station Relief $126,624 18' Pecan Branch Ph. 3 $501,184 15" Pecan Branch Ph. 4 $619.125 15' Pecan Branch Ph. 5 $588,255 21 4�3 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY UK TABLE 2-12 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM INVENTORY AND COSTS WASTEWATER UTILITY 1995- FACILfTY FACIUTY CAPAC[TY 1995- 2005 CONSTRUCT.2005 COST CAPITAL COST PER FOR EXCESS EXCESS TYPE NAME ._TOTAL :: CURRENT < 10 > 10 COST SERVICE CUST. YEARS YEARS _TOTAL UNIT (a) FUTURE COLLECTION FACILITIES (Cont.) 12' Golden Oaks Lift Station Relief $73,819 6' Oak Crest Improvements $150,276 Sun City Force Main $1,500,000 Berry Creek $218,750 Effluent Return Ph. 1 $900,000 Effluent Return Ph. 2 $1,500,000 Subtotal. Future Facilities $11,931.531 2.900: 0:000 0:662 2.238 $2,724,053 TOTAL COLLECTION - $17,188,356 10200 1.921 1.890 5:238 $3,608.403 $565.97 WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $33,703.134 .7 $7,928,772 $1,244' (a) Assumes the following gals per unit conversion factors: Treatment: 296 gallons/day Pumpage: 741 gallons/day Collection: 296 gallons/day (b) Feepayers requiring construction of additional new lift stations will also be assessed cost of their prorata share of the future lift station. (c) Facilities contributed by developers without cost to the City. 22 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Nl� Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY 2.1.5 Summary of CIP Analysis and Capital Cost Allocations For all components in the utility systems, there is some excess capacity which will accommodate a portion of growth demands. But additional facilities are also needed, not only because of the magnitude of new growth anticipated, but also because of locational or operational requirements. The calculations in Table 2-11 and Table 2-12 allocate a considerable portion of the excess capacity in existing systems for use by new development, with the remainder of growth demand being met by new facility capacity. This produces a weighted average cost for new development which acknowledges the fact that new customers will use existing facilities, and will at the same time create a need for additional facilities. Table 2-13 summarizes the cost analysis for new water and wastewater growth. TABLE 2-13 WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL COST SUMMARY UTILITY FACILITY COST/SERVICE UNIT WATER Supply $148.77 Treatment $755.58 Pumping $42.26 Ground Storage $119.75 Elevated Storage $187.67 Major Transmission $560.17 Study Costs $4.98 TOTAL WATER CAPITAL COSTS $1,819.18 WASTEWATER Treatment $623.33 Pumping $54.30 Major Collection $565.97 Study Costs $3.92 TOTAL WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS $1247.52 TOTAL WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS $3,066.70 A service unit is equal to use by an average 314" water meter. 23 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY iG:isu.�ee:el.��i�i�S+n.:.t! xv .. x 4 '• :7$jr ':Y }}.$:'r':?'::i: � -i:: �':i{r':i'• :: {i}i':::;r' �:•:ti :.}:•?: . :: ..:.... - •r •. x .3 -!i •\ .YYl.....h....v.54 vKv,:/...K 1..�..,....M,.,f.. {..<.,...ti.-..lvf+!•.tint �::4ia.fAMR.h'AM��{C:{M:?!:\�w+{••(:h N.!JN'tiV,if�!ii:4Y.'✓..?>4M•'iS,:!:�3�\<ifi��fh::'tx. 2.2 FEE CREDITS Chapter 395 states that the maximum fee amount may not exceed the full capital cost per unit. However, the legislation also states that customers may not be charged a fee for facilities which they have already constructed or dedicated; this may be interpreted to include dedication through rate or tax contributions. Moreover, there is a body of case law and legal opinion that future rate contributions must be considered in setting the fee amount. 2.2.1 The Equity Residual Model This portion of the report describes the Equity Residual approach to calculating an impact fee. This approach was devised by the Consultants to respond to Constitutional precedent which generally requires that the fee calculation take into account all the various means by which feepayers may fund capital facilities, including rate and/or tax payments. This methodology provides that each new customer contributes "equity" in the utility systems comparable to that owned by other existing users. Once that equity payment is made through the impact fee, each new customer would pay the remainder of the capital -related cost of service through rate or tax payments e ual to the rate/tax payments of existing users. This minimizes cross -subsidization (one user group paying for the costs of another) and provides for full cost recovery for the City. This section contains a full discussion of that model. 2.2.1.2 Definition of Terms Terms which will be used throughout the conceptual presentation of this approach are defined below: Cost of Service (Construction) - The full off -site construction costs associated with providing one unit of service, including costs of all major facilities required to provide a single unit of service. Construction costs include engineering design costs and other cost components permitted by the Impact Fees Act. Cost of Service (Bondinm - Costs incurred in the issuance of bonds, such as ratings, fees for financial advisors, bond counsel, etc. 24 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES -A-T Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY ..... �!yyt?.1Jw•:Y:�::X'f,2:1:t=.i':1�•:4::ti•:•:}:::•:'•::ti•}•••.}: �'ti•::{::�::':ti::ti:: •{. s'•ii::'. ...•........ '�::'l.!a'}�� •.'''i �::�,'�S:.r... s.au.ti�...ti.,:..y}:{::::ii�:ii��:> \?:i«�?wr2:::it'-Y Cost of Service (Interest) - The interest cost applied to construction costs and bonding costs when payments are made over time. Cost of Service (Full) - The sum of payments made for a single unit of utility service. This is equivalent to capital construction costs only when cash payments are made instead of bond financing. For bonded improvements, full cost of service includes construction, bonding and interest costs. User Class - A group of users with historically documented, common use characteristics. Debt Service - Regular principal and interest payments made by the City to repay bonded costs of facilities. E ui - Value of contributions made toward full payment of cost of service; full cost of service minus outstanding debt service payments. Existing Users - All users of the utilities prior to the adoption of an impact fee ordinance. Existing Service Unit Demand - One unit of service demand in existence as of the date of the proposed impact fee ordinance. Future Users - New development after the date of impact fee ordinance adoption. Future Service Unit Demand - One unit of service demand occurring on or after the date of impact fee ordinance adoption. Indebtedness (Debt Service Payback) - Total amount outstanding for all debt service payments at the time an impact fee ordinance is adopted. Times Coverage - Revenue collections beyond annual debt service amounts, required by bond covenants to ensure the City's ability to meet its debt service revenue requirements (for water and sewer utilities.) Minimum times coverage is generally 25% over the amount of debt service; for greater security, greater times coverage is preferred. 25 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY fiisfteai:i'e'is�f.isiY:as�S::see::iv�+:�''`::::}::: : ;: ti :::::::: �: r:;:i:iii:;i:::}i:<:i:� 4r:;::%:i: ?:::i::;fi; :;.:•i �G�}}N'dM.H/.NM6Y.FS+Y/.f.}Ln}\.}RX.}}N\}.}....}....}.....}....: •.v .. �. n.t •.} ;.•...; ..... 4.. �...............:... } :•: i:� � •.tVi:•:i }:::.}:•:: • •::ti•: ii'}:•: ii:•: � i ti'•:•:•i::� :v: f l:•}:::%: x+.-x-�+.. x}}}}}�wd� isri�:��!:»vo�i�iisSiiui�?:iaiySc:�!wvi»sw}»}vaiS�:ie::.iH:iii>�aiiti:tiCi.?Gi�+r'+•v;�u4C<�'r.+`k.'eeaSF 2.2.1.2 Components of Capital Cost of Service For purposes of this discussion, costs are defined for a common measurement of capacity and demand -- the service unit. Each service unit has a capital cost associated with the comprehensive group of facilities required to provide service (treatment, transmission, pumpage, storage, etc.). This value is the Construction Cost of Service (see Figure 2-1). If a facility is funded through bonding, however, three additional costs are incurred for each service unit of demand: bonding costs, interest costs, and, for revenue -bond financed utilities, times coverage costs. Bonding costs for bond issues are statistically small -- in the neighborhood of 3% to 10%. On the other hand, interest costs can effectively double or triple costs, depending on the current interest rate and term of the bonds. Times coverage provides revenues beyond debt service requirements and thus provides funds to the utility for capital expenditures, or perhaps other uses. However, times coverage does not add to the capital cost of services and therefore, times coverage is not included as a cost of service element in the Equity Residual model, and is not shown on Figure 2-1. 2.2.1.3 Methods for Recovering Costs of Service Generally speaking, costs can be financed through either the public sector or the private sector. Financing through the public sector is primarily accomplished by bonding projects and recovering costs through rates/taxes. Financing through the private sector occurs when a developer or builder contributes assets, either facilities or cash, and passes along this cost (including carrying and financing costs) to the ultimate buyer or renter of the development. An impact fee is one mechanism for private financing; other examples are developer contribution, developer cost participation in facilities, etc.. Whether private or public financing is more cost-effective is determined by many variables, including interest rates, term, mark-up percentage, bonding costs, etc.. The Equity Residual methodology recognizes and utilizes the concept that all users pay part or all of their cost of service through public -sector financing by virtue of the fact that they pay rates/taxes to retire debt service. The central tenet of the Equity Residual approach is that future users will partially pay for their own costs of service through rate payments in an amount typically equal to the remaining debt service payback for existing users. The remainder of their costs of service, or the "residual" amount, will be subject to payment through an impact fee. Thus, future users will be permitted to pay a portion of their costs of service through the rates, similar to existing users. However, existing users will not, in the long-term, bear the cost of facilities for future users. Thus, the Equity Residual approach allows future users to pay their costs of service partially through the public sector (with rate payments equal to existing 26 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES 4T Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY ... .................. * .............. ............ . . ......................... . ............ FIGURE 2-1 EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL FULL COST OF SERVICE PAYMENT (COS) METHODS FULL COST ............. OF SERVICE ... ........ .... (COS) PAYMENT .-.FIEMAINING-:- (Total Indebtedness) METHODS .... ................ ....... I.N.DEBTED.N.E.99 FUTURE RATE OR ........... ............. .............. ... TAX PAYMENTS ............. ............. ............. .............. ............. ............. .............. ............. ...... ..... c6§'.'-"'- .............. ............. ............. ............. .............. ........... ............... ............. .............. ............ * .............. ... INDEBTEDNESS FUTURE RATE ...... ......... N ... ............. OR TAX ............. ............. ............. ......... ... ........ . ........... ............. ............. ............. PAYMENTS ............. .............. AVOIDED ............. ............. ............. ...... ...... BONDING AND ............. ..................... . ...... ......... ............. .............. INTEREST ............. ............. ....... ... COS................. BONDING toa,., .... ...... SYSTEM EQUITY PURCHASE ..... ................... . ................. SYSTEM ............ ** ............ .............. EQUITY :C-0 N§.ti1U'dT1'.6N PAST RATE ................................. ......... ........ ::. OR TAX ........ .. Cos.. ........... PAYMENTS .......................... - ........................ .......................... ........................... ................... * ... *** ..... ... * ................ ...................... .......................... ....... .. ............. -CONSTRUC.TION ......... * . . ....... CO ........................... . ... .... . ............ .................. .... .. ..... ............ ......................... . ... .. .... . ........... ........................ RESIDUAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACT COST FEE EXISTING SERVICE UNIT DEMAND DEMAND FUTURE SERVICE UNIT 27 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Nl� Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY ,.�M4y1.. ,C,y.:il:::li'..Fyf•}ti}k', ... . n1 .tiK Y �• }:};�: � �(:•:;{ :;� :•::ti; �::;:�;:•::•:• �:•'v::: � ":Lf}:tiff•}:•:: � :•::: •:•: +,� tti!.tieev..e+r�. � • :...n!. ti n ....�a....., ....nsti+�...,e ...+f.•e-.... r.... s.. �.se..: w...aan+iSu..,..e0.voewi .v.�.'.:;.i:.�fv3.�e.,'aXaku-iv=�;t�Ga{l.S�vsK+i4i�,�.fd4:� users) and partially through the private sector (through an impact fee). The following sections provide a more detailed discussion of this conceptual approach. 2.2.1.4 System Equity and Remaining Indebtedness for Existing Service Unit Demand On the left side of Figure 2-1 is a representation of the Cost of Service for each unit of existing demand and the method for paying those costs. Theoretically, each existing unit of service has a full cost associated with it, consisting of construction costs, bonding costs, and interest costs. (Prior to the adoption of impact fees, construction costs were fully bonded and thus subjected to bonding and interest costs.) Users in this group have, for the most part, been permitted to pay their full Cost of Service through the rates without an up -front cash payment of costs, as shown in the second bar for existing service demand. The second left-hand bar is divided into two segments: system equity and remaining indebtedness. Existing users, on the date an impact fee ordinance is adopted, will have theoretically paid some portion of their full Cost of Service through past rate payments. Thus, they have a certain amount of "equity" in the existing system. This is shown on the bottom portion of the second bar. Existing users also have a corresponding amount of remaining indebtedness to be paid through future rate payments over the next 25-30 years. This is depicted on the top portion of the bar. These two payment components -- equity and remaining indebtedness -- thus describe the Total Payment of each user's Full Cost of Service for existing service unit demand. 2.2.1.5 Calculation of Cost of Service for Future Service Unit Demand On the right side of Figure 2-1 is a depiction of the Cost of Service for future service unit demand. The Cost of Service for future users will be higher than that for existing users due to inflation and possibly due to technological and regulatory changes. If these new facilities are bonded, they will have not only construction -related costs, but also bonding and interest costs (similar to those for existing users). These latter costs will also be higher than comparable costs for existing users because bonding and interest costs are directly proportional to the higher new construction costs. 2.2.1.6 Fairness Between Users Through the Rate Structure A key concept in the Equity Residual methodology is that rate payments of future users are dedicated 4'3 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY .............. .C{{.�.}}}}}}}.hYA:I.}}XOf.}}.1vh..xJS7.7h.x.7S}?6n 7n:Jh}.}}.K .L..}Nti..}.n..ti.}L.q.v..�{::: r.:{....t.}...•Y.}.. .,. .. ... .. .... .: ... .r .. :•.1w::::v::{:4: Y- r .. } n.h}:.YJ}:{:}WNSn:6}:tr: • • • • • x-ti}�f!{:1.?ri:::Y:.w--i �:tiv'{ii�1i�X • • • • • • : r• ... . ! wn}x{.fin: h. n:it�?:i�•i:�w . to retirement of debt for facilities for future needs, while rate payments of existing users are used to pay for facilities for existing needs. Application of this concept has two primary results: • Cross -subsidization between existing and future users is minimized; and • Future users enter the systems on an equal basis with existing users. This approach is effected by purposefully setting the total payback indebtedness of future users to the same amount as the total payback for existing users. Thus, in Figure 2-1, the remaining indebtedness for each service unit of existing demand is the same as for each service unit of future demand. In order to accomplish this equalization, however, future users will have to submit a "system equity" payment to contribute their remaining Cost of Service and to put them on a par status with existing users (see discussion below). 2.2.1.7 Equity Residual and Equity Contribution for Future Service Unit Demand The second bar in the right-hand diagram of Figure 2-1 shows the payment methods for future users. At the top of the bar is indebtedness equal to that of existing users. This indebtedness includes construction and bonding costs (both principal payments) and interest payments. Below the indebtedness payback are shown the components of the remaining Cost of Service, or that portion which must be paid to achieve fairness through the rate structure. This portion of the Cost of Service has been designated "System Equity", similar to past debt payments by existing users. System Equity has three components, as do all Costs of Service: construction cost, bonding cost, and interest cost. If the construction costs in the System Equity portion of the Cost of Service were to be paid in cash, corresponding bonding and interest costs would be avoided. The remaining construction costs, or "residual", would be the actual payment necessary to achieve fairness -- or equity -- in the system. This residual cost is the amount which should be subjected to payment in an impact fee. In sum, the Equity Residual approach to funding improvements will result in a payment for Cost of Service for future service demand which has the following characteristics: • A portion of the Cost of Service will be paid through the rates; the total payback on this portion of the Cost of Service will equal that for total capital indebtedness for existing users reflected in the rate structure; • New users will contribute equity status in the system by paying the remaining, unbonded portion of construction costs ("residual") through an impact fee; 29 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY .............................................................................................................................................................................................. . v+ae.u-.e+»a..:. .a..... feFxa:isi•.:iis:u::,:>:k:!..:.:axe..•!-'[sea2::a.<S::?:.:a.}•.:-:u-xrit:::•:.r:;::::.}::.:::2:::.L.:..:.a,S.,:Y;k.::.s...�.:e.x':,..::ii:;S...�:::.s..x.x�<.+:a+�rs+rv,...tie-f:.>.:.�{r�.`+�s:b.�.+.eKGCO.4t;iv`�G:t4+t[:<ii�;x;!C:tiS:. �'. • Bonding and interest costs associated with residual construction costs will be avoided. • This approach will result in full cost recovery for growth from payments made by future users. 2.2.2 Calculation of Credits for Future Rate Payments Table 2-14 and Table 2-15 contain calculations of rate credits for each utility. These computations attribute a portion of existing debt to current customers according to the capacity needed by these customers. The remainder of existing debt responsibility is assigned to future customers. Table 2-14 and Table 2-15 show the dollar amount of debt service payback proportionately attributed to each service unit of existing service. This same amount of debt service payback is allotted to each future customer and is converted to a capital [principal] credit against the full capital cost. Debt on Georgetown -financed facilities was simply prorated between existing and future customers according to the capacities of each facility allocated to each customer group. 2.3 FEE CALCULATION 2.3.1 Fees Per Service Unit Table 2-16 shows the remainder of the fee calculation process and relates the numerical results to the Equity Residual Model. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 also show the results according to the Equity Residual Approach for water and wastewater, respectively. Referring to the table, construction [capital] costs for water and wastewater service for future customers amount to $1,616 and $1,026, respectively. If these costs were to be bonded, bonding soft costs are estimated to be approximately $48 and $31 respectively while interest payments over the life of the bonds would be $1,478 and $939 respectively. The total bonded costs for future service would sum to $3,142 for water and $1,996 for wastewater. In contrast, each existing service unit is responsible for $961 in total water bond payback and $291 in wastewater payback. This represents the outstanding capital costs of existing customers which they will pay through their rates. Thus, in order to establish future customers on an equity basis with existing customers, $961 and $291 for water and wastewater respectively are subtracted from the total payback for future customers, leaving a remainder of $2,181 (water) and $1,705 (wastewater). Because the intent of the impact fee is to avoid bonding, these balances must subtract the assumed bonding and interest payments to leave solely the principal capital amount. Thus the resulting maximum fees are $1,122 for water and $877 for wastewater for each service unit. 30 4TJAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY ............................ ...............:::::::::. .... ... . • • • • •%14. %?I::I�V{4M%A?h�}�W. r..TFHf�{'.t.A•4�0:13t<tidU/.�.M'-0�+:fttt:F:E:<2}:1Y.}:i:!�C4YAY.\ti\ Vh. ; A{.4^�'<.!. : A::i::.;ti•}:� ;!:titi :tit!%%:titi!:!:::h!.i}titi\:!:t;•:{v:::y::i'f'::;{:v vi:�!+}±?;yy1{!:CF�Yi:�}!dM!A�1FY}YN�wMMOn�nM{tif!4�FLw.'.'va`Gt�ty�.::itii! .a . >xv..a.x. . TABLE 2-14 CATEGORIZATION OF EXISTING DEBT WATER UTILITY EXISTING -. - BOND ISSUE FACILITY CAPACITY DEBT FACILITY PAYBACK TYPE/NAME PER ISSUANCE ISSUANCE REMAINING FOR CURRENT DATE AMOUNT PAYBACK TOTAL CURRENT SERVICE CUST. UNIT: TREATMENT Georgetown Lake WTP 1991 Ref. $3,352,227 $4,534,126 5.450 3.616 San Gabriel Park WTP 1991 Ref. $3,402,136 $4,601,632 4.750 3.152 Subtotal Treatment' $6,754,364 $9,135,758 10.200 6.768 $774 GROUND STORAGE Ground Storage Repairs 1991 Ref. $133,091 $180,015 5.750 2.960 Subtotal'Ground Storage $133,091 $180,015 5.750 2.960 $12 ELEVATED STORAGE Leander Rd. Elevated Storage 1991 Ref. $682,091 $922,577 0.500 0.250 Subtotal Elevated Storage $662,091 :$922,577 0.500 0:250 $59 TRANSMISSION Existing Water Transmission Lines 1991 Ref. $915,000 $1,237,603 9.200 6.768 Subtotal<Transmission Lines $915,000 $1,237,603 9.200 6.768 $116 WATER OUTSTANDING DEBT TOTAL $89484,545 $11,475,952 $961 31 4TJAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY LIZ .. .... �SC+fsiw.}.e ., ... ....tea ... .. . ...........s'a:� u� ... v . i� C�:i�r'}{}'isfiii�$'ri}:�r�$i:;:y::•:::;'{:$;'{'r':'i:':'' ;� }::_ :: }• f. ... ... .......... i .. >. �. aYti'. �'�:.., ........< ............ ,.......tiv..........v.: iY:vi�:fi::;yvr}�}:i v.:M1Ss.�..4,:.{vi+C!r%�:(6?.::4.'��!i%:vi�;•.�<'+f� vSL TABLE 2-15 CATEGORIZATION OF EXISTING DEBT WASTEWATER UTILITY 32 TABLE 2-16 DERIVATION OF MAXIMUM WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES PER SERVICE UNIT THROUGH THE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL FUTURE CUSTOMER. TOTAL COST OF CAPITAL /.SERVICE UNIT LESS LESS EXISTING EQUALS AVOIDED EQUALS ITEM PLUS PLUSEQUALS DEBT SERVICE ELIGIBLE BONDING & MAXIMUM CONSTRUCT BONDING BONDING DEBT PAYBACK IN COSTS PER - .,INTEREST.-. IMPACT FEE COSTS SOFT COSTS INTEREST SERVICE RATES PER SERVICE UNIT COSTS PER : PER UNIT [a] COSTS [b] PAYBACK UNIT [a[ UNIT [c] COSTS WATER Supply $149 $4 $136 $289 $0 $289 $141 $149 Treatment $756 $23 $691 $1,469 $774 $695 $338 $358 Pumping $42 $1 $39 $82 $0 $82 $40 $42 Ground Storage $120 $4 $1 10 $233 $12 $221 $107 $1 14 Elevated Storage $188 $6 $172 $365 $59 $306 $149 $157 Transmission $560 $17 $512 $1,089 $116 $973 $473 $500 CI Costs $5 $0 $5 $10 $0 $10 $5 $5 FP/Study Total Water $1,819 $55 $1,664 $3,537 $961 $2,576 $1,251 $1,325 WASTEWATER Treatment $623 $19 $570 $1,212 $254 $958 $465 $493 Pumping $54 $2 $50 $106 $0 $106 $51 $54 Major Collection $566 $17 $518 $1,101 $37 $1,064 $517 $547 CIP/Study Costs $4 $0 $4 $8 $0 $8 Total Wastewater $1,248 $37 $1,141 $2,426 $291 $2,135 $4 $1, 037 $4 $1, 098 WATER AND $3,067 7 $2,804 $5,963 $1,252 $4.711 $2,288 $2,423 WASTEWATER [a] Assume misc bonding cost of 3.0% over construction costs. [b] Assume financing parameter: 7.0% interest & 20 years. [c] Assume financing parameter: 7.0% interest & 20 years & bonding costs of 3.0% over construction costs JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY UR FIGURE 2-2 MAXIMUM WATER IMPACT FEE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL FULL COST OF SERVICE (COS) (Total Indebtedness) ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. CO ............. ............. ............. * ............ ............. .......... ............. ........... .......... — ............. ::b< 01kwo6s:: ........................... ........................... ............... * . ...... I ........................... .......................... ........................... :CONSTRUCTION .......................... .................. ........ ............... . ........ .. ............... ........ PAYMENT METHODS ............. .............. ............ .. ........... ............. .............. ............. .. ........... .............. ............. . ............ -'. - * REM AJ!4. I N 9 *.-'- ' :INDEBTEDNESS -ON— FUTURE RATE OR TAX .......... ............. ............. .......... ............. PAYMENTS ............. $55 SYSTEM EQUITY PAST RATE OR TAX PAYMENTS EXISTING SERVICE UNIT DEMAND FULL COST OF SERVICE (COS) $3,537 ............. .......... .. ............. ............ .............. .............. ............. ..... Cos .... .............. ............. .............. ............. .............. ............. .............. ............. .............. ............. ............. ............. ............ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .................... . ... .0 . O.WROGrjbh- ................. . I ....... ... ....... . ............ ............. I ............ .... I ..................... .......................... .......................... ........................ I PAYMENT METHODS $3,537 :-� ]REMAINING-'.'. .IN .......... ..... ......... ............. .............. ............. .............. ............. .............. — .......... .............. AVOIDED BONIDING'AND INTEREST .66S RESIDUAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,325 FUTURE SERVICE UNIT DEMAND -00— FUTURE RATE OR TAX PAYMENTS SYSTEM EQUITY PURCHASE IMPACT FEE 34 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY FIGURE 2-3 MAXIMUM WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL FULL COST OF SERVICE PAYMENT (COS) METHODS $2,426 $2,426 FULL COST OF SERVICE (COS) PAYMENT REMAINING (Total Indebtedness) METHODS INDEBTEDNESS �— FUTURE RATE OR .............. INTEREST TAX PAYMENTS ............. ............ .....COS.... .......... ............ t.1,141... INTEREST :REMAINING:. . _ .:.:.:.:.C93.. •:• . :INDEBTEDNESS �— FUTURE RATE 291::::: OR TAX PAYMENTS AVOIDED ........... BONDING AND ....'.'..'.'.'.. ............. INTEREST ............. .COS BONDINOtOg` $37 — SYSTEM EQUITY .'61,037'. PURCHASE 44 SYSTEM EQUITY :CO.NSTRUCTIQ 1— PAST RATE CO.N A.WU TIQN ::::C08......... OR TAX :::.:C...... ::: RESIDUAL PAYMENTS :.. CONSTRUCTION IMPACT COST FEE 51,098 EXISTING SERVICE UNIT DEMAND DEMAND FUTURE SERVICE UNIT 35 JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY >.>w>. r+.rs�a»us.t..eke.F.?.n..»..e:.>u..>s>a.a>a...�.>x-»>}.>i»»>t,.+:�.>.www.t�cw>u 1 ...exa>.»}u•.:.>�al.�.�.�+...•�:ex-»v:.>.>s»vndst.:*aa�.>.�,exswves»»�.:ar�x�»>.v-r .+M u4<31a:+C(naiiA7r:iw' "� �• ....: � ...::::.....: � ......... ;� 2.3.2 Fees by Land Use The final step in developing the water and sewer impact fees is to assign fees by land use category, consistent with the City's Land Intensity Plan. Fees would be charged according to the criteria, or fee measurements, shown in the table below. Table 2-17 applies the maximum impact fees per service unit from Table 2-16 to the water conversion table (Table 2-7) and wastewater conversion table (Table 2-8). TABLE 2-17 MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES BY LAND U S E LAND USE ACTIVITY ' MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE PER MEASURE MEASURE WATER WASTEWATER TOTAL Agriculture $1,774.34 $1,284.32 $3,058.66 Dwelling Un. Detached SF Residential, Large Lot $1,774.34 $1,284.32 $3,058.66 Dwelling Un. Detached SF Residential, Average Lot $1,530.50 $1,111.01 $2,641.51 Dwelling Un. Attached SF Residential $996.82 $777.71 $1,774.52 Dwelling Un. Multi -Family Residential $809.72 $693.27 $1,502.99 Dwelling Un. Mobile Home Residential $996.82 $857.70 $1,854.52 Dwelling Un. Lodging $294.45 $271.09 $565.53 1,000 Sq. Ft. Institutional $526.01 $408.85 $934.86 1,000 Sq. Ft. Church with Day Care $472.34 $368.85 $841.19 1,000 Sq. Ft. Church without Day Care $285.24 $222.20 $507.45 1,000 Sq. Ft. Recreational $52.14 $22.22 $74.36 Acre Medical Office $637.96 $497.73 $1,135.70 1,000 Sq. Ft. General Office $558.22 $404.41 $962.63 1,000 Sq. Ft. Retail, Mixed $996.82 $724.38 $1,721.20 1,000 Sq. Ft. Retail, Restaurant $2,392.37 $2,133.33 $4,525.50 1,000 Sq. Ft. Retail, Store $498.41 $391.07 $889.48 1,000 Sq. Ft. Employment Center $558.22 $404.41 $962.63 1,000 Sq. Ft. Warehouse $87.41 $62.22 $149.63 1,000 Sq. Ft. Mini -Warehouse $6.13 $4.44 $10.58 1,000 Sq. Ft. Council meeting date: 10-10-95 Item No. 14 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Meeting Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, September 26, 1995. ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday, September 26, 1995 Submi4d By: Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Council Present: Dick Vincent Lee Bain Doris Curl Susan Hoyt Ferd Tonn TUESDAY, September 26, 1995 Council Absent: Winfred Bonner George Arroyos Staff Present: Bob Hart, City Manager Hildy Kingma, Chief Planner Marianne Banks, City Attorney Travis McLain, Airport Manager Sandra Lee, City Secretary Ed Barry, Dir. of Development Svcs. Susan Morgan, Dir. of Finance & Admin. Jim Briggs, Dir. of Community Owned Utilities Elizabeth Gray, Dir. of Management Svcs. Workshop --Called to order 5:50 p.m. A Governance discussion regarding conditions for model homes/Ed Barry Wood recognized Harry Savio of Capital Area Builders Association, and James Giddens and Brian Lott of Buffington Homes in the audience. Barry distributed to Council a memo showing the varied regulations of model homes in other cities. Reggular Session - Called to order at 6:40 p.m. Executive Session B Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney C Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property D Sec.551.075 conference with employee Regular Session - Resumed at 7:15 p.m. City Council Minutes/September 26, 1995 Page 1 of 10 Pages E Action on Executive Session items There was no action taken on Executive Session items. Consent Agenda Mayor Wood pointed out that Ferd Tonn would be abstaining from Items G, H, and K of the Consent Agenda and Items GG, HH, and II of the Regular Agenda; and Doris Curl would be abstaining from Item PP on the Regular Agenda. F Consideration of approval of meeting minutes --Special Meeting of September 7, 1995 and Regular Meeting of September 12, 1995/Sandra Lee G Consideration of a resolution approving funding agreements with the following agencies to provide social services to residents of Georgetown: WBCO/Williamson County Crisis Center ($10,000.00), Literacy Council of Williamson County ($2,500.00), WBCO/Nutrition Services ($3,000.00), Stonehaven Center ($12,000.00), WBCO/Transportation Services ($5,000.00), the Williamson County and Cities Health District ($22,500.00), and the Georgetown Information and Volunteer Exchange ($10,000.00)/Hartley Sappington b H Consideration of a resolution approving a lease agreement with Williamson -Burnet County Opportunities, Inc. (WBCO), to operate the Madella Hilliard Neighborhood Center/Hartley Sappington I Consideration of a resolution approving a funding agreement with the Georgetown Heritage Society for administrative services/Molly Alexander and Hartley Sappington J Consideration of a resolution approving a lease agreement with the Georgetown Heritage Society/Hartley Sappington K Consideration of a resolution approving a lease agreement with the Georgetown Optimist Club/Hartley Sappington L Consideration of approval of a funding agreement with the Georgetown Industrial Foundation/Bob Hart M Authorization for Councilmembers to attend the National League of Cities Annual Conference/Bob Hart N Consideration of award of annual bid for gasoline and diesel fuel to Triple S Petroleum in the estimated annual amount of $79,000.00 for unleaded gasoline and $19,000.00 for diesel fuel/Terry Jones and Susan Morgan City Council Minutes/September 26, 1995 Page 2 of 10 Pages O Consideration of award of annual bid for emulsion to Koch Materials in the estimated amount of $18,562.00/Terry Jones and Susan Morgan P Consideration of an award of bid to Commercial Electronics Corporation in the amount of $43, 544.00 for a digital recorder/Terry Jones and Larry Hesser Q Consideration of an award bid for all lines of property and casualty insurance for FY' 96 in the estimated amount of $252,440/Elizabeth Gray R Consideration of approval of Amendment No. 3 to the contract between OMI and the City of Georgetown in the amount of $825,345.00/Jim Briggs S Consideration of declaring surplus equipment and authorizing staff to negotiate a contract for auctioneer services/Terry Jones and Susan Morgan T Pulled. (See Regular Agenda) U Pulled. (See Regular Agenda) V Pulled. (See Regular Agenda) W Pulled. (See Regular Agenda) X Consideration of a resolution expressing official intent to reimburse costs of certain street capital improvement projects not to exceed $1,370,000 with proceeds from bonds that will be issued at a later time/Susan Morgan and Bob Hart Y Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City Attorney to issue a quitclaim deed to be filed abandoning portions of Eighth Street, Clamp Street, and an alley, all east of the MK&T Railroad/Marianne Banks Z Consideration of a license to encroach into the side public utility easements at Lots 1-24, Block G, Smith Branch Park Subdivision/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry AA Consideration of a release of special assessment lien for Southwestern University property/Marianne Banks Motion by Vincent, second by Bain to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items T, U, V, and W. Approved 5-0. (Arroyos and Bonner absent) Regular Agenda City Council Minutes/September 26, 1995 Page 3 of 10 Pages T Consideration of a detailed development plan for Lake Aire Subdivision, Sections One and Two, and ratification of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry (Pulled by Bain) Bain asked for clarification of the recommendation regarding parking. Kingma replied that the preschool is required to have six parking spaces, but it will be allowed for them to do a shared parking easement with the shopping center. Bain also stated that he had concerns about the driveway cuts onto Williams Drive. Kingma replied that the Planning and Zoning Commission determined to address the driveway cuts at the time of significant development. Bain questioned and was assured that the requested development plan would coordinate with the completion of Dawn Drive. Motion by Vincent, second by Curl to approve the Detailed Development Plan and ratify the variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Approved 5-0. U Consideration of a preliminary plat of 27.51 acres in the John Sutherland Survey, to be known as Fountainwood Estates, Phase 5; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry (Pulled by Bain) ' Bain commended the builder for applying for variances and verified with Kingma that staff and Planning and Zoning Commission were satisfied with the results of the recommended variances. Motion by Vincent, second by Curl to approve the preliminary plat and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Approved 5-0. V Consideration of a detailed development plan for City of Georgetown, Block 14, Lot 1 and part of Lot 8; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located at 302 South Austin Avenue/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry (Pulled by Bain) Bain asked and was told that the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission were in agreement on this approval. He asked if there would be parking problems for adjacent property owners. Kingma replied that the applicant was actually providing 13 parking spaces which is 3 more than the required 10 spaces. She said the applicant is hoping that because of the site being within walking distance of the courthouse and most of downtown Georgetown, many people will walk and not require a parking place. Bain asked how the one-way designation would be handled. Kingma replied that there would be painted arrows on the pavement and signage. Motion by Hoyt, second by Vincent to approve the detailed development plan and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Approved 5-0. Kingma asked Council's opinion on how to handle similar items in the future having to do with the new provisions adopted in January regarding short -form detailed development plans or "mini D.D.P." The new provisions were adopted to assist redevelopment. If a building City Council Minutes/September 26, 1995 Page 4 of 10 Pages has been vacant for two years or more or if the use will significantly change with the new application, the applicant is allowed to choose one of the elements that is 50% or more deficit, bring it to 100% compliance, and then ignore compliance with other elements. Because the ordinance was not really clear, Kingma asked Council if they feel that this would disallow the applicant from requesting variances on that D.D.P. Barry added that this might mean that meeting one standard 100% could leave another issue in substandard condition. After Council discussion, it was generally felt that each application would have to be handled on a case -by -case basis. W Consideration of a variance to the Subdivision Regulations for a 2.0 acre tract in the Clement Stubblefield Survey to be known as Good Luck Subdivision/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry (Pulled by Bain) Bain questioned the difference between the recommendations of the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Kingma explained that the applicant's request is to take the waterline from Highway 265 to the northeast corner of their property. The ordinance requires that the waterline be extended to the far edge of the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the applicant extend the waterline to the western edge of the property. The applicant agreed to comply. The Staff feels that the waterline should m be extended across the back of the property to the northwest corner and down the western side to Highway 29, thereby making it more readily accessible to other property owners. Don Bizzell, engineer for the applicant, explained that the additional waterline would cost the applicant approximately $15,000. He offered to provide easements around the edge of the property that would allow the City to enter and extend the waterline. Bain asked why the existing waterline was on Highway 265 instead of Highway 29. Briggs explained that it is a link for the West Loop waterline that serves as a transmission line from Rabbit Hill to Serenada. Bain asked why there was objection to the positioning of the fire hydrant. Staff replied that it was a safety issue concerning the way the fire truck would have to' enter the property and pass the burning structure to connect with the hydrant, if it were left on the back line of the property. Motion by Vincent, second by Hoyt to approve the variance as posted in the agenda. Approved 5-0. Regular Agenda BB Citizens wishing to address the Council Bill Miller of 30303 Oak Tree Drive, in Berry Creek Subdivision, told the Council that he and other people living in the ETJ feel disenfranchised without representation on the City Council Minutes/September 26, 1995 Page 5 of 10 Pages City Council. Wood recommended that staff review the memberships of the boards and commissions to see if more ETJ representatives could be added. Frank Parmenter of 4106 Sequoia Trail East, in Serenada Subdivision, asked the Council to consider a change in format for the Council Agenda to allow placement of "Citizens wishing to address the Council" before the Consent Agenda, giving an opportunity for comment on those particular items before the Council takes action on them. Wood acknowledged that was a good idea. He and Hart agreed the next Council Agenda would reflect that change in format. CC Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports Curl suggested that the City include in each year's budget a scheduled maintenance program for City -owned facilities such as the Madella Hilliard Center. Wood suggested that should be an item discussed at the next Budget Retreat. Tonn asked if the City should lease out the house on Austin Avenue that was being used by the G.I. V.E. Board and United Way, since the GIVE. Board has now moved out and United Way will be moving to a new facility soon. Hart replied that Habitat for Humanity is still using office space at that location. Wood questioned if the City were going to lease the house recently acquired with the property acquisition on FM 971. Hart and Banks stated that the City was in the process of listing the house and some of the acreage for sale. Silver Circle Award (to be presented at the next Council Meeting) DD Consideration of granting a certificate of occupancy to allow a model home to operate at 1000 Woodview Drive/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry Following lengthy discussion, when asked by Wood for his recommendation, Hart suggested that the certificate of occupancy be granted provided that no parking is allowed on Rockcrest; one of the planters is moved from the driveway, thereby allowing a car to be parked in that space; two cedar trees are removed from the corner of the lot; the outside lighting is adjusted so as not to interfere with the neighbors; the length of time that the model home will be permitted to remain is 12 months with extensions possible; and "no parking"signs are installed on Rockcrest by the City at the cost of the builder. Motion by Hoyt, second by Tonn to approve the certificate under the above -listed conditions. Approved 5-0. EE Second reading of an ordinance to rezone Stonehedge Subdivision, Sections One and Two from A. Agricultural to RS, Residential Single Family/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma City Council Minutes/September 26, 1995 Page 6 of 10 Pages Kingma read the caption. The word "deed" will be changed to "plat." Bain questioned the difference in the impervious coverage. Kingma explained that Sections 1 and 2 had been platted at 45% impervious coverage, but now, due to the changes in the regulations, any future undeveloped land would be held to 40% impervious coverage. Motion by Tonn, second by Curl to approve Ordinance 95-45 on second reading. Approved 5-0. FF Consideration of variances to the Design Standards of the Subdivision Regulations for Parkview Estates, Section 5, Block A, Lot 13; located at North Austin Avenue and FM971/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry Kingma explained that the variances are being requested before the detailed development plan is submitted. She stated that the ordinance establishes standards for driveways, and that according to the ordinance, only one driveway would be permitted on FM 971. Kingma said that the Planning and Zoning Commission, primarily consistent with the staff s recommendation, is that the proposed driveway onto Austin Avenue be allowed provided it is shared with the adjacent property owner; and allowing two driveways on FM 9717 provided the standards are met for the distance of separation between the two driveways and that one driveway is restricted to emergency vehicle use only. Kingma stated that the proposed owner/applicant plans to build a nursing home and an assisted living center and they are willing to comply with the restrictions placed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ercel Brashear, current owner of the property, asked the Council to allow the driveways as proposed without restriction because the property was platted in 1985, and at that time, curb cuts were allowed every 100 feet. He added that certain notes had been written onto and recorded with the plat that allowed two curb cuts on FM 971 and one on Highway 81, and determined the distance to be allowed between the curb cuts. He asked the Council to decide if they would enforce the decisions made in 1985, or uphold the new Subdivision Regulations which require the separations to be 450 feet between driveways and 400 feet between driveways and intersections. Brashear said that the original owner had spent $1 million to put in streets, sewer, water, electric, drainage improvements, etc. based on those plat notes. He told Council there were also other notes on the plat that require the owner to maintain greenbelts, put in fences, and put in sidewalks. He asked Council to address the broader issue of whether the notes recorded with the plat are considered to be binding. Motion by Tonn, second by Bain to approve the request for curb cuts, (one on Highway 81 and two on FM 971, one being a shared driveway a minimum of 300 feet from the centerline of Highway 81, with a minimum of 200 feet between cuts) and to disregard the restrictions placed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Opposed 2-3 (Curl, Hoyt and Vincent opposed) City Council Minutes/September 26, 1995 Page 7 of 10 Pages Motion by Bain, second by Tonn to allow two curb cuts on FM 971, with a distance of 360 feet from the edge of the property to the first cut, a minimum of 200 feet between the cuts, and a shared cut on Highway 81, consistent with the original application. Approved 5-0. Recessed at 9:15 p.m. - Resumed at 9:27 p.m. GG Second reading of an ordinance extending the time period for Southwest Georgetown Industrial District/Marianne Banks Banks explained that the agreements were combined at the request of the applicants (Georgetown Railroad and Texas Crushed Stone). Motion by Vincent, second by Hoyt to approve Ordinance 94-46 on second reading. Approved 4-0. (Tonn abstained) HH Consideration of approving an agreement with Leroy and Merle Weir Charitable Trust for the second extension of Southwest Georgetown Industrial District/Marianne Banks Banks explained that the entity is the same, but the name had changed. Motion by Curl, second by Bain to approve the agreement. Approved 4-0. (Tonn abstained) 4 II Consideration of approving an agreement with Texas Crushed Stone Company and Georgetown Railroad Company, Inc., for the second extension of the Southwest Georgetown Industrial District/Marianne Banks It was explained that this agreement included a donation of right of way from Railroad Street and Leander Road to FM 1460, and $100,000 cash. Motion by Bain, second by Vincent to approve the agreement. Approved 4-0. (Tonn abstained) JJ Second reading of an ordinance amending the 1994/95 Annual Operating Plan Element (budget) to offset variances in various fund budgets for increases in expenditures that are tied to service requests or revenue collection rates, to properly account for grant expenditures, and to reclass expenditures between funds/Micki Rundell and Susan Morgan Morgan read the caption. Motion by Tonn, second by Hoyt to approve Ordinance 95-47 on second reading. Approved 5-0. KK Second reading of an ordinance adopting an Annual Operating Plan Element of the Georgetown Century Plan (budget) for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1995, and ending September 30, 1996; adopting the Annual Amendment to the Century Plan/Susan Morgan and Bob Hart Morgan read the caption. Motion by Vincent, second by Hoyt to approve Ordinance 95-48 on second reading. Approved 5-0. City Council Minutes/September 26, 1995 Page 8 of 10 Pages LL Second reading of an ordinance amending Sec.2.08.010 "Administrative Divisions and Departments" of the Georgetown Code of Ordinances/Susan Morgan and Bob Hart Morgan read the caption. Motion by Tonn, second by Curl to approve Ordinance 95-49 on second reading. Approved 5-0. MM Second reading of an ordinance levying a tax rate for the City of Georgetown for the tax year 1995/Susan Morgan and Bob Hart Morgan read the caption. Motion by Hoyt, second by Curl to approve Ordinance 95-50 on second reading. Approved 5-0. NN Second reading of an ordinance amending solid waste disposal rates/Susan Morgan and Bob Hart Morgan read the caption. Motion by Tonn, second by Hoyt to approve Ordinance 95-51 on second reading. Approved 5-0. 