Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 03.26.1996From: Bruce Page 1 of I I t « F at the Jul` round rather -niat' T 11 1 1 eeks L-11.111'Cd infbi ion in SIX d-j;'i- a'11hZ xNC'S publi. � tic I 1 PO'Stcd kltL fhursdav evenln�. N I arch 21 or rid the 0tv ScCret',11-N.. Slmdra L-C,C. to amend the Benda and Community Services GITT OF own I�UNCHEQ IN 1949 DATE: March 25, 1996 TO: Mayor and Council Members HROUGH: Bob Hart �4FROM: Hartley Sappington 1SUBJECT: Appointment to Building Standards Commission Memorandum Attached are two applications to fill the vacancy for the mechanical/HVAC trade position on this commission. The Building Standards Commission must have all trade positions present at a commission meeting in order to take any actions. Without this appointment the commission cannot address some important building code issues before it. Both Mike Reaves of A-1 Reliable Services, Inc. and Roger StuthF f A-1 Georgetown are local business owners who are qualified to serve on a commission. The staff recommends the appointment of either person. The staff will be bringing to you in a subsequent meeting recommendations to fill the alternate positions on this commission. Once these positions are filled, it will enable the commission to fulfill its requirements under ordinance in a more timely manner. Roger Stuth 505 Oak Crest Georgetown, Texas 78628 869-7988 Home 863-9053 Office Owner of A-1 Georgetown since 1984 TACL B 6590C Have been is HVAC business since 1976. Please complete and return this application by Friday, January 511996, Application for Boards & Commissions (Please attach a cover letter or r6sum6 which explains your background and interests.) Name:-f L," FH Address: S—O p City & ZIP: 29C.29 Home Phone: 1' ,C 9 — 2 2(99 Work Phone: _ r1�, 3 — } Do you live inside the Yes c-- Georgetown City Limits? No Please rank up to your first three choices for Boards and/or Commissions to serve on. Airport Advisory Board L Building Standards Commission Board of Adjustment Board of Electrical Examiners Convention & Visitors Board Georgetown Hospital Authority Georgetown Housing Authority Historic Preservation Commission Library Advisory Board Parks & Recreation Board Planning & Zoning Commission Wmsn. County & Cities Health Dist. Signature: Date: � 91 Please return to: Mayor and City Council P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627-0409 Please complete and return this 1 application by Friday, January 5, 1996. Application for Boards & Commissions (Please attach a cover letter or r6sum6 which explains your background and interests.) Name: c-- Address: City & ZIP:wn �(v Home Phone: Z' Work Phone: Do you live inside the Yes Georgetown City Limits? No_� Please rank up to your first three choices for Boards and/or Commissions to serve on. Airport Advisory Board Building Standards Commission Board of Adjustment Board of Electrical Examiners Convention & Visitors Board Georgetown Hospital Authority Georgetown Housing Authority Historic Preservation Commission Library Advisory Board Parks & Recreation Board Planning & Zoning Commission Wmsn. County & Citigoealth Dist. Signature, Date: -3 0`3 Please return to: Mayor and City Council P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627-0409 MICHAEL REAVES, C.P.A. 10023 Circleview Drive Austin, Texas 78733 (512) 263-9730 CAPABILITIES PROFILE Senior level management executive with demonstrated abilities in all aspects of financial and operational management. Highly competent analytical skills ensure that challenges and objectives are met in a timely, professional manner. Experienced in using organizational skills to provide leadership in identifying and solving problems. Proven ability to develop and maintain customer relationships. ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Managed, as Chief Operating Officer, the implementation of all policies, procedures and board decisions for $120 million bank. Directed reorganization of lending area to increase efficiency and improve regulatory rating. • Led team responsible for due diligence reviews and price determination of banks for acquisition. Four banks were purchased from FDIC during this period and integrated into a single unit over a one-year period. Managed team responsible for implementing accounting systems, internal controls and other operational systems in purchased banks. • Managed senior officers responsible for retail operations, commercial lending, trust, compliance and mortgage lending. Implemented and conducted regular officer meetings (including all management staff). • Directed Internal Audit Department (eight professionals) responsible for three banks in an $800 million holding company. • Prepared annual strategic plan, based upon input from Board of Directors and senior management, including development of goals and strategies. • Prepared and implemented annual budget and operating plan for all divisions of the bank and served as Chief Financial Officer. Conducted regular budget meetings to provide feedback and information concerning budget performance. • Served as liaison between Board of Directors and management and employees, including all preparation of agenda and supporting documents for monthly Board meetings. • Implemented and directed weekly meetings of senior management team to focus on challenges and opportunities and to foster improved communications. • Approved all capital expenditures and negotiations for leased space, comprising three full service locations with one additional under negotiation. • Served as primary contact for bank's regulators concerning all correspondence and examinations. • Directed management and leasing of 52,000 square foot building, 7,200 square feet occupied by bank. • Directed 1993 American Heart Association Development campaign, raising $476,000 net and was awarded the outstanding campaign award for metropolitan areas within the state. • Participated on search committee of local social service agency, including screening, interviewing and selecting new director. EXPERIENCE WORTHEN NATIONAL BANK OF TEXAS, Austin, Texas 1990-1994 (Formerly Union National Bank, Austin, Texas) Presiden- UNION NATIONAL BANK OF ARKANSAS, Little Rock, Arkansas 1985-1990 Senior Vice President and Auditor FROST AND COMPANY, Little Rock, Arkansas 1978-1985 Certified Public Accountants Audit Manager EDUCATION Bachelor of Business Administration, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, Arkansas Major: Accounting, Minor: Finance Graduated Summa Cum Laude; Outstanding Student School of Business; Wall Street Journal Award Winner. OVyu i WC-7 llh5 v lU 's.Z 1 AIT-lo U //V 6 06w ") / 770 u CW /CCU-5t ,� �� C)C March 26, 1996 ,ir. Mavor and Council Members: My name is Frank Farmenter. I reside at 4106 Sequoia Trail East in Georgetown, Texas. I might as well be brief. You are probably aware that I oppose the proposed 1/2-cent sales -tax increase. Most likely you have already made up Your minds to go ahead with placing it on a voting ballot, but I feel it is important that I, at least, voice my objection. The slanted survey and its distorted conclusions have been a deceitful charade to provide an excuse to put it on the ballot. I don't believe that the citizens will be "hood -winked" into passing this tax increase any more than the past two (2) attempts that it failed. You, as Council Members, were voted in office to represent the citizens and should abide by their wishes. You should not go through this disgraceful occurrance time after time until you hope to finally squeek it through with a new gimmick. If you do go ahead with this proposal, SHAME ON YOU! You will be embarrassed when the citizens again say "NO!" THINK ABOUT IT! 'March 26, 1996 Mr. Mavor and Council Members: My name is Frank Parmenter. I reside at 4106 Sequoia Trail East in Georgetown, Texas. I might as well be brief. You are probably aware that I oppose the proposed 1/2-cent sales -tax increase. Most likely you have already made up your minds to go ahead with placing it on a voting ballot, but I feel it is important that I, at least, voice my objection. The slanted survey and its distorted conclusions have been a deceitful charade to provide an excuse to put it on the ballot. I don't believe that the citizens will be "hood -winked" into passing this tax increase any more than the past two (2) attempts that it failed. You, as Council Members, were voted in office to represent the citizens and should abide by their wishes. You should not go through this disgraceful occurrance time after time until you hope to finally squeek it through with a new gimmick. If you do go ahead with this proposal, SHAME ON YOU! You will be embarrassed when the citizens again say "NO!" THINK ABOUT IT! ` r 3 National League of Cities Q" Background. At its March 9, 1996, meeting, the National League of Cities Board of Directors adopted a five point Action Agenda which defines major legislative priorities for 1996. The five issues selected by the Board reflected the priorities of thousands of members who shared their perspectives with the NLC leadership before the final agenda was adopted. The 1996 Action Agenda incorporates the positions reflected in the National Municipal Policy statements, builds on the successes of 1995, provides a clear framework for advocacy at the national level on behalf of cities and towns, organizing grass roots efforts around clearly -defined issues, and ensuring that NLC members speak with one clear voice on issues that are important to cities and towns. ## 1 Reducing the federal Deficit and Controlling Entitlements We, as leaders of the nation's cities, urge prompt action by the President and members of Congress on a non -partisan basis to stop borrowing from our children and begin investing in their future. We urge a commitment to swift action on a fair and balanced budget that calls on all Americans to make a shared sacrifice. We cannot afford delay. Putting off resolution of these issues until next year's election is irresponsible. It will increase the debt. It will further defer action on the much graver deficit issues which neither the President nor the Congress has been willing to address. It will continue to erode Americans' trust in governance. There can be no equity if only half the federal budget is subject to deficit reduction. It is inequitable for the federal government to ask those with the least, including at risk, the elderly to pay a disproportionately high share to balance years of federal deficits. It is inequitable to provide new tax breaks until there is a clearly defined achievement, to which all Americans contribute, to reduce the deficit and national debt. To ensure enactment of a balanced plan, we support these principles: • There must be a shared sacrifice by the American people to achieve fair and balanced deficit elimination, and all parts of the federal budget must be on the table. • There must be a reasonable transition period for states and local governments to prepare for any significant shifts of liability and responsibility from the federal to state and local levels of government. • There can be no tax cuts or new tax expenditures unless and until legislation to achieve a balanced federal budget has been enacted and implemented. 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue., N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20004 • (202) 626-3000 1b • All sides must use one set of fiscal and economic projections --those prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). • The computation of the Consumer Price Index must be revised to more accurately reflect inflation. • There must be a federal -state -local agreement on ways to reduce the cost of health, welfare, and nutritional needs of children and families. Such an agreement must achieve real savings, instead of simply shifting burdens to other levels of government. • A needs assessment component should be created and applied to all non -means -tested federal entitlement programs so that we are assured of shared sacrifice based upon ability to pay. #2 Fixing Current Mandates Congress has passed and the President has signed the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. That is the first step toward revising the relationship between the federal and local governments. Next we must move to amend specific unfunded mandates of concern to local governments. We must move forward to address existing mandates that affect current budgets and priorities of our citizens and taxpayers. Congress must act to halt the diversion of local resources away from priorities such as education, public safety, and jobs and economic development. To achieve this goal, NLC supports • A continuing commitment to devote our maximum efforts to reduction of the most burdensome provisions contained within existing federal mandates including portions of the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and Davis Bacon Act. • Strong efforts to encourage effective implementation of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, which is designed to control the number and magnitude of future unfunded mandates and to ensure greater Congressional accountability in this process. #3 Making Cities Safer Public safety continues to be a top priority and responsibility for local governments, local leaders, and their citizens. NLC supports a comprehensive approach to public safety that engages all levels of government. The challenge of protecting the public has become increasingly complex. The soaring rates of teen violent crime, the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City and deadly natural disasters have affected every aspect of community life. Municipal leaders call upon the federal government to work with us to ensure that we are better prepared to prevent and respond to these crises based upon city -specific needs. To accomplish these goals, NLC supports: • A balanced, flexible approach to federal anti -crime legislation that includes both enforcement and prevention programs. • Direct block grant assistance to cities and towns of an adequate level of anti -crime funds, with maximum flexibility in the use of those funds. • Opposition to the repeal of the Brady bill or the assault weapons ban law, or to the preemption of local ordinances to control such weapons. • Federal assistance for local efforts to prevent and respond to any threat of terrorist attacks in our nation's cities and towns. • Development of a fiscally sound, risk -based insurance system to reduce costs to federal, state, and local governments for damages and losses resulting from natural disasters. • Creation and funding of incentive -based mitigation programs to reduce disaster -related loss of life, and the costs of damage and loss to homeowners, businesses and all levels of government. • Federal training and technical assistance for municipalities to help improve pre -disaster planning and preparedness and post -disaster responses. #4 Tax Reform For the nation's cities, the current federal tax reform debate raises a host of questions about municipal budgets and investment. The most serious concerns for city leaders revolve around the potential consequences for public capital investment at a time when the federal government is sharply cutting back on direct federal assistance in public infrastructure. But the rival plans also raise questions about the federal deficit and the shifting of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal tax liabilities from wealthy individuals to middle and lower income families in communities. The disruption would be great -- not only for local governments, but also for taxpayers and citizens. Federal changes would have immediate and direct impacts on state and local revenues and budgets. Some $ 1.2 trillion dollars in outstanding capital, municipal borrowing is exempt from federal taxation. A loss or significant modification of that exemption, as proposed in every leading tax change option, could have profound effects on the ability and cost of borrowing to meet capital and infrastructure needs of all cities and towns in the future. It could mean the cost to local taxpayers of financing schools, jails, streets, and parks could increase by as much as 30 percent. NLC supports the continued use of personal and corporate income as the primary federal tax base and a progressive rate structure that reflects a taxpayer's ability to pay. NLC opposes tax reform proposals which would exacerbate the federal deficit, increase the cost of municipal public capital investment, interfere with traditional state and local tax systems, or preempt the deductibility of state and local taxes. To achieve these goals, NLC supports: • Preservation of the deductibility of state and local taxes. • Retention of tax exempt interest on municipal borrowings. • Continued use of personal and corporate income as the primary federal tax base. • A federal tax system which produces revenues sufficient to finance ongoing government services. r • Adjustment of current provisions that encourage consumption over savings, rather than a pure consumption tax. . • Broadening of the tax base. • A phasing -in of any major tax changes and recognition of the interrelationship of the federal, state, and local tax systems. #5 Housing and Community Development In 1937, the nation set a goal of providing decent, safe, and sanitary shelter for every family in every city and town across the nation. Today that promise is in danger. As the costs of federal entitlement spending have soared, they have come at the expense of many of our poorest and youngest Americans. Just as tens of thousands of .families face the end of existing contracts for shelter in cities and towns, the President and Congress are proposing budget cuts of 40 to 50 percent over the next seven years in the nation's safety net of housing and community development programs. Congress is moving forward to repeal the Housing Act of 1937, replace the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), reform and deregulate public and assisted housing, and consolidate the Community Development and HOME block grants with McKinney Homeless programs. These reforms are being driven by the strict funding limits imposed on HUD's programs. To achieve positive program reforms and an equitable contribution to a balanced budget and deficit reduction, NLC supports: • Retaining the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and HOME block grants as separate and distinct programs. • Deregulating public housing to allow public housing authorities to survive and operate efficiently and economically under the budget cuts imposed on all public housing programs. • Resolving the spiraling costs of Section 8 renewals before they consume the total budget authority available for all housing and community development programs. Adopted by the NLC Board of Directors, March 9, 1996 1996 HOT ISSUES TAX REFORM NLC supports the continued use of personal and corporate income as the primary federal tax base and a progressive rate structure that reflects a taxpayer's ability to pay. NLC opposes tax reform proposals which would exacerbate the federal deficit, increase the cost of municipal public capital investment, interfere with traditional state and local tax systems, or preempt the deductibility of state and local taxes. BACKGROUND 1996 will see debate in the Congress and by all candidates for federal office to radically change or eliminate the federal income tax. Key, aspiring Presidential candidates have made tax reform a high priority in their platforms. And Republican and Democratic leaders in the Congress have come forth with proposals which would make far greater changes in the federal tax code affecting the nation's cities and towns than ever before. Not surprisingly, almost none of the candidates or Congressional leaders have talked about the potential impact of their proposals on state and local governments. For there, the disruption would be great -- not only for local governments, but also for taxpayers and citizens. But What about the Federal System? The federal tax system has become interwoven over the years with state income tax systems, as well as meshed with a federalism or intergovernmental quasi -cooperative system. That has meant, for instance, that the federal government has generally left the field of sales taxes to state and local governments. That is, Congress has chosen not to intrude upon a key revenue source traditionally reserved to state and local governments. Similarly, states have structured individual and corporate income tax codes on the federal system. That structure allows for greater simplicity for taxpayers, as well as better capacity to nab cheaters. That means, conversely, that federal changes have immediate and direct impacts on state and local revenues and budgets. States and cities are barred by federal law from imposing income taxes on the interest earned by their citizens on Treasury bills or savings bonds. And the federal government, under the doctrine of reciprocal immunity, has not taxed the interest on the debt or bonds of cities and towns --so-called municipal, tax-exempt bonds. For cities, that means that some $1.2 trillion dollars in outstanding capital borrowing is currently exempt from federal taxation. A loss or significant modification of that exemption, as proposed in every leading tax reform option, could have profound effects on the ability and cost of borrowing to meet capital and infrastructure needs of all cities and towns in the future. These fundamental principles upon which federal, state, and local tax systems have evolved would all change under any of the proposals being bandied around in the Congress or by the 1996 GOP Presidential candidates. Why Now? Many Democratic and Republican candidates and Congressional leaders believe that the current federal income tax encourages borrowing and consumption, and penalizes savings and investment. They believe that the federal tax code should be fundamentally altered to encourage savings and investment, and to tax consumption. Some believe the federal income tax and IRS are too intrusive on the lives and economic decisions of businesses and families. Still others believe that sharply reducing federal taxes would sharply reduce government. What Are- the Main Alternatives? The candidates and Congressional leaders have basically offered three alternatives to the current federal income tax: a flat tax, a national sales tax, and a consumption tax. (See chart below.) The flat tax, most prominently supported by House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-TX), Presidential candidates Malcolm Forbes and Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), and the partisan commission created by Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KA) and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R- GA), would eliminate the current, graduated income tax on families and businesses and replace it with a 19 percent flat tax. As Leader Armey says, one could compute one's taxes every year on a three -by -five card. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) has indicated he supports a modified flat tax, but one with slightly graduated rates. While all flat tax options are similar in that they would set one, single rate of federal income taxes, they vary significantly with regard to how income would be defined and what deductions would still be available (See flat tax chart). Most would eliminate all or almost all deductions. Each of the flat tax plans would eliminate the deductibility of state and local taxes. Each would either eliminate the tax -exemption for municipal bonds or eliminate the current tax preference providing the exemption for state and local bonds, but not for private bonds. Each would eliminate deductions specifically incorporated in current federal laws to leverage private investment in cities, such as through Enterprize Zones, the targeted jobs tax credit, the low income housing tax credit, or the earned income tax credit. Economists and accountants project that most of the flat tax plans would bring in substantially less revenue annually, increasing the federal deficit and national debt. A flat tax, by very definition, means that for every taxpayer who would owe less in federal income taxes, another taxpayer would owe more. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IND), a Presidential candidate, strongly opposes the flat tax and instead has made a national sales tax a centerpiece of his Presidential bid. Lugar would replace the individual and corporate income tax with a national sales tax not just on goods, but also on services. Lugar believes a national sales tax superior to a flat tax, because it would guarantee elimination of the IRS. Lugar says he envisions a system under which states would collect the new federal sales tax and send it to Washington. Like the flat tax, the national sales tax would eliminate all federal tax on the interest on corporate bonds, again eliminating the distinction, for investment purposes, between municipal and corporate bonds. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX) is not a fan of the flat tax, but has indicated he intends to oversee the passage of legislation to tear the IRS "out by the roots." Archer appears to lean towards either a national sales tax or some version of a consumption tax. Finally, Sens. Pete Domenici (R-NMEX) and Sam Nunn (D-GA) have put together a far more complicated proposal to replace the current income tax with a national consumption tax. Unlike either a flat tax or national sales tax, their consumption tax idea is complicated. Thus it has been drowned out in the discussion and debate so far. The Domenici-Nunn effort arose out of their combined efforts to rethink how the federal government works, to address the deficit, and to focus on priorities for the future. Part of their concern was to change the focus of the federal tax system to ensure an incentive for investment and savings, and disincentives for borrowing and spending. Basically, the consumption tax is intended to tax only income that a family or individual actually spends. That is, if a family received $3,000 for winning the lottery, and spent $1,000 for a vacation, $500 for a VCR, and invested the remaining $1,500 in a passbook savings account; the family would be subject to tax only on the $1,500 consumed. The remainder of the income would be tax -free --at least until it was removed from the account for spending or consumption. President Clinton has not offered a specific position with regard to any specific tax reform proposal, but has generally indicated an interest in simplifying the existing system. Time Frame: The conjunction of forces at the highest levels of both parties indicates that Congress --or a new President, if elected this year --might well make significant changes a priority. If so, that would have serious implications for the nation's cities. What About Cities? The national commission appointed by Dole and Gingrich included no municipal representative and no mention of local governments. It included no analysis of the impact on local taxes and fees, local budgets, or local capital investment costs of moving to a flat tax. No candidate in Iowa mentioned the impact of federal tax reform at the local level: what would it mean to local property, income, or sales taxes? Federal tax reform could have profound impacts on local governments, local capital budgets, local kinds and levels of taxes, and local costs to borrow. Sweeping changes of after -federal tax income, potentially shifting much greater federal tax liabilities to middle income families in cities, could have local economic and sales tax impacts as these families suddenly found themselves with far less disposable income. For city leaders, many, many questions remain to be answered. NL C POLICY. - Among NLC's principal tax reform policies are the following: preservation of municipal tax advantages such as deductibility of state and local taxes and retention of tax exempt interest on most municipal borrowings; continued use of personal and corporate income as primary tax base; a system which produces revenues sufficient to finance ongoing government services; no move toward a pure consumption tax but adjustment of current provisions that encourage consumption over savings; broadening of the tax base; changes to equalize the value of tax preferences to taxpayers and placing an overall limitation on total tax preferences which one taxpayer can utilize; a phasing -in of any major tax changes and a recognition of the interrelationship of the federal tax system with state and local tax systems. . -. ow ACT/ON ! The most important action for local officials to take is to be prepared to force members of Congress and any and all candidates for federal office in 1996 to provide specific answers about the potential local impacts and consequences of their position on federal tax reform. It is important for city leaders to meet with tax and finance officers to examine the potential local consequences of a flat tax, a national sales tax, or some form of a federal consumption tax. What, for instance, would be the impact on a city or town's capital budget if the elimination of tax -exemption on municipal bonds increased city long-term borrowing costs by 30 percent? How would that translate in monthly water and sewer bills? In property taxes? Similarly, what would the impact of a national sales or consumption tax be on local merchants and local and Changes in a federal -state -local tax system that has evolved over more than 60 years can have severe and unintended consequences unless federal drafters are forced to think about and deal with local concerns. For more information contact: Fronk Shofroth Director Center for Policy & federal Relations (202)626-3020 1 /96 RNATIVES TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX Impact on Cities and Towns II .AT TAX NATIONAL SALES TAX CONSUMPTION TAX ould eliminate existing, Would eliminate the individual Would add wages, dividends, interest aduated federal income tax and and corporate income tax entirely (except on municipal bonds), asset 'tually all deductions. Would and replace them with a federal proceeds, pensions; allow deductions t include interest, capital gains, sales tax. for family "living allowance," charity, ►idends, or Social Security mortgage interest, and any savings or nefits as income. Would tax productive investments, a graduated fividual and corporate income tax would be imposed on what one, flat rate. remained (the amount spent for consumption). Businesses would be subject to a comparable test and then a 10% fat tax. wld eliminate Would eliminate Tax exempt status would be modified. wld eliminate Would eliminate Would eliminate cause the bill would eliminate Would disrupt most state income Would disrupt existing tax deductions, but tax codes and significantly and ly eliminate some current adversely impact state and local :ome (such as interest and sales tax receipts. idends), a flat tax could nificantly increase income tax renues for states that rely on feral income tax definitions. iuld subject to federal taxation No impact No impact use Majority Leader, Sen. Richard Lugar '(R-IND) House Ways & Means, Committee :hard Armey (R-TX) - Chairman Bill Archer (R-TX) - Sen. nator Richard Shelby (R-AL) Sam Nunn (D-GA); Senator Pete use Majority Leader, Oomenici (R-NM) ;hard Gephardt (D-MO) - nator Arlen Spector '(R-PA) - airman, Senate Finance mmittee b Packwood (R-OR) 7enotes Presidential candidate �' FLAT TAa( O►;PT O"NS. "I �)) Issues &Consequences for Cities Tax would apply to: I . �.. ...... .. .....-.. - � . ''.... . .. , . . I ..1::.. O:...�:.I-�:..Ci:�.:.:.:M�:�.�:::-�.O1income I .-.- I . ".."." . � .--.'-.'......-- �. 1. I allrXI ncome � . I.. . .. ...': : , , , . . � I-- : earned income I . � I I.... I I I . , . .. I , earned income I. would impact whether workers . I. would pay significantly higher taxes Rate . 1 . 6`% unspectft+ed would determine whether revenues would be adequate ro prevent . _ . .......... .. . ...__ . _.... _ ._._ ..........__. ...... ..... _..... . . . increa m e era ci se th 't Impact on Municipal Bonds .W ld ' ".6 note fax would fax outstanding would eliminate tax would eliminate tcrx . taxation or elimination of benefit preference and fufure murncipal preference preference could increase municipal capital improvement and borrowing costs end inte1.rest1.1.% by up ro 30% Deductibility of State and 'would eliminate would eliminate would eliminate would' eliminate would mean double taxation for Local Taxes 11 state an oca residents Impact on Retirement and ...''..1--l- .. ........... I ... .... tax. ....',"..- .-...--- �..��.. -.1-1. 1-1. --..--- would tax � -.. -..". .....'...- .. .... v�rouId taX .......... would tax .,'..'I.... I-..:-.1 would affect municipal health care Pension Benefits . .I ...............1.' �'.I...- �.'......: .....:...: .-..',....--I.. ...'.....- ,. .. ....% '�.-.,.. . and retirement benefit plans as well as take home pay of munici pal ,..1-: -..�11. .... -,.�...� ��..-.. .-.:"....'1���...-..'.'-1... ..�.....- ....'.. -..-.� .,......... �'-....., ....-...... I.....-' . ; . -.1.-. �....'.I.,.. ,........�,..� .. ....; s a rest n h employee nd ids �......-. I. ...:.... 1....... ."... ..,.....- Im ct on the Federal Deficit Pa would increase .:...1.. -.....I- -:-.... -:.1..... .....' .�........ ..�,... '......I... .'...- ... ..�..�.......1 1-.�... ........ -I....1-4.. -.......''II...-I...-.........,%.......:.-............I. '..-..'.,-1. 1-..... :I.-.-.' ...,.�.1 would increase :-...�.. .,.I.- ......... �'......"'I., I-.."- .,.....'1 ',...."''.. '.'.... 1.�.�1�.: 1.......... says-rate:should be high:'enough to nsure a : would increase :. I reduced federal revenues could increase federal deficit, driving up ......,.. .....�,...I'-I..-.... I-.......�..1........I ,.. -.I. ....-% I�.'.... ....,."-11. ....... ....'-1.1..........-.....I..',...---.�......1..I. ..1.I.." .�..".....�'- .1.......... 4..�,.. '.,..-. ...I�- -�.1�.-.,I,.. ..,.-... ...."..". .��.I...I.�.1. �.�1-I.-.. I .. ..-... ....- ....I .... .I....- -..I....I, .... .1....-1..1.II1...�......�' .,1��- ......... ....'-.-� ..�': ..".I.,.-. reverive neutrality ...1 federal, kxal, business, and ..'......'.'..,� '. ,.......-.�-.--.-...I........ ...1�..,...�- ,I.. lI ,...- .1..I �I.'. �,1.� 11.- ...-.I.. 1- .'--. ..' ..... ..,- ..I1.�I1 .,11..:I .1.... 1. I.. ' personal borrowing cosh Mortgage Interest and .1.... would eliminate ..-. �. -... would retain .-..-1 ..'.�. . unspecified , would eliminate could affect assessed property Charitable Deductions ...I... -I.... 1.�.. ...I..I'.".. .1......" .1I1I1'.... ..-.-......,- 1�..I... ..,.,...,... .'I.-..."� -...-..........-.'�1. �.I�..�.,.'. �1......,'- ..I......II.".....'� ....II......,.-.....-... ,-%.. ,.. ..1...,.,,...I...1.......�..,..'11. .....l'-......1..1.....'.....:... .I1.,.I',- .I. -. ..I- . I.1... "-I� .. .. .1-... .. .,... F.'. ..1''. ��I ,� -.1.:... ..1-..I.�.." ...'.:....... '�1IlI'....". .....'.-..1.-.�...-1...... ..,.'-..1.�1.:. .--.,."--.-.... '1�..-1..'. '.�..-..,..1-%.. .1 ........- .- deducfIbility ,, ,- ... .I. I..-....�,.'..'1I�....' -,..I'. ..1......-....�..:I.....-..i. ........ .'. ..... I%1�.1. -.'.... ..... .... .I ,,..:. .I..1.I':,..�I:I-..- �...'..1. values in cities and incenfives for charitable contributions -would ........'.............I.1-.. .I.--.,.... ..-.,..'... .1...1-... 1..��,.....-..1 .1I.,...,...-�.. -....,.I.....%.. -.-....,.....',. '..I..�....-.,......-'.......- .... .' 1...1�....1.-...... ..1'....' ., -.1...'.... --.1...-....-,....'.,I .l.,...-.-....-,' .I.I.I II. ..�I. .-...,..,.... ....I..II. �.......-......I �.I...".....'..- l...1.......1..........:....,-. .I., 1I'... ....'.I-. --'...-..I.. ...�I.I.'1-..1, .....I... ..1.'....-....,.........,� employers and : ....''I.. could affect municipal payrolls, Payroll Taxes I...."..' ..,."...'..:..�....... .,- does not address ..1' .�.1.�- ..... ..... .I-.--.....- ,I�.--- does not address employees could not addressed determine which income levels in would owe more in federal I....,.. I,.........,�..' ......'., .�."...:".. ,...��.1 .....1....1... ."..'.....%..I" .I"...'..-1-:- ...:� ...1.I,.I..O.I........1 ..II.....'...1..".....'.:...........II.-..,-,'..1 .......%.,�. .�........'.." -1."....:, 1-II...,.......�' I.........l.'.. ..-,.... .........-....'." �......'..1.: -.....1.'- ......-'. . .'...�.-.-..I I.. 11..'..1.-. ,.'"-1....: �I..1.1.. �I.... .I..I deduct ..,-'I �4..I-. I cities taxes, and which would awe less EZ, targeted jobs, . would Ina e . world ehmI. inate would eliminate would eliminate < would reduce incentives for EITC, and Low Income 1.41m: municipal investment Housing tax credits I % 0 NLC Congressional City Conference Texas Legislative Briefing Monday, March 11, 1996 Budget President Clinton sent Congress his proposed 1997 federal budget to meet the February 5 deadline set by law. The proposal is a 20-page outline of the last offer he made to Congressional GOP leaders on January as part of the balanced budget negotiations. The President's budget outline offers little vision for the nation's cities and incorporated no changes from his previous offers to jump-start stalled negotiations with Congress on adopting a budget for this year. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) said he plans to propose to separate the balanced budget bill from tax cuts in an effort to gain enough bipartisan support in the Senate and House to secure passage of a seven-year balanced budget plan. Combined with a similar bipartisan effort in the House and the consensus on the key issues of Medicaid and welfare by the nation's governors, the Domenici effort could open the way for a renewed effort in the Congress with or without the White House. Congress, which returned on February 26, has a brief window of opportunity to achieve an agreement on this year's budge: and avert the debt ceiling crisis and another federal government shutdown of priority municipal programs. Most observers feel that unless a budget and funding compromise is reached by mid - March, the 1996 election will overwhelm the ability of Congress and the White House to achieve agreement until after the November elections. Because there is, as yet, no 1996 federal budget, the resubmission of the President's already rejected offer as an outline for the FY 1997 budget is intended to serve as a plug, pending a more detailed budget submission the President plans to present to Congress on March 18. The budget outline submitted by the president includes no details on proposed spending levels on key programs for states or local governments for 1997 to consider as part of their own deliberations on adopting state and local 1997 budgets. For cities, the President's outline proposes the most severe cuts in public capital investment ever sought by any President including cuts in highways, bridges, mass transit, airports, housing, and community development of 40 to 50 percent over the next seven years. The outline points to an ever-increasing diversion of federal gas tax revenues to pay for new federal tax breaks and entitlement programs instead of public infrastructure in cities. - 2 - The President's budget outline proposes no reductions in the largest federal budget programs while seeking severe cuts, averaging over 33 percent, in domestic discretionary spending. But, because the plan proposes increased spending for education, training, and the environment, the President would be forced to make cuts far deeper than 33 percent in transportation, housing, community development, and other priority municipal investment programs. President Clinton described his version of a balanced budget plan, saying: "The plan /propose cuts hundreds of programs, continues our efforts to downsize the government, but it protects Medicare, Medicaid, .education, and the environment, and cuts taxes for working families. " Under the President's proposed budget, non -needs -tested entitlement programs would continue to grow faster than any other category of federal spending. Every category of federal spending would grow except for domestic discretionary spending. And federal tax expenditures would increase by over $200 billion just in the next four years. In effect, cuts in highways, community development, and other priority municipal Programs would be used to finance middle income tax cuts, increased defense spending, and rapid increases in spending for Social Security and ocher non -needs tested federal entitlement spending. NLC Position. NLC supports structural changes in non -means -tested entitlement Programs to achieve meaningful, long-term deficit reduction. NLC opposes any tax cuts unless and until the deficit is eliminated. NLC believes every category of federal spending ought to be on the table. These fundamental principles upon which federal, state, and local tax systems have evolved would all change under any of the proposals being discussed in Congress and in the campaign. And, the climate seems ripe for change. Many Democratic and Republican candidates and Congressional leaders believe that the current federal income tax en .ourages borrowing and consumption and penalizes savings and investment. They believe that the federal tax code should be altered to encourage savings and investment, and to penalize consumption. — 3 — ALTERNATIVES TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX Impact on Cities and Towns FLAT NATIONAL SALES CONSUMPTION ISSUE TAX TAX TAX Description Would eliminate existing, graduated Would eliminate the Would add wages, federal income tax and virtually all individual and corporate dividends, interest (except deductions. Would not include income tax entirely and on municipal bonds), asset interest, capital gains, dividends, or replace them with a federal proceeds, pensions; allow Social Security benefits as income. sales tax. deductions for family "living Would tax individual and corporate allowance," charity, income at one, flat rate. mortgage interest, and any savings or productive investments, a graduated tax would be imposed on what remained (the amount spent for consumption). Businesses would be subject to a comparable test and then a 10% fat tax. Impact on Would eliminate Would eliminate Tax exempt status would be municipal tax modified. exempt bonds Deductibility of Would eliminate Would eliminate Would eliminate state and local taxes Impact on state Because the bill would eliminate all Would disrupt most state Would disrupt and local revenues existing tax deductions, but only income tax codes and eliminate some current income (such significantly and adversely as interest and dividends), a flat tax impact state and local sales could significantly increase income tax receipts. tax revenues for states that rely on federal income tax definitions. Impact on pension Would subject to federal taxation No impact No impact and employees benefit Key Players House Majority Leader, Sen. Richard Lugar *(R-IND) House Ways & Means, Richard Armey (R-TX) - Committee Chairman Bill Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) Archer (R-TX) - Sen. Sam House Majority Leader, Nunn (D-GA); Senator Pete Richard Gephardt (D-MO) - Senator Domenici (R-NM) Arlen Spector *(R-PA) - Chairman, Senate Finance Committee Bob Packwood (R-OR) _ * Denotes Presidential candidate — 4 — II % OSHA Background • On Tuesday, March 6, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee passed S . 1423, the Occupational Safety and Health Reform and Reinvention Act. • It was passed along party lines: 9 Republicans for and 7 Democrats against. • The Democrats introduced several amendments to try to make a "bad" bill in their minds better. All of the amendments were defeated except the amendment to extend OSHA to federal, state, and local governments. • Senator Abraham (MI) and Senator Jeffords (VT) were the two Republicans that voted with the Democrats. NLC's Policy "In view of the safety and risk management programs being carried out by municipal governments, NLC opposes the extension of federal Occupational Safety and Health standards to municipal employees. NLC opposes any impairment of the ability of state and local governments to indemnify their agents, officers and employees against financial loss arising from the operation of such statutes." Talking Points • Worker safety programs designed by local governments that are tailored to address the specific safety needs and hazards of each locality are the best way to provide for worker safety in the public sector. Until the determination is made to what extent the amendment would provide measurable benefits, or until mandates to apply federal OSHA to all local governments are fully funded, NLC urges Congress not to extend OSHA to local governments. Cost -Benefit Analysis • To date, no comprehensive analysis of this proposed amendment has been undertaken to determine the costs and benefits to local governments. • There has been no objective cost -benefit analysis demonstrating that federal OSHA would provide a safer environment for public employees than worker safety programs already provided through existing bargaining agreements or state and local laws. — 5 — Unfunded Mandates • Municipalities are public service entities with limited resources and extensive responsibilities. • Unfunded mandates, such as extending federal OSHA to all local governments, would result in increased taxes, increased user fees, and/or cuts in vital city services such as police and fire protection. Therefore, this affects the American people as citizens of local governments who lose vital city services. • Local governments function under severe fiscal constraints. State laws and referendums have set limits on local taxes and spending. In many cases, the only solution that keeps local budgets in balance is the elimination of services, the reduction of service levels, and the elimination of local priorities to make way for federal priorities. STORMWATER NLC supports creation of a mechanism to put all parties at one table to achieve a consensus on stormwater management programs. The existing program is too costly. Absent federal changes, what is coming down the road will be far worse. BACKGROUND Over the last year and a half, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has convened what are, in effect, three federal advisory committees under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (known as "FACA") to deal with a host of water pollution issues affecting municipalities when it rains or snows. In EPA parlance these three committees are known as the Urban Wet Weather Flows, the Stormwater Phase H, and the Sanitary Sewer Overflows FACAs. In plain English, we are talking about a negotiated rulemaking on the issue of controlling stormwater run-off from urbanized areas whether it be through separate storm sewer systems or as a result of overflows during rain storms from sanitary sewers which normally carry only wastewater. Combined sewer overflow issues are not being directly addressed by these three committees because they were previously addressed by a separate FACA committee. The genesis of the wet weather and the stormwater FACAs was in response to a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) against EPA which failed to develop and enforce a stormwater management program for those not covered by the initial -- or Phase I municipal stormwater management program. • — 6 — To clarify, the "Phase I" stormwater program which went into effect in 1990 covers about 200 cities and counties with populations of 100,000 or more and about 400 smaller cities and counties .that were required by States or EPA to obtain Phase I permits. The Phase I cities all have separate storm sewers (as opposed to those who have combined systems). Phase I cities are ..-already required to implement programs designed to control pollutants in stormwater run-off. Phase I also requires most industries and all construction sites larger than 5 acres to obtain permits and implement control measures for run-off from their sites. The application requirements and deadlines for Phase I National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permits were set forth in an EPA regulation published in November 1990. The application process is complicated and expensive. The average cost .for Phase I permit applications across the United States is $650,000. The estimated cost of compliance with the permits for the first five-year permit period will be significantly greater. Thus, stormwater pollution control has been defined as priority number one by Congress for the nation's larger cities. Local governments must comply with the requirements of the permits regardless of other needs and priorities. And, this is just the beginning. Now that the states and EPA have control of the local government public works operations and other city departments through the permit process they can, and most likely will, increase the requirements as permits are renewed every five years. The "Phase II" stormwater program, for which no regulations have yet been developed, is supposed to cover everyone else -- cities and counties under 100,000 and about 7 million commercial and small construction sites. A variety of circumstances have caused EPA to delay development and promulgation of the "Phase II" program, not the least of which has been NLC's several successful efforts convincing Congress to impose a moratorium on the imposition of a broader municipal stormwater program. The most recent moratorium imposed on the program expired October 1, 1994. Subsequent to the expiration ,of the last moratorium, NRDC sued EPA for failure to develop a "Phase II" stormwater management program. EPA settled with NRDC by agreeing to develop regulations for Phase H stormwater discharges -- proposing regulations in 1997 and promulgating them in 1999. To assist them in developing a Phase H program, EPA established an advisory committee -- or FACA -- involving all the "stakeholders," that is, local elected officials, state regulators, environmental activists, representatives of private sector business and construction activities. The purpose of the advisory committee is to see if a consensus on the "Phase II" stormwater management program can be reached. The mission of the Urban Wet Weather Flows group is, in part, to see if they can reach consensus on improvements in the "Phase I" stormwater management program within the parameters of the current NPDES permit program and to address any other issues -- such as growth and land use planning -- that affect the quantity and quality of stormwater run-off. — 7— And finally, the SSO FACA is trying to develop an agreement on what a national policy on overflows from sanitary sewers should be. NLC has a representative on each of the three committees: Mayor Jeff Wennberg 'of Rutland, VT (UWWF), Mayor Jim Naugle of Fort Lauderdale, FL (Phase II), and Mayor Jack Lynch of Butte, MT (SSO). To date, EPA has been insistent that the FACA cannot make recommendations to alter the Phase I stormwater program if such recommendations would require changes in the Clean Water Act. The consent decree with NRDC has also put the Phase H FACA on a fast track and EPA is pressing the FACA participants to reach at least preliminary agreement on a Phase II program by June to enable EPA to have a draft proposed regulations ready by December of this year. The constraints on proposing revisions to the current municipal stormwater program coupled with the expedited Phase II schedule are matters of serious concern to the local elected officials serving on both the Urban Wet Weather Flows and Phase II negotiations. There appears to be some consensus by a variety of participants that the FACAs should be authorized to develop a single workable and cost-effective stormwater management program, rather than to continue with the current bifurcated efforts that will divide the local government community. Initiatives have been undertaken to explore the feasibility of seeking a Congressional instruction to EPA to broaden the mission of the FACAs to do exactly that -- attempt to reach consensus on a workable (i.e., no end -of -pipe requirements) cost-effective stormwater management program. ACTION: Arm yourself with your current and projected stormwater compliance costs. Seek a commitment from your members of Congress to support action broadening the scope of the FACA discussions to include the entire municipal stormwater program. The FACA should be free to devise a comprehensive municipal stormwater management program for all cities and towns, both large and small. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' BILL OF RIGHTS The NLC-opposed Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights is on the move again. Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are seeking cosponsors for S 334, which was introduced earlier last year. The companion bill in the House, HR 878, also introduced last year, is sponsored by Reps. William Lightfoot (R-IA) and Bart Stupak (D-MI). The bill would require that before a law enforcement officer could be questioned for any reason that could lead to an internal, noncriminal disciplinary action, the questioning officer must follow a set of protocols that include the right of the officer under investigation to counsel; that the questioning be recorded in full, in writing or by electronic device; that all questions be asked through a single investigator; and that the officer under investigation be given the names and addresses of all witnesses for the law enforcement agency. Failure of a law enforcement agency to follow these protocols could result in the right of the officer to sus in state court for reinstatement, back wages, and other awards. No hearings or further action are scheduled in the Senate. In the House, however, it is possible that a hearing could be scheduled in the Crime Subcommittee sometime in May. NLC Position. NLC strongly opposes a law enforcement officers' bill of rights. hang M n vernance in America The nation is at a critical turning point. Decisions made in Washington over the next year could do more to reshape the future of the people who live in the nation's cities than at any time in recent memory. Failure to make tough choices would exact a price in human and fiscal terms that would endure long into the future. As we approach a new century, municipal leaders have an opportunity to change the future of the nation. We have a shared sense of responsibility and stewardship: to ensure the peace and safety of our neighborhoods, to make government work more effectively and efficiently for the people, to rebuild a sense of community, and to create a more secure future for our children. Tomorrow is ours to shape, if we are willing to make the commitment, to dare, to challenge, and to prevail. These issues require us to change government —at all levels. We cannot be bystanders. Rather we must begin with our citizens in our cities to change the way our country works. To govern is to take responsibility, to embrace change. It is to bring all of our citizens together around a set of common values. To govern is to look beyond the next election to the next generation. =V1j'A' NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Deficit Reduction & Entitlement Reform he federal Medicare system is headed towards bankruptcy. To ensure medical care for older Americans in the future will require either enormous increases in federal taxes on employees and employers in the coming years, or major struc- tural changes in this federal entitlement program. But some in Washington want to use surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund to cover up the federal deficit. They want to put off to another day the real job of dealing with the coming insolvencies of these massive federal non -needs -tested entitlement programs. But every day they wait, the eventual cost to us as a soci- ety grows. And every day, the money we borrow to finance this failure imposes an ever greater burden on future generations. We face a national human and fiscal deficit. We carry a staggering and rapidly escalating nation- al debt, and recent reports also indicate that disparities between rich and poor are continuing to grow. We are raising a new generation with higher levels of poverty than any of our economic competitors around the world. These reports and the escalating federal deficits and national debt our country confronts are evidence of how critical it is to insist upon a better way. We can neither continue to disinvest in our youngest children, nor continue the old ways of borrow and spend. Equally seriously, the nation's municipal leaders are deeply concerned at the rise of partisanship at the federal level and at the refusal of national officials to join with state and local leaders to alter governance in the country. As our nation faces default, some in Washington appear more bent upon blame and recrimination than responsible leadership or partnership. Efforts to plan for failure rather than commit to achievement are not acceptable. We cannot afford such failure. Balance will require what its name implies. There can be no sacred cows. Every federal category of spending must be on the table. Everyone involved in government must be at the table to achieve consensus on how we must move forward. Proposals which exempt half the federal bud- get from serious scrutiny and promise unaffordable tax cuts —as proposed by both the President and Congressional leadership —are a formula for inequity and irresponsibility. We must be serious. 2 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES The Federal Medicare Trust Fund is Headed for Bankruptcy, $,50 c $100 O $0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Medicare Part A, which pays for hospitalization, is projected to be exhausted in between five to ten years. Sources: 1995 Annual Report Board of Trustees of the Federal 2005 2010 Hospital Trust Fund But the Cost to the Taxpayer and the Federal Deficit is Accelerating 160 140 120 H) C .O 100 m 80 i a 60 O 0 40 20 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004 Medicare Part B, which pays for medical costs other than hospital ization, is financed largely by general taxes, not enrollee pre- miums. The amount projected to be required in general tax sup- port is shown. Sources: 1995 Annual Report Board of Trustees of the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 3 Current Mandates fter more than three decades of passing the buck to states and local governments, Congress agreed in 1995 to put obstacles in the path of imposing new, unfunded federal mandates on the taxpayers of the nation's cities and towns. This law is an important first step. But, if we are to address the real needs and priorities of our citizens, the President and Congress must take the next step. We must fix existing mandates to ensure that our scarce local resources are targeted to real prob- lems and priorities, and do not take away from our ability to meet the education and public safety needs of our communities. Neither the current federal stormwater law and regulations, nor the current Safe Drinking Water Act, can pass these tests. We need to fix the stormwater mandates. We can no longer excuse the House for delaying in joining a unanimous Senate in fixing the Safe Drinking Water Act. We need to ensure there are cost -benefit and risk assessment statements on all proposed federal legislation, rules, and regulations. The days of the federal government dictat- ing solutions to cities and towns, but offering no resources, must end. We take the health and safety needs of our constituents more seriously than any other level of government, and the results show it. It's time for the federal government to work with us, not against us. It is time to rethink and rewrite laws written at another time when the federal government made resources available to meet federal standards. Now, with the federal promises empty, we have a job to do together to maintain and ensure our cities' quality of life. It is time for a change. It is time to recognize that we all have fewer resources and must set priori- ties. It is time for flexibility in federal laws and regulatory processes. It is time to end the one - size -fits -all mentality that has governed at the federal level for too many years and replace it with a true partnership that ensures a safe and healthy future for our citizens. As long as any other level of government wants to tell us how to do our business with our taxpay- ers' money, they need to do that with, not despite us. No more excuses. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 4 As Cities are Mandated to Monitor and Control Ever Increasing Numbers of Drinking Water Contaminants, Federal Resources Have Precipitously Declined 10 9 a 0 8 O 7 H C •0 6 c 5 .� 4 3 v 2 L O 1 U. 0 160 140 120IA a C 100 O 80 O v 0 60 L as 40 20 0 CV 0 qT N %o K 00 O% O ^ cV Cl Tr In 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O% O. O% C� O. Q% Fiscal Year Source: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comparing "Improved" and "Worsened" Conditions in 1995 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 IIN Improved 53.7% ■ Worsened 4.1% Unfunded Mandates Source: The State of America's Cities, 1996, NLC ►J NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 5 Public Safety rom the Oklahoma City bombing to deadly natural disasters to soaring rates of teen violent crime, we confront hard realities about the safety of those we're elected to protect. For young Americans, the future begins today. For too many young Americans, it is a day fraught with fear, pain, and death. In too many cities and towns, gunshot wounds to teenagers cause more deaths than all other causes combined. Guns, armed gangs, and the hate and death they spew wrap urban and rural cities in shrouds of anguish. In 1992, one quarter of all young men in our communities who dropped out before earning a high school diploma were in prison, on probation, or on parole. The cost of violence in terms of police, rescue units, and other public services can be measured in local taxes. What is immeasur- able is the cost of insecurity and lost community — the human cost to our communities of lives lost and wasted. As we struggle to pay tribute to those who died in Oklahoma City, as we try to develop webs of public and non-profit agencies in our communities to rebuild shattered lives and hopes, we under- stand that public safety is first and foremost a local responsibility. But the federal government must be a partner in this effort. There is no excuse for harsh cuts in federal anti -crime resources and abrupt funding cut-offs. There is little excuse that nearly a year after the tragic domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma City, Congress and the President have yet to work together with the nation's cities to ensure we're better prepared to prevent other attacks in other cities. There is no excuse for misguided efforts to preempt local authority and provide a fed- eral sanction for putting assault weapons back on our streets. Haven't enough children been gunned down? From crime to floods and earthquakes to terrorist attacks, the federal government must recognize and incorporate flexibility and partnership in its approach to ensure effective results where it really matters — at the local level, where the final responsibility and accountability is. To make a differ- ence will require an investment in the front end, because reactions after the fact are all too often too late. Help us make a difference. 6 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Number of Murder Offenders in Each Age Group, 1994 9 to 12 13 to 16 17 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55to59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 or more 0 11000 21000 3,000 41000 Juvenile Murder Arrests Population Age 15 to 29 in Millions 65 � 60 � 4 55 •`� 50 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 7 Tax Reform F ax reform promises to be a key issue in Congress in 1996, as well as one of the l hottest issues in the Election '96 campaign. For the nation's cities, the formal open- ing of the tax debate raises a host of questions about municipal budgets and �.= investment. None of the candidates, and none of the plans released in Washington, touch on the potential impact and consequences of federal tax reform at the local level - either for local taxpayers or cities and towns. Federal changes would have immediate and direct impacts on state and local revenues and budgets. The most serious concerns for city leaders revolve around the potential consequences for public capital investment at a time when the federal government is cutting back on direct federal assis- tance in public infrastructure. But the rival plans also raise questions about the federal deficit and the shifting of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal tax liabilities from wealthy individuals to middle and lower income families in communities. Today, some $1.2 trillion dollars in outstanding, municipal borrowing for capital investment is exempt from federal taxation. A loss or significant modification of that exemption, as proposed in every leading tax change option, could have profound effects on the future cost of borrowing to meet capital and infrastructure needs of all cities and towns in the future. It could mean the cost to local taxpayers of financing schools, jails, streets, and parks could increase by as much as 30 per- cent. No candidate or tax reform proponent has provided an analysis of the impact on local taxes and fees, local budgets, or local capital investment costs of tax reform. No candidate has mentioned the impact of federal tax reform at the local level: what would it mean to local property, income, or sales taxes? What would it mean to the deductibility of state and local taxes, the tax -exemp- tion for municipal bonds, Enterprise Zones, targeted jobs tax credits, the low income housing tax credit, or the earned income tax credit? City leaders want some answers. 8 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES � 7 _ 7 �m n - j ;oCZ o z qz � 1n P �I "' �M�•, � N NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 9 Housing & Community Development n 1937, the nation set a goal of providing decent, safe, and sanitary shelter for every family in every city and town across the nation. Today that promise is in danger. And the consequences of failure could have harsh consequences for the future. As the costs of federal entitlement spending have soared, they have come at the expense of many of our poorest and youngest Americans. Just as tens of thousands of families face the end of existing contracts for shelter in cities and towns, the President and Congress are proposing budget cuts of .40 to 50 percent over the next seven years in the nation's safety net of housing and com- munity development programs. Few in Washington have talked about the consequences for thousands of families or for the communities where they live. Others in Congress are proposing to combine the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG) with the HOME state and local housing block grant program, cutting the funding and turning over much of it to states. Still others are proposing tax reform plans that would end the ability of cities to use single and multifamily municipal housing bonds to leverage housing finance for rehabilitation, multifamily housing construction, and home ownership opportunities for young and moderate income families, and that would end urban and rural enterprise zones. Efforts to reauthorize the nation's expired housing and community development laws have lan- guished - victims of partisan politics. The shortchanging of this enduring commitment -the build- ing block of every city and town in America - is building a future without a roof. It is a setback to one of the most enduring values of a society. Can't we do better? 10 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Number of Expiring Federal Housing Contracts 1,530,355 N C 1,000,000 0 L E Z 500,000 �41 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Cost to Extend Expiring Federal Housing Contracts 20 15 N C 0 10 m C 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Sources: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development; U.S. House Banking Committee on Housing and Community Opportunity; and U.S. House and Senate Budget Committees. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Governance The leaders of the nation's cities and towns recognize it is time for a significant change in gover- nance and in the role of the federal government. We support fundamental changes to reduce fed- eral deficits and to renew government so that it is more effective and accountable. NLC believes that a simpler, more rational, and more flexible intergovernmental system offers significant oppor- tunities for cities and towns to develop more innovative and cost effective methods of delivering programs, infrastructure, and services to our citizens, and to enhance public involvement and restore public confidence in government. Any such effort must go hand -in -hand with balancing decision -making responsibility among local, state, and federal leaders. Future municipal economic growth, international competitiveness, and economic security require investment in the human and physical assets that bind our nation together. Now as we embark upon rebuilding our federal system, we must ensure that cities are the central hubs. In this election year, the American people will consider a fiscal agenda that could cause a virtual revolution in American government. The most momentous changes since the creation of the New Deal 60 years ago could forever alter the relationships of the federal, state, and local govern- ments. We are all in this together. It is time for the federal government to invite cities to the same table as co -equal partners in mapping our future. There is too much at stake to ignore how cities will fit as we build new foundations for the future. These issues are what political leadership is all about. They are issues which ought to rise far above partisan finger pointing. Unless city leaders speak out, speak out as the representatives of communities and families across America, we are apprehensive that the best opportunity of our times will fail and irrevocably shred what remaining trust the public has in government and those elected to serve. After all, cities are America's future. National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 3/96 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS TUESDAY, March 26, 1996 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, will meet on Tuesday, March 26, 1996, at 5:00 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. Governance Workshoa - Call to order at 5:00 p.m. A Purchasing Analysis Report/Southwestern University Intern Courtney Whitley B NLC Report/Councilmembers Lee Bain and Shelley Davis C Discussion of the structure and composition of the 150th Georgetown Birthday Committee/Mayor Wood D Discussion of the proposed application for a Texas Community Development Block Grant/Hartley Sappington E Answer questions on Consent Agenda Items listed specifically below under the Regular Session that will begin no sooner than 7:00 p.m. (for questions only, no action to be taken until Regular Session) Regular Session - to convene Executive Session 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. F S ec. 5 51.071 consultation with attorney G Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property H Sec.551.075 conference with employee Regular Session to begin no earlier than 7:00 p.m. I Action on Executive Session Items J Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports • Presentation of Red Cross Proclamation City Council Agenda/March 26, 1996 Page 1 of 5 Pages K Citizens wishing to address the Council Public Hearin$4 L Discussion of proposed application for a Texas Community Development Grant M Discussion of a Texas Capital Fund Grant Application on behalf of Guthrie Lumber Sales, Inc. 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. Please note that the following items may be discussed with no action taken during the Workshop at 5:00 p.m. N Consideration of approval of meeting minutes --Regular Meeting of March 12,1996/Sandra Lee O Consideration of approval of a resolution to authorize signatories on contractual documents concerning the Texas Community Development Program contract funds for TCDP Contract No. 715032 on behalf of Advanced Cable Services, L.P./Bob Hart P Consideration of approval of a resolution to authorize signatories on contractual documents concerning the Texas Community Development Program contract funds for TCDP Contract No. 715152 on behalf of Advance Metal Systems, Inc.Bob Hart Q Consideration of approval of a contract with the Texas Department of Commerce under the Texas Community Development Program for economic development to benefit Advanced Metal Systems, Inc.Bob Hart R Consideration of approval of a resolution to accept the Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor Project as complete, in accordance with Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) requirements regarding projects funded by State Revolving Funds (SRF)/Jim Briggs S Consideration of approval of an agreement between the City of Georgetown and the Brazos River Authority for the City of Georgetown to provide financial support for Phase II of the North Central Study Area, Trans -Texas Water Program, in the amount of $30,000.00/Jim Briggs T Consideration of approval of a Revised Detailed Development Plan for Dicotec Subdivision, Lot 1/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry U Consideration of approval of a Detailed Development Plan of Lost Addition, a portion of Block 70; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry V Consideration of approval of a Short Form Final Plat of 2.712 acre tract in the William Addison Survey, to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Six/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry City Council Agenda/March 26, 1996 Page 2 of 5 Pages W Consideration of approval of a Revised Final Plat of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhoods Four and Seven/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry X Consideration of approval of a Detailed Development Plan of Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4, to be known as Reedholm Instruments, located at #4 Sierra Way, with a variance to the Subdivision Regulations/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry Y Consideration of approval of a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for the Amended Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Seven, Phase One, Block L, Lot 39, located at 31000 La Quinta Drive/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry Z Consideration of approval of a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Reata Trails Subdivision, Unit Four, a 39.28 acre tract in the David Wright Survey, located on Wagon Wheel Trail, Stagecoach Drive, and Northwest Boulevard/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry AA Consideration of approval of a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Two, Block E, Lot 26, located at 30205 Oak Tree Drive/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry BB Consideration of approval of a Preliminary Plat of a 6.76 acre tract combining multiple tracts in the Cedar Oaks Subdivision, North Georgetown Addition and Acreage in the Nicholas Porter Survey, to be known as Foster Square, and Variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located between Sprint Street, Morrow Street, Austin Avenue, North Forest Street, IH35, and Old Lampasas Road/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry CC Consideration of approval of a resolution to authorize a license to encroach into the public utility easement located along the west property line of River Bend, Unit V, Phase II, Block C, Lot 3, located at 3004 Brandy Lane/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry DD Consideration of a Concept Plan of a 9.491 acre tract in the Nicholas Porter Survey to be known as Sun Center/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry EE Consideration of the award of the semi-annual bid for hot mix asphalt to Capitol Aggregates in the estimated amount of $48,750.00/Terry Jones and Jim Briggs FF Consideration of declaring the 1983 Spartan ladder fire apparatus as surplus property and approval of a contract with Alpine Apparatus to sell the ladder truck as surplus property/Terry Jones and Susan Morgan GG Consideration of authorizing staff to commit to sharing the cost of a microwave tower with Williamson County in the amount of $191,515.00/Terry Jones and Susan Morgan Re_ ular 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.) City Council Agenda/March 26, 1996 Page 3 of 5 Pages HH Consideration of an ordinance amending the City's Single Member District Plan to include properties that are in the process of being annexed/Second Reading/Marianne Banks II Consideration of a resolution authorizing the submission of a Texas Community Development Program application to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs/Bob Hart JJ Consideration of a resolution calling a Special Election to increase the sales tax by one-half percent for the purpose of enhancing the City parks and recreation facilities/Bob Hart KK Consideration of an ordinance on first reading for rezoning of 6.0 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey, located on Old Airport Road, locally known as Centex Butane, from RS, Residential Single Family to I, Industrial/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry LL Consideration of an ordinance on first reading providing for the annexation into the City of approximately 2.821 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey, consisting of right of way and public utility easement for a portion of the proposed Northwest Boulevard between Northwood Drive and Whisper Oaks Drive/Clyde von Rosenberg and Ed Barry MM Consideration of an ordinance on first reading amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for the Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4, from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Four/Clyde von Rosenberg and Ed Barry NN Consideration of an ordinance on first reading amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for the Lost Addition, Block 79, locally known as Georgian Apartments, from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Six/Clyde von Rosenberg and Ed Barry 00 Consideration of the appointment of one member to the Building Standards Commission/Mayor Wood PP Consideration of the appointment of a Dillo Bus Usage Committee/Mayor Wood QQ Consideration of a resolution to authorize an abandonment of a ten (10) foot wide public utility easement, located towards the rear of the property and including a portion of the rear (east) setback of Lot 26A, Block E, Section Two, Berry Creek Subdivision, located at 30205 Oak Tree Drive/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry RR Consideration of a resolution to authorize an abandonment of 15 feet of a 25-foot wide public utility easement located within the front yard (south) setback of Lot 39, Block L, Section Seven, Phase One, Berry Creek Subdivision, located at 31100 La Quinta Drive/Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry SS Final comments and evaluation of meeting process Adjournment City Council Agenda/March 26, 1996 Page 4 of 5 Pages CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, , City Secretary of the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted on the day of , 1996, at a.m./p.m. City Council Agenda/March 26, 1996 Page 5 of 5 Pages Council meeting date: 3 -26-96 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Meeting Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, March 12, 1996. ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday, March 12, 1996 Subn*d By: "1"�-' ✓X/P ' Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS TUESDAY, March 12, 1996 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor Leo Wood presiding. Council Present: Dick Vincent George Arroyos Lee Bain Doris Curl Susan Hoyt Ferd Tonn Shelley Davis Staff Present: Bob Hart, City Manager Marianne Banks, City Attorney Sandra Lee, City Secretary Bill Shanklin, Fire Chief Susan Morgan, Dir. of Finance and Administration Randy Morrow, Dir. of Parks and Recreation Hartley Sappington, Dir. of Community Services Ed Barry, Dir. of Development Services Council Absent: None Tom Leggitt, Fire Marshall Donna Hogg, Legal Assistant Hildy Kingma, Chief Planner Laurie Brewer, Staff Accountant Laura Nowiski, Admin. Assistant Governance Workshop A Discuss results of Parks and Recreation Sales Tax Survey Parks Director Randy Morrow introduced Dr. Dirk Early from Southwestern University who displayed charts describing the results of the survey. They told Council that approximately 20% of the 6,000 surveys mailed randomly to residents were returned, with an overwhelmingly positive response to support an increased sales tax. B Governance Discussion on Policy for Above -Ground Fuel Tanks Fire Chief Bill Shanklin described the hazards of current above -ground fuel tanks in Georgetown and suggested alternative tanks that would ensure safety and yet still allow small businesses (not retail gasoline sales) to utilize above -ground rather than the more expensive underground containers. A proposed ordinance would require compliance with specific standards and would mandate spill containment and other restrictions designed to ensure safety. The current ordinance allows only those above -ground storage tanks that were already in existence when the ordinance was adopted. Shanklin received permission to bring forward a new ordinance for Council consideration. City Council Meeting Minutes March 12, 1996 Page 1 of 6 Pages C Answer questions on Consent Agenda Items listed specifically below under the Regular Session that will begin no sooner than 7.00 p.m. (for questions only, no action to be taken until Regular Session) Hart and Morrow fielded questions regarding the Hike and Bike Trail through the River Corridors Park. Assistant City Attorney Sheree Rabe and Paralegal Donna Hogg presented redistricting information. Using a Voting Districts Map, Hogg showed the five annexations, each one having been added to the district to which it is adjacent. Using the figures from the 1990 Census, there will be no change in the population percentages distributed to the individual districts. Regular Session - Called to Order at 6.17 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. D Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney E Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property F Sec.551.075 conference with employee Regular Session - convened at 7.22 p.m. G Action on Executive Session Items There was no action on Executive Session items. H Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports Hart asked for a volunteer from Council to attend Texas Leadership Institute on April 11 & 12. Vincent commented positively on the previous session that he had attended. Bain asked that he and Davis be able to share with Council about their trip to the NLC Conference. Wood suggested they plan a workshop item for the next Council Meeting on March 26. Hoyt commented on -the CAPCO Meeting she attended where Georgetown was ably represented by Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry. Wood thanked the citizens who had supported the Phil Gramm/Greg Laughlin press conference last Sunday. Citizens wishing to address the Council City Council Meeting Minutes March 12, 1996 Page 2 of 6 Pages Gregg Harrington of Round Rock, seeking to start a business along I3 5 within the Georgetown City Limits, spoke of difficulty with the permitting processes within the City of Georgetown. Hart noted that the property in question is zoned commercial, and that his the requests were compatible for industrial zoning. J Presentation of awards to outstanding development projects Barry told Council he was pleased to be able to speak to them about builders in a positive manner. Awards were presented to: Auto Zone for converting an underutilized parcel of land; to Dr. David Starr for the site design of the Indian Creek Apartments; to Jim Stendebach for Katy Crossing Subdivision and for his help in drafting the model home ordinance; to Jim Caskey, Home Builder Award for 1996; and to Bobby Stanton for creating diversity of neighborhoods in Georgetown. 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. Please note that the following items may be discussed with no action taken during the Workshop at 5:00 p.m. K Consideration of approval of meeting minutes --Regular Meeting of February 27,1996/Sandra Lee L Consideration of declaring approximately 300 books surplus and authorizing donation of same to the Florence Public Library and the Friends of the Georgetown Public Library/Sheila Henderson and Elizabeth Gray M Consideration of an award of the semi-annual bid for computer and copier paper to various bidders in the estimated amount of $14,13 5.5 8/Terry Jones and Susan Morgan N Consideration of an award of the semi-annual bid for janitorial supplies to various bidders in the estimated amount of $9,073.37/Terry Jones and Susan Morgan O Consideration of a resolution to authorize an abandonment of a portion of a ten (10) foot wide public Utility easement located along the side (south) property line of Lot 23, Block 2, Unit Two, Serenada East, located at 707 Cielo Drive/Hildy Kingma and Edward Barry P Consideration of approval of bids for Phase II of the San Gabriel River Hike/Bike Trail and Athletic Complex/Terry Jones and Randy Morrow Motion by Vincent, second by Tonn to approve the Consent Agenda in its entirety. Approved 6-0. (Councilmember Curl absent.) Re ular Agenda City Council Meeting Minutes March 12, 1996 Page 3 of 6 Pages 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.) Q Consideration of acceptance of a report of the independent audit of all accounts of the City, report to management and single audit reports for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1995/Michelle Rundell and Susan Morgan Morgan introduced Earl Maxwell, Steve Knebel, and Scott Krchnak of Maxwell, Locke and Ritter. Knebel said they found no major issues or disagreements with management; they received very good cooperation from the staff; and they commended the Council and the staff on their efforts. Knebel spoke of the relationship of growth and economic conditions and their impact on the City financial statement, both in issuing debt and rebuilding infrastructure. He explained the financial reporting documents that had been included in the Council packets. He commented on the excellence of the reporting and the strength of the internal control. Motion by Hoyt, second by Davis to accept the reports. Approved 6-0. R Approval of a contract with Williamson County in the amount of $58, 881.00 for rural fire protection services/Bill Shanklin Shanklin noted to Council that although he was recommending approval of the contract, he wanted to point out that the amount of money being received from the County is not sufficient to cover the costs of service to the County. Shanklin spoke of the formula used to arrive at the figure each of 16 fire units is to receive. He feels that there needs to be more money added to the amount to be received by the fire districts. Bain suggested that the renewal of the contract should be more in -line with the budget process. Motion by Tonn, second by Hoyt to approve the contract. Approved 6-0. S Approval of an ordinance amending the City's Single Member District Plan to include properties that are in the process of being annexed/Marianne Banks Paralegal Donna Hogg gave a brief overview of the redistricting to be done by the proposed ordinance, and explained that new lines were not required to be drawn at this time. Davis asked and was told that the regulations for redistricting were followed. Davis spoke of hoping to be able to be involved in the future redistricting committee to be convened after the census of 2000, as he had participated in the Redistricting Committee of 1991. Hogg read the ordinance. Motion by Tonn, second by Davis to approve the ordinance on first reading. Approved 6-0. T Consideration of authorization of the City Manager to execute an interlocal agreement with Capital Metro for a " D illo" bus/Mayor Leo Wood City Council Meeting Minutes March 12, 1996 Page 4 of 6 Pages Wood asked Hart for an update on information received from Capital Metro about the particular bus that we would be given to the City. Hart noted that the handicapped lift is not currently working on the bus, and would cost approximately $15,000 to repair. He noted that this would make the bus unavailable for public transportation. The operation and maintenance of the bus would be approximately $15,000 to $20,000. Tonn said he would like for Council to purchase the bus and decide at a later date how it is to be used or whether it is to be sold or given to another organization. Wood recognized Joe Savage, representing Downtown Georgetown Association (DGA), who distributed copies of a DGA resolution requesting the immediate acquisition of the bus by the City. Wood recognized Bob Brent, President of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce, who read a resolution of the Chamber Board requesting that the City purchase the bus. He stated that personally he feels that the trolley bus would add to the "romance" of the community. Arroyos asked Morgan and was told that the cost of insurance and staffing had not been estimated. He asked if this opportunity to acquire the bus from Capital Metro would be available at any other time. He stated that his concern was not the bus itself, but that it is the Council's responsibility to be good stewards of the City's finances, noting that hidden costs could create much more expense than appears on the surface. He spoke of having heard the needs of the staff at the Facilities and Services Working Group meetings. He recommended that this decision be deferred until more research can be done. Bain agreed that it is important that we look more closely at the costs, but felt comfortable in making the decision to purchase the bus. Davis said he feels that the bus will be an asset to the City, but does not want to see the costs of the bus create a burden to the taxpayers. He agreed with Arroyos about his concerns for the increased costs, but thought it would be expedient to accept the bus now and deal with the questions later. Vincent stated that he agreed with Arroyos and feels more research should be done before accepting the bus. Arroyos asked Chamber members in the audience if they, in fact, were prepared to operate the bus. Chamber President Bob Brent said he would need to have his Board respond to the issue. Arroyos asked Tonn to withdraw his motion. Tonn restated his view to purchase the bus for $100 and table the use question until after the Budget Retreat. City Council Meeting Minutes March 12, 1996 Page 5 of 6 Pages Motion by Tonn, second by Hoyt to purchase the bus, bring it into town, set it at the City shop, take a look at the cost of operating the bus, and at that particular time, we may even want to dispose of the bus. Arroyos asked if the City would be allowed to operate the bus, even for special events, without the use of the handicap lift. Rabe replied that it would probably be necessary to provide alternate transportation for handicapped individuals. Vincent suggested going back to Capital Metro to see if there was another bus available that might be more expensive, but would have an operating handicap lift. Wood asked for a vote on the motion. Approved 4-2. (Vincent and Arroyos opposed.) U Final comments and evaluation of meeting process Hart noted that Southwestern University would be having their Grand Opening of the new athletic facility on March 19, the same night that had been scheduled for the Council Mini Retreat. It was suggested that the time be rescheduled for 6:30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. Approved: Leo Wood, Mayor City Council Meeting Minutes March 12, 1996 Page 6 of 6 Pages The meeting was adjourned at 9.-00 p.m. Attest: Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary Council meeting date: 3-26-96 Item No. O AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consideration of approval of a resolution to authorize signatories for the distribution of grant funds from the Texas Community Development Program on behalf of Advanced Cable Services, L.P. ITEM SUNCYLkRY At the July 25, 1995, Council Meeting you approved the application for funding through the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Real Estate Development Program on behalf of Advanced Cable Services, L.P. in the amount of $500,000. Advanced Cable Services designs cable systems for communities and cable companies worldwide. They work with Dale Hoffman at Cablevision here in Georgetown, and are currently working on a system for Singapore. Expenses will begin soon and draws will also be submitted for administration. The State requires that the purchase vouchers and requests for reimbursement be signed by at least two representatives of the City. Therefore, we are providing four signatories to ensure the ability for a quick turn around for the draws. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Resolution 2. TCDP Depository/Authorized Signatories Designation Form ubmitted bv% Bob Hart, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, AND CITY SECRETARY TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS PURCHASE VOUCHER AND THE REQUEST FOR ADVANCE OR REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CONTRACT NO. 715032 ON BEHALF OF ADVANCED CABLE SERVICES, L.P. WHEREAS, the Texas Community Development Program Implementation Manual requires that the recipient organization shall provide authorized signatories for the State of Texas Purchase Voucher and the Request for Advance or Reimbursement; and WHEREAS, the recipient organization, being the City of Georgetown, Texas, has met this requirement by the City Council passing a resolution delegating the persons listed below with the authority to sign the Depository/Authorized Signatories Designation Form for Texas Community Development Program Contract No. 715032 - Advanced Cable Services, L.P.. 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. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds that this resolution implements Economic Development Policy 1 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element, which states: "The City will encourage diversified growth, promote opportunities to create jobs, broaden the tax base, and minimize the impact of economic fluctuations;" 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 3: The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and the City Secretary to attest thereto this resolution which designates as authorized signatories the following officers of the City of Georgetown: Leo Wood Mayor Signatory Resolution No. Advanced Cable Services, L.P. Page lof 2 Pages Bob Hart City Manager Susan Morgan Director of Finance and Administration Sandra Lee City Secretary SECTION 3: This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this 26th day of March, 1996. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN Attest: By: Leo Wood Mayor Approved as to form: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Signatory Resolution No. Advanced Cable Services, L.P. Page 2of 2 Pages Sandra D. Lee City Secretary TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DEPOSITORY/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES DESIGNATION FORM Contractor: Ciiy-of Georgetown TCDP Contract No. 715032 I. The financial lending institution listed here will serve as the depository for the Texas Community Development Program contract funds: Hartland Bank (Name of Lending Institution) 3003 Williams Drive (Address) G oraetown, Tx 78626 (City, State, Zip Code) 3013638 Fund Account Number II. The individuals listed below are designated by resolution as authorized signatory for the following contractual documents. State of Texas Purchase Vouchers - (At least two (2) Signatories Required) BobjLgrt Susan Morgan— Leo Wood Sandrrg Lee (Name) (Name) (Name) (Name) GiMManaAer Director of Finance for Cif 5�pa (Title) (Title) (Title) (Title) (Signature) (Signature) (Signature) (Signature) Requests for Advance or Reimbursement - (At least two (2) Signatories Required) Bob Ugg Susan Morgan Leo Wood Sandra Lee (Name) (Name) (Name) (Name) City Manager Director of Finance Mayor City Secretary_ (Title) (Title) (Title) (Title) (Signature) (Signature) (Signature) (THIS FORM SUPERSEDES ALL OTHERS) DATE SUBMITTED: (Signature) Council meeting date: 3-26-96 Item No. P AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consideration of approval of a resolution to authorize signatories for the distribution of grant funds from the Texas Community Development Program on behalf of Advance Metal Systems, Inc. ITEM SLTNEVLARY There is an item on this agenda for you to accept a grant of $269,550 in support of Advance Metal Systems, Inc., a manufacturer of pre-engineered steel buildings. The Texas Capital Fund grant will be used specifically to construct road improvements in support of the company. Expenses will begin soon and draws will also be submitted for administration. The State requires that the purchase vouchers and requests for reimbursement be signed by at least two representatives of the City. Therefore, we are providing four signatories to ensure the ability for a quick turn around for the draws. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Resolution 2. TCDP Depository/Authorized Signatories Designation Form Submitted-tv: / ) / IV Bob Hart, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, AND CITY SECRETARY TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS PURCHASE VOUCHER AND THE REQUEST FOR ADVANCE OR REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CONTRACT NO. 715152 ON BEHALF OF ADVANCE METAL SYSTEMS, INC. WHEREAS, the Texas Community Development Program Implementation Manual requires that the recipient organization shall provide authorized signatories for the State of Texas Purchase Voucher and the Request for Advance or Reimbursement; and WHEREAS, the recipient organization, being the City of Georgetown, Texas, has met this requirement by the City Council passing a resolution delegating the persons listed below with the authority to sign the Depository/Authorized Signatories Designation Form for Texas Community Development Program Contract No. 715152 - Advance Metal Systems, Inc. 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. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds that this resolution implements Economic Development Policy 1 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element, which states: "The City will encourage diversified growth, promote opportunities to create jobs, broaden the tax base, and minimize the impact of economic fluctuations;" 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 3: The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and the City Secretary to attest thereto this resolution which designates as authorized signatories the following officers of the City of Georgetown: Leo Wood Mayor Signatory Resolution No. _ Advance Metal Systems, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Pages Bob Hart City Manager Susan Morgan Director of Finance and Administration Sandra Lee City Secretary SECTION 3: This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this 26th day of March, 1996. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN Attest: By: Leo Wood Mayor Approved as to form: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Signatory Resolution No. _ Advance Metal Systems, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Pages Sandra D. Lee City Secretary TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DEPOSITORY/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES DESIGNATION FORM Contractor: Ci X of Georgetown TCDP Contract No. 715152 I. The financial lending institution listed here will serve as the depository for the Texas Community Development Program contract funds: Hartland Bank (Name of Lending Institution) 3003 Williams Drive - (Address) Georg;jgwn, Tx 78626 (City, State, Zip Code) 3013638 Fund Account Number II. The individuals listed below are designated by resolution as authorized signatory for the following contractual documents. State of Texas Purchase Vouchers - (At least two (2) Signatories Required) Bob Hart Susan organ Leo Wood Sandra Lee (Name) (Name) (Name) (Name) _ QJX Manager (Title) (Signature) Director -of Finance (Title) (Signature) Mayor (Title) (Signature) City Secretary (Title) (Signature) =c ^_----= =a®=:��=�MMMMM===-�====-s��:moo-..�c- ===== Requests for Advance or Reimbursement - (At least two (2) Signatories Required) Bob_Hart Susan Morgan _ Leo Wood Sandra Le (Name) (Name) (Name) (Name) QiM=nager Director -of Finance mayor... Citv_Secrctary (Title) (Title) (Title) (Title) (Signature) (Signature) (Signature) (THIS FORM SUPERSEDES ALL OTHERS) DATE SUBMITTED: (Signature) Council meeting date: 3-26-96 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consider authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract with the Texas Department of Commerce under the Texas Community Development Program for economic development for the benefit of Advanced Metal Systems, Inc. ITEM SUMMARY The City has received a Texas Capital Fund Grant award to construct a building for Advanced Metal Systems. This is a business that will move to Georgetown. They are acquiring property in the Burnham addition on 22nd Street. This is an area which will help the redevelopment of the southern portion of town and is tied to other public improvements that are being made in the area. FINANCIAL Il"ACT The cost of the grant and administration are both being paid through grant proceeds. Therefore, no direct costs are incurred by the City. The cost to the City is in staff time. ATTACHMENTS S Proposed contract tted by: Bob Hart, City Manager TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CONTRACT (COVER SHEET) TITLE OF CONTRACT: Texas Capital Fund Program CONTRACT NUMBER: � 1 �516a- This contract is entered into by the Texas Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the following named Contractor: DEPARTMENT Texas Department of Commerce Texas Capital Fund Program P. O. Box 12728 Austin, Texas 78711-2728 Contact Person: Heather Richardson CONTRACTOR City of Georgetown Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409 Contact Person: Mavor Leo Wood Contractor agrees to expend the funds to construct infrastructure improvements (road) in support of Advance Metal Systems, Inc., a steel building fabricator, to create jobs primarily for low -to -moderate income in accordance with the general provisions of this Contract; the following Exhibits, incorporated by reference and made part of this Contract. This Contract consists of the following documents: * Contract (Cover Sheet) * Exhibit B, Budget * General Provisions * Exhibit C, Implementation Schedule * Exhibit A, Performance Statement * Exhibit D, Laws and Regulations * Exhibit E, Certifications Contractor must execute this contract within thirty (30) days of receipt and submit to the Commerce. Contractor is responsible and acknowledges through execution of this contract to abide by all terms and conditions specified herein. CONTRACT PERIOD: From: February 26, 1996 Until: February 25, 1999 FUNDING OBLIGATION: Not to Exceed $269,550 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CONTRACT FOR THE TEXAS CAPITAL FUND STATE OF TEXAS ] COUNTY OF TRAVIS ] SECTION 1. PARTIES TO CONTRACT This contract and agreement is made and entered into by and between the Texas Department of Commerce, an agency of the State of Texas, hereinafter referred to as "Commerce", and the City of Georgetown, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor". The parties hereto have severally and collectively agreed and by the execution hereof are bound to the mutual obligations and to the performance and accomplishment of the tasks described herein. SECTION 2. CONTRACT PERIOD This contract and agreement shall commence on February 26, 1996, and shall terminate on February 25, 1999, unless otherwise specifically provided by the terms of this contract. SECTION 3. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE A. Contractor shall conduct, in a satisfactory manner as determined by Commerce, an economic development program, hereinafter sometimes referred to as Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), in a non -entitlement area under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5301 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act and the implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 570 and 57 Fed. Reg. 53388 et seq. (Nov. 9, 1992), hereinafter, referred to as the Regulations. Contractor shall perform all activities in accordance with the terms of the Performance Statement, hereinafter referred to as Exhibit A; the Budget, hereinafter referred to as Exhibit B; the Project Implementation Schedule, hereinafter referred to as Exhibit C; the Applicable Laws and Regulations, hereinafter referred to as Exhibit D; the Certifications, hereinafter referred to as Exhibit E; the assurances, certifications, and all other statements made by Contractor in its application for the project funded under this contract; and with all other terms, provisions, and requirements set forth in this contract. B. In the event Contractor fails to satisfy any special condition of this contract, fails to implement the project described in Exhibit A, Performance Statement, of this contract, including ensuring the creation or retention of the number of permanent jobs specified therein, or fails to comply with any provision of this contract, in addition to the remedies specified elsewhere in this contract, Contractor may be liable to Commerce for an amount not to exceed Commerce's maximum obligation under this contract, and may be barred from applying for or receiving additional Texas Community Development Program (TCDP) contracts until repayment to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) is made and any other compliance or audit finding is resolved. Page 1 of 15 SECTION 4. COMMERCE OBLIGATIONS A. Measure of Liability In consideration of full and satisfactory performance of the activities referred to in Section 3 of this contract, Commerce will be liable for actual and reasonable costs incurred by Contractor during the contract period for performances rendered under this contract by Contractor, subject to the limitations set forth in this Section 4. 1. It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto that Commerce's obligations under this Section 4 are contingent upon the actual receipt of adequate state or federal funds to meet Commerce's liabilities under this contract. If adequate funds are not available to make payments under this contract, Commerce will notify Contractor in writing within a reasonable time after such fact is determined. Commerce may terminate this contract and will not be liable for failure to make payments to Contractor under this contract. 2. Commerce will not be liable to Contractor for any costs incurred by Contractor, or any portion thereof, which has been paid to Contractor or is subject to payment to Contractor, or has been reimbursed to Contractor or is subject to reimbursement to Contractor by any source other than Commerce or Contractor. 3. Commerce will not be liable to Contractor for any costs incurred by Contractor which are not allowable costs, as set forth in Section 6 (B) of this contract. 4. Commerce will not be liable to Contractor for any costs incurred by Contractor or for any performances rendered by Contractor which are not strictly in accordance with the terms of this contract, including the terms of Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, and Exhibit E of this contract. 5. Commerce may not be liable to Contractor for any costs incurred by Contractor in the performance of this contract which have not been billed to Commerce by Contractor within sixty (60) days following termination of this contract unless otherwise provided for in the Certificate of Completion referred to in Section 8 (C) of this contract. 6. Commerce will not be liable for costs incurred or performances rendered by Contractor before commencement of this contract or after termination of this contract, except as may be specifically set forth in Exhibit B, Budget, of this contract. B. Excess Payments Contractor will refund to TDHCA any sum of money which has been paid to Contractor by TDHCA or Commerce, which Commerce determines has resulted in overpayment to Contractor, or which Commerce determines has not been spent by Contractor strictly in accordance with the terms of this contract. No refund payment(s) may be made from local, state, or federal grant funds unless repayment with grant funds is specifically permitted by statute or regulation. Such refund will be made by Contractor to TDHCA within thirty (30) working days after such refund is requested by Commerce. C. Limit of Liability Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract, the total of all payments and other obligations incurred by Commerce under this contract shall not exceed the sum of Two Hundred Sixty-nine Thousand Five Hundred Fifty and No/100 Dollars ($269,550). Page 2 of 15 SECTION 5. METHOD OF PAYMENT A. Contractor shall submit to Commerce at its offices in Travis County, Texas, a properly completed Request for Advance or Reimbursement Form 270, as specified by Commerce, as often as actually needed. Commerce will determine the reasonableness of each amount requested and will not make disbursement of any such payment until Commerce has reviewed and approved such Request. Request for reimbursement must be supported by documentation as referenced in the most recent version of the TCF Project Implementation Manual. B. Contractor's requests for advance shall be limited to the minimum amounts needed for effective operation of programs under this contract, and shall be timed as closely as possible to be in accord with actual cash requirements. Contractor shall establish procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from Commerce to Contractor and shall ensure that such funds are disbursed as soon as administratively possible. C. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5 (A) of this contract, it is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto that payments under this contract are contingent upon Contractor's full and satisfactory performance of its obligations under this contract. D. It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto that any right or remedy provided for in this Section 5 or in any other provision of this contract shall not preclude the exercise of any other right or remedy under this contract or under any provision of law, nor shall any action taken in the exercise of any right or remedy be deemed a waiver of any other rights or remedies. Failure to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise that or any other right or remedy at any time. SECTION 6. UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND PROGRAM INCOME A. Except as specifically modified by law or the provisions of this contract, Contractor shall comply with the Regulations and, for matters not addressed therein, with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, as revised January 1981, in performing this contract. The allowability of costs incurred for performances rendered hereunder shall be determined in accordance with OMB Circular A-87, as supplemented by the rules promulgated by the Office of the Governor under the Uniform Grant and Contract Management Act of 1981 (TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. Chapter 783), and this contract. B. Contractor shall comply with the requirements set forth in Section 570.489(e) of the Regulations to account for program income related to activities financed in whole or in part with funds provided under this contract. Program income is defined as the gross income received by Contractor that was generated from the use of CDBG funds. C. Contractor shall maintain records of the receipt, accrual, and disposition of all program income in the same manner as required for all other funds under this contract, and Contractor shall provide reports of program income to Commerce with each form submitted by Contractor in accordance with Section 5 of this contract, and at the termination of this contract. Contractor shall report the amount of program income recaptured to Commerce with updates concerning the status of outstanding loans or leases, including but not limited to payments received and amendments to the original loan or lease agreement, as required by this contract. 1. Contractor hereby agrees not to participate in program income recapture and understands that program income earned by Contractor from this contract will be utilized by Commerce in a statewide revolving loan fund for other eligible economic development projects. Program income earned by Contractor from this contract shall be sent to TDHCA by Contractor within ten days after receipt by Contractor. By agreeing to this measure, Contractor will be eligible to apply for as many Texas Capital Page 3 of 15 Fund awards during the 1995 Texas Capital Fund program year as it has eligible projects, however Contractor must be in compliance with the thirty-six (36) month threshold requirement as specified in the 1995 TCDP Program Final Statement. SECTION 7. RETENTION AND ACCESSIBILITY OF RECORDS A. Contractor shall maintain fiscal records and supporting documentation for all expenditures of funds made under this contract in a manner which conforms to OMB Circular A-87, Section 570.490 of the Regulations, and this contract. Such records shall include data on the racial, ethnic, and gender characteristics of persons who are applicants for, participants in, or beneficiaries of the funds provided under this contract. Contractor shall retain such records, and any supporting documentation, for the greater of three years from closeout of this contract or the period required by other applicable laws and regulations as described in the Regulations. B. Contractor shall give the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, the Auditor of the State of Texas, and Commerce, or any of their duly authorized representatives, access to and the right to examine all books, accounts, records, reports, files, and other papers, things, or property belonging to or in use by Contractor pertaining to this contract including records concerning the past use of CDBG funds. Such rights to access shall continue as long as the records are retained by Contractor. Contractor agrees to maintain such records in an accessible location and to provide citizens reasonable access to such records consistent with the Texas Open Records Act. C. Contractor shall include the substance of this Section 7 in all subcontracts SECTION 8. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS A. Contractor shall submit to Commerce such reports on the operation and performance of this contract as may be required by Commerce including but not limited to the reports specified in this Section 8. B. Contractor shall submit to Commerce no later than the twentieth (20th) day of the month after the end of each calendar quarter of the contract period specified in Section 2, a Quarterly Progress Report, a Minority Business Enterprise Report (MBE), a Private Business Employment Report (PBE), an Employee Summary Report and a Quarterly Connection Report, if applicable. The Quarterly Progress Report shall identify the progress, in narrative form, of all construction and nonconstruction activities by budget categories performed pursuant to Exhibit A, Performance Statement, and of the expenditures and obligations of funds by budget category made pursuant to Exhibit B, Budget, of this contract. The Quarterly Progress Report shall be in a format prescribed by Commerce and shall include all such activities, expenditures, and obligations made or performed under this contract during the previous quarter. C. Contractor shall submit a Certificate of Completion to Commerce no later than sixty (60) days after the contract termination date or at the conclusion of all contract activities as determined by Commerce. The Certificate of Completion shall be in a format prescribed by Commerce and shall include a final Project Completion Report of all activities performed under this contract. D. In addition to the limitations on liability otherwise specified in this contract, it is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto that if Contractor fails to submit to Commerce in a timely and satisfactory manner any report required by this contract, Commerce may, at its sole option and in its sole discretion, withhold any or all payments otherwise due or requested by Contractor hereunder. If Commerce withholds such payments, it will notify Contractor in writing of its decision and the reasons therefor. Payments withheld pursuant to this paragraph may be held by Commerce until such time as the delinquent obligations for which funds are withheld are fulfilled by Contractor. Page 4 of 15 SECTION 9. MONITORING Commerce reserves the right to perform periodic on -site monitoring of Contractor's compliance with the terms and conditions of this contract, and of the adequacy and timeliness of Contractor's performances under this contract. After each monitoring visit, Commerce will provide Contractor with a written report of the monitor's findings. If the monitoring report notes deficiencies in Contractor's performances under the terms of this contract, the monitoring report shall include requirements for the timely correction of such deficiencies by Contractor. Failure by Contractor to take action specified in the monitoring report may be cause for suspension or termination of this contract, as provided in Sections 17 and 18 of this contract. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto that Commerce is contracting with Contractor as an Independent Contractor, and that Contractor, as such, agrees to hold Commerce harmless and to indemnify Commerce from and against any and all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character which may be asserted by any third party occurring or in any way incident to, arising out of, or in connection with the services to be performed by Contractor under this contract. SECTION 11. SUBCONTRACTS A. Except for subcontracts to which the federal labor standards requirements apply, Contractor may subcontract for performances described in this contract without obtaining Commerce's prior written approval. Contractor shall only subcontract for performances described in this contract to which the federal labor standards requirements apply after Contractor has submitted a SubContractor Eligibility form, as specified by Commerce, for each such proposed subcontract, and Contractor has obtained Commerce's prior written approval, based on the information submitted, of Contractor's intent to enter into such proposed subcontract. Contractor, in subcontracting for any performances described in this contract, expressly understands that in entering into such subcontracts, Commerce is in no way liable to Contractor's subContractor(s). B. In no event shall any provision of this Section 11, specifically the requirement that Contractor obtain Commerce's prior written approval of a subContractor's eligibility, be construed as relieving Contractor of the responsibility for ensuring that the performances rendered under all subcontracts are rendered so as to comply with all of the terms of this contract, as if such performances rendered were rendered by Contractor. Commerce's approval under Section 11 does not constitute adoption, ratification, or acceptance of Contractor's or subContractor's performance hereunder. Commerce maintains the right to insist upon Contractor's full compliance with the terms of this contract, and by the act of approval under Section 11, Commerce does not waive any right of action which may exist or which may subsequently accrue to Commerce under this contract. C. Contractor shall comply with Attachment O of OMB Circular No. A-102, this contract and all applicable state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances for making procurements under this contract. D. Commerce will maintain an escrow retainage in the amount of five percent (5%) of each construction or rehabilitation subcontract entered into by Contractor until Commerce determines that the Federal labor standards requirements applicable to each such subcontract have been satisfied. SECTION 12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. Contractor shall ensure that no employee, officer, or agent of Contractor shall participate in the selection, or in the award or administration of a subcontract supported by funds provided hereunder if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Such conflict of interest would arise when: 1) The employee, officer, or agent; 2) any member of his or her immediate family; 3) his or her partner; or, 4) any organization which employs, or is about to employ any of the above, has a financial or other interest in the firm or person selected to perform the subcontract. Contractor shall comply with Chapter 171, Local Government Code. Page 5 of 15 B. In all cases not governed by Subsection (A) of this Section and except for eligible administrative or personnel costs, no persons specified in Subsection (C) of this Section who exercise or have exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to the activities assisted under this contract or any other CDBG contract or who are in a position to participate in a decision making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a financial interest or benefit from the activity, or have an interest or benefit from the activity, or have any interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves or those with whom they have family or business ties during their tenure or for one year thereafter. C. The conflict of interest provisions of Subsection (B) apply to any person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected official or appointed official of Contractor or of a subcontractor of Contractor. D. Contractor shall include the substance of this section in all subcontracts. SECTION 13. NONDISCRIMINATION AND SECTARIAN ACTIVITY A. Contractor shall ensure that no person shall on the ground of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or handicap be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be subjected to discrimination under or be denied access to any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this contract. B. None of the performances rendered by Contractor under this contract shall involve, and no portion of the funds received by Contractor under this contract, shall be used in support of any sectarian or religious activity, nor shall any facilities used in the performance of this contract be used for sectarian instruction or as a place of religious worship. Contractor shall comply with regulations promulgated by HUD at 24 C.F.R. Sec. 570.200(j). SECTION 14. LEGAL AUTHORITY A. Contractor assures and guarantees that Contractor possesses the legal authority to enter into this contract, receive funds authorized by this contract, and to perform the services Contractor has obligated itself to perform hereunder. B. The person or persons signing and executing this contract on behalf of Contractor, or representing themselves as signing and executing this contract on behalf of Contractor, do hereby warrant and guarantee that he, she or they have been duly authorized by Contractor to execute this contract on behalf of Contractor and to validly and legally bind Contractor to all terms, performances, and provisions herein set forth. C. Commerce will have the right to suspend or terminate this contract if there is a dispute as to the legal authority of either Contractor or the person signing this contract to enter into this contract, any amendments hereto or to render performances hereunder. Contractor is liable to Commerce for any money it has received from Commerce for performance of the provisions of this contract, if Commerce has suspended or terminated this contract for reasons enumerated in this Section 14. SECTION 15. LITIGATION AND CLAIMS Contractor shall give Commerce immediate notice in writing of 1) any action, including any proceeding before an administrative agency, filed against Contractor arising out the performance of any subcontract hereunder; and 2) any claim against Contractor, the cost and expense of which Contractor may be entitled to be reimbursed by Commerce. Except as otherwise directed by Commerce, Contractor shall furnish immediately to Commerce copies of all pertinent papers received by Contractor with respect to such action or claim. Contractor shall require the business funded under this contract to notify the Commerce immediately of any legal action filed against the business or of any proceeding filed under the federal bankruptcy code. Contractor shall submit a copy of such notice to Commerce within 30 days after receipt. No funds provided under this Page 6 of 15 contract may be used in the payment of any costs incurred from violations or settlements of or failure to comply with federal, state, and regulations. SECTION 16. CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS A. Except as specifically provided otherwise in this contract, any alterations, additions, or deletions to the terms of this contract shall be by amendment hereto in writing and executed by both parties to this contract. B. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that performances under this contract must be rendered in accordance with the Act, the Regulations, the assurances and certifications made to Commerce by Contractor, and the assurances and certifications made to HUD by the State of Texas with regard to the operation of the Texas Community Development Program. Based on these considerations, and in order to ensure the legal and effective performance of this contract by both parties, it is agreed by the parties hereto that the performances under this contract are amended by the provisions of the most recent version of the TCF Project Implementation Manual and any amendments thereto and may further be amended in the following manner: Commerce may from time to time during the period of performance of this contract issue policy directives which serve to establish, interpret, or clarify performance requirements under this contract. Such policy directives shall be promulgated by Commerce in the form of TCF issuances, shall have the effect of qualifying the terms of this contract and shall be binding upon Contractor, as if written herein, provided however that said policy directives and any amendments to said Manual shall not alter the terms of this contract so as to release Commerce of any obligation specified in Section 4 of this contract to reimburse costs incurred by Contractor prior to the effective date of said amendments or policy directives. C. Any alterations, additions, or deletions to the terms of this contract which are required by changes in Federal or state law or regulations are automatically incorporated into this contract without written amendment hereto, and shall be come effective on the date designated by such law or regulation. D. Notwithstanding Subsection A of this Section 16, Contractor may make transfers of funds between or among budget categories of Exhibit B, Budget, without requiring an amendment to this contract, or otherwise requiring Commerce's prior written approval provided that: 1. The cumulative dollar amount of all transfers among direct budget categories is equal to or less than five percent (5%) of the total amount of this contract as specified in Section 4 (C) herein; 2. The transfer will not change the scope or objective of the projects funded under this contract; and 3. Contractor submits a budget revision report to Commerce, on a form specified by Commerce, simultaneously with the submission of Contractor's first Request for Advance Form 270 following any such transfers made in accordance with this Subsection D. SECTION 17. SUSPENSION Notwithstanding the provisions of Tex. Gov't Code Ann. Chapter 2251, in the event Contractor fails to comply with any term of this contract, Commerce may, upon written notification to Contractor, suspend this contract in whole or in part and withhold further payments to Contractor, and prohibit Contractor from incurring additional obligations of funds under this contract. SECTION 18. TERMINATION A. Commerce will have the right to terminate this contract, in whole or in part, at any time before the date of completion specified in Section 2 of this contract whenever Commerce determines that Contractor has failed to comply with any term of this contract. Commerce will notify Contractor in writing upon a termination determination; the reasons for such termination; the effective date of such termination; and in the case of partial termination, the portion of the contract to be terminated. Page 7 of 15 B. Upon termination or receipt of notice to terminate, whichever occurs first, Contractor shall cancel, withdraw, or otherwise terminate any outstanding orders or subcontracts related to the performance of this contract or the part of this contract to be terminated, and shall cease to incur costs thereunder. Commerce will not be liable to Contractor or to Contractor's creditors for costs incurred after termination of this contract. C. Notwithstanding any exercise by Commerce of its right of suspension under Section 17 of this contract, or of early termination pursuant to this Section 18, Contractor shall not be relieved of any liability to Commerce for damages due to Commerce by virtue of any breach of this contract by Contractor. Commerce may withhold payments to Contractor until such time as the exact amount of damages due to Commerce from Contractor is agreed upon or is otherwise determined. D. In accordance with Section 18 of this contract, this contract will terminate four (4) months after the commencement date specified in Section 2 unless the project funded under this contract has begun by such date. Minimum documentation required for compliance shall consist of the following: completion of Section 20, Environmental Clearance Requirements and Section 22, Special Conditions A.1., A.2., A.3. and B.1. SECTION 19. AUDIT A. Unless otherwise directed by Commerce, Contractor shall arrange for the performance of an annual financial and compliance audit of funds received and performances rendered under this contract, subject to the following conditions and limitations: 1. Contractor shall have an audit made in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 7501 et seq., and OMB Circular No. 128, "Audits of State and Local Governments", and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 44, for any of its fiscal years included within the contract period specified in Section 2 of this contract in which Contractor receives more than $25,000 in Federal financial assistance. For purposes of this Section 19, "Federal financial assistance" means assistance provided by a Federal agency in the form of grants, contracts, loans, loan guarantees, property, cooperative agreements, interest subsidies, insurance or direct appropriations, but does not include direct federal cash assistance to individuals. The term includes awards of Federal financial assistance received directly from Federal agencies, or indirectly through other units of State and local government; 2. At the option of Contractor, each audit required by this section may cover either Contractor's entire operations or each department, agency, or establishment of Contractor which received, expended, or otherwise administered federal funds; 3. Notwithstanding Section 4 (a)(5) and Section 4 (a)(6), Contractor shall utilize funds budgeted under this contract to pay for that portion of the cost of such audit services properly allocable to the activities funded by Commerce under this contract, provided however that Commerce shall not make payment for the cost of such audit services until Commerce has received a satisfactory audit report, as determined by Commerce, from Contractor; 4. Unless otherwise specifically authorized by Commerce in writing, Contractor shall submit the report of such audit to Commerce within thirty (30) days after completion of the audit, but no later than one (1) year after the end of each fiscal period included within the period of this contract. Contractor shall ensure that the audit report is made available for public inspection within thirty (30) days after completion of the audit. Audits performed under Subsection A of this Section 19 are subject to review and resolution by Commerce or its authorized representative. 5. The audit report shall include verification of all expenditures by budget category including local funds, in accordance with Exhibit B, Budget, of this contract. B. Notwithstanding Subsection A of this Section 19, Commerce reserves the right to conduct an annual financial and compliance audit of funds received and performances rendered under this contract. Contractor Page 8 of 15 agrees to permit Commerce or its authorized representative to audit Contractor's records and to obtain any documents, materials, or information necessary to facilitate such audit. C. Contractor understands and agrees that it shall be liable to Commerce for any costs disallowed pursuant to financial and compliance audit(s) of funds received under this contract. No refund payment(s) maybe made from local, state, or federal grant funds unless repayment with grant funds is specifically permitted by statute or regulation. D. Contractor shall take such action to facilitate the performance of such audit or audits conducted pursuant to this Section 19 as Commerce may require of Contractor. SECTION 20. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS A. Contractor understands and agrees that by the execution of this contract Contractor shall assume the responsibilities for environmental review, decision making, and other action which would otherwise apply to Commerce under Section 5304(f) of the Act, in accordance with and to the extent specified in 24 C.F.R. Part 58. In accordance with Section 58.77(b) of such regulations, Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor shall handle inquiries and complaints from persons and agencies seeking redress in relation to environmental reviews covered by approved certifications. B. Funds provided under this contract may be obligated and expended before the actions specified in this Section occur only for the following eligible activities: 1. The payment of reasonable planning and administrative costs related to the project; 2. Environmental studies, including environmental clearance activities required by this Section; and 3. The payment or reimbursement of reasonable project engineering and design costs incurred for this project. C. Contractor shall prepare a written Environmental Assessment of its activities in accordance with 24 C.F.R. Part 58, Subpart F, and the most recent version of the TCF Project Implementation Manual. Contractor shall then follow the steps specified in this subsection to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). When the Environmental Assessment is completed, Contractor shall follow one of the following two (2) procedures. The first is a Finding of Significant Impact, in which the Request for Release of Funds for the project is an action which may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. If this is the case, Contractor shall then prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with Subpart H or Subpart I of 24 C.F.R. Part 58. The second and more common procedure shall be followed for all projects not requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. Contractor in this instance shall publish, in the manner prescribed in 24 C.F.R. Sections 58.43 and 58.44, a combined legal notice in a single publication: A Finding of No Significant Impact, and a Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds. In the first part of this notice, Contractor certifies that, as a result of the Environmental Assessment, the project is not an action which may or will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Contractor shall then provide the public with at least fifteen (15) calendar days to comment on this combined notice following its publication date, unless exceptional circumstances exist as specified in 24 C.F.R. Section 58.46. If no unresolved problems occur, Contractor shall then concurrently submit to Commerce the following documents: A Publisher's Affidavit and Certification form, for the combined legal notice; and 2. A Request for Release of Funds form. Upon receipt of such documents, Commerce must allow a fifteen (15) calendar days comments period to expire before it can formally release any project funds which are subject to the environmental review regulations. Contractor shall comply with all other applicable environmental requirements as specified in Page 9 of 15 Exhibit D of this contract. Contractor shall document its compliance with such other requirements in its environmental review file. SECTION 21. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS A. Contractor shall provide for and encourage citizen participation, particularly by low and moderate income persons who reside in slum or blighted areas and areas in which the funds provided under this contract are used, in accordance with Section 570.486 of the Regulations and this contract; B. Contractor shall hold a public hearing concerning any activities proposed to be added, deleted, or substantially changed, as determined by the Commerce, from the activities specified in Exhibit A, Performance Statement, of this contract; C. Prior to the termination of this contract, Contractor shall hold a public hearing to review its performance under this contract; D. For each public hearing scheduled and conducted by Contractor under this section, Contractor shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Notice of each hearing shall be published in the non -legal section of a newspaper having general circulation in Contractor's jurisdiction at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to each scheduled hearing. The published notice shall include the date, time, and location of each hearing and the topics to be considered at each hearing. The published notice shall be printed in both English and Spanish. Commerce shall accept articles published in such newspapers which satisfy the content and timing requirements of this subsection. In addition, Contractor shall prominently post such notices in public buildings and distributed to interested community groups. 2. Public hearings shall be held after 5 p.m. on a weekday or on a Saturday and hearings shall be conducted at a location convenient to potential or actual beneficiaries, with accommodation for the handicapped. 3. When a significant number of non-English speaking residents can reasonably be expected to participate in a public hearing, Contractor shall provide an interpreter to accommodate the needs of the non-English speaking residents. E. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this contract, Contractor shall retain documentation of the public hearing notices, a list of the attendees at each hearing, and minutes of each hearing held in accordance with this section for a period of three (3) years after the termination of this contract. Contractor shall make such records available to the public in accordance with TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. Chapter 552; F. Complaint Procedures. Contractor shall maintain written citizen complaint procedures that provide a timely written response to complaints and grievances. Contractor shall ensure that its citizens are aware of the location and hours at which they may obtain a copy of the written procedures and the address and phone number for submitting complaints. SECTION 22. SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. Contractor shall satisfy the following Special Conditions prior to release of any contract funds, hereinafter defined as any funds provided by Commerce under this contract: 1. Commerce will not release any funds for any costs incurred by Contractor under this contract until Commerce has received certification from Contractor that its fiscal control and fund accounting procedures are adequate to assure proper disbursal of and accounting for funds provided under this contract or a copy of Contractor's previous fiscal year audit report. Page 10 of 15 2. Contractor shall submit to Commerce a properly completed Depository/Authorized Signators Designation form, as specified by Commerce, from Contractor. 3. Contractor shall provide Commerce with a copy of the administration contract, if one is contracted. This contract shall conform with guidelines established by Commerce and in effect as of the date of this contract. 4. Contractor shall provide Commerce with copies of the executed agreements with the secondary beneficiaries of the proposed road improvements. Such agreements will ensure that the secondary beneficiaries will provide best faith efforts to hire primarily low -to -moderate income individuals for all new hires from the date of this contract to a date one year after completion of the proposed road improvements. S. Contractor shall provide Commerce with a signed copy of the Discharge Notice for Mr. Don Welker's bankruptcy. Such Discharge shall include the removal of the Internal Revenue Service Tax lien. However, if the Internal Revenue Tax lien not can be discharged, an acceptable payment plan must be submitted. Such documentation of the signed Discharge or payment plan must be submitted to Commerce by February 25, 1997. B. Contractor shall satisfy the following Special Conditions prior to release of contract funds, excluding funds budgeted for engineering and administration: 1. Contractor shall submit to Commerce a copy of its executed contract agreement with the private firm involved in the project funded under this contract (Advance Metal Systems, Inc. sometimes hereinafter referred to as "the Company"). Such document shall detail the terms and conditions, including the following: a. The types of positions, number, wage scales and minimum skill levels of all permanent positions to be created as a result of this project, including a provision requiring that fifty-one percent (51 %) or more of all jobs created are filled by low -to -moderate income persons; b. A copy of the Company's payroll verifying the number of persons employed as of the date of this contract shall be provided to Contractor and Commerce; c. A hiring plan that includes methods of identifying and training potential low/moderate income job applicants; d. The activities to be performed by Contractor and the Company, as specified in Exhibit A, Performance Statement, of this contract; e. Provisions requiring the Company to repay Contractor for contract funds expended in the event the Company does not fulfill its responsibilities under the agreement; f. A condition which restricts the principals of the Company from reducing their proportionate ownership in the Company without prior approval from Contractor and Commerce, during the contract period; g. A condition which states that the Company certifies that all taxes are current and future taxes will be paid when due; h. A condition requiring Contractor to make quarterly on -site visits to the Company to as- sess/monitor the progress toward job creation and requiring the Company to provide to local officials at the time of on -site visits information regarding job creation and any other information deemed necessary by Contractor to administer this contract; Page 11 of 15 i. Provisions requiring records to be kept and reports to be made regarding the documentation of low and moderate income benefit and beneficiaries by race, ethnicity, gender, and handicap status in the same manner and to the same extent as Commerce requires of Contractor; and j. Any other relevant details or special conditions placed on the contract. 2. Contractor shall not advertise or solicit bids for construction or rehabilitation of a project assisted with funds provided under this contract until Contractor has received the applicable prevailing wage rates from Commerce. 3. Contractor shall submit to Commerce Advance Metal Systems, Inc.'s executed loan agreement in the minimum amount of Three Hundred Twenty-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($325,000) from Texas Heritage Bank to be utilized in conjunction with the project funded under this contract. 4. Contractor shall ensure that all acquisition of real property, easements and/or rights -of -way, for this proposed project, be in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4601 et.seq.), HUD implementing regulations (49 CFR Part 24) and submit a real property acquisition report. This requirement applies to both private and public real property. 5. Contractor shall provide documentation to Commerce that the plans and specifications for its water system improvements have been reviewed, and when applicable approved by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission prior to construction. Such documents shall be sent to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Water Utilities Division, P.O. Box 12100, Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753 and shall be identified as activities being financed through Commerce. 6. Contractor shall provide documentation to Commerce that the plans and specifications for its sewer system improvements have been reviewed, and when applicable, approved by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission prior to construction. Such documents shall be sent to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Watershed Management Division, P.O. Box 12100, Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753 and shall be identified as activities being financed through Commerce. C. Contractor shall satisfy the following Special Conditions prior to completion or termination of this contract, however failure to submit these special conditions will result in noncompliance. 1. Contractor shall provide a ledger which includes copies of invoices or receipts and canceled checks of Advance Metal Systems, Inc.'s cash equity injection of One Hundred Thirty-two Thousand Three Hundred Forty-five and No/100 Dollars ($132,345) for the purchase of the site described in Special Condition C.2. and payroll. 2. Contractor shall provide a ledger which includes copies of invoices or receipts and canceled checks of Advance Metal Systems, Inc.'s cash or loan injection of Three Hundred Twenty-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($325,000) for the purchase of and improvements to the following site: Tract No. 1 - Parcels, 23, 24, 25 and 26, Vol. Sec. T-6-A, Map S-4-B Beginning at the intersection of the center line of the Missouri -Kansas -Texas Railroad Company's I.C.C. Track No. 11 (old I&GS interchange track) with the West line of Austin Avenue (formerly Brushy Street, 80' wide) in the City of Georgetown, Texas; Thence northerly along the West line of Austin Avenue to a point that is distant 25 feet measured northerly at right angles from the center line of said I.C.C. Tract No. 11; Thence westerly parallel with and 25 feet northerly from the center line of said I.C.C. track a distance of 874 feet, more or less, to a point of curve; Thence by arc of curve to the right, northwesterly, parallel with and 25 feet northerly from the center line of said track, said curve having a radius of 477.5 feet a distance of 583 feet to a point of tangent; Page 12 of 15 Thence continuing in a northwesterly direction parallel with and 25 feet easterly from the center line of said track a distance of 493 feet to a point of curve; Thence by arc of curve to the right, northerly, parallel with and 25 feet easterly from the center line of said track, said curve having a radius of 562 feet a distance of 186 feet to a point of tangent; Thence northerly parallel with and 25 feet easterly from the center line of said track a distance of 226 feet, more or less, to a point in the southerly line of 18th Street; Thence westerly along the South line of 18th Street a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the easterly line of Leander Street; Thence southerly along the Easterly line of Leander Street a distance of 1210 feet to an angle point; Thence deflecting an angle of 70 degrees, more or less, to the left, easterly, to a point that is distant 25 feet, measured southerly, at right angles from the center line of said track; Thence easterly parallel with and 25 feet southerly from the center line of said track and being on a curve to the left, having a radius of 527.5 feet, a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to an angle point; Thence deflecting an angle of 58 degrees, more or less, to the right, southerly, tangent to last -described curve to a point in the South Corporate City Limits line of the City of Georgetown; Thence easterly along said South Corporate Limits line to the West line of Austin Avenue; Thence northerly along the West line of Austin Avenue to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 3.75 acres, more or less. Tract No. 2 0.71 of an acre of land, more or less, out of the C. STUBBLEFIELD SURVEY, Abstract No. 558, and being a part of Outlots 4, 5, and 6, Division "A", City of Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, and being more fully described by metes and bounds below: Field notes for a tract of 0.71 acre of land out of the C. STUBBLEFIELD SURVEY, A-558, situated in the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas, being that tract of land described in a deed from Mallie C. Burnham to W. L. Hunt, et ex. dated February 9, 1957 and recorded in Volume 416, Page 282 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. Beginning at a 4" old cedar fence comer post, beside which is set an iron stake, at the southeast fence comer of the above described Hunt tract; said point being 24.7 ft. northerly of the center of the tracks of the old M. K. & T. Railroad bed, said railroad running north of West 21 st Street of Georgetown; for the POINT OF BEGINNING and Southeast corner hereof. Thence proceeding along the south line of said Hunt tract, and along a chain link fence, N88°39'W 156.11 ft. to a 4' iron pipe fence corner post at the southwest corner of said Hunt tract; said point lying 25.3 ft. northerly of said railroad track center; for the Southwest corner hereof. Thence proceeding along the west line of said Hunt tract, and along an old wire fence line, N 19°30'W 209.60 ft. to an old 8' cedar corner post, beside which is set an iron stake; for the Northwest corner hereof. Thence proceeding along the north line of said Hunt tract, and along an old wire fence line, S89043'E 157.02 ft. to an old 8' cedar corner post, beside which is set an iron stake; for the Northeast corner hereof. Thence proceeding along the east line of said Hunt tract, and along an old wire fence line, S19°00'E 212.01 ft. to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.71 acre of land. Tract No. 3 All of the BURNHAM ADDITION, to the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Cabinet A, Slides 299-300, SAVE AND EXCEPT Lots 19 and 20 of Burnham Addition. 3. Contractor shall provide documentation to Commerce that the final plans and specifications for construction of, improvements to or the renovation of buildings, described in Exhibit A of this Contract, have been approved by the appropriate division director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. This documentation shall include such director's assurance that the improvements or renovations will be in compliance with the requirements concerning the elimination of architectural barriers encountered by persons with disabilities as specified in TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN.art. 9102 and the rules promulgated thereunder. 4. Contractor shall ensure that any business that utilizes any of the infrastructure improvements being constructed with funds provided under this contract, in whole or in part, executes a written agreement with Contractor committing to provide at least fifty-one percent (51 %) of all of the created/retained jobs Page 13 of 15 to low and moderate income individuals for a one (1) year period beginning upon completion of the proposed infrastructure improvements. Contractor is responsible for maintaining records of any business that utilizes the infrastructure improvements constructed with funds provided under this contract. These records are subject to review by Commerce upon request. Contractor shall submit to Commerce no later than the twentieth (20th) day of the month after the end of each calendar quarter of the contract period, specified in Section 2, a Quarterly Connection Report in a format prescribed by Commerce. 5. Contractor shall ensure that Commerce is provided with a copy of the Company's compiled Balance Sheet and Income Statement (due ninety (90) days after the fiscal year end) on an annual basis; 6. Contractor shall submit a Fair Housing Plan to Commerce, in a format prescribed by TDHCA or Commerce, within six (6) months of the policy issuance of the Fair Housing Plan requirements by TDHCA. The Plan shall document an assessment of Contractor's housing needs; the methods Contractor will utilize to address any inequities identified; a timeframe for resolving any inequities included in the assessment; and an extensive review of conditions surrounding public housing (if applicable). In accordance with Section 18 of the contract, this contract shall terminate if TDHCA or Commerce do not receive the Plan by the due date. SECTION 23. DEBARMENT By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that it will not award any funds provided under this contract to any party which is debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549 and 24 CFR Part 24. Contractor shall receive the certification provided by the Commerce from each proposed subcontractor under this contract and its principals. SECTION 24. ORAL AND WRITTEN AGREEMENTS A. All oral and written agreements between the parties to this contract relating to the subject matter of this contract that were made prior to the execution of this contract have been reduced to writing and are contained in this contract. B. The attachments enumerated and denominated below are hereby made a part of this contract, and constitute promised performances by Contractor in accordance with Section 3 of this contract: 1. Exhibit A, Performance Statement, 1 Page 2. Exhibit B, Budget, 1 Page 3. Exhibit C, Project Implementation Schedule, 1 Page 4. Exhibit D, Applicable Laws and Regulations, 2 Pages 5. Exhibit E, Certifications, 2 Pages SECTION 25. VENUE For purposes of litigation pursuant to this contract, venue shall lie in Travis County, Texas. SECTION 26. AUTHORIZED SIGNATOR This contract is not effective unless signed by the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Commerce or by her authorized designee. Page 14 of 15 WITNESS OUR HANDS: This contract and agreement shall commence on February 26, 1996, and shall terminate on February 25, 1999, unless otherwise specifically provided by the terms of this contract, and is accepted and executed on behalf of the City of Georgetown on this date, Leo Wood, Mayor the City of Georgetown Accepted and executed on behalf of the Texas Department of Commerce on this date, Brenda F. Arnett, Executive Director Texas Department of Commerce Page 15 of 15 EXHIBIT A PERFORMANCE STATEMENT the City of Georgetown Contractor shall carry out the following activities in the target area(s) identified on the map in its 1995 Economic Development application: Project Description The purpose of this Economic Development project is to provide infrastructure improvements in the form of road improvements in support of Advance Metal Systems, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The infrastructure improvements will allow the Company to expand and relocate its operations to the City of Georgetown. The Company is a steel building fabricator. Financial Information Contractor shall expend Two Hundred Twenty-two Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-eight and No/100 Dollars ($222,798) of contract funds for road improvements to include widening approximately seven hundred five linear feet (705 I.f.) of road to a width of a thirty-one feet (31 ft.) side curb and gutter section, and approximately thirty-four thousand cubic feet (34,000 cu.ft.) of concrete -lined detention pond, with two ten foot (10 ft.) curb inlets, approximately one hundred linear feet (100 I.f.) of R.C.P. drainage pipe. Construction will take place on West 21 st Street, between the Company's Driveway and U.S. Highway 81. Contractor shall ensure that the Company injects a minimum of Five Hundred Sixty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($560,000) of which a minimum of One Hundred Thirty-two Thousand Three Hundred Forty-five and No/100 Dollars ($132,345) is from cash equity, One Hundred Two Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-five ($102,655) is from net equity in equipment, and the remaining funds of Three Hundred Twenty-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($325,000) from a loan from Texas Heritage Bank. Funds shall be utilized for the purchase and construction of building improvements, equipment equity and payroll. Contractor shall comply with all acquisition of needed real property, easements and/or rights -of -way in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4601 et.seq.) and HUD implementing regulations (49 CFR Part 24). Contractor shall provide to Commerce, upon request, evidence that project funds, both private and contract, were expended as specified in this EXHIBIT A and in EXHIBIT B of this contract. Engineering Contractor shall expend Twenty-two Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($22,000) of contract funds to pay for eligible project -related engineering services, including preliminary and final design plans and specifications, interim and final inspections. Administration Contractor shall expend Twenty-four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-two and No/100 Dollars ($24,752) of contract funds to carry out project administration activities, including the cost associated with the required program fiscal and compliance audit. Project Outcomes As a result of this project, Contractor shall ensure that the Company creates fourteen (14) full-time equivalent permanent jobs of which eight (8) shall be held by low and moderate income persons prior to the expiration date of this contract. In the event more than fourteen (14) permanent jobs are created, Contractor shall ensure that at least fifty-one percent (51 %) of all jobs created, during the contract period, are held by low and moderate income persons. Page 1 of 1 CATEGORIES Acquisition Loan Equity Engineering: Basic Services Public Facilities: Road Improvements Bldg. Construction Machinery/Equipment: Equity Working Capital: EXHIBIT B BUDGET the City of Georgetown TCF OTHER -0- -0- 22,000 222,798 -0- -0- 78,000 ' 75,000 2 -0- -0- 247,000 ' 102,655 2 TOTAL $158,000 22,000 222,798 247,000 102,655 Salaries -0- 57,345 2 57,345 SUBTOTALS $244,798 $560,000 $804,798 Administration 24,752 -0- 24,752 TOTALS $269,550 $560,000 $829,550 1 $325,000 Loan from Texas Heritage Bank. 2 $235,000 Equity contribution by Advance Metal Systems, Inc. of which $102,655 from net equity value in equipment and $132,345 from cash Page 1 of 1 Ex C PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE the City of Georgetown ACTIVITY M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F 1. Contract x ----- x Negotiation 2. Environmental x ----- x Review 3. Real Estate: Acquisition x-------- x Equity n/a 4. Infrastructure x----------------------------- x 5. Bldg. Const. x-I--I--I--I--I------------------x 6. Working x-------------- x Capital 7. Mach. & Equip.. Acquisition n/a Equity x- --- -x 8. Engineering x-------- ------ --- --- ---------x 9. Administration x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x 10. Audit/Closeout x x x-I--Ix 11. Other n/a NUMBER OF JOBS: CREATED PER QTR -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 5 7 2 -0- CONTRACT BEGINNING DATE: February 26, 1996 CONTRACT ENDING DATE: February 25, 1999 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT D THE APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS Contractor shall comply with the Act and Regulations specified in Section 3 of this contract and with the OMB Circulares specified in Section 6 of this contract; Cash Management Improvement Act regulation 1075 (31 C.F.R. Part 205); and with all other federal, state, and local laws and regulations applicable to the activities and performances rendered by Contractor under this contract including but not limited to the laws, and the regulations promulgated thereunder specified in Section I through VI of this Exhibit D. CIVIL RIGHTS Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (42 U.S.C. Section 2000d et seq.); 24 C.F.R. Part I, "Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of HUD - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964"; Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, "The Fair Housing Act of 1968" (42 U.S.C. Sec 3601 et seq.), as amended; Executive Order 11063, as amended by Executive Order 12259, and 24 C. F.R. Part 107, "Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity in Housing under Executive Order 11063". The failure or refusal of Contractor to comply with the requirements of Executive Order 11063 or 24 C.F.R. Part 107 shall be a proper basis for the imposition of sanctions specified in 24 C.F.R. 107.60; The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 6101 et seq.); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794.) and "Nondiscrimination Based on Handicap in Federally -Assisted Programs and Activities of HUD", 24 C.F.R. Part 8. By signing this contract, Contractor .understands and agrees that the activities funded herein shall be operated in accordance with 24 C.F.R. Part 8; and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4151 et seq.), including the use of a telecommunications device for deaf persons (TDDs) or equally effective communication system. LABOR STANDARDS The Davis -Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. Secs. 276a - 276a-5); The Contract Work Hours & Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.); The Copeland "Anti -Kickback" Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 874). III. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. Sec.1701 u). IV. LEAD -BASED PAINT Section 302 of the Lead -Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4831(b)) and the procedures established by the Commerce thereunder. Page 1 of 2 V. ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS Environmental Review Procedures for Title I Community Development Block Grant Programs, 24 C.F.R. Part 58; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) and 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508; The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470 et seq.) as amended; particularly Section 106 (16 U.S.C. Sec.470f); Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 13, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 8921), particularly Section 2(c); The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 469 et seq.), particularly Section 3 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 469a-1), as amended by the archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974; Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4001 et seq.) as amended, particularly Sections 102(a) and 202(a) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4012a (a) and Sec. 4106(a)); Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977 (42 Fed. Reg. 26951), particularly Section 2(a); Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977 (42 Fed. Reg. 26961), particularly Sections 2 and 5; The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1451 et seq.) as amended, particularly Section 307(c) and (d) (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1456(c) and (d)); The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, (42 U.S.C. Sec. 201, 300(f) et seq.), and (21 U.S.C. Sec. 349) as amended, particularly Section 1424, (e) (42 U.S.C. Sec.300h-3(e)); The Endangered Species Act of 1973, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.) as amended, particularly Section 7 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1536); The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271 et seq.) as amended, particularly Section 7(b) and (c)(16 U.S.C. Sec. 1278(b) and (c)); The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) as amended, particularly Section 176(c) and (d) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7506(c) and (d)); 24 C.F.R. Part 51, Environmental Criteria and Standards. VI. ACQUISITION/RELOCATION The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4601 et seq.), 49 C.F.R. Part 24, and 24 C.F.R. Section 570.496a. Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT E CERTIFICATIONS I, Leo Wood as Mayor of the City of Georgetown certify with respect to the expenditure of funds provided under this contract by the City of Georgetown , that; (1) It will minimize displacement of persons as a result of activities assisted with such funds (2) The program will be conducted and administered in conformity with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000a et seq.) and the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.), and that it will affirmatively further fair housing, as specified by TDHCA. (3) It will provide for opportunities for citizen participation, hearings and access to information with respect to its community development programs, as specified by Commerce and TDHCA. (4) It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted in whole or in part with such funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements unless (a) such funds are used to pay the proportion of such fee or assessment that related to the capital costs of such public improvements that are financed from revenue sources other than such funds; or (b) for purposes of assessing any amount against properties owned and.occupied by persons of moderate income, contractor certifies that it lacks sufficient funds under this contract to comply with the requirements of clause (a). (5) In the event that displacement of residential dwellings will occur in connection with a project assisted with TCDP funds, it will follow a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan, as specified by TDHCA and Commerce. (6) It shall adopt and enforce a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individual engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations and a policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstration within its jurisdiction. Leo Wood Mayor City of Georgetown Date Page 1 of 2 CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS, LOANS, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS The undersigned, Leo Wood , as authorized representative of the City of Georgetown , Texas certifies, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that: (1) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a member of congress, an officer or employee of congress, or an employee of a member of congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of congress, an officer or employee of congress, or an employee of a member of congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit standard form - LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying', in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Signed: Leo Wood Mayor City of Georgetown Date: Page 2 of 2 Council Meeting Date: March 26, 1996 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item No. �R SUBJECT Council approval of a Resolution to accept the Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor Project as complete, in accordance with Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)requirements regarding projects funded by State Revolving Funds (SRF). ITEM SUMMARY: When finalizing projects funded with SRF funds, the TWDB requires certain items to be submitted prior to release of the retainage funds to the contractor. One of the items required is a City Council resolution to accept the project and release final payment (except for retainage). The resolution is submitted along with the other items to the TWDB for certification that the project is complete. Therefore, staff recommends Council approval of a resolution to accept the Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor Project as complete, and to release final payment to the contractor. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: NONE FINANCIAL IMPACT: Total project cost is $1,470,254.41. Total paid to date (excluding 5% retainage) is $1,396,741.69. Retainage, of $73,512.72, to be paid upon TWDB certification. COMMENTS: NONE ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Resolution Submitted By: Jim Briggs, Director Community Owned Utilities RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE PECAN BRANCH WASTEWATER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT AS COMPLETE AND TO RELEASE FINAL PAYMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR, UPON TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD CERTIFICATION. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has contracted the Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor project; and WHEREAS, the City Council requested funding by the Texas Water Development Board for this project; and WHEREAS, the Texas Water Development Board requires five percent (5 %) of the project costs be retained until such time as the Texas Water Development Board certifies that all requirements of the the project have been met and are complete, and WHEREAS, one of the requirements of the project is a City Council resolution to accept the project, and agree to release final payment (except for the required 5 % retainage); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: The Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor project has been satisfactorily completed and inspected, and is 'hereby accepted into the City of Georgetown Wastewater System, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That final payment (except for 5% retainage) be released to the contractor of the Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor project, with 5% retainage being released upon Texas Water Development Board certification of the project. RESOLVED this day of _ , 1996. Form Resolution No. Page 1 of 2 ATTEST: Sandra Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers -Banks City Attorney Form Resolution No. Pace 2 of 2 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: Leo Wood Mayor CDMCamp Dresser & McKee Inc. environmental services Westech 360 8911 Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 4240 Austin, Texas 78759-7267 Tel: 512 345-6651 Fax: 512 345-1483 February 5,1996 Mr. Don Rundell, P.E. System Engineering Manager Community Owned Utilities City of Georgetown 1101 N. College Georgetown, TX 78626 RE: City of Georgetown Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor Dear Mr. Rundell: The work on the Pecan Branch Wastewater Interceptor is complete and the Contractor has submitted his final pay estimate. Before the City can release the retainage there are certain items that must be submitted to the TWDB in compliance with the City's SRF funding of this project. Based upon my conversation with Mr. Larry Page, TWDB, the following needs to be submitted to the TWDB prior to releasing the retainage. 1. A council resolution accepting the project and releasing final payment, except for retainage. The retainage may be released only after certification by the TWDB. The resolution should also include the warranty start date. 2. The Engineer's statement that the project was constructed in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications. 3. The Contractor's affidavit of all bills paid. We have received the Contractor's affidavit of all bills paid as well as test results on the line and the release from the Cocke Family Trust. We will be preparing the Engineer's statement. The City needs to prepare the resolution for council action. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, C P DRES ER MCKEE C. Allen D. Woelke, P.E. Principal Engineer A2349LTR.ADW Council Meeting Date: March 26, 1996 Item No.y AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Council approval of the agreement, between the City of Georgetown and the Brazos River Authority, for the City of Georgetown to provide financial support for Phase II of the North Central Study Area, Trans -Texas Water Program, in the amount of $30, 000. 00. ITEM SUMMARY: The Brazos River Authority has approached several cities in the north central area to plan a water resources planning program. The program will include evaluation of water management strategies and water supply alternatives. The program will ultimately identify the most cost-effective and environmentally safe strategies to meet current and future water needs of the area. The City of Georgetown is one of the cities, in the North Central Study Area, and has been involved in the writing of the program/contract for the North Central Study Area. The program is to be funded by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). The City's portion of the $210,000.00 to be repaid to the TWDB is $30,000.00. The contract is now completed and ready for all parties' approval. Therefore, staff recommends that Council approve the City's participation in Phase II of the program, in the amount of $30, 000. 00. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: NONE FINANCIAL IMPACT• Funds in the amount of $30, 000. 00 are to be paid by a TWDB balloon note, due in 30 years. The up -front repayment terms are 30 years at 0% interest. Payments can be made at any time during the term. COMMENTS: NONE ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contracts (2) for signature 2. Letter, from the Brazos River Authority Submitted By: Jim Briggs, Director Community Owned Utilities 40 Brazos River Authority QUALITY • CONSERVATION • SERVICE March 7, 1996 Mr. Jim Briggs City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409 AIRBORNE EXPRESS Re: Local Agreement - North Central Study Area, Trans -Texas Water Program Dear Mr, s: Please find enclosed the referenced contract for your consideration. This Agreement specifies the terms under which the City of Georgetown would provide financial support for the Phase H study. This Agreement is very similar to the draft that you received in December 1995, for preliminary review. The delay in sending this final version to you was caused by lengthy negotiations between the Brazos River Authority and the Texas Water Development Board on the Agreement for the commitment of grant and loan funds. At this point, the enclosed Agreement is ready for final action by your governing Board or Council. To avoid further delays, I would request that the Agreement be considered by your Board or Council as quickly as possible. If you have any questions about the Agreement, please do not hesitate to contact me. I have also enclosed a one -page summary that may be of use in explaining the program to your governing bodies. I have enclosed two copies of the Agreement. Please execute and return both copies to me. After the Agreements are executed by the Authority, I will return one executed copy to you. A North Central Study Area Policy Management Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, March 20, 1996. The location has not been finally determined; I will advise you within the next few days of the exact location. At this PMC meeting we will discuss any questions on the Local Agreement and consider the final schedule for completing the project as expeditiously as possible. JTR: rp Enclosures q:\files\projects\ttwp\ncsa\locagrmt.ltr Sincerely, . TOM RAY, . E. Planning and Environmental Division Manager 4400 Cobbs Drive • P.O. Box 7555 * Waco, Texas 76714-7555 817-776-1441 9 FAX 817- 772-5780 To provide responsible planning to meet the area's growing water demands... now thrnuvh 2050 North Central Study Area Participants City of Austin City of Round Rock City of Leander City of Cedar Park City of Georgetown City of Pflugerville City of Hutto Jonah Special Utility District Manville Water Supply Corporation Williamson County Brushy Creek Municipal Utility District Tr wer Colorado River Authority azos River Authority Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District Texas Water Development Board Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Broad categories of water supply alternatives include: 1) water conservation; 2) reclaimed water reuse; 3) efficient management of existing supplies to provide optimum yield; Trans -Texas Water Program NORTH CENTRAL STUD Y AREA Statewide Program The Texas Water Development Board's Trans -Texas Water Program is a comprehensive water resources planning program that includes evaluation of a full range of water management strategies and water supply alternatives for a large area of Texas encompassing about one-third of the State's current population. The program ultimately will identify the most cost-effective and environmentally sensitive strategies to meet the current and future water needs of the state. The individual study areas include the West Central Study Area (San Antonio/Edwards Aquifer Area), South Central Study Area (Corpus Christi), Southeast Study Area (Houston metro area), and the North Central Study Area (portions of Travis, Williamson, and northern Hays counties). North Central Study Area In order to meet the needs of the Travis, Williamson, and northern Hays counties area, a coordinated water plan is needed to provide information about projected water demands, and to bring available water supplies to the growth areas. Additionally, new water sources that could be developed to meet long-term needs must be identified. Consequently, the Brazos River Authority is sponsoring a study of the area to address the water supply needs. The study will result in an integrated water supply program to meet water demands in the planning area through the year 2050. POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE: ♦ Demand Reduction -Accelerated ♦ Purchase of Irrigation Water Rights in Conservation Lower Colorado (to Augment supply at ♦ Reclaimed Water Reuse Lake Travis) ✓ Brazos Basin ♦ Use of Other City of Austin Water ✓ Colorado Basin Rights ♦ Purchase of Water from BRA ♦ Diversion of Little River near ✓ Stillhouse Hollow -Williamson Cameron County Raw Water Line ♦ Groundwater from Carrizo-Wilcox ✓ Lake Granger delivered to Aquifer Lake Georgetown ✓ to Augment the Colorado ✓ Lake Somerville transferred to River for Irrigation Demands Colorado Irrigation Demands (to Augment supply at Lake (to Augment supply at Lake Travis) Travis) ✓ to Augment Lake Georgetown • Purchase of Stored Water from LCRA ♦ South Fork Reservoir (Lake Travis) ♦ System Operation of Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir and Lake Travis Study of individual supply alternatives will take about nine months and the overall study will be completed in mid-1997. The study cost is about $800,000 with the Texas Water Development Board providing grants and loans to each participant. Study participants will form the North Central Trans -Texas Policy Management Committee (PMC). The PMC has authority for the content of the scope of work, names a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), receives periodic progress reports, reviews study reports, and decides which options to include in the regional plan. The TAC membership can include citizens and technical staff whose roles are to review and comment about study data and results. 4) development or acquisition The study will provide estimates of water supply available from each water of new water supplies supply alternative, evaluation of significant environmental issues, estimates of capital and operation and maintenance (0&M) costs, financing and pricing alternatives, and legal/institutional arrangements for implementation of an integrated plan. New raw water supplies will be considered for delivery at Lake Austin, Lake Travis, Lake Georgetown, and a potential Williamson County regional water treatment plant in central Williamson county. Sponsoring agency is the Brazos River Authority, Tel: 817-776-1441 AGREEMENT FOR JOINT SPONSORSHIP OF PHASE H STUDIES FOR THE TRANS-T x" WATER PROGRAM NORTH -CENTRAL STUDY AREA This Agreement for Joint Sponsorship of Phase II of the Trans -Texas Water Program ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of the date herein last specified by and between the Brazos River Authority of Texas ("BRA") and the City of Cedar Park (`Cedar Park'), the City of Georgetown (`Georgetown'), the City of Hutto (`Hutto'), the City of Leander (`Leander'), the City of Pflugerville CPflugerville'), the City of Round Rock (`Round Rock'), the Brushy Creek Municipal Utility District CBCMUD'), the Jonah Water Special Utility District (`Jonah SUD), the Manville Water Supply Corporation CMWSC% the Lower Colorado River Authority CLCRA'), and the Williamson County (`Wm Co') collectively referred to as the `LOCAL PARTICIPANTS." The City of Austin is a participant in the Phase II under provisions of a separate agreement between the City of Austin and the Brazos River Authority dated December 12, 1995. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Local Participants wish to cooperate in the preparation of Phase II of the Trans - Texas Water Program for the North-Central Study Area ("Study"), the scope of which is included in Exhibit A; and, WI1EREAS, the BRA will serve as the contracting and coordinating agency for the Local Participants in order to accomplish the Study to define the need for additional water supply and evaluate water supply alternatives for the North-Central Study Area of the Trans -Texas Water Program; and, WHEREAS, the Texas Water Development Board ("TWDB") is participating in the Study by providing $400,000 in the form of a planning grant; and the local match required in connection with the $400,000 grant shall consists of a $1201000 TWDB loan to the City of Austin; $25,000 in in - kind contribution from BRA for the Phase I study costs; $25,000 in in -kind contribution from Austin; $20,000 in in -kind Phase II services provided by LCRA; and a $210,000 loan from TWDB to BRA. WHEREAS, a repayment guarantee is agreed to by the Local Participants in accordance with the terms as specified below; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual obligations, covenants and benefits hereinafter set forth, the Local Participants agree as follows: I. a . The Local Participants hereby agree that BRA has selected and will utilize HDR Engineering (Austin, Texas) as consultants ("Consultants") to conduct the Study pursuant to the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A. The Local Participants recognize and agree that subcontractors may be utilized for a portion of the work specified in the scope, subject to approval by BRA and TWDB. BRA agrees that the Scope of Work included in Exhibit A shall not be materially modified without the consent of the Local Participants. The Consultants shall be paid on a cost reimbursable basis as specified in the engineering services agreement. b. Local Participants will be given notice of progress meetings and the opportunity to participate in such progress meetings with the Consultants. BRA shall direct the Consultants to consider the input and comments by the Local Participants. c. BRA is responsible for negotiating and entering into the contract with HDR Engineering for the Phase H Study and for using its best efforts to enforce the contract and, thereby, BRA shall not be responsible for errors and omissions of HDR Engineering or its failure to properly perform. l" Local Participants agree that BRA will serve as the contracting and coordinating agency for the Study. BRA is authorized to accept, hold, and distribute funds for the Study. Local Participants shall be responsible for repayment of a portion of BRA's $210,000 loan from TWDB as specified below: a. Funding contributed by Local Participants: BRA $3 8, 000 Cedar Park $45,000 Georgetown $30,000- Hutto $ 6,000 Leander $ 8,000 Pflugerville $10,000 Round Rock $4531000' BCMUD $101000 Jonah SUD $ 61000 MWSC $ 6,000 LCRA $ 0 (contributing in -kind assistance) Wm Co $ 6,000 b. The loan provided by the TWDB shall be for a thirty (30) year term and bear no interest, except that all or part of the loan shall become payable before the end of the thirty (30) year term upon implementation of a project identified by the Study as beneficial to one or more Local Participants. c. The financial obligation of each Local Participant is limited to the respective amounts stated in subparagraph II.a., above; absent any further written agreement the Local Participants are Page 2 obligated to make no expenditure in excess of that amount, even if additional funds are required for completion of the Study. d. BRA will apply to the TWDB for a loan in the amount of $210,000 with any surplus funds held in reserve for possible study cost increases up to the full amount of the TWDB loan. e. The Study is contingent upon the following: receipt of a TWDB loan as stipulated in II.d., above, and execution of this Agreement by all Local Participants. f. The BRA obligations to perform under this Agreement are conditioned upon the execution of this Agreement by Local Participants resulting in commitments of sufficient funds to complete the Study and all associated obligations. g. Payment by each Local Participant shall be due when payment from BRA to TWDB of thf, portion of the TWDB loan payable from the funding to be provided by such Local Participant becomes due and payable under the provisions of the Agreement between BRA and TWDB respecting the TWDB loan. A copy of the portion of such Agreement which provides the time(s) when repayment is to be made is attached as Exhibit B. h. Payment from Cedar Park, Georgetown, Hutto, Pflugerville, Round Rock, BCMUD, and Jonah SUD, shall be made from water system revenues and do not represent a commitment of future tax revenues. III The Study will be completed within eighteen months from the date of BRA's authorization to the Consultants to proceed with the Study. Provided, however, for good cause, Local Participants and TWDB agree that BRA may grant a reasonable extension of time for completion of the Study. The Scope of Work will not be changed without the consent of all Local Participants and the TWDB. VI. The Local Participants hereto agree that the Consultants selected and their employees and subcontractors shall be independent contractors and not employees of any Local Participant hereto. MI Ownership and use of any material or information that is produced in this Study shall be governed by agreement between TWDB and BRA. Page 3 This Agreement shall not be assignable by any Local Participant unless such Local Participant obtains the written consent of both the other Local Participants and the TWDB, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. Assignment as used herein means an assignment in law or otherwise. M This Agreement is being executed in multiple copies. BRA will execute and deliver two copies to each of the other Local Participants. Each of the Local Participants other than the BRA will execute two copies. One copy so executed will be returned to BRA. When two copies executed by BRA have been executed on behalf of each of the other Local Participants and one such copy has been returned to BRA, this Agreement shall be and become binding upon all Local Participants. X. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Local Participants hereto and their respective successors and assigns. Until changed by written notice thereof any notice required under this Agreement may be given to the respective Local Participants by first class mail, postage paid or by hand -delivery to the address of the other Local Participants shown below: Mr. Joe A. Cadwell, P.E. City of Austin 625 East loth St., Suite 415 Austin, Texas 78767 Mr. Sam Roberts City of Cedar Park P.O. Box 1090 Cedar Park, Texas 78613 Mr. Jim Briggs City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409 Mr. Ken Craven City of Leander P.O. Box 319 Leander, Texas 78646 Mr. Mike Taylor Brushy Creek MUD 901 Great Oaks Drive Brushy Creek, Texas 78681 Mr. Truitt Gilbreath City of Pflugerville P.O. Box 589 Pflugerville, Texas 78691 Mr. Carl Lidell Jonah Water Special Utility District Rt. 1 Box 112-B Georgetown, Texas 78626 The Honorable John Doerfler Williamson County Williamson Co. Courthouse Georgetown, Texas 78626 Page 4 Mr. Tony Graf Manville Water Supply Corporation '.O. Box 248 ;oueland. Texas 78615 Mr. Tim Nuse City of Round Rock 221 East Main Street rund Rock, Texas 78664 Mr. George Patterson City of Hutto P.O. Box 280 Hutto, Texas 78634 Mr. Quentin Martin Lower Colorado River Authority P.O. Box 220 Austin, Texas 78767 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Local Participants have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in multiple originals on the last date specified below. LOCAL PARTICIPANT Name & Title DATE: 1& PHASE II SCOPE OF WORK NORTH CENTRAL STUDY AREA TRANS -TEXAS STUDY AREA November 28, 1995 DUCTION FILE COPS The Trans -Texas Water Program is a comprehensive water resources planning program tha includes evaluation of a full range of water management strategies and water supply alt atives for a large area of Texas encompassing about one-third of the State's current po lation. The program ultimately will identify the most cost-effective and environmentally se itive strategies for meeting the current and future water needs of the study areas and is ex cted to become an important element of the State Water Plan. The study areas include the W t Central Area (San Antonio/Edwards Aquifer Area) and South Central Area (Corpus Christi an Choke Canyon/Lake Corpus Christi Service Area), each of which have immediate water su ly needs, and the Southeast Area (Houston metro area). Additionally, the Brazos River Ba in Area and the Austin Study Area have projected long-term water supply needs. Williamson County, in the northern part of the Austin metropolitan area, is expected to ex erience high growth rates throughout the planning period The larger communities in W liamson County (Georgetown, Round Rock, Cedar Park, and Leander) each have their own w er supply systems and a number of other cities, water supply corporations and municipal uti 'ty districts also provide water service in the County. The City of Austin's service area bo ndary extends into southern Williamson County and Austin provides water service to parts of th , County. In previous Trans -Texas Water Program studies, projected water demands for W liamson County as a whole, were made as well as for portions of the County that are served by Austin. These previous studies indicate that water supplies are available to meet short-term gr wth demands (i.e. until about 2005), but conveyance facilities are probably needed prior to ye r 2005. In the long-term, (i.e., year 2015 to 2050) additional water supplies will be needed. G wth in northern Hays County is projected to increase with the overall Austin metropolitan ar creating additional demand on the Edwards Aquifer that is already near its reliable yield in th area. Additionally, northwestern Hays County has no surface water supplies and gr undwater is limited in quantity and can have poor quality. In order to meet the needs of the Williamson, Travis, and northern Hays counties area, a co` rdinated water plan is needed to provide information about projected water demands, and an in grated plan to bring available water supplies to the growth areas. Additionally, new water so rces that could be developed to meet long-term needs must be identified. Consequently, the B os River Authority is sponsoring a Trans -Texas Water Program study of the area to address th water planning needs. The study will result in an integrated water supply program being r ommended for meeting water demands in the planning area through the year 2050. Water supply alternatives available to the North Central area have been determined from ral sources, including Phase I studies of the Brazos and Austin areas, and input from the November 28, 1995 'It sponsors. The work to be performed will provide estimates of water supply available die alternatives, evaluation of significant ervironmenGil issues, estimates of capital and tion and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing and pricing alternatives, and institutional arrangements for implementation of an integrated plan. Texas Water Development Board growth projections, ground and surface water supply in f ation, and Trans -Texas Environmental Criteria, if appropriate, will be used. LCRA's late t computer models of the Lower Colorado River Basin will be used to evaluate water ava ability for the existing water rights and to evaluate various water rights transfer options wi ' the Colorado River Basin. 1 Description Fee POPULATION, WATER DEMAND, AND WATER SUPPLY PLANNING INFORMATION $36,000 Study Area - including all of Williamson and Travis Counties and the northern portion of Hays County. Projections for each sub -area listed below will include population, water demand, surface water supply, and groundwater supply. Historical water usage for the seven year period from 1988 to 1994 will be reported for entities with available water use data. HDR will use the TWDB Consensus population and water demand projections (Most Likely Population, Average Case Conservation, and Below Normal Precipitation case as adopted by TWDB in January, 1995). Total population and water demand projections will be reported for each of Travis, Hays and Williamson counties. The projections will also be disaggregated by area within the study area. 1. Travis County - Projections for entire county will be performed and broken into the areas listed. a. County -Wide' Projections b. Austin Service Area Projections Incorporated Areas Receiving Service WSCs and MUDs Receiving Service Other Areas C. Other Incorporated Areas Projections 1) Manor 2) Pflugerville d. Unincorporated Areas Projections 2. Williamson County a. County -Wide Projections b. Round Rock Projections C. Cedar Park Projections ber 28, 1995 2 d. Georgetown Projections e. Austin Service Area f. Leander Projections g. Taylor Projections h. Liberty Hill Projections i. Jonah WSC Projections j . Hutto Projections k. Chisholm Trail WSC Projections 1. Other Service Providers Projections (divided by sub -area of the County) M. Other Areas Projections (divided by sub -area of the County) 3. Hays County a. County -Wide Projections b. Areas Within Austin Service Area 1) Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District Water demand on ' systems dependent on groundwater resources within the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District (BS/EACD) are increasing and will certainly exceed the ability of the aquifer to provide an adequate supply of high quality water in some places. For the projected Austin service area in southern Travis County and northern Hays County, the BS/EACD will prepare and supply to HDR estimates of potential water demand resulting from conversion of existing residential and small utilities from groundwater to surface water, and from growth within the area. BS/EACD will also prepare and supply to HDR estimates of annual water supply available from the Barton Springs -Edwards Aquifer. 2) Creedmore-Maha WSC 3) Other Areas within Austin Service Area c _ Remaining Areas 1) Colorado Basin 2) Guadalupe Basin 4. Water Demand and Supply Summary for the Study Area Prepare water supply and demand summary for each year from 1995 to 2005, by 5-year increments from 2005 to 2020, and by decade from 2020 to 2050 for each area and entity listed in Task 1. 1, 1. 2, and 1.3 . Historical water usage for years 1988 to 1994 will be reported for areas with available water use data. Norember 28, 1995 3 II. al ENGINEERING STUDIES OF WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES Water supply alternatives potentially available to provide additional water to the study will be evaluated for water supply potential, environmental effects, and - cost. The natives to be studied are briefly described in Task Items 2.1 through 2.15. Some natives could provide increased water supply to the entire study area, while other natives could realistically only provide service to a smaller area. The water supply from L of the alternatives could be delivered to the project participants at any of a variety of tions. To simplify and minimize Phase H study cost the delivery points studied will be Led to the following locations shown in Table 1. Nolember 28, 1995 4 City of ' ustin City of ound Rock City of edar Park City of Oyeorgetown City of flugerville City of ider Jonah IUD Brushy MUD reek Manvill WSC City of utto Rural E Willian County Rural I Travis 1 Northei County (1) " possi Cour (2) h entiti (3) 1 (4) 1 of Table 1 Potential Delivery Locations of New Water Supplies Delivery Locations fo New rV Locations for New Raw Wate Treated Water Sunnly Colorado Basin: 1) Proposed Water Treatment Plant No. 4 on Lake Travis 2) Ullrich WTP on Lake Austin Brazos Basin: at potential regional WTP(1) At existing intake on Lake Georgetown for treatment at Round Rock's WTP - At potential regional WTP(t); Cedar Park WTP located on Lake Travis At existing intake on Lake Georgetown for treatment at Georgetown's WTP At potential regional WTP(i) At potential regional WTP(I) (New water supplies will be delivered only as treated water) (New water supplies will be delivered only as treated water) (New water supplies will be delivered only as treated water) (New water supplies will be delivered only as treated water) (New water supplies will be delivered only as treated water) At potential regional WTP ") (Brazos Basin supply) From Austin at Martin Hill Reservoir delivered to Round Rock distribution system From expanded Cedar Park WTP; potential regional WTP; or, Austin transmission system From potential interconnection with Round Rock transmission system to allow pass -through of Austin water From potential interconnection with Austin From potential interconnection with Cedar Park transmission system to allow pass -through of treated water From potential interconnection with Georgetown or Round Rock. From potential interconnection to an expanded existing WTP or potential regional WTP. From potential interconnection with Austin or Round Rock From potential interconnection to an expanded existing WTP or potential regional WTP. From potential interconnection with Round Rock, Georgetown, Cedar Park, or Leander. eas of (New water supplies will be delivered only as treated From potential interconnection with Austin ►unty(3) water) Hays (New water supplies will be delivered only as treated From potential interconnection with City of water) Austin ;gional WTP" is a potential regional water treatment plant to be located at or near Round Rock's existing WTP and will y provide service to one or more of these entities: southern Georgetown, Round Rock, Austin Service Area in Williamson , Cedar Park, Leander, Brushy Creek MUD, Pflugerville, Hutto, and others. Ludes Chisholm Trail WSC, Taylor, Florence, Liberty Hill, and other -areas of Williamson County not included in other ' service areas. :ludes Manor and eastern Travis County. :Ludes areas in northern Hays County projected to be in the City of Austin water utility service area by the year 2050 ber 28, 1995 5 Table 2 provides a summary of the water supply alternatives to be studied for high -growth incorporated cities in the study area (i.e., Austin, Cedar Park, Round k, Georgetown, Leander, and Pflugerville). Potential new water supplies to be studied for other areas (i.e. Jonah SUD, B by Creek MUD, Manville WSC, City of Hutto, and rural areas of Williamson, Tr ' is, and northern Hays counties) are provided on the following list. Delivery of wa r from these alternatives would be as wholesale treated water. ' Water Supply Alternatives for Unincorporated Areas 2.1 Purchase of Uncommitted Stored Water from LCRA a. Treated and Delivered from Lake Travis b. Diverted near Lake Buchanan for Augmentation of Lake Georgetown Yield 2. Purchase of Under -Utilized Irrigation Rights in the Lower Colorado River Basin Considering Off -Channel Storage Near Columbus Use of Groundwater from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer a. Augmentation of Colorado River for Irrigation Demand with Increased Availability in Highland Lakes I b. Augmentation of Lake Georgetown Yield 2. Water Available from the City of Austin Run -of -the -River Water Rights 2. Advanced Conservation - Williamson County Area 2. 0 Purchase of Water from Brazos River Authority Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir Delivered to Lake Georgetown 2. 11 System Operation of Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir and Lake Travis 2., 2 Purchase of Water from BRA from Lake Granger Delivered to Lake Georgetown 2. 3 Purchase of BRA Water from Lake Somerville for Transfer to Colorado River 2.14 Water Availability from Little River 2.15 South Fork Reservoir Conceptual designs and cost estimates for delivery of water from each of the pI ntial water supplies (as listed above and in Table 2) will be performed for the higrowth demand centers in the study area, including these entities: Austin, Rnd Rock, Cedar Park, Georgetown, Jonah SUD, Pflugerville, Leander, Hutto, aBrushy Creek MUD. Ranges of expected costs for delivery of treated . water sulies to meet projected demands of entities in other parts of the study area will be deloped. The areas for which expected ranges of cost will be developed include Tor, Liberty Hill, Florence, Manville WSC, Chisholm Trail WSC, Manor, and November 28, 1995 6 - areas not included in other entities' service areas. Conceptual .designs and estimates of delivery systems will not be performed for these more rural areas. 