00 Second reading bf an ordinance establishing water and sewer rates for customers in the Berry Creek service area for billing periods after September 30, 1995/Susan Morgan Morgan read the caption. Motion by Hoyt, second by Vincent to approve Ordinance 95-52 on second reading. Approved 5-0. PP Second reading of an ordinance amending the fuel flowage fee rates charged at the Georgetown Municipal Airport/Travis McLain and Hartley Sappington McLain read the caption. Motion by Tonn, second by Bain to approve Ordinance 95-53 on second reading. Approved 4-0. (Curl abstained) QQ Consideration of scheduling a special Council Meeting the week of October 16 and setting earlier time for the regular Council Meeting on October 24/Bob Hart Hart explained the necessity of holding a special meeting regarding the issuance of industrial revenue bonds for Triple S Plastics, and the need to shorten the regular meeting scheduled for October 24, due to the TML Meeting in Dallas. It was decided to hold the special meeting on Wednesday, October 18. Council action scheduled for the regular meeting of October 24 should be moved up to the agenda on October 18, if possible. The meeting on October 24 would begin at 5:30 p.m. with a Public Hearing on impact fees at 7:00 p.m. After the Public Hearing, the meeting would be adjourned so that four of the Councilmembers could drive to Dallas for special sessions that begin on Thursday morning. City Council Minutes/September 26, 1995 Page 9 of 10 Pages RR Final comments and evaluation of meeting process There were no final comments. The meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m. Approved: Leo Wood, Mayor City Council Minutes/September 26, 1995 Page 10 of 10 Pages Attest: Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary Council Meeting Date: October 10, 1995 Item No. I AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Council approval of an agreement between the City of Georgetown and David Ham & Associates for engineering services related to the design of the West 22nd and Leander Street Stormwater Trunk Line and Outfall Structure, in an amount not to exceed $58,000.00. ITEM SUMMARY: In order to maintain and enhance the City's drainage capacity in the 22nd Street and Leander Street area, it will be necessary to construct a stormwater trunk line and outfall structure in this area. This project will facilitate proper drainage and will provide for future drainage as the area develops. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the contract between the City and David Ham & Associates to provide the design of this project. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: NONE FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds in an amount not to exceed $58, 000. 00 are to be paid from Account number 641-101-5104-00. COMMENTS: NONE ATTACHMENTS 1. Agreement between the City and David Ham & Associates Jim Briggs, Director Community Owned Utilities STATE OF TEXAS § AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § GEORGETOWN AND DAVID HAM & CITY OF GEORGETOWN § ASSOCIATES § FOR FINAL DESIGN OF THE WEST 22ND AND LEANDER STREET STORM WATER TRUNK LINE AND OUTFALL STRUCTURE This agreement is entered into on the day of , 1995, by and between the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, a Texas Municipal Corporation, Owner, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and DAVID HAM & ASSOCIATES, a Texas General Partnership, hereinafter referred to as "ENGINEER", whereby ENGINEER agrees to perform and CITY agrees to pay for the services provided herein; ARTICLE I. This PROJECT is for the planning, design, construction, administration and other related professional services as may be requested by the CITY of the ENGINEER (for the West 22nd and Leander Street Storm Water Trunk Line and Outfall Structure) . Exhibit "A" lists, more specifically a description of services to be provided by the ENGINEER. Exhibit "A" is attached, incorporated herein, and will be updated for each new project as directed by the CITY. ARTICLE H. TERM The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of execution of Agreement by CITY and ENGINEER until such time either party by thirty (30) days written notice, choose to terminate this Agreement. ARTICLE III SCOPE OF WORK Upon receipt or written authorization from the CITY, the ENGINEER shall perform engineering services in accordance with the terms of the written authorization. Those services include, but are not limited to: investigations, studies, reports, reviews, designs and consultations. Authorization for work under this Agreement shall be effective when issued and signed by the Director of Community Owned Utilities. ENGINEER, agrees to perform services requested by CITY within the time prescribed in CITY'S authorization. In the event ENGINEER is unable to perform services within the time requested, ENGINEER shall promptly notify CITY of the nature of delay. In no event shall any delay of ENGINEER exceed 15 days. David Ham & Associates Page 1 of 9 ARTICLE IV. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY The CITY agrees to assist the ENGINEER by providing the following for each assignment: A. Designate, in writing, a person to act as the CITY' S representative with respect to the services to be rendered under this Agreement. Such person shall have authority to transmit instructions, receive information, and interpret and define CITY' S policies and decisions with respect to the ENGINEER'S services for each assignment. B. ENGINEER shall inquire, in writing, as to any information the CITY may have in its possession that is necessary for ENGINEERSs performance. CITY shall provide the information within its possession that it can make available to ENGINEER. ARTICLE V. COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to pay the ENGINEER for all professional services rendered under this Agreement as follows: The ENGINEER shall be paid a fee based on the rates of compensation as evidence in exhibit "B" - Compensation. which is attached and incorporated herein. The ENGINEER shall submit requests for payment, based on work performed. Invoices will not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Upon acceptance of work submitted through an invoice, CITY agrees to make payment within 30 days of date of receipt of invoice. In no event shall CITY pay for services not yet performed. ARTICLE VI. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS ENGINEER shall furnish to CITY three sets of plans and specifications. It is understood by the parties that additional copies shall be provided to CITY at CTTY'S expense. ENGINEER shall provide to CITY two sets of reproducible mylar record drawings showing the changes made during the construction process, based upon the marked -up prints, drawings and other data furnished by Contractor to ENGINEER. David Hain & Associates Page 2 of 9 ENGINEER shall provide copies of documents, computer files if available, surveys, notes and tracings used or prepared by ENGINEER. The ENGINEER'S work product shall be the property of CITY. CITY shall have title and ownership of all documents, publications, brochures, reports, data, in any form or media, produced by the ENGINEER pursuant to this project. All such works shall be deemed works -for -hire. CITY shall have sole ownership of all copyright interest in any documents produced by ENGINEER pursuant to this agreement, to the extent that any such documents may be copyrighted. ARTICLE VII. WARRANTY A. ENGINEER warrants the information provided, as an experienced and qualified professional engineer, reflects the current standard, procedures, and performances of the industry for this project. ENGINEER warrants the design preparation of drawings, the designation or selection of materials and equipment, the selection and supervision of personnel and the performance of other services pursuant to the agreement, pursuant to the current standard of performance in the profession. B ENGINEER shall promptly correct any defective designs or specifications furnished by ENGINEER at no cost to CITY. CITY's approval, acceptance, use of or payment for all or any part of ENGINEER's services hereunder or of the Project itself shall in no way alter ENGINEER's obligations or CITY's rights hereunder. ARTICLE VIII. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION A. Independent Engineer/Contractor The parties agree that ENGINEER shall be deemed to be an independent engineer/contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY with respect to its acts or omissions hereunder. The parties agree that the services and activities performed under this Agreement are not and shall not be construed as a joint venture between the parties. B. Indemnification The ENGINEER agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from any damage, liability or cost (including reasonable attorneys fees and costs of defense} to the extent caused by the ENGINEER'S negligent acts, errors or omissions in the David Hain &, Associates Page 3 of 9 performance of professional services under this Agreement and those of his or her subconsultants or anyone for whom the ENGINEER is legally liable. The CITY agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold the ENGINEER harmless from any damage, liability or cost (including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of defense) to the extent caused by the CITY' S negligent acts, errors or omissions and those of the CITY' S contractors, subcontractors or consultants or anyone for whom the CITY is legally liable, and arising from the project that is the subject of this Agreement. The ENGINEER is not obligated to indemnify the CITY in any manner whatsoever for the CITY' S own negligence. C. Insurance ENGINEER shall procure and maintain at his sole cost and expense for the duration of the agreement insurance against claims for injuries to person or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by ENGINEER, his agents, representatives, volunteers, employees or subcontractors. The ENGINEER'S insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the CITY, its officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY, its officials, employees or volunteers, shall be considered in excess of the ENGINEER'S insurance and shall not contribute to it. The ENGINEER shall require similar insurance of all subcontractors and ENGINEER shall obtain certificates of insurance and endorsements from all subcontractors. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements herein. Certificates of Insurance and endorsements shall be furnished to the CITY and approved by the CITY before work commences. The following standard insurance policies shall be required: 1. General Liability Policy 2. Automobile Liability Policy 3. Workers Compensation Policy 4. Professional Liability Policy The following general requirements are applicable to all policies: General Liability, Automobile Liability, and Professional Liability insurance shall be written by a carrier with an A: VIII or better rating in accordance with the current Best David Ham & Associates Page 4 of 9 Key Rating Guide. 2. Only insurance carriers licensed and admitted to do business in the State of Texas will be accepted. 3. Deductibles shall be listed on the Certificate of Insurance and are acceptable only on a per occurrence basis for property damage only. A deductible is acceptable for Professional Liability and the deductible limits shall not exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). 4. Claims Made Policies will not be accepted, except for Professional Liability Insurance. 5. The City of Georgetown, its officials, employees, and volunteers, are to be added as "Additional Insured" to the General Liability and the Automobile Liability policies. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the CITY, its officials, employees, or volunteers. 6. A Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City of Georgetown with respect to Worker's Compensation insurance must be included. 7. Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City of Georgetown. 8. Upon request, certified copies of all insurance policies shall be furnished to the City of Georgetown. The following commercial General Liability will be required: 1. Minimum combined Single Limit of $600,000.00 per occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage. 2. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Service's Office form number CG 00 01. 3. No coverage shall be deleted from the standard policy without notification of individual exclusions being attached for review and acceptance. The following Automobile Liability will be required: Minimum Combined Single Limit of $600,000.00 per occurrence for Bodily Injury and David Ham & Associates Page 5 of 9 Property Damage. 2. The Business Auto Policy must show Symbol 1 in the Covered Autos Portion of the liability section in Item 2 of the declarations page. The following Workers' Compensation will be required: Employer's Liability limits of $100,000.00 for each accident is required. 2. Texas Waiver of Our Right to Recover From Others Endorsements, W 42 03 04 shall be included in this policy. 3. Texas must appear in Item 3A of the Workers' Compensation coverage or Item 3C must contain the following: all States except those listed in Items A and the States of NV, ND, OH, WA, WV, WY. The following Professional Liability will be required: 1. Minimum of $500,000.00 per occurrence and $500,000.00 aggregate. 2. Coverage must be maintained for two (2) years after the termination of this agreement. The following Certificates of Insurance will be required: Certificates of Insurance shall be prepared and executed by the insurance company or its authorized agent, and shall contain provisions and warranting the following: a. The company is licensed and admitted to do business in the State of Texas. b. The insurances set forth by the insurance company are underwritten on forms which have been approved by the Texas State Board of Insurance or ISO. C. Sets forth all endorsements and insurance coverage according to requirements and instructions contained herein. d. Shall specifically set forth the notice of cancellation, termination, or change in coverage provisions to the City of Georgetown. e. Original endorsements affecting coverage required by this section shall be furnished with the certificates of insurance. Dax id Ham & Associates Page 6 of 9 ARTICLE IX. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT The obligation to provide services under this Agreement may be terminated, by either party, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of termination, the ENGINEER will be paid only for services actually rendered and reimbursable expenses incurred up to the date of notice of termination, notwithstanding any election to be compensated in a different manner. ARTICLE X. ASSIGNMENT ENGINEER shall not assign, sublet or transfer any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the CITY, except to the extent that any assignment, subletting or transfer is mandated by law or the effect of this limitation may be restricted by law. Unless specifically stated to the contrary, in any written consent to an assignment, no agreement will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent the ENGINEER from employing such independent associates and consultants as the ENGINEER may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder. Nothing under this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits in this Agreement to anyone other than the CITY and ENGINEER, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the CITY and ENGINEER and not for the benefit of any other party. ARTICLE XI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. This agreement has been made under and shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. The parties agree that performance and all matters related thereto shall be in Williamson County, Texas. B. Notices shall be mailed to the addresses designated herein or as may be designated in writing by the parties from time to time and shall be deemed received when sent postage prepaid U.S. Mail to the following addresses: CITY: ENGINEER: City of Georgetown David Ham & Associates David Ham & Associates Page 7 of 9 Attn: Jim Briggs P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627 Attn: David H. Ham, P.E. 1406 Heather Austin, TX 78704 C. No waiver by either party hereto of any term or condition of this agreement shall be deemed or construed to be a waiver of any other term or condition or subsequent waiver of the same term or condition. D. The paragraph headings contained herein are for convenience only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provisions in this Agreement. E. In the event of breach of this Agreement, venue for all causes of action shall be instituted and maintained in Williamson County, Texas. F. The CITY and ENGINEER and their partners, successors, executors, administrators, are hereby bound to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. G. Any reports, information, project evaluation, project designs, data, or other documentation developed by ENGINEER hereunder given to or prepared by or assembled by the ENGINEER will not be made available to any individual or organization by the ENGINEER without prior written approval of the CITY. H. The rights and remedies of the CITY provided in this Agreement shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law and under this agreement including the right of specific performance and offset. Payment made to ENGINEER by the CITY shall not denote acceptance of the work. David Ham & Associates Page 8 of 9 I. The Agreement and any exhibits thereto constitute the entire Agreement between the CITY and ENGINEER and supersedes all prior written or oral understandings. this Agreement may only be amended, supplemented, modified or cancelled by a duly executed written instrument. Signed this day of CITY OF GEORGETOWN W Leo Wood, Mayor Attest: Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary Approved as to form: Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney STATE OF TEXAS 1995 DAVID HAM & ASSOCIATES BY.-�� � - 4,cx� David H. Ham, P.E., Managing Partner Attest: Ra ph . Harris, artner CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON 1 This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 1995, by David H. Ham, in his capacity as Managing Partner of David Ham & Associates, a Texas General Partnership, on behalf of said Partnership. Notary Pu6fic in and for the Stateof TEXAS David Ham & Associates Page 9 of 9 MY CtiWISS N FXFr ?E� .lamsa:y 28, ?till I �F CITY OF GEORGETOWN WEST 22nd & LEANDER STREET STORM WATER TRUNK LINE & OUTFALL STRUCTURE Final Design Phase. 1. Prepare drawings and specifications showing the general scope, extent and character of the work to be furnished and preformed by the CONTRACTOR, based on the CITY approved Preliminary Design documents. Storm sewer drawings will include at least two pipe materials. 2. The specifications will be prepared in conformance with CITY OF GEORGETOWN Standard Specifications for Construction, General Conditions and the ENGINEER'S Special Conditions and other Contract Documents. 3. Provide the engineering data necessary for CITY'S use in filing applications for permits or obtaining approvals of governmental authorities that have jurisdiction to approve the design of the project. The ENGINEER will prepare and file a Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP) with Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC). All fees for filing such applications shall be the responsibility of the CITY. 4. Prepare and furnish to CITY a revised opinion of probable construction costs based on the final drawings and specifications. 5. Prepare for review and approval by CITY, its legal counsel and other advisors, contract agreement forms, general and supplementary conditions of the construction contract, bid proposal form, invitations to bid and instructions to bidders. 6. Furnish three copies of the above documents and of the drawings and specifications and present and review them in person with CITY. 7. As a special service prepare field notes and conduct on the ground surveys, as required, for easement acquisition. 8. As a special service, conduct field surveys for design and to provide staking for construction. Bidding Phase 1. Assist CITY in advertising for obtaining proposals for the prime contract for construction, materials, equipment and services t be performed by CONTRACTOR for the project and attend pre -bid conferences. CITY will distribute and maintain a record of prospective bidders to whom Contract Documents have been issued and will receive and process deposits for Contract Documents. Exhibit A-1 2. Issue addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify or expand the Contract Documents. 3. Consult with CITY to determine the acceptability of substitute materials and equipment proposed by potential contractor when substitution prior to award is allowed by the Contract Documents. 4. Attend the bid opening and prepare bid tabulation sheets. Assist CITY in evaluating bids or proposals and in assembling and awarding contracts for construction, materials, equipment and services. Construction Phase. Services under this phase involve consulting with and advising the CITY during construction and are limited to those services associated with performing as the CITY's representative. Such services comprise: 1. Preparing for and conducting a preconstruction conference and issuing a Notice to Proceed on behalf of the CITY. 2. Reviewing shop and erection drawings submitted by the contractors for compliance with design concepts. 3. Reviewing laboratory, shop, and mill test reports on materials and equipment. 4. Visiting the project site monthly as construction proceeds to observe and report on the progress and quality of the executed work. 5. Issuing necessary interpretations and clarifications of contract documents, preparing change orders, requiring special inspections and testing of the work, and making recommendations as to the acceptability of the work. 6. Preparing sketches required to resolve problems due to actual field conditions encountered. 7. Determining amounts of progress payments due, based on degree of completion of the work, and recommending issuance of such payments by the CITY. 8. Preparing record drawings form information submitted by the CONTRACTOR. 9. Making a final inspection and reporting on completion of the project, including recommendations concerning final payments to constructors and release of retained percentages. Exhibit A-2 CITY OF GEORGETOWN WEST 22nd & LEANDER STREET STORM WATER TRUNK LINE & OUTFALL STRUCTURE ENGINEERING FEES AND SCHEDULE Lump Sum Fee Schedule* Including Expenses Design Phase: 40 days $34,000 Bid Phase: 21 days $ 3,000 Construction Phase: $ 7,000 *Calender days from Notice to Proceed. Total Basic Engineering Services The estimated fees for special services are: Surveys for easement acquisition Design Surveys Environmental Consultant for WPAP Construction Staking Total Estimated Special Services TOTAL Exhibit B $44, 000 $ 4,500 $ 2,300 $ 4,500 $ 2, 700 $14, 000 $58, 000 10.14 QW1100 0• SCHEDULE OF CHARGES A. HOURLY RATES: Professional Engineer $75.00/hr Engineering Technician $45.00/hr. Registered Surveyor $60.00/hr. Surveying Technician $40.00/hr. Clerical $25.00/hr Two man Survey Crew $75.00/hr Three man Survey Crew $85.00/hr. Reproduction and materials Cost + 10% Travel $0.30/mile B. NOT -TO -EXCEED FEE: Compensation for basic services on a not -to -exceed fee basis may receive consensus by both parties to this Agreement. In such cases, the work performed will be billed on a time and materials basis at established rates, (A. Hourly Rates). Council Meeting Date: October 10, 1995 Item No. T AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Council approval of a letter of agreement to amend the standing engineering contract, between the City of Georgetown and Roming-Parker Associates, for engineering services related to the Dawn Drive Extension Project, in the amount of $19,900.00. ITEM SUMMARY: In order for the City to continue to provide adequate transportation services to the citizens and customers of Georgetown, it has been determined that an extension of Dawn Drive, to Lakeway Drive should be constructed. This extension will allow neighborhood traffic to flow between the Golden Oaks Subdivision and Reata Trails Subdivision while relieving traffic flow on Williams Drive. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: NONE FINANCIAL IMPACT• Funds in the amount of $19,990.00 are to be paid from Account number 110-101-6210-00. COMMENTS: NONE ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter of Agreement from Roming-Parker Associates d By; Jim Briggs, Director Community Owned Utilities Exhibit A (Updated September 28, 1995) This updated Exhibit A provides for the scope of services required for developing construction drawings for the extension of Dawn Drive from just west of River Bend Road to Park Meadow Boulevard. The attached letter details the services and associated fees for the work. RPROMWG - PARKER ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3513 Southwest H.K. Dodgen Loop, Suite 103 Temple, Texas 76502 (817) 773-3731 Fax (817) 773-6667 W. CLAY ROMING, P.E. WM. MACK PARKER, P.E. RICK N. KASBERG, P.E. September 28, 1995 Mr. Jim Briggs, Director Community Owned Utilities City of Georgetown 1101 N. College P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627-0409 Re: City of Georgetown Dawn Drive Extension Georgetown, Texas Dear Mr. Briggs: JAMES E. LAUGHLIN, P.E. Staff Consultant This letter proposal is in response to your request for engineering services required to produce construction drawings for the extension of Dawn Drive from just west of River Bend Road to Park Meadow Boulevard (approximately 500 feet total length). The following is a scope of services and a fee schedule that we have developed for the anticipated work. 1. Provide survey plat, field notes and placement of iron pins for the right-of-way required by the extension of Dawn Drive; 2. Provide field location and control points which will locate existing potable water and/or sanitary sewer improvements in or near the street right-of-way; 3. Provide the engineering design and computer aided drafting required to produce construction drawings for the project. 4. Provide five (5) sets of construction drawings for use by the City of Georgetown Street Department for construction of the project. 5. Provide 4-foot offset construction stakes from the proposed backs of curbs, cut sheets and marked grade laths for construction of the project. This is a one time service with additional requests billed at time and materials rates established by the March 14, 1995 contract between the City of Georgetown and Roming-Parker Associates, L.L.P. Mr. Jim Briggs, Director September 28, 1995 Page Two 6. Provide three (3) site visits to review construction work in progress. 7. Provide two (2) soil borings with Atterberg Limits analyses. 8. Pavement design recommendations. Work not included under this scope: 1. Preparation of contract documents, bidding services, tabulation of bids, contract administration. It is our understanding that this project will be constructed by the City of Georgetown forces; 2. Preparation of a storm water pollution prevention plan; 3. Obtaining any approvals from governing authorities and/or fees required for construction or permits; 4. Providing daily on -site construction representation on behalf of the City of Georgetown. 5. Placing monuments at street intersections, at block corners and/or at street right-of- way intersections. 6. Design/development of off -site drainage and utility improvements. The fee schedule for this scope of services is: Surveys for right-of-way; topography $600 control points; existing utility ties Soils borings, soil analysis, pavement design $1 200 Engineering design/construction drawings $10 700 Construction staking $1, 200 Three site visits 800 Total Amount $19,900 The above total amount of $19,900 is a not -to -exceed amount unless the scope of services is changed. All work will be billed at time and materials rates as established by the March 14, 1995 contract between the City of Georgetown, Texas and Roming-Parker Associates, L.L.P. Any work beyond the approved scope will be accomplished only after written authorization is received by RPA from the City of Georgetown. Mr. Jim Briggs, Director September 28, 1995 Page Three If this proposal is agreeable, please provide two copies of the completed authorization to our office. Sincerely, Wm. Mack Parker, P.E. WMP/tmm Signed this day of CITY OF GEORGETOWN WM Leo Wood, Mayor Attest: Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary Approved as to form: Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF BELL ) 1995 ROMING-PARKER ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. BY: it r-ori-dng, RE Attest: Wm. Mack Parker, P.E. Attest: LLIA Rick N. Kasberg, RE ACKNOWLEDGMENT This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of C 1995, by W. CLAY ROMING, in his capacity as Managing Partner of Roming-Parker Associates, L.L.P., a Texas Limited Liability Partnership, on behalf of said Partnership. TO[ M. MADDOX Notary Pubk - State of Texas CW""On EXPIM: 08/16/97 -� C' Notary Public in and for the State of T E X A S Council Meeting Date: October 10, 1995 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item No. SUBJECT Council approval of a construction and maintenance agreement between the City and the Texas Department of Transportation to allow the City to construct a sidewalk along the North side of Leander Road (F.M. 2243), from near Norwood West Drive to approximately 915 feet West of Norwood West Drive. ITEM SU MARY : In order to provide safe transportation of pedestrians along Leander Road (F.M. 2243) across from the Jr. High School, it has been determined that a sidewalk should be constructed along Leander Road to run approximately 915 feet West from near Norwood West Drive in the State of Texas Right -of -Way (R.O.W.). In order to construct this sidewalk in the State R.O.W., the City must sign and abide by an construction and maintenance agreement between the City and the State. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: NONE FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE COMMENTS: NONE ATTACHMENTS: 1. Construction Department of S and Maintenance Agreement from the Texas Transportation Jim Briggs, Director Community Owned Utilities JF Texas Department of Transportation P.O. DRAWER 15426 • AUSTIN, TEXAS 78761-5426 • (512) 832-7000 August 7, 1995 City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409 Attention: Don Rundell, City Engineer Dear Mr. Rundell: Through discussions between the City of Georgetown and our offices, we are aware of the City's desire to construct a segment of sidewalk along F.M. 2243 in the vicinity of Norwood West Drive. For this to occur it will be necessary for the City of Georgetown to enter into a Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation. Attached are three originals of a Construction and Maintenance Agreement (CMA). It will be necessary for this agreement to be fully executed before construction can begin. To execute this agreement the following steps must occur: ❑ The City must sign all three originals of the CMA and return them to Mr. Bill Glenn at our Georgetown Area Office. Attached to the CMA's must be the exhibits as specified on page 4 of the document. For each exhibit only one original of the exhibit is needed; a copy of the exhibit may be attached to the other two CMA's. (The CMA with the original exhibits will eventually be retained in our.. files.) ❑ Following review and approval of the exhibits by our office, the CMA's will be recommended for execution by the Austin District Engineer, Mr. Bill Garbade. ❑ We will then forward the three documents to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Construction and Maintenance Division. Upon their review and approval the documents will be signed by the Director of the Construction and Maintenance Division and returned to our office. At this point the CMA is considered formally executed and the City may proceed with construction. One of the CMA's will be kept in files at the TxDOT Construction and Maintenance Division, one will be kept in our District files, and the third document will be returned to you for keeping in the City's files. An Equal Opportunity Employer City of Georgetown 817/95 Page 2. Also attached is a copy of the Certification of Insurance (TxDOT Form 1560) which is to be used for Exhibit D. This form does not have to be included initially with the CMA during the review and approval process. It does, however, have to be completed and submitted to our office to be made part of the document before construction begins. If you have any questions concerning the agreement or the review and approval process please feel free to call Wayne Rehnborg at 832-7019. Sincerely, 01 CA..-,— Thomas A. Ohlendorf, P.E. Director of Maintenance Attachments cc: Bill Glenn AUSTIN DISTRICT WILLIAMSON COUNTY SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF F.M. 2243 FROM NEAR NORWOOD WEST DRIVE TO APPROXIMATELY 915 FEET WEST STATE OF TEXAS CITY OF GEORGETOWN THIS AGREEMENT, made on the dates hereinafter shown, by and between the Texas Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the "State" and the City of Georgetown, Texas, hereinafter called the "City", acting by and through its duly authorized officers. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the State owns, operates and maintains the system of highways for public use and benefit, including the F.M. 2243 right-of-way in Williamson County, within the City Limits of the City of Georgetown, Texas; WHEREAS, the maintenance responsibilities of State owned highways within the City Limits of the City of Georgetown, including the F.M. 2243 right-of-way, are governed by the terms and conditions of a fully executed Municipal Maintenance Agreement between the State and the City; WHEREAS, the City desires and has requested authority to construct and maintain a sidewalk within the F.M. 2243 right-of-way located as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of this agreement: Page 1 of 5 AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties hereto to be by them respectively kept and performed as hereinafter set forth, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. The State hereby authorizes the City to use a portion of the F.M. 2243 right-of-way to construct, or have constructed, the sidewalk in accordance with the drawings shown on Exhibit "A". It is understood and agreed that the State does not purport, hereby to grant any right, claim, title, or easement in, across, or upon said properties other than described above. 2. The City, its contractors, or agents, shall provide for necessary barricades, warning signs, flashing lights, and flagmen as shown in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to direct and protect vehicular and pedestrian traffic while construction work, including related activities, is in progress. 3. The City shall construct or have constructed, at its entire expense, the sidewalk and incidental items shown in Exhibit "A". The State shall have the right to inspect the work on the F.M. 2243 right-of-way at any time during the progress of the work, and to make a final inspection upon completion. Construction operations within the F.M. 2243 right-of- way shall be conducted in a manner acceptable to the District Engineer or his authorized representative. The City shall correct, or have corrected, all deficiencies revealed by the State's inspection of said work within the F.M. 2243 right-of-way or the traffic control and protection measures, when such deficiencies are communicated to the City and could have an adverse effect on public use of the F.M. 2243 right-of-way or the safety of the traveling public within the F.M. 2243 right-of-way. 4. The City shall construct, or have constructed, the sidewalk to be in compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The City shall also construct, or have constructed, ADA compliant connections between the sidewalk and all existing intersecting roadways and other sidewalks. 5. The City agrees to repair, or have repaired, any damages to the existing F.M. 2243 right- of-way. To the extent allowed by law, the City also agrees to indemnify and save harmless the State from any and all claims, demands, actions, or causes arising from or growing out of or in any manner connected with the construction, maintenance, or operation of the sidewalk including, but not limited to all court costs, attorney fees and other expenses incurred in connection with suits or such damage and shall, if so requested in writing, assist or relieve the State from defending any such suits brought against it. 6. The City shall attach documentation as Exhibit "C" which indicates that required environmental clearance has been obtained through resource agencies for the Page 2 of 5 improvements described in Exhibit "A". 7. Adequate insurance, as a minimum shall mean the City's contractor shall furnish the State with the Texas Department of Transportation's Certificate of Insurance (TxDOT Form No. 1560) covering the following listed insurance coverage which shall be maintained during the construction of the sidewalk within the F.M. 2243 right-of-way. 0 In C. Worker's Compensation Insurance: Amount - Statutory Commercial General Liability Insurance: Amount $600,000 combined single limit each occurence and in the aggregate Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance: Amounts - Bodily Injury Property Damage $250,000 each person $500,000 each occurence $100,000 each occurence The State shall be included as an "Additional Insured" for activities within the F.M. 2243 right-of-way by endorsement to policies issued for coverage listed in B and C above. A 'Waiver of Subrogation Endorsement" in favor of the State shall be a part of each policy for coverage listed in A, B, and C above. A certified copy of these endorsements shall be submitted to the State with the evidence of coverage. The City's contractor shall be responsible for any deductions stated in the policy. 8. This agreement shall bind and shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the respective parties and their legal successors. 9. The City shall not assign, sublet or transfer its interest in this agreement without prior written consent of the State. 10. The City and State, by the execution of this agreement, do not waive or relinquish any right which they may have under the law of constitution, State or Federal. 11. In the event either party hereto fails to comply with the terms as set out herein, the other party hereto may take such action as it deems appropriate to complete compliance. Should the City fail to comply with the obligations agreed to in this agreement, the State Page 3 of 5 will notify that breach of contract has occurred. Within not less than thirty (30) day from the State's written notification, the City must remedy the breach as outlined by the State. 12. If any adjustments or relocation work associated with the improvements described in Exhibit "A" are required as a result of future upgrading or realignment of the F.M. 2243 right-of-way, then that work shall be the responsibility of the City at no cost to the State. 13. The improvements covered by this agreement shall be maintained by the City. List of attached exhibits: Exhibit A - General layout and location map (approved construction plans on file at TxDOT District Office) Exhibit B - Metes and bound description Exhibit C - Environmental clearance documentation Exhibit D - Certification of Insurance (TxDOT Form 1560) Page 4of5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed in duplicate on the dates below stated. CITY OF GEORGETOWN THE STATE OF TEXAS Signature Title Date: Attest: Certified as being executed for the purpose and effect of activating and/or carrying out the orders, established policies or work programs heretofore approved by the Texas Transportation Commission under the authority of Minute Order 100002. DATE: Page 5 of 5 Director of Construction and Maintenance RECOMMENDED FOR EXECUTION: District Engineer TxDOT Form Flo. 1560 (Rev.12-91) Previous editions of this form may not be used. NOTE: Copies of the endorsements listed below are not required as attach - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TEXAS ments tothis-certificate: `° CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE FOR STATE-WIDE BID CONTRACTS fhe named contractor shall not commence work until he/she has obtained the minimum insurance specified in. -Section ll, below, and obtained the following endorsements: the Texas Department of Transportation as an Additional Insured for coverages 3 and 4, and a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the same department under coverages 2, 3 and 4. Only certificates of insurance published by this department are acceptable as proof of insurance. Commercial carriers' certificates are unacceptable. SECTION I - IDENTIFICATION DATA 1.1 Insured Contractor's Name 1.2 Street/Mailing Address 1.3 City 1.4 State 1.5 Zip 1.6 Phone Number Area Code ( ) SECTION II -TYPE OF INSURANCE Type Policy Effective Expiration Limits of Liability 2. WORKERS' COMPENSATION Number: Date: Date: Not Less Than: 2.1 2.2 2.3 Statutory - Texas Endorsed with a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the Texas Department of Transportation. 3. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Bodily Injury/Prbperty 3.1 3.2 3.3 $600,000 combined Damage single limit each occurrence and in the aggregate Endorsed with the Texas Department of Transportation as an Additional Insured and endorsed with a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the Texas Department of Transportation. 4. TEXAS BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE POLICY A. Bodily Injury 4.1 4.2 4.3 $250,000 ea. person $500,000 ea. occurrence B. Property Damage 4,4 4,5 4.6 $100,000 ea. occurrence Endorsed with the Texas Departmi ent.of Transportation as an Additional Insured and endorsed with a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the Texas Department of Transportation. 5. UMBRELLA POLICY (If Applicable) 5.1 5.2 5.3 $ SECTION III - CERTIFICATION This Certificate of Insurance neither affirmatively or negatively amends, extends, or alters the coverage afforded by the above insurance policies issued by the insurance company named below. Cancellation of the insurance policies shall not be made until THIRTY DAYS AFTER the undersigned agent or his/her company has sent written notices by certified mail to the contractor and the Texas Department of Transportation. THIS IS TO CERTIFY to the Texas Department of Transportation, acting on behalf of the State of Texas, that the insurance policies above meet all the requirements stipulated above and such policies are in full force and effect. 6.1 Name of Insurance Company 6.2 Company Address 6.3 City 16.4 State 7.6 Authorized Agent's Phone No. Area Code ( 7.1 Name of Authorized Agent 7.2 Agent's Address 6.5 Zip 7.3 City 7.4 State 7.5 Zip Original Signature of Authorized Agent Date Council meeting date: 10/10/95 Item No. L AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Approve interlocal contract for professional services with the Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) regarding acquisition for public safety software. ITEM SUMMARY The City is initiating the planning for purchase of public safety software, to automate public safety dispatch, record -keeping, and other public safety functions. The software will eventually serve both the Division of Police Services and the Division of Fire Services. Purchase of such a system is very complex; there is no off -the -shelf software that will automatically satisfy all of our needs. Special care must be taken both with the selection of the particular vendor, and with the specifications, terms, and conditions for the purchase of the system. Therefore, with the help of DIR, staff proposes to do a formal, systematic analysis of the needs and requirements of the Police and Fire Divisions, issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to narrow the field to two or three acceptable vendors, issue detailed technical specifications, and finally, select the best and most qualified system. DIR will assist us in the needs analysis, writing of technical specifications, and analysis of proposals. This process of systems analysis and application design is typically followed by many entities seeking to acquire or build complicated automated systems. We hope that we can learn from this process, and apply the concepts of systems analysis and applications design to future automation projects, such as the human resources system, and the Graphics Information System (GIS). DIR provides these services at a fraction of what they would cost in the private sector, and DIR has extensive experience and knowledge of public sector needs. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS These services are contracted under provisions of a newly enacted statue which states that said purchase "satisfies the requirement of the local government to seek competitive bids for the purchase of the goods and services." (HB 305) FINANCIAL IMPACT Total cost of the contract is $20,500, paid out of the Public Safety System project funds budgeted for FY'96 ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Proposal: Needs Assessment and RFQ for a Public Safety System Submitted By: Elizabeth Gray, Dire for of Information Resources 09/27./95 12 : 11 C^ ST1 INFO RES la 002 DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES PROJECT PROPOSAL Needs Assessment and RFQ For A Public Safety System Prepared for the CITY OF GEORGETOWN September 27,1995 Prepared By: i t F Department of Information Resources Business Operations Division .A Information n Technology Services P.O. Box 13564 Austing Texas 7871I-3564 (512)475-4700 09/27/95 12:12 V STY INFO RES (0003 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................... PROJECT SCOPE ........................................................ 2 Project Goals 2 ............ . . Project Objectives ... 2 ............ Scope Statement ....... , , , , , " " 2 ................................... PROJECT MANAGEMENT .. .. , . 3 Project Organization................................................... 3 Information Resources Management Advisory Committee {IRMAC} ....... . . . . . . . 4 City Staff Participation ...... . ................ 4 ................. ASSUMPTIONS .. 6 ............................... PROJECT SCHEDULE ........ 6 .................. ProjectPhases ....................................................... 6 Phase I: Perform a High -Level Business Needs Assessment .. , .... , .. , , 6 Phase ll: Prepare the Request for Qualifications {RFQ} ..6 ............ Phase III: Prepare the Technical Specifications .. . ' 6 Phase IV: .................... Perform Post -Project Activities , , , . , . .. 6 PROJECT COSTS ....................................................... 12 EstimatedHours ..................................................... 12 .................... PAYMENT FOR SERVICES ..... .......................................... 12 09/27/95 12:12 ^Cy STY INFO RES Z 004 Department of Information Resources September 27, 1995 I. INTRODUCTION The Department of Information Resources (DIR) is pleased to respond to the City of Georgetown's (City) request for assistance with a Needs Assessment, writing of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and evaluation of vendors for the Public Safety System Project. State agencies, counties, and cities such as the City of Georgetown in the past have enjoyed the benefits of the services performed by our highly qualified staff. From information strategy planning to custom application design in a client/server environment to network design and installation, we have met the unique needs of our public customers. This proposal is accompanied by a standard Interlocal Contract which will serve as the vehicle for authorizing DIR to proceed with the project. We are dedicated to providing the assistance and guidance the City requires to insure the success of the project. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to this request for services. Proposal for Services for the City of Georgetown: Needs Assessment and RFP For A Public Safety System Page 1 09/27/95 12:13 ST1 INFO RES Q 005 Department of Information Resources September 27, 1995 II. PROJECT SCOPE Project Goals The goal of this project is to assist the City with performing a Needs Assessment, writing of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and evaluation of vendors for the Public Safety System Project. Pro"ect b'ectives This project has the following key objectives : • Assist in establishing an Information Resources Management Advisory Committee (IRMAC) • Assist in defining your high-level business requirements • Assist in preparing your Request for Qualifications (RFQ) • Assist in developing, evaluation criteria • Assist in developing your technical requirements • Assist in evaluating your RFQ responses • Assist in contract negotiations • Assist in a post evaluation and debriefing of project activities • Assist in defining the general steps necessary for carrying the project through to implementation Scope Statement The scope of the project will include the Police and Fire business functions which support Public Safety. The project team will work with Police and Fire Department staff to develop the Requirement Specifications and other associated project activities. The project deliverables will be: • Established IRMAC • RFQ High Level Business Requirements • RFQ Evaluation Criteria • RFQ Evaluation Results • Technical Specifications • Technical Specifications Responses Evaluation Results • Draft Contract Terms and Conditions • Post Evaluation Debriefing Meeting Proposal for Services for the City of Georgetown: Needs Assessment and RFP For A Public Safety System Page 2 09/27/95 13:08 ^ti ST1 INFO RES 2 002/002 Department of Information Resources September 27, 1995 Ill. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Project Organization The project team will consist of the following: .....:.::::.. City Executive Elizabeth Gray, Responsible for the formal management review and approval of Sponsor Director of major project deliverables. Insures cooperation of City staff and is Information available to mitigate any conflict that may occur. Makes business Resources decisions for the project. Establish Project Steering Committee (Steering Committee). City Project Jeff Clasius, Makes business .decisions for the project. Participates in the daily Coordinator IS Director activities of the project. Makes resources available, approves work products, and disposes of issues and change requests. DIR Project Glenda Williams, Assumes overall responsibility for timely completion of project Manager MIS Consultant or milestones and the delivery of a quality product. Responsible for other qualified status reporting as required by the Executive Sponsor and DIR DIR staff management. Project Steering Elizabeth Gray , Represents their respective departments. Makes business Committee Chief of Police, decisions for the project. Responsible for the formal management (Steering Fire Chief review and approval of major project deliverables. Committee) RFQ Evaluation To be assigned Evaluate responses to RFQ and proposes vendor candidates for Committee by the DIR Project second evaluation phase. Reports results of evaluation process to Manager and Executive Sponsor. Insures City purchasing and procurement Steering policies are followed for the evaluation process. Committee City Department To be assigned Represents their respective departments during the needs Representatives by the City assessment phase. DIR Technical To be assigned Represents their respective areas of expertise on an as -needed Resources by DIR basis during the tenure of the project. Provides valuable information regarding both business and technical areas related to the project. JAD Facilitator To be assigned Meet with Project Coordinator and Manager to identify JAD by DIR: approach and workshops required. Identify workshop deliverables. Frank McCormick Prepares workshop agendas. Prepares facilities. Facilitates or workshops and coordinates final documentation of workshop Carmen results. Briefs Project Coordinator and Manager at end of Hernandez workshops. Provides JAD consultation services as needed. Proposal for Services for the City of Georgetown: . Needs Assessment and RFP For A Public Safety System Page 3 09/27/95 12:16 V STX INFO RES Z 007 Department of Information Resources September 27, 1995 Information Resources Management Advisory Committee (IRMAQ The I RMAC will be established to provide strategic direction, guidance, and oversight on information technilogy issues during the duration of the Public Safety System Project. Upon completion of this project, a decision should be made by City management regarding the future of this committee. Initial membership of the committee will consist of the Executive Sponsor, Director of IR, Chief of Police, Fire Chief, and any other City management identified prior to the start of this project. The first priority of the IRMAC will be to coordinate and make all decisions related to the Public Safety System Project. The IRMAC should establish their charter as soon as this project begins. All City departments will be responsible for working together with the IRMAC during the duration of this project. The IRMAC will review all project documents and approve all project deliverables. City Staff Participation Participation of appropriate levels of the City organization in these roles is critical to ensuring that the new system will meet the needs of your organization. Staff in these roles must have expertise and experience in the public safety business area, as well as authority to recommend key decisions on system content and features. Proposal for Services for the City of Georgetown: Needs Assessment and RFP For A Public Safety System Page 4 09/27/95 12:17 V STY INFO RES 10 008 Department of Information Resources September 27, 1995 III. ASSUMPTIONS In preparing this proposal, DIR makes the following assumptions: • Prior to the start date of the project, the City will identify the following participants: ► Executive Sponsor 01 IRMAC Membership 10. Project Coordinator 10. City Department Representatives • After the project begins (with the assistance of the DIR Project Manager), the RFQ Evaluation Committee will be selected by the IRMAC. • The City will be responsible for contacting and coordinating Evaluation Committee and department representative attendance for meetings and interviews. • City project support staff will be made available to assist in project activities as deemed necessary by DIR. • Additional technical expertise may be drawn from DIR staff or external sources as needed. • Any review of documents or approvals required will be completed within three (3) working days unless specifically agreed upon. • Any changes to the scope of this proposal may have an effect on the deliverables as defined. The impact of any changes will be assessed by the DIR Project Manager and the Executive Sponsor so new schedules and proposal costs can be negotiated and adjusted accordingly. • The City will provide one desk and chair and a telephone for-DIR staff. • DIR will furnish laptop computers and software for DIR staff. The City will furnish computers and software as needed for City staff. • Documents will be developed using WordPerfect an Exce nless otherwise specified and agreed upon. Proposal for Services for the City of Georgetown: Needs Assessment and RFP For A Public Safety System Page 5 09/27/95 12:17 V STY INFO RES 2009 Department of Information Resources September 27, 1995 IV. PROJECT SCHEDULE Project Phases DIR is proposing the project be divided into four (4) project phases as follows: • Phase I: High -Level Business Needs Assessment We have experience in assisting organizations in gathering business requirements through the use of techniques such as Joint Application Design, or JAD workshops and customer interviews. We believe success lies heavily on the quality of the business requirements which are identified and documented. • Phase II: Request for Qualifications (RFQ) We have experience in assisting organizations in validating and documenting business requirements and in preparation of Request for Qualifications (RFQs). 4 • Phase III: Technical Specifications We have experience in assisting organizations in gathering technical specifications through the use of JAD sessions and customer interviews. • Phase IV: Post -Project Activities We have experience in debriefing organizations to assist them with identifying successes and opportunities for improvement. Project Schedule The following pages provide an outline of the project schedule and includes estima _d duration, deliverables, participants, and activities: Proposal for Services for the City of Georgetown; Needs Assessment and RFP For A Public Safety System Page 6 Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. 1?7 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Short Form Final Plat of an 18.69 acre tract to be known as Hartman Acres; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations. ITEM SUMMARY: The request is to plat one (1) 18.69 acre lot for use as a private school. The proposed lot is immediately west of Pleasant Valley, a single family residential subdivision, and east of I, Industrial zoned land owned by Georgetown Rail Equipment Company. The proposed lot is located at the terminus of two (2) stub -out streets within Pleasant Valley Subdivision. The applicant requests that the streets remain as is and not be extended as required by the Subdivision Regulations. One (1) of the streets, Valley Drive, currently has a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac can remain and provide the needed turn -around area. The other street, Pleasant Valley Drive, has no such turn -around area. It is designed to collector street standard with a 60 foot right-of-way width. The applicant has stated in previous meetings with staff that the parking lot for the proposed use will be located beyond the terminus of Pleasant Valley Drive and adequate turn -around area will be provided within the parking lot. The Fire Services Division reviewed this proposal and approves. To ensure that the adequate turn -around area is provided, a note shall be added to the plat to require it. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its September 5, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of a Short Form Final Plat for Hartman Acres, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and variances to Sections 33030 B. and 33030 N. provided the existing cul-de-sac on Valley Drive remains and a parking lot at the terminus of Pleasant Valley Drive is located in such a manner to provide the required turn around area, after making the required findings of fact. Revised plats addressing the Technical Issues are attached. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report and Short Form Final Plat Submitted Bv: Edward J. - ry, AIC - Director Division of Developm nt Services Hildy L. 18ngma, AICP Chief Planner SHORT FORM FINAL PLAT OF AN 18.69 ACRE TRACT IN THE L.J. DYCHES AND RUIDOSA IRRIGATION COMPANY SURVEYS, TO BE KNOWN AS HARTMAN ACRES; AND VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Ben Hartman Myrtle A. Hartman Carolyn Hartman Ken Williamson 118 Mourning Dove Lane Georgetown, Texas 78626 863-3508 AGENT: Mr. Don Bizzell, P.E. Steger and Bizzell Engineering P. O. Box 858 Georgetown, Texas 78627 96304521 FAX: 863-4523 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of 18.69 acres in the L.J. Dyches and Ruidosa Irrigation Company Surveys, to be known as Hartman Acres as recorded in Volume 385, Page 497 and Volume 2145, Page 489 the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Location: Located west of Pleasant Valley Subdivision and north of Rabbit Hollow Subdivision. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: One (1) single family residence. Existing Zoning: This property is located outside the City limits so zoning does not apply. Proposed Use: A private school. Surrounding Uses North: Large acre residence (out of City) and Zoning: South: Large acre residence and Rabbit Hollow, single family residences (out of City) East: Pleasant Valley, single family residences (out of City) Short Form Final Plat - Hartman Acres FP 95-19/File: HARTMAN.FP CM:CS September 1, 1995 Page 1 West: Inner Loop Commercial Park Concept Plan (I) Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates the property as Intensity Level 3. EXHIBIT B illustrates the development allowances within this assigned intensity. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. ANALYSIS: The proposed 18.69 acre lot is being subdivided out of two (2) tracts totalling 40 acres, for the purpose of locating a private school on the new lot. SEE EXHIBIT C The private school use will comprise the entire 18.69 acres. The owner does not wish to subdivide his entire property at this time since he has no plans for the remaining portion. The subject subdivision of land will leave the remaining parcel as an illegal lot. The property owner has been informed that no additional development can occur on that parcel, and no permits can be issued by the City until it is platted. The remaining property has access to Thunder Valley Trail, in the Pleasant Valley Subdivision, and Mourning Dove Lane, in the Rabbit Hollow Subdivision. There is also an access easement which extends along the western boundary of the original tract. It is through this easement that the land north of the subject property gets its only access to Austin Avenue. The proposed subdivision is west of Pleasant Valley Subdivision. Two (2) streets, Pleasant Valley Drive and Valley Drive, stub -out into the proposed lot from the adjacent subdivision. SEE EXHIBIT D Pleasant Valley Drive has a 60 foot right-of-way and is designed as a collector street. The Valley Drive right-of-way is designed as a local street, with 50 feet of right-of-way, and has a temporary cul-de-sac at its terminus. Currently, Pleasant Valley Subdivision's access to FM1460 is through Pleasant Valley Drive and Thunder Valley Trail. All of the property to the west, between the subject subdivision and Austin Avenue, is owned by Georgetown Rail Equipment Company and zoned I, Industrial. The Inner Loop Commercial Park Concept Plan was approved in March 1994 for this land. The Concept Plan proposes industrial uses and there is a proposed minor arterial street connecting Austin Avenue and the Inner Loop Road. Short Form Final Plat - Hartman Acres FP 95-19/File: HARTMAN.FP CM:CS September 1, 199S Page 2 VARIANCES: Section 33030 B. Relation to Adjoining Street System Section 33030 N. Dead End Streets/ Cu 1-de-Sacs Since Pleasant Valley Drive and Valley Drive stub -out into the subject property, the Subdivision Regulations require that they either be extended or a cul-de-sac be provided at their termini. As stated above, Valley Drive already ends with a cul-de-sac in the Pleasant Valley Subdivision. The subject plat proposes no alteration to the current termini of the two (2) streets. If this plat is approved as proposed, and the private school is developed on the site, it is not likely that the streets will be extended beyond their existing termini. Because Pleasant Valley Drive is designed as a collector street with a wide right-of-way and wide pavement, it would be the most likely street to be extended beyond its current terminus. It is perhaps the only street in the area designed to accommodate the additional vehicle trips that could be generated by development to the west. When the proposed use of the subject property was unknown, a collector street continuing westward was necessary to accommodate the potentially greater number of vehicle trips. Now that there is a proposed use of this property, it is known that the only additional trips will be generated by the school. Further, the Georgetown Rail Equipment Company property west of the subject property will likely develop as industrial and take access from Austin Avenue, the Inner Loop Road, or the minor arterial street proposed to intersect with Austin Avenue. It is not desirable to extend this residential collector into the industrial area. In previous discussions with the staff, representatives of the school stated that the school's parking lot will be placed just beyond the terminus of Pleasant Valley Drive and adequate turning area for emergency vehicles will be provided within the parking lot. Therefore, the same objective as having a cul-de-sac would be achieved at this location. If a variance is considered appropriate, it is recommended that it be granted conditioned upon the Fire Services Division's approval of the design of the driveways and parking area at the terminus of Pleasant Valley Drive, as indicated on the detailed development plan (DDP) to be filed. Therefore, when the DDP is submitted, it may only be approved if it indicates the parking lot will be provided in such a manner that creates the necessary turning area. If the DDP does not indicate the parking lot is located in such a manner, the cul-de-sac will Short Form Final Plat - Hartman Acres FP 95-19/File: HARTMANTP CM:CS September 1, 1995 Page 3 have to be provided at that time. The applicant requests a variance to the requirement to extend Valley Drive. This variance request is based on maintaining the existing temporary cul-de-sac and thereby continuing to provide the required turn -around area. The plat for Pleasant Valley Subdivision has a note which states that the easement for the cul-de-sac will be abandoned when the street is extended. Since the note on the Pleasant Valley plat states that the temporary cul-de-sac easement will be abandoned when the street is extended and the street is not proposed for extension, the easement will remain even after the subject subdivision is platted. The note does not require that the street be extended when the subject land is platted. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070.13 of the Subdivision Regulations: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." No documentation to support this variance request has been provided by the applicant. Short Form Final Plat - Hartman Acres FP 95-19/File: HARTMAN.FP CM:CS September 1, 1995 Page 4 Technical Issues: The following Technical Issue must be addressed prior to consideration of this plat by the City Council. If it is not addressed by September 29, 1995, or if the applicant does not concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the plat to allow the Technical Issue to be addressed, the plat will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. 1. If the requested variance is granted, a note shall be placed on the plat stating that any DDP for this lot shall include a driveway at the terminus of Pleasant Valley drive subject to approval from the Fire Services Division, or the approved variance is void. 2. Note #15 shall be removed from the plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Short Form Final Plat for Hartman Acres, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Approval of the requested variances to Sections 33030 B. and 33030 N. provided the existing cul-de-sac on Valley Drive remains and a parking lot at the terminus of Pleasant Valley Drive is located in such a manner to provide the required turn around area. P & Z ACTION: At its September 5, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of a Short Form Final Plat for Hartman Acres, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and variances to Sections 33030 B. and 33030 N. provided the existing cul-de-sac on Valley Drive remains and a parking lot at the terminus of Pleasant Valley Drive is located in such a manner to provide the required turn around area, after making the required findings of fact. Short Form Final Plat - Hartman Acres FP 95-19/File: HARTMAN.FP CM:CS September 1, 1995 Page 5 DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': August 10, 1995 "PROJECT NAME': Hartman Acres 2. 'GIVEN': acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 18.69 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 18.69 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends ------------------------ 1 --- ------ ------- 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 70,274 20,185 187 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 70,274 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 20,185 Maximum Trip Ends: 187 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION Detached SF Large Lot 61 Average Lot 70 Zero Lot Line 70 Attached SF 108 Multifamily 133 Mobile Home 108 Lodging 366 Institutional 204,882 Church -with day care 228,164 -w/o day care 377,819 Medical Office 168,929 General Office 193,062 Retail, Mixed 108,114 Retail, Restaurant 45,048 Retail, Store 216,229 Employment Centers 193,062 Warehouse 1,232,884 Mini -Warehouse 17,568,600 70 81 81 115 129 105 331 219,404 243,195 403,704 180,225 221,815 123,836 42,053 229,377 221,815 1.441,800 20,185,200 31� 211 211 17� 8� 221 13,' 222,23; 12,01', 259,58: 57,91 f 73,29� 11,31; 16,431 38,92' 40,84, 311,50( 718,84E (b) (c) MAXIMUM PER DEV UNITS J REGS ----------------- i ------- --------- i 61 i 37 70 i 136 70 i 181 108 i 271 82 i 541 105 i 135 i 204,882 i i 12,012 i 259,583 i 57,918 i 73,294 i 11,315 i 16,438 i 38,921 40,844 i 311,500 i 718,846 (d) DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED/UNIT ---------------------------------------------- 37 housing units 70 housing units 70 housing units 108 housing units 82 housing units 105 housing units 135 rooms 204,882 square feet i 12,012 square feet i 259,583 square feet i 57,918 square feet i 73,294 square feel i 11,315 square feet i 16,438 square feet i 38,921 square feet 40,844 square feet 311,500 square feet 718,846 square feet i-------------------------------------- TE XA 7.699 AC 404/549 \ '30E .-- II �� _ �(569°57'W•594.I�RECOROI GENERAL NOTES: 70°27�E, 5.52 t ``\ 2. Number of lots. 1 J NEAT so -ET 50 , so' ACCESS ESN', Tse9 /yl, 3. Nurf7oarofblocks, 7 4. Ma of smallest lot: la.a0 5. Proposed tree: P PubIK T Rf l,lifrp I t z m e Th- is nil ere! _In. the bO,xUane] Of this su Da —von .n the Ibg.yta, F uo° Ura,r, a5 QeMed by FIRM Map Numar neap tCO23fX: ailea,ve data Semembe, O A 0- ° '` of : 1991 7 Wpar soma anon be Prov,tled by City of Georgetown Elaanc sr a snail, be provided ro y Texas lnintles : Z z N m \ e. Promote drainage away from a CN1_ure. In- ua0 alevanOn sh064 be cull al Nap one fool $bow the wrmundlrlg 9rourb. ono the grovrb snow° De graoeo away from its Tirtlaure al a slope W U N \ Of 1R' per pool toi a oiflanoa of a least 10 fee, a prOvisiOni Or Ina Century Plan -Development Plan Snag also orem Ih., ',OOen Is Property Is °!signal° Inlan.ty Laval 7 g _ f U I ' h 70. Maximum -Pa..-. aver 70% - p £ - m a •t 11. VV&W MRIW "NiCe snail be povda0 by Cay of George,aw , 12. The Caanngs On this nave f ' I'\ Plat been rO1s1001C the Texas Plane CJOminate SYf1lm 10 No stNaure Of lard on this Plat $nail hereanet Oe IOCalao Or vie O uln°u, `u31 submeting a CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE N 'o AppbGa,dn Form 10 the mo,amsun County Flood Plain AOmin,stiatar --- x e,Ht rNu Ia This auOOlvislOn u IOaIlp in Iha ETJ of the Cary Geo,gelown L m of 15 All Owlninge, trailer01 MOOile hamM aC10 on SuCtliv,T,pn n O A lots O, rnGledlT mv51 �e annaGetl to septic IankT a OispOsal fauln,es meeting the apeuhCanons arc canon,onT Of the pate Depenmem 01 Health and the t'� 18 V �•. O i O Prrvale sewage 100111y regulatdns aCCHCat.. le Williamson County u of ma dal. of a te. Matrltenanrx of $ram ppeealdns. l 4 S G 61 C t 4 3 1 S<) pCCE33„ p~YAN CAROt'1N 1t t7. age easements shall a the fesponsrorley of In, Oroper.5• owner Prior to grading, any type Or earth moving, C�n31NClOn t f 6 o f RCf- r ' AER w MIA 89 5 / a!'1 01, on or ufdll the •anC "N"isiOn, a dfainage Plan designed by a regrfered PronesMonal engmeef 11 21 • \ snail t, TUOmIllm for the OMDOW c-COOment. ]no .'n Odlpf_iOns thereof :o me Cjm-ssbners :-jun CI'.ti'ill:amian ` \ .: •; J:.:'r 'Cr i :!view af.0 aCpr.]vel. Is This tna is lol,a,eo in ma Ed-GS Aqude, recharge Cone An aoprove0 '.vale, Coeution Abatement Plan ,s require° by the Texas Natural Resourcx Cancer. COTnilASIOn l 2 OnO, to oonSlNa,On. al:on t LINE T CT tl- 2 g'3E EASE- ESSURE ' P pELINE �a NOR-4N NEAL ING7ORGAS pM�4' .�� O po0 w BONNETT TRACT 4 236 AC i 2369 /711 ExtST NE S 'ONE 796�2p2 _ �- "� _ - - NO N ro N z m m-�, - 59S.OD - 20 pi SDE• �, 0A ._ No,s oA£ cl oil �dr I I 0� O•E 571.79(-Op N68°3O W.157j.2 RE '__- ipe. 1 V0p01 // ��/'e ete IF_ r^_ S 70° _l5 _ X 01 .. 529O6O 2 OROf O� ACRES ', o a) P ;.•, (y (Nl ti4.99 4l _ - — E57O°0'S1 5� W ig •6� 1 _ 561. _ 1 I O 1 ° 5 E L '1 O. 6 O 2} 2.53 � 1 I' 1{ - 1 c 9.99 ACRES A/ T N 1 0 = 1 1 M41 � 0 L ' o 171lp o` 52to 51 9 1 w �. I� tl4HN O �1 �Si YO 0. 1 4 99c}� % o q 9 $ o /Y \ N 11N < y� T.i>q� m N oz y z o 5B 5 I N �l0%�._—__r._�:._.�--_. I o / £ o, 2�PS2� £ o ml ° 111 19 r nn„N p, - f ti t2 y 9 W/ � Norx ,I,nnt _ hD, �n ',5'� qHU R2> ,J rrfn�•� o1'O o ;1 F ti wf11 1 O' LOCp110N µI S0.%[SM7 I .PP P()`SC Pt,r 7kN I / 1 If �'�TNPT ' R InO6 8t 1 HCCORD I Sli'w . E' 7BD 6H° 5� SO HARTMAN ACRES n N6B° N 70° AN 18.69 ACRE SUBDIVISION L. J. DYCHES SURVEY A - 180 RUIDOSA IRRIGATION COMPANY '\ •NI' 10 }8 j54 •771 66 7B_ - 78, oo " - 78.Oo' 61 o',P o. � �! �20.0 D �, �� I I 5'vuE 7'B.L'tp l 4 j 01 II 0 Q I w ^ y'� III c� o v / 20- 00 j' e ti _ y ^�ti ,-_-� _ 58 DO - 7 O i�'oue - , - U N a o C ��� 73.1�'— 8. O 78, GYM 79. 00 79. z i� 62/-33' 3n Ive �0 r N Q 2O m "' BLUEBONNET VALLEY D RIVE rn - -- /2°•°°� k, 3 3, "!N ¢ SB. 3/ D � v� i(/2 3 30 6+ p I �3 72. o' � 72.�' _72.rx7'—72.nn' �5. 3l' D k O5ea -.00 p Z L ��J �I• 11 .d�- Q --i -:A — � /20.00=- �'N °�°� p O �' NII o N o e� • Q rm ri rl> OD CAN N2/ 33 30'ly I �` I I Q vlhm Q .� 9a -- — — — km J woo-, - g--?2.GrJ'� 91.00 72.00'. T - m` -- 83.On' 74 N2/'333p"w' (N Zi13330'W 3G8.3/� (N2! 33'; ,d o oCJ1 N g p o C� D �1 �I � A 4 � c' n1 �,nb\1,�4, , 72.00' -72.-72.�' -72.�" �5.3/'—` — -- /�'0- Soo' �74 450. 3/' �I I S2/`33 ' o"E m J 20,00- 50Por✓ �- 120.00' Z51 nl IN J— is ��, SUNRISE, VALLEY Rio i LANE � 2/ 33 3c K/ 4 58. 31 ' I IV 2/ ° 3 3 '30'"W 2 _72.Grp= 72-�0 -- _cx�' /05.=- - -- �oROw 5.O /0p-/a•�n' sty � z �72.00' 72.3/ O - -- V1 p• �o �!--79.L. � (_ ?i',61 . I' ^ � ^ .` 1�' N + � � (� Z ?^5'B [ P < 7 d KA rib -co fir �,' / a ,�° I N2/ 33 3o w &0. 92 % c�K G O 4� ' a c'' ?� 33 3o w --� A/, a 72. 00 - 7t.00=T °p �. a`J-mZ�ol / n 21333001 368. 00 9/q8,2I v' C1J ui v T 0 c 41"�' A'���I oN•� _ 9 :� Sol fV �9;� � Pv y I m n � �yvO)ti010, �I /n5. no' of S 2/ 033'30" E 0 m /n5.no� CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its regular public meeting of the: 41 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ❑ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT This meeting will be held on the 5TH day of SEPTEMBER, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place in theCouncil Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider Short Form Final Plat of 18.69 acres in the L•tmanhAcresd with :Irri ation Com an Surve s to be known as liar -variances from the Subdivision Regulations, located at she west end of Pleasant Valley Drive As one of the owners of adjacent property you are invited to be present at such meeting if you desire to discuss the proposed plan. See attached Exhibit A for more detail. Date: 8 21 95 City of Georgetown A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services Division atC930-3575. PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres i % v Name of Respondent: % J Address of Respondent 4/"k I am in favor:_.I object If you wish to subitit written comment, please respond by 8/30j951 it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its regular public meeting of the: ,d PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ❑ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT This meeting will be held on the 5TH ..day of SEPTEMBER, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed: Short Form Final Plat of 18.69 acres in the L•hes Acresand with :Irri ation Com an Su rve s to be known as Hartman variances from the Subdivision Regulations located at she west end of Pleasant Va]_leY Drive. As one of the owners of adjacent property you are invited to be present at such meeting if you desire to discuss the proposed plan. See attached Exhibit A for more detail. Date: 8/21f95 City of Georgetown A copy. of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services Division ati:830-3575. PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent: I am in favor: F�l� 1 I I�t-L� ii ' V�1 -� 1� C�tI i (ki kr( �- L, I obj ect : If you wish to subyiit written comment, please respond by 8/30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division p. O. Box 409 Georgetown,, Texas 78627 '.i n j- (.AA-Q TA LAAVJ wa tl -p.7L� ��,qtvkr,-n U�v Yj ,-�q )OPIO-0 �)IAA OIL)l Pf- . c ,,,I ���lily Qt u.0 05/3 1�3f) 13 LJVim, Tl4-- J�GDA W Ginv ,l kr ury --------------------- PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: _Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: : C�nC� rl `� ac - �--kuc- bo n aci � .i Address of Respondent: `7ect. `fir-�1nC a -� I am in favor: 1 object: .If you wish to subiiit written comment, please respond by 8/30/951 it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown., Texas 78627 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent: / jo I am in favor:. 1- obj ect : If you wish to subitiit written comment, please respond by 8/30f951 it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 i �� Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent: I am in favor: I obj ect: J subinit written I ' f you wish to comment, please respond by 8/30/95f it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Plahning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Der.rellop-ment Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetowq, Texas 78627 ------------ PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS r7 Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: /z,��'__-=/Z Address of Respondent: I am in favor: I obj ect: If you wish to subMit written comment, please respond by 8/30/9.51 it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Plahning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown *, Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetowp, Texas 78627 August 29, 1995 City of Georgetown Development Services Division P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Dear Sir: I was recently informed about plans for Hartman Acres, to be located at the west end of Pleasant Valley Drive. I am the owner of adjacent property and I object strongly to the sub- division proposal. I will attend the September 5th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to express my opposition. Sincerely, (Mrs.) Tommye Thompson 2604 Bluebonnet Valley Georgetown, Texas 78626 863-5265 C TY OF GEORGETOWN 140TICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PUPLIC MEEK' e is hereb given that the city of Georgetown will hold its Notic Y regular public meeting of the: pZ,ANN'ING AND ZONING GOlVISSION 11 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT This meeting will be held on the sTl4 day of �u�FR l chambex`s�t 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place In the Ganc 101 East 7th 5tteet, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed: Short Farm ina�. _Plat Qf 18.69 ages ' n the L. tiyches :ar1.d Ruidosa :Irri atXon Ca an Surve s to be known as Hartman Acres with variances from the Subdivision Re.c�ulatians located at the west end of PJ.e2asant VaJJev Drive. As one of the owners of adjacent propert Y You are invited to be present at such meeting if you desire to discuss the proposed plan. See attached Exhibit A for n1ore detail. Date:_ $�JCity of Georgetown X copy. of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to the meeting described above. For further information phone the 0. Development Services Division att.030-3575. ..T r PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS i5v^ , e61: Naffte er AMAIJIM - Name of Respondent:-Vwk) 7W_6 2605 alle bMe • Address of Respondent �. -r a-rt, in f avar : - I obj ect : If you wish to subhlit written comment., please respond by E/Od95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division p, 0. Box 409 Georgetown_, Texas 78627 ,��r� w I �-, NJ, �� ti,,•��r-aw i n', AA 0a"9 ,i I :J '. tt g it � ' r k. (,Z98t. 60V xaa 'U 'd �ou,801-aAaQ AZdax as�a Cd UoT ST AZ Q Sa�T A�� S o A-4z � : O� .., y ulyO-�aF71oa� � 1C�T� pug uoTsszu�uio� f�TMu�T OIZ •zT�una � Q� oz� �a �z. pua buY�ut� Yd ua��snd� VISTA ACpv 3° p�eQg a A , z° ""."'oua-A-4�z pu°dsaz OAUJUnI otMC 2 pS �� � 3° ssa�pp�d �uap�odsa2i • � apt O� • -: juapuodS;3 3° .4aa saaav uVaNALH :atuLl� qZKayiiOo PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMEN 5 Project Name: Name of Respo :i Address of Re I am in favor:--- 1 obj ect : If you wish to subtit written comment, please respo by 8/30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Plar`IIning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown ' Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres LkLfT C Name of Respondent:i--,/-��s� Address of Respondent: Y I am in favor:--- I object: �\ If YOU wish to subitit written comment, please respond by 8/30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 f' T,� YA- y � y PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres c Name of Respondent: C� t {--�. Addr ess ondent of Res : p _ _ �i I e_ 1 object: �- I am in favor:_—_ . If you wish to subiiit written comment, please respond by 8/30/95, Adjustment or Planning and it will be provided to the Board of Zoning Commission and City Council. *� } Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division p• 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 ,IP� %� �. ��- _________________ ------------- PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres — Respondent: � Name of—� 4 Address of Respondent: I an in favor: I obj ect : c, I�r2 i•- �. POO 2rnL �kJ If you wish to subtit written comment, please respond by 8 30 95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. F-�r�`� - - -- - r - Please reply to: City of Georgetown , Development Services Division ,. A'Uu p. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartma Acres Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent: I am in favor• _ I object: If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 8/30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent : - sd / l/ 7,�'- j I am in favor:-.— _ I ob7ect: If you wish to subTiit written comment, please respond by 8/330/955, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Pla:ftning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 4.09 Georgetown, Texas 78627 { f r� Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: I Ct� �� Iii G h n Address of Respondent: _. � A LLB `� �C� T am in favor: -.-- I obj ect : If you wish to submit written common"-, please respond by 8/30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres :Name of Respondent: Address o` Respondent: - F � itobject: 3po,,�(s+, c2� Mob'• I 1 �.K�S ___ I am in favor : _.__ — -- - - I f you wish to subitiit written comment, please Adjustment respond by 8/30/95, or Planning an it will be provided to the Board of Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division p, 0. Box 409 Georgetown,, Texas 78627 0 Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of f Respondent: �� -� Ju ��C. L� �✓ s / �� Address of Respondent: �C ��� Z)/ ' I am in favor:-..- I object:- -If you. wish to subiiit written comment.. please respond by S 3 0 f 9 5 , it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Pla:rning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. n. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 AUGUST 29, 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. - PLEASE ALLOW US TO INTRODUCE OURSELVES. OUR NAMES ARE DUWAYNE AND PEGGY HASTINGS AND WE RESIDE AT 2608 BLUE BONNET VALLEY DR., GEORGETOWN, TEXAS. OUR RESIDENCE IS LOCATED ON THE LAST STREET IN THE SUB DIVISION OF PLEASANT VALLEY. JIlVIMY JACOBS COMPLETED OUR HOME IN LATE JULY OF 1995 SO WE ARE NEW RESIDENTS TO THIS AREA. ONE OF THE REASONS WE SELECTED THIS AREA TO BUILD WAS BECAUSE OF THE ELEGANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE APPRECIATED THE QUALITY OF HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING AND THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SUBDIVISION. WE CHOSE THE LOT THAT WE BUILT ON WITH GREAT CARE AND PRIDE FOR THE SITE OF OUR NEW HOME. TO OUR DISMAY WE ARE RECEIVING NOTICE THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF A DEVELOPMENT DIRECTLY BEHIND OUR HOME THAT WOULD ALLOW MOBILE HOMES IS BEING CONSIDERED. WE ANTICIPATED THE AREA WOULD BE DEVELOPED AT A LATER DATE BUT WERE CONFIDENT THAT THERE WOULD BE THE SAME RESTRICTIONS THAT THE PLEASANT VALLEY SUBDIVISION HAD TO ADHERE TO. AT THIS TIME WE ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THE RAPORTANCE OF THE VALUE OF THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION AND NOT ALLOW THE DEVALUE OF SAME FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, HARTMAN ACRES. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. RESPECTFULLY, DUWAYNE & PEGGY HASTINS PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent: em- I am in favor: _ I object: If you wish to subtit written comment, please respond by 8 30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Plahning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development services Division P. n. Box 4.09 Georgetown, Texas 78627 PROPERTY—O-WMER' S COMMENT �! ` S Project Name: Na an cres C Name of Respondent. J Address of Respond t• I am in favor:-.-- I object: If you wish to subitit writte n rmmentAe s ewo b /30/95, it will be provided to the BoaAdjustme 't or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Name of Respo Address of Re I am in favor:__— I object:y If you wish to subtit written comment, please respond by 8/30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 0� I r- --- f j 7 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS C� Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent: C I am in favor:_ 1 object �� If you wish to submit written comment, please respond y 8/30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division p. 0. Box 409 Georgetown_, Texas 78627 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres - -- M.MMI,/ A e-�J Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent : CZL6� I am in favor:_,__ I object: ..If you wish to subyfiit written comment, please respond by 8 30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown., Texas 78627 PROPERTY-- LZ, Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: r-2 J Address of Respondent: 02 object: I am in favor:-.-- I If you wish to subitiit written comment, please respond by 8/30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Plahning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division p, n. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Project Name: _---------------------------- PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS -Hartman Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent: I am in favor: 9 I object: '4% ff If you wish to subMit written comment, please respond by 8/30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 \1 1 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS 'j Project Name: Hartman Acres e o f Respondent: . Nam Add Respondent: of Res Ad P I am in favor-.-.-- I object If you wish to subiiit written comment, please respond by 8/30195, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 ! rO Cr �i % !nC C(r (.c�✓cam- �tC� C y JCS I LA.�, A _J 44a !C t % � : C % e- 4ri �L ® Ray, i PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres Q r'+ r Name of Respondent: _ Address of Respondent: V6k I am in favor: I object: _X, If you wish to subxiit written comment, please respond by 8/30/951 it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown ' Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 • ��i 0 !995 ' 1 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent: v I am in favor: I obj ect : , If you wish to submit written comment, please resp nd by 8/30/95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 a---___------------- __-__+ _-'--'- ---------- - ----- PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres .t Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent:_ uc)v I am in favor:-.-- I object: , If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 8/30f95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 1 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: : :r >,. ViC4Address of Respondent: (p �"V�� I am in favor: I object: If you to sub�iit written comment, please respond by 8 30 95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 019,95 t t: _--------____ PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent:, - Address of Respondent: I am in favor : _ — I object: ?f you wish to subMit written comment, please respond by 8 30 95, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Plannin and Zoning Commission and City Council. g Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 . Y2 d,4 ��:��Zz a PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS C,V— Project Name: Hartman A Name of Respondent: 1 Address of Respondent: I am in favor: I obj ect : (� If you wish to subMit written comment, please respond by AZ����3:0/.95,, it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown ' Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown., Texas 78627 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS j Project Name: Hartman Acres Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent: I am in favor: U C/ I obj ect : ..If you wish to subxiit written comment, please respog4fb a ` it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Pfai�n'i-ng Zoning Commission and City Council. Al 1P r Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division - ---- --- -:.� P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 --- -- �� �� nee --�-d - � � � -•� _17 Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. N AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consider approval of a modification to the detailed development plan for the Georgetown Church of Christ ITEM SUMMARY: The detailed development plan (DDP) for the Georgetown Church of Christ was approved by the City Council on June 28, 1994. Since that time the church has been constructed largely in conformance with the site design requirements. One of the requirements, however, is that a six (6) foot privacy fence be constructed along the west property line to provide a buffer to the adjacent single family residences. The adjacent homeowners in the Legend Oaks Subdivision have provided a petition to the City requesting that the privacy fence not be required adjacent to their properties. Only two (2) of the adjacent property owners did not sign the petition (see attached exhibit). It seems reasonable to comply with the wishes of the adjacent property owners given that the bufferyard requirements are intended to protect them. The fence will be required adjacent to Lots 3 and 4 because those property owners did not sign the petition. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will modify the bufferyard requirement on the DDP such that the six (6) foot privacy fence is required only along the west property line, adjacent to Lots 3 and 4 of the Legend Oaks Subdivision. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit and Petition Submitted By: Edward . Barry, A?ent - Director Division of Develop Services Hildy L. gma, AICP Chief Planner LEGEND OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC GEORGETOWN. TEXAS April 16, 1995 EONL. It has come to our attention that a city ordinance requires the Georgetokvlt�,Church of Christ to construct a privacy fence to separate their property from our subdivision. This issue has been discussed and is undesired by both parties. Therefore, by signing --+#is petition, the following homeowners agree to release the Georgetown Church of Christ from the liability of constructing the aforementioned fence. 1~or homeowners who dissent from this position, the Church has agreed to aecorttino-date them by constructing the fence from Highway 29 along the property line for any homeowner that desires the fence as per the city ordinance. This fence will only be constructed from the highway to as far as is needed to satisfy those who desire the fence. *The following list is of homeowners that oven property immediately adjacent to the Church of Christ property. �9 Legend Oaks (Lot F'T' 3 ) Oxford Spec Home 103 Legend Oaks (Lot # 4) Wayne & Kathy Jones 111 Legend Oaks (Lot 4 8) John & Sharron Phi; 113 Legend Oaks (Lot # 9) �r ' f a / E.. y / Darrell Jackson �i�� N��� /Gerald &Linda Bis 1 OS Legend Oaks 115 Legend Oaks (Lot 45) (Lot it"r 10) Sterling & Mar 107 Legend Oa (Lot 46) Rube Helton 109 Legend Oal (Lot 97) -W,,/�-, 'i-L '4� Mark & Margy Lund 117 Legend Oaks (Lot 4 11) -71, CJ /4, (Lot .4 12) --- VACANT Ralph & Sylvia Culler 121 Legend Oaks L ! / (Lot 4 l 3) Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Resolution of intent to initiate annexation of an approximately 300.6 acre portion of the Sun City Georgetown Planned Unit Development, Phase 2, located in the W. G. Wilkinson, George Thompson, Abner Short, R.T. Jenkins, Mary Ann Lewis and Daniel Monroe Surveys. ITEM SUMMARY: The Del Webb Corporation has requested voluntary annexation of a portion of Phase 2 of the Sun City Georgetown project. The annexation area will include proposed single family residential and commercial development, including the proposed Scott and White medical facility. The attached resolution sets the dates for the required public hearings as Wednesday October 18, 1995 and Tuesday October 24, 1995. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: None COMMENTS: None ATTACHMENTS: Resolution. Submitted Bv: Edward J Barry, AICP - /D*ector Clydevon Rosenberg,Division f Development ices Chief Planner, Long Range Planning RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, INDICATING INTENT TO INITIATE THE ANNEXATION PROCESS FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE CITY BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE AN APPROXIMATELY 300.6 ACRE PORTION OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN - PHASE TWO, WITHIN IN THE W.G. WILKINSON, GEORGE THOMPSON, ABNER SHORT, R.T. JENKINS, MARY ANN LEWIS AND DANIEL MONROE SURVEYS, LOCATED NORTH OF RM2338 APPROXIMATELY ONE AND ONE-HALF MILES NORTH OF CEDAR BREAKS ROAD, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, as a Home -Rule Municipality, according to Chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code, the City of Georgetown has the authority to fix and extend its municipal boundaries and annex area adjacent to its boundaries; and WHEREAS, a municipality may annex only in its extraterritorial jurisdiction, unless the municipality owns the area; and WHEREAS, a municipality may not annex a publicly or privately owned area, including a strip of area following the course of a road, highway, river, stream, or creek, unless the width of the area at its narrowest point is at least 1,000 feet, unless the annexation is initiated on the written petition of the owners or of a majority of the qualified voters of the area or unless the property to be annexed meets specific configuration requirements; and WHEREAS, in a calendar year, a municipality may not annex a total area greater than 10 percent of the incorporated area of the municipality as of January 1 of that year, plus any amount carried over as unused from previous years up to a total of 30 percent, unless the area annexed is volunteered or is owned by the municipality, a county, the state, or the federal government and is used for a public purpose; and WHEREAS, the total area to be annexed is within the amount allowed by State law and lies within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of, and is adjacent and contiguous to the City of Georgetown; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the annexation is in the best interests of the City of Georgetown; Resolution of Intent to Annex a 300.6 acre portion of Sun City Georgetown Phase 2 No. Page 1 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this resolution implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element: 1. Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 1, which states: "The Physical attributes that make Georgetown attractive are protected"; and 2. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "Land use patterns within the City provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations"; and 3. Growth and Physical Development Policy 2, which states: "The City's regulations implement the policy statements and provide the opportunity to seek change with reasonable effort and expense"; and 4. Growth and Physical Development Policy 3, which states: "Annexations procedures and standards benefit the community"; and further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Georgetown hereby indicates its intent to initiate the annexation process for an approximately 300.6 acre portion of Sun City Georgetown - Phase Two, within the W.G. Wilkinson, George Thompson, Abner Short, R.T. Jenkins, Mary Ann Lewis and Daniel Monroe Surveys, located north of FM2338 approximately one and one- half miles north of Cedar Breaks Road., as described in Exhibit A of this resolution. SECTION 3. The developer of Sun City Georgetown, the Del Webb Corporation, will acquire title to the land and request voluntary annexation before obtaining a Final Plat. The Del Webb Corporation has submitted landowner authorizations to request voluntary annexation for the properties included within this portion of the Sun City Georgetown Phase 2 Preliminary Plat. SECTION 4. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the City Council of the City of Georgetown. Resolution of Intent to Annex a 300.6 acre portion of Sun City Georgetown Phase 2 No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 5. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this loth day of October 1995. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: LEO WOOD Mayor PBXauue eq 0! LejV 2� ,&•wzz «� _ � m,.22;ezty• � � V 1191H X 3 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN SUN CITY GEORGETOWN - 300.6 ACRE PORTION OF PHASE 2 Introduction This service plan has been prepared in accordance with Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 43 - Municipal Annexation. This requires that the service plan provide for the extension of full municipal services to the area to be annexed by any of the methods by which it extends services to any other area of the municipality. Police Protection Regular and routine patrolling of streets, responses to calls, and other police services will be provided upon the effective date of the annexation. Fire Protection and Code Enforcement Fire protection and prevention services are currently being provided to the area through an agreement with Williamson County. These services will continue to be provided to the area upon the effective date of the annexation. Upon the effective date of the annexation, the City Code Enforcement Officer will periodically patrol streets in the area to ensure that all properties are in conformance with City Code. Solid Waste Collection Solid waste collection and disposal services will be provided upon the effective date of the annexation, in accordance with the rates, terms and conditions contained in the City Code. Water Service Water service will be provided to the annexation area through the terms of a development agreement with the City of Georgetown. Sewer Service Wastewater service will be provided to the annexation area through the terms of a development agreement with the City of Georgetown. Maintenance of Roads, Streets, and Drainage Roads, streets and drainage facilities dedicated to the public will be maintained according to City Code and policy upon the effective date of the annexation. Street Lighting Street lighting will be made available upon the effective date of the annexation, upon request of the property owners, in accordance with City Code and policy. Annexation Service Plan, Page 1 of 2 Parks and Recreation Parks and recreation facilities dedicated to the public will be maintained according to City Code and policy upon the effective date of the annexation. Recreation services will be provided to all residents in accordance with the rates, terms and conditions contained in the City Code. Planning and Zoning Upon the effective date of the annexation, the planning and zoning jurisdiction of the City will extend to this area. The area will be zoned according to the uses described in the Sun City Georgetown Revised Concept Plan (Second), as approved through regular procedures. Inspection Services All inspection services, including building, electrical, plumbing, etc., provided by the City will be extended to the area upon the effective date of the annexation. Library Services Library services will be provided to all residents in accordance with the rates, terms, and conditions contained in the City Code upon the effective date of the annexation. Other Services Other services provided by the City, such as animal control, court, and general administration, will be made available upon the effective date of the annexation, in accordance with the City Code and policies. Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy City Ordinance Number 900404, a Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy, guides the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of all utility system improvements, including water, wastewater and electrical service. Annexation Service Plan, Page 2 of 2 Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. . P AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Plat of 15.182 acres in the William Addison Survey, and a Resubdivision of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Lot 1, Block N; to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Four ITEM SUMMARY: The subject Final Plat is consistent with the approved Concept Plan and the Preliminary Plat being considered as a separate agenda item. The construction plans for this subdivision have been submitted and are currently being reviewed by the City staff. Variances to allow the subdivision to be developed as proposed are considered with the Preliminary Plat. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of September 5, 1995, the Planning and Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Final Plat of Churchill Farms, Four, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. The attached plat has been revised to address the Technical Issues as required Commission. Zoning Section by the RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and revised plat. Submitted By: Edward . Barry, AI - Director Divisioh of Develop ent Services r Hildy L. ICngma, AI P Chief Planner FINAL PLAT OF 15.182 ACRES IN THE WILLIAM ADDISON SURVEY, AND A RESUBDIVISION OF STONEHEDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTION THREE, LOT 19 BLOCK N; TO BE KNOWN AS CHURCHILL FARMS, SECTION FOUR OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Wunsch Churchill Farms, Ltd. 30444 Berry Creek Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-9995 AGENT: Mr. Charles Wirtanen, P.E. CWC 30444 Berry Creek Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-9995 FAX: 930-9317 REQUEST: Final Plat of 15.182 acres in the William Addison Survey and a Resubdivision of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Lot-1, Block N; to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Four as recorded in Volume 2349, Page 88 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located on State Highway 29 East. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: RS, Residential Single Family and C-1, Local Commercial Proposed Use: One (1) commercial lot, 64 single family residential lots, and one (1) private park lot. Surrounding Uses North: Single family residences (out of City) and Zoning: South: Stonehedge Subdivision (aka Churchill Farms) (RS) East: Indian Creek Subdivision (out of City) West: Remainder of Churchill Farms Concept Plan (RS and C-1) Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this development as Intensity Level 5. The proposed development can be accommodated within this assigned intensity. Final Plat - Churchill Farms, Section Four September 15, 1995 PP-95-04 / File: CHRCHIL4.FP Page 1 CM:HK Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: A Concept Plan for Churchill Farms was approved by the City Council on August 22, 1995. The entire Churchill Farms area was annexed into the City effective on August 9, 1995. The area is in the process of being rezoned subsequent to the annexation. A first reading of the rezoning for the area within the subject Preliminary Plat was approved by City Council on August 22, 1995. That rezoning designates Lot 40, Block A, as C-1, Local Commercial, with the remainder of the subdivision RS, Residential Single Family. The second reading of the rezoning ordinance will be held until the final plat for this subdivision is recorded. ANALYSIS: The subject Final Plat is consistent with the approved Concept Plan and the Preliminary Plat being considered as a separate agenda item. SEE EXHIBIT B The construction plans for this subdivision have been submitted and are currently being reviewed by the City staff. Because the construction plans have not yet been approved, any significant changes required as a result of their approval may result in the need to reconsider the Final Plat. Variances were considered with the Preliminary Plat to address issues related to block length, secondary front yard setbacks, and the bufferyard adjacent to the arterials. Technical Issues: The following Technical Issues must be addressed prior to consideration of this plat by the City Council. If they are not addressed by September 29, 1995, or if the applicant does not concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the plat to allow the Technical Issues to be addressed, the plat will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. 1. If the variances are approved with the Preliminary Plat, add a note to the Final Plat describing each variance. 2. The revisions to the secondary front yard setbacks must be made as described in the Preliminary Plat report if the requested variances are approved. 3. To conform with Section 34020 C.1., provide an additional ten (10) feet of side setback on the east property line of Lot 13, Block A, (consistent with the Preliminary Plat) and the north property line of Lot 8, Block C. 4. Revise plat note #22 to state that the proposed zoning is C-1, Local Commercial, for Lot 4, Block A, and RS, Residential Single Family, Final Plat - Churchill Farms, Section Four PP-95-04 / File:CHRCHIIA.FP CM:HK September 15, 1995 Page 2 for all other lots. 5. Show the City limits line as it impacts the northeast and north property boundaries of the subdivision. 6. Provide two (2) copies of the deed restrictions or covenants if they will be recorded for this subdivision. 7. Provide certification from all applicable taxing entities that all taxes due have been paid. 8. Revise plat note #12 to state that proposed streets will be constructed to residential street standards. 9. Complete the property owner's certification and the field notes to insert the missing volume and page reference. 10. Revise the City's certification to change the plat reference to Churchill Farms, Section Four. 11. Add asterisks to Lots 8 and 9, Block C, to provide reference to the related plat note. Prior to Filing: Before the subject plat can be recorded with the County, park land dedication fees of $14,400 must be paid to the City. STAFF RECOMVIENDATION: Approval of the Final Plat of Churchill Farms, Section Four, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of September 5, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Final Plat of Churchill Farms, Section Four, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Final Plat - Churchill Farms, Section Four PP-95-04 / File:CHRCHIL4.FP CM:HK September 15, 1995 Page 3 CHURCH|LL FARMS SECTION FOUR SH 29 ------T— ni'r N- 363,671 t 15' ELECTRIC EASEMENT S; T A T E H I G W A Y N 0 2 9 ( 80' R O W -T2.846, 160 7 o N75'29'16"E 850.53' I .R VOL 1.86. PG 1?1 •-� N75' 9'16" 20 ADD'L ROW F 1 .' 39.65 :.t. ... 'I. .._ �75'29'16'w �37 39'_... '0 P11 - _20.0 ' Csr it6:00_('� 0,94_ Z5Z9_i@'W 242 .6' 00T — , V$7j'z9'16'w `1t13it6--,.�•� 5\ N75'29'16"F :8554' -82.07'.... - 9500'---- 65.00- ..6500'.._. 65Do'.._-6500'•....65.00'.._.49.98'C` N ')' rA250.02=--80.00'— 1112.16'-- N- c Bic ..}(.. A..„, f zo'B L-I r , 4e l6 c►� ; r 2o'e.�,. (1 ! Of 40 T. t` ,n ,D ,T = .p Omi 'G a ,D m OI r: O m ,O 8 T. _ 6 5 4 . 3 . 2 1 o m 1 2 3 0� . N000 L i 3 3 00< r4 a cri r. •f')•_• ( n/ , C111i� v 12il�5'OL - ! 0 W �c� Zi C' ri r r' o e /Coll MEHCIA�, a: ryBI.U?'0j'-: .oy' r `,��AS Z' - 65.00'•- 6_ 00'�-65.00'� "65U0'L -60UI'L►, Np '�050.00.1 .},a.CB` (\ a'y►y} 1` I CVO p T_EJEHEJ.JE PARTNER,) / o,. �. s ;. ---'r 'i 01. 2:341d, f'(-, '3 3 q: � A � o f !�W e' �' °9 N75'30'00"f .565 78' 4f 29' ° v 4t L6 �: \✓ :� Ig a 33 y h DEL MA R � 50 GO 1}Q OU 42 , 40 9 p e °v hS7 I' (20692W) 80.00' WS'30'00"E 'I �F Z \t L7 CS m 4 I - oOW ' ' o , o l a ; ^ 01 n G° .�_ ..101 92_.::' 6 ... O'..:r90 94 .... to w - , J 5O m r I i o 1�-IDO' iUr � I a `� S75'3G' w �! tt754" t0500__ i 1 J Ac:'KF�' ""15 B 1. < '50 00, h 15 o.E " fs> X 5 _ COURTpirlz ,, ( ST5'30,67' o. g J c i N r I_E SEND a-' � W d p z• $' 8 i lox �p m 94c r I 1� � � � \ �/ ei.-37t :'L: O CY 3U' ELCCiRIL EASEMENT t0 o.^,W �N I rt�Nu E_( u G5 I a O; VOL 1.1ti9, PG 108 P m m N75'30'00•E ! t19.t7__... '- • IPrN Rnl` r(1WNI) .-...%� t2000' 1 Vu IN68'0000` C86•-• O� t: 1 / 2" IRON kUL' SE I O / !; QI t, 575:3"0.w 3 l i ',A �� �-•� coo e 2G 00' m t22 3 ' p iv ♦ NAIL FOUND N75'3O'OO' E 384 ',4 P' S'30'o6-W h ' ': U 50 W �-)/I N ,\ �.fl :AWty - -..... - - -- 8 m 11 8$W 8 �F 7 N 5 .,:�W- ■ MONUMENT F,IQNI, v \ O E OO' Lj5 (1i 1 6`I. Llll' Li,`, (1(r j l+;' (lll ; ' � 1 .�' ,ft ; W O '� I •O ,O l J�J `! `• J 1 � 1ii T O N �lI I.. � � I �8 120 53'.,' W �, 6 tuNLESS OTHERMSE NO1LU HEREDNI !;) " l�1 �'• k :it'll! A : t ;'V p�J ,N.4 (� Jm m r,'-'r s F 5)1:2 102861 1 ap rn ` ! ':,••, !. A PGB POINT OF BEGINNING , \ ,� ,.\ 17 r. o n<0 i 120 CK)' -^ ri I U) N 1� I m \ \ I`. . c e 5'30'00"wl b i 20'6 L. / —y(vo �. 016a� 15',: 14 _,13�ap a.�" g $ „I 3 oNp - 9: BUILDING r.ETBACF. LINE `j ti, O' N o \.. Y " �. G r' ' O O Z 1 2 o C"i 7 U 50' I N 7500' 95.00' 49.14' P I P 2. \ Q M_ "?', 1 U !r-\, LI04 r ? :S'B.L° .. � m � a � `� "'j �o + .- L S� •+Ivy 0 7 , E uBUC VTILtTY EASEMLN! i, .,,p „ 12 _j N75.-30'GQ"c rM g' �'06y wp�3 E-N75'29'25'E-219.}4. I RUw PIGHT-OF-*A W�1 1 �'� Or �y -:, A5 �L) `.. _`, 3 G •� mQ $ 8 Tr� 6T..U0' '� 6',.UO 65 (i0' . . ,OS 00'' G 0 m 20.00' ..._, jl" 1. ISM G IF:' O rn rn ti J, C: r i. eo ,�Y S• 13' to 30' MOE COMMON __.. CE DPAINAGE EASEMENT c W 29'J _ a a7T o S �6 L j N75'30'UO"E. 3. °' �' Im 1 3 5 B/• i �C75'- r� „ 1 Oro ACCESS EASEMENT it FFE FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION a ' G lJ l50- ROW v Or O W ,,, TROTTER DRIVE )e "' B 0 C ETC w�. B I N QtV �N75'29'25 E 205.64._,) GEE PLAT NI -TES ,ZtlLo �Ol Q' h� iAO ,7J'3GOEI W 34G 4 1-50 �, N%�y3OG,l?"Ej I ryrY%O to•�. 4 l f 1n Z 0fs C,m b a7. ^�' �`A s h5 0U' r . .-,' C//� - I19 9J'- �� 6 rn s � Q W O 1 9 t7' v, w h`..x' 67 ! . j ." __ 60 00' -(`f9 n r 1 \A �, o' 20 B ' m 5 ►_I s'- NI o .ri I 9 J ,o 6 { .- o o „ `� $ 0 4 77.36' 13t 20' 106 52 ' S75'29'25"W 191.93 ROB .Nc BBeQ'I - IIG ,tunre J /. 2 O 'r� o r, o b g 8 ro .N e• iL: NO1'OC'OC"E _ :i' 8 :' -- -� �/s •SB.O �� 20 a, Io c a '22 c' " 23 vl �' 24 �� ^2.5 0 26 hQ�� ,o O.jg'JO 4-� _ N75'29'25-E 315.09_' � m ' � ,'- �- I ,i U h� - Y 21 .y ° r+ ,•Qi 1 .P 446.. L Sol'00'00..W ,82J' - p JB,.. t r. _ : - I_ +, 0' �oe.i \� s� - m !Sg,. N@>. o .Q n „ „ I° s J ,.Y200 + Z\ d '. E-2.8 I; :N3o� 39'OU"w 41 .. ' ..ter �" c.r o o•, oeoU- ) o='UU, ��:u'BI ,}( q _ P �, �. , P fi--- B l "0 C;; t... `2oe� N o 'a OI: Q j £ W t, , I I - O' `Q ' '•' 'L '0 ,0 I s 0. L4 .S36'39'00"E 119 24' O 83 �' 1(, oo' �' I,u , (. �(, ; �, Ill 65.0 ' 97 69' o , t 5 L N . AMENITY CENTER —{ ! a rn 31 S6'--(i---�`--= - -t`.,. _... __.. ,,�- ---� p o• E o', r 9 �o. Lt N75'30'GU'E 9566' �L... .,: 4100/ rstUU , N/Y.tUuU"L. 1 57.00' 11669' gi1 39' N "' a til N w p' 60 �' o' l" S75'3G'00'w 3f 46 �� !� 37 r " 36 .ti/ :o'u, w1C r,7rn, '+ ioe�i' .'� £ r N 20p0' £ °' 17 L`Oi �— 5221 JC OV E 13 . W �c 1�sm t + r LOT 1. BLOCK P' N _PILAF � o" r ry 35 'l 30 29m �. �, 271 ' 16 ' 1.280 ACRES I STONEHEDGE• jl -.. J. J V, ,9 J ,0 U_ JOi 6'" 8Fi• t' t J. $ 1 ..-- -._`l "' 25'8�. 5ECTION THREE ,ILj If Cd6 c've 4'3.)t; V s. �.. \jtr I CAB. -H', o�l�N6� 3 > 9h iy>� �T•.�5 ^ srC68" _ 62.56' ._._. -- 204.64' - — - - ✓ SLDS. 43-45 I R m '10 F3 .� G so T` 121 t3' Q s y i ,0 C32 \p o\5� '"' S75'30'00"W 267.19' C8 G� I W X r� W �\ ! 8gno,00 `, U 1 31 i a ,:' \ ` .�'V -Gqg c9 STONEHEDGE BLVD. j N E „Q ,.,\ 9% 39 ` S89p3 ?7"E.'. no' a/G76 N753000 E CHARLES WUKASH fo - -Z zo ; 28 i / ,, i T .MAu".., '1^ t►-tF..HIO� ., ;. lopt�' '1" �..UO-C 11613 - �\ G\A 267.19' CtS� '^ W R[ .:Ro s [ aCr'• ;`t !6 uli - 1 - ,� ;; /t/` � S0 .4 SITE 8!$�. y"' i !' yA Q,'v ,� i t �� . �O, r� `j0' 00 �O� e N /~ 1 x sra„ceac �ti` O d m " r Nesa m.«� 33 r GP Gay 00 60 DETENTION AREA BAR M(RS 'r� sr "GLEN# :).s/ee at- mil. - i r�,J j'r 000"W ! 1.5_bt �p 32 \" tn. �7y�G o5 DAVID STARR A O- T'ZONEHEOrCt "w ,Y:1 hEp/► C 84 c,`.,> / ` `°y°\0 S70NEHEDGE SECTION THREE `SECTION THREE ''b :ti G 2 •.'d '• h _ ?�` -!= Ns 36 46'? 1 z r! .008 VO 9 ,). to �� e CAB. H' SLDS. 43-45 rs CITY LIMIT aRLE '.Y1 'fir_ ,r - E=:,846 i?5 8� �, 4J9O'` LOT 31, BLOCK J CITY OF C Sw r,LikNCI't tUnl•{R \r f:. .'i,'rI.I.;IN!.. I. IN[ '+ "+{.THAI:h `.' I'l)h' IHF 11!T `,•. ".M11WN rIFItL I'rN ARE n'l I'JI LrtW`, I I THE PROVISION:; OF THE. CEN I UR f PLAN Dl vk t !?PME N I PLAN SHALL 1 THREE '::l,uC'�JlSiivN 1 '• REl.1 `;IOC :} :.^"CAT LION MAP ALSO GOVERN THIS PROJECT THIS PROJEC' HAS BEEN ASSIGNED 1:L;,P LUT L!NE`, -10 N T S INIENSITY LEVEL FIVE '.IOL LL)I I,NL, I'•. IUI At, Will-! A MINIMUM .11 Af!J At'F.NI 1(J NON SIPi I.I ,.ENEPAL NtjTES : WE 1.01 LINES n! I I'Nr,l'n�,l. C1 �,Ilii I ''. ,tn;_- ,,-I n `,({ 1!,�1 kt:lw AND BE CONSTRuCIEIJ t r,t a; A(:WF-ct:f .'^ •r"{, .t, rr, MINOI? kf. ',•I(It,N1.A. ,'•II 1•+NI nI: L�', lli( l INL.AR r-QuIAGI, JC ;.TRIFI N D W ULDII,AIEU i4:1;1'ON 1'1 AY', fOL LL,w•:- I „I., 70ITAINE.D WITHIN DRAINAGE I'LL MAP UPIVL. I 04h rfn'. r. rJl F•In N A„ E> IHQtICF+ [)PIVI 451 N!1Mfif: (: i,T .. r�.l .r . .•I ''';fi1ME k. rAI IA'.IM1'NI'. 61' It'll. •..JIAI.L A L('III� 1 � 1.4 1 NUMBER OF BL JI.h `.. .) 1 4) Uh'A I NAUC ', !+u' ! I,1rf. , :NI:• •. r,'E :kOSS NG5 SHALL PASS THE 100 ''L ` MAR ` 01JR 1 14 1 4) NATEW AND SEWER SLHVI,'E h,, bE PROV'I.-E, lyl 1"[ I r, .n YEAR FLiPJL1 IMl i�,.l IUvE 143 GEORGETOWN. ELECTR!CIT, r0 BE PROVIDE:.. E. TU uTitIftF] ) 1ANUCI?A TE;:PHONE TO BE PROVIDED B' GTE CABLE Tv T, of �RUvIDEU A TEN (1G) f!:Ot WIE'E NL!b'.I' t ,.! CASEMENT (P.u.E.) SHALL BE Bt EPH E TO f.ilPRO CABL 8, GTE ADJ ACE NI tD II-E TkFE � •h :.I;P(?S5 ALL LOTS BOUNDED BY SUCH R :j W •� .; 1 ,-R•JPt �SFG (:;N iNL• U{ ALL LOTS IS bASEG UN IHE 5'E TUNING AF'PI ILATION CURRENTLY 16, :,IDL'WALr.S A10 ;0.it):Pj.I: ,'N 'Itl t,Llt{',,:( ItW�v INNER LOOP, STATE HIGHWAI ;y IN Fa,,I,�E`•:, WITH IHL- I II ilf GEORC,El..)WN 5 ; PROPOSED USE SINGLE F AM I L Y RE'; I [iE N 1 AL , ')Nf CI.rMMF R,_ I Al. LOT AN[t I I,F WI ',I 1 (1). 1 it NC I NHAhL I I'c(IUL F vAkO ,. ..E : •; i Ri *A L 01 d AND `'l 'JI. I)C C IQ RE I NHAPO T BOULEVARD SHALL BE FROM ANC A PRIVATE PAP,h (AMENIT, CENTER) A (.OMA«;N DRIVEWAY'(ONE ACG:ESS POINI) WITHIN THE SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT AS I') ACC'ES`: IC RL!NIIAP.UT t3UU,E,AI•:L; .�, Pkl)HIBITED FROM LOT 1, BLOCK "A" ;Hi'wN JN truS PLAY 6) DENS ITr 3 :0 LOTS PER ACPF. LOTS 1-4 BLOCK "8' AND ;OT`i AND ? BLOCK "C" 7'I SIZE OF SMALLEST LOT ',094 50 Ft LU 163 AC ) 18j ACCESS 70 5TUNEHEDUE BUULEvAR(': I PROHIBITED FROM LOTS 27, 28, J=. 33. '� S9 C H U R C H I L L FARMS I. . 6) THIS TRACT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EDWARDS AULI'FER REL:HARGE BLOCK "A", AND LOT l,. HLO(:F"�' ZONE AT RAL RESOURCE IN THE SUBDIVISION MAY' BEGIN UNTIL I'HE. ly) FROMACCESSR TO STATE HIGHWAY I ;'y AND THE. CEURGETOwN INNER LOOP SECTION FOUR TE%AS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION HAS APPROVED FROM RFSIUEN(IAt. LOTS I�; PRI iH1N1'IEU THE POLLUTION ABATEMENT PLAN IN WRITING LU) PRIOR TO GRADING, ANY TYPE OF EARTH MOVINU, CONSIRUL.IION Uf', UN, OR UNDER i; THIS SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CIT'i LIM115 OF THE THE LAND IN THIS SUBDIVISION, A DRAINAGE PLAN DESICNED BY A REGISTERED CITY OF GEORCETOWN, TEXAS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, ANO MODIFICATIONS THEREOF TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF THE C11Y OF CFORGEIOWN 10) MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER PER LOT IS 40% AND IHE COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. - 0 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of 15.182 acres in the William Addison Survey, and a Resubdivision of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Lot 1, Block N; to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Four; and Variances to the Subdivision Regulations ITEM SUMMARY: The subject Preliminary Plat is consistent with the Concept Plan approved by the City Council on August 22, 1995. This plat includes one (1) commercial lot, 64 single family residential lots, and one (1) private park lot. The following variances are requested as part of this plat: 1) to Section 34020 C. because the block length between the Inner Loop Road and Reinhardt Boulevard does not achieve the required minimum of 1,300 feet. These streets were built in the mid-1980s when the first sections of the subdivision were developed. 2) To Section 34020 F.4. to allow a 15 foot front yard setback on the secondary frontage of selected corner lots. The subject lots conform to the conditions typically required for approval of this variance so that a consistent frontage can be achieved along the street. 3) To Section 37030-A to require only a fence within the Type E bufferyard required along SH29 and the Inner Loop Road where the single family lots are adjacent to these streets. Given the potential long term maintenance problem that may result from requiring landscape plantings, staff recommends that the Subdivision Regulations be revised during the next regular review to be consistent with the recommended variance. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of September 5, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Churchill Farms, Section Four, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and approval of the requested variances to Section 34020 C. regarding the block length between the Inner Loop Road and Reinhardt Boulevard; to Section 34020 F.4., thereby allowing 15 foot secondary front yards on the specified lots; and to Table 37030-A, thereby requiring only a fence in the Type E bufferyard, after making the required findings of fact. The attached plat has been revised to address the Technical Issues as required by the Commission. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and revised plat. Submitted By: Hildy L. ngma, AICP Chief Planner PRELIlVII.NARY PLAT OF 15.182 ACRES IN THE WILLIAM ADDISON SURVEY, AND A RESUBDIVISION OF STONEHEDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTION THREE, LOT 1, BLOCK N; TO BE KNOWN AS CHURCHILL FARMS, SECTION FOUR; AND VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Wunsch Churchill Farms, Ltd. 30444 Berry Creek Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-9995 AGENT: Mr. Charles Wirtanen, P.E. CWC 30444 Berry Creek Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-9995 FAX: 930-9317 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of 15.182 acres in the William Addison Survey and a Resubdivision of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Lot 1, Block N; to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Four as recorded in Volume 2349, Page 88 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; and requested variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Location: Located on State Highway 29 East. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: RS, Residential Single Family and C-1, Local Commercial Proposed Use: One (1) commercial lot, 64 single family residential lots, and one (1) private park lot. Surrounding Uses North: Single family residences (out of City) and Zoning: South: Stonehedge Subdivision (aka Churchill Farms) (RS) East: Indian Creek Subdivision (out of City) West: Remainder of Churchill Farms Concept Plan (RS and C-1) Preliminary Plat - Churchill Farms, Section Four PP-95-04 / File:CHURCHILL.PP CM:HK September 15, 1995 Page 1 Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this development as Intensity Level 5. The proposed development can be accommodated within this assigned intensity. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: A Concept Plan for Churchill Farms was approved by the City Council on August 22, 1995. The entire Churchill Farms area was annexed into the City effective on August 9, 1995. The area is in the process of being rezoned subsequent to the annexation. A first reading of the rezoning for the area within the subject Preliminary Plat was approved by City Council on August 22, 1995. That rezoning designates Lot 40, Block A, as C-1, Local Commercial, with the remainder of the subdivision RS, Residential Single Family. The second reading of the rezoning ordinance will be held until the final plat for this subdivision is recorded. ANALYSIS: The subject Preliminary Plat is consistent with the approved Concept Plan. Several variances to the design standards are requested and there are technical issues that remain to be addressed. VARIANCES: Section 34020 C. Block Length Blocks along arterial streets are required to be a minimum of 1,300 feet in length. The block length from the Inner Loop Road to Reinhardt Boulevard is 880 feet. These two (2) streets were built in the mid- 1980s when Sections One, Two, and Three were developed. Therefore, it is not possible to revise the plat to conform to the standard. Section 34020 F.4. Front Yard Setbacks This standard requires a 25 foot front yard setback on both frontages of a corner lot. The applicant requests a variance to allow specified lots to have a 15 foot front yard setback on the secondary frontage. This request applies to those corner lots that are adjacent to another corner lot, as well as to the corner lots that stand alone. The subject lots include: Block A, Lot 1 and Block C, Lot 1, for their frontage on Reinhardt Boulevard; Block A, Lots 27, 28, 32, 33, and 39, for their frontage along Stonehedge Boulevard; and Block B, Lots 1, 9, and 10, for their frontage along Del Mar Drive. SEE EXHIBIT C Staff typically will recommend approval of this variance when a continuous, consistent frontage can be achieved along the street. Further, approval of this variance has typically required a plat note stating that driveway Preliminary Plat - Churchill Farms, Section Four PP-95-04 / File:CHURCHILL.PP CWHK September 15, 1995 Page 2 access must be from the frontage with the 25 foot front yard. While the 15 foot frontage has not yet been indicated on several of the subject lots, the plat note has been provided. Table 37030-A Bufferyard Standards A Type E bufferyard is required when single family or two (2) family residential development is proposed adjacent to an arterial street. In this case, the Type E bufferyard is required along SH29 and the Inner Loop Road. This bufferyard consists of landscape plantings and a six (6) foot privacy fence. As noted in previous cases, this standard creates a potential long term maintenance concern when required in this situation. The particular concern relates to where the landscape material should be located, on the residential lot or within the right-of- way, and who should be required to maintain it. If located in the right- of-way, long term maintenance will be problematic. Landscaping would be permitted in either State or local right-of-way, with some restrictions. However, a homeowners association would likely have to be created and maintained to maintain the plantings. This is not a guarantee that maintenance will occur over the long term, however. If the required landscape plantings are located on the residential lot, the purpose of requiring the plantings as a bufferyard may not be served. Therefore, staff recommends that when the Type E bufferyard is required in this type of a situation, only the fence should be provided. This will be recommended as a revision to the Subdivision Regulations during the next regular review of the ordinance. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070.B of the Subdivision Regulations: "In granting approval of a request for variance the Commission shall make findings that: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought; and Preliminary Plat - Churchill Farms, Section Four PP-95-04 / File: CHURCHILL. PP CM:HK September 15, 1995 Page 3 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's documentation for the requested variances is attached. Technical Issues: The following Technical Issues must be addressed prior to consideration of this plat by the City Council. If they are not addressed by September 29, 1995, or if the applicant does not concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the plat to allow the Technical Issues to be addressed, the plat will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. 1. Show all existing and proposed electric utility improvements. 2. In order to comply with the standard established by Section 34020 C.1., Lot 8, Block C, requires an additional ten (10) feet in its side setback on the north property line. Given the setback shown on the south property line, this results in a 20 foot side setback on the north property line. 3. If the requested variance to Section 34020 F.4. is approved, revise the secondary front yards on the following lots to 15 feet: Block A, Lots 1, 27 and 28; Block C, Lot 1. 4. Add the asterisks to the following lots to provide reference to the plat note: Block A, Lots 27, 28, 32 and 33; Block B, Lot 16. 5. Revise plat note #6 because this subdivision is now within the City limits. 6. Revise plat note #16 to indicate that the bufferyard is required for single family lots adjacent to SH29 and the Inner Loop. This change will eliminate any future misunderstanding about whether these lots face the arterials. 7. Revise the subtitle to be consistent with the Final Plat on a separate agenda item. 8. Add a plat note stating that access to Lots 1, 9, and 10 must be from the frontage with a 25 foot setback, and add an asterisk to Lots 9 Preliminary Plat - Churchill Farms, Section Four September 15, 1995 PP-95-04 / File:CHURCHILL.PP Page 4 CM:HK and 10 to provide reference to the plat note. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Preliminary Plat of Churchill Farms, Section Four, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and approval of the requested variances to Section 34020 C. regarding the block length between the Inner Loop Road and Reinhardt Boulevard; to Section 34020 F.4. , thereby allowing 15 foot secondary front yards on the specified lots; and to Table 37030-A, thereby requiring only a fence in the Type E bufferyard, after making the required findings of fact. P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of September 5, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Churchill Farms, Section Four, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and approval of the requested variances to Section 34020 C. regarding the block length between the Inner Loop Road and Reinhardt Boulevard; to Section 34020 F.4., thereby allowing 15 foot secondary front yards on the specified lots; and to Table 37030-A, thereby requiring only a fence in the Type E bufferyard, after making the required findings of fact. Preliminary Plat - Churchill Farms, Section Four PP-95-04 / File: CHURCHILL. PP CM:HK September 15, 1995 Page 5 EXHIBIT A CHURCHILL FARMS SECTION FOUR SH 29 -77 --------------- ------- I � , f i�\1?Ih I[t 1�1 00. .......... o/ Ir -A MATCH-UE I t I f MOH LIME EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A MIXED LAND USE PROPOSAL 1. 'DATE': 8-10-95 'PROJECT NAME': Churchill Farms Section Four Preliminary Plat 2. 'GIVEN': acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 20.92 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 20.92 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPO Average GPO Peak Trip Ends 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 229,283 66.944 3,661 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 229,283 Maximum GPO Wastewater Capacity: 66,944 Maximum Tnp Ends 3,661 5. EFFECTIVE ALLOWABLE SYSTEM INTENSITIES: GPD/Acre Water: 10,960 GPD/Acre Wastewater: 3,200 Trip Ends/Acre Traffic: 175 6. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT BASED ON GIVEN MIX OF LAND USES: (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (a) TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND (1) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT LAND USES 1 'ACRES' WATER --- ---- ---------------------- I -- ------------------------------------------------------------ WASTEWATEF TRANSP 1 WATER WASTEWATEF TRANSP ( UNITS ( REGS ( ALLOWED/UNIT (2) Detached SF I ( ------------------- I Large Lot 0 0 0 0 0 0( 0( 01 0 housing units Average Lot 17.43 191,022 55,773 3,050 191 223 3,443 1 191 1 127 1 127 housing units Zero Lot Line 0 0 0( 0 0 0( 0 1 0 1 0 housing units Attached SF ( 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0( 0 0 housing units Multifamily ( 0 0 0( 0 0 0 1 0 I (2) 1 (2) housing units Mobile Home 1 0 0 0( 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 housing units Lodging 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0( ( 0 rooms Institutional 1 1.28 14,029 4,096 224 1 41 45 266 1 40,900 1 40,900 square feet Church 1 1 -with day care 0 0 0 0 0 0( 0( ( 0 square feet -w/o day care ( 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ( 0 square feet Medical Office I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0( 0 1 0 square feet General Office I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0( 1 0 square feet Retail, Mixed 0 0 0( 0 0 0 0 1 i 0 square feet Retail, Restaurant ( 0 0 0 1 0 0 0( 0( 1 0 square feet Retail, Store ( 2.22 24.320 7,101 388 75 81 81 74,832 1 74,832 square feet Employment Centers 1 0 0 0( 0 0 0 0 1 ( 0 square feet Warehouse 1 0 0 0( 0 0 0( 0 1 ( 0 square feet Mini -Warehouse ( 0 0 0( 0 0 0( 0( 0 square feet Greenbelt 1 I I ---------------------------------- I ---------------------------------------- Sub -Total 20.93 ------------------------- - ------- --------------------------------------- (units in this section should (------------------- I ------------- Road Right -of -Way be multiplied by 1000) TOTAL 20.93 12r FM > 12' If 2- 00 Qj .5" 17 'o j 18 NZ Q) 20 21 7O 3 -. CC- 29 6 0 36 > 0 3: Dm N .,C -PC �.?6 34 jj Zj _0 92 PRELIMINARY PLAT NOTES: ss 1. A 25 FT. EIL WILL BE DEDICATED ADJACENT TO ALL PROPERTY LINES ADJACENT TO STREETS SIDE BUILDING UNES TOTALLING 15 FT. WITH A MINIMUM OF 5 FTWILL BE DEDICATED ADJACENT TO ALL. NON -STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINES , 20 17. REM BUILDING. LINE WILL BE DEDICATED. 2 ALL. PROPOSED STREETS SHALL HAVE 50 FI, Of ROW AND BE CONSTRUCTED TO LOCAL STREET STANDARDS. 3. THE 100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN WILL BE FULLY CONTAINED WITHIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS Jli Pu2'-'C RCIII-OF-NAYS 4. THE PROVISIONS OF THE CENTURY PLAN APPLY. THIS PROPERTY HAS SEEN CLASSIFIED AS INTENSITY LEVEL FIVE. S. WATER AND SEWER TO K PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN. EI_fcTRI(:jry TO BE PRO%jOED Err TU UITUTIES. TELEPHONE To BE PRMIDED, By GTE. CABLE TV 70 K PROVIDED BY WILLIAMSON COUNTY CABLEMSION 6. THIS SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED IN THE ETJ OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN. TX. 7. MMINUM IMPERMOUS COVER PER LOT IS 4OX B. TOTAL ACREAGE 20.22 AC. 9- NO. OF Lars 64 sFD. I PVT. PARK., I COMMERCIAL To. ACCESS To SH 29 AND THE INNER LOOP FROM RESIDENTIAL LOTS IS PROHIBITED. 'I. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES UNDER ALL. STREET CROSSINGS SHALL PASS THE Too YA, rL000 12. A 10 FT. PUE SHALT. BE DEDICATED ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE OF ALL. LOTS. I I. 9:CEI;S TO REINHARDT BLVD IS PROHIBITED FROM LOTS 1. ETLK A. LOT 1-4, 8I.K Tj; :-CTS 1 A 7. BLK C. !4 S;UEWALKS ARE REQUIRED C14 THE INNER LOOP. Sh 29. AmO OF REINHARDF BLVD HE WEST SIDE 15. ACCESS !0 sTc;mCmrncj LJLVOL IS PROHIDIFED IRON LOTS J9.33.32.21J.27 OLK A. LCll 16. BLIK (I 16. A PIPE *C' BUFFER'vARD 15 REQUIRED ALONG THE REOF SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FACING Sm 29 AND THE INNER LOOP. . . M . 1�- TOTS I 6 & 9, MOCK r SKAIL TAXL ACCESS F L RON A SHAIILD ORIA.WAY. FM 20' ADD1 RnLL F? 9 80' R 0 w 20' ADD*L ROW 850w53' '2' W 20' ADD'-, ;�Ovv I w W c; . Ia IRONHOF In 0) MC 2.5, 1) c x1l.i le— Nl;� V, vo AD , 0.30'3 -L. zi 72 5"w 19 1. 9 31 ti ROBERT DAVID L:�io c', �nJ5_ _8_�5 65 O� 1 97.69' 3 7! TQ - �i,.,,O-O CENTER 3 20 B.L. TER 2- 00 (a) to 09' C'� NTE 17 3Q 00 PILAR GOMEZ I STON kECTi' AI 911GO 16 1 e8O AWRL 1. BLO Ptli (rer) DETENDO AREA I o y 31 S75'30'00"w afro 19' w C8 POE ZIAJA • Ss CHARLE bit•• S UKASIT DAV:` !irARR CIO S"NEIIEDGE SECTION THIREE LOT 31, BLOCK J LIFT SFATION ----- --- --- v . if.NDl.A� 7 F L x 4 1 .1 8C II PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR ED Variance Requested CHURCHILL FARMS. SECTION FOUR CWC Charles Wirtancn. P.E._ Inc. _'0444 Bcrt-,- Crcck DriVC Georgetown, TX 78628 Pl l: 51211/9 30-9995 FAX: 512i930-931 7 August 21, 1995 Ms. Hildy Kingma --- - City of Georgetown - -- --- P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78626 Subject: Churchill Farms Section Four Variance Request p Dear Ms. Kingma: This letter is to request a variance to Table 37030-B of the subdivision ordinance for the referenced plat. The ordinance requires a Type E Buffer yard between the proposed single family lots and S. H. 29 and the proposed Georgetown Inner Loop. We are requesting that a six-foot privacy fence be allowed as the required buffer yard. the fence will effectively buffer the residential lots from the roadways. A vegetative buffer would be impractical to maintain and eventually might become unattractive. We understand that a similar variance has been granted in other single family subdivision cases. 1. In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially served? The intent of the ordinance will be maintained without introducing high maintenance vegetative buffers with no practical method to provide maintenance or irrigation. 2. Will appropriate use of the property be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer is supportable. No, the aesthetic reasons for the variance will still be met. 3. What are the hardships involved? How were those hardships created? How are those hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with enforcement of this same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. Ms. Hildy Kingma Page Two August 21, 1995 The hardship creating the request for this variance is the impracticality of maintaining vegetative buffers for built out single family subdivisions. A low maintenance, six ft. high, opaque fence accomplishes the same goal. 4. If the requested variance, if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege no commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. The proposed variance confers no special right or privilege since it results in the same aesthetic result. Variances for this type of request have been granted previously. Anyone proposing a condition equal, or superior to, that. required by ordinance should receive similar treatment. 5. How is the public interest affected? There should be no effect on the public interest. 6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance. The proposed project has limited options available for proper maintenance of vegetative buffers because it is entirely single family lots. This project has an unusually large amount of frontage on arterials. An opaque fence provides an appropriate buffer. 7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted. The ordinance was intended to provide a buffer from arterial roadways for single family lots. An opaque fence accomplishes that goal while providing a more buffer that is more likely to be maintained. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? If this request is granted, the intent of the ordinance will be upheld because an appropriate buffer will be provided. Sincerely yours, &414 W;W Charles Wirtanen, P.E. CWC Charles wirtanen, P.E., Inc. 0444 I3crry (.. reek D ri Ve Georgetown, TX 78628 PH: 5121`9 30-9995 FA-X.: 512; 910-9 17 August 21, 1995 Ms. Hildy Kingma City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78626 Subject: Churchill Farms Section Four Variance Request Dear Ms. Kingma: � r _ This letter is to request a variance to Section 34020 C of the subdivision ordinance for the referenced plat. The block length along SH 29 is required to be a minimum of 1300 ft. This subdivision uses existing street patterns which are in contradiction to the ordinance requirement. The existing streets were constructed based on the previous subdivision ordinance. I . In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially served? In order to meet the ordinance requirement the existing street would have to be closed. That is not practicable. 2. Will appropriate use of the property be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer is supportable. No, the existing street pattern is workable. 3. What are the hardships involved? How were those hardships created? How are those hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with enforcement of this same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. The hardship creating the request for this variance is the fact that the existing streets were built prior to the current ordinance requirements. No new streets are Ms. Hilly Kingma Page Two August 17, 1995 proposed which would be contrary to ordinance requirements. 4. If the requested variance, if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege no commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. The proposed variance confers no special right or privilege since it merely documents the existing street pattern. 5. How is the public interest affected? There should be no effect on the public interest. 6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance. The streets were constructed prior to the implementation of the existing ordinance. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? If this request is granted, the existing street pattern will be validated. It is not practical to relocated the existing street. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely yours, A )Z'� Charles Wirtanen, P.E. CWC Charles Wirtanen, P.E._ Inc. "0444 Ben-v Crcck DriVe Georgetown, TX 78628 P1--I: 512!9 0-9995 - FAX: 512i 93 0-9317 August 21, 1995 Ms. Hildy Kingma City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78626 Subject: Churchill Farms Section Four Variance Request Dear Ms. Kingma: 2 - This letter is to request a variance to Section 34020F.4 of the subdivision ordinance for the referenced plat. There are several corner lots that are back to back. In this situation, the fences of adjoining lots will align. We request a variance to this requirement for Lots 1, 27, 28, 32, 33, and 39 Block A; Lots 1, 9 & 10, Block B; and Lot 1, block C for this reason. 1. In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially served? The side yards will line up. The purpose of the requirement is to make sure that the side yard of a corner lot lines up with the front yard of an adjacent lot. When the lots are back to back or have no adjacent lot, this purpose is still met even if the street yard set back is reduce to 15'. 2. Will appropriate use of the property be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer is supportable. No, the aesthetic reasons for the variance will still be met. 3. What are the hardships involved? How were those hardships created? How are those hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with enforcement of this same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. Ms. Hildy Kingma Page Two August 21, 1995 The hardship creating the request for this variance is the relative large amount of unusable lot for corner lots. The ordinance was written to cover all corner lot situations. In this case the aesthetic intent of the ordinance will be met. 4. If the requested variance, if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege no commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. The proposed variance confers no special right or privilege since it results in the same aesthetic result. Anyone proposing a condition equal, or superior to, that required by ordinance should receive similar treatment. 5. How is the public interest affected? There should be no effect on the public interest. 6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance. The proposed project has limited options available to it because of the existing previously planned multi -family development. Accordingly, the layout resulted in several corner lots which back up to each other. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? If this request is granted, the aesthetic intent of the ordinance will be upheld while not arbitrarily requiring oversized lots for corner lots. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely yours, 4%1 av* kmwm� Charles Wirtanen, P.E. Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Preliminary/Final Plat of an 11.659 acre Resubdivision of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Block J, Lot 31, to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Five; and Variances to the Subdivision Regulations ITEM SUMMARY: The Concept Plan for Stonchedge Subdivision was reviewed and accepted by the City in May 1984. Section Three, which includes the subject property, was recorded in February 1986. Both the Concept Plan and the plat for this property indicate its intended use as multifamily. The subject Preliminary/Final Plat proposes to change the use of the property to 14 single family lots and one (1) drainage easement lot. This proposal is consistent with the rezoning to the RS, Residential Single Family district that the City Council approved on second reading at the meeting of September 12, 1995. The plat approval is being considered as a joint preliminary/final plat because it does not qualify as a short form final plat due to the proposed number of lots. The following variances are requested with this plat: 1) to Section 34020 B. to allow Lots 6-14 to exceed the standard average depth to width ratio. The lot design of this subdivision is constrained by the fact that the original parcel is relatively long and narrow, and a significant portion of the parcel is included in the drainage easement. 2) To Section 37030-A to require only a fence within the Type E bufferyard required along the Inner Loop Road. Given the potential long term maintenance problem that may result from requiring landscape plantings, staff recommends that the Subdivision Regulations be revised during the next regular review to be consistent with the recommended variance. This same variance was requested with the Preliminary Plat of Churchill Farms, Section Four. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL EAPACT: None. COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of September 5, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat of Churchill Farms, Section Five, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and approval of the requested variances to Section 34020 B. to allow the proposed lot depth to width ratios, and to Table 37030-A, thereby requiring only a fence in the Type E bufferyard, after making the required findings of fact. The attached plat has been revised to address the Technical Issues as required by the Commission. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and revised plat. Submitted By: Edward J arry, AIC - Director Division f Development Services 6( Hildy L. Idngma, AICP Chief Planner PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT OF AN 11.659 ACRE RESUBDIVISION OF STONEHEDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTION THREE, BLOCK J, LOT 31 TO BE KNOWN AS CHURCHILL FARMS, SECTION FIVE; AND VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. David Stanley Starr 3200 Indian Mound Road Georgetown, Texas 78628 863-6466 AGENT: Charles R. Wirtanen, P.E. CWC 30444 Berry Creek Drive Georgetown, TX 78628 930-9995 FAX: 930-9317 REQUEST: Preliminary/Final Plat of an 11.659 acre Resubdivision of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Block J, Lot 31 to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Five, as recorded in Volume 2662, Page 774 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Location: Located on Stonehedge Boulevard between the Inner Loop Road and Reinhardt Boulevard. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: RS, Residential Single Family Proposed Use: 14 single family lots, one (1) drainage easement lot. Surrounding Uses North: Vacant land (RS and C-1) and Zoning: South: Stonehedge, Sections One and Two, single family residences (RS) East: Indian Creek Subdivision, single family residences (out of City) West: Churchill Farms Concept Plan, single family and commercial (RS and C-1) Prel/Final Plat - Churchill, Section Five September 15, 1995 Project # FP 95-09/File:CHRCHLS.PFP Page 1 Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location as Intensity Levels 3 and 5. The proposed development can be accommodated within the assigned intensities. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: Notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: The Concept Plan for Stonehedge Subdivision was reviewed and accepted by the City in May, 1984. At that time, Concept Plans were considered accepted rather than approved. Sections One and Two were recorded in October, 1985. Section Three was recorded in February, 1986. Both the Concept Plan and an existing final plat for this property indicate its intended use as multifamily. The entire Stonehedge Subdivision/Churchill Farms area was annexed into the City effective on August 9, 1995. The area is in the process of being rezoned subsequent to the annexation. A first reading of the rezoning for the area within the subject Preliminary/Final Plat was approved by City Council on August 22, 1995. That rezoning designates this property as RS, Residential Single Family. ANALYSIS: While the subject Preliminary/Final Plat is not consistent with the existing Concept Plan for this area, it is consistent with the zoning district approved for the property on first reading. Because of the limited amount of public improvements that will be required to record the subject plat, this request is being processed as a combination of the preliminary and final plats. It does not qualify to be considered as a short form final plat due to the number of lots that are being created, and the Subdivision Regulations do not allow for variances to process requirements. Given the manner in which this application is being processed, some additional information is required that would not typically be submitted for a final plat. This will enable the City to ensure that all issues considered at the preliminary plat stage are taken into account with this review. Variance: Section 34020 B. Lot Depth to Width Ratio This standard requires that the ratio of average depth to average width be no greater than 2.5 to 1. Lots 6 through 14 do not meet this standard. The ordinance allows the standard to be varied administratively if the lot is at least 1.5 times greater than the minimum lot size, both the depth and width of the lot exceed the minimum standard, and the proposed lot dimensions are consistent with the surrounding development. In this case, the subject lots are greater than Prel/Final Plat - Churchill, Section Five September 15, 1995 Project # FP 95-09/File:CHRCHL5.PFP Page 2 1.5 times the minimum standard, and the depth and width of the proposed lots exceed the minimum standards. However, they are not consistent with the lot layout in the surrounding subdivisions, although the width of the lots at the street is consistent with the surrounding area. The lot design of this subdivision is constrained by the fact that the original parcel is relatively long and narrow, and a significant portion of the parcel is included in the drainage easement. For these reasons, it may be reasonable to grant this variance. Table 37030-A Bufferyard Standards A Type E bufferyard is required when single family or two (2) family residential development is proposed adjacent to an arterial street. In this case, the Type E bufferyard is required along the Inner Loop Road. This bufferyard consists of landscape plantings and a six (6) foot privacy fence. As noted in previous cases, this standard creates a potential long term maintenance concern when required in this situation. The particular concern relates to where the landscape material should be located, on the residential lot or within the right-of-way, and who should be required to maintain it. If located in the right-of-way, long term maintenance will be problematic. Landscaping would be permitted in either State or local right-of-way, with some restrictions. However, a homeowners association would likely have to be created and maintained to maintain the plantings. This is not a guarantee that maintenance will occur over the long term, however. If the required landscape plantings are located on the drainage easement lot, the purpose of requiring the plantings as a bufferyard may not be served. Therefore, staff recommends that when the Type E bufferyard is required in this type of a situation, only the fence should be provided. This will be recommended as a revision to the Subdivision Regulations during the next regular review of the ordinance. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070.B of the Subdivision Regulations: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is Prel/Final Plat - Churchill, Section Five September 15, 1995 Project # FP 95-09/File:CHRCHL5.PFP Page 3 sought; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's documentation for the requested variances is attached. Technical Issues: The following Technical Issues must be addressed prior to consideration of this plat by the City Council. If they are not addressed by September 29, 1995, or if the applicant does not concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the plat to allow the Technical Issues to be addressed, the plat will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. 1. The existing plat for this property has 25 foot public utility easements on Stonehedge Boulevard and Reinhardt Boulevard. The City's Community Owned Utilities Division has not indicated that these may change. Therefore, the ten (10) foot PUEs shown should be changed to 25 foot PUEs. This may also require some modification to plat note # 13 . 2. Add a plat note to indicate that the proposed zoning of this property is RS, Residential Single Family. 3. Provide the locations, sizes, and descriptions of all existing and proposed utilities. 4. Provide two (2) copies of the deed restrictions or covenants if they will be recorded for this subdivision. 5. Provide certification from all applicable taxing authorities that all taxes due have been paid. 6. Provide the area of each non -rectangular lot. Prior to Filing: Before this plat can be recorded at the County, park land dedication fees of $2,250 must be paid to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat of Churchill Farms, Section Prel/Final Plat - Churchill, Section Five Project # FP 95-09/File:CHRCHLS.PFP September 15, 1995 Page 4 Five, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and approval of the requested variances to Section 34020 B. to allow the proposed lot depth to width ratios, and to Table 37030- A, thereby requiring only a fence in the Type E bufferyard. P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of September 5, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat of Churchill Farms, Section Five, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and approval of the requested variances to Section 34020 B. to allow the proposed lot depth to width ratios, and to Table 37030-A, thereby requiring only a fence in the Type E bufferyard, after making the required findings of fact. Prel/Final Plat - Churchill, Section Five Project # FP 95-09/File:CHRCHL5.PFP September 15, 1995 Page 5 EXHIBIT A CHURCHILL FARMS, SECTION FIVE o "~OL~DELL~~�, ''°'�" ` .,= ~= ` EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': August 10, 1995 'PROJECT NAME': Churchill Farms Section Five (Three) 2. 'GIVEN': acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 8.74 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 2.92 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 11.66 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 32,862 9,439 87 4 0 0 0 5 32,003 9,344 511 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 64,866 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 18,783 Maximum Trip Ends: 598 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) (c) (d) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT LAND USES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION UNITS REGS ALLOWED/UNIT Delached SF --- ---------- ----- --------- --------------------------------------------- Large Lot 56 65 999 56 23 23 housing units Average Lot 65 75 675 65 85 65 housing units Zero Lot Line 65 75 675 ( 65 113 65 housing units Attached SF 100 107 551 100 169 100 housing units Multifamily 123 120 263 120 337 120 housing units Mobile Home 100 97 706 97 97 housing units Lodging 338 308 432 308 308 rooms Institutional 189,113 204,165 711,534 189,113 189,113 square feet Church -with day care 210,603 226,304 38,458 38,458 38,458 square feet -w/o day care 348,740 375,664 831,111 348,740 348,740 square feet Medical Office 155,927 167,707 185,435 155,927 155,927 square feet General Office 178,202 206,409 234,667 178,202 178,202 square feet Retail, Mixed 99,793 115,234 36,227 36,227 36,227 square feet Retail, Restaurant 41,581 39,132 52,630 39,132 39,132 square feet Retail, Store 199,586 213,445 124,615 124,615 124,615 square feet Employment Centers 178,202 206,409 130,769 130,769 130,769 square feet Warehouse 1,137,993 1,341,657 997,333 997,333 997,333 square feet Mini -Warehouse ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16,216,400 18,783,200 2,301,538 2,301,538 ------- ----------- --------- 2,301,538 square feet EXHIBIT C V N I L J LiJ \\< O W b J 7 C W W C:) (' zz a ma x nt: In J v O [7 ' (t W m W • O■ z O J O W W a W - _ -- 3NN08JbM Uo= v Q o W F- ! Y w m W z. V 3 Q - zom L7: -oG-3tn o m� p Ntn to Q w nN coo W W 0 = - v a a d ,�-- , 3 o���� Z w n CO a W - -- •,� E G5! 8 � Q� MO 0 a to U o ` T�- "08 o rn n N w 4 �01 o 3 000.K.> tS _AFL 'ri _ N - I 3-OO.Of.atS CI r W f I O Wo V O '- _._.-.LE ZSZ .. .-__ p'O Bgs. - _ o1J ^moo d v0 a^ Q �. Y O N • n Z Z ^ - In 4, 3_00•01-.4 tS - - C. - O Z a-.BL-61;Z --- --- r m _,A O o bo SqS 11\I a-� SQ�g` - 'i�i'., _ � •,7' �,v / to /� 1 to : Go co n a✓ Li In.. 1 0OO!-S 7-C. 64 .. J� /ay A6D • V op m O (l n -. co ez LLJ O j1 N- -� Q r,' E n. LJ Ln 55` p0 00'� j W0� �13g I03 , ZLLI a Oz= r j \o � tt: O f- OcS Lli LLI rI Q � S ,Q zr>, U - M•Qp 00. b W Q 09tlDS -£9. :'�: O:w�(�O<bV.�JQnI _ • b O Q i\ Nn Z - My,)O r : �`o (n Z tfji'` ca N QrJ,lo c r{� to Q (14 M m o� Ala N -_ - J L moW 93 ' O o0 �G)0i0s tip( ro;p :- P91 Z W 7 co V. (0, CL 6. 6�S J - a ti b'b ' S j /- l' i yib�d�60 Sre )NiyeipNSO£ 30 h OD % b� o.8z z� . +rho 3�H� Ilea ?G.� �. '`rll Q - h1g1 &Odd S I Fa z 71 All rM g q .: a IIU� 0)W 4 N a O W W x H fs. Oz 0 z O U .-a Z W z r l V F-4 d)-a W �U a� co E.' O J n z O � - a Z < U < W C = z m ZI a a T Z L 1 z r.a. i .-o-- ^a - x < < < .F Z W _ _ ... 2 - Z y W m - - Or.( ✓ ✓ -1 W � •- - - Q 6'a �? _ i 4 -Z a G WOZ 1` Z - •n tl G Z Wsi z•�r a)>tJW-4 i J z m a - .n ^ J I ? O - W a z 1�- - O in t Z- z I 60, a a - K W a U O Ix Q 0 c 0 U, Ir - u 0 -- m OMI_N ar r o imWOa n - <� W W W tnZWZ - u - O O m 7 a O VI O Z L Z Z. I/ o- v K¢ <O _- W _l O_ W 4 Z Z Z Z 2 KZ<J U Z 3 O O-- O O - a •- v, - .- O Z �-z oW 2 4'• W zvlU W Z O J In = - W LW U W 0 0 0 - K< G < aTsy3z J�W- O •r: a• - [ O W J> J Q O - > J a a Z a r> a U Z - < In J< -- _ m oa m 2 W J J z Z - D <<- -3 J W W a - 0: V• $ W L p-a z A> ^ ^ > C`l O z 0 W00% m- Z - Z T O a a W J z.Mon a 2 r W I- c >CL O O a - m W J iGm i u L~ Z < •- Z O a - -U W •- to 4 a C Z O W- Z V > - J ¢ 3 �- LL Z W Z OOK Z Ux O W J- v uua > W :J LOW - �O� W az o z N C- I-- 7W - <uo� to - a: > - n aDo n OmWm Z J o0 u z z v •� _ 00 WO -O<O - a -� > W O a z a o O -D z o z a o f O J ¢- < 2< J c m i 0cx > > tL a W I� J N .- _ •_ _ Z Z OJ o O 7 K V 'r; Oa m WI.w 3 Ct C}�<a 1 7 W V Z -Z xW - x W✓I•- Z z ; :. -- b is :.l W - I O W I �l .. .- >v .- •. -' < I J Z < - CWC C;llarles Wirtanen. P.E.. Inc. 30444 Berry Creek Drivv Georgetown, TX 78628 P11: 512,'9 3)0-9995 FAX: 5 12`930-9317 August 21, 1995 Ms. Hildy Kingma City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78626 Subject: Churchill Farms Section Five Variance Request Dear Ms. Kingma: This letter is to request a .variance to Table 37030-B of the subdivision ordinance for the referenced plat. The ordinance requires a Type E Buffer yard between the proposed single family lots and the proposed Georgetown Inner Loop. We are requesting that a six-foot privacy fence be allowed as the required buffer yard the fence will effectively buffer the residential lots from the roadways. A vegetative buffer would be impractical to maintain and eventually might become unattractive. We understand that a similar variance has been granted in other single family subdivision cases. 1. In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially served? The intent of the ordinance will be maintained without introducing high maintenance vegetative buffers with no practical method to provide maintenance or irrigation. 2. Will appropriate use of the property be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer is supportable. No, the aesthetic reasons for the variance will still be met. 3. What are the hardships involved? How were those hardships created? How are those hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with enforcement of this same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. Ms. Hildy Kingma Page Two August 21, 1995 The hardship creating the request for this variance is the impracticality of maintaining vegetative buffers for built out single family subdivisions. A low maintenance, six ft. high, opaque fence accomplishes the same goal. 4. If the requested variance, if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege no commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. The proposed variance confers no special right or privilege since it results in the same aesthetic result. Variances for this type of request have been granted previously. Anyone proposing a condition equal, or superior to, that required by ordinance should receive similar treatment. 5. How is the public interest affected? There should be no effect on the public interest. 6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance. The proposed project has limited options available for proper maintenance of vegetative buffers because it is entirely single family lots. 7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted. The ordinance was intended to provide a buffer from arterial roadways for single family lots. An opaque fence accomplishes that goal while providing a more buffer that is more likely to be maintained. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? If this request is granted, the intent of the ordinance will be upheld because an appropriate buffer will be provided. Since ly yours, *** now Charles Wirtanen, P.E. CWC Charles Wirtancn. P.E.. Inc. 0444 Benny Creel: Drivc C1eor6eto«n, TX 78628 P11: 512'930-999� - _-- I A : 512 '930-9317 August 21, 1995 Ms. Hildy Kingma City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78626 Subject: Churchill Farms Section Five Variance Request Dear Ms. Kingma: This letter is to request a variance to Section 34020 B regarding the lot width to depth ratio. The proposed subdivision is a re -subdivision of a lot previously configured for multi -family use. The shape of the lot does not lend itself to subdivision into lots meeting the width/depth ration in the ordinance. Accordingly, the lots are longer than would normally be proposed. l . In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially served? The intent of the ordinance is to prevent strange shaped lots to "go around" subdivision lot requirements. The proposed lots will result in no change in street aesthetics since the lots all have similar frontages to existing lots in the area. 2. Will appropriate use of the property be substantially or permanently impaired o.r diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer is supportable. No, the aesthetic reasons for the variance will still be met. 3. What are the hardships involved? How were those hardships created? How are those hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with enforcement of this same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. Ms. Hildy Kingma Page Two August 21, 1995 The hardship creating the request for this variance is the impracticality of re - platting the multi -family lot into single family lots meeting the width/depth ratio strict requirements. The neighborhood residents would prefer this layout to a multi -family project meeting ordinance requirements. 4. If the requested variance, if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege no commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. The proposed variance confers no special right or privilege since it results in the same aesthetic result.. Anyone proposing a condition equal, or superior to, that required by ordinance should receive similar treatment. 5. How is the public interest affected? There should be no effect on the public interest. 6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance. The proposed project is a re -plat of a lot configured for multi -family use at the request of the surrounding homeowners. The shape of the existing lot does no allow standard single family lot width/depth ratios. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? If this request is granted, the aesthetic intent of the ordinance will be upheld while achieving single family detached use on the site. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely yours, Charles Wirtanen, P.E. Council Meeting Date: 10/10/95 Item No. Is AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT A resolution of support for the City's application to the National Trust for Historic Preservation to be named a 1996 Great American Main Street Award winner. ITEM SUMMARY In 1982, Georgetown was selected to become an officially designated Main Street Program by the Texas Main Street Division of the Texas Historical Commission. Through the efforts of a full-time program manager and support from the entire community, public and private sector, the downtown has had great economic and historic preservation success. Over $8 million dollars of private sector reinvestment has spurred new economic activity that not only effects the downtown area but the entire city as well. Because of downtown's success, the community now capitalizes on a prospering tourism industry that generates several million dollars a year and supports hundreds of jobs in the community. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS None FINANCIAL IMPACT If named as a 1996 Great American Main Street City, the City will receive $5,000.00. COMMENTS Eugenia Harrell, Esther Weir, and Linda McCalla are assisting staff with the preparation of this application. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution Submitted By: r Molly Alexander, Convention & Visitors Bureau Director Bob Hart, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION TO THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TO BE NAMED A 1996 GREAT AMERICAN MAIN STREET AWARD WINNER. WHEREAS, in 1982, Georgetown was selected to become an officially designated Main Street Program by the Texas Main Street Division of the Texas Historical Commission; and, A. WHEREAS,the Main Street Program has stimulated great economic revitalization for the downtown area; and, WHEREAS,through the efforts of the entire community, Georgetown has seen over $8 million in public and private sector reinvestment in the downtown area; and, WHEREAS,the community capitalizes on a prospering tourism industry and other positive economic outgrowths as a result of the continued success of the Main Street revitalization efforts; and, WHEREAS,the City continues to express its dedication to downtown revitalization through its commitment of resources and staff time to the on -going maintenance and improvements of the downtown area; and, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, that: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by referencE'l herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council finds that this resolution implements Economic Development Policy #2 of the Century Plan -Police Plan Element, which states, "The City will continue to promote and facilitate thEl ' development of the downtown as an economically viable component of the retail and business community," and further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. Resolution No. Application for 1996 Great American Main Street Award Page 1 of 2 RESOLVED this 10th day of October, 1995. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra Lee, City Secretary Leo Wood, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney Resolution No. Application for 1996 Great American Main Street Award Page 2 of 2 Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. T AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration and first reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for the Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church from Intensity Level Four to Intensity Level Five. ITEM SUN MARY: The site contains an existing church building, which includes a day cure. The applicant proposes to add 8,430 square feet to the building, which exceeds the allowable building size for Intensity Level Four, with water and wastewater as the limiting factors. The Community Owned Utilities Division reports adequate water and wastewater infrastructure ,and capacity to serve the site at Intensity Level Five. The day care use currently utilizes approximately 1,920 square feet of the church building. Although there is no proposal to expand the day care use, Intensity Level Five would allow an increase of 63 trip ends and an expansion to 7,423 square feet. Since the church is not located on an arterial level street, Intensity Level Five is not considered appropriate due to the transportation demand. Limiting the transportation trip ends on this site to that allowed under Intensity Level Four will avoid excessive demand from being placed on the transportation system. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: None COMMENTS: At their meeting on October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the proposed amendment. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report; Ordinance Submitted Bv: Edward J arry, AIC - Director Division of Develop ent Services Clyde von Rosenber I P Chief Planner, Long LR ge Planning CENTURY PLAN AMENDMENT OF GLASSCOCK ADDITION, BLOCK 22, LOTS 5-8, LOCALLY KNOWN AS MAIN STREET BAPTIST CHURCII FROM INTENSITY LEVEL FOUR TO INTENSITY LEVEL FIVE O WNER/APPLICANT: Mr. C.H. Steger Main Street Baptist Church 1001 Main Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 512/869-7854 AGENT: Mr. Charlie Steger, P.E. Steger and Bizzell Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 858 Georgetown, Texas 78628 512/863-4521 FAX: 863-4523 REQUEST: Century Plan Amendment of Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church as recorded in Volume 395, Page 286, Volume 209, Page 457 and Volume 531, Page 133 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, from Intensity Level Four to Intensity Level Five. FACTS: Location: Existing Site: Existing Zoning: Surrounding Uses and Zoning: Proposed Use: 1001 Main Street. SEE EXHIBIT A Main Street Baptist Church This tract is zoned C-2A, Commercial First Height. North: Hewlett Used Cars (C-2A) South: Russell Laundromat (C-2A) East: Single family residential (RS) West: Hewlett Auto Sales, commercial strip and house (C-2A) An 8,430 square foot addition is proposed, to include classrooms and a fellowship hall dining area. Century Plan Amendment - Main Street Baptist Church October 4, 1995 File:MS-BPTST.CPA page 1 Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this tract as Intensity Level Four. Surrounding Intensity Levels are Level Five, Level Four and Level Three. SEE EXHIBIT A Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. ANALYSIS: The existing building, including the "main building" and the "1977 addition" contains approximately 22,934 square feet. The church operates a day care which uses an approximately 1,920 square foot portion of the church facility. The size of the existing church facility is within the allowable development under Intensity Level Four, which is 23,845 square feet. The size of the day care is also within the allowable development under Intensity Level Four, which is 3,393 square feet. The church use and the day care use can be analyzed separately, since the "Church with day care" land use activity in the Development Plan is based solely upon the demands generated by the day care use and the "Church without day care" land use activity is based solely upon the demands generated by the church use. SEE EXHIBIT B-1 The proposed addition to the church contains 8,430 square feet, which, when added to the existing building, exceeds the allowable square footage for the church use at Intensity Level Four by 7,519 square feet. None: of the addition to the church is proposed for use by the day care. Amending the Intensity Level for the site to Level Five would provide for the proposed expansion of the church use, as the allowable development would increase to 38,890 square feet. The allowable development for the day care use would increase; to 7,423 square feet. SEE EXHIBIT B-2 Water and Wastewater The limiting factors for the church use under both Intensity Level Four and Intensity Level Five are water and wastewater. The proposed amendment to Intensity Level Five increases the total allowable demand for water by 2,799 gallons per day and the total allowable demand for wastewater by 845 gallons per day. The actual demand for these uses may be far less than what is allowable, since the entire facility is not likely to be fully utilized at any one time, with the typical use pattern of a church involving the participants moving from one part of the Century Plan Amendment - Main Street Baptist Church October 4, 1995 File:MS-BPTST.CPA Page 2 facility to another. The Community Owned Utilities Division reports adequate capacity in both the water and wastewater systems to serve this increased demand, with negligible impact to the systems. Transportation The limiting factor for the day care use under both Intensity Level Four and Intensity Level Five is transportation. Under Intensity Level Four, the day care use is allowed to utilize a maximum of 3,393 square feet of the church facility. It currently operates within only 1,920 square feet, and the proposed church expansion does not include an expansion of the day care use. The Intensity Level Five designation would allow for 7,423 square feet of day care use, increasing the total allowable demand for transportation by 63 trip ends. The Intensity Level Five designation is intended for a site that has access to an existing or planned arterial roadway. The church site is one block away from Austin Avenue (Business IH35) and SH29, which are the closest arterial level roadways. For this reason, it may be advisable to limit the total allowable demand for transportation on this site to the number of trip ends allowed under Intensity Level Four. This would allow for expansion of the day care use at the church from 1,920 square feet to 3,393 square feet, as allowed under Intensity Level Four; however, it would prevent this project, or any other use proposed on this site in the future, from putting excessive demand on the transportation system. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Century Plan Amendment of Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church as recorded in Volume 395, Page 286, Volume 209, Page 457 and Volume 531, Page 133 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, from Intensity Level Four to Intensity Level Five, with the number of transportation trip ends generated being limited to that allowed under Intensity Level Four. Century Plan Amendment - Main Street Baptist Church October 4, 199'5 File:MS-BPTST.CPA Page 3 P&Z ACTION: At the October 3, 1995 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Century Plan Amendment of Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church, from Intensity Level Four to Intensity Level Five, with the number of transportation trip ends generated being limited to that allowed under Intensity Level Four. Century Plan Amendment - Main Street Baptist Church File:MS-BPTST.CPA October 4, 199.5 Page .4 EXHIBIT A ID 0 d 2 3 4 8 0 CITY 2 HALL p.aC `� I .r, m- re 7 th STREET 2 c 3 z (JD G 5 < c 1 K m -4 G 3 2 INTENSff' Y LEVEL 6 I 8 !h STREET 6 2 6 7 2 1 3 -low l000 9 th STREE I JNTENSITY LEVEL 3 low tNTENSITY LEV L 5 2 6 j 9 ! �I ( °I lo Ic "c'-0 x 101, f r I th STREET 2 st IN J!EN S �I'TT .-.Y LEVEL 4 E % �� d, , I of - (— —_ I I 12 th STREE-INTENSITY LEVEL 4 I •c. f, _c c-up—s F., 3 7 / 580 C, 'W" Ac, 2 4Ln 3 Ig 4 o. 7 2 "o 11 lt) STREE T STATE HIGHWAY 29 o EXHIBIT B-1 DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': September 14, 1995 'PROJECT NAME': Main Street Baptist Church Detailed Development Plan 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 0.66 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 0.66 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPO Average GPO Peak Trip Ends ----------------------------- —--------------------------- 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 q 4,435 1,267 53 5 0 0 0 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0 0 4 TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPO Water Capacity: 4,435 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 1.267 Maximum Trip Ends: 53 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY (b) MAXIMUM LAND USES WATER ---------------------------------------------------------- WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION ------- -- - UNITS - ---- ------------------------------------------------------ Delached SF 4 q 88 4 Large Lot 4 5 60 � 4 � Average Lot 4 5 60 4 Zero Lot Line 7 7 49 7 Attached SF 8 8 23 8 Multifamily 7 7 62 7 Mobile Home 23 21 38 21 Lodging Institutional 12.931 13.774 62,782 12,931 Church -with day care 14.400 15.267 3.393 1 3.393 j -wit day care 23,845 25.344 11,314 73,333 16.362 � 5 10,662 Medical Office 10,662 12,185 13,925 23.197 85 13.197 General Office Retail, Mixed 6,823 7.774 3,197 3,197 Retail, Restaurant 2,843 13,647 2,640 14.400 4,644 10.995 2,640 10,995 Retail, Store Employment Centers 12.185 13.925 11,538 11,538 Warehouse 77,811 90.514 88.000 77,811 Mini -Warehouse 1.108.800 1.267.200 -------------------------------------------------- 203,077 203,077 -------------------- (c) (d) PER DEV DEVELOPMENT REDS ALLOWED/UNIT 1 1 housing units 5 4 housing units 6 4 housing units 10 7 housinng units 17 8 housing units 7 housing units 21 rooms 12,931 square feet 3.393 square feet 23,845 square feet 10,662 square feet 12.185 square feet 3.197 square feet 2,640 square feet 10.995 square feet 11,538 square feet 77,811 square feel 2 -------------------------------------- 203,077 square feet} ------------------- EXHIBIT B-2 DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': September 14, 1995 'PROJECT NAME'. Main Street Baptist Church Detailed Development Plan 2. 'GIVEN" acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 0.66 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 0.66 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPO Average GPD Peak Trip Ends ------------------ ---- ----------- 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 7,234 2,112 116 6 0 0 ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 7.234 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 2.112 Maximum Trip Ends: 116 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: POTENTIAL UNITS (a) BY UTILITY (b) MAXIMUM (c) PER DEV (d) DEVELOPMENT LAND USES WATER ------------------------------ WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION I UNITS REGS I ------------- -- ALLOWED/UNIT ----------------------- ---------------------------------- Detached SF 7 193 6 I 1 I 1 housing units Large lot 7 8 130 7 I 5 I 5 housing units e Lot Average 7 8 130 7 I 6 j 6 housing units Zero Lot Line 1 1 12 106 11 10 11 housing units Attached SF 14 14 51 I 14 I 17 I 14 housin c) units Multifamily Y 11 11 136 I 11 I 11 housing units Mobile Home 38 35 83 I 35 I 35 rooms Lodging 21.089 22,957 137,337 I 21,089 I 21,089 square feet Institutional Church 23,486 25.44�6 �3 7.423 1 7.423 square feet -with day care 3$ 890 42,240 160,417 t 38,890 l 38,890 ssc uare feet -wit day care 17,388 18,857 35,792 17,388 I I square feet 19 Medical Office 19,873 23,209 45,294 19,873 I 19,873 square feet 873 General Office 11,129 12,957 6,992 6,992 I 6.992 square feet Retail, Mixed 4,637 4,400 10,158 I 4,400 I I 4,400 square feet Retail. Restaurant 22,257 24,000 24.052 I 22,257 I I 22.257 square feel Retail, Store Employment Centers 19.873 23,209 25,240 I 19.873 I I 19,873 square feet 126.905 square feet Warehouse 126,905 1,808.400 150,857 2,112.000 192.500 I 444.231 I 126,905 I 444,231 I I I 444,231 squarE! feet � Mini -Warehouse --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Main Street Baptist Church - DDP and Century Plan Ameridi Bent Name of Respondent: It216,¢ Address of Res ondent: e") 157 P � � G Liy vc-. � - If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 9/27/95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 C(-) /--;-7 L 1,17 7� 1006 Church St. Georgetown, TX. 78626 September 22, 1995 City of Georgetown Development Services Division P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Dear Sirs. After reviewing the Main Street Baptist Church - DDP and Century Plan Amendment. .ve have strong objections to the proposed plan As it stands, the proposed building would totally obstruct our view to the west as well as block access to the usual and customary solar resources associated with residential property and in so doing diminish our ability to provide a greenbelt buffer for our residence. Further, it would invade the visible privacy of our residence by means of two-story overview and compromise one of the essential benefits of home ownership Secondarily, church parking is already inadequate. Church members having to park in other merchants' parking lots and on the street works a hardship on the neighborhood as a whole, not on]y to other residences, but also to the small independent merchants by forcing their patrons to utilize parking heretofore available to the general community The addition of a structure this size will further increase the need for additional parking and will increase the traffic through the residential area. These two fundamental changes in the nature and characteristic of this transition zone between residence and commercial sections of the historical area would serve to further expand commercial area at the expense of the residential area. It would set a precedence, for further encroachment into the residential area and continue the trend away from a valuable mixed use central city which has been a key asset to the prosperity and appeal of central Georgetown. In addition, the proposed building will be 20 to 24 feet in height and only 7-feet from our property line and approximately 38-feet from the back of our residence, this will have a dramatic effect on our property value and the ability to sell our property in the future. We feel like the proposed 2-story building will impose an unnecessary hardship on our ability to enjoy our residence, and will continue to harm the already deteriorating historic nature of downtov�n Georgetown The Main Street Baptist Church's proposed plan shows a complete disregard toward the church's residential neighbors [n conclusion, we are hopeful of a positive reply from the city However, we plan to exhaust all legal means to protect our rights as property owners Sincerely, Thomas M. Parks TMP/tmp ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING EXHIBIT 1- INTENSITY MAP OF THE CENTURY PLAN - DEVELOPMENT PLAN PASSED AND ADOPTED ON THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 1990, TO CHANGE THE GLASSCOCK ADDITION BLOCK 22, LOTS 5-8, LOCALLY KNOWN AS MAIN STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, FROM INTENSITY LEVEL FOUR TO INTENSITY LEVEL FIVE; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Charter of the City of Georgetown was amended by vote of the people in April 1986 such that comprehensive planning was established as a continuous and ongoing governmental function; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on March 8, 1988, adopt by Ordinance Number 880097 the Georgetown Century Plan - Policy Plan as the Comprehensive Plan for the City pursuant to Section 1.08 of the City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on March 13, 1990, adopt by Ordinance Number 900149 the Georgetown Century Plan - Development Plan as the Land Intensity, Transportation, and Utilities functional plan elements pursuant to Section 1.08 of the City Charter; and WHEREAS, the Century Plan Development Plan contains the Intensity Map designed to assign development intensities throughout the Georgetown Planning Area; and WHEREAS, an application has been made by the Main Street Baptist Church to construct an 8,430 square foot addition to an existing church building, necessitating changing the intensity assignment of the Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church, from Intensity Level Four to Intensity Level Five; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did, on October 3, 1995, conduct. a public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to EXHIBIT 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, which stated the time and place of hearing which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days for the first day of such publication; and WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and Century Plan Amendment -Main Street Baptist Church Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the applicant for such Plan amendment placed on the property at the Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church, such sign(s) as required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did, on October 3, 1995, recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to EXHIBIT 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance implements the following Policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element: 1. Economic Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will encourage diversified growth and promote business opportunities to create jobs, broaden the tax base and minimize the impact of economic fluctuations", and 2. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure that future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations;" and 3. Growth and Physical Development Policy 2, which states: "The City's regulatory actions will efficiently and effectively implement the Policy Statements and provide the opportunity to seek change with reasonable effort and expense;" as well as the following Goal of the Century Plan - Development Plan Element: 1. Policy 8, Goal A, which states: "The City will prepare and adopt a land use management program to promote orderly growth, address environmental issues, and coordinate provision of City services;" and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. Century Plan Amendment -Main Street Baptist Church Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 2. EXHIBIT 1 - Intensity Map, contained within the Century Plan - Development Plan, is hereby amended by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, to change the Intensity Level Four designation to Intensity Level Five for the Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church, as recorded in Volume 395, Page 286, Volume 209, Page 457 and Volume 531, Page 133 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, and as shown on Attachment A of this Ordinance, provided that the number of transportation trip ends generated be limited to that allowed under the Intensity Level Four designation. SECTION 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 4. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this. ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10) ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the loth day of October, 1995. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of , 1995. ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Century Plan Amendment -Main Street Baptist Church Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Leo Wood Mayor EXHIBIT A 3 a / ` o I r•1 _ • I 3 6 S 8 I 2 } < 8nj 7 6 CITY HALL p Oe- OOO' se M- OOO' ]� r)o OO- � ••O ee IA ee' ' In STREET r^ 2 n Z } < QD N 17v Z C — , Zee i — ... e< I � ,o w —T^i e • e •., i e' I i 1 9 fn STRE�i _ o�ANTENSITY LEVEL 3 le ANT NSITiY LEVUL 5 � 2� 1 I „D •n S`R�cT •.r. I ; co...o. WHITE s; z I 2 I .a .. V..0 O SI•'a I I [<..•O. 1• O�I I w. I — _ — i �— •LO,-•1/•!,-iV.-tr0 ,X)/•.[ .ail I I „p, r I ,.l'•;+� �� ��'. f I n .. le x � `• o l F, II to STREET I ( It !n STREE •o' — ---'-- - •.o<•so. i � —_� � ,tc I I I ao�--r ro ro cc. .o c ---,o oc ------�---- ..s/a.• � I I u.n.,co a+.•-cl ILJ ... � i •..., .r. y � bl D I I , ro I I —k�� )o. ,,.. .. o<oc• •• � / of ------- N E N S I7 LEVEL 4 •�<.s ? o i� a; 8 'R , < al --- •r oe rono (/f �1 o 2 % a ' m D ml n I 'I m- "i I POS T OFFICE I I I INTENSN'Y LEVEL 6 8 fn STREET Ji Ir 6 I S } c I , 2 I8 I �I .., e•.a .O.o K I I , •c.c• o•. Co .c '1 I`I J t2 In STR_EiNTENSITY LEVEL 4 �t1. 7'vas i l•c'4. 'i . ••, ...� I �.L(N11,• S T A T _ HIGHv. L,Y 29 I I �I i Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET U SUBJECT: Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations ITEM SUMMARY: The proposed development involves a significant addition to the existing church structure. This development is occurring on an existing lot in the old town are�L of Georgetown, therefore many of the site design elements are constrained by the size of the lot and the surrounding development. The following variances are requested: 1) To Section 33051 A. to permit parking in the front yard setbacks on Main Street and 11 th Street. This part dng encroachment currently exists, although it will be improved as a result of the proposed project. 2) To Table 33052 to permit the church to achieve its parking requirement through the use of on - street parking. 3) To Section 34020 G.2. to permit the parking area pavement to encroach :into the rear setback. This pavement already exists, although it will be improved. 4) To Table 34020 to permit 71.52 percent impervious cover. This amount is only slightly above the 70 percent permitted by the design standards, and the COU Division has determined that the increase in impervious cover is not significant enough to require stormwater detention. The City staff's evaluation of the proposed DDP determined that the existing head -in parking within the I1th Street right-of-way should be removed to provide the City with an opportunity to realign this segment of IIth Street with the segment on the west side of Main Street. As a result, the church and the City will work together to ensure that the intersection of llth and Main Streets is safer, with a minimal impact on parking availability. The City will participate in the project by realigning llth Street from about mid -block to Main Street, and constructing an area for angled, head -in parking on the south side of llth Street in conjunction with the church's construction. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City will bear the cost of the street realignment. That cost has not been determined at this time. COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the requested detailed development plan of Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church, and approval of the requested variances to Section 33051 A. to allow parking spaces to encroach into the front yard setbacks on Main Street and 1lth Street, to Table 33052 to allow off -site parking spaces to be used to meet the parking requirement, to Section 34020 G.2. to allow parking spaces to encroach into the rear yard setback, and to Section 34020 to allow 71.52 percent impervious cover, after making the required findings of fact. The Commission also recommended that: the privacy fence proposed along the east property line not be required. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and DDP Submitted Bv: Edward J Barry, AIC - Director Division of Develop ent Services 4_�Rk�-Iz - Hildy L. kingma, AIC Chief Planner DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF GLASSCOCK ADDITION, BLOCK 22, LOTS 5-8, LOCALLY KNOWN AS MAIN STREET BAPTIST CHURCH; AND VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. C.H. Steger Main Street Baptist Church 1001 Main Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 512/869-7854 AGENT: Mr. Charlie Steger, P.E. Steger and Bizzell Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 858 Georgetown, Texas 78628 863-4521 FAX: 863-4523 REQUEST: Detailed Development Plan of Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church as recorded in Volume 395, Page 286, Volume 209, Page 457 and Volume 531, Page 133 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; and requested variances to the Subdivision Regulations. FACTS: Location: 1001 Main Street. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Main Street Baptist Church Existing Zoning: This tract is zoned C-2A, Commercial First Height. Surrounding Uses North: Hewlett Used Cars (C-2A) and Zoning: South: Russell Laundromat (C-2A) East: Single family residential (RS) West: Hewlett Auto Sales, commercial strip and house (C-2A) Proposed Use: An 8,430 square foot addition is proposed to include classrooms and a fellowship hall dining area. Detailed Development Plan - Main Street Baptist Church October 3, 1995 DD-95-09 File:MS-BPTST.DDP Page 1 Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this tract as Intensity Level 4. The proposed addition exceeds the development allowance for this property. An amendment to the Century Plan is considered by a separate agenda item. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: On July 19, 1994, the Board of Adjustment considered a request for a variance to allow for the construction of a bell tower within the front and side street required setbacks. In addition, a variance was considered to address the fact that the existing church building encroaches into the Main Street and loth Street required setbacks. These variances were approved with the condition that no further encroachments into required setbacks would be permitted. ANALYSIS: The proposed development involves a significant addition to the existing church structure. This development is occurring on an existing lot in the old town area of Georgetown, therefore many of the site design elements are constrained by the size of the lot and the surrounding development. As a result, several variances are requested in order to enable the development to proceed as proposed. Note that Section 37015 exempts "any structure existing on the effective date of this chapter" from complying with the landscape and bufferyard standards of the ordinance. Exceptions are made in the event of a reconstruction and when a detailed development plan (DDP) is required as a condition of a previous approval by the Commission and Council. The proposed project does not meet the definition of a reconstruction, and no DDP has been required as part of any previous action of the Commission or Council. Therefore, this project is not required to provide landscaping in conformance with the City's regulations, although they may choose to install additional landscaping. Due to the fact that this is an old town site with no recorded plat, the building setback lines are based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance rather than the Subdivision Regulations. The 18 foot front yard setback on Main Street is based on the requirement of Section 2.0403.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which states "the front yard shall have a depth of not less than 15 % of the lot depth, but not greater than twenty-five (25) feet." The secondary front yard setbacks on 10th and llth Streets is based on Section 6.103 of the Zoning Ordinance which states "on corner lots in the C Districts that rear upon an R District, a ten (10) foot yard must be provided along the side street side." The Detailed Development Plan - Main Street Baptist Church DD-95-09 File:MS-BPTST.DDP October 3, 1995 Page 2 seven (7) foot rear yard setback is required because the subject property is zoned C-2A and is adjacent to property zoned RS. The City staff's evaluation of the proposed DDP determined that the existing head -in parking within the llth Street right-of-way should be removed to provide the City with an opportunity to realign this segment of llth Street with the segment on the west side of Main Street. SEE EXHIBIT C As a result, the church and the City will work together to ensure that the intersection of 11th and Main Streets is safer, with a minimal impact on parking availability. The City will participate in the project by realigning llth Street from about mid -block to Main Street and constructing an area for angled, head -in parking on the south side of 11th Street. This project will occur in conjunction with the church's construction, which is estimated to begin in late 1996. The project may impact the existing garage on the property east of the church. A License to Encroach exists between that property owner and the City that gives the City the right to remove the garage if it is determined to be in the public interest. Variances: Section 33051 A. Location of Off -Street Parking This section requires all off-street parking to be located outside the front building lines. As described above, the front yard setback on Main Street is 18 feet, and on llth Street it is ten (10) feet. Parking spaces currently encroach into these setbacks and are proposed to continue to encroach. Given that this is an existing condition, the variance may be appropriate. In addition to the encroachment into the front yard setback, the parking spaces along llth Street encroach into the public right-of-way. An application for a license to encroach has been submitted and will be considered by the City Council when this detailed development plan (DDP) is forwarded to the Council. Table 33052 Parking Requirements Section 33052 A. establishes a parking requirement for churches that applies only to the new construction. Therefore, the calculation of required parking for this site is based on the seating capacity of the proposed new fellowship hall only. The proposed fellowship hall will have a seating capacity of 200 people, resulting in a parking requirement of 67 spaces. Only 18 parking spaces are provided on -site. An additional 29 parking spaces are provided in the public right-of-way of Main Street and loth Street immediately adjacent to the church property. Another 21 parking spaces are located in the public right-of- way along adjacent streets within close proximity to the church, Detailed Development Plan - Main Street Baptist Church DD-95-09 File:MS-BPTST.DDP October 3, 1995 Page 3 including five (5) parking spaces that will be constructed by the City as part of the realignment of llth Street described above. The total of these identified spaces is 68. Although located within the public right- of-way, these spaces are generally not occupied by other uses at the times the church creates the most demand for them - Sunday morning and evening and Wednesday evening. A similar variance was approved in 1991 to allow the First Presbyterian Church to utilize on -street parking in order to meet their parking requirement. For these reasons, this variance may be appropriate. Section 34020 G.2. Impervious Construction in Rear Setbacks Consistent with the Board of Adjustment's variance approval, no new construction is proposed within the required setbacks. Their approval did not specifically include the parking area that existed at that time within the rear setback on the east side of the property. This parking area will be improved, but will continue to extend to the property line, thereby encroaching into the required seven (7) foot rear building line. Given that this is an existing encroachment, it may be appropriate to allow it to remain, although improved, as proposed. Table 34020 Impervious Cover A 70 percent impervious cover limit is established for public uses. The existing and proposed development on the subject site will result in 71.52 percent impervious cover. The existing impervious cover on this site is 60 percent. The Community Owned Utilities Division has determined that the increase in stormwater flows that will result from the changes made to this site will be insignificant. As a result, they have waived the detention requirements as permitted by Section 32102.I.5. of the Subdivision Regulations. Given this waiver, and the fact that the proposed impervious cover exceeds the maximum allowed by a small amount, this variance may be appropriate. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070.B of the Subdivision Regulations states: "In granting approval of a request for variance the Commission shall make findings that: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; Detailed Development Plan - Main Street Baptist Church October 3, 1995 DD-95-09 File:MS-BPTST.DDP Page 4 and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's documentation for the requested variances is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requested detailed development plan of Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church, and approval of the requested variances to Section 33051 A. to allow parking spaces to encroach into the front yard setbacks on Main Street and llth Street, to Table 33052 to allow off -site parking spaces to be used to meet the parking requirement, to Section 34020 G.2. to allow parking spaces to encroach into the rear yard setback, and to Section 34020 to allow 71.52 percent impervious cover, after making the required findings of fact. P&Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the requested detailed development plan of Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church, and approval of the requested variances to Section 33051 A. to allow parking spaces to encroach into the front yard setbacks on Main Street and 1lth Street, to Table 33052 to allow off -site parking spaces to be used to meet the parking requirement, to Section 34020 G.2. to allow parking spaces to encroach into the rear yard setback, and to Section 34020 to allow 71.52 percent impervious cover, after making the required findings of fact. The Commission also recommended that the privacy fence proposed along the east property line not be required. Detailed Development Plan - Main Street Baptist Church October 3, 1995 DD-95-09 File:MS-BPTST.DDP Page 5 EXHIBIT A b 6 S I 1 3. L C 6 3 6 3 - a 8 I 2 3 4 8 A _ CITY 2 I 'a = S S a o S a 7 8 HALL ° 83. . ro.00' .ro oo' ao ee- ao ooso.00' ao.00' rro.00- ]O' rro oo' no oo' � uo.00- In.00 � J r \ I 7 Ih STREET m c s I Iro.Oo' 2 Irons' I n C to 3 4 z n < m N 6 5 Z C m '0 7 .Ca.ISO 8 Irv"' Iry oo'. Ip 7 0 ,ro oo' 8 6 177, 5 3 4 Ig 2 rro oo I I '1.00 e I - 7 2 I 6 ! 3 I8 5 A COURTHOUSE PUBLIC SOUARE \ i^ 1 � L r � r\ aD oo ao oo' so.00ao.00 3 °0 8 .SO.00' Ir000' " 9 I 7 2 6 I 3 j g Ir000' ,roDD DI th STREET ---7 I I a a' � I ♦wocwSOw CLwn•,(O YvrK3 .s,ocl.rw+ w / ).) ao'- ------- -- 6.5 ro 114rD Cr� OI C. IT - aoa /)aa awrr.I.w rapt pC. •)•/rl ..sr /1st so' r70' ,z0 i 4�0 a )t) .Oar. ar 1' •Ow0 'so I '�'L t •C.I(r o.t cc I wC. aJ•/]O J — 0. .1.{w•Vww •1r/•r} ,]o' C. nS 4L-AMANA FRIED 21]7/380 CHICKEN .1921 aC IOZO/946' Z6 AC TO tu"SON •ar /raa GI.wIR x K a a rr oo rom' e 2o I g 3 4 6 S i POST OFFICE 7 8 e I 8 rlo.00' 8 2 ,ro.00 I 8 3 4 6 5 rro oo .r000' •ro oo a .ro.D ' a 7 2 I 6 3 4 ,To". 60' r0 Co ""oL r.wsT nl/a1] atMs/ .t0 --22 z sr n' b I wcct(r r ra n•• ,} WILLIAMS ).}..,. Y a J. t, 12 th STREET •1' «t wDt•)Ow t •Ca (Y ••1 / t•) O•rI! J..-s F*:'LENTIN ANZ S•./. ,rove' e ,rono I 8 7 2 6 3 5 Iro.00� 4 o Iry oo' B th STREET . ro.00 o 7 1 7 I 2 6 3 5 Iry oo 4 ,ro oo US a m rn -A ,rono' Oo 8 Iro.00 I 8 7 2 6 3 8 S Iro.D 4 8 rro DO' a 9 th STREET\ — — ,ro oo' � ,ro oo rro oo� •ro oo� � } 7 2 7uj z I 3 I 5 4 8 8 S I 4 ° ,i000' ,]000' ,ro OC� I lOOO' 10 th STREET >o oD' ,woe rre ao- rTO o e i 7 2 7 2 1 6 3 6 3 i 4 r ` rro oo' oo- no eo' .re 11 th STREET I20 oo' B �:o Do' jIS S 7 8 _ 8. 6 8 3 8 S 8 ,ro 00' 4 8 -To.Oo' ' rro Do' I ---- E 7 2 8 « i 8, IS 6 18 I � 3 EI al E s 4 Ei 8. — 81,xD .}O.00, STATE HIGHWAY 29 EXHIBIT B-1 DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': September 14, 1995 'PROJECT NAME': Main Street Baptist Church Detailed Development Plan 2. `GIVEN` acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 0.66 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 0.66 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends ----------------------------------------------- 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 4,435 1,267 53 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 4,435 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 1,267 Maximum Trip Ends: 53 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION Detached SF Large Lot 4 Average Lot 4 Zero Lot Line 4 Attached SF 7 Multifamily 8 Mobile Home 7 Lodging 23 Institutional 12,931 Church -with day care 14,400 -w/o day care 23,845 Medical Office 10,662 General Office 12,185 Retail, Mixed 6,823 Retail, Restaurant 2,843 Retail, Store 13,647 Employment Centers 12,185 Warehouse 77,811 Mini -Warehouse ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,108,800 5 5 7 8 7 21 13,774 15,267 25,344 11,314 13,925 7,774 2,640 14,400 13,925 90,514 1,267,200 88 60 60 49 23 62 38 62,782 3,393 1 73,333 16,362 20,706 3,197 4,644 10,995 11,538 88,000 203.077 (b) (c) MAXIMUM PER DEV UNITS REGS 4� 1� 4 5� 4 6� 7 10 8 17 7� 21 12,931 3.393 23,845 10,662 12,185 3,197 2,640 10,995 11,538 77,811 203,077 -------- ----------- --------- ------ (d) DEVELOPMENT ALLOWEDIUN IT 1 housing units 4 housing units 4 housing units 7 housing units 8 housing units 7 housing units 21 rooms 12,931 square feet 3.393 square feet 23,845 square feet 10,662 square feet 12,185 square feet 3,197 square feet 2,640 square feet 10,995 square feet 11,538 square feet } 77,811 square feet 203,077 square feet EXHIBIT C ' Jilr T 1,4 1IA 7 . w 'o J c L 0 is v Y Tc fa T-T By O-.' E. C&G By Own r 7 Ic 7 kjpe C&-G;13, city H To Be! Relofated q B)qj City :t CCity - -- --------------------------- h Street En $W� East 1 0E. Sa 13L!�� 10' 13.1ding Lin. k'� —Street C&G By City., E. 111h street Cockeretl routhler 0 DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE Date: o ii gigs Applicant: MAIN STREET BAPTIST CHURCH This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Section(s) 33051A. of the Subdivision Regulations. Give a brief description of the variance requested: The proposed on -site parking encroaches into the front building lines on Main and llth Streets. You have requested a variance to the design standards of the Subdivision Regulations. In order to be able to recommend and approve such a variance, Section 60070 B. of the Regulations, requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must be able to "ensure that the variance is not contrary to the public interest and, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship." The Commission and Council are directed to meet these requirements by making specific findings of fact. In order to assist the Commission and Council in conducting their deliberations regarding your requested variance. please complete this form to document how this request will impact the issues described below. These issues relate directly to the eight (8) findings of fact that must be cited by the Commission and Council when recommending approval of any variance. You may attach an additional sheet, or submit this information in the form of a letter. 1. In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially served? Church members will continue to have access to parking close to the church. 2. Will the appropriate use of surrounding property be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. Proposed parking is less than the existing parking which also encroaches. 3. What are the hardships involved'? How were those hardships created? How are those hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with the enforcement of this same provision`? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. MSBC is restricted in future expansion due to the developed nature of the tract and surrounding tracts. Revised 12/94 4. If the requested variance if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. The church will in effect be decreasing the number of spaces that are encroaching into the building lines. 5. How is the public interest affected? Safe access to the church is provided. 6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance. Size and location of the tract. Developed nature of the tract. 7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted`? The existing parking layout will be taken into consideration during review of the proposed parking. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? The proposed parking that encroaches into the building lines, is less than the existing parking that is also encroaching. Revised 12/94 DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE Date: 09/12/95 Applicant: MAIN STREET BAPTIST C'.141IRC14 This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Section(s) 34020 G . 2. of the Subdivision Regulations. Give a brief description of the variance requested: The proposed on -site parkin encroaches into the rear setback on the east side of the lot. You have requested a variance to the design standards of the Subdivision Regulations. In order to be able to recommend and approve such a variance, Section 60070 B. of the Regulations, requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must be able to "ensure that the variance is not contrary to the public interest and, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship." The Commission and Council are directed to meet these requirements by making specific findings of fact. In order to assist the Commission and Council in conducting their deliberations regarding your requested variance, please complete this form to document how this request will impact the issues described below. These issues relate directly to the eight (8) findings of fact that must be cited by the Commission and Council when recommending approval of any variance. You may attach an additional sheet, or submit this information in the form of a letter. 1. In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially served? Church members will continue to have access to parking close to the church. Will the appropriate use of surrounding property be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished in any manner'? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. proposed parking is less than the existing parking which also encroaches. 3. What are the hardships involved" How were those hardships created? How are those hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with the enforcement of this same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. MSBC is restricted in future expansion due to the developed nature of the tract and surrounding tracts. Revised 12/94 4. If the requested variance if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. The church will in effect by decreasing the number of spaces that are encroaching into the building lines. 5. How is the public interest affected? Safe access to the church is provided. 6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance. Size and location of the tract. Developed nature of the tract. 7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted? The existing parking layout will be taken into consideration during review of the proposed parking. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? The proposed parking that encroaches into the building lines is less than the existing parking that is also encroaching. Revised 12/94 DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE Date: 09/12/95 Applicant: MAIN STREET BAPTIST CHURC This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Section(s) of the Subdivision Regulations. TABLE 34020 Give a brief description of the variance requested: Table 34020 establishes a 70% impervious cover limit for public uses The DDP proposes 71.52% impervious cover. You have requested a variance to the design standards of the Subdivision Regulations. In order to be able to recommend and approve such a variance, Section 60070 B. of the Regulations, requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must be able to "ensure that the variance is not contrary to the public interest and, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship." The Commission and Council are directed to meet these requirements by making specific findings of fact. In order to assist the Commission and Council in conducting their deliberations regarding your requested variance, please complete this form to document how this request will impact the issues described below. These issues relate directly to the eight (8) findings of fact that must be cited by the Commission and Council when recommending approval of any variance. You may attach an additional sheet, or submit this information in the form of a letter. 1. In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially ser<•!ed? MEM BFRS MSBC will be allowed to better meet the spiritual needs of church through the proposed expansion of its facilities. Will the appropriate use of surrounding property be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. The expansion will be offset by portions of the existing parking area that will be converted to grass areas. 3. What are the hardships involved? How were those hardships created' How are those hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with the enforcement of this same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. MSBC is restricted in future expansion due to the developed nature of the tract and surrounding tracts. Revised 12/94 4. If the requested variance if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. The variance will allow an overage of only 1.52% over the established limit. 5. How is the public interest affected? Provides a better facility to help meet the spiritual and social needs of the community. 6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance. Size and location of the tract. Developed nature of the tract. 7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted' The nature of the developed site will be taken into consideration. ing review of the rROFERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Main Street Baptist Church - DDP and Century Plan Amerdh2.!g.ht Name of Respondent: NA`,� Address of Respondent: c,. i I um ;n f-inr I 0tiJ'ect: If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 9/27/95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 1006 Church St. Georgetown, TX. 78626 September 22, 1995 City of Georgetown Development Services Division P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Dear Sirs: After reviewing the Main Street Baptist Church - DDP and Century Plan Amendment, we have strong objections to the proposed plan. As it stands, the proposed building would totally obstruct our view to the west as well as block access to the usual and customary solar resources associated with residential property and in so doing diminish our ability to provide a greenbelt buffer for our residence. Further, it would invade the visible privacy of our residence by means of two-story overview and compromise one of the essential benefits of home ownership. Secondarily, church parking is already inadequate. Church members having to park in other merchants' parking lots and on the street works a hardship on the neighborhood as a whole, not only to other residences, but also to the small independent merchants by forcing their patrons to utilize parking heretofore available to the general community. The addition of a structure this size will further increase the need for additional parking and will increase the traffic through the residential area. These two fundamental changes in the nature and characteristic of this transition zone between residence and commercial sections of the historical area would serve to further expand commercial area at the expense of the residential area. It would set a precedence, for further encroachment into the residential area and continue the trend away from a valuable mixed use central city which has been a key asset to the prosperity and appeal of central Georgetown. In addition, the proposed building will be 20 to 24 feet in height and only 7-feet from our property line and approximately 38-feet from the back of our residence, this will have a dramatic effect on our property value and the ability to sell our property in the future. We feel like the proposed 2-story building will impose an unnecessary hardship on our ability to enjoy our residence, and will continue to harm the already deteriorating historic nature of downtown Georgetown. The Main Street Baptist Church's proposed plan shows a complete disregard toward the church's residential neighbors. In conclusion, we are hopeful of a positive reply from the city. However, we plan to exhaust all legal means to protect our rights as property owners. Sincerely, Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: First Reading of a Rezoning of River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1, from RS, Residential Single Family to RM-3, Office and Service District, or any more restrictive classification ITEM SUMMARY: River Hills, Section Four, was platted in 1986 for commercial or multifamily development. Section Four was a one (1) lot subdivision that is now being replatted as part of Section 4A (see separate agenda item). The requested RM-3 zoning district is consistent with the land use designation on both the original plat and the proposed resubdivision. The RM-3 district permits all residential uses, and such non-residential uses as hospitals and clinics, religious and educational institutions, office buildings of 5,000 square feet or less, personal service shops, artist and photographer studios, and nursing homes. Given that this property is located along the IH35 frontage road and is assigned Intensity Level 5, these would all be appropriate uses in this location. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The second reading of this rezoning ordinance will not proceed to City Council until the plat for River Hills, Section 4A, is recorded or a metes and bounds description of the subject lot is provided. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the requested rezoning of River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1, from RS, Residential Single Family to RM-3, Office and .Service District. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and ordinance Submitted By: Edward J. #r3; AICP - Director Division of Developm9fit Services Hildy L. digma, AICP Chief Planner REZONING OF RIVER HILLS, SECTION 4A, LOT 1, FROM RS, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO RM-3, OFFICE AND SERVICE DISTRICT, OR ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Gregory G. Hall, Trustee S & H Joint Venture 213-B W. 8th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 930-5448 FAX: 930-3989 AGENT: Mr. John Warden, AICP Situs Planning & Design 3541-D North Hills Drive Austin, Texas 78731 345-6592 FAX: 345-6592 REQUEST: Rezoning of River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1 as recorded in Document No. 9534957 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located on west IH35 frontage road, between Williams Drive and SH29. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: This property is zoned RS, Residential Single Family. Proposed Use: Multifamily/Commercial. Surrounding Uses North: Undeveloped land, known as the Rivery (RS and C-2A) and Zoning: South: River Hills, Section One, single family residential (RS) and the Texas Sampler Antiques (C-1) East: IH35 (RS) West: River Hills, Section One, single family residential (RS) Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates proposed Lot 1 and a portion of proposed Lots 2 and 3 as Intensity Level 5. Part of the resubdivision request (agenda item 6b) includes reallocating the allowable demand from that portion of Lots 2 and 3 that are assigned Intensity Level 5 to Lot 1. The analysis Rezoning - River Hills, Section 4A October 3, 1995 RZ-95-19/File:RVRHLS4A.RZ Page 1 CM:HK shown in EXHIBITS B-1 and B-2 assumes this request is approved. The plat indicates that Lot 1 will be developed for multifamily commercial use, but no indication is given as to the land area that will be devoted to each use. Therefore, if a mixed use development is proposed, the total amount of development on Lot 1 will be limited to what Intensity Level 5 allows for the proposed allocation of uses. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: River Hills, Section Four, was platted in 1986 for commercial or multifamily development. ANALYSIS: The RM-3, Office and Service district zoning classification requested is consistent with the land use designation on the original plat for River Hills, Section Four, as well as the proposed resubdivision to River Hills, Section 4-A, Lot 1. The RM-3 district permits all residential uses, and such non-residential uses as hospitals and clinics, religious and educational institutions, office buildings of 5,000 square feet or less, personal service shops, artist and photographer studios, and nursing homes. Given that this property is located along the IH35 frontage road and is assigned Intensity Level 5, these would all be appropriate uses in this location. At this time, the wastewater utility service is not available to serve any of these uses, however. The following agenda item considers the resubdivision of this property and the provision of utility service is a requirement of that process. Therefore, before any development can occur on the subject property, the required public improvements will be installed. STAFF RECOMAMNDATION: Approval of the rezoning of River Hills, Section 4-A, Lot 1, from RS, Residential Single Family to RM-3, Office and Service district. P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the requested rezoning of River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1, from RS, Residential Single Family to RM-3, Office and Service District. Rezoning - River Hills, Section 4A RZ-95-19/File :RVRHLS4A.RZ CM:HK October 3, 1995 Page 2 EXHIBIT A GC OMGC TO.•• C WMTRY Ctue 232 / are f t.)224 •C MC[EM TO oai2 e 1T.~1 (T)L \ SOM Z e.2r K. S' I ORT A i wcec„+Er s••�•ps e.+•. Asa , 401 U 3 J ac / MET(M O � 1 J Os�• / C-2A first reading) i I I I I' i, I row: � T 3 o r r rn JI \ METER 10 I E ,M -1.T:Q T: P. I neo.xl z.�• c[�[r[M. .a.i ---t-- ,T T3 K., 30 •C...]0 K. LEE M•RR00 —� _ (, OO KI LIMIT •JK •+ — _ Y 29 C 1)1 I 2 A 2.00 I GE�OR �ITY �I1GEM\_\ ,) f0MCrE I II II II 11 I 1) ;1 z.J •c •• u. �oyr 1Oe ( �I[us .,.E M,E u. e....� e) 0]2 •C o,eR.�r(R y �b JI ITN S.4N G oL I MvER To CCKrC� IiT O< 94ETO 14 AC S •9 YJ WAI } Project Name: River Hills Section 4A p Name of Respondent: nr. G l Z —r Address of R espon dc. _ , I am in favor: I object: submit written comment, please respond by 9/27/95, it will be provided to the ning Commission and City Council. Pl ase replyCity of Georgetown) ... Development Services Division , P. O. Box 4-09 v�"1 Georgetown, Texas 78627 r ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE PASSED AND ADOPTED ON THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1968, AND AMENDING PART OF THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, TO CHANGE RIVER HILLS SUBDIVISION, SECTION 4A, LOT 19 FROM THE RS, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO THE RM-3, OFFICE AND SERVICE DISTRICT ZONING CLASSIFICATION, OR ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, an application has been made to the City Council for the purpose of changing the zoning district classification of the following described real property ("the property") : RIVER HILLS SUBDIVISION, SECTION 4A, LOT 1, AS RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9534957 OF THE OFFICIAL DEED RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, hereinafter referred to as "the property"; WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Base Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration in a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and WHEREAS, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days for the first day of such publication; and WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on October 3, 1995, recommended changing said zoning district classification of the above described property from the RS, Residential Single Family district to RM-3, Office and Service district zoning classification. River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1 Rezoning Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance implements the following Policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element: 1. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure that future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations"; and 2. Growth and Physical Development Policy 2, which states: "The City's regulatory actions will efficiently and effectively implement the Policy Statements and provide the opportunity to seek change with reasonable effort and expense"; and 3. Growth and Physical Development Policy 4, which states: "The City will encourage new development and infill redevelopment in the community"; and 4. Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 1, which states: "The City will take the steps necessary to protect the physical attributes that make Georgetown attractive"; and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. The Base Ordinance and the Zoning Map of the City, as well as the Zoning District for the property shall be and the same is hereby changed from the RS, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO RM-3, OFFICE AND SERVICE DISTRICT, and is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, in accordance with Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10) ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1 Rezoning Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of . 1995. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of , 1995. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1 Rezoning Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 By: LEO WOOD Mayor EXHIBIT A I • .r..a.r1crti f0. 9. • ZK w.d .[[(. r0 • J(1 ) O+M �es[L I � 1 G I ' oar I r[ ;E�v .. oa .ci •' — J •> ��oe •c I I �) .( SA.1 I � S o+•e O+.• I I / C-2A first reading) �rT � � 1 RSw, A I I yC �1g Ol 1 I. z C-2A .[... 10 I ° 'O• �.. estric d crr.y 13 Y 29 C 2A GEORGET�WN_CITY 'MIT 1 ,I II II I Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. 1xi AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Short Form Final Plat of a Resubdivision of both River Hills, Section One, Block E. Lots 18 and 19, and River Hills, Section Four, to be known as River Hills, Section 4A; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations ITEM SUMMARY: The subject plat is intended to address the illegal subdivision of land that occurred in 1987 when the developer of Section Four deed divided one-half acre parcels of land to two (2) adjacent, single family, property owners in order to settle a law suit out of court. Section Four was originally platted for commercial or multifamily use. The deeds that transfer the land to the single family lots include conditions that prohibit any type of development on the one-half acre parcels and transfer development rights such as density, intensity and impervious cover from that land to Section Four. The conditions included in the deed instruments are not binding on the City because the City was not a party to the deeds. The Section Four plat also established a significant setback and buffer area along the property line adjacent to Section One, a single family subdivision, for the protection of that entire subdivision. The subject plat seeks the City's approval of the conditions of development established by the deed instruments and it reestablishes the setback and buffer area adjacent to Section One. A variance to Section 34020 F.4. is requested to permit a 15 foot secondary front yard setback on Lot 2, consistent with the manner in which it is currently platted. A variance to Section 34020 G.2. is requested to permit the continued encroachment of the house on Lot 3 into the side yard setback that is being established by the subject plat. A variance is requested to Table 34020 to permit 65 percent impervious cover for a multifamily use on Lot 1. The design standards permit a maximum of 50 percent impervious cover. The primary reason cited for this request is to allow the property owner to maximize the number of dwelling units permitted by the Intensity Level 5 assignment, while only building two (2) story buildings. The requested zoning district permits three (3) story buildings and the 150 foot setback established along Section One is intended to provide the desired protection to the adjacent property owners. Therefore, approval of this variance is not recommended by staff. If the three (3) story building height allowance is not acceptable, the Zoning Ordinance should be revised to reflect that community value. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Five (5) foot public utility easements exist along the side yards of the proposed Lots 2 and 3 as a result of the original Section One plat. The applicant is required to submit a request to abandon those PUEs or a license to encroach into the easement on Lot 3. This consideration will be completed before the plat can be recorded. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Short Form Final Plat of River Hills, Section 4A, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and approval of the requested variances to Section 34020 F.4., thereby allowing a 15 foot setback on Lot 2 along Oak Hollow Road, and to Section 34020 G.2., to allow the existing encroachments into the south side setback of Lot 3 only, after making the required findings of fact. Denial of the requested variance to Table 34020 regarding impervious cover. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and revised plat Submitted Z - Edward Barry, AI - Director Hildy L. gma, AICP Divisio of Develop ent Services Chief Planner SHORT FORM FINAL PLAT OF A RESUBDIVISION OF BOTH RIVER HILLS, SECTION ONE, BLOCK E, LOTS 18 AND 19 AND RIVER HILLS, SECTION FOUR, TO BE KNOWN AS RIVER HILLS, SECTION 4A; WITH VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Gregory G. Hall, Trustee S & H Joint Venture 213-B W. 8th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 930-5448 FAX: 930-3989 AGENT: Mr. John Warden, AICP Situs Planning & Design 3541-D North Hills Drive Austin, Texas 78731 345-6592 FAX: 345-6592 REQUEST: Short Form Final Plat of a Resubdivision of both River Hills, Section One, Block E, Lots 18 and 19, and River Hills, Section Four, to be known as River Hills, Section 4A as recorded in Volume 2157, Page 96, Volume 1509, Page 788, Volume 1509, Page 793, Volume 1120, Page 263 and Document No. 9534957 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; with variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Location: Located on the west IH35 frontage road, between Williams Drive and SH29. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land and two (2) residential lots. Existing Zoning: This property is currently zoned RS, Residential Single Family. A rezoning to RM-3 for Lot 1, which fronts on IH35, will be considered by agenda item 6a. Proposed Use: Single family residential (Lots 2 and 3) and multifamily/ commercial (Lot 1) . Surrounding Uses North: Undeveloped land, known as the Rivery (RS and C-2A) and Zoning: South: River Hills, Section One, single family residential (RS) and the Texas Sampler Antiques (C-1) Final Plat - River Hills, Section 4A October 3, 1995 FP-95-20/File:RVRHLS4A.FP Page 1 CM:HK East: IH35 (RS) West: River Hills, Section One, single family residential (RS) Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates proposed Lot 1 and a portion of proposed Lots 2 and 3 as Intensity Level 5. Park of the resubdivision request includes reallocating the allowable demand from that portion of Lots 2 and 3 that are assigned Intensity Level 5 to Lot 1. The analysis shown in EXHIBIT B assumes this request is approved. The plat indicates that Lot 1 will be developed for multifamily or commercial use, but no indication is given as to the land area that will be devoted to each use. Therefore, if a mixed use development is proposed, the total amount of development on Lot 1 will be limited to what Intensity Level 5 allows for the proposed allocation of uses. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: River Hills, Section One, was platted in June 1980. It includes a single family residential area, as well as nine (9) lots along the IH35 frontage road that are zoned C-1, Local Commercial. River Hills, Section Four, was platted in June 1986. Both Sections One and Four were annexed in November 1986. At the time Section Four was being platted, two (2) adjacent, single family property owners in Section One sued the developer because of the land uses proposed in Section Four. That suit was eventually settled out of court. The settlement, which occurred in March 1987, resulted in approximately one-half acre portions of Section Four being deeded to the two (2) property owners that brought the suit. The law suit was subsequently dismissed by the Court. The result is that the deed division is not exempted from the subdivision requirements by Section 16020 E. , and therefore was an illegal subdivision of land. Section 16020 E. exempts "divisions of land created by order of a court of competent jurisdiction" from the platting requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. The remainder of Section Four cannot be developed without a resubdivision such as is being considered by this agenda item. The warranty deeds that transfer the small parcels to the single family property owners include the following provisions: 1) the property owners cannot construct any structures on the deeded property, 2) the Section Four property owners are not obligated to establish setbacks adjacent to this property, and 3) the Section Four property owners "shall be given full credit for such 'greenbelt use' for whatever greenbelt, construction, use, density or similar purposes or requirements as may be imposed by any Final Plat - River Hills, Section 4A October 3, 1995 FP-95-20/File:RVRHLS4A.FP Page 2 CM:HK governmental agency (including but not limited to the City of Georgetown, Texas) in connection with the platting, replatting or development of said adjoining acreage in Section Four". These conditions, while included in the deed instruments, are not binding on the City of Georgetown at this time because the City was not a party to the instruments. In addition to the conditions established by the deed for the benefit of two (2) property owners, the plat establishes a significant setback and buffer area along the property line adjacent to Section One. These requirements, which are described in detail below and illustrated by EXHIBIT C, were placed on the plat for the protection of the entire Section One subdivision. ANALYSIS: The subject plat (see EXHIBIT D) is intended to address the illegal subdivision of land that occurred in 1987 and to seek the City's approval of the conditions of development established by the deed instruments. Lot 1 is proposed to be used for either a multifamily or commercial development. Given the request for rezoning to RM-3 (see agenda item 6a), any commercial development would be limited by the uses allowed in that district. The subject plat contains several items that are not commonly seen. A brief explanation of each of those items follows: 1. As described above, plat note #5 proposes to limit the developability of the rear portions of Lots 2 and 3 (the shaded portions on the plat) in exchange for a "transfer of development rights" to Lot 1. The limits on development are already binding on the owners of Lots 2 and 3, but the ability to transfer the allowances for impervious cover, density, and intensity to Lot 1 has not been acknowledged by the City. Approval of the plat would establish the City's approval of that transfer. 2. A significant buffer zone and building setback line is established along the west property line adjacent to the single family residential lots in Section One. These conditions were placed on Section Four when it was platted in 1986 and are being continued by this plat. Development of Lot 1 requires the extension of wastewater service to the property. Water service is already available. Sections 35021 and 41020 require that the utilities required to serve the subject property be provided before the plat is recorded. Variances cannot be granted to waive required public improvements, but the City is authorized to enter into a development agreement to defer those improvements to a later Final Plat - River Hills, Section 4A FP-95-20/File : RVRHLS4A. FP CM: HK October 3, 1995 Page 3 date. At this time, the City and the owner of Lot 1 are working on a development agreement to ensure that wastewater service is available before any development occurs on Lot 1. The development agreement must be finalized before this plat can be recorded. Otherwise, the improvements will have to be either built or financially secured before the plat can be recorded. The required improvements include the design and construction of an on -site lift station and approximately 2,500 linear feet of wastewater force main. The force main and lift station must be designed to carry wastewater flows for the fully developed condition (based on the assigned intensity levels) from the site to the existing North Fork Wastewater Main. VARIANCES: Section 34020 FA Front Yard Setback on Corner Lot The applicant requests a 15 foot front yard setback on the secondary front yard of Lot 2, along Oak Hollow Road. This lot is currently platted with a 15 foot setback on this frontage, in accordance with the standards of the subdivision ordinance in place at the time the property was platted. Further, reducing this setback to 15 feet will not result in an inconsistent setback along the block face, because this is the only lot on that block. For these reasons, this variance may be appropriate. Section 34020 G.2. Structures in Side Setbacks The existing residential structure on Lot 3 encroaches into the required side yard setback on the south side of the lot. SEE EXHIBIT D The original plat of this property did not include side yard setbacks, although seven (7) foot setbacks were required by the subdivision ordinance in place at the time the property was platted. Given that this is an existing situation that is not easily corrected, it may be appropriate to approve the variance for the existing encroachment only. The original plat does include a note that establishes five (5) foot public utility easements along all side lot lines. Therefore, the house also encroaches into this easement. The subject plat does not reestablish these easements, however, so there will need to be a decision made whether to abandon the easement or issue a license to encroach into it. Technical issue #5 addresses the actions that must be taken based on this decision. Table 34020 Impervious Cover The Subdivision Regulations establish a maximum impervious cover limit for multifamily development of 50 percent. The applicant requests a variance to allow 65 percent impervious cover for a multifamily use. Final Plat - River Hills, Section 4A FP-95-20/File:RVRHIS4A. FP CM:HK October 3, 1995 Page 4 The primary reason cited for this request is to allow the property owner to maximize the number of dwelling units permitted by the Intensity Level 5 assignment, while building only two (2) story units. The applicant indicates that three (3) story units may not be appropriate in this location. The previous agenda item considers a rezoning of this property to the RM-3 zoning district, which permits construction up to 40 feet or three (3) stories in height. This would appear to establish the City's approval of three (3) story buildings. The previous and subject plats for Lot 1 establish a 150 foot setback adjacent to the single family development to the west of Lot 1. Within this setback no structures can be built for the first 50 feet, only driveways and parking can be built within the next 25 feet, and all structures are limited to two (2) stories within the last 75 feet. This would appear to provide a significant protection to the adjacent property owners and, at the same time, imply that three (3) story buildings on the remainder of the property are acceptable to the City. If three (3) story buildings are not acceptable, the Zoning Ordinance should be revised to reduce the height allowances in the RM-2, RM-3, C-1, and C-2A zoning districts. Further, height limits should be established in the C-2B and I zoning districts, which currently have no height limits. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070.B of the Subdivision Regulations: "In granting approval of a request for variance the Commission shall make findings that: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and Final Plat - River Hills, Section 4A FP-95-20/File:RVRHLS4A.FP CM: HK October 3, 1995 Page 5 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's documentation for the requested variances is attached. Technical Issues: The following Technical Issues must be addressed prior to consideration of this plat by the City Council. If they are not addressed by November 3, 1995, or if the applicant does not concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the plat to allow the Technical Issues to be addressed, the plat will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. 1. Add signature blocks for all property owners. 2. If the requested variance to Section 34020 F.4. is approved, revise the front yard setback of Lot 2 along Oak Hollow Road to 15 feet. 3. Add to the following statement in plat note #5: "No structure or impervious construction shall be placed on that portion of Lot 2 or Lot 3 lying within the crosshatched area". 4. Inform staff of the applicant's preference regarding how the requirement for public improvements will be addressed (see Prior to Filing) . 5. Complete an application for an abandonment of all the five (5) foot side yard easements currently existing of Lots 2 and 3, and an application for a license to encroach into the five (5) foot easement on Lot 3. If the abandonment is approved by all utility providers, add a note to the plat indicating that the plat abandons those easements. If the abandonment is not approved, the license will have to be completed. Prior to Filing: The following items must be addressed before this plat can be recorded: 1. One of the following must occur with regard to the required public improvements: a) City Council approval of a development agreement to defer the public improvements until Lot 1 is developed, or b) construction plans must be approved and the public improvements installed, or c) construction plans must be approved and financial surety provided for 110 percent of the cost of the public improvements. 2. Provide two (2) copies of deed restrictions that will be placed on the property, if any. Final Plat - River Hills, Section 4A FP-95-20/File :RVRHLS4A. FP CM:HK October 3, 1995 Page 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Short Form Final Plat of River Hills, Section 4A, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and approval of the requested variances to Section 34020 F.4., thereby allowing a 15 foot setback on Lot 2 along Oak Hollow Road, and to Section 34020 G.2. , to allow the existing encroachments into the south side setback only, after making the required findings of fact. Denial of the requested variance to Table 34020 regarding impervious cover. P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of Octover 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Short Form Final Plat of River Hills, Section 4A, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and approval of the requested variances to Section 34020 F.4. , thereby allowing a 15 foot setback on Lot 2 along Oak Hollow Road, and to Section 34020 G.2. , to allow the existing encroachments into the south side setback of Lot 3 only, after making the required findings of fact. Denial of the requested variance to Table 34020 regarding impervious cover. October 3, 1995 Page 7 EXHIBIT A 0 s %1 3 Ilil 7 �. -- - 3 0317 \;Z 0- /•` �J\, I ea uCso+••E' a•+•mac] e•+. 'Se � `V� �'$ArY—� i 5 Vff4 SaN G ' 0 �?� k oL 1 a •Orr �S A �'Z c� ".: ) p•6 266.wc. \� 1 L Z' _ r Y ; Trot ,., •cl _� - - \✓ . 3 12r6SG 1 • 061 ) ' 1z •). t / \ 1 . as >t A 1 :63 x3• • „ 1, K . sa •c . ao •c. �::'.: , oo •c OL7 LCE LIMIT Iz oo .cl - ' °'� `' —.-- STATE HIGHWAY 29 � Y 2yy9 --- --�----------., --—T-------:� � - _ r, •• I ..ea-o., I rr ]I _ GEORGETOW"---CIT'f LIMIT---- I� f ••�:'.;T :i 33 _ <r••cr ;OL34 I )MI OL10 OL )Sr . e• ! ` � -r COI ): 'i)i ((�< 1 In)..cl �. % aa052 •C EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': September 14, 1995 'PROJECT NAME': River Hills Section 4A - Lot 1 Detailed Development Plan 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 19.84 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 19.84 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 217,446 63,488 3,472 6 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 217,446 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 63,488 Maximum Trip Ends: 3,472 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) (c) (d) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT LAND USES WATER - -------------------------------------------- WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION UNITS REGS ALLOWED/UNIT -- -- ----------------------------------- Detached SF ---------- ------------ ------- --- ------------------------ Large Lot 188 220 5,796 188 40 40 housing units Average Lot 218 254 3,919 218 144 144 housing units Zero Lot Line 218 254 3,919 ( 218 192 192 housing units Attached SF 335 363 3,194 335 288 335 housing units Multifamily 412 407 1,5291 407 1 574 1 407 housing units Mobile Home 335 329 4,099 329 329 housing units Lodging 1,133 1,041 2,505 1041 1,041 rooms Institutional 633,955 690,087 4,128,419 633,955 633,955 square feet Church -with day care 705,995 764,916 223,136 223,136 223,1.36 square feet -w/o day care 1,169,067 1,269,760 4,822,222 1,169,067 1,169,067 square feet Medical Office 522.708 566,857 1,075,922 522,708 522,708 square feet General Office 597,380 697,670 1,361,569 597,380 597,380 square feet Retail, Mixed 334,533 389,497 210,195 210,195 210,195 square feet Retail, Restaurant 139,389 132,267 305,365 132,267 + 132,267 square feet Retail, Store 669,066 721,455 723,032 669,066 669,066 square feet Employment Centers 597.380 697,670 758,741 597,380 597,380 square feet Warehouse 3,814,849 4,534,857 5,786,667 3,814,849 ( 3,814,849 square feet Mini -Warehouse 54,361,600 ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 63,488,000 13,353,846 -------------------------- 13,353,846 ---------------- ---------------------------------------- 13,353,846 square feet } - EXHIBIT B-1 DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': September 14, 1995 `PROJECT NAME': River Hills Section 4A - Lot 1 Detailed Development Plan 2. 