28, 1995 7 TABLE 2 SUMMARY F P TENTIAL NORTH CENTRAL STUDY AREA TRANS -TEXAS WATER PROGRAM Alternative Entity and Point of Delivery Austin Round Rock Cedar Park I Georgetown Pflugerville Leander 2.1 Purchase of Uncommitted Stored Water from LCRA a. Treated and Delivered WTP 4 Martin Hill a) Cedar Park Interconnect w/ Interconnect with Ullrich WTP Reservoir WTP on Lake Round Rock Trans. Austin Travis System (via Martin b) Interconnect Hill Reservoir) with Austin b. Diverted near Lake Buchanan for Regional Regional WTP(I Regional WTP(l) Georgetown WTP Interconnect w/ Cedar Park Trans.. System Regional WTP(1) Augmentation of Lake Georgetown Yield WTP(l) 2.2 Purchase of Under -Utilized Irrigation WTP 4 Martin Hill a) Cedar Park Interconnect w/ Interconnect with Interconnect w/ Rights in the Lower Colorado River Ullrich WTP Reservoir WTP on Lake Round Rock Trans. Austin Cedar Park Basin Considering Off -Channel Travis System (via Martin Trans. System Storage Near Columbus b) Interconnect Hill Reservoir) with Austin 2.3 Reclaimed Water Reuse - Areas in New trans. Colorado River Basin lines to industry near Govalle and Walnut Creek WWTPs 2.4 Reclaimed Water Reuse - Areas in Consider 2020 and 2050 volumes in Brazos Basin reservoir yields and run -of -river diversions Brazos River Basin 2.5 Use of City of Austin Steam -Electric Ullrich or Generation Water Rights Green WTPs ovember 28, 1995 8 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NORTH TRANS -TEXAS WATER PROGRAM Alternative Entity and Point of Delivery Austin Round Rock Cedar Park Georgetown Pflugerville Leander Use of Groundwater from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer 2.6 a. Augmentation of Colorado River WTP 4 or Martin Hill a) Cedar Park Interconnect with Interconnect with Interconnect with for Irrigation Demand with Increased Ullrich WTP Reservoir WTP on Lake Round Rock trans. City of Austin Cedar Park Availability in Highland Lakes Travis system (via Martin Trans. system b) Interconnect Hill Resv) with Austin b. Augmentation of Lake Georgetown Regional Regional WTP(1) Regional WTP(I Georgetown WTP Regional WTP(1) Yield WTP(') .7 Water Available from the City of Ullrich or Austin Run -of -the -River Water Rights Green WTPs . 8 Advanced Conservation - Decreased Decreased demand in Austin/Travis County Service Area demand in service area service area '_.9 Advanced Conservation - Williamson Decreased Decreased demand Decreased demand in Decreased County Area demand in in service area service area demand in service service area area ..10 Purchase of Water from Brazos River Regional Regional WTP(l) Regional WTPO1� Georgetown WTP Regional WTP Regional WTP(') Authority WTP"' Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir Delivered to Lake Georgetown 11 System Operation of Stillhouse Hollow WTP 4 Martin Hill Resv Cedar Park WTP Interconnect with Interconnect with Cedar Park Reservoir and Lake Travis or ReVonal Round Rock Trans. City of Austin Trans. System WTP" System wcmbcr 28, 1995 . TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NT-R*b STUDY A TRANS -TEXAS WATER PROGRAM Alternative Entity and Point of Delivery Austin Round Rock Cedar Park Georgetown Pflugerville 2.12 Purchase of Water from BRA from Regional Regional WTP(') Regional WTP(') Georgetown WTP Regional WTP Lake Granger Delivered to Lake WTP(') Georgetown 2.13 Purchase of BRA Water from Lake WTP 4 Somerville for Transfer to Colorado River 2.14 Water Availability from Little River Regional WTP(') 2.15 South Fork Reservoir Regional WTP(') Martin Hill Resv or Nional WTP Regional WTP(') Cedar Park WTP Regional WTP(') Regional WTP(1) I Regional WTP(') Interconnect with Round Rock Trans. System Georgetown WTP Regional WTP(') Interconnect with City of Austin Regional WTP Regional WTP Leander Regional WTP(1) Cedar Park Trans. System Regional WTP(' Regional WTP(' NOTES: (1) "Regional WTP" is a potential regional water treatment plant to be located at or near Round Rock's existing WTP and will possibly provide service to one or more of these entities: southernGeorgetown, Round Rock, Austin Service Area in Williamson County, Cedar Park, Leander, Brushy Creek MUD, Pflugerville, Hutto, and others. )vci»bcr 28, 1995 10 1. Purchase of Uncommitted Stored Water from LCRA In the Phase I study for the Austin Study Area, uncommitted stored water that is available for purchase from LCRA was identified. For Phase II, HDR will identify the facilities needed, and develop cost estimates, for the purchase of stored water for use as follows: a) diverted at either Lake Austin and/or Lake Travis; b) diverted near Lake Buchanan from Inks Lake and pumped to the North Fork of the San Gabriel River which flows into Lake Georgetown a. Purchase of Uncommitted Stored Water from LCRA for Diversion at Lake Travis $36,000 The potential diversion at Lake Travis will be at Water Treatment Plant No. 4 or the existing Cedar Park intake and WTP. The City of Austin will provide previous studies to HDR containing cost estimates for WTP No. 4. For Austin water rights at WTP No. 4, project cost estimates will include the Additional Charge in accordance with the City of Austin - LCRA Settlement Agreement. HDR will utilize and reference data from the City's Long Range Water Supply Plan (dated 2/94) with respect to future water treatment needs. Delivery of water to entities outside of Austin's service area would be accomplished by upsizing proposed City of Austin distribution mains between WTP No. 4 and the delivery locations, or for diversion at Cedar Park's facilities, through new facilities at Cedar Park. City of Austin staff (in coordination with HDR) will perform hydraulic network modeling of the Austin distribution system and required new facilities in the Austin service area to deliver water to entities outside of Austin. Necessary upgrades for delivery of water through Cedar Park's distribution system to other entities will be determined using the system hydraulic network model to be supplied to HDR by Cedar Park. (Also see Section VII - Assumptions) b. Purchase of Uncommitted Stored Water from LCRA for Diversion near Lake Buchanan for Augmentation of Lake Georgetown Yield $141000 HDR will estimate the enhanced yield available at Lake Georgetown and development costs for purchase of uncommitted stored water from LCRA and pumpover to the San Gabriel River watershed. Utilization of Colorado River water stored in Lake Buchanan and diverted from Inks Lake would include pumping the water into the San Gabriel River watershed for discharge to the North Fork or a tributary. From the discharge point, the water would flow in the river channel to Lake Georgetown, thereby augmenting the yield of Lake Georgetown. HDR will estimate the enhanced yield of Lake Georgetown for one quantity of stored water purchased from LCRA. Yield estimates will include vemver 28, 1995 11 estimates of channel losses in the San Gabriel River and estimated evaporation losses at -Lake Georgetown. Potential uses of the enhanced yield iiiciudc diversion and treatment at the cxisting Georgetown or Round Rock water treatment plants, or at a new regional treatment plant. 2. Purchase of Under -Utilized Irrigation Rights in the Lower Colorado River Basin Considering Off -Channel Storage Near Columbus $22 000 HDR will estimate water potentially made available at Lake Travis by the construction of an off -channel storage reservoir near Columbus (as identified in the West Central Study Area) and consider the purchase of under-utilized water rights. Additional water supply could potentially be made available in Lake Travis from operational improvements resulting from development of an off -channel storage reservoir near Columbus that could be operated to minimize Highland Lakes releases to meet irrigation demands in the lower basin. Utilizing the LCRA computer model (to be operated by LCRA and results provided to HDR) and HDR spreadsheet analyses, HDR will estimate potential water availability at Lake Travis for four scenarios: (1) irrigation water rights at full commitment, without off - channel storage near Columbus, (2) irrigation water rights at full commitment with off -channel storage near Columbus, (3) irrigation water rights at current utilization with purchase of under-utilized portion without off -channel storage; and (4) irrigation water rights at current utilization and purchase of under-utilized portion with off -channel storage. HDR will calculate the cost of these options considering the purchase of the under- utilized water rights, as well as, the cost of the off -channel storage reservoir. Delivery of water would be accomplished by upsizing proposed City of Austin distribution mains between WTP No. 4 and the delivery locations, or for diversion at Cedar Park's facilities, through new facilities at Cedar Park. City of Austin staff (in coordination with HDR) will perform hydraulic network modeling of the Austin distribution system and required new facilities in the Austin service area to deliver water to entities outside of Austin. Necessary upgrades for delivery of water through Cedar Park's distribution system to other entities will be determined using the system hydraulic network model to be supplied to HDR by Cedar Park. HDR will coordinate with LCRA staff in the application of the various Colorado River Basin water supply models and in the execution of items in this scope of work pertaining to the Colorado River Basin. Integral to this coordination with the LCRA is recognition that the Water Management Plan for the ID,wer Colorado River Basin defines LCRA's water management programs and policies. It is anticipated that during the period of this Phase H study, LCRA will present a seminar to the technical staff of the study participants on the Water Management Plan. (Also see Section VII. - Assumptions) Notember 28, 1995 12 3. Reclaimed Water Reuse - Areas in Colorado River Basin $28,000 HDR will study at a reconnaissance level potential direct reuse applications added -subsequent to Phase I assuming a goal of 25 mgd as a target. These will include: potential use for irrigation, toilet flushing, steam -electric cooling, and process water at the Austin -Bergstrom International Airport; use by major industries located near Walnut Creek and South Austin Regional WWTPs (i.e. Tracor, Motorola, and possibly others); steam -electric cooling use at Decker Lake; and use by industry in the Burleson Road/Ben White Blvd corridor. Study of steam -electric cooling use will include possible impacts of direct discharges to Decker Lake in place of Colorado River water. HDR will compare reclaimed water reuse costs to other alternatives and determine whether cost incentives exist for major users to utilize reclaimed water and reach reuse goals for uses other than as a municipal water source. Impact of reduced return flows on in -stream flow targets downstream of Austin will be considered at a reconnaissance level. Consideration will be made of discharge of return flows to Lake Austin for storage and reuse as a municipal water source at a reconnaissance level. Anticipated regulatory and permitting issues will be identified along with water degradation/treatment issues. 4. Reclaimed Water Reuse - Areas in Brazos River Basin $107000 Based on readily available information, determine on a reconnaissance level the amount of reclaimed water available for reuse under 2020 and 2050 conditions. Consider these amounts in computation of reservoir yields and run -of -the -river water availability (See Task 2.13.4). 5. Use of City of Austin Steam -Electric Generation Water Rights $14,000 Using planning data and studies provided by the City of Austin Electric Utility and Water and Wastewater Utility, HDR will update the Austin Study Area Phase I study information regarding steam -electric consumptive water demand. HDR will determine the potential benefit available from amending the current steam -electric generation water rights to add municipal use. Water currently used from the Colorado River for steam -electric cooling purposes could potentially be made available for municipal use if an alternate source of steam -electric water were made available as addressed in Task 2.3 for Decker Lake. Additionally, if the Holly Street generating plant were retired, this water could potentially become available for municipal use at the Green WTP. (If the Green WTP were retired, water rights may need to be transferred to an alternate location.) No% :Huber 28, 1995 13 6. Use of Groundwater from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer a. Augmentation of Colorado River Flows for Irrigation Uses Resulting in Increased Water Availability in Highland Lakes $23,000 HDR will determine the availability and development costs of groundwater from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Bastrop and southern Lee counties to replace water used for irrigation in the Lower Colorado River released from the Highland Lakes. HDR will obtain available information from past studies by LCRA and/or the TWDB, West Central Study Area of the Trans -Texas Water Program, and from owners of open - pit mines in Lee and Milam counties. An evaluation will be made of the potential to use water from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Bastrop and southern Lee counties to augment flows of the lower Colorado River below Columbus by storing the water in an off -channel storage reservoir near Columbus and releasing it as necessary into the Colorado River to meet downstream water demands, thereby, replacing water now being released from the Highland Lakes. The Highland Lakes water would then be available for use at Lake Travis. HDR will utilize the results of LCRA model runs to estimate the above quantities of water. The impacts of reduced flows on the Colorado River between Austin and Columbus on in - stream flow targets will considered at a reconnaissance level. Water supply available from this alternative will be diverted at Lake Travis through Cedar Park's intake or at WTP No. 4, or at Lake Austin at the Ullrich WTP. Necessary upgrades for delivery of water through Cedar Park's distribution system to other entities will be determined using the system hydraulic network model to be supplied to HDR by Cedar Park. Delivery of water through the City of Austin system to other entities would be accomplished by upsizing proposed City of Austin distribution mains between WTP No. 4 and the delivery locations. City of Austin staff (in coordination with HDR) will perform hydraulic network modeling of the Austin distribution system and required new facilities in the Austin service area to deliver water to entities outside of Austin. (Also see Section VII - Assumptions) b. Augmentation of Lake Georgetown Yield $17,000 HDR will determine the availability and development costs of groundwater from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Milam and northern Lee counties to supplement the yield of Lake Georgetown. HDR will obtain water availability information from past studies by TWDB and from owners of open -pit mines in Lee and Milam counties. An evaluation will be made of the potential to use water from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer to supplement the reservoir yield by pumping groundwater to the reservoir for storage and later treatment. Notember 28, 1995 14 7. Water Available from the City of Austin- Run -of -the -River Water Rights $8,000 HDR will request the LCRA to revise the location of the City's run -of -the -river rights in the model to more accurately reflect their actual location. Based on revised model runs, HDR will report estimated water availability from Austin's run -of -the -river rights. Analysis of these rights will include consideration of ways to increase the City's firm water availability. 8. Advanced Conservation - Austin Service Area $ 1 6, 000 The City's existing Water Conservation Plan and on -going water conservation efforts will be used as a baseline and HDR will estimate potential additional per capita reductions in water demand that may be available from other conservation techniques and technologies. Costs associated with additional conservation measures will be estimated. 9. Advanced Conservation - Williamson County and Other Areas $161000 Using information from other Trans -Texas Water Program studies, the following Accelerated/Increased Conservation measures will be evaluated to estimate potential water savings potential as well as the likely costs of such measures: a. Public information b. Plumbing Retrofit incentive programs C. Conservation pricing d. Leak detection and repair e. Conservation landscaping f. Retrofit plumbing fixtures g. Gray water use for lawns and landscaping Projections of estimated water savings will be based on the following assumptions: 1) Conservation effects of existing low flow plumbing fixture legislation are included in TWDB water demand projections to be fully realized at a steady rate by 2020. Assumes no increase in per capita use rates due to life style changes. 2) Use available TWDB projections of advanced conservation demand reduction (Municipal and Industrial), and results of water conservation programs in cities such as Tucson, Arizona, TWDB study of trends in Texas per capita water consumption, the "City of Austin Report for Water Conservation" plan (March, 1993), and TWDB/Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District 1992 study of "Effectiveness of Retrofit in Single Family Residences and Multi- mber 28, 1995 15 Family Projects". HDR will estimate costs and quantities of potential savings. 10. Purchase of Water from Brazos River Authority from Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir Delivered to Lake Georgetown $36 000 From information provided by the Brazos River Authority, HDR will determine the available uncommitted firm yield of Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir to be considered for purchase. Using previous studies, and in consultation with BRA, consideration will be given to reserving a quantity of water from Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir for use in southern Bell County. The amount of yield available will take into account results of the recent sediment survey of the reservoir and long-term impacts of sedimentation. Purchased water would be conveyed to Lake Georgetown through the proposed Williamson County Raw Waterline. HDR will study the economies of scale for construction of various diameter pipelines and purchase volumes. Using a reservoir operation simulation model, a plot of reservoir level vs. time will be developed indicating the effect of the potential withdrawal throughout the period of record of gage flows. 11. System Operation of Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir and Lake Travis $211000 Water purchased from the Brazos River Authority and diverted at Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir could potentially be pumped to the Colorado River Basin and discharged to a tributary of Lake Travis, and thereby made available for diversion to intakes on Lake Travis. Water delivered in this manner would be available to the Cedar Park intake and/or WTP No. 4 intake. The quantity to be studied will be the same quantity considered for purchase in Section 2.10 from the Brazos River Authority. HDR will study the benefits available from a systems operation of Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir and Lake Travis considering overdraft/underdraft. 12. Purchase of Water from Brazos River Authority from Lake Granger Delivered to Lake Georgetown $24,000 From information provided by the Brazos River Authority, HDR will determine the available uncommitted firm yield of Lake Granger to be considered for purchase. Purchased water would be pumped to Lake Georgetown to supplement the yield available for municipal use. Noteinber 28, 1995 16 13. Purchase of BRA Water from Lake Somerville for Transfer to Colorado River $18,000 Consider purchase of water from Brazos River Authority from Lake Somerville. The purchase quantity will be equal to the uncommitted firm yield of Lake Somerville. Purchased water would be pumped to a point in the Colorado River to be delivered to downstream irrigation rights owners which presently rely in part on releases of inflows to Lake Travis. The Lake Somerville water would offset water released through Lake Travis which would then be available for use from either Lake Travis or Lake Austin. 14. Water Availability from Little River $8,000 From existing information, HDR will estimate water availability for a run -of -the -river diversion located on the Little River near Cameron which could potentially divert water into Lake Georgetown. From Lake Georgetown, raw water would be treated and delivered to area demand centers, including Georgetown, Round Rock, Austin Service Area in Williamson County, Cedar Park, and others. Water potentially available from the Little River which would be evaluated includes: a. Purchase of Unutilized Senior Water Rights near Little River intake b. Diversion of Projected Reclaimed Water Originating form Williamson County Wastewater Plants - 15. South Fork Reservoir $8,000 From previous studies, HDR will perform reconnaissance yield and cost analyses for a potential new reservoir on the South Fork of the San Gabriel River, from which water would be delivered to the regional WTP in Williamson County. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES $581000 Identification and assessment of the potential environmental consequences of the water supply alternatives will be provided by Paul Price Associates, Inc. under contract to HDR. The focus of Phase II activities will be the development and evaluation of integrated water supply projects through a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the system components, including environmental factors. Although state and federal regulatory requirements will provide a primary checklist of issues to be addressed for each alternative, the concerns of the public at large and the relative ecological importance Nafember 28, 1995 17 of affected natural communities will be considered in evaluating and comparing water supply alternatives. The results of the environmental studies will be used in subsequent phases to support advanced planning, and state and federal -permit applications that may be necessary to implement selected alternatives. Environmental and cultural resources assessments will be based primarily on existing information (Texas Natural Heritage Program files, National Wetland Inventory maps, aerial photography, soil surveys, government agency files, consultant reports, scientific literature) and descriptions of facility locations, construction methods, and operational characteristics to be developed by HDR for each alternative. It is anticipated that additional needs that would be addressed during later program phases, primarily with respect to site specific field work, may be identified during this Phase 11 analysis. Environmental considerations to be addressed for each alternative include: a. general ecological characteristics and potentially sensitive areas. b. land use and protected habitat potentially affected by project facilities. c. identification of potentially affected wetlands, and delineation of wetlands (if appropriate). d. potential presence of endangered and threatened species and their critical habitats, using USFWS, TPWD, and TOES lists. e. effect of diversions (as appropriate to the specific alternative) on instream flows, water quality concerns, and estuarine systems. The Environmental Water Needs Criteria of the Consensus Planning Process (latest version) will be applied as appropriate to new on - channel reservoirs, new direct diversions, and direct diversions into off -channel storage. f. other potential impacts of project implementation. Water supply alternatives requiring TNRCC permits or permit amendments (i.e., development of groundwater for discharge to the Colorado River or change in point of discharge of return flows), or key infrastructure elements common to several alternatives (i.e., diversion, treatment, and distribution facilities on Lakes Travis and Austin) will receive a proportionately greater amount of study than alternatives not requiring significant permitting efforts to implement. The primary work products of the environmental analysis will include: 1) environmental analysis subsections for each alternative discussed in Task 11; 2) supporting data and analyses in appropriate formats (e.g., appendices, technical memoranda, supplemental reports); 3) an evaluation matrix to summarize and rank potential impacts, refine permitting issues and project development schedules, and to identify specific mitigation needs and probable costs; and, 4) an Environmental Considerations Summary that will present a comparative discussion of the alternatives, their mitigation liabilities, and recommended actions. Representatives from Paul Price Associates, Inc. will participate in the periodic progress meetings, as needed. Notniber 28, 1995 - is INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY PLANS In order to evaluate -the various alternatives, alternatives will be ranked with respect to cost, water yield, potential environmental impacts, and possibly water quality and treatability. The alternatives will be listed in a table including a summary of yield, cost, environmental issues, and special concerns. A comparison of each alternative with respect to the four areas will also be made in a bar chart figure. From these comparisons, a relative ranking of alternatives will be made. These rankings, together with other issues (degree of certainty, willingness of interested parties to cooperate, basin of origin, and interbasin transfer) will be used to rank alternatives for incorporation into possible integrated supply programs. Alternatives will be grouped into possible water supply by the regional Policy Management Committee to meet projected short and long-term water needs of the study area with technical assistance from HDR. Implementation and financing plans will be developed for each program. a. Austin Service Area $36,000 1) Facilities Needed - Short Term (including needs to serve Williamson County areas) 2) Facilities Needed - Long Term 3) Cost and Financing 4) Cost Estimates of Transmission and Delivery Systems to Demand Center Distribution Systems 5) Other Costs 6) Scheduling and Phasing 7) Permitting 8) Phasing of New Supplies to Increased Demand 9) Design and Preconstruction 10) Construction 11) Institutional and Legal Issues Water rights issues, permits, right-of-way, water purchase agreements b. Williamson County Demand Centers $621000 1) Interim Supply Plans 2) Facilities Needed - Short Term 3) Facilities - Long Term 4) Cost and Financing Cost of Interim Facilities Cost Estimates of Transmission and Delivery Systems to Demand Center Distribution Systems Other Costs 5) Utilization of Interim Facilities for Long Term Water Supply 6) Scheduling and Phasing 7) Permitting 28, 1995 19 MII 8) Phasing of New Supplies to Increased Demand 9) Design and Preconstruction 10) Construction 11) Institutional and Legal Issues Water rights issues, permits, right-of-way, water purchase agreements REPORT PREPARATION AND SCHEDULE Summaries of the alternatives evaluated, costs and benefits of each, and recommended water supply strategies for each area, as developed and approved by the regional Policy Management Committee, will be presented. A draft final report will be prepared and coordinated with the project sponsors with thirty (30) copies of the draft final report provided. Following review of the draft report HDR will prepare a final report and provide thirty (30) copies along with an additional unbound original. Deliverables will be made in two parts, i.e. Part A and Part B. Part A will include projections of each participating entity's population and water demands, together with estimates of available supplies and a reconnaissance level analysis of the water supply alternatives outlined in the scope of work. An interim report would be developed and presented to the TAC and PMC for review and comment. Also included in the interim report will be an executive summary of the water needs of the area, water supply options, costs, and implementation issues to meet area needs. After the supply alternatives are presented in Part A, two integrated water supply programs for the region (one for the Austin Service Area and one for Williamson County) will be developed for analysis in Part B. The alternative water supply programs will be formulated to meet the water needs of the participants, and will be composed of a combination of water management and water supply options identified and evaluated in Part A. Near the end of Part B a draft final report will be prepared and presented to the TAC and PMC and following their comments, a final report prepared. Part A will be completed in about nine months, and following a review period (approximately one month) after presentations to the sponsors have been made, an additional six months will be needed to complete Part B and the draft final report. About two months will be needed for final review and report revisions. A schedule from the entire Phase H program is attached. N tuber 28, 1995 20 VI.. R: COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEETINGS $33,000 HDR will make presentations to the Technical Advisory Committee (3), Policy Management Committee (3), City of Austin Water and Wastewater Commission and City Council (2), Williamson County Commissioners Court, Councils, and Board joint meetings (2). Additionally, HDR will attend up to 4 project coordination meetings with BRA staff and/or the sponsor staff. Participation in any additional meetings requested by the sponsors will be considered additional services in accordance with our Agreement for Professional Services. ASSUMPTIONS a) Conceptual delivery plans requiring interim (i.e., temporary facilities), to the extent possible, will be selected so that these facilities will be a useful component of existing and/or future distribution facilities. b) Hydraulic network modeling of the City of Austin existing and future distribution system for pipe sizing and cost estimating (capital improvements and pumping costs) will be provided by the City of Austin staff. Round Rock and Cedar Park will provide copies of hydraulic network models of their respective existing distribution systems. c) Using the various Colorado River Basin water supply models, LCRA staff will perform model runs and perform model modifications as requested by the project sponsors and will provide a current listing of the model program code to the project sponsors. TOTAL FEE: %NCiT116SOW $650,000 Novqber 28, 1995 21 TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY CONTRACT FOR STUDIES OF WATER SUPPLY THIS CONTRACT is between the TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD (hereinafter "Board") and BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY (hereinafter "Authority") to conduct studies associated with water supply in the North-Central Study Area of the Trans - Texas Water Program in cooperation with the Authority, City of Austin, City of Round Rock, City of Georgetown, City of Cedar Park, City of Leander, City of Pf lugerville, City of Hutto, Williamson County, Jonah Special Utility District, Manville Water Supply Corporation, Brush Creek Municipal Utility District, and Lower Colorado River Authority (hereinafter "Local Participants"). RECITALS 1. On July 19, 1995, the Board approved a $400,000 grant (the 11$400,000 Grant") and $210,000 loan (the $210,000 Loan") to Authority, pursuant to the provisions of Texas Water Code, Chapter 15, Subchapter C and F, and Texas Water Code Section 16.138(5) and Section 16.140, to pay for a portion of a planning study relating to the North-Central Study Area of the Trans -Texas Water Program. In addition, the Board consented to Authority assuming all rights and obligations of the Lavaca-Navidad River Authority (LNRA), under the September 30, 1993 Board/LNRA Contract (TWDB Contract No. D00500) relating to -studies for the City of Austin's participation in the Trans -Texas Water Program. The Board further consented to the assignment to the Authority of all rights and obligations of LNRA in the September 2, 1993 contract between LNRA and the City of Austin. 2. The objective of this portion of the Trans -Texas Water Program is to manage the state's water resources to meet the needs of anticipated economic development in north - central Texas in an environmentally sound manner. The Trans -Texas Water Program will look at alternatives to supply water from areas of plenty to areas of current and future need in the North-Central Study Area. The North- Central portion of the study includes the service area of Austin and western Williamson County. 3. The Board and Authority desire to enter into this Contract to establish a joint undertaking to conduct studies of water supply alternatives for the North-Central Study Area of the Trans -Texas Water Program (hereinafter "Study"), Irant and loan from the Water Assistance Fund to the Authority to fund such study. 4. The cities of Austin, Round Rock, Leander, Cedar Park, Georgetown, Hutto and Pf lugerville, Jonah Special Utility District, Manville Water Supply Corporation, Williamson County, Brushy Creek Municipal Utility District and Lower Colorado River Authority are expected to execute agreements with the Authority (hereinafter called "Local Agreements"), each of which will be entitled "Agreement For Joint Sponsorship Of Phase II Studies For The Trans -Texas Water Program North-Central Study Area". Each of Local Participants (a) has heretofore made contributions of cash and/or in -kind services in connection with the completion of Phase I of the Trans -Texas Water Program study of the water needs of the South -Central Area and is expected to agree in a Local Agreement that the work product of such in -kind services or purchased with such cash may be utilized as part of Study; or (b) is expected to agree in a Local Agreement to make a payment to Authority for use in repayment of part of $210,000 Loan. The in -kind contributions and cash advances mentioned in the preceding sentence, along with the proceeds of the $210,000 Loan, shall constitute the local match required in connection with the $400,000 Grant. 3 5. The Board may execute this Contract under the provisions of Chapter 15 to grant and loan the Authority money for Study, with Authority being required to repay said amount advanced by the Board under the terms and conditions established in this Contract, and also may perform studies under Chapter 16, Texas Water Code, relating to water resources and their development in the State. In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the foregoing and in further consideration of the services to be performed hereunder, the Board and Authority agree as follows: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. STUDY, UNDERTAKING AND FUNDING. The Board and the Authority agree to undertake Study to evaluate the long-term water supply needs and the sources from which such needs may be met for the North- Central Study Area of the Trans -Texas Water Program. Study is more specifically described in Attachment 1. The total cost of Study (including the value of in -kind contributions heretofore made and the cost of work already done and paid for) shall not exceed $8001000.00. The work already done 4 City of Austin). Authority agrees to conduct Study and to provide all results and methodology from Study to the Board. Authority will be responsible for hiring any necessary experts and contractors for Study, with the approval of the Board's Executive Administrator. The Board will provide resources to facilitate the Study by supplying technical data and input of staff experts. SECTION 2. POLICY COMMITTEE AND COOPERATION. The Authority and Board agree that the Study will be conducted under the coordination of a Trans -Texas Policy Management Committee (Trans -Texas Committee) and a North- Central Study Area Policy Management Committee (North- Central Committee). The Trans -Texas Committee will be composed of members of the Southeast Area Committee, the South -Central Committee, the West -Central Committee and two additional members from the North-Central Committee. The North-Central Committee will be composed of representatives of the Board, Authority, the Local Participants, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and Coastal Coordination Council. The Board may appoint other members to the North-Central Committee if it executes other contracts for Trans -Texas ommittee also may be changed by joint agreement of the Board, Authority, and participants. Under coordination of the Trans -Texas Committee, the North-Central Committee will: review the planning parameters and the topics to be studied, as well as the criteria by which the Study topics will be measured; evaluate water supply alternatives for the study area; evaluate costs, environmental impacts and institutional restrictions; coordinate between this Study and other studies in the North-Central Study Area of the Trans -Texas Water Program; and develop recommendations for State Water Plan revisions. The Trans -Texas and North-Central Committees will meet as necessary to review progress of the Study, and to provide direction for the Study. Overall policy issues of the Trans -Texas Program affecting both the Southeast, South -Central, West -Central and North-Central Study must be resolved by consensus of the Trans -Texas Committee. The North-Central portion of the Study must conform to the direction of the North-Central Committee, which shall reach consensus on all issues. The Trans -Texas Committee will coordinate the Study with other study elements of the Trans -Texas Program to avoid conflicts and inefficiencies, and to allow shared information and data as appropriate. The Board shall chair 7 the Trans -Texas Committee and the Authority shall chair the North-Central Committee. The Study will include environmental guidelines which are referred to as Environmental Water Needs Criteria of the Consensus Planning Process are found as Attachment No. 2. The guidelines may be amended by the Trans -Texas Committee. The purpose of these guidelines is to establish environmental parameters which will form the basis of development of alternative proposals under this Study. The North-Central Committee will receive technical and environmental advice from a Technical Advisory Committee comprised of a representative from the Board, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Coastal Coordination Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Authority, participants, representatives from area river authorities, statewide and local environmental organizations, local area water resource entities, large volume water users to be. identified jointly by the Board and Authority, and anyone else who wants to be a member. If additional studies relating to the North- Central Study Area of the Trans -Texas Water Program are conducted, representatives from the Study participants and E:1 Study area will be added to the Technical Advisory Committee. SECTION 3. REPORTS. The Authority will submit monthly progress reports on the Study which summarize the work completed from the preceding monthly period to the Board and North-Central Committee. The monthly progress reports shall be in a format agreed upon between the Board, Authority and the North-Central Committee. Coordination meetings will be held when deemed necessary by either the Board, Authority, or North-Central Committee. Prior to the Coordination meetings, the Authority shall submit a written narrative report on the status of the Study, which shall include: 1. a brief statement of the overall progress made since the last status report; 2. a brief description of any problems encountered during the previous reporting period that will affect the Study, delay timely completion of the Study, or inhibit the completion of or cause a change in any of the Study products or objectives, or which need policy clarification by the North- Central or Trans -Texas Committees; and 3. a description of actions the Authority proposes to take to correct any problems described in Item 3 above or any changes necessary to schedules established by this Contract. 0 The Authority shall prepare a final report which includes an Executive Summary on the results of the Study. The Authority shall submit five (5) draft copies of the final report to the Board and one (1) copy of the draft report to each participant. Within thirty (30) days the Board shall provide comments to the Authority for its consideration. After considering the Board's comments, the Authority shall submit twelve (12) copies of the final report to the Board along with one (1) camera ready original of the report which incorporates the Board's comments. SECTION 4. FUNDS, DISBURSEMENT, FINANCIAL RECORDS. Upon execution of the Contract, the Board will advance to Authority the sum of $190,000.00, which represents the amount of grant funds for which Authority has documented a local match available. OD execution of this Contract and the submission to the Board of copies of executed Local Agreements between the Authority and each of the Local Participants acceptable to the Board; Board will advance to Authority the remaining grant/loan funds in three equal installments of $160,000.00 each, when Study is 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 complete. Authority will invest such funds in accounts or investments authorized by law and may use and reinvest the interest earned on such funds for the conduct of Study. 10 If Study is not completed with the result that all of such funds are not expended or if Study is completed at a cost which is less than the sum of the amounts of cash to be delivered to Authority as described herein, plus interest earned, the unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Board. Any such refund up to $210,000 shall be applied against the $210,000 Loan. The Authority and its subcontractors shall maintain satisfactory financial accounting documents and records, including copies of invoices and receipts and shall make them available for examination and audit by the Board. The accounting by the Authority and subcontractors shall be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. SECTION 5. LOAN TERMS, REPAYMENT, MANDAMUS. The $210,000 Loan shall bear no interest. It shall be repayable solely from and secured by a pledge of payments listed below to be made to Authority under the provisions of Local Agreements, except that $38,000 of such loan shall be repaid by Authority from its own revenues. To the extent of $38,000, Authority pledges its own revenues to such repayment. Authority's own credit and its own revenues are not committed to repayment of the remaining $172,000 of the $210,000 Loan. The Local Agreements under which funds are to be provided for repayment of the $210,000 Loan and the amounts to be paid under each Local Agreement by the Local Participant which isa party thereto are as follows: City of Cedar Park, Williamson County, Tx. $45,000 City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Tx. $300,000 City of Round Rock, Williamson County, Tx. $45,000 City of Hutto, Williamson County, Tx. 6,000 City of Pf lugerville, Williamson County, Tx. $10,000 Brushy Creek Municipal Utility District $10,000 Jonah Special Utility District ' 6,000 Manville Water Supply Corporation 6,000 City of Leander, Williamson County, Tx. 81000 Williamson County 61000 Total $172,000 The Authority will repay the $210,000 Loan with funds pledged thereto within one (1) month of the earlier of the following: (a) implementation of each project that triggers the responsibility of a Local Participant to make payment to the Authority under a Local.Agreement (provided that the Authority shall be required at such time to repay the Board only for the portion of the $210,000 Loan which the Local Participant becomes obligated to repay under a Local Agreements due to project implementation), plus a portion of the $38,000 that Authority has itself pledged to repay, such portion to be determined by multiplying $38,000 by a fraction, the numerator of which is the amount such Local Participant is obligated by the Local Agreement to pay upon 12 project implementation, and the denominator of which is $172,000; or (b) 30 years from the date of execution of this Contract. For purposes of this provision, "implementation" means the earlier of issuance of bonds or other indebtedness for the project, or initiation of construction contracts for the project. In addition to all rights and remedies provided by the laws of the state of Texas, the Authority covenants and agrees particularly that in the event Authority defaults in the observance or performance of any of the covenants, conditions or obligations set forth in this Contract relating to -the repayment of the $210,000 Loan, the Board shall be entitled to a writ of mandamus issued by a court of proper jurisdiction compelling and requiring the Authority and its officers to observe and perform any covenant, condition or obligation provided in this Contract. g p No delay or omission to exercise any right or power occurring upon any default shall be deemed as acquiescence therein, and every such right or power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. The specific remedies hereby provided shall be cumulative of all other existing remedies and the specification of such remedies 13 shall not be deemed to be exclusive. SECTION 6. CHANGE IN SCOPE. Any material change to the scope of Study proposed by ,the Authority shall be approved in advance and in writing by Ithe Board's Executive Administrator. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION. This Contract is effective upon execution. This Contract shall terminate upon repayment of the $210,000 Loan by the Authority to the Board. It is the intention of the parties that the Study shall be completed within eighteen (18) months of the execution of this Contract unless the Executive Administrator approves an extension of time for such completion. Other than obligations of the Authority to repay the Board under Section 4, Funds, Disbursements, Financial Records, and Section 5, Loan Terms, Repayment, Mandamus this Contract is additionally subject to termination by the Board or the Authorityu ' upon thirty (30) days notice in writing. If termination notice is given by the Board, the Authority shall promptly discontinue work associated with the Contract and shall promptly cancel all orders relating to the Contract. Money provided by the Board for the Contract shall be reimbursed according to the provisions of Sections 4 and 5. In the event this Contract is terminated, the Authority shall promptly submit to the Board a copy of all reports, drafts of reports, data, drawings, computer codes and working papers associated with Study. In addition, any money due the Board from Authority in the event of Contract termination shall be paid the Board within thirty (30) days from the effective date of termination. SECTION S. OWNERSHIP, PUBLICATION AND SUBCONTRACTING. The Board shall have unlimited rights to technical or other data resulting directly from the performance of. servicesunder this Contract. It is agreed that all reports, drafts of reports, or other material, data, drawings, computer programs and codes associated with Study and developed by Authority or its consultants pursuant to this Contract shall become the joint property of Authority and the Board. These materials shall not be copyrighted or patented by Authority or by any consultants involved in Study unless the Board approves in writing the right to establish copyright or -patent; provided, however, that copyrighting by Authority or its consultants will in no way limit the Board's access -to or right to request and receive or distribute data and information obtained or developed 15 pursuant to this Contract. Any material subject to a Board copyright and produced by Authority or the Board pursuant to this Contract may be printed by Authority or the Board at their own cost and distributed by either at their discretion. Authority may otherwise utilize such material provided under this Contract as it deems necessary and appropriate, including the right to publish and distribute the materials or any parts thereof under its own name, provided that any Board copyright is appropriately noted on the printed materials. Authority agrees to acknowledge the Board in any news releases or other publications relating to the work performed under this Contract. SECTION 9. AMENDMENT. This Contract may be altered, amended, or assigned by mutual written consent of the parties. SECTION 10. NO DEBT. This Contract shall not be construed as creating any debt by or on behalf of the State of Texas and for the Board, and all obligations of the State of Texas and the Should any one or more provisions of this Contract be held to be null, void, voidable, or for any reason whatsoever, of no force and effect, such provision(s) shall be constructed as severable from the remainder of this Contract and shall not affect the validity of all other provisions of this Contract which shall remain of full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this contract to be dully executed in multiple originals this day of January, 1996. ATTEST: Suzanne Schwartz, General council Date: TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD Tommy Knowles, Deputy Executive Administrator Of Planning 17 ATTEST Date: (smz,m\w,".saa;u) BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY Roy Roberts, General Manager 18 it meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. T AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET S I iBJECT: Consideration of a Revised Detailed Development Plan for Dicotec Subdivision, Lot if located on RM2338. EMS Y: The proposal is to add 900 square feet of building area that will be divided to self storage units. There is no additional driveway or parking area proposed and the existing iveway aisles and parking area can adequately serve the proposed addition. The proposed dition does not impact any existing landscaping. However, the original approved DDP showed ur (4) existing trees in this location, for which landscape credit was given. Those trees were advertently removed during construction and the owner was required to replace them with 15 �otinias along the western property boundary and two (2) redbud trees near the entrance. The main concern regarding the revision to the DDP is the additional impervious coverage at will be created. The additional 900 square feet results in a total impervious coverage of �,400 square feet, which is 60.1 percent of the lot area. The lot is permitted as much as 70 rcent impervious coverage. This revision could ordinarily be reviewed and approved by staff cept that any development in the Dicotec Subdivision is subject to review by the Commission d Council as required by a plat note. The plan showing the revisions that was submitted by the applicant is not a copy of the DP. Instead it is a copy of the detention pond plans with the proposed revision. The staff was le to review the proposal from these plans, however, the file copy must be the DDP mylar with revisions incorporated. : None. : None. OMMENTS: At its March 5, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 approve a Revised Detailed Development Plan for Dicotec, Lot 1. ECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be nsistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. Staff Report. ri ward J� Barry, AICP Director vision f Developmenf Services Hildy L. kJngma, AICP Chief Planner REVISED DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DICOTEC SUBDIVISION, LOT 1, LOCATED ON WILLIAMS DRIVE BETWEEN SEQUOIA SPUR AND MARIQUITA DRIVE WNERIAPPLICANT: Mr. Richard Clester P. O. Box 366 Georgetown, Texas 78627 869-4759 VEST: Revised Detailed Development Plan for Dicotec Subdivision, Lot 1, as recorded in Cabinet L, Slide of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located on Williams Drive between Sequoia Spur and Mariquita Drive. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Mini -warehouse facility. Existing Zoning: This tract is located outside the City limits so zoning does not apply. Proposed Use: An addition to the mini -warehouse facility is proposed. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: The Barn drive -through grocery (out of City) South: Undeveloped land and single family residence (out of City) East: Serenada West - single family residential (out of City) West: Undeveloped land (out of City) Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates these lots as Intensity Level 3. The proposed development is within the allowable limits for this acreage. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. History: Dicotec Subdivision was recorded August 17, 1994. The Detailed Development Plan was approved by City Council on May 24, 1994. DDP - Dicotec Subdivision, Lot 1 March 21, 1996 DP-96-05 / File: DICOTECI.DDP Page 1 ALYSIS: The proposal is to add 900 square feet of building area that will be divided into self storage units. SEE EXHIBIT C There is no additional driveway or parking area proposed and the existing driveway aisles and parking area can adequately serve the proposed addition. The proposed addition does not impact any existing landscaping. However, the original approved DDP showed four (4) existing trees in this location, for which landscape credit was given. Those trees were inadvertently removed during construction and the owner was required to replace them with 15 photinias along the western property boundary and two (2) redbud trees near the entrance. The main concern regarding the revision to the DDP is the additional impervious coverage that will be created. The additional 900 square feet results in a total impervious coverage of 58,400 square feet, which is 60.1 percent of the lot area. The lot is permitted as much as 70 percent impervious coverage. This revision could ordinarily be reviewed and approved by staff except that any development in the Dicotec Subdivision is subject to review by the Commission and Council as required by a plat note. The plan showing the revisions that was submitted by the applicant is not a copy of the DDP. Instead it is a copy of the detention pond plans with the proposed revision. The staff was able to review the proposal from these plans, however, the file copy must be the DDP with the revisions incorporated. AFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Revised Detailed Development Plan for Dicotec, Lot 1. & Z ACTION: At its March 5, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to approve a Revised Detailed Development Plan for Dicotec, Lot 1. - Dicotec Subdivision, Lot 1 / File: DICOTECLDDP March 21, 1996 Page 2 EXHIBIT -A DICOTEC, LOT 1 19 2 07 J, 26 I 1-wil 8 \ •J\ / C O/// '�'•\-ram\ V•'•\\ // 12 I 1 0 EXHIBIT B 1. `DATE': `PROJECT 2. `GIVEN' 3. ALLOW/ INTENSITY LEVEL 1 2 3 4 5 6 ZMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE February 14, 1996 E`: Dicotec Subdivision - Lot 1 acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 2.23 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 2.23 TOTAL ACRES E DEMAND: WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,385 2,408 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. TOTAL AL OWABLE DEMAND: imum GPD Water Capacity: 8,385 imum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 2,408 imum Trip Ends: 22 5. PERMITT D DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION UNITS ------------ Detached SF _-_-______---------------------- --- ------- ---- ------- --------------------------- -------------------- Large Lot 7 8 37 7 Average Lot 8 10 25 8 Zero Lot Lie 8 10 25 8 Attached SF 13 14 21 13 Multifamily 16 15 10 10 Mobile Home 13 12 26 12 Lodging 44 39 16 16 Institutional 24,445 26,178 26,516 24,445 Church -with day cat 27,223 29,017 1,433 1,433 -w/o day can i 45,080 48,168 30,972 30,972 Medical Offic, 20,156 21,504 6,910 6,910 General Offiq 3 23,035 26,466 8,745 8,745 Retail, Mixed 12,900 14,775 1,350 1,350 Retail, Restaurant 5,375 5,018 1,961 1,961 Retail, Store 25,799 27,368 4,644 4,644 Employment enters 23,035 26,466 4,873 ( 4,873 Warehouse 147,102 172,029 37,167 37,167 Mini-Wareh se ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2,096,200 ------------------------------------------------------------ 2,408,400 85,769 ------------------- 85,769 (c) (d) PER DEV DEVELOPMENT REGS I ALLOWED/UNIT 4 16 22 32 63 4 housing units 8 housing units 8 housing units 13 housing units 10 housing units 12 housing units 16 rooms 24,445 square feet 1,433 square feet 30,972 square feet 6,910 square feet 8,745 square feet 1,350 square feet 1,961 square feet 4,644 square feet 4,873 square feet 37,167 square feet 85,769 square feet EXHIBIT C I I �� •� i \ t DICOI�C SUkIMSION II I � I �' �, (Undevela{�ed Camenfrcial) i � �\ S 71' W 26• E) 200.96' I L Ln -4 O f 9. I PROPOSED REVISION C Ra / * N. n 4 _ wJ O 0) o p A- 1 M e ry m Cad y03 - S A Ln I� I tJ{�:1 = -`~ 6 .• / •:-.� /m/�om '.2�. •� yam :.: O ' / _ Y. z � , co UO ? T 00 W C fTl A M. I .mh. I Manquita (50 R.O.W.) meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. L/ AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUB CT: Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of Lost Addition, a portioniof Block 70, located at the U versity Avenue and Austin Avenue; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. ITE SUMMARY: This site is located at the southwest corner of University Avenue and Austin Avenue. The existi gas station was designed and constructed in the 1960s, prior to current design standards. The lot has nearly 100 percent impervious coverage, four (4) driveways, two (2) of which are within 20 feet of the actual street rner, no landscaping and a poorly defined area for parking. The applicant proposes to demolish a portion or all f the existing building and construct a convenience store near the southwest comer of the lot. The fuel pump slands will be just east of the center of the lot. Since the building will be reconstructed it is not eligible for th short form DDP review process wherein only one (1) standard to which the site is deficient must be made to co ply. Instead, this proposal is subject to the full design standards. The DDP proposes improvements to many f the design elements that are currently non -conforming. However, several variances are being requested. It is s ff's opinion that the result is significantly closer to complying with the design standards than the existing site d ign and the implementation of this DDP will improve this location. Under the current regulations, the existi non -conforming site would be permitted to continue as long as the building is not reconstructed. The requested variances are to Section 34020 G. 1 and 2. , to allow encroachments into building setback lines; able 34020, to allow greater than 70 percent impervious coverage; Section 34020 F. 2., to allow a corner lot o streets of the same classification to have access to both streets, Table 33044, to allow the driveways to be close to the corner than the standard; Section 33042 to allow a driveway wider than the standard 30 feet for undiv ed driveways; and Section 37000 to modify the landscaping standards. Staffs recommendation, as noted in the eport, is based on the improvement of the site as proposed in this DDP and the possibility that the site does not h e to be improved to be reoccupied. FIN CIAL IMPACT: None. CO NTS: At its March 5, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to approve a Detai Development Plan for Lost Addition, a portion of Block 70, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior o City Council consideration, with a strong recommendation to the applicant that the site, including all the prop ed variances, be constructed with cosmetic attention fitting the historical urban development of the area. Appr val of variances to Section 34020 G. 1. and 2. to permit encroachments into the north, east, south and west build g setbacks; Table 34020 to permit up to 96 percent impervious coverage provided the additional landscape area i provided in the right-of-way; Sections 34020 F. 2., 33042 and Table 33044 to permit access to both Austin Avene and University Avenue with the proposed driveway widths and locations and provided the entrance and exit 1 es are striped with a median; and Section 37000 to permit the landscaping as recommended, after making the r uired findings of fact. A Revised Detailed Development addressing the Technical Issues has been received by the City. REC MMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Pla ng and Zoning Commission's recommendation,. unless stated otherwise. ATT44 CHMENTS: Staff Report and Detailed Development Plan. Sub tted By: " 1 -f - - Edward . Barry, AICP Director Hildy L. Kingma, AICP Divisioi of Developme t Services Chief Planner TAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF LOST ADDITION, A PORTION OF BLOCK 70, LOCATED AT 1202 SOUTH AUSTIN AVENUE; AND VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS : Mr. Marvin Henderson Metro Fuels, Inc. 1100 Gattis School Road, #300B Round Rock, Texas 78664 388-1312 FAX: 388-0967 ENT: Mr. Steve Kallman, P. E. S.D.Kallman, Inc. 1106 South Mays, Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas 78664 218-4404 FAX: 218-1668 UEST: Detailed Development Plan of Lost Addition, a portion of Block 70, as recorded in Cabinet K, Slide 73 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. 'ACTS: n: Located at 1202 South Austin Avenue. SEE EXHIBIT A fisting Site: Vacant service station, most recently used as a used car sales. fisting Zoning: This lot is zoned C-2A, Commercial First Height. urrounding Uses nd Zoning: North: Vacant Georgetown Church of Christ building (C-2A) South: Single family residence (RP) East: National Pawn (C-2A) West: Single family residence (RS) Use: Convenience store with fuel sales Detailed Development Plan - Metro Mart DD 96-04 File:METROMRT.DDP CM/CS March 21, 1996 Page 1 Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this tract as Intensity Level 4. The proposed development can be accommodated within the allowable intensities. SEE EXHIBIT B ion: Notification requirements have been completed. ory: On March 21, 1995, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to the General Rules for Yard Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for Time Auto Sales, the previous user of the site. ALYSIS: The existing gas station was designed and constructed in the 1960s, prior to current design standards. The lot has nearly 100 percent impervious coverage, four (4) driveways, two (2) of which are within 20 feet of the actual street corner, no landscaping and a poorly defined area for parking. The applicant proposes to demolish a portion or all of the existing building and construct a convenience store near the southwest corner of the lot. The fuel pump islands will be just east of the center of the lot. SEE EXHIBIT C Since the building will be reconstructed it is not eligible for the short form DDP review process wherein only one (1) standard to which the site is deficient must be made to comply. Instead, this proposal is subject to the full design standards. The DDP proposes improvements to many of the design elements that are currently non -conforming. However, several variances are being requested. It is staff's opinion that the result is significantly closer to complying with the design than the existing site design and the implementation of this DDP will improve this location. Under the current regulations, the existing non -conforming site would be permitted to continue as such as long as the building is not reconstructed. As part of the Development Review Committee's comments to the applicant, several crime prevention design elements were suggested. The applicant chose to comply with some of the elements and is working with the City Police Services Division to increase the safety at a business which is susceptible to criminal activity. Experience has shown that implementing some )etailed Development Plan - Metro Mart March 21, 1996 )D 96-04 File:METROMRT.DDP Page 2 1M/CS LVI Detailed Development Plan - Metro Mart DD 96-04 File:METROMRT.DDP CM/CS design elements can reduce the probability of a crime occurring. One general and very simple rule is that a site that is unkempt and disorderly is more likely to attract criminal activity than one that is neat and orderly. Surely, improving the site as proposed will improve its appearance. Section 34020 G. 1 and 2., Encroachments into Building Setback Lines The setback lines on this lot are set by the Zoning Ordinance since it was subdivided prior to the existing Subdivision Regulations. There is no proposed change to the lot so the Zoning Ordinance standards still apply. The setbacks are 25 feet adjacent to Austin Avenue, 10 feet adjacent to University Avenue, and seven (7) feet adjacent to the south and west lot lines. The existing and proposed building encroaches into the south and west building setback lines and the parking area encroaches into all four (4) building setback lines. The proposed fuel pump islands and canopy do not encroach into any building setback lines. The proposal adds approximately four (4) foot wide strips of landscaping in the north and east building setback lines where there is currently all concrete. There is an existing solid fence along a portion of the south and west lot lines that can block the view of a portion of the rear of the proposed building from the residences on those adjacent lots. While the proposal does not drastically change the situation from what exists regarding building setbacks, it is an improvement. Table 34020, Impervious Coverage Probably the design element that is most out of conformance is the amount of impervious coverage. As stated previously, the site is nearly 100 percent impervious currently. The proposal to remove some of the existing concrete and asphalt and add landscaping results in a total of 96 percent impervious coverage. While this may be unacceptable for newly developed sites, it is a substantial improvement for this site that had virtually no impervious coverage. Also, the proposal is to remove approximately 1,200 square feet of concrete in the right-of-way that is not included in the impervious coverage calculations since it is not on the lot. This alone is an improvement since it will March 21, 1996 Page 3 )etailed Development Plan - Metro Mart )D 96-04 File:METROMRT.DDP :M/CS result in less impervious coverage, better defined driveways and sidewalk, more area available for landscaping and a more attractive site. Section 34020 F. 2. Access for Corner Lots Corner lots on streets of equal classification may have only one (1) access onto either street. Both Austin and University Avenue are classified as major arterial streets. As stated previously, the current site has four (4) driveways. The proposal eliminates the two (2) driveways that are closest to the intersection. Given that this is a relatively small commercial lot and there are a high number of driveways along Austin and University Avenues, this would be an ideal site to limit the number of driveways consistent with the established standards. However, the proposal is a significant improvement over what exists and the most potentially dangerous driveways are eliminated. Had this DDP not been submitted it is possible that the site would remain unchanged and the four (4) driveways would continue to exist. Table 33044, Driveway Separation From Intersections The standard separation of driveways from intersections on arterial streets with a 35 miles per hour speed is 250 feet. Given that the subject lot is approximately 160 feet by 108 feet, it is impossible to place driveways on the lot and comply with the standard. The lot was created before the current standards for lot size and dimensions, therefore driveway separation was not taken into account. As mentioned in a previous section, the current driveway separation on the lot is approximately 20 feet on University Avenue and seven (7) feet on Austin Avenue. The proposal to eliminate those two (2) driveways results in a separation of 110 feet on University Avenue and 62 feet on Austin Avenue. These separations are consistent with, or are better than other lots similarly situated. Section 33042, Driveway Width The existing driveway to be retained on University Avenue is 45 feet wide. The existing driveway to be retained on Austin Avenue is 40 feet wide. The one on University Avenue will remain the same, and the one on Austin Avenue will be March 21, 1996 Page 4 detailed Development Plan - Metro Mart )D 96-04 File:METROMRT.DDP :M/Cs increased to 45 feet. The standards allow for 45 foot driveways provided they are divided. The proposed driveways are undivided. The maximum width of undivided driveways is 30 feet. Given the narrowness of travel lanes on the adjacent streets and the short radii on the arc connecting the driveway to the streets, it may be preferable to allow the wider undivided driveways at this location. Wider driveways will allow the delivery vehicles that will be accessing the site to exit the adjacent streets with relative ease and not cause traffic congestion and create an unsafe situation. The design standards require divided driveways to have a median between the entrance and exit lanes. The proposed driveways can function as undivided driveways and still provide some of the benefits of divided driveways by striping the entrance and exit lanes and a median. The stripes will help guide the motorists in an orderly manner while allowing passage over the median. This is similar to a variance that was granted to the Texaco site at SH29 and IH35. The applicants requested a variance to keep the two existing 45 foot wide driveways that were about 65 feet apart. A variance was granted to allow the driveways to remain as is based on the applicants' concurrence to stripe the driveways for entrance and exit lanes. Section 37000, Landscaping The amount of landscaping required is 1,744 square feet, 10 percent of the total area. The number of trees and shrubs are based on the amount of landscape area required and are three (3) and six (6) respectively. The DDP indicates 743 square feet of landscaped area on the lot and approximately 1,200 square feet in the right-of-way. While the area in the right-of-way cannot be credited toward the landscape requirement it should be taken into consideration for this variance request. All of the proposed landscape area including that which is in the right-of-way is currently impervious coverage that will be removed. The DDP indicates the location of the landscaped areas, but does not indicate which plantings are proposed. The applicant does not indicate that a variance to the plantings is requested. Typically, staff recommends that additional plantings be provided when variances are granted to the amount of landscaped area. In this March 21, 1996 Page S Detailed Development Plan - Metro Mart DD 96-04 File:METROMRT.DDP CM/CS case, however, the amount of landscaped area proposed may not be large enough to accommodate more plantings than the minimum required. Therefore, the ratio of plantings to landscape area is comparable to that of what would typically be recommended in similar situations, and staff would not support a variance to the amount of plantings in this case, should the Commission consider such. In addition to the landscape area and trees and shrubs required for the entire site, bufferyards are required along all lot lines. A type "E" bufferyard is required along the south side and a type "D" is required along the west, north and east sides. The proposed design does not allow for enough room to provide the bufferyards with the standard widths, therefore the applicant is proposing a modification to the standard bufferyards. On the south side, where the type "E" bufferyard is required, there is an approximately five (5) foot wide area to provide landscaping. The minimum width of all of the type "E" options is 15 feet. A variance can be supported to the width provided that the required fence and the required number of plantings are provided. Given the length of the landscape area, two (2) shrubs and three (3) evergreens are required. A similar situation exists on the west side, where a type "D" bufferyard is required. There is no area for landscaping in this location. A variance can be supported to not require the entire bufferyard provided the fence is provided. The other two (2) areas in which bufferyards are required, the north and east, provide landscape strips suitable for providing planting. These two (2) areas require a type "D" bufferyard because parking is proposed between the building and the street. The proposed bufferyards on the north and east sides also are less than the standard width. They are both four (4) feet wide. When they are combined with the area within the right-of-way there is six (6) feet of width. Still, this is less than the ten (10) foot standard width. Type "D" bufferyards that are narrower than 20 feet must include a fence. Since these bufferyards are located in the front of a business location, an opaque fence is not practical. The Commission and Council typically grant variances to the fence requirement in similar situations. Staff can support a variance to the fence requirement and the width March 21, 1996 Page 6 iled Development Plan - Metro Mart 96-04 File:METROMRT.DDP standard provided the plantings are provide as well as the required berm. The DDP indicates that a berm will be provided. The aforementioned variances to the landscape standards can be supported provided the landscape plan of the DDP includes the following: 1. The amount of landscaping area as proposed on the DDP. 2. Three (3) trees and six (6) shrubs shall be planted on the lot in addition to the bufferyard plantings. 3. An opaque fence shall be provided along the entire length of the south lot line and along the west lot line from the southwest corner to the end of the proposed parking space. The remaining length of the fence on the west lot line shall be wrought iron as proposed. The fence on the south side must be reduced to no taller than four (4) feet in the front yard. 4. The bufferyard on the south side shall contain two (2) deciduous shrubs and three (3) evergreens. 5. The bufferyards on the north and east shall each contain two (2) deciduous shrubs, three (3) evergreens and a berm. While the recommended landscape plan does not exactly conform to the standards in the Subdivision. Regulations, it satisfies the intent of the ordinance to bring non -conforming sites more closely to compliance. 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 finds of fact as required by 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 March 21, 1996 Page 7 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." 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the lateral 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 of Basis for Requested Variances is attached. CAL ISSUES: The Subdivision Regulations require that the following Technical Issues are addressed prior to Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of this application. In order to assist the applicant, however, this application has been forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the completion of the Technical Issues. The State Statute and the Subdivision Regulations require the City Council take action on plats within 45 days of consideration by the Commission. Therefore, in order to meet this deadline the Technical Issues must be addressed by March 29, 1996, or the application will be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for denial. Alternatively, the applicant has the opportunity to request a delay to the City Council's consideration of the application in order to complete the Technical Issues. Detailed Development Plan - Metro Mart DD 96-04 File:METROMRT.DDP CM/CS 1. The DDP shall be revised to indicate the landscaping proposed including locations and types of plantings, fences and a berm. 2. Note #1 regarding the landscape requirements on Sheet 3 shall be revised to indicate that 10 percent of the site is required to be landscaped and the calculations shall be adjusted accordingly. March 21, 1996 Page 8 3. The building setbacks along the north and south lot lines are labeled as 25 feet. They shall be corrected to indicate ten (10) feet on the north and seven (7) feet on the south. 4. The distance between the west lot line and the closest point of the adjacent building shall be correctly labeled. 5. The parallel parking spaces indicated near the south lot line shall be 25 feet long rather than the 20 feet indicated. OR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 1. The City shall receive an approved Water Pollution Abatement Plan or a notice from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission that such is waived. AFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Detailed Development Plan for Lost Addition, a portion of Block 70 provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council Consideration. Approval of variances to Section 34020 G. 1. and 2. to permit encroachments into the north, east, south and west building setbacks; Table 34020 to permit up to 96 percent impervious coverage provided the additional landscape area is provided in the right-of-way; Sections 34020 F. 2. , 33042 and 33044 to permit access to both Austin Avenue and University Avenue with the proposed driveway widths and locations and provided the entrance and exit lanes are striped with a median; and Section 37000 to permit the landscaping as recommended, after making the required findings of fact. Z ACTION: At its March 5, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to approve a Detailed Development Plan for Lost Addition, a portion of Block 70, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, with a strong recommendation to the applicant that the site, including all the proposed variances, be constructed with cosmetic attention fitting the historical urban development of the area. Approval of variances to Section 34020 G. 1. and 2. to permit encroachments into the north, east, south and west building setbacks; Table 34020 to permit up to 96 percent impervious coverage provided the additional landscape area is provided in Detailed Development Plan - Metro Mart March 21, 1996 DD 96-04 File:METROMRT.DDP Page 9 CM/CS Development Plan - Metro Mart 96-04 File:METROMRT.DDP the right-of-way; Sections 34020 F. 2., 33042 and Table 33044 to permit access to both Austin Avenue and University Avenue with the proposed driveway widths and locations and provided the entrance and exit lanes are striped with a median; and Section 37000 to permit the landscaping as recommended, after making the required findings of fact. March 21, 1996 Page 10 .aa 7 6 3 2 .o• EXHIBIT A 11 th STREET rL[•`.0 ro..c7 w[•r[o. 2025/5)3 � _ •.oc•sow I I �o. .57Ac ..•f /f.• ' a•nm [trnt.[o s...•.•, rsaaf _ly.5,- •• /f•, Y a•a w.cnr. _ I •. /a 8 - 6 - - ..OJ.a •'C...C.O tCT(tl - �...o. o O�/C.� C••.•,T 916/3., T•r /IOf w' l3/•- L.a-Cr ••dam/� a• ♦r. w � 'JO. �)'� T.D. OCa •f•/l) ••Oa /f-. � 02]4. To.a •a.a' .o.' •oo' ,o' .� b' .ro' .:o' 4�0 12 th. STREET o 1 1 f.y,p H n./ I , 5 t i t` \ V � 3 Low..• ..oc !2a/.M G T scr•[s •.. /i•f T!' .so or.c •re' .t0' 3 7 4 to 8 to' ILf ,•.yp;•,••• :•: .•:. I CMURCns nl-nhlnnA I • MED 2137/180 1 �•:...+!....: •�:':L•c. ,,�•5,:• CMICREM J921 AG •a 1628/446- +����.g��.-±! 26 Arc 1 .•••/• •e.rf Toro ••'�' •ro 1-1 So" ao r = .Il •a• /I•a w. ..•1•C. r.s.•�•. j .aS�'... t •1r/frl r— • .o.. •C. .lO OS/— .sfa/.T• im.s ras se, s`�[. •f F-0., o..�[ia - r. •ro• D 71O%4. 4 _ 1— — C :o (n •O./r)o N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .+oc rsow __q Z - 195/a•s M fa awiuf . , , r. I SHORT STREET i !-o/)t, �� � 1 -4 _ I w' men f, CD m ..4 X) m m I E 0 3 7 0 0 4 .ro' 8 0 .id Lc.n .rf•/ T» OL .zo �....)L,t, I v n., .Io wo, uow 1--. -' .to rs •:z is c ROBLEZ o 13-81/522 o.so Y. ..•.lo T� _ � � f _ .•CC r•r = � ass /.•f \ Io 1 < 1 [ m 1 a — = 73 tf. t - L•. r• co: M 1 n. /SS! iaf w Its.oa T \ 1 V I K) I 524 / a.• .m r [ LD 74 r, ADD,[ —,o� .30. /all 3 3 0 75 -- � 1 m i c.f. e• uo.. o.r •..rR .... N i I I I-- •:<J VAWjORDEM 136 / 828 37 A,. EXHIBIT B t. ETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': February 14, 1996 'PROJECT NAME': Metro Mari @ Austin Ave. and University Lost Addition, p. of block 70 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 0.37 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 0.37 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWAHLE 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 2,486 710 30 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 2,486 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 710 Maximum Trip Ends: 30 5. PERMITI ED DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) (c) (d) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT LAND USES WATER ----------------------------------------- ------------------- WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION UNITS REGS ALLOWED/UNIT ---------- ---------------------------------------------------------- Detached SI -------------------- � ------------------------------------------------------------• Large Lot 2 2 49 2 1 1 housing units Average Lot 2 3 33 2 3 2 housing units Zero Lot Lu ie 2 3 33 2 4 2 housing units Attached SF 4 4 27 4 5 4 housing units Multifamily 5 5 13 5 9 5 housing units Mobile HomE,; 4 4 35 I 4 4 housing units Lodging 13 12 21 12 12 rooms Institutional 7,249 7,722 35,196 7,249 7,249 square feet Church -with day ca a 8,073 8,559 1,902 1,902 1,902 square feet -w/o day cai a 13,368 14,208 41,111 13,368 13,368 square feet Medical Office 5,977 6,343 9,173 5,977 5,977 square feet General Offii a 6,831 7,807 11,608 6,831 6,831 square feet Retail, Mixe 3,825 4,358 1,792 1,792 1,792 square feet Retail, Resta urant 1,594 1,480 2,603 1,480 1,480 square feet Retail, Store 7,650 8,073 6,164 6,164 6,164 square feet Employment Centers 6,831 7,807 6,469 6,469 6,469 square feet Warehouse 43,621 50,743 49,333 43,621 43,621 square feet Mini-Wareh ----------------- use 621,600 ---------------------------- - 710,400 113,846 113,846 113,846 square feet V i =d o� a 00 �a L.J III V. -EXHIBIT C 1202 AUSTIN AVENUE •\��I lil W � Lu to fl ,cl Y W z •�' j�� W 0 a�i� 18 �S�ZZ i l J.. r:--t---------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ---------- _71— \ 1 I < a 1. =\ 1 �1�v9135 1 3N1-1 9Q'19 OI / 'j z p \III q; IIf a. o w IIJ I 1-- ,lJ N III \� _ cv \ �. :If lil l 1 1 � 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 I J 1 / J � m a i t c 1 u � u_ ; 1 cc ui ' --------- — — — — — — ------1 j' i PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Proje< t Name:, Lost Addition, Block 70 - Metro Mart - DDP Name of Respondent: William R. Moore Addr ss of Respondent: 1208 S. Austin Ave, Georgetown I am n favor: I object: comments attached If yo wish to submit written comment, please respond by 2/28/96, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Pleast reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 R 1208 S. Austin Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 February 28, 1996 Cit of Georgetown De lopment Services Division P. Box 409 Ge getown, TX 78627 Reference: Notice to surrounding property owners of a public meeting to discuss the proposed plan to locate a Metro Mart on the pr erty at 1202 S. Austin Avenue. As owner and resident of the property at 1208 S. Austin Av nue, immediately adjacent to the site, I would like to express th following concerns regarding the proposal: 1. I do not want to impede the commercial progress in the city of Georgetown but I fail to see that location of an additional convenience store in this area serves any purpose to the community. There are presently two such businesses located one block east at the corner of University and Main. There are two more located within a quarter mile to the west on University and another two blocks south on Austin Avenue. A fifth retail business of this nature is not necessary. 2. I strongly object to the location of a dispensing and storage facility of gasoline so close to my property. There are all sorts of safety and enviromental concerns connected with this proposal that must be addressed and resolved. For instance, can the facility guarantee against leakage of storage tanks; what sort of air pollution standards apply to gasoline fumes this close to a residence; what sort of safety features will be incorporated into the storage tanks to protect adjacent property; how will the storage of flammable liquids close to my residence affect my insurance rates and what is Metro Mart prepared to do to compensate me for that expense. 3. The intersection of University and Austin Avenue has heavy automobile and truck traffic at certain periods of the day. I think a study should be done regarding what effect a drive- in/drive-out business will have on the congestion and traffic safety at the intersection. I know that it is difficult at these times for me to exit my driveway; I am concerned about the additional traffic problems this type of business will bring to the intersection. pr an re 4. The sale of alcoholic beverages in the city is also a great concern. As much as the city deems it necessary to limit the sale of alcohol in restaurants, I fail to grasp the reasoning of opening more retail businesses for the sale of alcoholic beverages, which is one of the primary purposes of convenience stores. As stated before, there are adequate sources of alcohol in other stores within a very short distance; the need for an additional source is excessive. 5. Personally, I think the location of a high traffic volume business this close to residences will have a detrimental_ effect on the property values of all homes along Austin Avenue and University. I would like to think that as Georgetown grows that the value of property along these streets would increase, but common sense, and the advice of several real estate agents, tells my that this type of retail store will not add value to the surrounding area and make homes near the intersection much more difficult to sell. 6. I would like to add a word about the charactor of Georgetown's Historic District which should be of concern to all city residents. I certainly feel that retail businesses are necessary in a city such as Georgetown, but I think the city planners must be very careful in the selection of businesses that preserve the integrity of the Historic District. One of the major criteria that a business should be able to meet, especially in this unique part of Georgetown, is the positive impact that the business will lend to furthering the preservation of the historic aspect of the area. A convenience store adds nothing to preservation; in fact, it detracts from the town's historic image. At the south end of Austin Avenue is a sign telling motorists that they are entering an historic district. Several houses on Austin Avenue, including my own, are undergoing extensive renovations to try to preserve that image, and I strongly feel that placement of a quick -stop, beer, wine, and gasoline convenience store within the limits of the district serves only to destroy the image that the city and its residents are trying to maintain. I appreciate this opportunity to express my views on the posed plan and hope that Georgetown officials will give careful meaningful consideration to the opinions of city residents arding their concerns and the future of our historic city. i c C < c William R. Moore it meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET S ECT: Consideration of a Short Form Final Plat of a 2.712 acre tract in the William A ison Survey, to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Six, located at SH29 and Georgetown In r Loop. IT M SUMMARY: The proposal is to create one (1) commercial lot at the intersection of State Hi hway 29 and Georgetown Inner Loop, which is the main entrance to Churchill Farms S division. This proposal is consistent with the approved Concept Plan, which proposed this to and a 2.219 acre commercial lot on the east side of Georgetown Inner Loop. That lot is in uded in the Churchill Farms, Section Four Final Plat which received approval from the C ncil on October 10, 1995. The public improvements to serve that subdivision are being in led currently. _ To provide this proposed lot with wastewater service, the wastewater line in Section Four wi 1 be extended to the lot. In order to allow this plat to be reviewed and approved as a Short Fo rm Final Plat, the construction plans for Section Four must be revised to included the proposed wastewater line extension. The process for plat approval requires that the subdivision co istruction plans be submitted and approved before the Final Plat is considered for approval. T1 ,e City is currently reviewing the construction plans. SjECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINNANCIAL IMPACT: None. C AUgENTS: At its March 5, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to approve a Short Form Final Plat for Churchill Farms, Section Six, provided the Technical are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Revised Plats addressing the Technical Issues were received by the City. A1ENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be t with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ACHMENTS: Staff Report and Plat. ibmitted By: iward J. arry, AICP Director Hildy L. ' ngma, AICP ivision Developme Services Chief Planner SHORT FORM FINAL PLAT OF A 2.712 ACRE TRACT IN THE WILLIAM ADDISON SURVEY, TO BE KNOWN AS CHURCHILL FARMS, SECTION SIX, )CATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF SH29 AND GEORGETOWN INNER LOOP Stonehedge Partners 30444 Berry Creek Drive Georgetown, TX 78628 930-9995 FAX 930-9317 ENT: Mr. Charles Wirtanen, P. E. 30444 Berry Creek Drive Georgetown, TX 78628 930-9995 FAX 930-9317 - - VEST: Short Form Final Plat of a 2.712 acre tract in the William Addison Survey, to be known as Churchill Farms, Section Six, as recorded in Volume 2349, Page 88 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. CTS: tion: Located at the intersection of State Highway 29 and Georgetown Inner Loop. SEE EXHIBIT A Site: Vacant Zoning: A, Agricultural. Approved for C-1, Local Commercial on First Reading. Second Reading pending the recordation of a plat. ounding Uses North: Agricultural (Out of City) Zoning: South: Agricultural, Single family residential proposed (A) East: Single family residential (RS) West: Agricultural, Single family residential proposed (A) posed Use: Commercial ry Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this tract as Intensity Level 5. SEE EXHIBIT B Short Form Final Plat - Churchill Farms, Section Six March 21, 1996 FP 96-07 File:CHRCHL6.FP Page 1 NOification: Notification requirements have been completed. TORY: A Concept Plan which includes this proposed lot as well as 54.47 additional acres was approved by the City Council at its August 22, 1995, meeting. SEE EXHIBIT C ALYSIS: The proposal is to create one (1) commercial lot at the intersection of State Highway 29 and Georgetown Inner Loop, which is the main entrance to Churchill Farms Subdivision. SEE EXHIBIT D This proposal is consistent with the approved Concept Plan, which proposed this lot and a 2.219 acre commercial lot on the east side of Georgetown Inner Loop. That lot is included in the Churchill Farms, Section Four Final Plat which received approval from the Council on October 10, 1995. The public improvements to serve that subdivision are being installed currently. To provide this proposed lot with wastewater service, the wastewater line in Section Four will be extended to the lot. In order to allow this plat to be reviewed and approved as a Short Form Final Plat, the construction plans for Section Four must be revised to included the proposed wastewater line extension. The process for plat approval requires that the subdivision construction plans be submitted and approved before the Final Plat is considered for approval. The City has not yet received the revised construction plans. CAL ISSUES: The Subdivision Regulations require that the following Technical Issues are addressed prior to Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of this application. In order to assist the applicant, however, this application has been forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the completion of the Technical Issues. The State Statute and the Subdivision Regulations require the City Council take action on plats within 45 days of consideration by the Commission. Therefore, in order to meet this deadline the Technical Issues must be addressed by March 29, 1996, or the application will be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for denial. Alternatively, the Short Form Final Plat - Churchill Farms, Section Six March 21, 1996 FP 96-07 File:CHRCHL6.FP Page 2 applicant has the opportunity to request a delay to the City Council's consideration of the application in order to complete the Technical Issues. 1. Submit the subdivision construction plans by March 10, 1996. Unless the construction plans are submitted by March 10, this application will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. Further, if the plans are submitted by that date, the plat will not be forwarded to the City Council until the City staff has had the opportunity to review the plans sufficiently to ensure that they are consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat. The staff review period for construction plans is 30 days. Therefore, given the late submittal of the plans, it may become necessary for the applicant to concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the plat in order to provide for sufficient review of the plans. Otherwise, the plat will be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for denial. 2. Submit written concurrence with a delay in City Council consideration of this request until construction plans have been reviewed by the City. AFF RECONEdENDATION: Approval of a Short Form Final Plat for Churchill Farms, Section Six provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Z ACTION: At its March 5, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to approve a Short Form Final Plat for Churchill Farms, Section Six, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Form Final Plat - Churchill Farms, Section Six IFP 96-07 File:CHRCHL6.FP March 21, 1996 Page 3 EXHIBIT A CHURCHILL FARMS r SECTION .SIX �p I 4 GEGRG 3 I 3 m 3 4 I ( 1� 10 ) 2 7 :K 10 sue•. , 1 2 18 <<... \ / L99 a 7 3 \ 8LV0 5 - 5 4 \�E R 8 tI REV. HN MCCARTY \ I 6 6 7 6 / Ito \ P 6 5 4 ST. ELENS CATHOLIC 2 3 C URCH1560 o STONEHEDGE 1 12 13 I166 AC..,, SCHNEIDER O t I ` 445/532 PETROSKY \ \ �' 3 33AG (167 AC) 1256/ 55 \ (5 77AC.) (593 AC) 1•.c 9.T2 AC. j 4 a tr ] JOdut Ar[� 620�0 \ ! 7 • t2 Y3 24 23 26 1O t• t t7 /DIC. 1•s•/)7• • 994/76Z P t3 t4 �i t• i t, A I r• Ac. 7 • 7 2t 23 N o- ll • 3 e to 21 u tt I 1 r • 7 . tl • • le i° is [0 1 t 11 5 • 3 10 1• 17 7 t7 GLAALD ECKLEY 4 v 12 I• 3 0 . . < • • 4 It ' t• M 671 E5 \ i + 7 i 15 le 4 3 10 a to J ] It 1s „ to v D 1L s a K 4 SA BRAD 10.33 AC- \. + t l4 t7 3 • t 11 cot 1] 11 j4 , t s v i1 630/201 0- 1 13 14 4 7 1 12 1 14 I I] = e � 16AC. °°?d \ I \'. CHURCHILL FARMS DRIVE 1 • ,� 1 I6 I 24 25 t3 1 1• 1 14 13 • t j11 f 1 \ z'Z7. 1 to t i ` - t :_ 44 A ( 7 ] 4 ] 2 —1 ] t 121 3J 14 i \ t/M" �• , o JAMES 8 TURNER \ 4 > i t3 4 21 4 to z 4 I] F4� I GERALD EC LEY a 10.60AC. 0 \ + s ] z to a i9 w to 1• IIt 1S • 7 • V " It Is to 634 / 6 • • LI I• 'A • 1• .u...+er 17 • 9 11 7 • 3 • ' IQ36 �. 1 V Y 1• Y 17 • 10 t• 7 • • ) 4 t 'to • • ly 17 , la 'a ie • 1 ° • 1• la 15 1t It 9 I) � JOE B McMA$TER i0 b ,. la W p, 14 ] • 460 18 31 / 9 : 34 ) ^ j;. Q: ,j' 14 1 y v �o 00 16 AC) I 11 it t to - `` Iy t t laEr 1 2 913 AC' 14 IL —� 12 13 12 16 i7 tJ6°'1° 13 13 14 i4 I° WILLIAM MORSE It 12 1) �' t . G • � LINDA VICE 647 / 805 r ! I l 3 0 0 1002 AC 10 16 AC 4 E MORY CA9LSON O 01 545/495 w a D OI J <Oa tA • ti+ to S • n 0 -.... c, z EXHIBIT -C t MEII(IM -�-.-�. I ------ n`wcp'r "L^w vo:w"Af,n- .�/ - CENTER to / —k-1 /---- CONCEPT PLAN / / EXHIBIT D, II I CHURCHICL FARMS, SECTION SIX STATE HIGHWAY NO. 29 ( 80' R 0 w � N 75'29' 16"E 408. 34" P. 0.13 , - ADD'L ROW 53.97' 124.82' tn _(i - - - -, .F - - 369.46' ------ - -�, , S 5'2971CW151 — � - 25' Q. - 1 / _ 720, 7/ O , LOT m 2.520 AC. �t V ��; CtD 30' ELECTRIC EASE Z CJ �' J VOL. 1369, PC. 10F /Q)co �o F / z v IV- 17 Q o� lz� o l Al l - vv / o 9 / V o / W COR NG J EX�S��OOE�� / / O / 0 NEON TNREE �'x 6� % / N / 3r I 35 \ �J' / 7 Q 3, it meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET T: Consideration of Revised Final Plats of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City wn, Phase 1, Neighborhoods Four and Seven. ;W S Y: Sun City Georgetown contains three different classes of lots based on size. )se classes are, listed from smallest to largest, classic, premier and estate. The model of ne that is available to a prospective buyer is dependent upon the class of lot upon which it will constructed. These proposed Revised Final Plats eliminate 27 premier lots and create 37 isic lots. Both subject Final Plats have received approval from the Commission and Council but h e not yet been recorded. The City can, however, allow minor changes to Final Plats between th time that they are approved by Council and the time that they are recorded without having to be reconsidered by the Commission and Council. Since the proposal represents an increase i density the revised plats must be considered by the Commission and Council. The increase i the number of lots in these plats will not affect the overall density of the Sun City Georgetown D velopment. The utilities to serve the area have been designed to accommodate up to 9,500 r idential units and that figure cannot change without a change to the utility facilities and an a endment to the Development Agreement. The proposed change in Neighborhood Four involves Block 15, where the 17 premier lots being converted to 23 classic lots. In Neighborhood Seven, 10 of the premier lots on Block 1 are being converted to 14 classic lots. All proposed lots conform to the design standards of t Subdivision Regulations and the Sun City Development Agreement. Additionally, the vised Final Plats conform to the previously approved Final Plats for Neighborhoods Four and S ven in all other respects. The change in lots lines necessitated slight revisions to the public utility locations to serve t lots. Therefore, the applicant has submitted revised construction plans for the areas affected are currently being reviewed by the City. .CIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. L IWACT: None. )N D4ENTS: At its March 5, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 approve the Revised Final Plats for Neighborhoods Four and Seven of the Planned Unit velopment of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1. ,COMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be isistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. 'TACHMENTS: Staff Report and- Plat. bmitted By: - %.1 6V-A-11 . dward I. arry, Al - Director SHildy L. ngma, AICP ivision f Develop nt Services Chief Planner �VISED FINAL PLAT OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY rEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOODS FOUR AND SEVEN, LOCATED NORTHEAST OF R.M. 2338 O RS/APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Eck II, P.E. Director, Land Development Del Webb Development Company 203 South IH-35, Suite 100 Georgetown, Texas 78628 931-6900 FAX: 930-6776 w-ENT: Mr. Scott Smiley, P.E. Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc. 5000 Plaza On The Lake, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78746 329-5002 FAX: 329-0802 VEST: Revised Final Plat of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhoods Four and Seven as recorded in Volume 2712, Page 103 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. Existing Zoning: RS, Single Family Residential Proposed Use: Neighborhood Four - 212 single family residential lots and 3 open space tracts Neighborhood Seven - 186 single family residential lots and 8 open space tracts ALYSIS: Sun City Georgetown contains three different classes of lots based on size. Those classes are, listed from smallest to largest, classic, premier and estate. The model of home that is available to a prospective buyer is dependent upon the class of lot upon which it will be constructed. These proposed Revised Final Plats eliminate 27 premier lots and create 37 classic lots. Revised Final Plats - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, March 21, 1996 Neighborhoods Four and Seven #FP96-06/File:scg4&7fp.fp Page I CM/Cs Both subject Final Plats have received approval from the Commission and Council but have not yet been recorded. The City can, however, allow minor changes to Final Plats between the time that they are approved by Council and the time that they are recorded without having to be reconsidered by the Commission and Council. Since the proposal represents an increase in density the revised plats must be considered by the Commission and Council. The increase in the number of lots in these plats will not affect the overall density of the Sun City Georgetown Development. The utilities to serve the area have been designed to accommodate up to 9,500 residential units and that figure cannot change without a change to the utility facilities and an amendment to the Development Agreement. The proposed change in Neighborhood Four involves Block 15, where the 17 premier lots are being converted to 23 classic lots. In Neighborhood Seven, 10 of the premier lots on Block 12 are being converted to 14 classic lots. All proposed lots conform to the design standards of the Subdivision Regulations and the Sun City Development Agreement. Additionally, the Revised Final Plats conform to the previously approved Final Plats for Neighborhoods Four and Seven in all other respects. The change in lots lines necessitated slight revisions to the public utility locations to serve the lots. Therefore, the applicant has submitted revised construction plans for the areas affected that are currently being reviewed by the City. 'AFF RECOND4ENDATION: Approval of the Revised Final Plats for Neighborhoods Four and Seven of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1. P Z ACTION: At its March 5, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the Revised Final Plats for Neighborhoods Four and Seven of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1. evised Final Plats - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, March 21, 1996 eighborhoods Four and Seven FP96-06 /File: scg4&7fp. fp Page 2 Ln Aod I mcio 00 0%9 bo z kr-, S eighbo.-hood I Neigh AMA - 1 .t i 1 ho d 2 00 11 - .. q EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A MIXED LAND USE PROPOSAL 1. 'DATE*: September 13, 1995 'PROJECT NAME': Sun City Georgetown - Revised Concept Plan (Second) 2. 'GIVEN': acres of Intensity Level 1 5314 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 ' �.314.00 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE O�=MAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPO Average GPD Peak Trip Ends 1 0 0 0 2 12,753,600 3,454,100 21,256 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOVABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPO Water Capacity: 12,753,600 Maximum GPO Wastewater Capacity: 3,454,100 Mritximum Trip Ends: 21,256 5. EFFECTIVE LOWABLE SYSTEM INTENSITIES: G D/Acre Water: 2,400 G O/Acre Wastewater: 650 T Ends/Acre Traffic: 4 6. PERMITTED EVELOPMENT BASED ON GIVEN MIX OF LAND USES: (b) (a) TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND (1) LAND USES ( -ACRES- WATER WASTEWATEF TRANSP Detached SF I Large Lot I 0 0 0 Average Lot I 3,163.00 7,591,200 2.055.950 12.652 Zero Lot Line I 0 0 0 Attached SF I 517 1,240,800 336,050 2,068 Multifamily ( 0 0 0 Mobile Home I 0 0 0 Lodging I 0 0 0 Institutional I 29.15 69,960 18,948 117 Church I -with day care I 0 0 0 -w/o day care I 0 0 0 Medical Office I 80.75 193.800 52,488 323 General Office I 16.00 38,400 10,400 64 Retail, Mixed I 1508.1 3,619,440 980.265 6.032 Retail, Restaura I 0 0 0 Retail, Store I 0 0 0 Employment Ce ers I 0 0 0 Warehouse I 0 0 0 Mini -Warehouse I 0 0 0 Greenbelt I -- ---- -- I----------------------------------------------------------------I Sub -Total 5,314.00 Road Right-of*ay TOTAL 5.314.00 (c) (d) (e) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV WATER WASTEWATEF ---- ---- - -------- - ------ ------ TRANSP I -I ----------- UNITS I I REGS I -- I 0 0 I 01 I 01 I 01 7,606 8,224 14,280 I 7,606 I 22.963 0 0 01 01 01 1,909 1,920 1.902 I 1,902 I 7,507 I 0 0 0 1 0 1 (5) I 0 0 01 01 I 0 0 01 01 I 204 206 139 I 138.644 I I 0 0 I 01 I 01 I I 0 0 01 01 I 466 469 100 I 100,093 I I 105 114 25 I 25,098 I I 5.568 6.014 365 I 365.202 I I 0 0 01 01 I 0 0 01 01 0 0 01 01 0 0 01 0� 0 0 01 I 01 I I ----------------------------------------------I (units in this section should --------- --- -I -------I be multiplied by 1000) (i DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED/UNIT (2) 0 housing units 7,606 housing units 0 housing units 1,902 housing units (5) housing units 0 housing units 0 rooms 138.644 square feet 0 square feet 0 square feet 100,093 square feet 25,098 square feet 365,202 square feet 0 square feet 0 square feet 0 square feet 0 square feel 0 square feet EXHIBIT C-1 G E 0 1, ELD\,,G7Tr-"'.OWN EXHIBIT C --2 SUN CITY GE0lDkGE OWN INEIGHBORHOOD SEVEN it meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. x AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET S ECT: Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4, o be known as Reedholm Instruments, with a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations, 1 ted at ##4 Sierra Way IT +M SURMURY: The subject parcel is currently vacant and surrounded by a construction co pany on the north and vacant lots on the south, east and west sides. Lot 4 is a corner lot, an access is provided by Sierra Way and Courtney Drive. The subject property is a corner lot and the applicant proposes access from both Sierra W y and Courtney Drive, which are classified as local streets. According to Section 34020 F.2. of he Subdivision Regulations, corner lots adjacent to streets of equal classification shall have o y one (1) access driveway on either of the intersecting streets. The applicant has submitted a ariance request to this requirement stating that dual driveway access will serve to separate a omobile and truck traffic, thereby improving motorist and pedestrian safety. Automobile traffic will use the Sierra Way entrance, while truck traffic will take access fr m Courtney Drive. The local street network comprising Georgetown Technology Park p vides additional support for this variance. Sierra Way is a cul-de-sac serving Georgetown T hnology Park and Courtney Drive has only been constructed through the length of Lot 4. ile it is foreseeable that the surrounding vacant lots will be developed with compatible i ustrial uses, it is not expected that Sierra Way or Courtney Drive will be heavily travelled r dways. : None. ACT: None. COMMENDED MOTION: At their regular meeting of March 5, 1996, the Planning and T.F2 ing Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a Detailed Development Plan of rgetown Technology Park, Lot 4, and approval of the requested variance to Section 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations to allow two driveways as proposed, provided the Technical e is addressed prior to City Council consideration. Staff report, attached exhibits and Detailed Development Plan. Submitted By: �dl //Ibtxq iward J. , AIC - Director Hildy L. 'ngma, AICfP vision o Developme t Services Chief Planner ETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF GEORGETOWN TECHNOLOGY PARK, T 4, TO BE KNOWN AS REEDHOLM INSTRUMENTS, WITH A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, LOCATED AT #4 SIERRA WAY OWNER: Mr. Joseph Reedholm, Sr. Reedholm Instruments P.O. Box 1849 Georgetown, TX 78627 869-1935 AG -ENT: Mr. Steve Kallman S.D.Kallman, Inc. 1106 South Mays, Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas 78664 218-4404 FAX: 218-1668 VEST: Detailed Development Plan of Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4, as recorded in Cabinet K, Slide 73 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas; and a variance to the Subdivision Regulations. FACTS: ion: Located on Sierra Way. SEE EXHIBIT A isting Site: Undeveloped industrial lot. Zoning: This lot is located out of the City limits so zoning does not apply. i rrounding Uses o d Zoning: North: Roger's Construction Company and upholstery warehouse facility (I) South: Undeveloped land (out of City) East: Undeveloped industrial lot and Sierra Microwave (out of City) West: Undeveloped industrial lot (I) oposed Use: Electronic manufacturing facility. Detailed Development Plan - Reedholm Instruments March 14, 1996 DD 96-03 File:REEDHOLM.DDP Page 1 CM/ww tury Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this tract as Intensity Level 3. SEE EXHIBIT B A Century Plan Amendment will be considered as a separate agenda item. Nitification: The notification requirements have been completed. ALYSIS: The subject parcel is currently vacant and surrounded by a construction company on the north and vacant lots on the south, east and west sides. EXHIBIT C illustrates the proposed site plan. The proposed structure and future building area are situated at the eastern portion of the lot, and surrounded by a stormwater detention area and a parking lot on the north side, and a future parking area on the west side. Lot 4 is a corner lot, and access is provided by Sierra Way and Courtney Drive, both classified as local streets. The Detailed Development Plan submittal conforms to the informational requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Water, wastewater and electric service for this project will be provided by the City of Georgetown. CES: Section 34020 F.2. - Corner Lots The subject property is a corner lot and the applicant proposes access from both Sierra Way and Courtney Drive, which are classified as local streets. According to Section 34020 F.2. of the Subdivision Regulations, corner lots adjacent to streets of equal classification shall have only one (1) access driveway on either of the intersecting streets. The applicant has submitted a variance request to this requirement stating that dual driveway access will serve to separate automobile and truck traffic, thereby improving motorist and pedestrian safety. As indicated on the Detailed Development Plan, automobile traffic will use the Sierra Way entrance, while truck traffic will take access from Courtney Drive. The local street network comprising Georgetown Technology Park provides additional support for this variance. Sierra Way is a cul-de-sac serving Georgetown Technology Park and Courtney Drive has only been constructed through the length of Lot 4. While it is foreseeable that the surrounding vacant lots will be developed with compatible industrial uses, it is not expected that Sierra Way or Courtney Drive will be heavily travelled roadways. iled Development Plan - Reedholm Instruments 96-03 File: REEDHOLM.DDP /WW March 14, 1996 Page 2 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 finds of fact as required by 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." 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 of Basis for Requested Variance form is attached. echnical Issue: The Subdivision Regulations require that the following technical issues are addressed prior to Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of this application. In order to assist the applicant, however, this application has been forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the completion of the technical issues. State Statute and the Subdivision Regulations require that the City Council take action on plats within 45 days of consideration by the Commission. Therefore, in order to meet this deadline, the Technical Issues must be addressed by March 29, or the application will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. Alternatively, the applicant has the opportunity to request a delay to the City Council's etailed Development Plan - Reedholm Instruments March 14, 1996 D 96-03 File:REEDHOI.M.DDP Page 3 consideration of the application in order to complete the technical issues. 1. Signature blocks for the Planning and Zoning Chairperson and the Mayor need to be added to the cover sheet of the DDP, as shown in Appendix C of the Subdivision Regulations. ST14LFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Detailed Development Plan of Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4, and approval of the requested variance to Section 34020 F.2. of the Subdivision Regulations to allow two driveways as proposed, after making the required findings of fact, and provided the Technical Issue is addressed prior to City Council consideration. P Z ACTION: Approval of a Detailed Development Plan of Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4, and approval of the requested variance to Section 34020 F.2. of the Subdivision Regulations to allow two driveways as proposed, after making the required findings of fact, and provided the Technical Issue is addressed prior to City Council consideration. iled Development Plan - Reedholm Instruments March 14, 1996 96-03 File:REEDHOL.M.DDP Page 4 EXTIMIT'A — EXHIBIT B DET RMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1 . -DATE': February 14. 1996 -PROJECT N E': Reedholm - Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 2.30 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 2.30 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLIN DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPO Peak Trip Ends 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 8.648 2,484 23 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALL WABLE DEMAND: Ma imum GPD Water Capacity: 8,648 M imum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 2.484 M imum Trip Ends: 23 5. PERMITTE DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) (c) (d) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION I I -------------------- UNITS I I REGS I -----------------I ----------------------------------------- ALLOWED/UNIT -------------------- Detached SF --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- I I Large Lot 7 9 38 I 7 1 5 1 5 housing units Average Lot 9 10 26 I 9 1 17 I 9 housing units Zero Lot Lin 9 10 26 I 9 I 22 I 9 housing units Attached SF 13 14 21 I 13 I 33 I 13 housing units Multifamily 16 16 10 I 10 I 65 I 10 housing units Mobile Home 13 13 27 I 13 I I 13 housing units Lodging 45 41 17 I 17 I I 17 rooms Institutional 25,213 27,000 27,348 ( 25.213 I I 25.213 square feet Church -with day car 28,078 29,928 1,478 I 1,478 I 1,478 square feet -w/o day care 46,495 49,680 31,944 I 31,944 I I 31,944 square feet Medical Office 20,788 22,179 7,127 I 7.127 I I 7,127 square feet General Office, 23,758 27,297 9.020 I 9,020 I I 9,020 square feet Retail, Mixed 13.305 15,239 1,392 I 1,392 I I 1,392 square feet Retail, Restau nt 5,544 5.175 2,023 I 2,023 I I 2,023 square feet Retail. Store 26,609 28,227 4,790 I 4.790 I I 4,790 square feet Employment nters 23.758 27,297 5,026 I 5.026 I I 5.026 square feet Warehouse 151.719 177.429 38,333 I 38.333 I I 38.333 square feet Mini-Warehou ------------------ e 2,162.000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,484,000 88,462 I --- I 88.462 ------------------ I I -----------------I--------------------------------------------- 88.462 square feet GEORGETOWN TECHNOLOGY PARK, LOT 4 SIERRA WAY rtrE V 41SAI S69'0 F00-f——�6. 200" 1� -*o- -) -- ----------- ------- ------- �4 s- — — — — — — — — — — ----- cp AN 1 8 — — — — — — — 18-S-2 DETENTION AREA AREA L A c HIP PAVERSASrK',LT FLAG ME SEE VETAR 66&1 I 'E'A OLWFEIZYA90 02 A 0 000 S-1 J&WA-1 + B PROPOSED BUILDING + (F.F.-632.62) o -z +lo STUD-W EWrYCCNDLIT i 11.1 CO"ErE r-D5 FOR FVfL$ZE POLE UGK I or) /--6CREEN WA:.- p 01 L 0 %1 �F�K I - RE 195 01. 0 0 F L —ONST. FUTURE oiei BUILDING 'oo c 0 D cp, aCOWRETEr 0- _;��ETE r MMS AnON ASPHALT BETE .77 1-. 1�y r E E•ERYARD PJ=� r AD of . CEDAR ........ 95 ------- --------- DE -------------- 933 9r, -------------- ---- ------- 4 5-S-2 C A D WE L 0 C C 533 033 DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN - REEDHOLM INSTRUMENTS DOCUNU,-,N`I'ATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE Date: 2/5/96 Applicant: 1 31-1 Arrhi tc��-t C, This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Section(s) 34020F.2 of the Subdivision Regulations. Give a brief description of the variance requested: The lot is a corner lot and request access from intersecting streets of equal classification. 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 Q. 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 wit¢ 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 ail additional sheet, or submit this information in the form of a letter. 1. In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be subs Bally served? Access from both streets will allow the car traffic to be separated from the truck (delivery) traffic, providing a safer environment once on the parking lot. 2. "I'll 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. The use of surrounding property will not be impaired or diminished in any mariner. Courtney Drive will be used by a small number of trucks that should not impact the adjacent lots. (At present Courtney is a dead-end street). There are no plans for development of this street. 3_ \'hat are the hardships involved.' How wcj-c those hardships Hov. are those hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with the enforcement of this same provision? NOiC that the COnlillissioii ail(] COMICll Cannot <1pprove a var lance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. The lot is small at only 2.2 acres. Much of the front of the lot is required for water detention because there is no storm drainage in this area. As a corner lot, this property is subject to significant setbacks on two frontages, rather than just one. Revised 12/94 If the requested variance if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or rivilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? rovide r sons wly you believe your answer to be supportable. Some owners do not n ave co e lots and thus can not benefit from two access points. They also are not subject to the setback requirements on two frontages allowing them greater use of their property. The property to the west would be able to have two accesses for similar reasons. Ho%v is the public interest affected? Greater safety is provided to motorists and pedestrians within the parking lot. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of tlle variance. 1). Corner lot requiring greater setbacks 2). Small lot requiring a substantial portion for water detention. 17. Ho,,v will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted? The intent of the ordinance is to prevent busy access ways off of busy intersecting streets. Sierra Way is a cul de sac, thus with limited traffic and Courtney is a dead-end. The entrance off of Courtney will be primarily service or truck traffic. S_ Ho%v will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? Both of these streets are.local, thus traffic will always be limited. A greater level of safety will be provided to the employees and visitors of this facility without impacting the adjacent property owners. Revi-scd 12/94 meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET ECT: Consideration of a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for the Amended Resubdivision of Berry , Section Seven, Phase One, Block L, Lot 39, located at 31100 La Quinta Drive EM SUMMARY: This request is for a variance to Section 34030, Table 34020 and Section 34020 F.4. of the )division Regulations to allow the applicant's garage to encroach by fifteen (15) feet into the platted front yard pack and Public Utility Easement (PUE). Section 34030 states that no permanent structure may be placed in or %r any easement except a structure whose use and location are necessary to the designated use of the easement. ale 34020 establishes the design standards for lots, including a 25 foot front yard setback for single family ellings. In addition, Section 34020 FA. states that the building setback line shall never be less than 25 feet from existing street right-of-way. The applicant's proposed dwelling is situated on a comer lot at Las Colinas Drive and La Quinta Drive. th streets were platted with a 25 foot front yard setback and PUE. The applicants have applied for, and received )roval by the Director of Community Owned Utilities and other utility providers to abandon 15 feet of the 25 foot E along Las Colinas Drive. Ten (10) feet of the PUE which is closest to Las Colinas Drive will remain. mer lots such as this have two (2) front yards, thereby requiring a 25 foot setback on each street frontage. pically, the Planning and Zoning Commission has granted a variance to Section 34020 FA. to allow a fifteen (15) it setback on the secondary yards of back-to-back comer lots in order to maintain a consistent setback along the ;et frontage. Lot 39, however, is not a back-to-back comer lot, but adjacent to interior lots on both sides. An examination of the Building Inspection Department's permit files as well as a visual survey was iertaken to determine whether other homes on La Quinta Drive encroach into the 25 foot front yard setback. the residences already built or under construction, only Lot 5 appears to encroach into the 25 foot front yard pack. Permit records for Lot 5 were not found in the Building Inspection Department's permit files; therefore, > lot was most likely constructed before the Building Inspection Department began issuing permits in the Berry ;ek subdivision. Permit records and visual surveys indicate the remaining lots on La Quinta Drive do not :roach into the 25 foot front yard setback. Council. : None. : Approval of variances requires a majority plus one (1) vote of the Commission ;UOMMENDED MOTION: At their regular meeting of March 5, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission :ed 5-2 to recommend denial of the requested variance to Section 34030, Table 34020 and Section 34020 F.4. the Subdivision Regulations for the Amended Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Seven, Phase One, Block Lot 39. : Staff report and attached exhibits. bmitted By: ward PBarry, AICP - Directo Hildy L. Kin , AICP ivision of Development Service Chief Planner VARIANCE FROM THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE AMENDED RESUBDIVISION OF BERRY CREEK, SECTION SEVEN, PHASE ONE, BLOCK L, LOT 39, LOCATED AT 31100 LA QUINTA DRIVE O R/AGENT: Mr. Euell Campbell Ms. Lori Campbell 609 A Luther Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 863-0731 QUEST: Variance from the platted setback requirements for the Amended Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Seven, Phase One, Block L, Lot 39 as recorded in Cabinet L, Slides 315-316, of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas. FACTS: ion: 31100 La Quinta Drive. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Single family residential lot. Existing Zoning: This property is located outside the City limits, so zoning does not apply. Proposed Use: Single family residence. Surrounding Uses: Single family residences. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. TORY: The Final Plat for this subdivision was recorded on March 15, 1995. vALYSIS: This request is for a variance to Section 34030, Table 34020 and Section 34020 F.4. of the Subdivision Regulations for Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Seven, Phase One, Block L, Lot 39. Section 34030 states that no permanent structure may be placed in or over any easement except a structure whose use and location are necessary to the designated use of the easement or which will otherwise not affect the use, maintenance or repair ariance - Berry Creek, Sec. Seven, Ph.1, Blk L, Lot 39 March 14, 1996 R 96-03/ File: BC7-1-39NAR Page 1 of such easement. Table 34020 establishes the design standards for lots, including a 25 foot front yard setback for single family dwellings. In addition, Section 34020 F.4. states that the building setback line for all corner lots shall never be less than twenty-five (25) feet from an existing street right-of-way. The applicant's proposed dwelling is situated on a corner lot at Las Colinas Drive and La Quinta Drive. Both streets were platted with a 25 foot front yard setback and Public Utility Easement (PUE). SEE EXHIBIT B The subject lot is vacant and no construction work has been initiated. The applicants have applied for, and received approval to abandon 15 feet of the 25 foot PUE along Las Colinas Drive by the Director of Community Owned Utilities and other utility providers. Ten (10) feet of the PUE which is closest to Las Colinas Drive will remain. Corner lots such as this have two (2) front yards, thereby requiring a 25 foot setback on each street frontage. As shown in Exhibit B, a variance is requested to allow the applicant's garage to encroach by fifteen (15) feet into the platted front yard setback and PUE, which coincides with the proposed abandoned easement area described above. The purpose of front yard setbacks and PUEs, respectively, is to create a more uniform residential character along the street frontage and provide the appropriate width for the location of utilities. Typically, the Planning and Zoning Commission has granted a variance to Section 34020 F.4. to allow a fifteen (15) foot setback on the secondary yards of back-to-back corner lots in, order to maintain a consistent setback along the street frontage. Lot 39, however, is not a back-to-back corner lot. In fact, it is adjacent to interior lots on both sides. The northwest side of Lot 39 is adjacent to the resubdivision of Berry Creek Section Seven, Phase Two which was approved by City Council in September 1994, for the construction of single-family homes along Las Colinas Drive. While construction activities have not been initiated in Phase Two as of February 1996, the City Council has extended the length of time this Final Plat remains valid until September 1996. ariance - Berry Creek, Sec. Seven, Ph.1, Blk L, Lot 39 March 14, 1996 96-03/ File:BC7-1-39.VAR Page 2 An examination of the Building Inspection Department's permit files as well as a visual survey was undertaken to determine whether other homes along La Quinta Drive encroach into the 25 foot front yard setback. As shown in EXHIBIT C, of the residences already built or under construction, only Lot 5 (at the corner of Oakland Hills and La Quinta Drives) appears to encroach into the 25 foot front yard setback. Permit records for Lot 5 were not found in the Building Inspection Department's permit files; therefore, this lot was most likely constructed before the Building Inspection Department began issuing permits in the Berry Creek subdivision. Permit records and visual surveys indicate the remaining lots on La Quinta Drive do not encroach into the 25 foot front yard setback. Since April 1995, the Building Inspection Department has required compliance with the building setback requirements outlined in Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations and established by the recorded plat for any construction in Berry Creek. CE: 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 finds of fact as required by 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. " 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." ariance - Berry Creek, Sec. Seven, Ph.1, Blk L, Lot 39 March 14, 1996 96-03/ File: BC7-1-39NAR Page 3 The applicant's Documentation for Basis of Requested Variance form is attached. S FF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the requested variance to Section 34030, Table 34020 and Section 34020 FA. of the Subdivision Regulations for the Amended Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Seven, Phase One, Block L, Lot 39. P Z ACTION: Denial of the requested variance to Section 34030, Table 34020 and Section 34020 F.4. of the Subdivision Regulations for the Amended Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Seven, Phase One, Block L, Lot 39. - Berry Creek, Sec. Seven, Ph.1, Blk L, Lot 39 March 14, 1996 96-03/ File:BC7-1-39.VAR Page 4 EXHIBIT A BERRY CREEK, SECTION SEVEN. PHASE ONE, BLOCK L, LOT 39 13 �t2 \ ` 11 / I J 8 21 6 6 / 5 ; r r 4 r, 3 2 v a s ` 2 3 \ \� 19 I° 10 3 f3 .► 13 t5 I \ \ \ 20 II - 22 I7 \ 2 s 23 �R1�1E \ 12 � G I b 24(25 r3;_K 4 I t(-�� C 26 113� 28 27 40 IS 14 � ' 3 12 29 11 30 38 37 36 i r- r r:) \ r S 9 ro 11 14 9 8 31 35 ! J F of r 3 34 c� _ 14 J 32 10 L a 3a P J 4� 3z 7 10 3 31 6 2 1 z2 23�2. '6 9 30 17 _ 5 ' 131_1• F y / � Q G 1 20• 29 D ,e 1e 27 ze 11 � 4 `� 6 / 1 t t. 4 16 to L0 \ 3 T13 / 7 t2 2 m 4 1� 1� 4 6 4 t.e e 9 'O 12 t3 r� 15 I n I 1 t V ft�~ 7 �� ' 2. EFL ' e � U 10 4 = 1 1-4'a It 'O 7 i5 zs I < 2 7 Is 12 7'3 'rs7 1 C �-e- ' p 0 ,s _ — e� 13 2e 2 It LpN`P 11 10 3� �F�� ,a j6 O0 23 A o IT 13 > 17 27 1� 31_,„, . 11 s i A 22 2' 20 r ,1- �. V 4 > 57 = 2 e P/N c r,\ 2 1 4 '9 3 r t1 2• SO t bs St 31 32 33 3 a ,-- -- �.�� •=54 4EN01-70 es RY C�uR 23 tt FIRST TEX�SOEVEEOPMENT CORP. t32 �D1_ a ,V.JL / 307 I I t 4 S L 1+ 3 ✓.� 2 I 3I � t99.12 7 AG. � l I. �C 47 tt <+s to �e 44 !9 4i 44 Z ; o 40 32 1 I 13 35 S4 / ]e � BERRY CREEK PARTNERS 2231 / 114 5 6.1476 /-C. EXHIBIT e v II 64.99 `"H`;N ,1 L A Q U/ N TA D R/ V E Area of P.U.E. to be abandoned EXHIBIT C BERRY CREEK, SECTION SEVEN, PHASE ONE, BLOCK L, LOT 39 °v U o 130.85 7 SOao• U Ik Cis0. �0 �. - D ODRS c� 0 ~\ itp , {s. 4i .O i co e, N° F 4z 16 00 c moo. rsoRo s oR j 6 w) I` . co ry �• ,c S C) `�" hod, `�� /\ �0 16 m ;� O /� m h� D, tv 3 .Jp16 m.atao �I �1J3 �r�'J / n• �'l� O_ _w J 0 6 00 � z � �vs,� 2•sue; o. � �� ��0�. E N E HOUSE BUILT OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION `° % 'N 6s) ❑Q❑ BUILDING INSPECTIONS RECORDS INDICATE BUILT �3�' �4. U ��eh� WITHIN 25' BL N63.00.40 z o e (` *++ VISUAL SURVEY INDICATES- BUILT WITHIN 25' BL o C3. III VISUAL SURVEY INDICATES, ENCROACHMENT INTO BL DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED `) it: , Date. 15 A pplcan V AIZI.ANC E This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Section(s) 3ga3_0, 3`402DF-4 of the Subdivision Regulations. ';Io� T « 3g020 ' r Give a brief description of the variance requested: `(JW,'�l,W 41 C. .2nc1LCfuk u AU) You 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 "en.sure 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 varia ice 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? c e CL.tt ae 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. 3 Miat are the hardships involved' Hom,, were those hardsli s -reated' How are thosc hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced v.:,h the enforcement of thi` same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot appro-\ e a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. 1Zcvised 12/94 If the requested variance if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or ivilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? ovide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. How is the public interest affected? List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted? How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? Revised 1 2 /94 1 t nr ir lo) ?'P c MOA TjU10 1-T,-rL,t,kolr -o vr� -wr u l) �- -,YrLI),,,.lV') wjw "o n/ - L9 - �4, . I r� T fflAq. nfiy -P ffnr� 0,00i aWu l:D47kl& 0),JL� vt . jh -/tk C�' �G{,(,v� C���-cam _ �fc; ouk, C04 4itf alett -i/Y-L f -1k '! 4. IWO, Wilt) N Council meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Reata Trails Subdivision, Unit Four, a 39.28 acre tract in the David Wright Survey, located on Wagon Wheel Trail, Stagecoach Drive and Northwest Boulevard ITEM SUMMARY: The subject Final Plat is for 102 residential lots and one (1) park land / drainage easement lot. The Final Plat submittal conforms to the informational requirements of the Subdivision Regulations as well as the density and intensity requirements of the Century Plan -Development Plan. Two differences made between the time the Revised Preliminary Plat was approved and the Final Plat submittal concern street name changes. In both cases, the applicant was advised to change the street names because they were too similar to other streets in Georgetown and could be potentially confusing in emergency situations. Thus, Thornwood Road replaces Mill Road and Creek Drive replaces Pecos Drive. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Prior to recording the Final Plat, either Thornwood Drive or Thornwood Road must be selected as a street name and labeled consistently throughout the plat. FINANCIAL AWACT: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: At their regular meeting of March 5, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Reata Trails Subdivision, Unit Four, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report, attached exhibits and Final Plat. Submitted By: Edward . Barry, CP - Director Division of Devel pment Services f kl' x, Hildy L. Kingma, AICP Chief Planner FINAL PLAT OF A RESUBDIVISION OF REATA TRAILS SUBDIVISION, UNIT FOUR, A 39.28 ACRE TRACT IN THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, LOCATED ON WAGON WHEEL TRAIL, STAGECOACH DRIVE AND NORTHWEST BOULEVARD OWNER: Mr. Gary D . Stillwell By Well V. Ltd. 510 South Congress, Suite 400 Austin, TX 78704 474-4242 FAX 474-5213 AGENT: Mr. Don Bizzell, P.E. Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 858 Georgetown, Texas 78627 863-4521 FAX 863-4523 REQUEST: Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Reata Trails Subdivision, Unit Four, a 39.28 acre tract in the David Wright Survey, as recorded in Cabinet H, Slides 40-42 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas. Existing Zoning: This property is zoned RS, Residential Single Family. Proposed Use: 102 residential single family lots and one (1) park land / drainage easement lot. HISTORY: The Revised Preliminary Plat and requested variances to allow a 70 foot right-of-way width for this portion of Northwest Boulevard and a 15 foot setback on the secondary yard of back - back corner lots were approved by City Council in January 1996. SEE EXHIBIT C ANALYSIS: The subject Final Plat is for 102 residential lots and one (1) park land / drainage easement lot. SEE EXHIBIT D This subdivision will use City of Georgetown water, wastewater, and electric services. The Final Plat submittal conforms to the informational requirements of the Subdivision Regulations as well as the Final Plat - Reata Trails, Unit Four March 14, 1996 Project # FP-96-03/ File:REATA4.FP Page 1 CM:WW density and intensity requirements of the Century Plan - Development Plan. Two differences made between the time the Revised Preliminary Plat was approved and the Final Plat submittal concern street name changes. In both cases, the applicant was advised to change the street names because they were located in close proximity to similarly named streets and . could be potentially confusing in emergency situations. Thus, Thornwood Road replaces Mill Road and Creek Drive replaces Pecos Drive. Technical Issues: The Subdivision Regulations require that the following technical issues are addressed prior to Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of this application. In order to assist the applicant, however, this application has been forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the completion of the technical issues. State Statute and the Subdivision Regulations require that the City Council take action on plats within 45 days of consideration by the Commission. Therefore, in order to meet this deadline, the Technical Issues must be addressed by March 29, or the application will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. Alternatively, the applicant has the opportunity to request a delay to the City Council's consideration of the application in order to complete the technical issues. Final Plat - Reata Trails, Unit Four Project # FP-96-03/ File:REATA4.FP CM:WW 1. The applicant's engineer has indicated that a subdivision entry feature will be built. Sufficient information to document conformance to the requirements of Section 24032 D. must be provided. Prior to filing the final plat, staff will review the articles of incorporation for a neighborhood or homeowners association to ensure that the entry feature and associated landscaping will be sufficiently maintained. 2. The name of the Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson will need to be inserted in the signature block to reflect the name of the chairperson to be elected at the March 5 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 3. Show a 20 foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) along the rear of each lot in Block E. 4. Label the ten (10) foot PUE at the following locations: Blocks A and C fronting Wagon Wheel Trail, Block D fronting Old Mill Road, Block F fronting Hedgewood Drive and March 14, 1996 Page 2 Stagecoach Drive, Blocks E and F fronting Northwest Boulevard, Block G fronting Arrowhead Lane, and Block H fronting Creek Drive and Cactus Trail. 5. Revise the title of the Final Plat to read: "Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Reata Trails Subdivision, Unit Four". Prior to Filing: A copy of the water pollution abatement plan approved by TNRCC must be received before the Final Plat can be recorded. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Reata Trails Subdivision, Unit Four, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. P&Z ACTION: Approval of a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Reata Trails Subdivision, Unit Four, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Final Plat - Reata Trails, Unit Four Project # FP-96-03/ File:REATA4.FP CM:WW March 14, 1996 Page 3 a73 mac %�. R FER T!�?i2 0513 f i� .�1 lit_ irl G: J 7 w".ST GCiX:•:.ZT3wr. tJw_VLCCPu E.lT CC4 �1 I ! I I // `.; I � . , , 1 1- � •.. / ycT J\. ,' - -,�, „� :.fit ! I 3 3 nc. Try �'•`. 1=� .%� eft%.�1.•��IJ,Y, % r.\ �IjT✓ / ��� /� lj',j'r r .1 ! i r -.i r.� � Y, � .7'•.,�\. --. j \ / ri •i/ --i �� y=1- \IX � � \ � r�•\. \�' 7.. � i �•\ ` it ! .jj `_' i �. ^.�• �. .\ �l '; - -' ,`1 - .. ..... � _ EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE`: February 14, 1996 'PROJECT NAME': Reata Trails Unit 4 Preliminary Plat 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 39.28 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 39.28 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 3 147,693 42.422 393 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 147,693 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 42,422 Maximum Trip Ends: 393 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION -------------------------------------------------------------------- Detached SF Large Lot 128 147 656 Average Lot 148 170 443 Zero Lot Line 148 170 443 Attached SF 227 242 361 Multifamily 280 272 173 Mobile Home 227 220 464 Lodging 769 695 283 Institutional 430,591 461,113 467,063 Church -with day care 479,522 511,113 25,244 -w/o day care 794,047 848,448 545,556 1 Medical Office 355,031 378,771 121,723 General Office 405,749 466,180 154,039 Retail, Mixed 227,220 260,260 23,780 Retail, Restaurant 94,675 88,380 34,547 Retail, Store 454,439 482,073 81,799 Employment Centers 405.749 466,180 85,839 Warehouse 2,591,102 3,030,171 654,667 Mini -Warehouse 36,923,200 -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- 42,422,400 1,510,769 i (b) (c) (d) MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT UNITS I -------------------- ( -----------------I REGS ; --------------------------------------------- ALLOWED/UNIT I I 128 I I 79 I 79 housing units 148 I 285 I 148 housing units 148 I 380 148 housing units 227 I 570 I 227 housing units 173 I 1,139 I 173 housing units 220 I I 220 housing units 283 I I 283 rooms 430,591 I I I 430,591 square feet 25,244 I I I 25,244 square feet 545,556 I I 545.556 square feet 121,723 I I 121,723 square feet 154,039 I I 154.039 square feet 23,780 I I 23,780 square feet 34,547 I I 34,547 square feet 81,799 I I 81,799 square feet 85,839 I I 85.839 square feet 654,667 I I 654.667 square feet 1,510,769 I -------------------- ----------------- I I--------------------------------------------- 1,510,769 square feet EXHIBIT. J4-9� SC-9*21 '21-0 -C 0 U-3 S69-2 i.ci 6.q.. "5.00 Coo C'I r C'. A 4 r11 125.LO- uA E63 25 -jj Cn t-3 .. ........ C, Preliminary Plat Approved 10/94 EXHIBIT D REATA TRAILS FOUR FINAL PLAT ,a _j 0 N m Z Z enW 0 rn 10 0 m _j _j 61 C. 7. (7) .,60 Z A (3bOW GV08 o ­4 c I = 4'n m- ' +� CO . G�`�' :' .) -/�iQ N ,��/� '.�'. G • r. �/ GV i S _ _j L 'Z ye, ZZ i8noo S003 v Te cr 9.v tr ah �J 70 -1-61 y _ D d6 Jl - 0 v'T Im 4, w cl. _j cl ;.-,4, 'Ge 0 cs 01, A180 J >13363 e't. -7 jn o, _�+� - 'F !• \�- / `\�\ / 0 AV 2 3ANG (10OM30(13H 1 r\ y t a h - -` ft _`S_ ,f �000 \� - � [•�, / •µl- 5 3i :BLOCK! BRANCH 0 CAN ~/ < 0 < 17 0 < _j _rA_ 0 ry Council meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Two, Block E, Lot 26, located at 30205 Oak Tree Drive ITEM SUMMARY: The subject triangular lot is currently undeveloped and surrounded on the north and west by single family residential lots. The Berry Creek Golf Course is adjacent to this lot on the south and east. As platted, the eastern boundary of Lot 26 coincides with a ten (10) foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) located within the Berry Creek Golf Course. The applicant proposes to subdivide Lot 26 into two (2) parcels. Lot 26A is proposed to be developed with one (1) single family residence and include a triangular portion of the Berry Creek Golf Course to the east of the originally platted property. This proposed addition to Lot 26A would straighten the rear property line and include the platted PUE. A small segment of the 20 foot rear building line overlaps the platted PUE. The applicant has received approval to abandon the length of the easement contained within the proposed Lot 26A by the Director of Community Owned Utilities and other utility providers. National Golf Properties, which owns the Berry Creek Golf Course, has reviewed the applicant's plans and is agreeable to adjusting the lot lines to straighten the back property line and shorten the length of the lot. The remainder of the existing Lot 26 is not included in this resubdivision and so will become an illegal lot. This is not likely to be a problem because this remainder is intended to be part of the golf course. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: At their regular meeting of March 5, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Two, Block E, Lot 26, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report, attached exhibits and Final Plat. Submitted By: Edwar J. Barry, AtP - Director Divisi n of Develoent Services Hildy L. KYngma, AICP Chief Planner FINAL PLAT OF A RESUBDIVISION OF BERRY CREEK, SECTION TWO, BLOCK E, LOT 26, LOCATED AT 30205 OAK TREE DRIVE OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Chris Aadnesen 105 S. Happy Hollow Blvd. Omaha, NE 68132 402/558-9513 FAX: 402/595-4665 National Golf Properties c/o W. Scott McMartin 9801 Westheimer, Suite 302 Houston, Texas 77042 AGENT: Mr. Matthew S . Marshall Berry Creek Realty 30444 Berry Creek Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-9995 FAX 930-5080 REQUEST: Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Two, Block E, Lot 26, as recorded in Cabinet G, Slides 91-94 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas. FACTS:. Location: 30205 Oak Tree Drive. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: This lot is located out of the City so zoning does not apply. Proposed Use: Single family residential lot Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: South: East: West: Single family residential (out of City) Golf course (out of City) Golf course (out of City) Single family residential (out of City) Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this tract to be Short Form Final Plat - Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Sec. Two, March 14, 1996 Block E, Lot 26 FP-96-03 /File:BC2-E-26.FP Page 1 Intensity Level 2. The proposed use is within the allowable limits for this acreage. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. History: This tract was not under the City's jurisdiction when originally platted. ANALYSIS: The subject triangular lot is currently undeveloped and surrounded on the north and west by single family residential lots. The Berry Creek Golf Course is adjacent to this lot on the south and east. SEE EXHIBIT C As platted, the eastern boundary of Lot 26 coincides with a ten (10) foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) located within the Berry Creek Golf Course. The applicant proposes to subdivide Lot 26 into two (2) parcels. Lot 26A is proposed to be developed with one (1) single family residence and include a triangular portion of the Berry Creek Golf Course to the east of the originally platted property. This proposed addition to Lot 26A would straighten the rear property line and include the platted PUE. While the proposed building lines conform to the setback requirements established in Table 34020, a small segment of the 20 foot rear building line overlaps the platted PUE. The applicant has received approval to abandon the length of the easement contained within the proposed Lot 26A by the Director of Community Owned Utilities and other utility providers. The remainder of Lot 26 is not included in the plat, and therefore will be an illegal lot under the Subdivision Regulations. No development can occur on this lot until it is legally platted. This is not likely to be a problem because the owner intends to reserve it for golf course purposes. National Golf Properties, which owns the Berry Creek Golf Course, has reviewed the applicant's plans and is agreeable to adjusting the lot lines to straighten the back property line and shorten the length of the lot. Technical Issues: The Subdivision Regulations require that the following technical issues are addressed prior to Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of this application. In order to assist the applicant, however, this application has been forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the completion of the Short Form Final Plat - Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Sec. Two, March 14, 1996 Block E, Lot 26 FP-96-03 /File: BC2-E-26. FP Page 2 technical issues. State Statute and the Subdivision Regulations require that the City Council take action on plats within 45 days of consideration by the Commission. Therefore, in order to meet this deadline, the Technical Issues must be addressed by March 29, or the application will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. Alternatively, the applicant has the opportunity to request a delay to the City Council's consideration of the application in order to complete the technical issues. 1. The name of the Planning and Zoning Chair will need to be inserted in the signature block to reflect the name of the chairperson to be elected at the March 5 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 2. Submit a metes and bounds description of the portion of the PUE to be abandoned. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Two, Block E, Lot 26, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. P&Z ACTION: Approval of the Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Two, Block E, Lot 26, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Short Form Final Plat - Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Sec. Two, Block E, Lot 26 March 14, 1996 FP-96-03 /File:BC2-E-26.FP Page 3 EXHIBIT A BERRY CREEK, SEC. TWO. BLOCK E. LOT 26 30206 OAK TREE DRIVE 1 ""a 1 I M \ 1 r - I RANGY MORME \ c 2 312/036 1 J i 1 (25.697 AC) �t ' (t05.769 AC.) 17 \ j \ 104.769 AC 1.00AC. 16 r 14 4 3 L - 13 13 \� \• 2 r, I 20513/045 \ 12 1t ( 176.217 AC.) a°� �� 23 24 \ 5+ ' ' (129. 30: AC) -p 9 It zrO (80072 AC) \ 8 21 \ `0 e / G \�El 20 48 kr 2 _ 1s y 1 4 r 1 35 10 i 18 33 3+ + 6 2 3 \> 19 16 z- C / ' 3 5 _r, (i 1 \ \ 21 2C 11 -t IT _(RRI {. `O St 6CRq' l15 22 0D IT cRrc. 3.)50 c Q. 2 3 23 R4Rrw(R5 z9z P'7l 12 m Ifi 3P v.k- ' � G i6 2i1a /ca+ :e z:1a / / 69/264 24� 25 ( 1< cTee_Il'Ad �J L _ �J. 14 I _ 15 1 T{ es .0 I Ss • l2`,.// 2.9sw<. p sr.hroh �:c _K a ij�(� - 26 13 - 2l1 e.s/2e� 2B Z7 40 IS 14 14 •t L 17 car � ,z.as�c FrRSr rc D(r Cc,Ra. '3 12 -� 39 - -- 32 29 75 z1 / 12 29 1 t3 11 30 36 37 3 6 • 3 ", n s { 98 1° � 16-- Iw/tThfR3 , fT- 7 (ZI_�� 10 V- 11 10 133.33wr \z 51 I i Cl 9 z 9 ems/ 8 e 2s z� 2l (30 17 - 1' 1 F 7 � 27 1210 23 p t 5 13i_I6 77 1 `� -Yy X 1 2 19 - L6 27 Zs 1+ 1 4 x 6 2 y 3 l6 -t BERs-N C.RECK P::-TN(RS z� s + 9 ' 3 7 zo m 3 5 21 1 a/ 0 4 a A tCSs ° i6 i3 21 D .. 131.31 C. A 13All- 6F; F CRRY 6 7 3 7 i2 2 4 ( 7a.89 ) s1 �Ft tw e 7 9 i0 11 i2 � 23 i x 11 M ! 10 11 G 14 15 !3fly go • ( r.. D L :t 'f: ' ! \ r: . ` . L 2 IL 15 z 16 0 rb 17 A 22 r11 3c_iJ IJV r V 1) 21 ?U - �l-'- v 12 4 90 Ac 7 10, z e • II z• se 31_K. D _54 ALO 31 32 37 r_ A�EvI)1.O — C 3VR 23 2 1 1 .( FIRST TEXASQEVELOPMENT IORP 11 `�' 1852 / 307 6� act 1 2 il] 1 �� 13 31 I J z` =SI 69.127AC, it . 1 j -- 4e • 1 -- �'c 3 4 S G 7 8 9 10 I i l 1 1 4" I7 .49 AC. �• .eL I.4411� -• { I::- \ `-1_ Ii 1 I tl_1� J. ELLAS011 ! BERRY CREEK PARTNERS �� r z{�+N � 938/ 335 2231 /114 V1 l_ r. 3�` ;31_:•. (; 3.72 Ac- 56.1 4 76 AC r` v C 1 e0,, t 1 7. C - -- ---- C. rr 7-6 11 �J I 1 Ili f 1li _ lJ 14t I I j O lO �t 6 5 4 � 1 2 I 1 a / \ n 'I1F. fA;TCIIF-t.L FMAILYr- I \_ A I I ` EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': February 14, 1996 PROJECT NAME': Berry Creek Section Two, Block E, Lot 26 Resubdivision 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 0.42 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 0.42 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends ------------- 1 0 0 0 2 998 270 2 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0 ------ 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND. - Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 998 Maximum GPO Wastewater Capacity: 270 Maximum Trip Ends: 2 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: LAND USES Detached SF Large Lot Average Lot Zero Lot Line Attached SF Multifamily Mobile Home Lodging Institutional Church -with day care -w/o day care Medical Office General Office Retail, Mixed Retail, Restaurant Retail, Store Employment Centers Warehouse Mini -Warehouse ---------------------------------- (a) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION ---------------------------------------------- I 1 1 31 1 1 �1 1 1 �1 2 2 21 2 2 11 2 1 21 5 4 11 2,911 2,939 1,979 1 3,242 3.258 5,368 5,408 2,400 2,414 2,743 2,971 1,536 1,659 640 563 3,072 3,073 2,743 2,971 17,516 19,314 249,600 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 270.400 (b) (c) (d) MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT UNITS ----------------- I REGS I -------- — -------I --------------------- ALLOWED/UNIT I 1 1 i 1 j 1 housing units 1 1 3 I 1 housing units 1 1 4 1 1 housing units 2 1 6 1 2 housing units 1 I 10 I 1 housing units 1 i I 1 housing units 1 I I 1 rooms 1.979 I i I I 1.979 square feet 107 I 107 I I 107 square feet 2.311 I 2,311 I 2,311 square feet 516 516 I I 516 square feet 653 I 653 I 653 square feet 101 I 101 I 101 square feet 146 I 146 I 146 square feet 347 I 347 I 347 square feet 364 I 364 I I 364 square feet 2.773 I 2,773 I 2.773 square feet 6,400 I ----------- ------- 6,400 ----- --- I 6,400 square feet ------- - EXHIBIT C 30205 OAK TREE DRIVE n .Y cl 26A 0.416 AC. 2 202/2 9 1 10- 5"E S,3 4 * 2 2'�0 49-89' tk Ji 0- 4- SC)-) ICA 6.1 -26-15 2I C\lz% 0 0 4?C 1.1 p�rFo qy Q 01-C--ra-1 9G. 10 : C-19 H FF'CIM TCi NATIONAL GOLF PROPERTIES, January 8, 1996 N i & Mrs Cliris A-adnesen 105 S. Happy Hallow Blvd Omaha, NB 68132 Re: Berq Creek - lot 26 block E-vection H Dear Mr. & Mrs. Aadnesen We have received corresporidence from Berry Creek Realty regarding your proposed purchase of the above referenced residential lot within Berry Creek it is our understanding that you would like to complete a lot line adjustment with the golf course which straightens the back property line and shortens the lot on the open side Based upon the information we received from Berry Creek Realty, �k e are prepared to adjust the lot lines and "exchange' property as per the attached plan Once the appropriate documentation and survey have been completed, please for -ward them to my attention fbr review. On behalf of the ownership and management at Berry Creek Country Club, let me extend a warm welcome to you both We hope that you will enjoy your new country club lifestyle at Berry Creek and we look f6miard to serving you. Sincerely, Scott McMa Vice President cc. 1\-'Iatt Marshall - Berry Creek Realty Pete Martin - BerT}, Creek Country Club -(K� IE 0 W H FEB 2 s ass f CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY O OF A PUBLIC MEETING 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 5th day of March , 1996, 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 a resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Two, Block E, Lot 26A, and variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located at 30205 Oak Tree 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: 2/ 19/96 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. PROPERTY OWNER'S COM 1ENTS Project Name: Berry Creek, Sec. Two, Final Plat Name of Respondent: /y . ti x4r> . A elP � t Address of Respondent: 36 Z - Oc.k T, I am in favor. e�Lly�. I object: If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 2/28/96, 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 Council meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of a 6.76 acre tract combining multiple tracts in the Cedar Oaks Subdivision, North Georgetown Addition and Acreage in the Nicholas Porter Survey, to be known as Foster Square, and Variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located between Spring Street, Morrow Street, Austin Avenue, North Forest Street, IH35 and Old Lampasas Road ITEM SUMMARY: The subject site consists of multiple tracts which are developed with single family residences, a mobile home park, an auto repair shop and retail sales of butane gas and storage tanks. The applicant proposes to combine these multiple tracts; clear the site of its present uses; abandon Rock Street, Valley Street, North Forest Street, Old Lampasas Road and a portion of Spring Street; and develop an Albertson's grocery store. Spring Street and Morrow Street are proposed to be reconfigured to facilitate traffic flow onto the IH35 service road. One issue of concern is the abandonment of North Forest Street and its related impact on the adjacent property owners to the west. The owner has agreed to divide Area 2 into two (2) parcels, then transfer these parcels to the respective property owners. A 30 foot wide shared driveway access easement onto Morrow Street will be required, centered between the two (2) newly created parcels. As proposed, the abandonment of Valley and Rock Streets would significantly alter the rights -of -access of the Diamond Shamrock and Time Auto Sales property owners. Albertson's Inc. has agreed to prepare and record an access easement, equal to at least one-half of each adjacent right-of-way, at the time Valley and Rock Streets are abandoned to ensure these property owners maintain the same access rights they currently possess. In addition, the Preliminary Plat indicates that the entire right-of-way adjacent to these properties will become part of Foster Square. Albertson's Inc. is coordinating with these property owners to sign an agreement that would waive their rights to this right-of-way. Areas 2 and 3 are smaller than the minimum lot size of 0.5 acres for commercial, retail and service uses, thereby conflicting with Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations. A variance is requested to allow these lots to remain smaller than the minimum lot size. The purpose of creating Areas 2 and 3 is to provide safer roadway geometrics for access from Morrow Street and Spring Street, respectively, onto the IH35 service road. A plat note restricts the development of Areas 2 and 3 to be in conjunction with the adjacent property. A second variance is requested to Table 34020 to waive the 20 foot rear setback requirement for Areas 2 (as revised above) and 3. Because Plat Note ##15 restricts the development of these areas to occur only in conjunction with the adjacent properties, there is not a firm basis for the application of the rear setback requirement. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL E%1PACT: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: At their regular meeting of March 5, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Foster Square and requested variance to Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations, thereby allowing Areas 2 (as revised) and 3 to be smaller than the minimum lot size of 0.5 acres, provided development occurs only in conjunction with the adjacent properties as described in the plat note, and waiving the 20 foot rear setback requirement for Areas 2 (as revised) and 3, after making the required findings of fact, and provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report, attached exhibits and Preliminary Plat. Submitt By: Edwar . Barry, AICP - Director Divis n of Develop nt Services Hildy L. gma, AICP Chief Planner PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A 6.76 ACRE TRACT COMBINING MULTIPLE TRACTS IN THE CEDAR OAKS SUBDIVISION, NORTH GEORGETOWN ADDITION AND ACREAGE IN THE NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, TO BE KNOWN AS FOSTER SQUARE, AND VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, LOCATED BETWEEN SPRING STREET, MORROW STREET, AUSTIN AVENUE, NORTH FOREST STREET, IH35 AND OLD LAMPASAS ROAD OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Albertson's Inc. c/o Callaway Architects 17738 Preston Road, Suite 125 Dallas, Texas 75252 214/732-6085 FAX: 214/732-8058 Bielss Living Trust; Albert C. and Bernice I. Bielss Mrs. Doris Foster Kendall Ray Henderson Lurlene Lucille Henderson Ernest H. and Nannie Laverne Johnson, Sr. Ramiro and Esther Mireles AGENT: Mr. Gary Eli Jones Huffcut & Associates 3305 Steck Avenue, Suite 305 Austin, Texas 78757 454-8711 FAX: 459-8867 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of a 6.76 acre tract , combining multiple tracts in the Cedar Oaks Subdivision, North Georgetown Addition and acreage in the Nicholas Porter Survey, to be known as Foster Square, as recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 255, Cabinet A, Slide 249 and Cabinet J, Slide 331, of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, and as recorded in Volume 1972, Page 206, Volume 1255, Page 639, Volume 443, Page 66, and Volume 849, Page 254 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Preliminary Plat - Foster Square PP 96-05/File: FOSTER.PP CM:WW March 14, 1996 Page 1 FACTS: Location: Located between Spring Street, Morrow Street, Austin Avenue, North Forest Street, IH35 and Old Lampasas Road. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Single family residences, H&H Mobile Home Park, Johnson Auto Repair and Centex Butane. Existing Zoning: C-2A, Commercial First Height. Proposed Use: Albertson's Food Store. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: McDonald's Restaurant (C-2A) South: Single family residences (C-2A) East: Diamond Shamrock Station, Time Auto Sales (C-2A) West: IH35 (RS) Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location as Intensity Level 6. SEE EXHIBIT B The proposed development is within the allowable limits for this acreage. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. ANALYSIS: The subject site consists of multiple tracts which are developed with single family residences, a mobile home park, an auto repair shop and retail sales of butane gas and storage tanks. Vehicle access to these tracts is currently provided by Spring Street, Valley Street, Rock Street, Morrow Street and North Forest Street. Old Lampasas Road, which originally connected Austin Avenue and Williams Drive, provides access to residences between Spring Street and the IH35 service road. As shown in EXHIBIT C, the applicant proposes to combine these multiple tracts; clear the site of its present uses; abandon Rock Street, Valley Street, North Forest Street, Old Lampasas Road and a portion of Spring Street; and develop an Albertson's grocery store. The applicant is coordinating with the impacted property owners, utility providers, and the City to properly abandon these streets. Spring Street and Morrow Street are Preliminary Plat - Foster Square March 14, 1996 PP 96-05/File: FOSTER.PP Page 2 CM:WW proposed to be reconfigured to facilitate traffic flow onto the IH35 service road. Area 1, consisting of 6.488 acres, would include the grocery store, parking and loading areas. A plat note restricts Areas 2 and 3, which consist of 0.240 and 0.315 acres, respectively, from being developed except in conjunction with the adjacent properties because both parcels are smaller than the minimum lot sizes required for commercial, retail service uses. One issue of concern is the abandonment of North Forest Street and its related impact on the adjacent property owners to the west (Laski, Inc. and the Eula Corporation). As proposed, the abandonment of North Forest Street would leave these owners without access. In particular, the southern parcel (the Eula Corporation) would become landlocked because Morrow Street is not constructed west of North Forest Street. The owner has agreed to divide Area 2 (North Forest Street plus a small triangular area) into two (2) parcels, then transfer these parcels to the respective property owners. A 30 foot wide shared driveway access easement onto Morrow Street will be required, centered between the two (2) newly created parcels. As proposed, the abandonment of Valley and Rock Streets would significantly alter the rights -of -access of the Diamond Shamrock and Time Auto Sales property owners. Albertson's Inc. has agreed to prepare and record an access easement, equal to at least one-half of each adjacent right-of-way, at the time Valley and Rock Streets are abandoned. This procedure will ensure that the owners of Diamond Shamrock and Time Auto Sales maintain the same access rights they currently possess. In addition, the Preliminary Plat indicates that the entire right-of- way adjacent to these properties will become part of Foster Square. Albertson's Inc. is coordinating with these property owners to sign an agreement that would waive their rights to this right-of-way. Variances: Table 34020 - Design Standards for Lots Areas 2 and 3 are smaller than the minimum lot size of 0.5 acres for commercial, retail and service uses, thereby conflicting with Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations. A variance is Preliminary Plat - Foster Square March 14, 1996 PP 96-OS/File: FOSTER.PP Page 3 CM:WW Preliminary Plat - Foster Square PP 96-05/File: FOSTER.PP CM:WW requested to allow these lots to remain smaller than the minimum lot size. The purpose of creating Areas 2 and 3 is to provide safer roadway geometrics for access from Morrow Street and Spring Street, respectively, onto the IH35 service road. In particular, Area 2 has been created in order to meet the geometric criteria for the extension of Morrow Street to the IH35 service road. As described above, the applicants have proposed to transfer the entire acreage of Area 2 to the two (2) adjacent property owners to the west. As noted in the Technical Issues section below, a 30 foot wide access easement will be required, centered between these (2) lots. Area 3 was created because the existing Old Lampasas Road right-of-way is a less safe alternative to access the IH35 service road. A plat note restricts the development of Areas 2 and 3 to be in conjunction with the adjacent property. A second variance is requested to Table 34020 to waive the 20 foot rear setback requirement for Areas 2 (as revised above) and 3. Because Plat Note #15 restricts the development of these areas to occur only in conjunction with the adjacent properties, there is not a firm basis for the application of the rear setback requirement. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staffs 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 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 March 14, 1996 Page 4 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 Basis of Requested Variance form is attached. Technical Issues: The Subdivision Regulations require that the following technical issues are addressed prior to Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of this application. In order to assist the applicant, however, this application has been forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the completion of the technical issues. State Statute and the Subdivision Regulations require that the City Council take action on plats within 45 days of consideration by the Commission. Therefore, in order to meet this deadline, the Technical Issues must be addressed by March 29, or the application will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. Alternatively, the applicant has the opportunity to request a delay to the City Council's consideration of the application in order to complete the technical issues. Preliminary Plat - Foster Square PP 96-05/File: FOSTER.PP CM:WW 1. Split Area 2 into (2) lots as described in this report and revise Plat Note #15 to include both lots. Also show a 30 foot wide access easement between these lots. 2. Revise Plat Note #7 to include the property currently used for Time Auto Sales. 3. Revise Plat Note #9 because driveways will not be permitted to access the IH35 frontage road from this property. If this reference is intended to apply to Morrow and Spring Streets, be more explicit in the note. 4. Add 25 foot front yard setback lines and ten (10) foot PUEs to the frontages of Areas 2 (as revised) and 3. 5. Add a plat note stating that no private access will be permitted to the IH35 frontage road. 6. If this property is within two (2) miles of the Georgetown Municipal Airport, add the avigation easement per Appendix D. 7. Because the application for street abandonments will be considered by the City Council at the same time as this March 14, 1996 Page 5 Preliminary Plat, the following must be provided: a) add the proposed access easement for Diamond Shamrock and Time Auto Sales to the plat, and b) provide a waiver of rights to the right-of-way from the Diamond Shamrock and Time Auto Sales property owners. 8. The PUEs required to cover existing water lines within street right-of-ways to be abandoned shall be ten (10) feet wide. The PUEs required to cover existing electric lines within street right- of-ways shall be 15 feet wide. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Preliminary Plat for Foster Square and requested variance to Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations, thereby allowing Areas 2 (as revised) and 3 to be smaller than the minimum lot size of 0.5 acres, provided development occurs only in conjunction with the adjacent properties as described in the plat note, and waiving the 20 foot rear setback requirement for Areas 2 (as revised) and 3, after making the required findings of fact, and provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. P & Z ACTION: Approval of the Preliminary Plat for Foster Square and requested variance to Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations, thereby allowing Areas 2 (as revised) and 3 to be smaller than the minimum lot size of 0.5 acres, provided development occurs only in conjunction with the adjacent properties as described in the plat note, and waiving the 20 foot rear setback requirement for Areas 2 (as revised) and 3, after making the required findings of fact, and provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Preliminary Plat - Foster Square PP 96-05/File: FOSTER.PP CM:WW March 14, 1996 Page 6 EXHIBIT A II II FOSTER SQUARE j 9 M h .0 2`j3e .t I, Y. L_ I n -7 n MS O,Q F R M 1-1J 6 �S 09 4 I 1 Z -,— - -t- e MORROW STREET MORROW } i 5 6 SPR f- w 8 w 5 6 I— N i 8 5 6 STREE-,T� EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. `DATE`-. February 7, 1996 `PROJECT NAME`: Foster Square Preliminary Plat 2. 'GIVEN` acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 6.76 acres of Intensity Level 6 6.76 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 0 0 0 6 142,657 40,566 2,704 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 142,657 Maximum GPO Wastewater Capacity: 40,566 Maximum Trip Ends: 2,704 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) (c) (d) POTENTIAL UNITS LAND USES WATER BY UTILITY WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION MAXIMUM UNITS PER DEV DEVELOPMENT - ------------------------------------------------------------ REGS ALLOWED/UNIT Detached SF -------------------------------------------- Large Lot 123 Average Lot 143 140 162 � 4,515 123 14 14 housing units Zero Lot Line 143 162 3,052 3,052 143 143 49 65 49 housing units 65 housing Attached SF 219 Multifamil y 232 2,488 � 219 � 98 � units 219 housing units 270 Mobile Home 219 260 1,191 260 1 % 195 housing units Lodging 743 665 3,193 1,951 210 665 665 210 housing units 665 Institutional 415,910 Church 440,935 3,215,696 415,910 rooms 415,910 square feet -with day care 463,172 -w/o daycare 766,974 488,747 811,320 I 173,805 � � 173,805 � � 173,805 square feet Medical Office 342,926 362,196 3,756,111 838,054 I 766,974 342,926 I 766,974 square feet 391,915 General Office 391,915 Retail, Mixed 445,780 1,060,549 � 391,915 � � square feet 391,915 square feet 219,472 Retail, Restaurant 91,447 248,871 84,513 163,724 163,724 163,724 square feet Retail. Store 438,945 460,977 237,854 563,182 1 84,513 438,945 f 484,513 84,513 square feet Employment Centers 391,915 Warehouse 445.780 590,997 I 391,915 I square feet 391,915 square feet 2,502,756 Mini -Warehouse 35,664,275 2,897,571 40,566,000 4,507,333 10,401,538 2,502,756 10,401,538 2,502,756 square feet - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------ -------------------- ----------------- 10,401,538 square feet - --------------------------- EXHIBIT C i - . — --T- — F- -I -- -�— - AREA I I ' � I Fk AN�}1 i �� / 1 ��N7ERST- �. 0.240 AC. 692/ I' hh� O Q LUT t I LUT 1 LOT i 0 998, iS,. ) :�! WEST C ORGETOM iEVELOPUENJ849/254 19 11 248 AC 20LOT 5 ! i11 A9S S> 6 6 t 6� `�i • �' o-� I I i � 4�G 0.440 -- -- -� -- �- --►- SCALE 1 10 0 ' c?`S j `�� rf;; '°'�k. _� SPRING STREET 60 ' R. 0. W. Cs�� %� •tip '� _.�Y ��:�....::~�-�"'�`��:-_:� )32 - • z 1-0 o D O R£S BC1:a tOA' �r a. 4$ m' '� PORTION OFit BL•i•:� 2: ol UN(J1Y73r :;£uRL,£TOWN AL/(,. flow CAB j. :L ; 1- N $7'SQ1k1' �!?; �7 0.2064 ACRE I ZS_ i ; BLOCK 24 .. 1 15 u! ACRES 11LITY EASEMENT �1- E � 5 10• Z } / f (PLAT CAB A. Si. 25Sj .7.+ :Ci (va. 446, Pc. 277) CEDAR GAiS S✓B-D; h51C;t+ 42� /<1q, (TO BE ABANDONED) CAB A. SL 155 i<.. fv != / 1 f f 0.589J ACRE AREA 1 / 4v-�755 Ae COT 12 ;-01 r : Z N87'49 1 �'.E 6.488 AC. r a� :~, �• i. f �-- � 1. d'� A - '"' �^4=Fx -.(, •. } 7%���RI�fSAi. �• _ t ` '(`y O `•l c� /c� \�t>' �s i'/. . i ''J riY� .�~ . ` r ' �,� r _ • 1 rcl - CtLV. A i' 1r; w %s }�/k�'. C .+-r•.-r," e4Y..1C1. �+<yV`: f i Q� Lor Q t>' 2 1 0 �•+ :..252E A:R£ :1 :31 BL Oct", 25 } • j ti i :S= LO LpTi17 3 LO' N9 L IT 'cZZ 4 _ I LASKI174 6 7' 1 INV. INVEST �a Q ; 11.P6�' Wn ACR£5 (To BE ABANDONED) N �i9'58'39 • y� 1 iW-lif -�22 1255/644 N '; � ` 1 ba 15.0' urc.,n r-ASEuEN' (PLAT CAA A. SL 2551 � BLOCt: �_ I T .184 AC. ` T' I I -� CE.IJAR OAYZ SUB-DIv1510h � r'I EDWI1y C SCNNEID R �c w1 L. THE p TY,'.__:_' LO j21 tt 1 { CAB. 4. St. 25° �,' a't aNI{Y,A LOU SCNr E(DER EULA CORP r7 ;' 25JQ ACZ 1 LOT1221ib BLO::Ii 25 `' 2:}' P 28a O wf. i Ir33/AC9 �Dt I 1ai (j, 2, (`I LCjr 5 ".T 6 ID O n r I {o 3805 ACPE a. 1 Z AREA 2 z LA�1t QD 1 r 25 — -- -- { 0.315 AC. `T-I - - - 56.15' Y 6 94 1 37 88' _� (J. N 67'34'30 E N 87 0 tt' E 01 �EnB' F _MORROW STREET— 60' R.O. W. --- -- --,N TERS� TlO-- -- - - -- — mt"D LE TAYL�:iF J �nl cAA .� DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE Date: 2/16/96 Applicant: Huf fcut and Associates This request is for a variance frorn the literal enforcement of Section(s) 3 4 0 2 0 ( D) 1 ) of the Subdivision Regulations. Give a brief description of the variance requested: Area 2 (0.31 5 ac) and Area 3 (0.24 ac) are less than the maximum lot size required for CZ -A Zoning in table 34020. 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? The public convienance and welfare will benefit from a safer layout to convey traffic. 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. Development of Areas 2 and 3 has been restricted by plat note from improvements unless proposed improvements are done in conjunction with the adjacent property. 3. Wliat 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. Proposed development plans for the consolidated site consist of access to I - 35 access road at two locations. For area 2, the existing location of N. Forest Street presents a problem with ,meet ' r�s���the geometric criteria for street construction. For Area 3 see item 6 below. 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. The adjacent property owners will benefit from the inclusion of these lots into their existing property fro any proposed development. 5. How is the public interest affected? Public intrest is affected by providing a safer layout from a transportation standpoint. 6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance. Geometry of existing R.O.W. does not provide a safe alternative for I-35 access. The proposed Spring Street R.O.W. is a compromise to address requests for access to be closer to Williams Drive and from another viewpoint further away. 7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted? The small lots are not created for development. The Owner has no intention of proposing development on Areas 2 and 3. These areas will only be developed in conjunction with adjacent prperty which is not owned by the developer. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? This variance is not requested for purpose of allowing development on a substandard lot. The granting of this variance will benefit the city, the adjacent property owners and the developer. Revised 12/94 January 29, 1996 J.C. Labenski Re: Laski, Inc. P.O. Box 828 The Eula Corp. Burnet, Texas 78611 Wendy R. Walsh City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Dear Ms. Walsh, In reference to my visit to your office today concerning the property on Forrest Street next to where Albertson's plan to locate. My concern is that if you move Forrest Street as the plan shows, that would take away the street access for my property. I cannot agree to this scenario, because it would devaluate my property by doing this. Unless some other arrangements are made I could not allow this street to be included in the proposal. Also my understanding was that Valley Street would be the street open to that area from the service road. Albertson's proposal would also further devaluate this land unless some arrangements be made with Albertson's and myself concerning my land. Sincerely, L� J.C. Labenski JCL:ck U! J o96 , , t , the f Council meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. 4�! C AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the public utility easement located along the west property line of River Bend, Unit V, Phase II, Block C, Lot 3, located at 3004 Brandy Lane. ITEM SUMMARY: All utility providers, including the Director of the Community Owned Utilities Division have agreed to allow a License to Encroach into the public utility easement for a driveway that accesses a side entry garage as illustrated in Exhibit A. Although the driveway also encroaches upon a building line, the Subdivision Regulations now permit such encroachment. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: None. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Resolution Submitted By: Edward J. Barry, AICP - D)ectoi Division/of Development SKervices C1 7-�e� C' 4 vtl� Hildy L. Kingma, A CP Chief Planner RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND ANN ROGERS WADE, PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF A DRIVEWAY INTO THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 3 OF RIVER BEND, UNIT V, PHASE H, BLOCK C, AS RECORDED IN CABINET L, SLIDE 182 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED AT 3004 BRANDY LANE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received an application for a license to encroach into the public utility easement; and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has enacted Ordinance No. 1645 regulating, controlling, and governing encroachments; and WHEREAS, in order for a license to be granted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, the Council must make certain findings of fact; and WHEREAS, after hearing the application of Ann Rogers Wade to encroach into the public utility easement, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, finds the following facts: 1: That there are no utilities which would be interfered with by the utilization of the property in the proposed manner. 2. That there are no utilities which would interfere with the utilization of the property in the proposed manner. 3. That the driveway is in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate it outside the public utility easement. 4. That the land use in the neighborhood appears to be stable and the use to which this property is being put is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood; and Lot 3, River Bend, Unit V, Phase H, Block C License Resolution No. Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the City Council after hearing the application and finding the specific facts as stated above now concludes and finds that: 1. The fact that the driveway is in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate it outside the public utility easement constitutes special circumstances and conditions affecting the property which if not taken into consideration would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property. 2. The fact that the land use is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and that it is not economically feasible to remove the part of the driveway that encroaches into the public utility easement does provide a basis for granting the license necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. The fact that the use of the easement area by the property owner does not - interfere with the utilities or access to the utilities and is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property in the area; and WHEREAS, the applicant agrees to accept the terms of the license agreement as presented to them. 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 - Development Plan Element: 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. Utilities/Energy Policy 2, which states: "The City will establish utility policies which take into consideration the needs of all citizens of the community and take necessary precautions to prevent harmful ecological impact to the environment;" 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. Lot 3, River Bend, Unit V, Phase H, Block C License Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, and the City Secretary to attest thereto on behalf of the City of Georgetown a License Agreement with Ann Rogers Wade, pertaining to the encroachment of a driveway located on Lot 3 of River Bend, Unit V, Phase II, Block C, commonly known as 3400 Brandy Lane, into the public utility easement on the west property line. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of , 1996. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee By: LEO WOOD City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Lot 3, River Bend, Unit V, Phase II, Block C License Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Encroachment into P.U.E. BRANDY.- LANE 3004 Brandy Lane Council meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET 1"7JD SUBJECT: Consideration of a Concept Plan of a 9.491 acre tract in the Nicholas Porter Survey, to be known as Sun Center. ITEM SUMMARY: Concept Plans are required when a subdivision is proposed to be developed in phases. Concept Plan approval represents a commitment between the City and the developer regarding the proposed location of streets, the density and intensity of land uses, utility service, and the phasing plan. This proposed Concept Plan includes all required information. The proposal is to create three (3) lots for retail use. The three (3) roads that will directly serve this proposed subdivision are Williams Drive, Park Meadow Boulevard and Dawn Drive. Williams Drive is a major arterial street and the other two (2) are collector streets. Therefore, the subdivision is adequately served by the existing transportation network. The development of the subdivision is to occur in two (2) phases. Phase One, which includes Block B will be platted in Summer 1996 and Phase Two, which includes Block Al will be platted in Fall 1996. The section of Dawn Drive that traverses this property is currently under construction -by the City. The right-of-way for the street is to be dedicated with the Final Plat of Phase One. Like the property in question, all land immediately adjacent to the east and west is zoned C-213 and is either vacant or in commercial use. The property to the northeast is vacant and currently outside of the City limits. The City Council, at its January 9, 1996, meeting, adopted a resolution establishing its intent to annex the property. Since that time the annexation area has been reduced to include only that area that encompasses the right-of-way for Northwest Boulevard. There is no proposed zoning of that area at this time. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: At the applicant's request this case has been withheld from City Council consideration until this time. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its February 6, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Concept Plan of Sun Center provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Revised Concept Plans addressing the Technical Issues have been received by the City. 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 Concept Plan Submitted By: Edward J. airy, AICP - D" ectoi Division f Development ervices f - - Hildy L. Kfthgma, AICP Chief Planner CONCEPT PLAN OF A 9.491 ACRE TRACT IN THE NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY TO BE KNOWN AS SUN CENTER OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Johnny Gantt 221 Stearman Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 863-5537 AGENT: Mr. Don Bizzell, P. E. Steger and Bizzell Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 858 Georgetown, Texas 78627 863-4521 FAX: 863-4523 REQUEST: Concept Plan of a 9.491 acre tract in the Nicholas Porter Survey, to be known as Sun Center, and recorded in Volume 1143, Page 403 the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located on Williams Drive and Park Meadow Boulevard. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: C-2B, Commercial Second Height. Proposed Use: Three (3) commercial lots. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Undeveloped land (out of City) South: Williams Commercial Park (C-2B), Office complex (C-2A) East: Undeveloped land (out of City) and Williams Commercial Park (C-2B) West: Hartland Bank (C-2B), Park Meadow Office Park (C-2B) Concept Plan - Sun Center March 21, 1996 CP 96-04 / File:SUNCTR.CP Page 1 CM/CS Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this tract as Intensity Level 4. The proposed commercial square footage is within the allowances of the Intensity Level. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. ANALYSIS: Concept Plans are required when a subdivision is proposed to be developed in phases. Concept Plan approval represents a commitment between the City and the developer regarding the proposed location of streets, the density and intensity of land uses, utility service, and the phasing plan. This proposed Concept Plan includes all required information. It actually contains more information than what is required. The Subdivision Regulations does not require that lot lines be shown. Concept Plan - Sun Center CP 96-04 / File:SUNCTR.CP CM/CS The proposal is to create three (3) lots for retail use. SEE EXHIBIT C The three (3) roads that will directly serve this proposed subdivision are Williams Drive, Park Meadow Boulevard and Dawn Drive. Williams Drive is a major arterial street and the other two (2) are collector streets. Therefore, the subdivision is adequately served by the existing transportation network. The development of the subdivision is to occur in two (2) phases. Phase One, which includes Block B will be platted in Summer 1996 and Phase Two, which includes Block A, will be platted in Fall 1996. The section of Dawn Drive that traverses this property is currently under construction by the City. The right-of-way for the street is not yet dedicated to the City and it is to be done with the Final Plat of Phase One. The Concept Plan does not indicate that the right-of-way is part of the subject property. However, at this time it still is part of this tract and therefore must be shown as being part of the Concept Plan. The right-of- way shall also be included in the Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat of Phase One. - Like the property in question, all land immediately adjacent to the east and west is zoned C-2B and is either vacant or in commercial use. The property to the northeast is vacant and March 21, 1996 Page 2 Concept Plan - Sun Center CP 96-04 / File:SUNCTR.CP CM/CS currently outside of the City limits. The City Council, at its January 9, 1996, meeting, adopted a resolution establishing its intent to annex the property. There is no proposed zoning of that area at this time. The stormwater runoff created by any development within the proposed subdivision may be detained in the adjacent pond that is currently owned and maintained by the City. It may be required to be enlarged by the developer in order to accommodate the additional volume of runoff. This is an off -site improvement that, effectively, is a public improvement since it will be owned and maintained by the City. Therefore, the necessary increase in capacity shall be determined during the Preliminary Plat stage and constructed prior to recording the first Final Plat. As with all public improvements, the owner will have the option to provide financial surety to guarantee the modification of the pond prior to recording the plat. This is consistent with the past practice of the City regarding similar situations. Although driveway location is not typically a Concept Plan concern, however, it is discussed herein due to the proposed lots' frontages on Williams Drive and Park Meadow Boulevard and Dawn Drive. Lot 1 of Block A must access either Park Meadow Boulevard or Dawn Drive. Since it is a corner lot having frontage on streets of different classification (Williams Drive, major arterial; Park Meadow Boulevard, collector; and Dawn, collector) access must be taken from the lowest classification street. Lot 1 of Block B shall take access from either Park Meadow Boulevard or Dawn Drive, but not both. Lot 2 of Block A may take access from both Dawn Drive and Williams Drive. Any driveway onto Williams Drive must be a minimum distance of 450 feet from the existing driveway located on the Plaza del Sol site. The driveway locations will be discussed during the platting and Detailed Development Plan review processes. The emergency service divisions of the City are concerned with the similarity in names of this development and another large March 21, 1996 Page 3 development not located in the same general area. They are concerned that response time by emergency vehicles can be affected by confusion created by the similarity. The reason for unique plat names is for record keeping purposes. Sun Center is not a plat name duplication and can be permitted based solely on record keeping factors. It is possible that the actual name of the development on the site will bear a different name. The name of a shopping center does not need to have the same name of the subdivision in which it is located. For example, Republic Square Shopping Center is located within Southwestern Plaza Subdivision. It is likely that a different name for the shopping center may be required during the DDP review. Technical Issues: The Subdivision Regulations require that the following technical issues are addressed prior to Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of this application. In order to assist the applicant, however, this application has been forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the completion of the technical issues. Therefore, these items must be addressed by March 1, 1996, or the application will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. Alternatively, the applicant has the opportunity to request a delay to the City Council's consideration of the application in order to complete the technical issues. 1. The Dawn Drive right-of-way shall be included in the area of the Concept Plan and the acreage note shall be revised to include the area of Dawn Drive. 2. If the owner wishes for the plat and actual development to have the same name, then the name of the Concept Plan shall be changed at this time. This is necessary since it is likely that "Sun Center" will not be permitted as the name of the development. If the owner does not desire for the names to be consistent, the Concept Plan's current name may remain. STAFF RECONEMENDATION: Concept Plan - Sun Center CP 96-04 / File:SUNCTR.CP CM/CS Approval of the Concept Plan of Sun Center provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. March 21, 1996 Page 4 P & Z ACTION: At its February 6, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Concept Plan of Sun Center provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Concept Plan - Sun Center CP 96-04 / File:SUNCTR.CP CM/CS March 21, 1996 Page 5 \ SUN CENTER'CONCEPT PLAN I( P 10 1 �' I I I n � � •� i O A ' �1 1 I ` Ivl .i A 0. Ivi 0 �" EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': January 9, 1996 'PROJECT NAME': Sun Center Concept Plan 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 8.95 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 8.95 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 60,144 17,184 716 5 0 0 0 6 ---------------------------------------------------- 0 --- 0 ------------------------------------------------ 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity Maximum Trip Ends: 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: LAND USES Detached SF Large Lot Average Lot Zero Lot Line Attached SF Multifamily Mobile Home Lodging Institutional Church -with day care -w/o day care Medical Office General Office Retail, Mixed Retail, Restaurant Retail. tore Employment Centers Warehouse Mini -Warehouse ---------------------------- 60,144 17,184 716 (a) (b) (c) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV WATER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION -------------------- UNITS (--------------- REGS 52 59 1,195 52 18 60 69 808 60 65 60 69 808 60 87 93 98 659 93 ( 130 114 110 3151 110 1 258 93 89 845 89 313 282 517 282 175,347 186,783 851,367 175,347 195,273 207,036 46.015 46,015 323,355 343,680 994,444 323,355 144,577 153,429 221,878 144,577 165,231 188,835 280,784 165,231 92,529 105,423 43,347 43,347 38,554 35,800 62,973 35,800 185.058 195,273 149,105 149.105 165,231 188,835 156,469 156,469 1,055,158 1,227,429 1,193,333 1,055,158 15,036,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17,184,000 2,753,846 --------------------) 2.753,846 --------------- (d) DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED/UNIT 18 housing units 60 housing units 60 housing units 93 housing units 110 housing units 89 housing units 282 rooms 175,347 square feet 46,015 square feet 323,355 square feet 144,577 square feet 165,231 square feet 43,347 square feet 35,800 square feet 149,105 square feet 156,469 square feet 1,055,158 square feet 2.753,846 square feet EXHIBIT C SUN CENTER CONCEPT PLAN Irene Williams Parker \ o Bloyk— B" f Scale: = 100' 1 2Ex Land Use - Commercial SECQNO� PARK N`EADOW �87 / / \♦ Block ` \_ Ex. _and`bse 55 �: =x Land Us' - Cammucio i J�. ✓\ \ \ PARK MEADOW SECT!ON DINE Block Cab. I:-', Si. 111 . Ex. Land Use - commercial14 / `\\� ( c . 21.2 1 Lot 1 \I " /\ \` t\\ / ,♦ �i . \� \ :.�, fro... ,, _pzame�i i ♦y 1 J` O j _ i c^• \ Lot 2 yy B:•cck .,B.,crker \ ,ornmercial r11 O 4 �'. I �1^\ Zylberfuden j/� 2w z.-Gri Jsc4 __ 746/220 �\ �" �> Ex. :and Use - Comm cial Davis `( 'Z. n ,^♦ - Existing Land .Use - - OT.mer,:i a. \'(� O /' 1 '�l / � � ✓fir -" \ \<{ / } i Bloc l-v good 0 Council Meeting Date: March 26, 1996 Item No. J AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consider an award of the semi-annual bid for hot mix asphalt to Capitoal Aggregates in the estimated amount of $48,750.00. ITEM SUMMARY Bids were received to provide the City with hot mix asphalt for a six-month period beginning April 1, 1996. The staff recommendation is to award this bid to the low bidder, Capitol Aggregates of Austin. This asphalt will be used in the construction and repair of City streets.. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS none FINANCIAL IMPACT (cost of item, fund and division name, budgeted amt.) Estimated total for this bid is $48,750.00. $901000.00 was budgeted in account 100-134-5205- 00 Maintenance -Streets and $25,000.00 in 110-101-6002-00 Overlay 95/96 for which this amount is included. COMMENTS (from City Attorney, staff, boards and commissions) none ATTACHMENTS (list individually) 1. Bid Tabulation Submitted By: Merry Jones, Purchasing Director Director of Community Owned Utilities ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 Type D Hot Mix Asphalt/Ton Total Type D Hot Mix Asphalt 2 Type A Hot Mix Asphalt/Ton Total Type A Hot Mix Asphalt * Low Bid No Bid: Pioneer Ashphalt HOT MIX ASPHALT BID NO. 96022 CAPITOL QTY AGGREGATES 2000T 19.50 39000.00 500T 19.50 9750.00 AUSTIN BRIDGE & ROAD 19.95 39900.00 19.95 9975.00 Council Meeting Date: March 26, 1996 Item No. F F AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consider declaring the 1983 Spartan ladder fire apparatus as surplus property and approve a contract with Alpine Apparatus to sell. ITEM SUMMARY Staff is requesting that Council declare the 1983 Spartan ladder truck as surplus property and authorize Alpine Apparatus to sell the unit on behalf of the City. Alpine is a brokerage firm that advertises in nation wide trade publications and has various contacts throughout the fire suppression industry. It is felt that with Alpine's_ experience in selling this type of equipment it will give the Cit the best return on its investment. y The sale of the apparatus will be contingent upon any potential buyer not taking g possession of the unit until after the arrival of the new Quint apparatus, which were purchased b the Cit y in August 1995. These units are scheduled for arrival sometime in October 1996. y y SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS none FINANCIAL IMPACT (cost of item, fund and division name, budgeted amt.) The recommended selling price for this apparatus is $221,000.00. The broker's compensation will be any amount above this agreed selling price or in the event that the ap paratus is sold by the City, Alpine will receive compensation in the amount of $14,750.00. This compensation will also be awarded if the City terminates the contract with Alpine, and within 90 days sells the apparatus to a buyer that was referred to the City by Alpine. COMMENTS (from City Attorney, staff, boards and commissions) none ATTACHMENTS (list individually) 1. Broker service agreement Submitted By.- erry Jones, Purchasing Director Tj Susan Morgan, Director of Finance & Administration From: B.W. BILBERRY To: TERRY JONES /GEORGETOWN Date: 3120196 Time: 15:12:20 Page 1 of 1 ALPINE APPARATUS INC — PO BOX 708, BASALT, CO 81621 -� - - - - TEL 970-927 3580 FAX �70 92l 4243 WATS 800-335 8478 EXCLUSIVE BROKER SERVICE AGREEMENT This Agreement is made effective as of Mar. 11, 1996, by and between Alpine Apparatus, Inc. (hereinafter ALPINE), a Colorado Corporation at P.O. Box 708, Basalt, CO 81521, and Georgetown Fire Dept (hereinafter Georgetown), at 103 W. 9th, Georgetown, TX 78626, WHEREAS, ALPINE desires to provide a broker service and Georgetown desires to use that broker service to sell one 1985 LTI PLATFORM (hereinafter Unit #401), now therefore Georgetown agrees to appoint ALPINE as exclusive sales broker for Unit #401 until Oct. 25,, 1996, 1. PRICE AND COMPENSATION. Georgetown agrees to sell Unit #401 and deliver clear title to same, to any party named by ALPINE for the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND ($215,000) Dollars during ALPINE's period of exclusive brokerage service. Georgetown may lower the price at any time to expedite the sale of Unit#401, by notifying ALPINE in writing, such document, duly signed and dated by an authorized agent of Georgetown shall become a part of this Agreement. ALPINE shall be entitled to all funds above the agreed selling price of Georgetown as compensation for services performed. 2. SALES LEAD ACKNOWLEDGMENT. From time to time ALPINE may provide to Georgetown the name(s) of prospective purchaser(s) of Unit #401 on a Sales Lead Acknowledgment form (hereinafter SALES LEAD). An authorized agent of Georgetown must sign, date and return said SALES LEAD form to ALPINE in a timely manner to allow the prospective purchasers access to Unit#401 while protecting ALPIN E's interest as exclusive sales broker. 3. COMPENSATION FOR DIRECT SALE, If Georgetown shall enter into, or complete, a sale of Unit #401 directly with any buyer, including, but not limited to, a buyer, or agent of a buyer, named on a SALES LEAD provided by ALPINE, during the term of this Agreement, ALPINE shall immediately be paid fourteen thousand, seven -hundred, fifty dollars ($14,750.00) as compensation for services performed. 4. NINTY DAY BROKER PROTECTION. If Georgetown shall enter into, or complete, a sale of Unit #401 directly with any buyer, or agent of a buyer, named on a SALES LEAD provided by ALPINE, for a period of ninty (90) days beyond the termination of this Agreement, ALPINE shall immediately be paid fourteen thousand, seven -hundred, fifty dollars ($14,750.00) as compensation for services performed. 5. FAX COPIES AND APPLICABLE LAW. A duly signed copy of this Agreement transmitted by electronic facsimile shall be construed, valid and enforceable as an original Agreement between the parties. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. B. W. Bilberry, President Alpine Apparatus, Inc., Broker Georgetown Fire Dept MARCH 11, 1996 Title: Date: Council Meeting Date: March 26, 1996 Item No. 06 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consider authorizing staff to commit to sharing the cost of a microwave tower with Williamson County in the amount of $191,515.00. ITEM SUMMARY Williamson County has committed the resources to installing a microwave link between the Sheriff's Office and the radio tower on Chandler Road to accommodate the 800 MHZ radio system. The staff is requesting authorization to commit to half of the cost of the tower installation. Williamson County, the City of Round Rock and the City of Georgetown are currently participating in a consolidation of radio communication systems. This system utilizes the radio tower located on Chandler Road in Round Rock. In order to transmit a signal from the Police dispatch to the radio tower, to be transmitted to the individual mobile radios, telephone lines are utilized. When our radio system was installed in February 1995, telephone lines were the most economical means of connecting the Police Department to the tower, a distance of approximately 6 miles. These telephone lines have proven to be unreliable. During the past 12 months we have experienced radio system failure 7 times. These failures, which have all been linked to the telephone lines, range in length from 30 minutes to 6 hours. Utilizing a microwave link to the radio tower will improve the reliability of the system considerably by eliminating the use of telephone cable, which can be susceptible to contractor damage as well as weather interference. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS none FINANCIAL IMPACT (cost of item, fund and division name, budgeted amt.) Funds for this expenditure were not budgeted in this fiscal year and Motorola is not requiring payment until October of 1996. However, by approving this item, $191,515.00 will be committed from the 1996/97 budget. COMMENTS (from City Attorney, staff, boards and commissions) none ATTACHMENTS (list individually) none Submitted By: Terry Jones, Susan Morgan Purchasing Director Director of Finance & Administration 4 Council meeting date: March 26, 1996 Item No. 14 1 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Ordinance amending the City's Single Member District Plan to include properties that are in the process of being annexed. (Second reading) ITEM SUMMARY This ordinance will incorporate the annexations of Park Meadow West, First Baptist Church, Churchill Farms and surrounding area, a portion of Phase II of Sun City, and the proposed annexation of the Parker, Smith and Hogberg tracts. This ordinance proposes adding each respective tract into the adjacent City single -member district. Due to the limited 1990 census population included in each of the annexed tracts, no redrawing of existing district boundaries appears necessary at this time. Since none of these annexations are to be added to either of the districts that have the most significant minority population, the proposed plan will not dilute minority voting strength. In addition, since none of the additional tracts are being added to either the largest or smallest districts, the proposed plan will not increase the variance between district population sizes from the percentages that exist in the plan that is currently in place. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Related attachments from Department of Justice Pre -clearance Submission 3. Redistricting Map (new annexations highlighted) S . mitted By: Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney litigate\election\redistri\031296.agd ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CITY'S SINGLE -MEMBER DISTRICT PLAN TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AREAS: 4.7 ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS PARK MEADOW WEST; 15.4 ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH; 162.457 ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS CHURCHILL FARMS; 135.61 ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS CHURCHILL FARM SURROUNDING AREA; 333.490 ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS SUN CITY, PORTION OF PHASE 2; AND THE FOLLOWING AREA TO BE ANNEXED: 80.3 ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS THE PARKER/SMITH/HOGBERG TRACTS; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in Ordinance 91-30, the City Council adopted the City's current single member district plan and amended that ordinance with Ordinance 95-11; WHEREAS, such plan was later approved by the United States Department of Justice to be used for selection of elected officials for the Mayoral and City Councilmember elections within the City of Georgetown; WHEREAS, the City has annexed additional property and is currently in the process of annexing certain property adjacent to the City limits; WHEREAS, these annexations and proposed annexation of property adjacent to the City limits of the City of Georgetown require that the City amend its single member district plan to incorporate these newly annexed properties within the City's single member district plan for election purposes; WHEREAS, the City election will occur immediately after the completion of the of all of the annexations; WHEREAS, since the approval of the U.S. Department of Justice is required to amend the City's single member district plan, and such approval must be submitted well in advance of the City's election; WHEREAS, according to the most recent dicennial census in 1990, these recent annexations did not contain significant population in 1990, such that the existing single member district boundaries must be redrawn; WHEREAS, each of the annexed tracts is immediately adjacent to only one existing single member district boundary line; WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that the addition of these annexed tracts to the adjacent single member district is in the best interest of the City; 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 Governmental Affairs Policy 2 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element, which states: "The City will encourage all citizens to actively participate in governmental functions', and further finds that the enactment of this Single Member district Revision 1996 Ordinance No.. Page 1 of 2 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 following boundary additions to the City's single member district plan are hereby adopted: a. The 4.7 acre tract known as Park Meadow West, as more fully described in the documents attached as Exhibit A, shall be added to District 5. b. The 15.4 acre tract known as First Baptist Church, as more fully described in the documents attached as Exhibit B, shall be added to District 2. C. The 162.457 acre tract known as Churchill Farms, as more fully described in the documents attached as Exhibit C, shall be added to District 7. d. The 135.61 acre tract known as the property surrounding Churchill Farms, as more fully described in the documents attached as Exhibit D, shall be added to District 7. e. The 333.490 acre tract known as Sun City a portion of Phase 2, as more fully described in the documents attached as Exhibit E, shall be added to District 4. f. The 80.3 acre tract known as Parker/Smith/Hogberg tracts, as more fully described in the documents attached as Exhibit F, shall be District 5. 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, or on the effective date of the annexation ordinance, whichever date is later. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 12th day of March, 1996 PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 26th day of March, 1996. ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: LEO WOOD Mayor Single Member district Revision 1996 Ordinance No.. Page 2 of 2 r 4,7 Acre Tract • Park Meadow west located North of Williamson Drive between Rivet Bend Road and LakewaY Drive This was a voluntary annexation that occurred when new development was Proposed. A portion of the tract was within the City limits and the remainder of the tract was outside the City limits. The owner requested annexation primarily to obtain police protection. The property was unimproved at the time of annexation and currently is developed with mini -storage• buildings. An on -site manager resides on the property. This annexation was completed on June 14, 1995. A copy of the ordinance is included for your review:. This property is located within Tract 201.02 Block 302B, which is a large census* block. This property will be added to the adjacent City sin'gle- member district, District 5. No population, is being added to the district; as no housing units were located on the property at the time of. the 1990 census. TOTAL ANNEXED POPULATION: .0 Persons List of attachments: 1. Map 2. 1990 Census Data 3. Census Map 4. Annexation Ordinance E M- EXHIBIT TRACT 1 4.747 ACRE PARK MEADOW WEST TRACT LEGEND SCALE STEED. PIN FOUND a " STEEL PIN SET 1 " = 1 0 0' —E — OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UN E B.L BUILDING SETBACK UNE O.E. DRAINAGE EASEMENT P.U.F. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEUENT ( ) ADJACENT RECORD DATA 24$.01 '53T54'30"E T1816*E c.,, S5 92.47 7 m � � M N pn W s'O tl) r � Z ZV v � u) GETOWN CITY L04T — I s D.E. c a-L 1 1 LOT 3 �1 1.039 ACRES N m . M I • A tl1r /�� . '7 C . /• 4-1 S3726'32" E 236.73. - - - T— — co M O cm N1 (I L•J CL 4J .( co Ncq u� r� � <17 N Z OEC43-7jEtC*r City UWT S3654'30" E 89.81 ,I a 44 ao EXHIBIT • :• - �':-.:�. '� ".� . • : �. i a�� `Par• �; ���;� --. X N its •0 0■ j • • ♦ • • • • • Q46 10-1 •• +• i •i •• • •i:i: i • _ • • • • • i:•. . 46. 41 16 40 oe as 16 4*6 IL •• • • woJ s !loco ,.: . 'f'Y'.1 limp— CV) • . . .t.:.��'..• cu •� t. J • . ••• � ••• ./_. •.� mot. ,I- 1 � �.. EXHIBIT i lij An M. .� CAPCO/B8R March 1991 Block 214 Block 2)5 Block 216 Block 217 Block 218 Block 222C ec 3 (pt. ) Block 3018 Block 302C Block 3080 Block 3298 Block 330C Block 3318 Block 332 Block 3338 Block 3348 Block 3378 SO 5 Ipt• ) Block 5018 Tract 201.02 (pt. ) 80 1 (pt. ) Block 1018 BG 3 ( Pt• ) Block 3010 2G1 /02, Stock 3056 -- �1,�� Block 306 Block 3078 Block 3088 Block 309 Block 3100 Block 320 Block 321 Block 322 BC 5 (pt. ) Block 5018 Block 502 Block 503E Block 5068 Block 5108 Block 511 Tract 201.03 (pt.) BO 1 (pt.) Stock 1010 Block 101E U&SAM Block 102 Block 103 Block 1068 Block 110' Block 111 = Block 112 ... Block 113 11 - Block 114 i Block 115E 1990 Population by Census of Race and 1 Population Population and Housing Hispanic Origin; Total da A Ara sub ject to (April Housing revj,(�1 1, 1990) Units; Acreage a! iota1 1 To .a 1 Pe rsant by Race I 1 I Non-H 1 I I H1 1 1 Black IAmerio•1 1lndlan 1 I I 01 I 21 0 2 1 AslBn 0 0 0 0 1 0 Other IHISDan 01 0 Idbite I Bl 0 I 81 3 0 0 0 0 01 0 2 I 131 10 0 0 0 01 3 42 91 9 0 0 0 0 31 01 3 3 10 6 1 451 1 41 38 y 0 '71 7 38 1 161 15 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 4 I 121 01 12 0 0 0 0 01 0 12 31 0 0 0 p 0 0 01 01 0. 0 0 3 31 01 3 0 0 0 0 0 o1 0 0 0 0 71 1 0 0. 0 01 1 211 1 211 21 21 0 0 0 61 01 .6 •• p 1 21 I 3551 341 0 0 7 6 0 1 01 01 0 21 21 326 I 321 321 32 32 0 0 0 0 01 0 32 I 1401 133 6 0 1 01 01 � 0 10 32 129 1 261 25 0 0. 1 01 0 25 251 22 0 01 0 01 a ..9R Williamson Page 39 County IIs by Race 1 i I Ilou s i ng I ck I Other 1 Units 1Acredau- 0 01 01 13.8 0 01 11 24.0 0 01 31 54.6 0 11 91 36.8 0 01 51 50.2 0 01 31 10.4 0 01 181 996.,3 0 01 21 90.4 0 01 71 714. 1 0 01 51 15: 1 0 01 01 15.6 0 01 11 33.4 0 01 11 62.6 0 01 01 32.4 0 01 01 22.2 0 01 01 4.2 0 01 21 6.2 0 01 el 464.3 0 01 el 464.3 7 11 1191 1280.5 0 01 121 16.3 0 01 121 16.3 0. 11 471 202.6 •0 11 91 23.2 " "1 " la 0 0 01 01 71 17.3 111 11 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 11 of 81 31 27.9 6.9• 01 0 0 01 01 0 0 - 0 0 0 01 01 1.0 01 31 0 30 0 0 0 6 6 0 01 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 01 1.2 4.0 11 1 0 0 01 01 6 0 30 0 01 121 21.7 01 1631 0 176 0 7 0 0 0 01 0 1 0 0 0 01 01 11 01 6.9 1.2 41 4 0 0 0 0 01 01 11 0 165 7 01 601 1061.5 541 50 4 01 0 4 0 0 3 01 01 11 11 89.2 2.7 01 0 0 0 0 O 0 I 01 3' 0 47 4 01 201 617.7 491 49 0 0 0 01 0 0 49 0 0 01 01 01 141 3.7 208.3 1,3581 5121 1.318 503 12 7 10 111 38 1,292 12 1610169 21,399 6941 1 160.0 21174.1 0 0 4 3 41 31 7 3 500 227 0 0 SI 1711 174. 41 01 4 0 0 0 01 0 4 0 31 01 all 11 102U.5 16.6 ' 01 0 0 0 • 0 01 0 0 24.5 51 271 5 27 0 0 0 0 01 0 5 0 0' 01 21 34.8 581 57 0 0 0 0 1 01 0.1 0 27 0 01 91 20.0 361 35 0 0 0 j , 0 11 171 38.3 341 0 01 ' 0 35 34 0 0 01 01 151 15.6 351 19 35 0 00 of I P 79 0 11 111 251 17.5 54.6 0 0 01 0.. 35 0 01 101 69.7 15.4 Acre Tract Located South along State Highway 29 This was a voluntary annexation. The property is improved property with a church facility. No residential housing structures are located on the property. The annexation was requested to provide police protection to this property. This annexation was completed on June 14, 1995.. A copy of the ordinance is included as an attachment to Exhibit 3 for your review. This property is located within Tract - . 201.03 Block 321 C. This property will be added to the adjacent City single -member district, District 2. District 2 is a predominantly minority voting district'. Since no population is being added to the district, ' there will be no dilution of minority voting strength by the annexation:. The church development on this street existed during the 1990 census, and all additional development has been for additional non-residential church facilities. - TOTAL ANNEXED POPULATION: 0 persons List of attachments: 1. Map - 2. 1990 Census Data 3. Census Map EXHIBIT • WOOD RANCH loll........ i'i.'i.i I:;i z i IQ11HAft 1114hhETT 'i', :i .:,: ` +til. 3aGlt i lei; :�11 8 ~. TEXAS STAT'C HIGHWAY 29 N 8731'1- E 463.90 11 8t36'35' E 6�1.�8 N 8T�1'Sr E 186.95 ScrW —I,-- --&*— _.r— _ _ss— _s• au e.ao Ins al 1 aa� �vos s:�. �s cca wsal steal 'Or f u I lY cu& o u IPA& ` 20� P U C ilt [ not .21o1uplt 1' fuc 1:twi +P[tUl UI1t1IY p�IACI r . IS' IUI(Ftg [SWtI ` l61,01� 96120 s s1�It Puvlt coacow�n \ ►a, nts' ; r,; sel •col. 9ss / rc. say ` ` • t.ett.01 !late JW.961 left L089N0 DAI(a d9clioN TWO t , •-+ Existin Geor etown Cit Limits '`�i���,�/,:�rf .• 4'� 1 '� ��.ji"��•.�� '.•I � � � �'` t t ,�' '� � ire ' ! � i � '�.' , ... . • ���t :v. �� C:i.� �, � �.'i��i.. fr"rt 1 !' ��►� ,➢, ��. • 1 • * .�� iS � r + ' � � , +•`` -�r . �) (f .a� • � �; •1.�'� t� � l01 6 },•,?II;r..;� . ,t ,k. ..j�;% is f 1�t +, ••`�► r,'t `..,ifj�;] t� 'i�/rfa �I•:. �j �/'�1 fr�..� 1�;'r ��.� � .1 ��T� rI' �' �;,�'•'; r j'' t!► ♦ ?7, �^d .�+. �o •. -.7 �� Jj` '� :r. i tiff:\e\i�il sr�.�Y>;t- .� !#�12L�i� 1 .l+�cauat �.�.,��d'.ttgE•�'4�r2 S•�l1�3��,1���.;i •.�'.:::�.11���,�.�; �..i Y t•.�:! � J ' 11 %� �/ ) � A V 1 �rl 0 -r� J I .. n � - +a • �:•�. � a�-, t,• r t.^.^•, r r. � -y• : t/e F• ti• 'i i - ' •a� • {s, : � r, � ' 71 v� f �y{�' :r,}���� � �d� r_�j'��i 1',rt���� ��r Ir ` �i { 1+y �,,J� - t'' �l t�rl •+.7rl;tii � �r � � - • r 7• 1� !L�+I' r ~ 1"G•'r.. C� f���`r;i�S)l+r r� {l �j, �tt,i` rrt��!tNS�•+ • �` txYr �1 Sr�Yai yi t ;�►; jhh= .i `rr '� 1 Y �� .,`1�' �; � � •�: i. �* � y�, y'`� �rA, � ` r' }1r y , ►{'� ,i/ t •• {� ity�t uy1?'� t1ti j•�..;�:i rIN- 4�1i #. •�. r'1 �t��'1• r j �,. .��J 6,Y}" i, .(� � i1i• `.,{r;� .f��[�r;l��;'!�.��r�1{.•.'.'- ':�� ,1":' 1�/��a� �'�tY.'• 1'� IJ.��{� r � • � 7 .., L �3T)M k � �� ��+ '�, JJ � "�•`I��I t�i', il��fl�,'•"•it i���M��-�IJ`. � �.r),r: \, �i �• •'�,. �� r^'' '�t.flt �� 1. Jar r y'J.r}1` rid `L'/',l�i��'!!l S;�, n,rf•�f�rr�.{;�Mt�r,11x'`" tr� •� rM +r (j. '�, J� ��'/rrY�,� `r•: tt� f IL'(, J+,r�}',�'�'��� ; ��. i 4L 1 :�J:�}f1 ��. � r.�(. ,I�r �, t•`, ' � �� 1h � r ' � kia/4�� � id�, �!+� ,y. �; � 7�.v' +� '�I11�{� i i' 7 i��, � . "%��Ijt ��+'+• ' tf f� � (T •h` • � �►�' r ' ' � • �' ► � � �3 • +. 1.5 • �•y 'i* 6 t �,."1 ` � r j, + , : V! 0,}, tj. t 'r'4iii; �}? i�ir t ,�, �►'+ : l :}:s;•,il��;.f .'it (rt\ � f'' , f�,'� (�� .. K+ t%; ��.��, .r L t "�i,•�;v r7;, �r'',f1 y�� C ``�v�l�, 'I,rtz�ir�Y�y'� igj3j+�_'j1 '' �`y �' ���.•a •>? - r?;�,I, "• `�� t r�1';`�;f, 11�r'� Jli1i:Y.�irtr1; ,�tr� ,{�rI 'f•' I. ' .:+ i;� ' YI?:� . h � •i + VI j-��'i ! 'ht.l � i' i.�i+• ��',�`. • 1 � �. �'" .T!1 .•+ + T} r•�J � r �(r1�c:l;� .if t'5.�, i1 Er t a,{�+}: � 'y�'� "j•,c, •u�f� 1 (��i �,Z��, . '1'1ir{��'h:!��-�i..F�.t���'t;+t�,1��2,1i1r1':,�'7Fb� •tSi4'.c'il�.!:l�l?'• .+�'f'��!�"r'i�'R��`11.�:$��.���1'�a'(•t?:+���•. f�L':f ��3'. a ' JAY L WOLF .t r � s S.. _• •r . 01.03 1• GgOR OWN OUND «. -R K !Y 914 (011) .. • • 1 • aft 4L. . • � •yid . • i2 0 D:d APPMOXISAAM J Aas: Bin cNurtcH - poem,., ' ! EXHIBIT W-Jo..r •� 1990 Ces+sus IHset 5{� - fin. lit CAPCU/ppfl Meech 1991 1994 Census of Population and Housing Population by Race and Hispanlo Origin; Total HousinglUnits�lAoreage Williaason County On data a re sub lect to CiI 'on, Page 41 f TO n l PO a fin nit by ____gig 1 I I I Ame r i a 1 1 ��1-S oa ll i e s by R a c el • I 1 1 1 lu- I__A 12T OF lk�x (APCIg;,T IIIRC14 Tp Be Nmejeb [ACT' Block 309 I 321 32 0 0 Block 310 I 01 0 0 01 Block 311 1 21 2 0 0 0 01 Block 312 1 �1 2 0 01 Block 313 I 21 2 0 0 0 01 Block 314 I 31 0 0 0 01- Block 315 21 3 0 0 0 01 Block 316 2 0 0 0 of Block 317 i 01 0 0 0 01 Block 318 0 0 0 01 Block 319 01 0 0 0 0 01 Block 320 31 3 t 0 0 01 61 ook 3210 ,L3 w3 0 0 0 01 U I oc 322 BCBlock 3238 Ipt.1 •21 (, Block 401 E Block 401F block 402 Block 423 Block 424 Block 4258 Tract 201.04 (pt. ► BG 1 (pt. ) Block 101 Block 102 Block 103 Block 104 Block 105 Block 106 Block 107 Block 108 Block log Block 110 Block I11 Block 112 Block 113 Block 114 Block 115 Block 116 Block 117 Block 118 Block 119 Block 120 T� Block 121 Block 122 Block 123 Block 124. Block 12�•• = Block 126 .� Block 127 W Block 128 ..� Block 129 Block 130 0 2 0 0 01 0 01 0 0 O 0 001 1 0 0 951 92 0 1 1 11 2 531 52 � 0 0 0 1 11 01 1 .. , 0 331 01 32 0 0 1 0 01 1 01 0 0 0 0 0 01 0, 0 01 9991 0 992 0 3 0 3, 0 0 01 1I 0 2661 01 265 0 0• 0 32 •, 101 191 0 19 0 0 : 0 0 o f 01 0 101 31 10 3 0 0 0 01 0. 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 0' 0 01 131 0 13 0 0 0 of 01 �� 01 01 0 0 0 0 O 01 0 01 01 0 0 1. 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 21 0 2 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 51 111 13 0 0 0 0 0 of 01 0 0 01 11 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 ° 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 .0 0 01 01 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 t� 01 0 0 0 0 01 . .0 ; 32 0 UIIIES 01 131 2220 4 0 0 01 01 45.2 2 0 01 11 42.7 0 0 01 21 44.5 2 0 01 11 90.9 220 2 0 01 11 57.1 0 0 01 01 361"5 0 0 01 01 150.5 0 0 01 #3I 9.1 0 0 01 01 0.7 3 49 0 2 01 of 11 269.4 0•, 0 01 z l 01 1 625.1 0.7 0 • 0 01 01 19.0 911 0 21 351 5411.5 a. 0 01 21 4221.5 52 0 11 191 34.6 31 0 11 141 1011.4 0 0 01 01 110.0 0 0 01 01 12.1 0 0 • 01 01 21.1 962 255;. 3" 0• 21 01 3351 6606.2 01 0 01 861 01 5749.S 42.5 19 0 01 71 27.4 10 0 01 51 37.3 3 0 01 11 25.0 0 0 01 01 36.3 0'• 0 1 01 01 17.8 13 01 SI 1640.7 0 0 01 01 4.4 0 0 01 01 8.6 01 01 3.5 0 0 01 01 36.6 2 0 01 11 14.3 0 0 01 01 1.5 0 0 01 01 48.4 5 0 01 11 132.4 11 0 01 4l 166.1 0 0 01 01 165.6 0 0 01 01 273.0 0 0 01 01 26.4 0 0 01 01 1.5 0 0 01 01 198.4 0 0 01 01 2.0 0 ;•. 0 01 01 175.7 0 0 01 01 9.9 0 0 01 of 58.6 0 0 01 01 20.0 0 0 01 01 5.4 .0 0 01 01 2.7 -r �1 �� r'•- =-162.457 Acres Located South of Highway 29 West This property is a combination of improved and unimproved properly located on " Highway 29 West. This annexation was completed on August 9, 1995. 1 have included a copy of the ordinance for your review. At the time of the 1990 census this property was vacant. This property is part of the Tract 214.01, Block 301A and 301 D. Today, the development consists of single-family residential homes. - This property will be added to the adjacent City single -member district; District 7. No population is being added to the district, as no housing -units were located on the property at the time of the 1990 census. District 7 is not one of the CWs predominantly minority voting districts. a: r TOTAL ANNEXED POPULATION: ' NHWhite 0, persons -t: NHBlack 0 persons Y Hispanic 0 persons NHOther 0 persons TOTAL 0 persons List of attachments: 1. Map `r 2. 1990 Census Data . 3. Census Map 4. Annexation Ordinance EXHIBIT C *A : 111 eA 4f leeA;ll Farov A �O�AAS S•��0,.. . . . . . . . ..��N,7A���NN00AAN0N00�0N0NN00��0�0•■+SPOON C1aD?AQUA O Jr�0.1+4304m�ataa NNNNN���wNNN?�•�NNNNNC►^NNOJNNNN O •f ?O C% w — C Q• c. a < O C w O O O N O Y r Q C a 000vo a. c. co � Y •� Q '^^o�o� a a� 0 •- a. _ 0C — 4 �ns0040 A M1 N %O � m W n C ae CL m CG G,7 OJT oc vo►a? a 0 CL ----------------------------------------------- 000N�p00�Om��S��A000�NSA�S��00N—N00p+%Q%OJ,O,C0N O N OOOO��w+000000A000coo 000000N00000anO00Coco o0�N00a0 0000�?�00�O�NNan040a�0000�?�00A�+w�O�OS•--O.w�^.Oep�00aDmC►�p►0 in in r �. .. OOpOp�NOOSOOOeDJM.+�O.00�0r+�S+w�•rO00�O�ttN0�+��000�'+00A�0�N•aO S N --------------------- 0 0 0 0 M eS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0? N 0 0 0 0 0 0 S N O O O O O O S O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 h ccC"-0acoo 0c0000000000000•0000000 ti 000SA0000000vvoop00000�+oo+e+000-0000000v000-0000v S N — 000NNA0001►NNA0A0000�—�oO►NOS-0�OQ►�OA0�Ost��oO000aneDA�0�a'+ -TAo ^q- S � N N 000�'fh•NOOOtiNNNS�0000*-�A�OS0�ON0�0��Om0�OSt��0e0eDQO^50��0��O I-wf1A A an fop N — i!1 f� N � •• N 9 • c� V C a as < G7<iN r f1 O^Nm• ~ .-NMO"`."NM?to%O1�t0G� �N�?t!1�O(�mO�O�Nw� .� V s ASS •O coo •000000000��•-�-- ^•-�-� s'���OAO^N�+?�n�0 N�+S�n NNNNNNNNNNa"arfr+,"rsffI •cocoa N N N N CL w�N►fw? Y�r•�.��. ����..... ��...���...�--....� NNtV N N CL YYYY-= YYYN..X=xxY�C•�C.� =xxxYYYYYYYYxxxxx�CYY�CYxxx_%YY x = = X = �' N o0v0 0000v 00000noon000000000noovovoonou0000von 00(i00 cc QOOO+"CCOOO+r�0000000000000000QOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO0000NO00OO a0` a7mcamgm mmm mC�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmc�mmmmm Ccm �m m EXHIBIT g �z u) v CAPCO/B8R March 1991 1990 Census of Population and Housing (April 1, 19901 Population by Race and Hispanic origins Total Housing Units; Acreage I pnnAll.t inn d-.- _ __ __.►. . _ _ . Williamson County Page 46 A I 1 1 1 Total I white Total Persona by Race I 111�Q.,... 1 'No- i nHI20an I 1�6 �� I Race 1 1 INoucing( I 1 Black IAmerlc.l Ilnsllan I I Block 1038 Block 103C I 01 0 0 Asian p I Other 0 1 Y...... 01 0 White 1 0 fl ack 1 QLhwr 0 I Units = 01 1 !� L8 a9�. Block 1030 1 391 1 01 39 0 0 0 0 0 01 3 36 0 01 01 211 115.6 173.2 Block 104 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 24.7 Block 1058 Block 1108 1 21 2 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 2 0 01 01 17.8 Tract 214.01 (pt.) 1 201 33501 20 3055 0 0 0 01 0 20 0 0 01 01 11 61 59.1 361. a BG 1(pt.) 1018 Block 1 1 0 3 0 0 191 01 48 0 276 8 31 1161 2131.2 BG 2(pt.) 1 01 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 56.6:.• 56.6 ». Block 235E I 11 1 0 0 0 0 01 0 1 0 01 18.9 Block 2418 0 0 01 0 1 0 01 11 Block 2418 •T BG 3 (pt.1 01 0 • p y 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 s, 01 01 4.2 Block 3010 I 3341 304 8 3 0 101 48 270 5 0 '•' •. 6 01 31 01 2.7 4.01 Bloc 202A 1151 2058. a Block 3038 ONE - Tract 214.02 BG 1 ( p t . I black 1018 aV-T Tract 214.03 BG 1 (pt.) C Block 1278 I BG 3 P301C >Q Block Block 3010 Block 303C Block 3030 Block 304 Block 305 Block 306 Block 307 Block 3098 Block 3138 Block 316 Block 317E Block 316 Block 3198 Block 3200 Tract 215.01 BG 1 (pt.) Block 1018 Block 102 Block 1038 Block 104 TA"M . lack 105 Block 106 Block 107 , m Block toe X Block 109 l\ y = Block 1100 Block 110E Block 110f Block 1100 (pt.1 17 21 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 01 1p.. 2 � 01 31 1125.�5 01 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 I 11 12.4 01 0 0 0 0 0 1 01 01 2.2 01 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 2.2 3621 01 332 0 4 0 5 0 211 43 310 y I 51 01 1481 5.2 2905.2 01 0 0 0 0 01 0 0. 0., 01 01 2.2 3621 332 4 5 0 211 43 310' 4 01 01 2.2 3991 30 0 51. 1481 2902.9 0 0 001 08 '0 0 01 1 123.2 18071 170 0 0 0 131 24 1599 40 01 01 01 771 1924.9 211 21 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 01 01 0.7 01 241, 0 22 0 0 0 0' 01 0 y 20 0 01 01 101 01 17.0 1.7 131 10 2 0 0 01 0 21 91 4.4 0 0 13 01 61 4.2 01 91 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 241 24 0 0 0 0 0l 0 01 31 4.0 1o1.1 81 5 0 3 01 5 0 19 01 111 387.9 111 11 0 0 01 6 5 0 31 21 15.3 261 5781 26 542 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 26 0 0 01 01 31 81 156.2 156.4 1191 119 p 0 2 0 331 61 49 13 519 165 1 91 2191 7422.4 l0 1 01 01 771 51 4316.1 243.4 161 16 0 p 0 0 0 OI 01 0 0 01 21 90.7 41 4 0 0 0 01 0 0 16 4 0 01 121 1210.3 i1 1 0 0 0.. 01 0 1 0 0 01 31 140.6 191 19 0 0 0 01 0 19 0 of If 02.5 372.4 01 11 0 1 0 0I 1 0 0 0 01 01 51 21 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 $01 1 �: 0 01 If 247.30 1.0 111 11 0 0 0 01 0• 0 3 11 0 0 01 21 382. 8 11 661 17 79 0 1 0 0 0 61 72 01 01 51 91 44.0 674.5 01 0 0 0 0 0 01 13 0 291 1h8.3 p 0 . 01 1 01 4.4 � 1 .r .ram • 1 t. IIY+ 10 � 1Ii► IN ..+^�� 1, _ • - • •• t f •e.77 F: I ti �' � ,• tom._ Use- • F1,11 1 1• ..w �,,. l' 711Mc' 1 ) ••• .� RGET O •RO D LC ftiJ eaf IlL FtWlt) p`• Y• ` •. Ww I I. SHEET sfo-IOWIMi�- �`'''� Q 8 t.,aGK. b E TAI L... FAR-. 1 208w I J T AYLOR DI STOl JM HVI , S -rreAe•T. 93845 (035) ' • Chu � 71 Faros 5W#WW&Y 135.6,1 Acre Tract Located on Highway 29 West The City initiated the annexation of this property to provide landuse controls surrounding the residential development annexed in Exhibit 5. This property is mainly unimproved property that is currently used for *agricultural purposes. There is one church located on a portion of the property where two priests reside within the church. A residential housing development -is proposed for one portion of the property. A population of two (due to the church, which also had two resident priests in 1990) is being added to the district. Since their minority status is not known to the City, they are being counted as non -hispanic white; which is the majority count of Tract 214.01, Block 301 D, which is a * ve(y large census block encompassing many residential housing units located to the east of the annexation in Exhibits 5 and 6. This property { will be added to the adjacent City single -member district~ District 7. District 7 is not ,y one of the City's predominantly minority voting districts. This annexation was rti completed on August 23, 1995.. 1 have enclosed a copy of the -ordinance for your review. WM TOTAL ANNEXED POPULATION: NH White 2 persons List of attachments: 1. Map 2. 1990 Census Data 3. Census Map 4. Sun City Maps - EXHIBIT TA"931. t W �'1' •,�� r'"; f...i' t, •' �r..:V _: •:.. Via. .:t•t�:.' 1 Vt 1 • __. ••��••1 � •'tip '` .. - .�.. i• NWo 1. rlllt• 1t ►IOo at •.•r• .. 11►1•Is) 416.114. Jac At lW } I;I.I.Iatl a./ •' •�+I.•• 4. l tIt• O•Lt t : •+ , loll It valmoll,111" IL ' 1 s. . • .•r• G� I+l.to tc•1• • 1 � � � 11 %-1m`t : - \ :.' 1 •.00 At , 1i 1 = I I 9 C.,r ow►1u �p G� •+K►•.vrQ.•wrrl '�• 1 r •• �t� , 1 i 6404 at •01 •t , at - / 1•t+.tr 1 .ir 1.0•C Gil owtt •t' ..►•( ALA •.,. `� I� 1 ' 3w,ra 46 At •4.•.t• Y.N.• .:�`•v�•_;f' �'� +,��•.. ll.c 1 el IP:•• t �� •c PROPD ANNEXATION RACTS J1. ! E •1 r1 At U)$ It •( 1 IJ � o ►� .• 14 14 ►� 1.1� I1 H . fowl 1. ••vlolow ' � � � 1 1•I.o1 •c 1 V1�1•l IO•,1tM $141wIts •N; ••••tl •p.n(/Oi• 1••+ .c 1 u 1 w.cl yr•1•• j! ....r.l�i%ll I Illy! i !��•(l 135.61 ACRES IN T11E WILLIAM ADDISION SUH VEY ADJACENT TO THE STONEHEDOE (CHURCHILL PARMS) TRACT 901+41111 Of lr•tl,•low 1111 /, • 1 601 11f1 K N • 11 �� Nnt Tn Q,,,.1_ , CAPCO/BBR 1990 Census of Population and Housing (April 1, 1990) March 1991 Population by Race and Hlspanlo Origin; Total Housing Units; Acreage Williamson County Page 46 Codal 1 Tota I white 1 Black j PersQnB by Race i I 'Non-fl"Qanlcs I I by Race 1 I I Ilou s i n9 I I Ame r i c. 1 I (Indian Block _Total 103E 1 01 0 I Aslaal Other 0 0 0 INIsJzao_I White I Bloch 01 0 I Other-1 Unljg 1A".jgj Block Block 103C I 391 39 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 01 115.6 1030 01 0 0 3 36 0 01 211 113.2 Block 104 i 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 Al 24 7 owulem,tL Block 1058 I 21 2 0 00 00 01 0 0 0 01 01 17.6 Block 110E 01 0 2 0 01 11 59.1 �4n TractB214.01 (p t, 1 I 20 I 20 0 0 0 o I o 20 0 01 81 361.8 Ip ' 1 3351 305 8 3 0 191 48 276 8 31 Tie1gLT 214. 01 3a11� Block 101E 1 OI 1 OI 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 116I 01 213i.2 BG 2 (pt.) I 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 .56.6 56.6 Block 235E I 11 1 0- 0 0 • 01 .01 0. 1 0 01 lI 5.8 15.8 Block 240E Block 1 01 0 0 `. 0 0 0 01 ` 0 1 0 01 11 2418 I 01 0 0'' '.0 - 0 01 Of 0. 0 01 01 4.2 4.2 BG 3 (Pt. ) Block 3010 I 3151 1 3151 304 285 8 8 3 ] 0 191 0 48 0=� 275,•'• 0 8 01 31 01 1151 205a. a TASSUM b� -'1 Block 3028 Block 3038 171 1 21 17 2 0 0 0 0 121 01 10 9KR 7 A 0 11 01 Jill 31 QW-2 1125.5 Tract 214.02 (pt.) 0 0 0 01 0 2 0 01 11 12.4 BG 1 (pt.) I OI 0 0 0 0 0 01 UI 2.2 Block 1018 I 01 0 0 0 0 OI 0 Tract 214.03 (pt.) 1 3621 332 4 5 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 2.2 BG 1 1 01 0 0 0 0 0 211 43 310 4 51 1481 2905.2 Blockk127E 27 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 2.2 BG 3 (pt. 1 Block 301C I 3621 I 391 332 4 S 0 01 2 11 0 43 0 310 0 •.4 01 51 of 1481 2.2 2902.9 Block 3010 1 O1 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 8 31 0 01 191 123.8 Block 303C Block 1 1871 170 4 0 0 0 01 131 0 0 0 01 01 4.2 3030 Block 1 01 0 0 0 0 01 24 159 4 01 771 1924.9 304 Block 305 I 21 1 20 0 0 ;.0 01 0 0 0 21 0 0 01 01 01 101 0.7 17.0 Block 306 Block I 241 22 0 2 0 01 01 0 0 0 01 01 1.7 307 Block 3098 i lOi 0 0 0 01 0 0 22 13 0 0 21 01 91 61 4.4 4.2 Block 3138 103 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 1.0 Block 316 Block I 91 9 0 0 001 0 0 01 01 4.0 3178 Block 318 I 241 24 0 0 0 01 5 9 19 0 0 01 01 31 111 101.1 387.9 Block 3198 I 111 11 0 0 0 01. ' 0 5 0 31 21 15.3 Block 3206 Tract 215.01 (pt.) I s261 0 1 6 5 6 0 01 01 31 B1 156.2 156.4 BG 1 (Pt. l I 1791 S26 172 1 0 0 2 331 49 S j 91 2191 7422.4 Block Iola Block 102 191 10 0 61 13 165 1 01 771 4316.1 Block 1030 I 161 16 0 0 0 0 01 0190 0 01 01 51 21 243.4 90.7 Block lOq Block 105 1 41 y 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 16 0 01 121 1210.3 Block 106 I 11 I 191 1 19 0 0 0 0 01 0 1 0 01 11 140.6 302.5 Block 107 Block (U8 1 01 0 0 1 01 0 0 19 0 01 51 72.4 Block 100 I 11 31 1 1 0 0 O.. 01 0 0 1 0 0 01 01 21 1 247.3 Block 1100 I 11 1 3 11 0 00 '.01 0 3 '. 0 01 21 392.8 Block.110E 71 17 17 0 0 00 01 0 11 0 51 44 0 Block 110F Block 110G01 I 861 1 0 0 0 01 61 0 '.13 17 72 1 01 1 91 874.5 1 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 291 01 ilia.3 4.4 3w ' � s • _ • i WN M C see e i z " ' ' 9--- EXHIBI T' i Nt.. N i /1 � w rf r 333.490 Acrr Tract Located Along FM 2338 • Yi�, AAAs C Suer O Cr � This property is unimproved property that is currently used for agricultural purposes. This is Phase II of a residential development on this property by the name of Sun City Georgetown. There are no residential improvements currently located on the property. No one currently resides on the property and none of the proposed residences are even under construction at this time. This property consists of a portion of two much larger census blocks. This property, prior to the current development, had no housing units located on it. No population is being added under . the 1990 census. This .property will be added to the adjacent City single -member district, District 4. District 4- is not one of the City's predominantly minority voting s districts. This annexation was completed December 27, 1995. 1 have enclosed a copy of the ordinance for your review. TOTAL ANNEXED POPULATION: 0 persons List of attachments: 1. 1990 Census Data 2.. Census Map , 3. Annexation Ordinance ' E7CHIBIT 0- Q Q so oil ■ " s S - . . wool* .• • Z� �� '� : .ti•• �• x M • refdo Z • O O • �. IL lee 16 V V � Oil. 1♦ I • ��• r to � vim• S► -� :��!!' •,�'' �. �• � :�At •..•w..�. •,... . Q .. • '• . 46 cm 46 s • • • N •'to. _ O x j - •: ?' Oftoo low 7 Not tow lb Z \ V y • ` toot�.► �t e EXHIBIT -- • T 0 4, �. P-�-'�' 20 t of Loci 20 CAPCO/BBR March 1991 17 1990 Population by Census of Race Population and Housing (April / 1, 1990) Williamson County and Hispanic Origin; Total Housing Units; Acreage page 37 -9LBa Name 1_ I I Codel rotal Tota, I 1 u persons by IAmeric. I lifidian I Race I I I I I Non1Hi soe_niGs I by I Race I 1 Illous ing l • Block Block 307 308 1 321 1 111 1111ich 32 I1 0 Asian 0 I 0 OIL, -r--M-span. 01 I 0 WIll to I Black 32 I Q 0 l�Lur I Units 01 lAcr 151 43 41. 2 Block 309 I 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 11 0 01 31 Block 31 1 01 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 1.1 Block 3111 1 01 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 2.1 Block 1213 1 01 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 01 01 18.5 Block 1 1 241 24 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 1.0 Block Block 31 1 411 43 0 0 0 01 0 24 0 01 101 14 Aj 315 I 701 64 0 0 5 11 8 35 0 01 171 6'•1 Block 316 1 01 0 0 0 0 01 3 62 0 51 471 10..9 BG 4 Block 401 9501 1 2141 606 175 54 8 13 671 0 208' 0 674 0 47 01 211 01 5261 2.0 17.1 Block Serenade UO2 I 7361 633 15 39 1 7' 0 :13 211 441 60 145 8 1 1 911 11.6 CO COP tract 201.01 (pt. ) 3665 1 3,2421 I 3 ?421 3,177 3 11 12 13 291 148 91 529 3,117 , 39 11 201 231 4351 1 0921 25.5 4247 4 i . 7 11 12 13 261 91 3,1 1 it 231 1.0921 4241.4 6 38 1 131 30 9 111 4091 3297.5 Block 219 1 421 40 0 1 1 01 11 40 0 11 1g1��3ii4`9"" Block 220 1 01 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 B I ock 221 N� Q !►,2 $ Block 2220 I 31 I 2171 3 214 0 0 0 01 0 3 0 0 01 01 01 11 16.6 13.6 V� Block 223 I 231 23 0 0 3 0 0 01 1 213 0 31 781 3 + Block 224 I 311 31 0 0 0 0 01 1 22 0 01 91 18.0 Block 226 2141 203 3 • 01 51 0 31 .0 01 10I 7.7 UN G��' Block 226 Block 0 1 01 6 202 1' S1 751 08.5 ,A 227 Block 228 1 451 1 371 45 37 0 0 0 01 0 0 42 45 0� 0 11 01 151 161 7.5 6.7 • Block 229 I 221 17 0 5 0 0 0 0 01 5 32 0 01 101 5.7 AwniX • Block 230 Block 231 1 471 47 0 0 0. 01 01 1 0 16 47 5 01 71 4.0 1 771 77 0 0 0.. 01 0 01 1+11 7.2 Block 232 Block 233 1 111 11 0 0 0 01 5 0 72 11 .0 0 01 01 231 11.6 Ba 3 1pt. 1 Block 303 11 1331 • 71 43 1, 109 0 2 0 2 0 2 01 221 0 35 43 1,097 0 01 51 121 2.7 7.9 141 41 153 2 31 3851 460.1 G 1� Block 304 Block 305 1 I 0 0 0 41 61 5 7' 142 52 0• 0 01 01 491 66.7 r Black 306 Block 15911 I 461 108 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 1 107 0 01 181 301 10.1 16.6 307 1 321 32 0 0 0 0'• 46 0 01 161 16.1 U S Block 3088 Block 308C I 27I 23 2 0 0 01 21 0 4 32 21 0 2 '01 111 18.3 `C fflA Block 3098 I 161 1 101 18 10 0 0 0 0 01 0 18 0 01 01 111 61 17.0 12.6 Block 310 1 141. 14 0 0 0 0 0 01 1 9 0 01 31 3.0 _ Block 311 Block 312 I 201 20 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 14 20 0 0 01 01 61 3.0 Block 313 1 401 1 51 39 5 0 0 1 01 0 39 0 11 71 151 2.7 6.4 Block 314 I 461 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 5 0 01 21 8.4 Block 315 1 501 50 0 0 0 01� 01 0 46 0 01 141 15.1 B lock 316 • 1 411 41 to 0 0 01 0 50 0 01 201 1 1• 4 = Block 317 Block 319' 651 00 01 0 z 41 6f 0 0 01 01 151 211 19.6 Block 320 I I 491 51 48 0 0 1 51 10.9 5 :-Block 321 I 471 47 0 0 0 0 1 0 o1. 4 •44 0 11 ISI 18. Block 32 Block 1 411 41 0 0 0 01 01 0 0' 47 '41 0 01 161 18.0 ]233 1 311 31 0 0 0 QI 0 01 141 17.0 0 31 0 01 I11 1.8 104 luaus. BBR March 99 March 1991 3 1990 Population by Census of Race and Population and Housing Hispanic Origin; (April 1, 19901 Williamson County Total Housing units; Acreage Page 38 I 1 A Blbane I I Codel Total 1 .T!Qt Persons by Race j 1 I "on -Hispanics I by I Race I 1 1Housinyl I Hhite I Black 1Americ.I IIndj,n I I Block Block 324 325 I 491 1 44 I 00 Asian I 0. Other IHISogII 51 1 5 White 1 Black 44 I 0 0 her I 01 Unic�_l�e$g2_ 161 Block 326 491 1 �1 44 7 0 0 01 .0 45 0 01 171 19.8 27.2 Block Block 327 328 1 401 40 0 0 0 01 �� �0 4p � 01 21 2.7 Q BC 4 Ipt.l I 441 I 9161 42 942 0 0 2 0 01 1 42 0 01 11 131 181 25.7 34.3. Block Block 401 402 I 621 61 0 03 6 0 11 11 I18 889 60 0 91 2981 489.5 Block 403 I 461 I 421 46 42 0 0 0 0 01 .2 0 46 0 0 01 01 211 13I 28.0 19,.5 Block Block 404 405 I 471 44 0 0 3 0 0 01 01 0 1 42 43 0 01 151 17.0 Block 406 I 421 1 241 241 42 24 0 0 0 01 5 37 0 0 31 01 151 141 10.9 18.0 Block 407 I 521 51 0 0 0 01 0 24 0 01 81 6.2 Block Block 408 409 32 0 0 p o1 0 51 0 11 211 20.1 Block 410 I I 811 78 0 0 01 0 40 0 01 01 91 131 14.3 9.1 Block Block 411 412 I 521 52 0 0 0 3 0 0j 01 0 0 78 52 0 31 261 20.0 Block 413 I 281 I 411 28 40 0 0 0 0 01 1 27 0 0 01 01 161 91 13.6 1.3 Block Block 41 415 I 01 0 0 0 0 1 0 01 01 0 0 40 0 0 11 111 10.1 Block 416 1 351 i 271 35 27 0 0 0 0 01 0 35 0 0 01 of 01 101 3.0 8.6 Block Block 417 418 I 171 17 0 0 0 ; 0 0 01 01 0 1 27 0.. 01 91 10.4 Block 419E 1 �1 I 1921 2 191 0 0. 0 0 01 0 16 2 - 0 01 01 01 61 11 7.7 2.0 Block Block 420 421 I 131 13 0• 0 1 01 4 167 0 11 641 239.7 Asa►aJnder of of Goor9 etoWn-Round 1 411 7,5121 41 7,033 0 1t5 0 35 0 01 0 41 0 01 41 6.1 .Tract B1 (pt.1 1 4151 388 S 1G 68 3 2611 591 6t705 115 1011 2,6981 82320.9 (pt• 1 I 1821 174 181 32 374 S 41 1431 9� S6 Block 101 I 51 4 1 o i 21 3 173 5 11 671 5292.6 Block 102 I 01 O 0 0 0 01 O 1 01 21 1599.0 glo k 100 3 1 n 0 01 OI 51.9 Alnck 1nV 1 11 0 n nl .. _ 7 F-M! IM 233$ SUN UTy-- PNAs� i ANNEX. uloch 105 -- Block 106 O 0 0 Block 107 I 01 I 721 0 68 0 4 0 0 of 0 00 0 01 01 Block 109 I 881 86 00 0 0 01 0 68 4 01 Block 109 1 01 0 00 21 3 85 0 01 Block I10 I 01 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 Block ilia 1 31 3 0 0 01 0 01' 0 01 ea 2 I 1671 155 0 1 01 _fl1Qck 202 "0 LIInnL Ane I JAI 31 _.. 0 A 2 , 91 22 142 -- 0 31 Block 204 I Block 205 I 261 01 26 0 0 0 0 01 2 2 24 0 0j Block 206 I 61 6 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 01 Block 201•• 1 11 1 0 0 01 0 6 0: 01 Block 268 0 0 0 01 0 1 0 01 Block 209 i Block 210 01 1 0 p 0* 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0. 0 01 Block 211 1 I 01 101 0 10 0 0 0 0 ' 01 0 0 0 01 01 Block 212 Il 01 0 0 0 0 0 01 Q 10 0 01 f Block 211A/ /` V1� dole-noN o1 0 0 0 0 0 41 01 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 01 01 OF -A1,212 .n OI 1.0 01 17.5 281 o7o.6 261 19.3 01 4.7 01 22.5 11 22.7 501 2701.1 .1-1.1_..,_822.6 _!11-164-2, 91 1112.2 01 17.5 11 92.9 11 4.4 01 14.1 01 4.2 01 2.5 31 41.8 01 3.0 01 11.9 r y ;f - - 80.3 Acre Tract Located North of RM2338. The City initiated this annexation in order to provide street improvements whic:i can only be provided within the city limits, to improve traffic control in the northwest portion of the City. This property is a "donut hole" surrounded by the City limits. This property is mainly unimproved property that is .currently used for agricultural purposes. There is currently 3 houses located on this property. The population at the time of the 1990 census was 25 Non Hispanic White. The entire census block was not annexed and two additional houses are located outside the proposed annexed property." It was determined that the annexed property included threelfrlths of the housing units in this census block, so three/fifths of the population which was all non -hispanic white in ttie • y 1990 census, has been included. This number was added to the total population for �~= District 5 and included under the Non Hispanic White. This property will be added to the adjacent City single -member district, District 5. District 5 is not one of the City's �- predominantly minority voting districts. This annexation is proposed to be completed - on April 24, 1996 and we will send a copy of the annexation ordinance when adopted. -TOTAL ANNEXED POPULATION: NHWhite 15 persons NHSlack 0 persons Hispanic 0 persons - NHOther 0 persons TOTAL 15 persons List of attachments: f 1. Map 2. 1990 Census Data 3. Census Map 4. Annexation Ordinance I IX� tom•_ pr�r. �ii Yrt �t��. IfArZW 3o.an�t - 97. aaytev ., v. •••� ,, �. SYMBOL DESCR i PT I C • aft IOtA• T 301A• 20t f Ot A• f i Or 40 i try >�0s b ISO r••+ A �``✓. Q• MIA* Wass Oat tos 211 • . ........ ..�. i�7 • : .,�; . •� �a . � • Tod 301 •*.dL •. \ 3n 321 3OZ8 : / �. / w 333• _ � � .., � �, � s l r its• / . 4 - �r �. O.• � itt / � 314 - tM11•• t•' i� 31ar 3tlr � ` 401• 317 • 31• 4010 164 !� .�• i • O / . � �i� 3� 3t� `�•• l,1020 To'./ •ice Q 41V O. 40" / �••1 s1.• 0... 0. Me IlO . '• ~ Id / 4630 AD 405 /�11 31 L Ci. 311 4a3• / e Itta • ,� O / 0 317 •• fit]• / 304 , �.4. 3124 Ali• / 410 • Itd• t c 31s 314 3t3• •' 4 3t0 . o •�` ~•i 1 •N ►M... J2Z %'r. EXHIBIT / r 3i�• . ► t%. k.1 Ma rc' 1 l a!� Area Name �J Block 214 Block 215 a1�0� Block 216 N x Ulock 217 �N eSV Block 218 Block (2 C BO 3Pt I• J J. a Block 30) 18 • I q Block 302C Block 3080 Block 3298 '1 L Block 330C .G' Block 3318 Block 332 Block 3338 Block 3348 Block 3370 I 80 5 (pt. ) ?01 10?- Block 5018 Treat 201.02 (pt. ) %0C'k - Bo 1 (pt. ) Block 1018 80z_u 80 3 (pt.) Block 3018 Block 3028 Block 3058 Block 306 Block 3078 Block 3088 ' Block 309 Block 3108 Block 320 Block 321 Block 322 Bo 5 (pt.) Block 5018 Block 502 Block 5030 Block 5068 Block 510E Block 511 Tract 201.03 (pt. ) Bo 1 (pt. ) " Block 1010 Block 101E Block 102 tsaaL Block 103 Block 1060 Block 110 Block 111 �{ Block 112 i = Block 113 Block 11.4 Block 1158 i' 1.0Ju Population by Uu14 4u;. of Race and I %JNuIaLIUi Hispanic liuusing n; Total (Apri 1 I, Housing lyyul Units; Acreage woo 1 1 lams Page kunty IPonuIatIon data a b_lect to revlslool 39 1 I I Codel Total I Total Persol.d by Race I 1 I Non-Hlsoanlcs by Race j_ I I llous ing l 1 White I IAmerlo. l Black IIndlan I I Asian I I OtherrjHl I 1 01 21 0 2 : 0 0 0 0 0 .01 span. I 0 White 1 Black 0 I Other 0 I Units IAcreaae 01 01 13.8 1 81 1 3 0 0 0 0 01 51 0 5 2 3 0 01 11 24.0 461 • I 131 45 10 0 1 0 01 3 42 0 0 01. 31 11. 91 54.6 36.8 I 91 9 0 0 0 0� 31 3 10 0 01 51 50.2 I 451 ' 41 38 0 0 0 0 0 01 71 3 7 6 38 0 0 01 31 01 181 10.4 998.3 1 161 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 11 0 1 4 0 01 21 90.4 I 121 12 0 0 0 01 0 15 12 0 0 OI 71 01 51 714.1 15.1 1 01 31 0 3 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 15.6 • I 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 3 3 0 0 01 11 01 11 3 3•. 4 62.6 i 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 01 01 32.4 ' 01 71 0• 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 01 22.2 4.2 211 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 01 6 0 1 21 • • 0 0 01 21 01 81 8.2 464.3 1 211 1 3551 21 341 0 7 0 6 0 1 01 01 0 21 :' 0 01 81 464.3 I 321 32 0 0 0 01 21 0 326• 32 7 0 11 1191 01 121 1280.5 16.3 321 1 1401 32 133 0 ; 0 0 6 0 1 01 01 0 10 32 0 01 121 16.3 261 25 0 0 1 01 129 0 11 471 202.6 0 25 0 11 91 23.2 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 1 231 11I 23 11 0 0 0 01 4 19 0 01 71 01 81 17.3 27.9 01 0 0 0 0, 0 01 0 11 0 01 31 6.9 I 01 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 1.0 1 01 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 01 1.2 4.0 d I 361 1 11 30 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 01 01 6 0 30 0 01 121 27.7 I 01 I 1831 0 176 0 7 0 0 01 0 1 0 0 0 01 11 01 01 6.9 1.2 41 4 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 11 165 7 01 601 1061.5 1 31 I 541 0 3 0 0 01 0 0. 4 0 0 3 01 11 01 11 89.2 2.7 .• 1 01 50 0 4 0 0 0 0 01 3 47 4 of 201 617.7 CA 1 491 i 731 49 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 49 0 0 01 01 01 141 3.7 208.3 1, 3581 73 1,318 0 12 0 7 0 10 01 111 8 38 65 1,292 0 12 01 241 161 4691 139.9 29160.0 I 5121 2331 503 227 0 0 1 0.1• 4 3 41 31 7 500 0 51 1711 1374.1 41 4 0 0 0 01 3 0 227 4 0 31 Oil 1020.5 I 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 01 11 01 01 16.6 24.5 51• 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 5 0 01 01 61.3 I 271 I 581 27 0 0 0 01 0 27 0 0 01 21 01 91 34.8 20.0 I 361 57 35 0 0 0 0 1 0 01 11 3 1 54 0 11 171 38.3 341 34 0 0 0 01 0 35 34 0 0 01 151 01 111 15.6 17.5 801• I 351 79 35 0 0 1 0 0 01, 0 79 0 11 251 54.6 0 Of 0 35 0 01 101 69.7 1 4 Q. Ju �hav- Council Meeting Date: 03/26/96 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET II SUBJECT Resolution authorizing the submission of a Texas Community Development Program application to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. ITEM SUMMARY Two of the objectives of the Community Development program are to improve public facilities (infrastructure) to meet basic human needs and to improve housing conditions. In the first public hearing held on March 19, 1996, comments from the public were received about the need for affordable housing for low to moderate income persons, as well as concern for maintaining sound infrastructure in qualified grant funding areas. The staff is recommending submission of an application for a water line replacement from University Avenue (12th Street) to 17th Street. This project has already been identified as a priority in the CIP and will meet funding criteria established by the grant program. The project must compete with similar projects throughout the CAPCO area for the projected $2.4 million in available funding. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The staff will be participating in a grant application workshop on April 19, 1996, held by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs dealing with HOME Investment Partnership program. This program would enable the City to focus on housing rehabilitation and other affordable housing options and compete for funds specifically allocated for funding of housing -related programs. FINANCIAL IMPACT The resolution, as recommended, will commit the City to $31,500 of matching funds from the Water Utility Fund as match for this grant application. COMMENTS None ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution Submitted By: Hartley Sappington, Director of Community Services RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ACT AS THE CITY' S CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE CITY' S PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. WIlEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown desires to develop a viable urban community, including decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low/moderate income; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown desires to develop a viable urban community, including decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low/moderate income; and WI1EREAS, certain conditions exist which represent a threat to the public health and safety; and WHEREAS, it is necessary and in the best interests of the City of Georgetown to apply for funding under the Texas Community Development Program; 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 Utilities/Energy Policy 2 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element, which states: "The City will establish utility policies which take into consideration the needs of all citizens of the community and will take necessary precautions to prevent harmful ecological impact on the environment'' 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. TCDP Resolution No. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 2: A Texas Community Development Program application for Community Development Funds is hereby authorized to be filed on behalf of the City with the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, and that the City's application be placed in competition for funding under the Community Development Plan. SECTION 3 : The application shall be for $157,000 of grant funds to carry out construction activities and project engineering, and the City of Georgetown commits $31,500 from its Water Utility Fund as a cash contribution to be matched with Texas Community Development Funds to be used for project engineering and project administration. SECTION 4: The City Council directs and designates the Mayor as the City's Chief Executive Officer and Authorized Representative to act in all matters in connection with this application and the City's participation in the Texas Community Development Program. SECTION 5. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of , 1996. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN Attest: Leo Wood Mayor Approved as to form: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney TCDP Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 Sandra D. Lee City Secretary Council meeting date: 3-26-96 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consideration of a resolution calling a Special Election to increase the sales tax by one-half percent for the purpose of enhancing the City parks and recreation facilities and programs. ITEM SUMMARY In the 1995-96 Budget, the following provision was adopted: Facilities and Services End: The City has park facilities and recreational programs which meet the leisure needs of citizens. Means: (95-96) Study feasibility of adopting a sales and use tax for parks and recreation. Consequently, the Parks and Recreation Board, with the help of Southwestern University, developed a survey to determine the needs of citizens with respect to park and recreation facilities and programs and determine if a half -cent sales tax would be supported. A mail -in survey was sent to 6,000 citizens within the City of Georgetown, with 1,214 citizens responding to date (over 20% return rate). Results are as follows: 779 in favor of the tax, 388 opposing the tax, 47 uncommitted --a 2 to 1 ratio in favor of the half -cent sales tax. The half -cent sales tax would bring in approximately $900,000 a year to build and maintain new facilities and service programs for parks and recreation in the City. The money could also be used as matching funds for various parks and recreation grants. COMMENTS Special thanks to Professor Dirk Early, the Southwestern University economics classes, and the Parks and Recreation Board. ATTACHMENTS 1. Parks and Recreation Survey 2. Parks and Recreation Survey Results 3. Proposed Resolution r itted byX_ Bob Hart, City Manager Parks & Recreation Survey Spring 1996 In the spring of 1996 Georgetown's Parks and Recreation Department asked the citizens of Georgetown to participate in a survey to help plan for future park improvements. Questions were asked to determine what park improvements were in the greatest demand and to determine if there is support for a small sales tax increase to fund the park improvements. The following is a brief highlight of the findings of this survey. 1. What park improvements are in the greatest demand? Degree of Desire: Ordered by degree of desire (Most desirable to least desirable.) Valid Label Mean Std Dev N 1012 1017 Add or improve restrooms 2.24 1.44 Add security lights 2.26 1.44 Add drinking fountains 2.36 1.44 1.58 1015 Expand bike and hike trails along N. and S. corridors of the river 2.40 1009 Expand joint use facilities between schools and parks 2.43 1.49 1.42 1005 Add or expand picnic facilities 2.44 1002 1012 Develop more neighborhood parks 2.53 1.52 1.60 Create a new regional park W. of IH 35 2.57 1023 Build indoor, heated swimming pool 2.59 1.67 1.54 1034 1021 Build small outdoor amphitheater for plays/concerts 2.67 Improve access (ADA standards) 2.74 1.52 1000 Add playground equipment 2.79 1.52 992 Construct mini -playgrounds for toddlers and young children 2.85 1.55 997 Offer summer crafts for children in neighborhood parks 2.86 1.48 1009 Build a nature center 2.99 1.51 1011 Offer crafts and recreational activities for senior citizens 2.99 1.46 1011 Offer games and activities in neighborhood parks 3.04 1.49 998 Construct a therapy pool 3.17 1.53 1013 Build additional and/or renovate current Pony -Court baseball fields 3.41 1.42 993 Build soccer complex 3.47 1.43 997 Add sand volleyball courts 3.48 1.43 991 Build a new softball complex 3.54 1.41 1.44 1000 990 Add or expand basketball courts 3.55 The following gives the fraction of respondents that indicated each level of desire for the ten most demanded improvements. .6 .5 .4 3 `\ o a LL .2 .1 0 Strong Some Little None Interest in Improving Restroom Facilities .6 .5 .4 c 0 3 \ u m LL 2 1 \ \ 0 Strong Some Llttle None Interest in More Drinking Fointains .6 5 .4 3 .2 1 0 Strong Some Little None Interest in Security Lighting 6 .5 4 3 2 \\ 0 � Strong Some ittle None Interest In Expanding Hike and 81ke Trails .6 .5 .4 c 0 .3 .2 1 0 Strong Some Little None Interest in Joint Use Programs between Schools and Parks .6 5 .6 Strong Some Little N Interest in Indoor, Heated Swimming Pool .6 F7 4 3 2 1 0 Strong Some Little None Interest in Expanding Picnic Facilities 6 5 Strong some Little Nonz Interest in Pegional Parks West of IH35 6 5 4 Strong Some Little None Interest in an Outdoor Amphitheater for Plays and Concerts Degree of Desire: Ordered by degree of desire within each group. Valid Label Mean I Std Dev N EXISTING PARKS: Add or improve restrooms 2.24 1.44 1012 Add security lights 2.26 1.44 1017 Add drinking fountains 2.36 1.44 1015 Add or expand picnic facilities 2.44 1.42 1002 Improve access (ADA standards) 2.74 1.52 1000 Add playground equipment 2.79 1.52 992 Add sand volleyball courts 3.48 1.43 991 Add or expand basketball courts 3.55 1.44 990 RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES: Expand joint use facilities between schools and parks 2.43 1.49 1005 Offer summer crafts for children in neighborhood parks 2.86 1.48 1009 Offer crafts and recreational activities for senior citizens 2.99 1.46 1011 Offer games and activities in neighborhood parks 3.04 1.49 998 POSSIBLE NEW PARKS/FACILITIES: Expand B/H trails along N. and S. corridors of the River 2.40 1.58 1009 Develop more neighborhood parks 2.53 1.52 1012 Create a new regional park W. of IH 35 2.57 1.60 1023 Build indoor, heated swimming pool 2.59 1.67 1034 Build small outdoor amphitheater for plays/concerts 2.67 1.54 1021 Construct mini -playgrounds for toddlers and young children 2.85 1.55 997 Build a nature center 2.99 1.51 1011 Construct a therapy pool 3.17 1.53 1013 Build additional and/or renovate current Pony -Court baseball fields 3.41 1.42 993 Build soccer complex 3.47 1.43 997 Build a new softball complex 3.54 1.41 1000 2. Is there support for a sales tax increase to fund park improvements? The following graph shows what fraction of those who responded to the survey would vote.for the tax increase (yes), against the tax increase (no), are undecided (uncertain) or gave no answer (NA). 70 60 WII you �deforfttaxinc cease? no yes uncertain 14A VOTE As the above chart shows 63 percent of respondents indicated they would vote for a sales tax increase to fund park improvements, 33 percent indicated they would vote against and the remaining 4 percent were either uncertain or gave no response. Of the 1153 responses, 382 indicated that they planned to vote no, 724 indicated that they planned to vote yes, 27 were undecided and 20 did not answer the question. Younger households had the strongest support for the sales tax increase and support fell as age of the respondent increased. .8 .6 4 V 2 QQ mAc,nCN VCSTING'Ym (YAM .::.::::..... ., r-:Laio: ........... yr: i{{..... - r:_t: _ ............ ............... :.....: w:... .............. ..nix :..:.i'-?='.::-::r.: -.: :vv. ':-FFrFFr • •fk::i: _ .. ::.:.: {.:;:-{:::r:r.}-: .......:::r........... ::y..:.-.,......:::•. ;' FFFFS?::.:..:.. r....r. ?f":f:-..-........ :.•v:}::.�r--..•;}?}}>:?:,: " ?tC r.:::::: xr::rr .::::: ........ <:•: ....- :ova{-: s.r. rr: r::. r: r:.:rr.•:.; .;{ ............ ......... :...i-::._:::::..:. ::......r::::::.- .a-.: - t 4}.:.. ff'xF...a?::?-:: ..,t..r ..........-4r?•:4;iia}?: ->.:..r..... fffl<:::;i rrr .�..vx......rr� .s. v::.�?-?.{{::i?i{iYt{y _-: v:tty...y... = --Y•!-: it - ri:,fr ......... -fSSYS 'a:tyv n:.............. ...................... .... xv.::. _ _ -r:........: vv ry, .:::..? :::::: _r:::ti }r . iS: Cu+Y4:�:S:iv�: ....... Le.;t.'.i-:... _{r ]jj -�:Tii:::i::�ili{?.:i > L+-} i - .v{-:.r4:.: - - - ..............:...... ........ .. -:::. ...... n....... ..-. ........a:.a.........• is ivr. 5................. . vvnv.:v-}:•iY: iify-S}} } ...it-•{:r:.: •-:..-.:-: {. -{vvvvw:.:4di{4::-: ... .... ......v. - -ii}T} •}-:.v vva. :rr: rr.. a... .......... - i•.SYraYi :.:.4x:.v :. - : r:::_::..... ... :::sv� - ......?.....?rr: - _- ................ " " " '(ii':i{rr •{r{{{?t>i'} r::rjf$f'}}Y: Svc :4:• iF :.•. wxr::x >r=::. ?4S{{vi4:{{-ii•: ri: '•:?-:s r} Li-::`:F; FF::{•:. 1;r ha-..vv::.v: -: • f • : va.{, 'L:;avii-i tiv .vaS4;-}r t-'}f}. }} `.:S:L!!5:: {i..{t if'Sf:v�: - ni.,.:._h.v.Y: .-.{r i4jf}S:• i:: .-s..r.4 ...}....C...-r. a}. F':.?r. __ _ _:r: h::x ay.... s.S +F�ji:4:?:ii{ii�{Yi-FY 4...... _ __ _ ftt n. - - - t.v r..::.zv: ri..Yr}:::::: - ,f!: .rfa - :n sa;.}:::?}?????}??}?} tv......r .: vt# ..:?:?:•::-. - .......... _ .............. 30OR tlTJIR R aTrW 40'49 N66 60-69 70-79 8489 90+ A(ECAIEGCR' AGE GROUP NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS NUMBER VOTING YES PERCENT VOTING YES 29 or younger 175 111 63.4 30-39 248 190 76.6 40-49 230 163 70.9 50-59 151 93 61.6 60-69 163 88 54.0 70-79 117 58 49.6 80-89 47 21 44.7 90 + 2 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION ON MAY 49 19969 TO SEEK VOTER RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION OF INCREASING THE SALES TAX IN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN BY ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT. WIIEREAS, the Georgetown City Council has called a General Election for Saturday, May 4, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Georgetown City Council has been made aware of the results of a survey sent to 6,000 Georgetown citizens requesting their input regarding the increase of the sales tax by one-half of one percent to be used for the purpose of enhancing the City Parks and Recreation programs and facilities. 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 Recreation and Cultural Affairs Policy 1 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element, which states: "The City shall encourage all citizens to actively participate in community - wide social, cultural, and recreational activities" and Recreation and Cultural Affairs Policy 2 which states: "The City will assist in providing all its citizens the opportunity to participate in recreational and cultural programs;" 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. In consideration of the favorable results of the citizen survey, a Special Election will be held in conjunction with the General Election on May 4, 1996, to allow the citizens of Georgetown to decide on an increase of the sales tax by one-half of one percent, the revenue of which will be used to support programs and facilities of the Parks and Recreation Division of the City of Georgetown. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. Sales Tax Resolution No. Page 1 of 2 RESOLVED this day of , 1996. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN Attest: Leo Wood, Mayor Approved as to form: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Sales Tax Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary Council meeting March 26s 1996 Item No. / l A AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Rezoning of 6.0 Acres in the Antonio Flores Survey, locally known as Centex Butane, From RS, Residential Single Family to I, Industrial, located on Old Airport Road ITEM SUMMARY: The subject parcel of land is presently zoned RS, Residential Single Family, which restricts its use to single family residential purposes. A portion of the site is presently occupied by several butane storage tanks. This is a legal non -conforming use given that it existed before the property was annexed. The applicant proposes to relocate the Centex Butane retail operation from its site at the intersection of Austin Avenue and Valley Street to the subject parcel. With the exception of the GISD Chip Richarte Learning Center and some legal non- conforming residential areas, the proposed rezoning of this property is compatible with the surrounding industrial and commercial uses. Given that this property is adjacent to IH35, it is not appropriate for residential development. In fact, the property to the east was rezoned in 1993 for the very reason that it is not appropriate for residential development and had already been developed primarily for commercial and industrial purposes. Prior to any development approvals, however, the subject parcel will need to be rezoned to I, Industrial. Thus, rezoning this property from Residential Single Family to Industrial will accurately reflect the nature of the proposed development. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL MWACT: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: At their regular meeting of March 5, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning of 6.0 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey as recorded in Volume 565, Page 328, from RS, Residential Single Family to I, Industrial. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and attached exhibits. Submitted By: Edward harry, Al P - Director Divisio of Develop ent Services Hildy L. gma, AICP Chief Planner Council meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. LL AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration and first reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the City of approximately 2.821 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey, consisting of right-of-way and public utility easement for a portion of the proposed Northwest Boulevard between Northwood Drive and Whisper Oaks Drive. ITEM SUMMARY: On January 9, 1996, the City Council passed a resolution to adopt the proposed service plans and set the public hearing dates for the annexation of approximately 80.3 acres in the Nicholas Porter and David Wright Surveys, located north of Williams Drive (RM2338) and south of Lakeway Drive. The 2.821 acres described in this ordinance, the right- of-way and public utility easement for a proposed portion of Northwest Boulevard, are within the 80.3 acre area. Two (2) public hearings were held, on February 13, 1996 and on February 27, 1996, as required by State law to describe and receive comments on the City's plans for providing services to the annexation areas. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: The service plan, which is to be adopted as a part of the annexation ordinance, describes the City services to be provided to the areas. COMMENTS: The property owners have agreed to voluntary annexation of this property. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance and exhibits. Submitted B,, Edward J. Barry, AICP / Director Division df Developme � t Services Clyde von Rosenber CP Chief Planner, Long Range Planning ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AND THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE, CONSISTING OF: APPROXIMATELY 2.821 ACRES IN THE NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, CONSISTING OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED NORTHWEST BOULEVARD BETWEEN NORTHWOOD DRIVE AND WHISPER OAKS DRIVE, WHICH SAID TERRITORY LIES ADJACENT TO AND ADJOINS THE PRESENT BOUNDARY LIMIT OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS AND NOT BEING A PART OF ANY INCORPORATED AREA; PROVIDING FOR SERVICE PLANS; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, may under the Charter of said City, Section 1.06, annex areas as allowed by State law; and WHEREAS, notices of two (2) public hearings were published according to law in a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Georgetown, Texas, and in the herein described territory to be annexed not more than twenty (20) days nor less than ten (10) days prior to those hearings; and WHEREAS, two public hearings by the City of Georgetown, Texas, where all interested persons were provided with an opportunity to be heard on the proposed annexation of certain tracts of land located in Williamson County, Texas, including the following tracts: APPROXIMATELY 80.3 ACRES IN THE NICHOLAS PORTER AND DAVID WRIGHT SURVEYS, LOCATED NORTH OF WILLIAMS DRIVE (RM2338) AND SOUTH OF LAKEWAY DRIVE; were held, the first being on the 13th day of February, 1996, and the second being on the 27th day of February, 1996; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way and public utility easement described in Exhibit A of this ordinance: APPROXIMATELY 2.821 ACRES IN THE NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, were included within the approximately 80.3 acres which were the subject of the notices and public hearings for the proposed annexation; WHEREAS, at such public hearings, a proposed service plan was presented to and discussed by the Council and all interested persons; and Annexation of 2.821 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey consisting of a portion of the proposed Northwest Boulevard Ordinance No. Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, such public hearings were held not more than forty (40) nor fewer than twenty (20) days prior to the institution of these proceedings; and WHEREAS, the total corporate area of the City of Georgetown, Texas, on the 1st day of January, 1996, was approximately 15.8 square miles; and WHEREAS, the population of the City of Georgetown, Texas includes approximately 18,500 inhabitants; and WHEREAS, all of the herein -described property lies within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown, Texas; and WHEREAS, the herein -described property lies adjacent and contiguous to the City of Georgetown, Texas; and WHEREAS, all notices and other prerequisites of state law and the City Charter have been complied with; 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. 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"; Annexation of 2.821 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey consisting of a portion of the proposed Northwest Boulevard Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4 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 City Council of the City of Georgetown hereby annexes: APPROXIMATELY 2.821 ACRES IN THE NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY CONSISTING OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE PORTION OF THE PROPOSED NORTHWEST BOULEVARD BETWEEN NORTHWOOD DRIVE AND WHISPER OAKS DRIVE as described in Exhibit A of this ordinance, which contains maps, descriptions, and the service plans for the area. SECTION 3. The property owners and qualified voters in the area to be annexed have provided the City of Georgetown with a signed request for the voluntary annexation of this area. SECTION 4. The annexation fees for voluntary annexation are hereby waived. SECTION 5. 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 6. 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 7. 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. Annexation of 2.821 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey consisting of a portion of the proposed Northwest Boulevard Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4 PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 26th day of March, 1996. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the _th day of , 1996. ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Annexation of 2.821 acres in the Nicholas Porter Survey consisting of a portion of the proposed Northwest Boulevard Ordinance No. Page 4 of 4 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: LEO WOOD Mayor EXHIBIT A, Page -1 of 28 IRC45 December 29, 1995 RONALD CARROLL SURVEYORS 5302 Sounl 31 sT TEMPLE, TExns 76502 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED NORTHWEST BOULEVARD, TRACT A TEMPLE (817) 773-1447 KILLEEN (817) 526-0117 Part of the NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, Abstract Number 497, situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, and embracing a portion of the tract described in the deed to Frances Jean Brossett recorded in volume 1861, page 208 of the Williamson County Deed Records. Commencing at a 1/2 inch iron rod found in the east right-of-way line of Northwest Blvd., a 70 feet road as it appears upon the map of REATA EAST, a Subdivision situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, as it appears upon the map recorded in Cabinet F, Slide 90 of the Williamson County Plat Records, said iron rod being the southwest corner of Lot 131 Block C of said REATA EAST, and being in the north line of a tract described in the deed to Irene W. Parker Trust recorded in volume 410, page 374 of said Deed Records, and then run south 58 degrees east along the north line of the Parker tract, for the south line of said Lot 13, REATA EAST, 20-31/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for the northwest corner of said Brossett tract, and then run south 32 degrees-10 minutes west alone the west line of said Brossett tract, 56-93/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set for the northerly and beginning corner of the right-of-way tract being described. Thence south 32 degrees-10 minutes west continuing along the west line of said Brossett tract, 82-68/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for an angle point in the south line of said Brossett tract, (deed call is south 37 degrees-40 minutes west). Thence south 18 degrees-17 minutes east along the south line of said Brossett tract, 96-82/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set, being in a curve to the right whose radius is 465 feet, (deed call is south 12 degrees-53 minutes east). Thence northeasterly along said curve to the right, 163-33/100 feet to the place of beginning and containing 0-05/100 of an acre, the long chord of said 163-33/100 feet arc is north 4 degrees-49 minutes east 162-5/10 feet. Basis of bearings is taken from the south line of said REATA EAST SUBDIVISION, being the north line of said Brossett tract, as south 58 degrees east. See attached 24 inch by 36 inch Master Drawing that accompanies these field notes. Surveyed December 29, 1995 RON D CARROLL SURVE S - OF Ronald Carroll RONALD CARROLL 2025 su S. -'A 95FN2\SURV\GEO-NW EXHIBIT A, Page 2 of 28 ww a as l 0 l t(i Q L l U U U U U U _ Q Q Q Q Q Q q C C C C C C c o a g o o a U L � h h O to O O�ONO vOj < �i �Nhvm W 4i 4itl� 4i jJjj 4CR,o_4 .rracf �'„ ti� lttj� Cb � / u 0 / t i � a E Ot R t y December 29, 1995 EXHIBIT A, Page 3 of 28 RONALD CARROLL SURVEYORS 5302 Soum 31sr TEMPLE (817) 773-1447 TEMPLE, TExns 76502 KILLEEN (817) 526-01 17 Page 1 of 2 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED NORTHWEST BOULEVARD, TRACT B Part of the NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, Abstract Number 497, situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, and embracing a portion of the tract described in the deed to Irene W. Parker Trust recorded in volume 410, page 374 of the Williamson County Deed Records. Commencing at a 1/2 inch iron rod found in the east right-of-way line of Northwest Blvd., a 70 feet right-of-way road as it appears upon the map of REATA EAST, a Subdivision situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, as it appears upon the map recorded in Cabinet F, Slide 90 of the Williamson County Plat Records, said iron rod being the southwest corner of Lot 13, Block C of said REATA EAST, and being in the north line said Parker Tract, and then run south 58 degrees east (basis of bearing and plat call) along the south line of said Lot 13, Block C of REATA EAST, for the north line of said Parker tract, 20-31/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for the northwest corner of a tract described in the deed to Frances Jean Brossett recorded in volume 1861, page 208 of said Deed Records, and being the northeast and beginning corner of the right-of-way tract being described. Thence south 32 degrees-10 minutes west along the west line of said Brossett,tract, 139-61/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for an angle point in the south line of said Brossett tract (deed call is south 37 degrees-40 minutes west). Thence south 18 degrees-17 minutes east along the south line of said Brossett tract, 147-36/100 to a 5/8 inch iron rod set for the northwest corner of a tract described in the deed to Rondald W. Parker, et al recorded in volume 1292, page 145 of said Deed Records, (deed call is south 12 degrees-53 minutes east). Thence south 44 degrees-10 minutes west along the west line of said Rondald Parker tract, 92-33/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set, being in a curve to the right whose radius is 535 feet, (deed call is south 46 degrees-51 minutes west). Thencenortheasterly along said curve to the right, 377-61/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set in the north line of said Irene Parker Trust tract, for the south line of said REATA EAST SUBDIVISION, the long chord of said 377-61/100 feet arc is north 3 degrees-11 minutes east 369-82/100 feet, from said 5/8 inch iron rod set a 1/2 inch iron rod found for the southeast corner of Lot.2, Block A of said REATA EAST SUBDIVISION, being in the existing west right-of-way line of Northwest Blvd. bears north 58 degrees west 5-55/100 feet. EXHIBIT A, Page 4 of 28 Page 2 of 2 December 291 1995 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED NORTHWEST BOULEVARD, TRACT B Thence south 58 degrees east along the south line of said REATA EAST SUBDIVISION, for the north line of said Irene Parker Trust tract, 84-76/100 feet to the place of beginning and containing 0-49/100 of an acre. Basis of bearings is taken from the south line of said REATA EAST SUBDIVISION, being the north line of said Brossett tract, as south 58 degrees east. See attached 24 inch by 36 inch Master Drawing that accompanies these field notes. Surveyed December 29, 1995 RON CARROLL SURVEYORS OF Ronald Carroll AP a r . + 17 RONALD CARROLL �? 