'GIVEN` acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 19.84 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 19.84 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 217,446 63,488 3,472 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 217,446 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 63,488 Maximum Trip Ends: 3,472 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) (c) (d) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION j UNITS REGS I ALLOWED/UNIT ------------------------------------------ ---- Detached SF ------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- --------------------------------------- Large Lot 188 220 5,796 j 188 j 40 j 40 housing units Average Lot 218 254 3,919 j 218 144 j 144 housing units Zero Lot Line 218 254 3,919 j 218 j 192 j 192 housing units Attached SF 335 363 3,194 j 335 j 288 j 335 housing units Multifamily 412 407 1.529 407 574 407 housing units Mobile Home 335 329 4.099 j 329 I j 329 housing units Lodging 1,133 1,041 2,505 j 1041 1,041 rooms Institutional 633,955 690,087 4,128,419 j 633,955 633,955 square feet Church j -with day care 705,995 764,916 223,136 j 223,136 j 223,136 square feet -w/o day care 1.169,067 1,269,760 4,822,222 I 1,169,067 j j 1,169,067 square feet Medical Office 522,708 566,857 1,075,922 j 522,708 j j 522,708 square feet General Office 597,380 697,670 1.361,569 j 597,380 j j 597,380 square feet Retail, Mixed 334.533 389,497 210,195 210.195 I j 210,195 square feet Retail, Restaurant 139,389 132,267 305,365 j 132,267 I I 132,267 square feet Retail, Store 669,066 721,455 723,032 669,066 I I 669,066 square feet Employment Centers 597,380 697,670 758.741 597,380 597,380 square feet Warehouse 3.814,849 4,534.857 5,786,667 3,814,849 j 3,814,849 square feet Mini -Warehouse 54,361.600 63,488,000 13 13,353,846 I 13,353.846 square feet ----------------------------- - - - - - -353,846 EXHIBIT B-2 DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': September 14, 1995 'PROJECT NAME': River Hills Section 4A - Lot 2 Detailed Development Plan 2. 'GIVEN` acres of Intensity Level 1 1.04 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 1.04 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends ------------------------------- 1 0 0 0 2 2,496 676 4 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 2,496 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 676 Maximum Trip Ends: 4 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION ------------------- UNITS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Detached SF Large Lot 2 2 7 2 Average Lot 3 3 5 3 Zero Lot Line 3 3 5 3 Attached SF 4 4 4 4 Multifamily 5 4 2 2 Mobile Home 4 4 5 4 Lodging 13 11 3 3 Institutional 7,277 7,348 4,946 4,946 Church -with day care 8,104 8,145 267 267 -w/o day care 13,419 13,520 5,778 5,778 Medical Office 6,000 6,036 1,289 1,289 General Office 6,857 7,429 1,631 1,631 Retail, Mixed 3,840 4,147 252 252 Retail, Restaurant 1,600 1,408 366 366 Retail, Store 7,680 7,682 866 866 Employment Centers 6,857 7,429 909 909 Warehouse 43,789 48,286 6,933 6,933 Mini -Warehouse 624,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 676,000 16,000 ------------------- 16,000 (c) (d) PER DEV DEVELOPMENT REGS --------------- ------------- ALLOWED/UNIT --------------------------- 2 2 housing units 8 3 housing units 10 3 housing units 15 4 housing units 29 2 housing units 4 housing units 3 rooms 4,946 square feet 267 square feet 5,778 square feet 1,289 square feet 1,631 square feet 252 square feet 366 square feet 866 square feet 909 square feet 6,933 square feet 16,000 square feet } EXHIBIT B-3 DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. `DATE': September 14, 1995 -PROJECT NAME': River Hills Section 4A - Lot 3 Detailed Development Plan 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 1.02 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 1.02 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends 1 0 0 0 2 2,448 663 4 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 2,448 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 663 Maximum Trip Ends: 4 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) (c) (d) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION I ---- UNITS I ------------ - REGS I - ------- ------- I ----------------------------- ALLOWED/UNIT ----------------- ------------------------------ -------------------------------------- ----------------------- Detached SF ----------------------------------- I I Large Lot 2 2 7 1 2 2 2 housing units Average Lot 2 3 5 1 2 1 7 1 2 housing units Zero Lot Line 2 3 5 1 2 1 10 I 2 housing units Attached SF 4 4 4 1 4 1 15 I 4 housing units Multifamily 5 4 2 1 2 1 28 I 2 housing units Mobile Home 4 3 5 1 3 1 I 3 housing units Lodging 13 11 3 1 3 1 I 3 rooms Institutional 7,137 7,207 4,851 4,851 I I 4,851 square feet Church I I I -with day care 7,948 7,988 262 I 262 I I 262 square feet -w/o day care 13,161 13,260 5,667 I 5,667 I I 5,667 square feet Medical Office 5,885 5,920 1,264 I 1,264 I 1,264 square feet General Office 6,725 7,286 1,600 1,600 I 1,600 square feet Retail, Mixed 3,766 4,067 247 I 247 I I 247 square feet Retail, Restaurant 1,569 1,381 359 I 359 I I 359 square feet Retail, Store 7,532 7,534 850 I 850 I I 850 square feet Employment Centers 6,725 7,286 892 I 892 I I 892 square feet Warehouse 42,947 47,357 6,800 I 6,800 I I 6,800 square feel Mini -Warehouse 612,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- 663,000 ------------------------------------------- 15,692 I ------- I 15,692 I - ---- ----------- I I --------------- I ----------- 15,692 square feet -------------------- ------------- } EXHIBIT C -NOTE: LOCATION MAP I.. = 2000' RIVER HILLS SECTION FOUR �\ 10 PUE \ �° "AND BUILDING LINE \ 4 159. 4406 ACRES \ 9 �`. SCALES I"=100' VOL PAt;E / \ 67(:-?7S / / \ / .• V' / / 4TA 94 6 I I / / `j /i a i / DRAINAGE EASEMENT / N0`' / 8 00 YR FLOOD PLAIN I / I / S 4 / 023,- 5.63°5610 E. LOT L127.66 / 20' PU.E- ---/y I \ \ \ 19.84 Acres i VOLUME 711 , PAGE 489 I �x-` 2133So,. \ O E / \ \Y= 366.0, �\ p10 \ / W.C•D-R. MIN. SLAB EL 753.50 of _� \ \ o3ie / \ \ I '0— � 100 POWER LINE EASEwENT •� VOL 349 , PG. 459 jl W.C.O R wA:':I P, G `T /N\ ;;4R :i�:Gl!•..I V Q' \ \ V 2 b \ 11 STOe(0 \ \ \ qfs \ \\ OA \ \ \ F90 \ \\ D \ \ \ \ ��' `\ \ BUILG LINE II Y �•C/ ` C/Ch, .r 1 / FL135EE - ,:R:v.H J/ 01 �� / \ \ x-2,R31.052.D9 \ j'<<, / \ Y_ 364.769.22 —1 @1.9 — � N 24° 25'54"E N65° 34\06"W—� �73.4111 \ �I / / P_I ,•ncT�i;. ,: \ � I IO'PU.E. BgLDG. LINE N 6 5 \ wALIER R. \ 1 50 FOOT BUFFER ZONE SHALL SARR:v;TON REMAIN IN ITS EXISTING NATURAL CQNDITION. RIVER HILLS DRIv6 (60' R.0)MY' 2) THE:25 FOOT STRIP ADJACENT AND FARALLEL' TO THE BUFFER ZONE. 1 J `\ .SHALL: BE USED ONLY FOR I WALTEn R. CARRINGTON ,LANDSCAPING., PARKING AND .,ALTER R. I DRIVEWAYS, CONSTRUCTION IN THE WEST HALF 0 i t{�S.�5��7: $TF2jPSHALL REASONABLY" AVOID DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING TREES. POO CITY OF GEORGETOWN - _ITY LIMIT LINE 0=9°40'46" R=6029.58 A = 101 6.64 C=1017.43 S.31°23'46'W FINAL PLAT RIVER HILLS SECTION FOUR WILLIAMSON CO., TEXAS EXHIBIT D THE RIVERY JOINT VEPJIUr<L a4j.i5) 259-44 / C_ (Na\'3s3T L - 443.28' — 2471 ,'379 3t,7121 Y-365.816.91 Y-2.a31.796.59 \ (p7al7 5r-E _ 357.65. N7g,17'30f ------ 1 L µp P E" \\ 0 27 4 94 o \ n \ N7254'E m 1 r Y— 2,830,747.1 Y-365.600.35� �\ 0LpG5 \ES o �1� \ 1S.Mp( 1H t. O gt� y\ \4E\EP \5 t �\ AR \ � 18.83 AC. m \ \ RIVER HILLS SECTION FOUR \ IVER HILLS SECTION ONE \ a \;� \ \ CAB. H SUDE 231 \ l- D / 304-305 ` o\ j 2 £ 588 4.69' E 'Op \ \ S85•20-E Na5i: 39"E / WINTER \ r2a.69' 1 �2t.51• 200.93' 60' DRAINAGE E 1501/644PLAIN \ / 700 YPLAIR. FLOOC PLAIN A$ %-28}1,91 G.21 ) / `\ \ \ � SJ, PER PUT H/231 Y-365.437.09 CO TA v pNEa i BLOCK E., \\ \ S6J 36 V �5'39' N ,q }2E S9iG936'r \ �� c i E o sr o K HC OW N7z'\� v DAY $_ 1509/793\ i � ,\\`- �• LOT 1 \ LOT 2 DAY y o 1120/263 \ 569 pi i S9RED 2 �\ o E 2157/9- C N i cJ LOT 3 A9. 9 ' o 0 Pl S �J GK o _ �\��'� �,• \ / � 0 W 519'37'21"E p \\ i 0 R� R� P 569 30.08' cr \� 0 0R OP \ELEC "'RqS-o 173RPN59 P SCHROEDER 4 \ 108a/872 Q. J / h \ � a �9 6' \ ` BLOCK "E'c o \\,/ , /ro S` s� � YY w 66,9 INGHAN 7Q 219t 1956 N2a'21'E 73.43' /VAR (N24'255< - ,341'; SF 15 / : 04/N BS 39 �a• \ cT/n/ JCL v Oti >�, s: _z=2.831.380.5e F 14 Y= 364, 569. oa i3(D9, - LEGEND - IRON PIN FD'INp O IRON PIN cE ; P U,E. -- PUBLIC UTILITr EASEMENI B.L. - BUILDING LINE NOT TO SCALE s ;)GEORGETOWN'1%' RIVER HILLS SECTION 4A A SUBDIVISION TO INCLUDE A RESUBDIVISION OF SITE 1 ( RIVER HILLS SECTION FOUR AND A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 18 AND 19. BLOCK E. OF RIVER HILLS +^"� I' ; SECT:CN ONE. _ i-n TnF,C S BEiNG Si' ii-.-ED :N THE J B PULSIFCR SURVEY, A- 4�-8 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS EXHIBIT E A POWEM K0LUT IT [E c. a 0.551 ACRES VOL. 1509, Pc. 788 I f T.5` BL established by resubdvision LOT 18--/ m0WIEM IMLLE BLK. 'E" I S(� I 1 1.006 ACRES Encroachment I � 4 i t Ae H1LLV1EK D� BL—Building Line September 18, 1995 The City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78626 SITUS Plannin4 & Desian 512-345-6592 3541-D North Hills Drive Austin, Texas 78731 - Ref: Variance Requests, RIVER HILLS SECTION FOUR -A Ladies and Gentlemen: This amends the request now under review for approval of the short form final plat of River Hills Section Four -A, to include requests for approval of the following variances with the plat: A. To allow a 15-foot front yard at the west side of Lot 2 adjoining Oak Hollow Drive. B. To allow the existing structure on Lot 3 to encroach 4 feet into the proposed 7.5-foot east side yard. Lots 2 and 3 are included in the proposed resubdivision of River Hills 4-A in order to bring the property into compliance with the subdivision regulations. The replat combines each of the existing platted lots (Lots 19 and 18, River Hills Section 1, respectively) with an approximately one -half -acre parcel out of River Hills Section 4. These half -acre parcels were conveyed by warranty deeds in settlement of litigation in 1987. Following is justification for these variances corresponding to the questions in the City's 12/94 request form. 1. The owner will retain the same rights to use of the property which now exist, while eliminating a non-conformance. 2. The use of surrounding property will not be impaired. The 15-foot setback is the setback shown on the Section 1 plat for corner lots. The side yard encroachment has existed since the home was originally constructed, at which time the subdivision was Variance Request River Hills Section 4-A Page 2 outside the city. The adjoining home is at least 20 feet away. 3. The hardship involving the street yard would be a reduction in buildable area on the lot as a result of replatting to remedy the non -conforming lot status. The hardship involved in complying with the interior side yard would be the physical relocation or removal of a portion of the existing residence. 4. No special privilege is conferred. The street yard is the same as shown on other corner lots in Section 1. The existing encroachment is similar to conditions commonly granted variance where no mitigation is required. 5. The public interest is furthered by including the non -conforming lot in the proposed resubdivision. 6. The non -conforming status of the lot resulted from a conveyance of land by warranty deed in settlement of litigation with the developer of the original River Hills Section 4. The owner of Lot 2 is participating in the resubdivision plat request to bring the lot into compliance with the subdivision regulations. 7. The spirit of the regulations will be served by remedying a non -conforming lot while reflecting the street yard of the previous plat and "grandfathering" an existing structure which creates no practical problem. 8. Substantial justice will be done by recognizing the rights created by the previous plat and by "grandfathering" an encroachment which was created before the property was annexed to the City. We respecfully request approval of the variances identified, along with the proposed resubdivision. Yours truly, JOHN WARDEN, AICP September 20, 1995 The City of Georgetown Division of Development Services P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78626 Ref: Variance Request, RIVER HILLS SECTION FOUR -A Ladies and Gentlemen: This supplements my letter of September 18, 1995 to amend the request for approval of the short form plat of River Hills 4-A to include the following additional variance: C. To allow maximum impervious cover of 65% for multifamily - residential use. The plat note designates both Commercial Office and Multifamily Residential land use, and the design standards allow 70% impervious cover for office use. Preliminary site planning indicates that, to develop the number of multifamily units allowed by the Century Plan's Level 5 designation of the site, using primarily two-story structures, impervious cover will exceed 50%. Following is justification for these variances corresponding to the questions in the City's 12194 variance request form. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served by the provision of additional rental housing stock in a more accessible configuration -- predominantly two-story buildings. To our knowledge, no three-story apartments have been constructed in Georgetown. The affect of the impervious cover limit might be to drive multi -family development to that design. 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be diminished or impaired. In particular, the large -lot single family SITUS Plannina & Desian 512-345-6592 3541-D North Hills Drive Austin, Texas 78731 River Hills 4A, Variance Request Page 2 residences in Section 1 adjoining to the south will be protected by minimizing the use of three-story buildings. 3. The hardship involved is in realizing the use intensity allowed by the Century Plan without a high proportion of three-story buildings. This hardship is "created" by, or is the result of, several factors: a) the market demand for parking at ratios equal to or exceeding the City's requirement; b) the practical limitation that, while dwellings can be stacked vertically, parking spaces cannot be feasibly stacked for apartment development; c) market resistance to three-story apartments. Other apartment projects subject to the 50% impervious cover limit have been developed on sites designated level 4 or lower. Those projects can realize the maximum allowed dwelling density without exceeding the 50% limit. 4. The variance will not confer a special privilege. No higher dwelling density -- a primary determinant of economic yield of the property -- will result from approval of the variance. The maximum number of dwelling units allowed by the Century Plan can be constructed on the site using predominantly, if not entirely, three-story buildings. The variance will allow the Level 5 density of dwellings in building configurations which more closely resemble apartments at lower densities. 5. The public interest, similar to the public convenience and welfare served in Part 1 above, will be substantially served by the provision of additional rental housing stock in a more accessible configuration -- predominantly two-story buildings. 6. The "special condition" that affects this property is the limit imposed by the design standards which works against a project design in keeping with other multi -family developments in Georgetown. It might well be the intent of the Commission and Council to encourage a higher -profile, three-story configuration of multifamily units developed on Level 5 sites. However, to our knowledge that intent has not been stated and the urban design implications of the combined regulations should be recognized. 7. The spirit of the ordinance will be observed if this variance is River Hills 4A, Variance Request Page 3 granted: a) by minimizing the construction of three-story apartments in proximity to large -lot single family residences; b) by complying with water quality and stormwater management requirements which must be addressed in development of higher degrees of impervious cover. The development will be subject to a water pollution abatement plan and will incorporate stormwater management / detention features as needed to comply with the City's drainage regulations. 8. Substantial justice will be done in granting the variance request by resolving the conflict in regulations which otherwise drives this and other Level 5 multifamily development to utilize predominantly three-story structures, regardless of their appropriateness to the site and surroundings. In summary, we would hope that the Commission and Council recognize the urban design implications of the regulations in question, and we respectfully request approval of the variance to allow up to 65% impervious cover for multifamily residential development. Sincerely, 0 �n_ 14 4 "al JOHN WARDEN, AICP Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET x SUBJECT: First reading of an ordinance to rezone Legend Oaks II, Lots 1-6 from RS, Residential Single Family to C-2A, Commercial First Height or any more restrictive classification. ITEM SUMMARY: The lots proposed for a rezoning to C-2A, Commercial First Height were annexed in 1986 and were automatically assigned an RS, Residential Single Family zoning district, as was the practice at that time. A rezoning request was filed in 1987 for C-1, Local Commercial on three (3) lots and C-2A on the other three (3) lots. A rezoning to C-1 was approved for all of the lots. The staff, Commission and Council opposed a rezoning to C-2A because of the lenient site development standards and the intensity of the uses permitted in the C-2A district. While the concern regarding site development standards is now addressed by the detailed development plan process and is not a concern of this rezoning, the issue of the uses permitted in the C-2A district remains a concern. In two (2) recent cases the City Council has established that the SH29 corridor near IH35 is a major entrance into the City and some of the C-2A permitted uses are not desirable at this location. The applicant indicates mini -warehouse storage as the proposed use of a portion of this property. Another concern is that the uses permitted in the C-2A zoning district typically require more site area and building square footage than the size of the existing lots in Legend Oaks II. If a rezoning to permit those uses at this location is approved, it is possible that variances to the design standards or Century Plan amendments may be sought to accommodate them. The lots appear to be adequate to accommodate many C-1 uses without the need for variances or Century Plan amendments. In 1992, a rezoning of the subject property from C-1 to RS was requested due to the owner's concern that the physical limitations of the site precluded commercial development. Because the land would no longer be developed for commercial purposes, the owner requested to amend the previous agreement concerning stormwater detention. Another concern was the number of access points along SH29. Access limitations were made a condition of the rezoning. Although the land is now proposed to develop for commercial use, it is still desirable to limit the access points along SH29 since it is possible that there may be several driveways in a relatively short distance. The requested rezoning to RS was approved and the previously established agreement was amended by a new development agreement which repealed the stormwater detention requirements, placed access limitations on the lots and changed the land use designation on the plat. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Development Agreement must be amended again prior to second reading of the rezoning ordinance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its October 3, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of the requested rezoning from RS, Residential Single Family to C-2A, Commercial First Height, and to recommend approval of a rezoning from RS, Single Family Residential to C-1, Local Commercial provided the existing development agreement is amended to reflect the proposed use of the lots as commercial, the stormwater detention requirements are re-established, the water service designation is changed from Chisholm Water Supply to the City of Georgetown and the access limitations as set forth in the existing agreement are retained. Second reading of the rezoning ordinance will be withheld until the agreement is finalized. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report and Ordinance. Submitted By: . el- A?21�7 *Hidy f- EdwarO. arry, AICP - Director L. ingma, AICP DivisioA of Developm t Services Chief Planner REZONING OF LEGEND OAKS H, LOTS 1-6 FROM RS, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO C-2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIGHT OR ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Huey Hancock Ms. Vicki Hancock 2900 Gabriel View Georgetown, Texas 78628 512/869-0905 FAX: 255-1019 REQUEST: Rezoning of Legend Oaks H, Lots 1-6 as recorded in Volume 2306, Page 881 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located on State Highway 29 West. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: This property is zoned RS, Residential Single Family. Proposed Use: Commercial. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Undeveloped land and two (2) residences (RM-3) South: Undeveloped land (out of City) East: Undeveloped land (RS) West: First Baptist Church (RS and A) Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates these lots at Intensity Level 4. EXHIBIT B illustrates the development allowance of all six (6) lots combined. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: A Preliminary/Final Plat was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 7, 1986, and by the City Council on October 28, 1986, with the condition that fire protection improvements shall be approved by the Fire Marshal. Rezoning - Legend Oaks, Section II, Lots 1-6 October 4, 1995 R-95-20/Fi1e:LEGNKOK2.R Page 1 CM:CS On November 25, 1986, the site was annexed into the City and automatically assigned an RS, Residential Single Family zoning district. A reinstatement of the Final Plat was approved by the City Council on May 26, 1987, with an amended condition of the original approval to apply the Fire Protection Ordinance, which was adopted since the original approval. The plat was recorded on June 16, 1987. A site plan was then submitted for a proposed commercial establishment on Lot 1. An agreement between the City and the applicant regarding the maintenance of stormwater facilities was established. On September 22, 1987 Lots 1-6 were rezoned from RS, Residential Single Family to C- 1, Local Commercial. On July 14, 1992, at the request of the applicant, the City Council rezoned Lots 1-6 to RS, Residential Single Family. ANALYSIS: The rezoning request in 1987 was for C-1, Local Commercial on the three (3) eastern lots and C-2A on the three (3) western lots. SEE EXHIBIT C Staff recommended approval of a rezoning to C-1 for all of the lots to be consistent with the conditions of approval of the Legend Oaks II subdivision plat. Specifically, those conditions deal with the requirement for a detailed development plan, the amount of signage, the preservation of existing trees and stormwater detention. At the time of the rezoning request the regulations regarding these characteristics varied greatly from the C-1 to C-2A zoning district. The site design standards of the C-1 district more closely resembled the plat conditions than the same standards for the C-2A district. Currently, the Sign Ordinance regulates signage and the Subdivision Regulations regulate site design. The sign standards are the same for C-1 and C-2A zoned sites. Detailed development plans are required for all new commercial construction and the landscape standards, with the exception of bufferyards, are based on proposed use, not zoning district. Stormwater detention is also a detailed development plan requirement. Therefore, the zoning assigned to this site will have little effect on its design. Another concern, however, was the intensity of someof the uses permitted within the C-2A zoning district. The C-2A district Rezoning - Legend Oaks, Section II, Lots 1-6 October 4, 1995 R-95-20/File:LEGNKOK2.R page 2 CM:CS permits such quasi -industrial uses as cold storage lockers, sheet metal fabrication, soft drink bottling, newspaper publishing and wholesale bakeries. In recent rezoning cases, it was established that SH29 is a major entry into the City of Georgetown and should not contain those uses permitted by the C-2A district. The Star Enterprises rezoning case, which involved the Texaco station on the east side of the IH35/SH29 intersection, was a request for a rezoning from RS to C-2A. Staff recommended a rezoning to C-1 for the same reason stated previously. The Commission recommended and the Council approved the staff's recommendation. At the same time, a rezoning was requested for the Good Luck Subdivision, located about 1,000 feet east of Legend Oaks II and north of SH29. Originally, the request was for a C-2A district, but was changed by the applicant prior to Commission consideration. The request to C-1 was approved. The uses permitted in the C-2A zoning district typically require more site area and building square footage than the size of the existing lots in Legend Oaks II. If a rezoning to permit those uses at this location is approved, it is possible that variances to the design standards or Century Plan amendments may be sought to accommodate them. The lots are currently an Intensity Level 4 and some uses may require more building area than what is permitted by that level, therefore requiring the Century Plan amendment. The minimum size of commercial lots according to the design standards is 0.5 acre. The uses permitted in the C-1 zoning district do not typically require the same amount of site area and building square footage as the C-2A uses. The lots appear to be adequate to accommodate many C-1 uses without the need for variance or Century Plan amendments. In 1992, a rezoning of the subject property from C-1 to RS was requested due to the owner's concern that the physical limitations of the site precluded commercial development. The amount of impervious coverage desired by the owner was not permitted by the State regulations governing the protection of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Because the land would no longer be developed for commercial purposes, the owner requested to amend the previous agreement concerning stormwater detention. Rezoning - Legend Oaks, Section H, Lots 1-6 R-95-20/File: LEGNKOK2.R CM:CS October 4, 1995 Page 3 Another concern at that time was the number of access points that residences would have along SH29. According to the standards which were in place at the time of the second rezoning, single family residences were not permitted access to major arterials. These are the same standards that are in place at this time. Access limitations were therefore made a condition of the rezoning. SEE EXHIBIT D Although the land is now proposed to develop for commercial use, it is still desirable to limit the access points along SH29. Two (2) of the lots do not meet the minimum frontage standard of 150 feet and, with the exception of Lots 5 and 6, the others are little more than 150 feet. Lots 5 and 6 are limited in possible driveway locations since there is a large drainage channel between the lots. Given these conditions, it is possible that (6) six or more driveways in this short frontage could have a hazardous effect on SH29. It is recommended that the system of shared driveways adopted in 1992 remain in effect. The requested rezoning to RS was approved and the previously established agreement was amended by a new development agreement which repealed the stormwater detention requirements, placed access limitations on the lots and changed the land use designation on the plat. The applicant has been advised that there is a water supply in the vicinity capable of providing the required fire flows which would be required to be extended as each lot is developed for commercial purposes. The nearest water line is a 12 inch line adjacent to the SH29 right-of-way on the western boundary of Legend Oaks II. The extension of this line will be a requirement for any DDP approved on these lots. STAFF RECONEWENDATION: Denial of the requested rezoning from RS, Residential Single Family to C-2A, Commercial First Height. Approval of a rezoning from RS, Single Family Residential to C-1, Local Commercial provided the existing development agreement is amended to reflect the proposed use of the lots as commercial, Rezoning - Legend Oaks, Section II, Lots 1-6 R-95-20/File: LEGNKOK2 . R CM:CS October 4, 1995 Page 4 the stormwater detention requirements are re-established, the water service designation is changed from Chisolm Water Supply to the City of Georgetown and the access limitations as set forth in the existing agreement are retained. Second reading of the rezoning ordinance will be withheld until the agreement is finalized. P & Z ACTION: At its October 3, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of the requested rezoning from RS, Residential Single Family to C-2A, Commercial First Height, and to recommend approval of a rezoning from RS, Single Family Residential to C-1, Local Commercial provided the existing development agreement is amended to reflect the proposed use of the lots as commercial, the stormwater detention requirements are re-established, the water service designation is changed from Chisholm Water Supply to the City of Georgetown and the access limitations as set forth in the existing agreement are retained. Second reading of the rezoning ordinance will be withheld until the agreement is finalized. Rezoning - Legend Oaks, Section II, Lots 1-6 R-95-20/File: LEGNKOK2. R CM:CS October 4, 1995 Page 5 m mp.mm PoLpifflurs"w4mm, RM-3 , I RM-3 STATE HIGHWAY 29 RS RRG,POSED REZONING FROM RS,. .OE:SIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY rilt TO C-2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIG I WOLF TRACT EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': September 6, 1995 'PROJECT NAME': Legend Oaks Section II, Lots 1-6 Rezoning 2. `GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 10.09 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 10.09 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPO Average GPD Peak Trip Ends 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 67,805 19,373 807 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 67,805 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 19,373 Maximum Trip Ends: 807 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) (c) (d) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION UNITS J REGS ALLOWED/UNIT ----------------------------------------- ---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Detached SF -)-----------------J J -- --- ----------------- J Large Lot 59 67 1,348 59 20 20 housing units Average Lot 68 77 911 68 73 68 housing units Zero Lot Line 68 77 911 68 98 68 housing units Attached SF 104 111 743 104 147 J 104 housing units Multifamily 128 124 355 124 ( 291 124 housing units Mobile Home 104 100 953 100 100 housing units Lodging 353 318 582 318 318 rooms Institutional 197,682 210,574 959,810 197,682 197,682 square feet Church -with day care 220,145 233,407 51,877 J 51,877 J 51,877 square feet -w/o day care 364,542 387,456 1.121,111 364,542 J J 364,542 square feet Medical Office 162,992 172,971 250,139 162,992 J J 162,992 square feet General Office 186,277 212,888 316,549 186,277 186,277 square feet Retail, Mixed 104,315 118,852 48,868 48,868 48,868 square feet Retail, Restaurant 43,465 40,360 70,994 40,360 J 40,360 square feet Retail, Store 208,630 220,145 168,097 168,097 J 168,097 square feet Employment Centers 186,277 212,888 176,399 176,399 J 176,399 square feet Warehouse 1,189,558 1,383,771 1,345,333 J 1,189,558 J 1,189,558 square feet Mini -Warehouse 16,951,200 19,372,800 3,104,615 J 3,104,615 3.104,615 square feet --------------------------------- ---------------- ---------- -------- ----------- ------------------------------------ J------------------� ----------- J - -------------- - ------ - - -- EXHIBIT C RS RS 41 mm7imII STATE HIGHWAY 29 RAS AORG-E-TOWN CITY' LIMI a. , 1=7� mm e /f / I l� 1, i- /l �1 >> i �r . EXHIBIT D LEGEND OAKS II A C a ter// \ i e ti 20 • A,�\ N 751 � Setbac k � 70 • °a \ � \ Septic 6 , n Se ac k a+4 �c. e\ d ide 29 \ ��' r 0 • n Limit of --" 100 Year Flood. Plain and & D.E. (Q 4-.-75' Septic etback 3 d vti 'ty F�� ros,C 2 + 44c i 10' Storm Sewer Easement r �1 a' po _0 \C/TY � /A,# * Access Point ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE PASSED AND ADOPTED ON THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1968, AND AMENDING PART OF THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, TO CHANGE LEGEND OAKS H, LOTS 1-6 AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 2306, PAGE 881 OF THE OFFICIAL DEED RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM THE RS, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO C-2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIGHT DISTRICT ZONING CLASSIFICATION OR ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, an application has been made to the City Council for the purpose of changing the zoning district classification of the following described real property ("the property") : LEGEND OAKS II, LOTS 1-6 AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 2306, PAGE 881 OF THE OFFICIAL DEED RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, hereinafter referred to as "the property"; WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Base Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration in a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and WHEREAS, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days for the first day of such publication; and WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on October 3, 1995, recommended denying the request for said zoning district classification of the above described property from the RS, Residential Single Family district zoning classification to C-2A, Legend Oaks II, Lots 1-6 Rezoning Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 Commercial First Height district zoning classification, in accordance with Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance implements the following Policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element: 1. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure that future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations"; and 2. Growth and Physical Development Policy 2, which states: "The City's regulatory actions will efficiently and effectively implement the Policy Statements and provide the opportunity to seek change with reasonable effort and expense"; and 3. Growth and Physical Development Policy 4, which states: "The City will encourage new development and infill redevelopment in the community"; and 4. Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 1, which states: "The City will take the steps necessary to protect the physical attributes that make Georgetown attractive"; and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. The Base Ordinance and the Zoning Map of the City, as well as the Zoning District for the Property shall be and the same is hereby changed from the RS, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY district to C-2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIGHT district, in accordance with Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. SECTION 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Legend Oaks II, Lots 1-6 Rezoning Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10) ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of 1995. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of .1995. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Legend Oaks Q, Lots 1-6 Rezoning Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 By: LEO WOOD Mayor EXHIBIT A RM-3 RM-�3 K5 PROPOSED REZONING FROM RS,'R�SIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO C-2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIGKT WOLF TRACT Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a proposal for defining road segments and improvements in the Transportation Element of the Century Plan. ITEM SUMMARY: Approval of the process described in the attached memorandum would provide a method to further define the arterial roadway improvements that are described in the Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 of the Transportation Element of the Century Plan. The level of detail in the Transportation Element is not sufficient for locating future roads on specific properties. Therefore, when a project is proposed in the general vicinity of these road segments, action is delayed until a decision can be made on the specific location of the segment. The proposal is for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review a prioritized list of road improvements, for City staff to hold discussions with the City and County engineers and the affected property owners, and for public hearings to be held at the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. This would result in specific road alignment locations for adoption by ordinance as a part of the Transportation Element. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: None COMMENTS: At their October 3, 1995 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the proposal on a 5-0 vote. ATTACHMENTS: September 29, 1995 memo (revised) to Planning and Zoning Commission Submitted Bv: -Z�J' Edward Oarry, AICP - Director Division of Developm nt Services f Clyde von Rosenberg,,15tp Chief Planner, Long Range Planning REVISED MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Clyde von Rosenberg, Chief Planner Long Range Planning DATE: September 29, 1995 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR DEFINING ROAD SEGMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE CENTURY PLAN As you are aware, the Transportation Element of the Century Plan contains a Future Traffic System Map, Exhibit 6, which provides a general guideline for the location of future road segments of the arterial and freeway level roadways in the Georgetown planning area. The design standards and capacities of these roadways are part of the Intensity Plan model and are used to determine allowable development Intensity. The Table of Transportation Improvements, Exhibit 7, along with narrative descriptions in the Transportation Element, provide some additional details on the intent of these segments. However, the Transportation Element does not provide sufficient detail for locating future roadways on specific properties. Therefore, when a project is proposed in the general vicinity of the road segments, action is delayed until a decision can be made on the specific location of the segment. The following is proposed for your consideration as a method of beginning to deal with this issue: (1) Staff will prepare a list of each of the future road segment improvements described in the Transportation Element, and indicate an initial priority ranking; (2) Planning and Zoning Commission will review and approve the road segments and priority rankings; (3) Beginning with the highest priority segment, staff will elicit comments on the best alignment for a road segment through the Development Review Committee and other meetings with the City and County engineers; (4) Staff will present the results of their review to the Planning and Zoning Commission (possibly at a workshop held before a regular meeting) to allow the Commission to fully understand the issues involved; (5) Staff will discuss the road alignment options with the affected property owners and request their comments; (6) After discussing several of these segments, the Commission will hold a public hearing, notifying all affected property owners, to make a recommendation to the City Council on the specific alignments for the road segments; (7) After City Council approval, these specific alignments will become part of the Transportation Element, adopted by ordinance. If this proposal, or an amended version of it, is acceptable, your recommendation for action can be forwarded to the City Council for their action at their October 24, 1995 meeting. You would then be able to approve a prioritized list of road segments at the November Commission meeting and would be able to discuss the first segment at your December meeting. Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. Z AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Selection of the route for the realignment of CR111 between the M.K.T. railroad and CR110. ITEM SUMMARY: Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 of the Transportation Element of the Century Plan indicate that CR111 between the M.K.T. railroad and CR110 should be realigned to eliminate two 90-degree turns; however, they do not provide sufficient detail to locate the realignment on specific properties. A Concept Plan for the Rolling Prairie Settlement, which borders the two turns, was submitted for the September 5, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The staff report prepared identified a potential alignment for CR111 to the west of the Rolling Prairie Settlement site. The Planning and Zoning Commission delayed action on the Concept Plan until additional alternatives for the road realignment could be considered. Staff met with the City Engineer and the County Engineer, as well as the owners of property in the vicinity of the proposed realignment. Five alignment alternatives were discussed and presented at the October 3, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission selected Alternative #2, which is partially within and partially to the west of the Rolling Prairie site, as the most appropriate route for the realignment, subject to access and any other existing rights and utilities being provided to the affected land owners. Approval of a route for the realignment will provide the necessary detail to the Transportation Element of the Century Plan. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: On October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Rolling Prairie Settlement Concept Plan based on the realignment of CR111 following Alternative #2. Consideration of the Concept Plan is scheduled for the October 24, 1995 Council meeting. The attached memo includes a letter from the consulting engineers for the Rolling Prairie Concept Plan which lists several conditions related to the realignment which have been requested by the owner. One property owner along the route of the proposed realignment is opposed to the realignment. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None COMMENTS: At their October 3, 1995 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to approve Alternative #2, subject to access and any other existing rights and utilities being provided to the affected land owners. ATTACHMENTS: Memo to Planning and Zoning Commission Submitted&vorBv: ar . Barry, A P - Director Divisi of Develo ment Services .t^,�•. "all Clyde von Rosenberg, 40 Chief Planner, Long Range Planning MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Clyde von Rosenberg, Chief Planner Long Range Planning DATE: September 29, 1995 SUBJECT: ROADWAY ALIGNMENT DISCUSSION FOR CR110/111 At your September 5, 1995 meeting, during discussion of the Rolling Prairie Settlement Concept Plan, you requested that staff complete further research on the realignment of CR110/111 as described in the Transportation Element of the Century Plan. As you are aware, the Future Traffic System Map, Exhibit 6, contains a general guideline for the location of the realignment of CR110/111 and the Table of Transportation Improvements, Exhibit 7, provides some additional detail on the intent of the realignment. Using the Future Traffic System Map, the descriptions in Exhibit 7, and the analysis in the Rolling Prairie Settlement staff report from September 5, 1995 as a basis for discussion, I met with Jim Briggs, Director of Community Owned Utilities, and with Don Rundell, City Engineer, and Joe England, County Engineer. Several alternatives to achieving the stated goal of realigning the curve as illustrated in Exhibit 6 were examined. I then met with the property owners affected by the alternative alignments on September 22, 1995, to offer them the opportunity to see the alternatives that had been discussed and to suggest additional alternatives or refinements. The result of the staff and property owner discussions resulted in the five alternatives illustrated in the attached exhibit and described below. Alternative #2 was the preferred alternative in the discussions with Don Rundell and Joe England and in the discussions with the property owners. Alternative #1 This is the alignment recommended in the September 5, 1995 staff report on the Concept Plan for Rolling Prairie Settlement. While this alignment appears to best represent what is shown on the Future Traffic System Map, it does not take into account the creek and residence on the Cockrum property. Jim Briggs recommended that no realignment take place that would require relocating the existing creek crossing or adding additional creek crossings. In addition, he pointed out that this alignment could remove public road access for the three properties at the curve which would be removed by this alignment. These properties, two owned by Riley Robbins and one owned by Jonah Water Supply Company, should be provided an access point to a public road. Milton and Josephine Cockrum opposed this Alternative since it had a significant effect on their property. Their property also has access to the existing CR111 to the south. This access could be affected by the realignment as well. CR110/111 Realignment Page 1 of 3 Alternative #2 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) This was determined to be the preferred alternative by Don Rundell and Joe England. It also was the consensus choice for a preferred alternative at the meeting of property owners. Dr. Ronald Kasper expressed a willingness to consider swapping land with the owners of the Rolling Prairie Settlement if this alternative were chosen (see attached letter). Don Bizzell, representing the Rolling Prairie Settlement owners, stated that he would recommend that his client agree to this alignment and donate right-of-way for it, if certain conditions were met. These conditions are included in the attached letter from Mr. Bizzell, along with a preliminary layout of the realignment. The cul-de-sac proposed would provide access to the Rolling Prairie Concept Plan property as well as the Riley Robbins property and the Jonah Water Supply property. While Riley Robbins was unable to attend the meeting with staff, he has indicated to me that he is opposed to a realignment which would eliminate access to his property from the arterial roadway. The Cockrums would prefer that the right-of-way for the ultimate widening of CR111 be taken from the south side of the existing roadway, on property that is under their ownership. Don Bizzell has stated that this would not affect the feasibility of the preliminary layout. Alternative #3 This alignment would involve both CR111 and CR110 and would occur entirely within the limits of the Rolling Prairie Settlement Concept Plan. It would not involve the loss of roadway access for any property and would increase arterial roadway frontage for the Rolling Prairie Settlement Concept Plan. Don Bizzell was opposed to this alignment because it would create unusable areas on the Rolling Prairie site. If the realignment were to take place mostly on the Rolling Prairie site, he preferred Alternative #5. Alternative #4 This alternative shifts the realignment to the east, using more distance to realign the roadway, therefore involving the Fosberg property to the east of Rolling Prairie. This may conflict with the SH130 alignment, which will most likely cross the Fosberg property. Don Bizzell was opposed to the alignment for that reason as well as the reasons stated for his opposition to Alternative #3. No land swap is made readily apparent by this alignment, which would pass through the Fosberg property. Alternative #5 This alignment was acceptable to Don Bizzell, however, he acknowledged that it would create a potential conflict with the Alternate F of SH130, as the CR111/110 would intersect with SH130 at a severe angle. CR110/111 Realignment Page 2 of 3 Recommendation Based upon the preferences of the City and County engineers, as well as the property owners in the area, it is recommended that Alternative #2 be selected as the alignment for CR111. CR110/111 Realignment Page 3 of 3 1\\ . t•a \ tart *n ,tad+ oa 0 NOS O n . C0 n September 26, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627 To Whom it May Concern: I will be unable to attend the planning and zoning commission meeting on October 3, 1995. I would like to state my position concerning the realignment of County Road 111, as it relates to the proposed Rolling Prairie Settlement. I believe it is generally in line with conclusions reached at the September 22, 1995 meeting of the Development Services Division and adjacent landowners. The Century Plan proposes that the 90 degree turns in County Road 111 be straightened. I believe the adjacent landowners should share in the benefits and also the problems created by this realignment. I would favor that the county road be realigned as diagrammed on Exhibit A. I would also be interested in the land swap of the triangles of land created by the changes in the direction of the road. The southeast corner of my property could be swapped with the northwest corner of the Brady farm. From my point of view, this would be advantageous in that an unusable portion of land would not be created, that did not have access and was without water. I would also lose less frontage property along the road. This realignment of the county road would also be predicated upon a number of conditions. One, I would not be willing to pay for the new road since the main benefit would be for the general use of the county, nor am I interested in developing this land, other than for agricultural use. Two, the county would also build a new fence along the north side of the road. Three, I would also like to have access from my property to the County Road 111. Hopefully, the details of this can be worked out without a great deal of difficulty. Sincerely yours, -LA c 1 Ronald W. Kasper, M.D. RWK:bsm .. - / .~... / ._. `' .~...00V ' � .. ..`. ` � Steger 8z Bizzell Engineering, Inc. Consulting Engineers Surveyors 1978 South Austin Avenue Post Office Box 858 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Mr. Ed Barry, Director Department of D evelop:rert Services P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627 RE: Rolling Prairie Settlement Concept Plan Dear Sir: Georgetown Austin Area: Taylor: September 28, 1995 Telephone: Facsimile: (512)863-4521 (512)863-4523 (512)255-2582 (512)255-2632 (512)352-2254 (512)352-8081 As the result of a meeting with your staff and the affected landowners, I have prepared a preliminary layout of the proposed realignment of C.R. 111, in order to attempt to comply with the City's Century Plan. The alignment has curves with a radius of about 1200 feet which would equate to a 50 mph speed limit. The owner of this tract have agreed to realignment of C.R. 111 subject to the following conditions: l .) The road is constructed within one year of the date of approval of the concept plan, and at no cost to Brady Trust; 2.) The cost of surveying and legal work will be paid by the City/County for transfer of tracts; 3.) The Brady Trust will be paid, at the current market value, for all lands within the new right of way, less any agreed donation of land as shown on the first concept plan that was submitted to the City; 4.) The City/County would agree to construct a cul-de-sac that is near the Jonah WSC Tract, 5.) The Brady Trust would have driveway accesses as shown for all tracts that front C.R. 111 (new); Member: NSPE TSPE TSPS September 28, 1995 Mr. Ed Barry Rolling Prairie Settlement Page Two 6.) Water will be supplied to all tracts along the new C.R. 111 at no cost to the Brady Trust; and �•) FO.-tin 1 C■ 4." I 1 1 ii11 r1i •�:�� ��c� ni�.i r�nn�l�i: Lo h- re` ecti n : ..do .nn a dal • :� L�1 v.�L. a. 1 1 �vauJ ►l la aJv :.l.lutl�.Vaa� a•v • �lvV•1 V lA•auV bra GrS. I have attached a copy of the plat showing the proposed realignment for your review. Please give me a call if you should have any questions. Respectfully' Don H. Bizzell, P.E. Encicsure cc: Linda Brady DHB/pkc 271dhb02 g g > g ^ yw > g ^ J > ^ Council meeting date: October 10, 1994 Item No. _ f 4 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of Gabriel Heights Addition, Block 1, Lot 3A, and Variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located at 1409 Williams Drive ITEM SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking to enclose the drive -through portion of the building located on this site to provide additional office space for the existing real estate business. Approximately 225 square feet is to be added resulting in roughly a 40 percent increase in building area over the existing structure. In 1993 when the City Council last dealt with this property, it attached a condition requiring a submittal of a Detailed Development Plan when any further development occurred on this site. Enclosing the drive -through area for additional office space constitutes further development of the property and triggers the need for the submittal and approval of a Detailed Development Plan. To satisfy the requirements of the Detailed Development Plan, significant upgrades would need to be made to this property. To summarize, these would require the elimination of the driveway on Williams Drive, relocation of the driveway on Shannon Lane, the elimination of parking in the front yard areas and the provision of landscaping and bufferyard improvements. Additionally, the site is less than the ordinance -required one-half acre minimum. Although the identified tract is part of the larger lot 3A that includes two (2) residential properties to the southeast, the applicant has identified the smaller area as the developable portion for the commercial real estate operation. It is the applicant's desire to expand the office use but not have to make any other significant improvements to the site. He bases the request on the fact that he is leasing the property, and while willing to make the improvements to the building, does not want to incur any additional costs for upgrading the site. He indicates that his lease will to expire in 24 months and given this short duration, desires not to make improvements required by the Detailed Development Plan standards. Staff recommended that a DDP be prepared and submitted reflecting approval of the variances regarding parking, landscaping and lot size, with denial of certain variances which would result in the elimination of the driveway on Williams Drive, the relocation of the Shannon Drive entrance to comply with City standards, and provision of a bufferyard on the northeast side of the property between the commercial office and existing residential home. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None COMMENTS: At its October 3, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of a variance to the requirements of Table 34020 thereby allowing the existing lot area less than the required one-half acre minimum; to Section 33051 A. thereby allowing parking to continue to exist in the front yard; to Section 34030 requiring landscaping in front yards and to the number of plantings required; to Section 37030 E. with respect to a need for a Type D bufferyard between the parking and Williams Drive and between the existing office and other residential uses on Lot 3A; to Section 34020 F.3, Table 33030-A and Figure 33044-A thereby allowing the driveway on Williams Drive to remain; to Section 33044 allowing the driveway on Shannon Lane to remain less than 60 feet from Williams Drive; and to Section 37030 E., thereby not requiring a Type E bufferyard at the rear of the property between the office use and the residential property to the east, after making the required findings of fact. The approval of each variance is restricted only to the current use, the current tenant, and the remaining term of the current lease (25 months). Any mechanism triggering the need for a DDP as prescribed by the current Subdivision Regulations would require a complete DDP to be prepared for this property. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Submitted By: Edwar J. a ry, AICP, Directo Division o Development Servic DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF GABRIEL HEIGHTS ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 3A, AND VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, LOCATED AT 1409 WILLIAMS DRIVE OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Dale Cockerell 1103 Main Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 863-6451 AGENT: Mr. Tom Sorrells Tom Sorrells, REALTORS 1409 Williams Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-5400 FAX: 869-1967 REQUEST: Detailed Development Plan of Gabriel Heights Addition, Block 1, Lot 3A, as recorded in Volume 2572, Page 224 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. FACTS: Location: 1409 Williams Drive. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Tom Sorrells, REALTORS Existing Zoning: This tract is zoned C-1, Local Commercial Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Gabriel Heights, single family residential (RS and RM3) South: Unplatted single family residential (RS and RM-3) East: GISD, McCoy Elementary (RS) West: Gabriel Heights, single family residential and Country Club Acres, single family residential (RS) Proposed Use: No change in use, but a 225 square foot expansion is proposed. Detailed Development Plan - Gabriel Heights, Block 1, Lot 3A October 5, 1995 DD-95-08 File:GABHTS3A.DDP Page 1 Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this tract as Intensity Level 3. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: In the mid 1980's, this tract was platted as part of a larger resubdivision of a portion of Gabriel Heights subdivision resulting in a two (2) lot subdivision. This resubdivision was zoned C-1 and restricted to a specific site plan. The properties, which were originally owned by Certified Federal Savings, were taken over by the RTC in the early 1990's. Unaware of the replatting that had occurred and the zoning restrictions that had been attached, the RTC attempted to market the properties as zoned C-1 and in their original platted configuration (Lot 3A - one Commercial lot and two (2) Single Family lots). In 1993 when the existence of the plat and zoning restrictions came to light, an application to replat Lot 3A back to three (3) separate lots and to rezone without site plan restrictions was processed. The City Council in August of 1993 denied the replat and rezoned the property C-1 without attaching a specific site plan but attached conditions that required approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for a detailed development plan prior to any further development on the site. Additionally, the City retained the right at the time the DDP is approved to attach restrictions on the uses that could be made of the property and required that Lot 3A stay as one (1) contiguous lot. ANALYSIS: The applicant is seeking to expand the existing real estate office located at the intersection of Williams Drive and Shannon Lane by increasing the square footage approximately 225 square feet. This would result in approximately a 40 percent increase in the building area over the existing roughly 550 square feet contained in the office building. The existing office is located on Lot 3A which also includes two (2) residential structures to the south. While all three (3) structures are subject to the DDP requirements, the applicant desires to address only the office portion of the property. Both the conditions of the previous rezoning of the property, as well as Section 16010 A.7.a. of the Subdivision Regulations, requires the preparation and approval of a detailed development plan in full compliance with the City's design standards. Detailed Development Plan - Gabriel Heights, Block 1, Lot 3A October 5, 1995 DD-95-08 File:GABHTS3A.DDP page 2 VARIANCES: It is the applicant's intent to expand the existing office by enclosing the existing roofed drive -through area to the south of the building. This enclosure will not result in any additional impervious coverage as this portion of the property is already surfaced for parking and driveway use. Expansion of the building will, however, allow for an increase in activity on the site. Additional development on a site is one of the main reasons for the original zoning conditions and the purpose of the Subdivision Regulations requirement. The applicant indicates that they currently lease the property for a fixed time period and therefore wish to maximize the use of the property while limiting their investments given the limited duration of their lease. Therefore, they seek a number of variances which will allow them to proceed with expanding the building as proposed while not having to meet any of the typically required site design standards. The applicant has submitted a schematic drawing of the site (see Exhibit B) but not a detailed development plan (DDP) meeting the submittal requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Information normally received on a DDP allows the proper evaluation of a site's ability to satisfy the design standards. Absent this level of information, it is difficult to perform a complete evaluation to determine if variances are truly justified. However, in light of the applicant's request should the variances be approved and the objective of not making any improvements or changes to the site be satisfied, then little would be achieved by requiring a DDP. Thus, the staff position is that a DDP will be required prior to the issuance of any permits for site improvements unless all the requested variances are approved. Table 34020 Lot Size This section requires that for commercial office uses the site be a minimum of one-half acre in size. While Lot 3A satisfies this provision, when just the developed portion under consideration is examined the area is only about 0.44 acres. Thus, the existing office development is deficient in lot size and a variance to the lot area requirement would be necessary to allow for expansion of the building. Section 34020 F.3. Corner Lot Access The Subdivision Regulations require that for corner lots fronting on streets of unequal classification access be restricted to only one (1) driveway located on the lower clasification street. This provision would Detailed Development Plan - Gabriel Heights, Block 1, Lot 3A October 5, 1995 DD-95-08 File:GABHTS3A.DDP Page 3 require that the real estate office only be served from Shannon Lane and the existing driveway on Williams Drive be closed. Table 33030-A Driveway Spacing The Williams Drive access is also unable to satisfy the 450 foot spacing requirement between driveways as set out in Table 33030-A. The distance from the Williams Drive access to the real estate office is only about 55 feet from the driveway immediately to the south for the residential use on the remaining portion of Lot 3A. Figure 33044-A Spacing Between Driveways and Intersections Similarly, the distance of the Williams Drive access from Shannon Lane is unable to satisfy the 300 foot spacing requirement established by the ordinances. As a result, to comply with the DDP standards, the driveway on Williams Drive would need to be eliminated. Section 33044 Spacing Between Driveways and Intersections The driveway on Shannon Lane would also need to be adjusted to achieve the 60 foot spacing requirements from the intersection with Williams Drive as established by this section. Section 33051 A. Parking Parking is another significant area where variances are being sought. Currently the west half of the lot is surfaced and used for parking and driving area. This section of the Subdivision Regulations requires that all parking be located behind the front property line. The site currently has parking spaces for ten (10) vehicles and the current building requires a total of only three (3) spaces. The addition will add a requirement for the total structure of one (1) additional space, all of which could be satisfied in the existing parking on the south side of the property behind the front building line. However, given the surfaced area that exists, there would need to be design improvements made such as curbing or islands that would deter use of this area for parking. Alternatively, asphalt would have to be removed. It is the applicant's stated intention not to have to reduce any of their available parking area. Section 37030 Landscaping Landscaping and bufferyards are another area for variance consideration. This section requires that 15 percent of the lot area be Detailed Development Plan - Gabriel Heights, Block 1, Lot 3A DD-95-08 File:GABHTS3A.DDP October 5, 1995 Page 4 set aside for landscaping. While much of the eastern portion of the property is an open grassy area and would satisfy this requirement, the ordinance also establishes the standard that 50 percent of all landscaping be located in the front yard area. This would require approximately 1,440 square feet of landscaped area in front of the building. The landscape standards also would require a total of ten (10) trees and 20 shrubs for the site with half of those located in the front yard area. Without a complete DDP, it is not possible to evaluate this site's compliance with the landscape standards. Section 34030 E. Bufferyards Bufferyards would also be necessary to satisfy this section of the Subdivision Regulations. A type E bufferyard would be necessary at the rear of the property between the office site and the residential use, and a type D bufferyard would be necessary to screen the parking along Williams Drive. Normally a bufferyard would also be necessary between the office site and the residential uses also located on Lot 3A. However, given the common ownership of the property this does not seem warranted. Lastly, bringing this site into compliance with the ordinance would require the construction of a sidewalk along Williams Drive because none currently exists. However, sidewalks are public improvements and as a result not eligible to be considered for variances. In conclusion, the amount of building area being sought is minimal. However, the relative increase for the site is rather significant. Balancing the desires of the applicant against the longer term community objectives argues that some attempt be made to address the site plan issues set out in the ordinance. Increased activity on the site can be anticipated as a result of the expansion of the office. This argues for improvements to ensure the safety and adequacy of the site and minimize impacts on adjacent properties. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the followings of fact as required by Section 60070.B of the Subdivision Regulations: Detailed Development Plan - Gabriel Heights, Block 1, Lot 3A DD-95-08 File:GABHTS3A.DDP October 5, 1995 Page 5 "In granting approval of a request for variance the Commission shall make findings that: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." STAFF RECOMVIENDATION: Submittal of a DDP meeting the requirements of Section 27000 of the Subdivision Regulations and reflecting approval of a variance to the requirements of Table 34020 thereby allowing the existing lot area less than the required one-half acre minimum; to Section 33051 A. thereby allowing parking to continue to exist in the front yard; to Section 37030 requiring landscaping in front yards and to the number of plantings required; to Section 37030 E with respect to a need for a Type D bufferyard between the parking and Williams Drive and between existing office and other residential uses on Lot 3A, after making the required findings of fact. Denial of a variance to Section 34020 F.3, Table 33030-A and Figure 33044-A, thereby requiring the elimination of the driveway on Williams Drive; to Section 33044 requiring the driveway on Shannon Lane to be a minimum of 60 feet from Williams Drive; and to Section 37030 E. thereby requiring a Type E bufferyard at the rear of the property between the office use and the residential property to the east. Detailed Development Plan - Gabriel Heights, Block 1, Lot 3A October 5, 1995 DD-95-08 File:GABHTS3A.DDP Page 6 P&Z ACTION: At its October 3, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of a variance to the requirements of Table 34020 thereby allowing the existing lot area less than the required one-half acre minimum; to Section 33051 A. thereby allowing parking to continue to exist in the front yard; to Section 34030 requiring landscaping in front yards and to the number of plantings required; to Section 37030 E. with respect to a need for a Type D bufferyard between the parking and Williams Drive and between the existing office and other residential uses on Lot 3A; to Section 34020 F.3, Table 33030-A and Figure 33044-A thereby allowing the driveway on Williams Drive to remain; to Section 33044 allowing the driveway on Shannon Lane to remain less than 60 feet from Williams Drive; and to Section 37030 E. , thereby not requiring a Type E bufferyard at the rear of the property between the office use and the residential property to the east, after making the required findings of fact. The approval of each variance is restricted only to the current use, the current tenant, and the remaining term of the current lease (25 months). Any mechanism triggering the need for a DDP as prescribed by the current Subdivision Regulations would require a complete DDP to be prepared for this property. Detailed Development Plan - Gabriel Heights, Block 1, Lot 3A October 5, 1995 DD-95-08 File:GABHTS3A.DDP Page 7 EXHIBIT A GABRIEL HEIGHTS 76 .3 - N. �\/ \ N. 60 / j .:� 7 -= - \ 758 8 'w. iti: 'c::: \ \ ,\ \.758.7 757 � � 9 :t: :.. i:: l \ • � • � •, � '=: 'mot'::: . �f EXHIBIT B i y � v v � y Z l J � Z z As pAq h Z Q Drive-thru to be enclosed 3o L rr L WILLIAMS DRIVE Council meeting October 10, 1995 Item No. 4�9 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Variance to the platted building setbacks at Stonehedge Subdivision, Section One, Block H, Lot 20 (aka Churchill Farms) ITEM SUNIlVIARY: This request is for a variance to Section 34020 F.4. of the Subdivision Regulations which requires 25 foot front yard setbacks on both frontages of corner lots. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the setback of fences and other structures built on the secondary frontage of corner lots conforms to the primary front yard setback on adjacent interior lots. The requested variance would allow the house to be built to within 15 feet of the property line on the secondary front yard (along Reinhardt Boulevard), while the three (3) adjacent lots have 25 foot front yard setbacks on this street. If this variance is approved, it will allow different setbacks for structures and fences along the primary frontages of the corner lot and the adjacent interior lots. Variance requests for a smaller secondary front yard setback are typically approved by the Commission and Council only if they are located on a corner lot that is adjacent to another corner lot, thus maintaining a consistent setback along the secondary frontage of both lots. The subject lot was included in a variance request in 1994 to allow fences to be built along the property line of the secondary front yard of corner lots (see Exhibit B in the staff report). That variance was denied on the subject lot because of the desire to maintain the consistent setbacks. The basis for denial of the previous variance on the subject lot continues to be applicable. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COAC%4ENTS: At their regular meeting of October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the requested variance to Section 34020 F.4. for Stonehedge Subdivision, Section One, Block H, Lot 20. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report Submitted Bv: Edwar J. Barry, CP - Director Divisioh of Devel pment Services Hildy L. gma, , AIC Chief Planner VARIANCE TO THE PLATTED BUILDING SETBACKS AT STONEHEDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTIONS ONE, BLOCK H, LOT 20 (AKA CHURCHILL FARMS) OWNER / APPLICANT: BA Homes, Inc. Mr. Vic Landig 4130 Spicewood Springs Road, Ste 200 Austin, Texas 78759 794-8513 FAX: 794-8073 AGENT: Mr. John Rhodes 4130 Spicewood Springs Road, Ste 200 Austin, Texas 78759 794-8513 FAX: 794-8073 REQUEST: Variance to the platted building setback requirements for Stonehedge Subdivision, Section One, Block H, Lot 20 (aka Churchill Farms) as recorded in Cabinet G, Slides 280-282 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas. FACTS: Location: 101 Reinhardt Court. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Platted single family residential lot. Existing Zoning: RS, Residential Single Family. Proposed Use: Single family residential. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: Single family residences (RS) Notification: Notification requirements have been completed. History: The subdivision plat of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section One, was recorded in 1985. The Subdivision Ordinance in place at the time required that the building line on the secondary front yard of corner lots be no less than 15 feet, while the primary frontage was required to be a minimum of 25 feet. The subdivision was platted to provide the 15 foot setbacks on the corner lots that are adjacent to a corner lot, but not on those corner lots that are adjacent to interior lots. In that case, a 25 Variance-B.L. - Stonehedge Subdivision, Sec. One, Blk H, Lot 20 October 3, 1995 VR#-95-23/ File:STNHGE20.VAR Page 1 CM:HK foot front yard is provided on both frontages. The current Subdivision Regulations require that both frontages of corner lots provide a 25 foot setback and that corner residential lots be ten (10) feet wider than the average interior lots. Variances to the current ordinance are typically granted when a request is made to allow a 15 foot front yard setback on the secondary frontage of back-to-back corner lots, but not on corner lots that are adjacent to interior lots. The Commission and Council have been concerned about maintaining consistent setbacks along a street frontage. In July 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council approved a variance request for multiple lots in the Stonehedge Subdivision, Sections One and Two, to allow fences to be built on the property line along the secondary frontage of selected corner lots. The variance was granted only on those lots that would enable a consistent frontage to be maintained along a block face. The variance was denied in those cases where the corner lot is adjacent to an interior lot. The subject lot, Block H, Lot 20, was part of that earlier request and was one of the lots for which the variance was denied. SEE EXHIBIT B ANALYSIS: This request is for a variance to Section 34020 F.4. of the Subdivision Regulations which requires 25 foot front yard setbacks on both frontages of corner lots. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the setback of fences and other structures built on the secondary frontage of corner lots conforms to the primary front yard setback on adjacent interior lots. The requested variance would allow the front yard setback on Reinhardt Boulevard to be reduced to 15 feet, while the three (3) adjacent lots have 25 foot front yard setbacks on this street. SEE EXHIBITS C and D If this variance is approved, it will allow different setbacks for structures and fences along the primary frontages of the corner lot and the adjacent interior lots. The subject request differs from the previous request in Stonehedge Subdivision because the variances granted in 1994 allow only a fence to encroach into the front yard setbacks. This request would allow the house to be constructed to within 15 feet of the property line on Reinhardt Boulevard. SEE EXHIBIT D The basis for denial of the previous variance on the subject lot continues to be applicable, however. It has been the goal of the Commission and Council to maintain a consistent setback on a street frontage. They have applied this goal to each similar variance request that has been made. In fact, a variance request was denied in the Riverview Estates subdivision in 1994 because it involved corner lots adjacent to interior lots and, Variance-B.L. - Stonehedge Subdivision, Sec. One, Blk H, Lot 20 VP,#-95-23/ File:STNHGE20.VAR CM:HK October 3, 1995 Page 2 therefore, would have resulted in inconsistent setbacks along the street frontage. Variance: After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070. B of the Subdivision Regulations states: "In granting approval of a request for variance the Commission shall make findings that: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's documentation for the requested variance is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the requested variance to Section 34020 F.4. for Stonehedge Subdivision, Section One, Block H, Lot 20. P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the requested variance to Section 34020 F.4. for Stonehedge Subdivision, Section One, Block H, Lot 20. Variance-B.L. - Stonehedge Subdivision, Sec. One, Blk H, Lot 20 VRi/-95-23/ File:STNHGE20.VAR CM:HK October 3, 1995 Page 3 EXHIBIT A STONEHEDGE SUBDIVISION (CHU-RCHILL FARMS) AC. ONLY � � 2 3 6 ,. 4 4 7 G�0 GEOg (15.20 AC.) 3 X 1 2 3 8 7 • . L I ^ - 24.00 aC. •1' ��^ 10 1 1 r .• CITY ONLY (3.30nc) )( 4 3 I Q 5 /6 I Z T 3 4 7 E 2 15 8 ` v t 16 18 14 9 ( 35.a1 ac) I � 1 8 9 17 13 LIN y.vlrrGS a550C. I\\jI 4 73 ]_ °J 4 IMOf4ry 12 II IC 8 IS99 / 175 �\ n 6 6 7 9 IO 19 163t5 Acl I IFJ P 6 S 1. 2 6 a� 1 ) 4 11 G`P 18 AG 2 3 1 12 C KN` ^ 1T / 31 13 I4 15 16 It. 66AZ:-1 O SCHHE10ER �— a 4 5/ 532 �_�✓. l (167 AC) 3.]3AG (5.93 AC) r o, c. \ s Z2 74 25It 17 .•su u+ l,l♦t r] t. \ \ � • to LI ,r•i tl • • I. n -7'2s \ t+ l I \\\ I . 17 1. . + to > . II V ' '� y , 10 11 f \ I ] I) ] 12 1� 4 nur 11 alms co, 16- .- CO m . It 1. e L 3 C . 1 1 \ u \ B TURNER \ � II � • to to s If . n If It s 11 Ir '0 060nC \,� I > > L e 1 If e r' o f • 10 k � m L' 11 7 17 If 7 • ,��, 1 • • f ,f j t7 f 1• If 10 f `\� i JOE B MCI.IASTER pJl/9)� I 0 ,Q i! 11 4 ] \ 17 H Q 3 1 11 I• ' 13 (,GIG:.) I ,: 1] 14 t i �►� ,• l I 913 AC 1- / 1' a/� LASE H •It t m 4' 1 7 / 895 I 1 3 Cal EI-+ORY C��LSOa / O 16 aC — 3a5/a95 / IS6 5 A 6 SITE EXHIBIT B STONEHEDGE SUBDIVISION (CHURCHILL FARMS) Proposed secondary front yard encroachment .of fence into 1 5` building setbac.�P� zg \ ` .24 AC. • CITY Ot-Y � 2 3 \\ I 6 5 L 6 ' '.. v)N C� S� 1 I 4 6 5 E a 3 7 �ORG G ).2O AC) 1, 3 T, 2 7 { I • L p 8 13 �• 24.00 -IC g 9 n 10 t .• �,O g CITY ONLY (J. .)O At) X"� 3 4 I$ 1 i� 7 2 3 4 7, 7enclf 2 v I I 15 g 16 14 � 3 10 2 18 9 LIN SAV'NGS I AssOC (\ I t99 4 17 7 3 S 4 13 12 II IC I I v 5 iS99/17� pR\� 7 e 6 9 ( 163 D Ate) I 6 6 t0 19 S, . 2 6 At v 11 �P ( 75 �Y� S7S AC- I 2 I ll / I 31 13 (7 15 16 ! 1166AC-i O S.CH IOER A4s/5u I ()67 AC) (S 93 AC) Z ) ro1C. xr�. \ I tt " t♦ 2) i 17 t• e n ♦,.�v• i) 24 a tI G ' I � 13 q \ L V • 1• \\ I Z Z z m 'Ti ,• I Z \ \ I 1 I • ) ) L 12 1 -31 ' • I vO 6 TtJRNE R \ • i i) ♦ 21 rd ) tf • V 7 ® a 1• 1t n t• t aIT 11 9 \ I • • Z1 �• LP n �• A n j• • �• • 1a u1♦ 1L t , ;Z/ J DOE B y STER 83,/9l,4 1 H Z s 1.01G ) I t t ' a tom• 9 i 3 �C 1 • I) - • � m • ;♦ 7 ; a95 ' E uORY CA I L \ _ co S 'C Fences currently built or under construction Recommend denial of variance ® Recommend approval of variance q� p O lam• / Si J•�'�5 . O' ^ y 7�y OS a�i O (LJ QT! h �� /y f.' %/ ^a {7V gge f�uE e� /�3 �� �+ /% lNi Cb ^ /Z k' a m 2 1.3 ir•� 0 C B[. d9 h yBS o n� n'POAk � T '9Bj,o /[ O �`O C,y SBA" /ps o �, B s �P• Nfts� 441 (YC l o' a' a- ,. F 00 N 'o Q h r199f ems!<• FAR / 0 /36.3 r gJ'lSE t0 n SCig�1l3/' f. 'ptik {� N87/9 h; Bz MS Q 0 0 3 '�'a,. hY gr94_ o G LFSTftgj 51.79'r Q 0 B9° h' •trE. J•p =l !2' O �• �, .Cf•Q e ,� � Op, h• � � '� p ti 53I°QS' tV y l Z b' 0 r IQti0 /A:1//' �zds' � oy h 'vsj soo hb aw off' v' q49 r�,� �'Ts•o°, `�nh �, h /2 o Z Q 8 v B9• ^ E q t O N 0 r•vrzf �C/ i � � -�'' � 22 h �, �� •o� 2 c r re j z : /Z ,dF gs'-�s' h b '•e< "� s lv �tih ��, oY j � ° o h0• �• a 1. �, . � /, e' o o. c /3 E a ,ti 7� �r, ; � o 'y ' Z3 ^ %� _ 'S Opr o• J+to• `'� a d/• d9 0 Co /2 (� .V Ne9. oo, uh i /yJ, " a y '� 9r o 1.3t 4 S w S'�Kf S 71 so, h' B/. �� ,q�jb'. 2 O� c•p r 0v7a. rC'• 0..y 6' �9 0 Ste• //y grd' Pp sl�rSt t 7,. c y P �► °0' Lh V� �W v N vs3• 34, y e V 1 y J, 00' lS °ems c• t 49• Z , jE �% S O c �' 3S • ig O b ti -7S �e l . �T �c B. 4, rJ -tee O C.7 !' 1 ll• t v. tie9• \\ V r F. 6..f6 : h '` ej y` r j/ 1 [•s '�/. yZ, �,, !� ql, S I.iO' ,�• �.f.: •e f -E ©tv Zg Ze' /iS rB Pe' 'ii h, C• ar. -j rS� ^In n 3 Sq• �' NIo•Js'E :2.st JB J9, W. o ,z h�, c cP . Q. t. c• sss �' b h /!o ti h rsa ; a Z A• P.42' /,y o9 S Pao h '1 �g�3 0' 4O ;Q�f. �� �. / y,`�� • O O C. rest ,, _ �_ tic a eY� /9 f T m:.,v e9• h Ne,°_. ` .vo__ 1 ? �sS.. . I Tu 0b� c4' L4 � �� ., p`�, v 0 /2s 9p' rY � `�;, �,,,��� �,.,, � •9' � � o ° C= ZS 53' w� 8 � ti � �6/' e V V V Y 2 \ a , ti n• O J • �, !0 0 /9 a n Vm �% V 5/7 t/'/9"E . p riuE. 3 j �� V hK � : \� tih b N � � "1. 7i /`7 " n "0 /J h�� o 'may A•46.83' : q5 ° 7 N `\``t:,� , 0 0 B.L. \ Boo a O q o �- 164.29' /25.0 �ti ^ C • 46. »' Z /¢ n ?^ y / V L / ;M ..; ;;:w;4,a,'\4 11 i - o r /36.00' v s.?OE /3 /090 +.\,.:;> :: . q' \ N 6B 4/ E N 68°9/'E 2 ° e N X h� a o $ !\`�h, � Rtc;\s�.. .b a -� � ba " ``' o N6 E a.c. � \:s;�!;:n`,Y `a"` `, D�' 0 0 ' ¢ ° 04 /4 � B°4/' 7 ^ // �� \ C\ av �a h O �h W O S/uL. S� �59' �7.7 • ` _ 6. S[, 1� S E Z `,��\''��\lfi�;4. ` h� �• yp /B z .� �„ v._ d O� 'O NY7'o7'4t .�.•:\Sa`.Sj�`�;:`.,. c� a `�'S'D.uE. a N74°3S'E y / c�'-30 sN �..� /30.00' o y,. � ti � ,; ti • - •^_27.'ID' ss9• _� ",•'%6- M N!�"4/'E ,� y� N68°4/E' /35.00' ��. � 7'e.t. O F ^� V•:'+1 O . i �. �1 RC •-{3'','�.. �z7L tz.q o -",` �, O o ° '14/./ b �•r�OZ•7 ° 5 vi 0 n a �v N684/'E y'4R p; R og5'E /3 t h 3� 55 p 31'Zy zi ` 1 O 5 N ° 4i SffJ - A- 35.°g f /3 a �^� � a L� m /30.00' /15. •'�¢ Pat. � � J •13 59' N 40 4/'E C = 30,»' N1i•9'30'w o /(o y? a ti a o Ssb'i979 E CwRT ?e ` /7 A168'4/'E LLJ /6 A:2/.41' it 5798' s700' e v A=4.3/' y 4oh ,v'ro �' a°° C=zo.4/' ci ti o f z � N6d'4/' o C=4.31' �v n ,h o o es° 6 �9 $ m 6 °` Q 3 0 /2 0 �� o F- /0.00 = 113.24'+, 3 C; ,.,c �32 1Q sus. oS ti 5 d b 16804/'E ? N68°41'E lTW - /®? h M �6. a� 1 �b sJE /30. 00 • /z5. oo' 0 2 a d) Z h o N68*41, m N68°4/'E 135.00' $ ")1'PtJE S'PU6. /4 ^ /S /b re.c. m ° 3 $ CL o N6P411E ^ S6.B3 67evI oti^I e reye ti o 4 510°46'33' ,M N20'SL'Q?"W; o F- m Y4 u F v 7 R rPUE. .i % A. /4. i' v�5 w h A• /0. 97' v� d o y o Ii 3B'E //0. 00'_ } 1/o.04'_. v,� 3.69' rat ti o ti c• q.63 C•10.97' // ^ v to h N6B°4/'E�'f s6B°4/Eryt� 75.00'-- 68.00 =-�:E� /36.4 g=/z9•B6' 125.07' ^ I a ac•1/.zo' $ SZ/'Z'1- 1 6B°4rE L8.00' --- ° 135.00' r: ° sv� . 6B 45' N b6'41'E _ !� N 68 4/'E 11 ti /4 A-8. z/' n y 7'G.c. J'PuE rruE. ��ry N6B°4/'E % ti h ti V W S'/U. E. '� 5?ttE. i' �'d.t. re.c h s�d•4's3"E i n, ,y� JPt6 h h of 3 8 A- 58.41' Y > n o O �'a.t o /3 ° /Z // m /0 c=se.4n' /9 ���q ° /0 0 7 v o a 7Z.0p' d�oo VN6d°4/'E - IV68°¢� `► n �n ti • ^ a tzs.6s'_ ti �• �, !9/' 19.1iL Sz3'4i'w ° f vf�'/9'w� Si9'71T7< i O N 7/°3S'E -- h t3S.00' 2 SO' h Y1 3 ` N74 05'E Y2 ' z3. ss'/Z PO.W. h h A• 3i.42'=/0.73' S 7/•4S a J P✓.! ° 8 9 _ /sac. c ZB•zB' c • za. zB' c•/0. 73' - e.t. e N 68 4/'E c• zi. z/' e'W 1S' w 9 s 19's w } i A•67.03' of _ 1'19.56' kO v M. 9 rd.t Wv o h o 'y., "^ ti 95.00' 90.00' SS.DO' S7.17' c=67.0/' �p�' �' $ y ° SI3'4/'W 1 O O O ti ti 568°4/'W _B°4/'w /0J.94' R «' en•r� d A•rsss' '/9 aW 4.7�ol' cY' L. [•z7.1/' C•Z/.11, �D , H a3 BELMONT DRIVE S74'S w / 0 4z.s7' �•7301' O l /10. DO' 57.10' A'6B•a' a O 0 /68'41't `� J -- - S 7* QS'ry z L47' S 6B•4/'W 65 00' b) JO' O�.uv' 5500- 6S.a0' 47'?, 39.97' LPrc �•at. S66'/9Ir 13'41'E N69°S3'36"E �O96' i9 h rec Ti ei A•3141 •j/41' 11 N7I°31JLE PS�'---z • 3t74' 615.41 ' r cC-40.10tee. Vr C= 3z.73' C= 40.30' II [. z'e.�. a 6,4T /10. DO d5. aa' I5.00' EXHIBIT D Proposed variance to reduce Reinhardt Blvd. building line setback from 25'feet to 15"fee't 1 k CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its regular pu`15Fic meeting of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. This meeting will be held on the 3rd day of October , 1995, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed: Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Stonehedge Subdivision (aka Churchill Farms), Section One, Block H, Lot 20, located at 101 Reinhardt Court. As one of the owners of adjacent property you are invited to be present at such meeting if you desire to discuss the proposed plan. See attached Exhibit A for more detail. Date: 9/ 18/95 City of Georgetown A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services Division at 930-3575 or come by 113 East 8th Street. PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Stonehedge Subdivision, Sec One, Block H, Lot 20 Name of Respondent: J it 44 ot Address of Respondent: J� O it -!'Op-t p� 'V L� i am in favor: I object: 22 If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 9/27/95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PUBLIC MEETING r '" Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its regularr'publi eeting of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. This meeting will be held on the 3rd day of October , 1995, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed: Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Stonehedge Subdivision (aka Churchill Farms), Section One, Block H, Lot 20, located at 101 Reinhardt Court. As one of the owners of adjacent property you are invited to be present at such mccung ii �,ou desire to discuss the proposed plan. See attached Exhibit A for more detail. Date: 9/ 18/95 City of Georgetown A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services Division at 930-3575 or come by 113 East 8th Street. PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Sto Name of Respondent: Address of Respondent: 40��- ivision. Sec I am in favor: KN I object: H, Lot 20 iTNt1a9tf Hc-od), If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 9/27/95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERT Y OWNE ! OF A PUBLIC MEETING f t l f Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its regular public meeting of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. This meeting will be held on the 3rd day of October 1995, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed: Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Stonehedge Subdivision (aka Churchill Farms), Section One, Block H, Lot 20, located at 101 Reinhardt Court. As one of the owners of adjacent property you are invited to be present at such meeting if you desire to discuss the proposed plan. See attached Exhibit A for more detail. Date: 9/ 18/95 City of Georgetown A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Serrvrices Division at 930-3575 or come by 113 East 8th Street. PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Stonehedge Subdivision, Sec. One, Block H_, Lot 20 --- Name of Respondent: � S �44 Address of Respondent: �> O ntTk -1R-7sq I am in favor. I object: If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 9/27/95, it %Vill be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Council Meeting Date: October 10, 1995 Item No. �G AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT An ordinance amending stormwater drainage rates. First Reading. ITEM SUMMARY Stormwater drainage rates will be raised S0.50 per month for customers. This increase will be used to pay for costs of drainage maintenance operations. The revised rate will be $1.25 per billing unit. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The revenue increase will help offset the Stormwater Drainage Fund's operating deficit. FINANCIAL IMPACT This proposed change has been used in the preparation of the Annual Operating Plan Element of the City of Georgetown Century Plan for 1995/96. COMMENTS This ordinance has been properly published in the local paper and the ordinance made available for public inspection. Therefore, full public reading is not required. State law requires an additional 30 days notice for changes to drainage ordinances. This requirement and the additional notification requirements have been met. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Ordinance. Submitted By: Ir' r Susan L. Morgan, Director of Finance and Administration v ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING CITY OF GEORGETOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES §13.28.100 RELATING TO STORMWATER DRAINAGE FEES; AND §13.28.020 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS OF BENEFITTED PROPERTY; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, within the City of Georgetown ("City") there is an existing municipal drainage system which has been developed over a number of years for the purpose of collecting and disposing of stormwater runoff, and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown desires to develop a Citywide Master Drainage Utility Plan for compliance with the Century Plan; and WHEREAS, portions of the present system are inadequate to control and manage stormwater runoff within the incorporated limits; and WHEREAS, the present system requires maintenance rehabilitation and periodic improvements to control and manage stormwater runoff within the incorporated limits; and WHEREAS, the Clean Water Act requires that certain cities regulate stormwater drainage in order to reduce the generation and discharge of nonpoint source pollutants into receiving water courses and water bodies; and WI -AREAS, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission regulates the activities conducted over the Edwards Aquifer, in order to reduce generation of these pollutants, and subsequent contamination of the aquifer, and in furtherance of the requirements of the Clean Water Act; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary and essential to ensure that the collection and disposal of stormwater drainage within the city limits adequately protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Georgetown including, but not limited to, the protection from loss of life and property caused by surface water overflows and surface water stagnation; and WHEREAS, it is necessary and essential that the City address the various environmental issues that may further burden its infrastructure requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has examined into the manner and time of the giving and publishing of the notice of a hearing to consider this proposed ordinance and has found that notice of said hearing was duly, properly and legally given as required by law, said notice having been given Amending § 13.28.100 Ordinance No. Pagel of 4 by advertisement inserted at least three times prior to the date of such hearing, in a newspaper published and of general circulation in the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas, the first of which publications was made at least on or before thirty (30) days before the date of the hearing; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the provisions of Chapter 402, Subchapter C, as amended, Local Government Code (the "Act") to establish a municipal drainage utility ("Drainage Utility") within the boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the provisions of the Act to provide rules for the use, operation, and financing of the Drainage Utility; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the provisions of the Act to prescribe bases on which the Drainage Utility may be funded and fees in support of the drainage utility may be assessed, levied, and collected; and WI -AREAS, in setting the schedule of charges for drainage service the calculations are based on an inventory of the lots and tracts within the City and the size, area and topography of benefitted properties; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to fund a Drainage Utility which fairly and equitably allocates the cost of drainage to property owners in proportion to the stormwater drainage runoff potential for each property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Government Code, Chapter 402, Subchapter C, the City of Georgetown has adopted Ordinance No. 92-18 which declares the drainage services of the municipality to be a public utility; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the establishment of a drainage utility fee will be held on October 10, 1995, after publication of this proposed ordinance in the Williamson County Sun on September 6, 17 and 24, 1995; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown is of the opinion that the proposed stormwater drainage fee changes are warranted to cover operating costs of the utility; and WHEREAS, the City Council has also deemed it necessary to amend the definition of "Benefitted Property" to comply with recent changes in state law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly Amending § 13.28.100 Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4 made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance implements Finance Policy 1 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element, which states: "the City will conduct all municipal operations in an efficient business like manner", and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. Section 13.28.020 Definition is amended as follows: "Benefitted property" means an improved lot or tract to which a drainage service is made available under this ordinance mid whicirt ecie v ea water, wastewater or electric titility sel V ice rm roved ,lot or tract , means a lot or Tract that; has a structure or` other improvement on that causes an impervious coverage bf the soil under the stiucture or SECTION 3. Section 13.28.100, relating to Stormwater Drainage Utility Fees, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown, is hereby amended for billing periods ending after October 31, 1995 as follows: 13.28.100 Calculation of drainage utility fees. C. The following BU rate is established and shall be used to calculate the total monthly drainage utility fee for all property located in the City, in accordance with the applicable formula established in the ordinance codified in this section: BU rate = $6-75 $1.25 per BU per month SECTION 4. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10) ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. Amending § 13.28.100 Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4 PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of , 1995. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of , 1995 ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Amending § 13.28.100 Ordinance No. Page 4 of 4 By: LEO WOOD Mayor Council meeting date: 10 /10 /95 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Appointment of Council member to the Georgetown Public Library Long Range Planning Committee ITEM SUMMARY The Library Advisory Board, appointed by the City Council, is preparing to write a long range plan under the guidance of the Central Texas Library System. The Board is assembling a Long Range Planning Committee to do the work, and have asked that the City Council appoint a member to serve on that Committee. This planning process is particularly important given several factors now at play in Georgetown: 1. Rapid population growth, leading to increased service demands (especially services for children). 2. A changing demographic mix, leading to demands for different kinds of Library services. 3. The advance of technology, again leading to demands for more services such as Internet connections, and allowing for new ways of providing information to citizens 4. The impact of the nascent Georgetown Project, which will forseeably require library - type services FINANCIAL IMPACT None ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter of 9/27/95 from Pat Ball, Chair Library Advisory Board Submitted By: Elizabeth Gray, Direct r of Information Services CITY ueorggIt"Own OEO IN 1848 September 27, 1995 Friends of the Georgetown Public Library 808 Martin Luther King Georgetown, Texas Dear Friends, The Georgetown Public Library Advisory Board is assembling a long range planning committee. The committee will analyze the information needs of our rapidly growing community and how the Georgetown Public Library can best fill those needs over the next ten years. The committee will be composed of five members of the Library Advisory Board, five members of the Library staff and five citizens representing additional community viewpoints. The committee will meet about every six weeks over the next eight months. Among the viewpoints we need will be that of the Friends of the Library, our partners in supporting library services and programs. We are requesting that you appoint a representative to serve on this committee. Ideally, it would be someone who is a frequent user of current services at the Georgetown Public Library as well as able to convey the Friends' views. Would it be possible to have a representative appointed by the first scheduled meeting of the committee Monday, October 16? When you decide, we will provide a briefing packet on the long range planning process to the selected member. If you have any questions, please call me at 869-2085 or Mary Pat McLaughlin at 930-3551. Pat Ball Chair, Library Advisory Board cc: Elizabeth Gray, Director of Information Resources Mary Pat McLaughlin, Library Services Director GEORGETOWN PUBLIC LIBRARY BO8 MARTIN LUTHER ICING ' GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626-5527 • 512/930-3551 • FAX: 51 2/930-3622 • TOO: 512/930-3507 ftCouncil meeting date: 10-10-95 Item No. E AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consideration of a nomination for the Williamson County Appraisal District Appraisal Review Board ITEM SUMMARY The Board of Directors for Williamson County Appraisal District is looking for nominees for the 1996-1997 terms on the Appraisal Review Board. They will continue to appoint members from each of the geographic areas. The current Appraisal Review Board has two members from Round Rock, two from Leander, one from Taylor, one from Georgetown and one from Liberty Hill. The four members whose terms end this year are one from Round Rock, one from Taylor and two from Leander. Recommendations are due to the Board before November 1 so that interviews can be scheduled. ATTACHMENTS None mi fz4ai�� Bob Hart, City Manager