2025 •�J4' +:••O� 9 95FN2\SURV\GEO-NW 9O �p000 / EXHIBIT A, Page 5 of 28 0 5� 4 � � A A tl tl <�GO •4 EXHIBIT A, Page 6 of 28 E... . - .1.1 h. RONALD CARROLL SURVEYORS ;S302 SOVTii 31s-r TEMPLE(a17)173-1447 1 CNIPLE., Ttx.zs 76502 KintEN (817) 52C)-0I 1.7 Page 1 of 2 December 29, 1995 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: RIGHT -OP -WAY OF PROPOSED NORTHWEST BOULEVARD, TRACT C Part of the NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, Abstract Number 497, situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, and embracing a portion of the tract described in the deed to Rondald W. Parker, et al recorded in volume 1292, page 145 of the Williamson County Deed Records. Commencing at a 1/2 inch iron rod found in the east. right--of-way line of Northwest glvd., a 70 feet right-of-way road as it appears upon the map of REATA EAST, a Subdivision situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, as it appears upon. the map recorded in Cabinet F, Slide 9p of the Williamson county Plat Records, said iron rod being the southwest corner of Lot 13, Block C of said REATA EAST, and being in the north line of a tract described in the deed to Irene W. Parker Trust recorded in volume 410, page 374 of said Deed Records, then run south 58 degrees east 20-31/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for the northwest corner of a tract described in the deed to Frances Jean Brossett recorded in volume 1861., page 208 of said Deed Records; and then run south 32 degrees-10 minutes west along the west line of said Brossett tract, at 56-93/100 feet pass a 5/8 inch iron rod set, in all, a distance of 139-61/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for the southwest corner of said Brossett tract, ( deed call is south 37 degrees-40 minutes west); and then run south 18 degrees-17 minutes east at 96-82/100 feet pass a 5/8 inch iron rod set., and continue in all., 147-36/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rodset for the northwest corner of said Rondald Parker tract, and being the northwest and beginning corner of the right-of-way tract being described, (deed call is south 12 degrees-53 minutes east). Thence south 18 degrees-1.7 minutes east along the south line of said Brossett tract, for the north line of said Rondald Parker tract, at 159-23/100 feet pass a 5/8 inch iron rod set, and continue in all, 262-74/1.00 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for an angle point in the common line of said Brossett and Rondald Parker tract, (deed call is south 15 degrees-34 minutes west). Thence south 61 degrees-24 minutes east along the south line of said Brossett tract, for the north line of said Rondald Parker tract, 360-33/ 100 feet to 1/2 inch iron rod found for an angle point in said Brossett and Rondald Parker tracts, (deed call is south 58 degrees-42 minutes east). Thence south 76 degrees-16 minutes-30 seconds east along the common line of said Brossett and Rondald Parker tracts, 98-9/1.0 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set, being in a curve to the right whose radius is 785 feet, (deed call is south 73 degree8 _32 minutes east). Thence southeasterly along said curve to the. right, 381--95/1.00 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set in the east line of said Rondald Parker- tract, and being in the west line of Lot 1, Block 5 of NORTHWOOD OAKS, an addition in the City of Georgetown, in Williamson county, Texas, as it EXHIBIT A, Page 7 of 28 Page 2 of 2 December 291 1995 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: (continued) RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED NORTHWEST BOULEVARD, TRACT C appears upon the map recorded in Cabinet C, Slide 180 of said Plat Records, the long chord of said 381-95/100 feet arc is south 42 degrees-10 minutes east 378-19/100. Thence south 12 degrees-17 minutes west along the west line of said Lot 1, Block 5 of NORTHWOOD OAKS, for the east line of said Rondald Parker tract, 2-13/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod set for the southwest corner of said Lot 1, Block 5 of NORTHWOOD OAKS, and being in the north line of Northwest Blvd., also being an angle point in the east line of said Rondald Parker tract, (deed call is south 14 degrees-28 minutes-30 seconds west). Thence north 84 degrees-43 minutes west along the east line of said Rondald Parker tract, for the west line of NORTHWOOD OAKS Addition, 83-98/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set, being in a curve to the left whose radius is 715 feet, from said 5/8 inch iron rod set, a 1/2 inch iron rod found for an angle point in the east line of said Rondald Parker tract, being the northwest corner of Lot 9, Block 4 of said NORTHWOOD OAKS bears north 84 degrees-43 minutes west 16-65/100 feet, (deed call is north 82 degrees-06 minutes west). Thence northwesterly along said curve to the left, 499-14/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set at the end of said curve to the left, and being at the beginning of a curve to the right whose radius is 535 feet, the long chord of said 499-14/100 feet arc is north 51 degrees-49 minutes west 489-06/100 feet. Thence northwesterly along said curve to the right, 511-5/10 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set in the west line of said Rondald Parker tract, the long chord of said 511-5/10 feet arc is north 44 degrees-25 minutes-30 seconds west 492-24/100 feet. Thence north 44 degrees-10 minutes east along the west line of said Rondald Parker tract, 92-33/100 feet to the place of beginning and containing 1-50/100 acres, (deed call is north 46 degrees-51 minutes east) . Basis of bearings is taken from the south line of said REATA EAST SUBDIVISION, being the north line of said Brossett tract, as south 58 degrees east. See attached 24 inch by 36 inch Master Drawing that accompanies these field notes. Surveyed December 29, 1995 RON CARROLL SURVEYORS OF Ronald Carroll '�P �.°� a rE �•'.9, ROI ALD CARROLL r p 2025 �; sua'� 95FN2\SURV\GEO-NW 2 a N09TO ,if, EXHIBIT A, Page 8 of 28 US a t I a e o e 0 0 0 0 0 p c�nr�om o��NO h 00000 'j �Nr7 vv� 22222 W Wwt1i4i Jtijjj C:44Cia: E, 01 . I Lqj EXHIBIT A, Page 9 of 28 RONALD CARROLL SURVEYORS 5302 SourH 31ST TEMPLE (817) 773-1447 TEMPLE, TExns 76502 KILLEEN (817) 526-0117 Page 1 of 2 December 29, 1995 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED NORTHWEST BOULEVARD, TRACT D Part of the NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, Abstract Number 497, situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, and embracing a portion of the tract described in the deed to Frances Jean Brossett recorded in volume 1861, page 208 of the Williamson County Deed Records. Commencing at a 1/2 inch iron rod found in the east right-of-way line of Northwest Blvd., a 70 feet road as it appears upon the map of REATA EAST, a subdivision situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, as it appears upon the map recorded in Cabinet F, Slide 90 of Williamson County Plat Records, said iron rod being the southwest corner of Lot 13, Block C of said REATA EAST, and being in the north line of a tract described in the deed to Irene W. Parker Trust recorded in volume 410, page 374 of said Deed Records, then run south 58 degrees east (basis of bearings and plat call) 20-31/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for the northwest corner of said Brossett tract, and then run south 32 degrees-10 minutes west along the west line of said Brossett tract, at 56-93/100 feet pass a 5/8 inch iron rod set, and continue in all, 139-61/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for an angle point in the west line of said Brossett tract, (deed call is south 37 degrees-40 minutes west); and then run south 18 degrees-17 minutes east along the southwesterly line of said Brossett tract, at 96-82/100 feet pass a 5/8 inch iron rod set, at 147-36/100 feet pass a 5/8 inch iron rod set for the northwest corner of a tract described in the deed to Rondald W. Parker, et al recorded in volume 1292, page 145 of said Deed Records, in all, 306-59/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set in a curve to the left whose radius is 465 feet for the northwest and beginning corner of the tract being described, (deed call is south 15 degrees-34 minutes west). Thence southeasterly along said curve to the left 328-66/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set at the end of said curve to the left, and being at the beginning of a curve to the right whose radius is 785 feet, the long chord of said 328-66/100 feet arc is south 51 degrees-34 minutes east 321-87/100 feet. Thence southeasterly along said curve to the right, 215-22/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set in the south line of said Brossett tract, and being in the north line of said Rondald Parker tract, the long chord of said 215-22/100 feet arc is south 63 degrees-57 minutes-45 seconds east 214-55/100 feet. Thence north 76 degrees-16 minutes-30 seconds west along the south line of said Brossett tract, 98-9/10 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for an angle point in the south line of said Brossett tract, and being in the north line of said Rondald Parker tract, (deed call is north 73 degrees-32 minutes west). EXHIBIT A, Page 10 of 28 Page 2 of 2 December 29, 1995 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: (continued) RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED NORTHWEST BOULEVARD, TRACT D Thence north 61 degrees-24 minutes west along the south line of said Brossett tract, for the north line of said Rondald Parker tract, 360-33/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for an angle point in said Brossett and Rondald Parker tracts, (deed call is north 58 degrees-42 minutes west). Thence north 18 degrees-17 minutes west continuing along the south line of said Brossett tract, for the north line of said Rondald Parker tract, 103-51/100 feet to the place of beginning and containing 0-20/100 of an acre, (deed call is north 15 degrees-34 minutes east). Basis of bearings is taken from the south line of said REATA EAST SUBDIVISION, being the north line of said Brossett tract, as south 58 degrees east. See attached 24 inch by 36 inch Master Drawing that accompanies these field notes. Surveyed December 29, 1995 RO D CARROLL SURVEYO S OF Ronald Carroll h RONALD CARROLL 2023 '�• t• 9.1.A�C,;S%o 0, C) Sup 95FN2\SURV\GEO-NW2 'DO O°° �s 2 EXHIBIT A, Page 11 of 28 �/ t t L uu u e m u ooQo o w h N 00�0 A M M tl <mG0 t u Q f� L v u u u u E Q C C C C o G h � ArihOm u O�ONO < h � o0000 0 N -N�v�� 22Z22 4iWWLid W jjJjj a40.a0. PIS December 29, 1995 EXHIBIT A, Page 12 of 28 RONALD CARROLL SURVEYORS 5302 Souni 31 sr TEMPLE (817) 773-1447 TEMPLE, TExns 76502 KJLLEEN (817) 526-0117 Page 1 of 2 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: PROPOSED 10 FEET PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR NORTHWEST BLVD. (NO. 1) Part of the NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, Abstract Number 497, situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, and embracing a portion of the tract described in the deed to Frances Jean Brossett recorded in volume 18611 page 208 of the Williamson County Deed Records. Commencing at a 1/2 inch iron rod found in the east right-of-way line of Northwest Blvd., a 70 feet road as it appears upon the map of REATA EAST, a subdivision situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, as it appears upon the map recorded in Cabinet F, Slide 90 of Williamson County Plat Records, said iron rod being the southwest corner of Lot 13, Block C of said REATA EAST, and being in the north line of a tract described in the deed to Irene W. Parker Trust recorded in volume 410, page 374 of said Deed Records, then run south 58 degrees east (basis of bearings and plat call) along the south line of the REATA EAST SUBDIVISION, for the north line of the Irene Parker Trust tract, 20-31/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for the northwest corner of said Brossett tract, and then run south 32 degrees-10 minutes west alone the west line of said Brossett tract, at 18-22/100 feet to a point being in a curve to the left whose radius is 455 feet for the northeast and beginning corner of the easement being described, (deed call is south 37 degrees-40 minutes west). Thence southwesterly along said curve to the left 257-85/100 feet to a point being in the south line of said Brossett tract, for the north line of a tract described in the deed to Rondald W. Parker, et al recorded in volume 1292 page g e 145 of said Deed Records the long chord of 257-85/100 feet arc is south 3 degrees-18 minutes west 254-41/100 feet. Thence north 18 degrees-17 minutes west along the south line of said Brossett tract, for the north line of said Rondald Parker tract, at 11-91/ 100 feet pass a 5/8 inch iron rod set for the northwest corner of said Rondald Parker tract, and continue in all, 62-45/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set in the beginning of a curve to the right whose radius is 465 feet, (deed call is north 15 degrees-34 minutes east). Thence northeasterly along said curve to the right, 163-33/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set in the west line of said Brossett tract, the long chord of said 163-33/100 feet arc is north 4 degrees-49 minutes east 162-5/10 feet. Thence north 32 degrees-10 minutes east along the west line of said Brossett tract, 38-71/100 feet to the place of beginning and containing 0-047/1000 of an acre. EXHIBIT A, Page 13 of 28 Page 2 of 2 December 29, 1995 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: (continued) PROPOSED 10 FEET PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR NORTHWEST BLVD. (NO. 1) Basis of bearings is taken from the south line of said REATA EAST SUBDIVISION, being the north line of said Brossett tract, as north 58 degrees west. See attached 24 inch by 36 inch Master Drawing that accompanies these field notes. Surveyed December 29, 1995 RON CARROLL SURVEYORS OF "Oft Ronald Carroll �`P� �t,�'►�o+17 RONALD CARROLL �9 2025 t: Q ��. SURO 95FN2\SURV\GEO-NW2 EXHIBIT A, Page 14 of 28 f �r 0o V ' �o° t 4 V o 4 F h 1 'o p ' '3 �`�S °o �c�3 �•1 t'f � �I •�o�o� 0 1 ;o.�� 1 ud�go vl \ y I N� cr s` o r � n a a V�' V ccze T - M.Ol.i15 1 to t 1 140 U U V < cant oo<o In000 o�rinN oo�o 1 M 1 1 <�C%o t3 1j 4 U l U Q U U U a a a a C Q O�QNO a 00000 N 4 1 ry 4 1 C\i �Nh�rv� 222t2� 4i jjjjJ 444.44 EXHIBIT A, Page 15 of 28 RONALD CARROLL SURVEYORS 5302 SoLrni 31 sr TEMPLE (817) 773-1447 TEMPLE, TExAs 76502 KILLEEN (817) 526-01 l7 Page 1 of 2 December 29, 1995 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: PROPOSED 10 FEET PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR NORTHWEST BLVD. (NO. 2) Part of the NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, Abstract Number 497, situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, and embracing a portion of the tract described in the deed to Frances Jean Brossett recorded in volume 1861, page 208 of the Williamson County Deed Records. Commencing at a 1/2 inch iron rod found in the east right-of-way line of Northwest Blvd., a 70 feet road as it appears upon the map of REATA EAST, a subdivision situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, as it appears upon the map recorded in Cabinet F. Slide 90 of Williamson County Plat Records, said iron rod being the southwest corner of Lot 13, Block C of said REATA EAST, and being in the north line of a tract described in the deed to Irene W. Parker Trust recorded in volume 410, page 374 of said Deed Records, then run south 58 degrees east (basis of bearings and plat call) 20-31/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for the northwest corner of said Brossett tract, and then run south 32 degrees-10 minutes west along the west line of said Brossett tract, at 56-93/100 feet pass a 5/8 inch iron rod set, and continue in all, 139-61/100 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for an angle point in the west line of.said Brossett tract, (deed call is south 37 degrees-40 minutes west); and then run south 18 degrees-17 minutes east along the southwesterly line of said Brossett tract, at 96-82/100 feet pass a 5/8 inch iron rod set, at 147-36/100 feet pass a 5/8 inch iron rod set, and continue in all, 232-23/100 feet to a point being at the beginning of a curve to the left whose radius is 455 feet for the northwest and beginning corner of the easement being described. Thence southeasterly along said curve to the left, 382-62/100 feet to a point at the end of said curve to the left, and being at the beginning of a curve to the right whose radius is 795 feet, the long chord of said 382-62/100 feet arc is south 47 degrees-43 minutes-30 seconds east 371-45/100 feet. Thence southeasterly along said curve to the right, 244-03/100 feet to a point in the south line of said Brossett tract, for the north line of a tract described in the deed to Rondald W. Parker, et al recorded in volume 1292, page 145 of said Deed Records, the long chord of said 244-03/100 feet arc is south 63 degrees-01 minutes-20 seconds east 243-07/100 feet. Thence north 76 degrees-16 minutes-30 seconds west along the south line of said Brossett tract, for the north line of said Rondald Parker tract, 27-77/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set, and being in a curve to the left whose radius is 785 feet, (deed call is north 73 degrees-32 minutes west). 0p0 L EXHIBIT A, Page 17 of 28 smUO EXHIBIT A, Page 18 of 28 RONALD CARROLL SURVEYORS 5302 So i 31 sT TEMPLE (817) 773-1447 TEMPLE, TExAs 76502 KILLEEN (817) 526-0117 Page 1 of 2 December 29, 1995 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, -Texas for: PROPOSED 10 FEET PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR NORTHWEST BLVD. (NO. 3) Part of the NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, Abstract Number 497, situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, and embracing a portion of the tract described in the deed to Rondald W. Parker, et al recorded in volume 1292, page 145 of the Williamson County Deed Records. Commencing at a 1/2 inch iron rod set in the north right-of-way line of Northwest Blvd., a 70 feet road as it appears upon the map of REATA EAST, a subdivision situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, as it appears upon the map recorded in Cabinet F. Slide 90 of Williamson County Plat Records, for the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 5 of NORTHWOOD OAKS, an Addition in the City of Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, as it appears upon the map recorded in Cabinet C, Slide 180 of said Plat Records, being an angle point in the east line of said Rondald Parker tract, and then run north 12 degrees-17 minutes east along the west line of said Block 5 of NORTHWOOD OAKS, for the east line of said Rondald Parker tract, 2-13/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set, being in a curve to the left whose radius is 785 feet, and being the southeast and beginning corner of the easement being described, (deed call is north 14 degrees-28 minutes-30 seconds east). Thence northwesterly along said curve to the left, 381-95/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set in the north line of said Rondald Parker tract, for the south line of a tract described in the deed to Frances Jean Brossett recorded in volume 1861, page 208 of Deed Records, the long chord of said 381-95/100 feet arc is north 42 degrees-10 minutes west 378-19/100 feet. Thence south 76 degrees-16 minutes-30 seconds east along the south line of said Brossett tract, for the north line of said Rondald Parker tract, 27-77/100 feet to a point being in a curve to the right whose radius is 795 feet, (deed call is south 73 degrees-32 minutes east). Thence southeasterly along said curve to the right, 349-14/100 feet to a point being in the west line of said Lot 1, Block 5 of NORTHWOOD OAKS, for the east line of said Rondald Parker tract, the long chord of said 349-14/100 feet arc is south 41 degrees-38 minutes-50 seconds east 346-34/100 feet. Thence south 12 degrees-17 minutes west along the west line of said Lot 1, Block 5 of NORTHWOOD OAKS, for the east line of said Rondald Parker tract, 15-26/100 feet to the place of beginning and containing 0-083/1000 of an acre, (deed call is south 14 degrees-28 minutes-30 seconds west) . EXHIBIT A, Page 19 of 28 Page 2 of 2 December 29, 1995 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, -Texas for: (continued) PROPOSED 10 FEET PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR NORTHWEST BLVD. (NO. 3) Basis of bearings is taken from the south line of said REATA EAST SUBDIVISION, being the north line of said Brossett tract, as south 58 degrees east. See attached 24 inch by 36 inch Master Drawing that accompanies these field notes. Surveyed December 29, 1995 RON CARROLL SURVEYOR OF ��f i�,4 ESE►•IT9 Ronald Carroll t R0NALD CARROLL 9 2025 .a 'Q '%�.�„E f s 10 -loi S U Rv 95FN2\SURV\GEO-NW2 EXHIBIT A, Page 20 of 28 `�Id.P Zvi 90< ooa i ly s 1 aft h o mN� [ 1 I„ $�tQ :9 a e < s c c n 5 ` \\ O O O \\ a RR Ln � � 1 - o n • I y ` 1 - I j c> 0 1 v7• 1 N 1 / ~ M.o Ltos —7-- W / h / , 'Z / ��� •, ,a � , 51 tea,' ,y s rto N0R'1' 1� 1° U U u U U v c C C Q 0 4 C 0 o a e a e e nhhOm b •►hhhO m < O^•ONO ,n N �Nnv,n zZZzi 4a;aaa 'NNW, EXHIBIT A, Page 21 of 28 IRC49 December 29, 1995 RONALD CARROLL SURVEYORS 5302 Souni 31ST TEMPLE (817) 773-1447 TEMPLE, TExws 76502 K►LLEEN (817) 526-0117 Page 1 of 2 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: PROPOSED 10 FEET PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR NORTHWEST BLVD. (NO. 4) Part of the NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, Abstract Number 4971, situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, and embracing a portion of the tract described in the deed to Rondald W. Parker, et al recorded in volume 1292, page 145 of the Williamson County Deed Records. Commencing at a 1/2 inch iron rod found in the east line of said Parker tract, for the northwest corner of Lot 9, Block 4 of NORTHWOOD OAKS, an Addition in the City of Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, as it appears upon the map recorded in Cabinet C, Slide 180 of the Williamson County Plat Records, and being in the south line of Northwest Blvd., and then run south 84 degrees-43 minutes east along the west line of said NORTHWOOD OAKS Addition, for the east line of said Parker tract, 16-65/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set for the northeast and beginning corner of the easement being described. Thence north 84 degrees-43 minutes west along the west line of said NORTHWOOD OAKS Addition, for the east line of said Parker tract, 12-6/ 10 feet to a point being in a curve to the left whose radius is 705 feet, (deed call is north 82 degrees-06 minutes west). Thence northwesterly along said curve to the left 484-56/100 feet to a point at the end of said curve to the left being at the beginning of a curve to the right whose radius is 545 feet, the long chord of said 484-56/100 feet arc is north 52 degrees-07 minutes-30 seconds west 475-08/100 feet. Thence northwesterly along said curve to the right, 515-58/100 feet to a point being in the west line of said Parker tract, the long chord of said 515-58/100 feet arc is north 44 degrees-43 minutes west 496-57/100 feet. Thence north 44 degrees-10 minutes east along the west line of said Parker tract, 11-38/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set, and being in a curve to the left whose radius is 535 feet, from said 5/8 inch iron rod set, another 5/8 inch iron set for the northwest corner of said Parker tract, and being in the south line of a tract described in the deed to Frances Jean Brossett recorded in volume 1861, page 208 of said Deed Records bears north 44 degrees-10 minutes east 92-33/100 feet, (deed call is north 46 degrees-51 minutes east). Thence southeasterly along said curve to the left, 511-5/10 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set at the end of said curve to the left, and being at the beginning of a curve to the right whose radius is 715 feet, the long chord of said 511-5/10 feet arc is south 44 degrees-25 minutes-30 seconds east 492-24/100 feet. EXHIBIT A, Page 22 of 28 Page 2 of 2 December 291 1995 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: (continued) PROPOSED 10 FEET PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR NORTHWEST BLVD. (NO. 4) Thence southeasterly along said curve to the right, 499-14/100 feet to the place of beginning and containing 0-23/100 of an acre, the long chord of said 499-14/100 feet arc is south 51 degrees-49 minutes east 489-06/100 feet. Basis of bearings is taken from the south line of said REATA EAST a Subdivision situated in the City of Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, as it appears upon the map recorded in Cabinet F. Slide 90 of said Plat Records, being the north line of said Brossett tract, as south 58 degrees east. See attached 24 inch by 36 inch Master Drawing that accompanies these field notes. Surveyed December 29, 1995 ;RZOD CARROLL SURVEYORS L ©F Ronald Carroll A, �a%6TE,%'•.,9 t q O,% ROIIALD CARROLL '� 2025 St�� �O � ..,..•V fit. Sulk 95FN2\SURV\GEO-NW2 c 0 a � u b�k q U V12, 4 O�•hOV'�� � �< clba0a h u OoN� y�yR�c�g U u mt- y0 Op �a� a o ��SuhOE � h R G ` .cczi-r / / EXHIBIT A, Page 23 of 28 I 2 o Q Q u U u 4 C 4• C C C O O O 0 0 O o-.oNO r� ddodd d i N N N X -Nha�n O O O O O I I zzazz 4i ri Ci ww jjjjj aa4aa EXHIBIT A, Page 24 of 28 JR945 December 29, 1995 RONALD CARROLL SURVEYORS 5302 Sovnt 31ST TEMME (817) 773-1447 TEmPLe, TExas 76502 KILLEEN (817) 526-0117 Page 1 of 2 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: PROPOSED 10 FEET PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR NORTHWEST BLVD. (NO. 5) Part of the NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, Abstract Number 497, situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, and embracing a portion of the tract described in the deed to Irene W. Parker Trust recorded in volume 410, page 374 of the Williamson County Deed Records. Commencing at a 1/2 inch iron rod found in the north line of said Parker tract, for the southwest corner of Lot 13, Block C of REATA EAST, a Subdivision situated in Georgetown, in Williamson County, Texas, as it appears upon the map recorded in Cabinet F, Slide 90 of the Williamson County Plat Records, and being in the east line of Northwest Blvd., and then run north 58 degrees west (basis of bearings and deed call) along the south line of said REATA EAST, for the north line of said Parker tract, 64-45/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set, being in a curve to the left whose radius is 535 feet. Thence southwesterly along said curve to the left, 377-61/100 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set, being in the west line of a tract described in the deed to Rondald W. Parker, et al recorded in volume 1292, page 1.45 of said Deed Records, the long chord of said 377-61/100 feet arc is south 3 degrees-11 minutes west 369-82/100 feet, from said 5/8 inch iron rod set, another 5/8 inch iron rod set for the northwest corner of said Rondald W. Parker tract, bears north 44 degrees-10 minutes east 92-33/ 100 feet. Thence south 44 degrees-10 minutes west along the west line of said Rondald W. Parker tract, 11-38/100 feet to a point being in a curve to the right whose radius is 545 feet, (deed call is south 46 degrees-51 minutes west). Thence northeasterly along said curve to the right, 391-66/100 feet to a point being in the north line of said Irene Parker tract, and being in the south line of Lot 2, Block A of said REATA EAST, the long chord of said 391-56/100 feet arc is north 2 degrees-58 minutes-30 seconds east 383-29/100 feet. Thence south 58 degrees east along the south line of said Lot 2, Block A of REATA EAST, for the north line of said Irene Parker tract, at 4-56/100 feet pass a 1/2 inch iron rod found for the southeast corner of said Lot 2, Block A of REATA EAST, and continue in all, 10-11/100 feet to the place of beginning and containing 0-088/1000 of an acre. EXHIBIT A, Page 25 of 28 Page 2 of 2 December 29, 1995 Field Notes for the City of Georgetown, Texas for: (continued) PROPOSED 10 FEET PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR NORTHWEST BLVD. (NO. 5) Basis of bearings is taken from the south line of said REATA EAST SUBDIVISION, being the north line of said Brossett tract, as south 58 degrees east. See attached 24 inch by 36 inch Master Drawing that accompanies these field notes. Surveyed December 29, 1995 RON D CARROLL SURVEYORS / OF Ronald Carroll '�P��►%li s t F�.9 lei • R-0NALD rCARROLL 2025 95FN2\SURV\GEO-NW2 C L 00 000 5� SOB i EXHIBIT A, Page 26 of 28 P �v' -pP. Vpy/ v u u U U V oc�,c ti L ti L L U U U U V ««< C C C C C � nhhom Q o�oNO N 4 g X q q N ^Nhvv� 0 0 0 0 0 22222 6i 4i 4iW Lc jJJjJ 4Y4cl:4 E5 EXHIBIT A, Page 27 of 28 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN APPROXIMATELY 80.3 ACRES IN THE NICHOLAS PORTER SURVEY, LOCATED NORTH OF WILLIAMS DRIVE (RM2338) AND SOUTH OF LAKEWAY BOULEVARD 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 lines will be extended in accordance with City policy. The City has a Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy, which is described in this service plan. Sewer Service Wastewater lines will be extended in accordance with City policy. The City has a Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy, which is described in this service plan. 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 EXHIBIT A, Page 28 of 28 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 A (Agricultural), unless otherwise 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 March 26 1996 Item No. / AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration and first reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for the Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4 from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Four. ITEMS Y: The Georgetown Technology Park is split by two Intensity Level designations. All of the area within 500 feet of IH35, which is within the Georgetown City limits, is designated as Intensity Level Five and the remainder, which is outside of the City limits, is designated as Intensity Level Three. Lot 4 is within the area designated as Intensity Level Three. Under Intensity Level Three, an employment center land use on Lot 4 is limited to a 5,026 square foot building, with transportation as the limiting factor. The proposed building is 7,500 square feet. Intensity Level Four allows for a 40,210 square foot building. The site is adjacent to and served by the same water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure that serves the lots in the Georgetown Technology Park that are within the Intensity Level Five area. The Community Owned Utilities Division reports that the site can be adequately served with water and wastewater service for the proposed Intensity Level amendment. The Georgetown Technology Park, including Lot 4, is provided access to the IH35 frontage road, which is designated as a major arterial in the Transportation Element of the Development Plan. This level of roadway is adequate to serve the proposed Intensity amendment. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:. None FINANCIAL IMPACT: None COMMENTS: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of this Century Plan Amendment at their meeting on March 5, 1996. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report; Ordinance Submitted By: Edward J arry, AIC - Director Division f Develop nt Services Clyde von Rosenberg, P Chief Planner, Long Range Planning 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 GEORGETOWN TECHNOLOGY PARK, LOT 4, LOCATED AT #4 SIERRA WAY, TO BE KNOWN AS REEDHOLM INSTRUMENTS, FROM INTENSITY LEVEL THREE TO INTENSITY LEVEL FOUR; 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 Reedholm Instruments to construct a building on Lot #4 of Georgetown Technology Park, necessitating a change in the intensity assignment of the Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4, from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Four; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did, on March 5, 1996, 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- Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4 Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the applicant for such Plan amendment placed on the property at the Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4, 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 March 5, 1996, 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- Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4 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 Three designation to Intensity Level Four for the Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4, as recorded in Cabinet K, Slide 73 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, and as shown on Exhibit A of this Ordinance. 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 26th day of March, 1996. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the _th day of , 1996. ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Century Plan Amendment- Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4 Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 Leo Wood Mayor EXHfBIT A INTENSITY -,LEVEL MAP , CENTURY PLAN AMENDMENT OF GEORGETOWN TECHNOLOGY PARK, LOT 49 TO BE KNOWN AS REEDHOLM INSTRUMENTS, FROM INTENSITY LEVEL THREE TO INTENSITY LEVEL FOUR, LOCATED AT #4 SIERRA WAY OWNER: Mr. Joseph Reedholm, Sr. Reedholm Instruments P.O. Box 1849 Georgetown, TX 78627 869-1935 AGENT: Mr. Steve Kallman S . D . Kallman, Inc. 1106 South Mays, Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas 78664 218-4404 FAX: 218-1668 REQUEST: Century Plan Amendment, from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Four, of Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4, as recorded in Cabinet K. Slide 73 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. FACTS: Location: Located on Sierra Way. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped industrial lot. Existing Zoning: This lot is located out of the City limits so zoning does not apply. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Roger's Construction Company (I) South: Undeveloped land (out of City) East: Undeveloped industrial lot and Sierra Microwave (out of City) West: Undeveloped industrial lot (I) Proposed Use: Electronic manufacturing facility. Century Plan Amendment - Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4 March 14, 1996 File:REEDHOLM.CPA Page 1 CvR Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this tract as Intensity Level Three. The surrounding area includes Intensity Level Five and Intensity Level Three. SEE EXHIBIT A Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. ANALYSIS: The proposal is for the construction of an approximately 7,500 square foot building on Lot 4, which is a corner lot with access provided by Sierra Way and Courtney Drive, both classified as local streets. Sierra Way intersects with the IH35 frontage road. The Georgetown Technology Park is split by two Intensity Level designations. All of the area within 500 feet of IH35, which is within the Georgetown City limits, is designated as Intensity Level Five and the remainder, which is outside of the City limits, is designated as Intensity Level Three. Lot 4 is within the area designated as Intensity Level Three. Under Intensity Level Three, an employment center land use on Lot 4 is limited to a 5,026 square foot building, with transportation as the limiting factor. SEE EXHIBIT B The proposed building is 7,500 square feet. Intensity Level Four allows for a 40,210 square foot building. SEE EXHIBIT C The proposed building will result in an increase of 48 percent in transportation trip ends when compared to the maximum allowed under Intensity Level Three. The amendment to Intensity Level Four from Intensity Level Three represents a 79 percent increase in water demand, a 78 percent increase in wastewater demand, and a 700 percent increase in transportation trip ends. The site is adjacent to and served by the same water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure that serves the lots in the Georgetown Technology Park that are within the Intensity Level Five area. The Community Owned Utilities Division reports that the site can be adequately served with water and wastewater service for the proposed Intensity Level amendment. The Georgetown Technology Park, including Lot 4, is provided access to the IH35 frontage road, which is designated as a major arterial in the Transportation Element of the Development Plan. This level of roadway is adequate to serve the proposed Intensity amendment. Century Plan Amendment - Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4 File:REEDHOLM.CPA CvR March 14, 1996 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Century Plan Amendment, from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Four, of Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4. P&Z ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 at their meeting on March 5, 1996 to recommend approval of the Century Plan Amendment, from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Four, of Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4. Century Plan Amendment - Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4 File:REEDHOLM.CPA CvR March 14, 1996 Page 3 EXHIBIT A INTENSITY•LEVEL MAP EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE": February 26, 1996 'PROJECT NAME`: Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4 Reedholm 2. 'GIVEN` acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 2.30 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 2.30 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 8,648 2,484 23 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 8,648 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity.- 2,484 Maximum Trip Ends: 23 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION UNITS Detached SF Large Lot 7 9 38 Average Lot 9 10 26 Zero Lot Line 9 10 26 Attached SF 13 14 21 Multifamily 16 16 10 Mobile Home 13 13 27 Lodging 45 41 17 Institutional 25,213 27,000 27,348 Church -with day care 28,078 29,928 1.478 -w/o day care 46,495 49,680 31,944 Medical Office 20,788 22,179 7,127 General Office 23,758 27,297 9,020 Retail, Mixed 13,305 15,239 1,392 Retail, Restaurant 5,544 5,175 2,023 Retail, Store 26,609 28,227 4,790 Employment Centers 23,758 27,297 5,026 Warehouse 151,719 177,429 38,333 Mini -Warehouse ---------------- ---------------- 2.162,000 -- -- 2,484,000 88,462 7 9 9 13 10 13 17 25,213 1,478 31,944 7,127 9,020 1,392 2,023 4,790 5,026 38,333 88,462 -------------------- (c) (d) PER DEV DEVELOPMENT REGS ALLOWED/UNIT 5 5 housing units 17 9 housing units 22 9 housing units 33 13 housing units 65 10 housing units 13 housing units 17 rooms 25,213 square feet 1,478 square feet 31,944 square feet 7,127 square feet 9,020 square feet 1,392 square feet 2,023 square feet 4,790 square feet 5,026 square feet 38,333 square feet 88,462 square feet --- ------------- ---------------------------- ------- -------- EXHIBIT C DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. `DATE`: February 26, 1996 'PROJECT NAME': Georgetown Technology Park, Lot 4 Reedholm 2. "GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 2.30 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 2.30 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 15,456 4,416 184 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND. - Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 15,456 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 4,416 Maximum Trip Ends: 184 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: LAND USES (a) (b) (c) (d) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION UNITS REGS ALLOWED/UNIT Detached SF Large Lot 13 15 307 13 Average Lot 15 18 208 15 Zero Lot Line 15 18 208 15 Attached SF 24 25 169 24 Multifamily 29 28 81 28 Mobile Home 24 23 217 23 Lodging 81 72 133 72 Institutional 45,061 48,000 218,787 45,061 Church -with day care 50,182 53,205 11,825 11,825 -w/o day care 83,097 88,320 255,556 83,097 Medical Office 37,154 39,429 57,019 37,154 General Office 42,462 48,527 72,157 42,462 Retail, Mixed 23,778 27,092 11,139 11,139 Retail, Restaurant 9,908 9,200 16,183 9,200 Retail, Store 47,557 50,182 38,317 38,317 Employment Centers 42,462 48,527 40,210 40,210 Warehouse 271,158 315,429 306,667 271,158 Mini -Warehouse ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3,864,000 4,416,000 707,692 707,692 11 5 17 22 33 65 5 housing units 15 housing units 15 housing units 24 housing units 28 housing units 23 housing units 72 rooms 45,061 square feet 11,825 square feet 83,097 square feel 37,154 square feet 42,462 square feet 11,139 square feet 9,200 square feet 38,317 square feet 40,210 square feet 271,158 square feet 707,692 square feet Council meeting March 26, 1996 Item ff-ff AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration and first reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for the Lost Addition, Block 79, locally known as Georgian Apartments, from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Six. ITEM SUMMARY: The Georgian Apartments is an existing complex which has 41 living units. It was constructed in 1973, prior to the adoption of the Century Plan - Development Plan in 1990. The Development Plan assigned Intensity Level Three to the property on which the apartment complex is located, which allows for 7 multi -family living units. The owners of the apartment complex are in the process of refinancing a loan on the property and have requested an Intensity Plan amendment to allow for the 41 multi -family living units that currently exist. The current zoning on the 1.57 acre site, RM-3, permits up to 44 living units. The Intensity Level Six designation allows for development that would exceed the demands generated by the existing 41 unit apartment complex. Since the multi -family land use on the site is limited by the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that the demand levels generated by any future use of the site be limited to those generated by the existing 41 multi -family units. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: None COMMENTS: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 at their meeting on March 5, 1996 to recommend approval of the Century Plan Amendment from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Six, limited to the water, -wastewater and transportation demands generated by 41 multi -family living units. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report; Ordinance Submitted By: Edward r B ray, AICP - Di Division of Pevelopment Sep Clyde von Rosenberg,-A(ICP Chief Planner, Long Range Planning 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 LOST ADDITION, BLOCK 79, LOCALLY KNOWN AS GEORGIAN APARTMENTS, FROM INTENSITY LEVEL THREE TO INTENSITY LEVEL SIX; 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 Mr. Steve Carlitz and Mr. Ronald Dunn to request a change in the intensity assignment of the Lost Addition, Block 79, locally know as the Georgian Apartments from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Six; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did, on March 5, 1996, 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 -Georgian Apartments Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the applicant for such Plan amendment placed on the property at the Lost Addition, Block 79, locally known as the Georgian Apartments, 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 March 5, 1996, 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 -Georgian Apartments 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 Three designation to Intensity Level Six for the Lost Addition, Block 79, locally known as the Georgian Apartments, as recorded in Cabinet K, Slide 73 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, and as shown on Exhibit A of this Ordinance, provided that water, wastewater and transportation demand levels be limited to those generated by 41 multi -family living units. 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 26th day of March, 1996. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the _th day of , 1996. ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Century Plan Amendment -Georgian Apartments Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Leo Wood Mayor EXHIBIT A INTENSITY LEVEL MAP 16 th STREET 3 F-1' 17 th STREET ' t 17, / ✓/' / 2 16//. ', 3 I , <1 i •, 1 10 9 1 16 th STRE e � 7 a r 6 5 9 i Lj V 1J I 1 12 I 10 18 1h STREET ' 1n 8 m rm -a 7 1 \ 1 2 L - 19 th ST i CENTURY PLAN AMENDMENT OF LOST ADDITION, BLOCK 79, LOCALLY KNOWN" AS GEORGIAN APARTMENTS, FROM INTENSITY LEVEL THREE TO INTENSITY LEVEL SIX OWNERS/APPLICANT: Mr. Steve Carlitz Mr. Ronald Dunn 4062 Second Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 415/858-0578 FAX: 858-0582 AGENT: Ms. Candi Glover Georgian Leasing Co. 1700 South Austin Avenue Georgetown, Texas 78626 512/930-9000 FAX 863-6383 REQUEST: Century Plan Amendment of Lost Addition, Block 79 as recorded in Cabinet K, Slide 73 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Six. FACTS: Location: This parcel is located at 1700 South Austin Avenue. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Georgetown Apartments Existing Zoning: RM-3, Dense Multifamily. Proposed Use: No change in use is proposed. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Single family residence (RS) South: Single family residence (RS) East: Single family residence (RS) West: Stonehaven Living Center (RM-3) Century Plan: Applicant is requesting the Century Plan -Development Plan be Century Plan Amendment - Lost Addition, Block 79 March 14, 1996 PA# 96-01/ File: LOST ADD.CPA 1 CM/CvR amended to designate this parcel as Intensity Level Six. The site is surrounded by area designated as Intensity Level Three. SEE EXHIBIT A Notifiication: The required notification has been completed. HISTORY: The Georgian Apartments is an existing complex which has 41 living units. It was constructed in 1973, prior to the adoption of the Century Plan - Development Plan in 1990. The Development Plan assigned Intensity Level Three to the property on which the apartment complex is located, which allows for 7 multi -family living units. The owners of the apartment complex are in the process of refinancing a loan on the property and have requested an Intensity Plan amendment to allow for the 41 multi -family living units that currently exist. SEE EXHIBIT B ANALYSIS: The current zoning on the 1.57 acre site, RM-3, permits up to 44 living units. The Intensity Level Three designation, however, limits the site to a maximum of 7 multi -family living units, with transportation service as the limiting factor. SEE EXHIBIT C The Intensity Level Six designation is necessary in order to raise the water and wastewater service levels sufficiently to allow for 41 multi -family units. SEE EXHIBIT D According to the Community -Owned Utilities Division, the apartment complex is currently receiving adequate water and wastewater service. The complex is located on Austin Avenue (Business IH35), which is designated as a major arterial in the Transportation Element of the Development Plan. This level of roadway adequately serves the existing apartment complex and is appropriate for an Intensity Level Six designation, as there are other Intensity Level Six designations located on Austin Avenue. The Intensity Level Six designation allows for development that would exceed the demands generated by the existing 41 unit apartment complex. Since the multi -family land use on the site is limited by the Zoning Ordinance, it may be advisable to limit the demand levels generated by any future use of the site to those generated by the existing 41 multi -family units. This would insure that the water, wastewater and transportation demand levels would not exceed those currently existing. The Century Plan Amendment - Lost Addition, Block 79 PA# 96-01/ File: LOST ADD.CPA CM/CvR March 14, 1996 demand levels generated by 41 multi -family units are: 21,648 peak gallons per day of water, 6,396 average gallons per day of wastewater, and 93 peak trip ends. STAFF R]ECONMENDATION: Approval of the Century Plan Amendment for the Lost Addition, Block 79, locally known as the Georgian Apartments, from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Six, limited to the water, wastewater and transportation demands generated by 41 multi -family living units. P & Z ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Century Plan Amendment from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Six, limited to the water, wastewater and transportation demands generated by 41 multi -family living units. Century Plan Amendment - Lost Addition, Block 79 PA# 96-Oli File: LOST ADD.CPA CM/CvR March 14, 1996 C EXHIBIT A INTENSITY LEVEL MAP 0 rn N --1 m m 16 th STREET L317 th STREET 7 1 18 Ih STREET I Z I 9 cn B m m F27 1 \ 1 19 th STi EXHIBIT B February 10, 1996 Mr. Clyde Rosenberg Planning Department City of Georgetown Georgetown, TX 78628 Dear Mr. Rosenberg, As you requested, here is a summary of our zoning situation at the Georgian Apartments, 1700 S. Austin Avenue. We are iyi the process of refinancing the loan on the property. The underwriting is basically complete, and we have spent approximately $18,000 so far on fees, etc. The tender, Boston Capital, has been unable to give final approval due to the fact that our property is approved for only 7 units under the Century Plan. This poses a tremendous problem in the event our property is damaged by fire. Th6l problem is compounded, because as we understand it, even minor damage would require permission from the city to repair, since any amount of damagge triggers the 7 unit maximum under the Century Plan. We realize that it is not the city's intention to deny us any reasonable request to repair our property, however, from a lender's standpoint this situation poses considerable risk. We therefore are requesting -an increase in the intensity level of the Century Plan to allow us 41 units which is the number now existing at the Georgian A part ments. Sincerely, Steven (.arltt; EXHIBIT C DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE`: February 26, 1996 'PROJECT NAME': Lost Addition, Block 79 Georgian Apartments 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 1.57 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 1.57 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION - LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 5,903 4 1,696 16 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 5,903 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 1,696 Maximum Trip Ends: 16 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) LAND USES POTENTIAL UNITS WATER BY UTILITY WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION I MAXIMUM UNITS PER DEV DEVELOPMENT -------- -------------- ----------- -- ----- ---- -------------- I REGS I ALLOWED/UNIT Detached SF --------------------- --------------- I ------ I -------- --------------- Large Lot 5 5 6 Average Lot 7 26 I 5 I 3 J 3 housing units Zero Lot Line 6 7 18 I 6 I 11 j 6 housing units Attached SF 9 10 18 I 6 I 15 I 6 housing units Multifamily Mobile Home 11 11 14 I 7 I 9 I 7 I 23 I 44 9 housing units Lodging 9 9 19 I 9 I I 7 housing units Institutional 31 17210 , 28 184 11 11 I I I 9 housing units 11 rooms Church ,30 18,668 I 17,210 I I 17,210 square feet -with day care -w/o day care 19,166 31,738 20 429 33,912 1,009 I 1,009 I I 1,009 square feet Medical Office General O Office 14,190 15,139 21,806 I 4,865 I 21,806 I I 21,806 square feet Retail, Mixed 16218 , 9,082 18633 , 10,402 6,157 I , 6 ,157 157 I I I 4,865 square feet 6,157 square feet Retail, Restaurant Retail, Store 3,784 3,533 950 I 1 ,381 I 950 1,381 I I 950 square feet Employment Centers 18,164 16,218 19,268 18,633 3,269 I 3,269 I I 1,381 square feet 3,269 square feet Warehouse Mini -Warehouse 103,565 121,114 3,43 i I 26,167 I 3,431 I 26,167 I 3,431 square feet _ - - ------------- 1,475,800 1,695,600 60,385 I 60,385 I I 26,167 square feet ---------------------------------- --------------------- ----------------- - - ----- I ---------- --------- 60,385 square feet ------------------------------- EXHIBIT D DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': February 26, 1996 `PROJECT NAME': Lost Addition, Block 79 Georgian Apartments 2. `GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 1.57 acres of Intensity Level 6 1.57 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 0 0 0 6 33,127 9,420 628 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 33,127 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 9,420 Maximum Trip Ends: 628 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 29 33 1,048 29 3 3 housing units Average Lot 33 38 709 33 11 11 housing units Zero Lot Line 33 38 709 33 15 15 housing units Attached SF 51 54 578 51 23 51 housing units Multifamily 63 60 277 60 44 44 housing units Mobile Home 51 49 741 49 49 housing units Lodging 173 154 453 154 154 rooms Institutional 96,580 102,391 746,730 96,580 96,580 square feet Church -with day care 107,555 113,494 40,360 40,360 40,360 square feet -w/o day care 178,102 188,400 872,222 178.102 178,102 square feet Medical Office 79,632 84,107 194,608 79,632 79,632 square feet General Office 9i,008 103,516 246,275 91,008 91,008 square feet Retail, Mixed 50,965 57,791 38,019 38,019 38,019 square feet Retail, Restaurant 21,235 19,625 55,233 19,625 19,625 square feet Retail, Store 101,929 107,045 130,779 101.929 101,929 square feet Employment Centers 91,008 103,516 137,238 91,008 ( 91,008 square feet Warehouse 581,175 672,857 1,046,667 581,175 581,175 square feet Mini -Warehouse ------------------------ -------------------------------- -- --- 8,281',750 - ------------------------------------------ 9,420,000 2,415,385 2,415,385 2,415,385 square feet PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Century Plan Amendment of the Lost Addition, Block 79, locally known as the Georf,ian Apartment, located at 1700 S. Austin Avenue, from Intensity Level Three to Intensity Level Six Name of Respondent: 'be-hn,-s L . �ro�A"e,IL Address of Respondent: I z o 9 P us4;o A ✓e, I am in favor: I object: - K If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 2/28/96; it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission or Board of Adjustment and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 i i FEB 26 1996 CITY OF GEORGETOWN U" � 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. This meeting will be held on the 5th day of March , 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting palace in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed: Century Plan Amendment of the Lost Addition, Block 79, locally known as the Georgian Apartments, located at 1700 S. Austin Avenue, from IntensityLevel Three to Intensity Level Six} 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. Date: 2/ 16/96 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. --------------------------------------------- PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Century Plan Amendment of the Lost Addition, Block 79, locally known as the Georgian Apartment, located at 1700 S. Austin Avenue, from Intensitv Level Three to Intensitv Level Six Name of Respondent: 1 Address of Respondent: / o� S /yl.�',C� % f' /14 1 F I am in favor: I object: Iq'7 4 r,,J If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 2/28/96; it will be provided to the Planning, and Zoning Commission or Board of Adjustment and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Council Meeting Date: 03/26/96 Item No. 00 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consider appointment of a member to the Building Standards Commission. ITEM SUMMARY A member, John Offen, appointed to the Building Standards Commission in January, has resigned. He represented the Mechanical/HVAC position on the Commission. A recommendation for a new member will be provided to you prior to the meeting. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are certain building issues which need to be acted on by the Commission. The filling of this vacancy is critical to the carrying out of the duties of the Commission. FINANCIAL IMPACT None COMMENTS None ATTACHMENTS None Sub i ted By: �- Leo Wood, Mayor Council meeting date: 3/26/96 Item No. —PP AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consider appointment of a Dillo Bus Usage Committee/Mayor Wood ITEM SUMMARY As you know, Capitol Metro has offered to sell one of their trolleys to the City of Georgetown for $100. We have received input from the Chamber of Commerce suggesting that a committee be formed representative of the following organizations to determine the use and operational responsibilities. We suggest the addition of a representative of Williamson Burnet Counties Opportunities (WBCO). Suggested Committee Composition - Representatives from: l . City of Georgetown 2. Chamber of Commerce 3. Convention and Visitors' Bureau 4. Downtown Georgetown Association 5. Georgetown Historical Society 6. Southwestern University 7. WBCO ATTACHMENTS l . Letter from Bob Brent Sub ed by: Leo Wood, Mayor Specializing in: C,vden Homes stom Home Coordination tiomesites Resale Homes New Spec Homes TO: Mayor City Council City Manager City Staff FROM: Bob Brent DATE: March 19, 1996 J R E A L T Y "Sold on Berry Creek!" Exclusively Representing these fine builders: Jim Caskey, Builder John Caskey, Homes Heritage Properties Monogram Homes Palmer Custom Classics Wilshire Homes On the eve of the 150 year celebration of the founding of our special town, you are participating in a very important retreat for our community. Georgetown has achieved many great things during its history as a town and as a quality of life. I believe a wonderful characteristic has woven itself into the fabric of our community that has become the catalyst for making Georgetown one of the finest environments one could ever want to live in. That characteristic is the spirit of cooperation, unity and caring about each other. I know this council will not only continue this special tradition but will even add to it to make it even more powerful. Concerning the issue of the trolley, I propose that the trolley can become a reminder, a symbol of the common "thread" that binds us together as a community. It can be an expression of our community unity, teamwork and friendship. I would like to suggest the following: 30444 Berry Creek Drive * Georgetown, Texas 78628 0 512-930-9995 • Fax 512-930-5080 A. The trolley be purchased. B. A task force or committee be formed with participants from at least the following groups to determine the use and operational responsibilities: l . City of Georgetown 2. Chamber of Commerce 3. C VB 4. DGA 5. Historical Society 6. Southwestern University C. The operational expense be shared Many groups and organizations within Georgetown will be excited and proud to have the opportunity to use the trolley. In addition, what a tremendous opportunity to have a vehicle that highlights the romance and historical nature of our community. Nearly 26,000 visitors a year make contact to our Visitor's Center. A couple of set tours a day will give many visitors a reason to stay in town a little longer and explore our businesses, shops and restaurants until the departure of the next trolley tour. Rich Vandermeer recently had a suggestion for the name of the trolley --- "The Spirit of Georgetown". "The Spirit of Georgetown" can be the visible evidence of just that ---the spirit of Georgetown. Have a great retreat. f Council meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. Q Q AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution to authorize an Abandonment of a ten (10) foot wide Public Utility Easement, located towards the rear of the property and including a portion of the rear (east) setback of Lot 26A, Block E, Section Two, Berry Creek Subdivision, located at 30205 Oak Tree Drive ITEM SUMMARY: The Director of Community Owned Utilities has agreed to allow an Abandonment of a ten (10) foot wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) located at the rear of the property, including a portion of the rear yard (east) setback, as illustrated in Exhibit A. As a separate agenda item, a Final Plat of Lot 26A is also being considered to allow the development of one (1) single family residence and include a triangular portion of the Berry Creek Golf Course. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL EMPACT: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Unless otherwise stated, the City Council's action on this item will approve the requested Abandonment of a Public Utility Easement in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Community Owned Utilities. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Resolution Submitted By: Edward J. Barry, A P - Director Divisio of Develo ment Services Hildy L. Kirjima, AICP Chief Planner RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED TO VACATE AND ABANDON A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND INCLUDING A PORTION OF THE REAR (EAST) SETBACK OF LOT 26A, BLOCK E, SECTION TWO, BERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN THE PLAT RECORDS CABINET G, SLIDES 91-94 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND LOCATED AT 30205 OAK TREE DRIVE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received an Application for the Vacation of a ten (10) foot wide Public Utility Easement, located towards the rear of the property and including a portion of the rear (east) setback of Lot 26A, Block E, Section Two, Berry Creek Subdivision, as recorded in Cabinet G, Slides 91-94 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, and located at 30205 Oak Tree Drive; and WHEREAS, upon considering the Application and additional information pertaining to the Application, the City Council now finds that there are no utilities existing in the easements and that the utility companies serving the area including and surrounding the easements have determined that there exists no present or foreseeable need for the easements. 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 finds that this action implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan: 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. Utilities/Energy Policy 2, which states "The City will establish Utility policies which take into consideration the needs of all citizens of the community and take necessary precautions to prevent harmful ecological impact on the environment. " The City Council has found that this action 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 Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of Georgetown, a Quit Claim Deed abandoning a ten (10) foot wide Public Utility Easement, located towards the rear of the property and including a portion of the rear (east) setback of Lot 26A, Block E, Section Two, Berry Creek Subdivision, as recorded in Cabinet G, Slides 91-94 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, and located at 30205 Oak Tree Drive, and the City Secretary to attest thereto on behalf of the City of Georgetown. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of , 1996. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee By: Leo Wood City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Lot 26A, Block E, Section Two, Berry Creek Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A g�RRY N V4 10 ' � , SuDE 9 GAB1N 24 1 13) \ �O 25 \ \ r� N77'10'47"E 0 10.00' &. PROPOSED 1,538 SQ. FT. PORTION OF P.U.E. TO BE RELEASED 03 CIA so 00 cp AP- �� \ moo..':;.. ��\�, ems• � '� ��°j��...'�''��'`,�'-\���0 � r'� - S 54'43' 19"W �� \ o� \ \ l r o' 10. oo' �a \ \ o \ 10' P.U.E. j rlkv 0 I S02'50'21 "W �c`---f--26.15' I 13 Q` G ► o OQ` GHQ• i LOT 34A �N� Council meeting March 26, 1996 Item No. -0; R AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution to authorize an Abandonment of 15 feet of a 25 foot wide Public Utility Easement located within the front yard (south) setback of Lot 39, Block L, Section Seven, Phase One, Berry Creek Subdivision, located at 31100 La Quinta Drive ITEM SUMMARY: The Director of Community Owned Utilities has agreed to allow an Abandonment of fifteen (15) feet of a 25 foot wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) located within the front yard (south) setback, located along La Quinta Drive, as illustrated in Exhibit A. As a separate agenda item, a variance is also being requested to allow the construction of a garage to encroach by fifteen (15) feet into the platted 25 foot front yard setback on La Quinta Drive, corresponding with a portion of the area proposed to be abandoned. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Unless otherwise stated, the City Council's action on this item will approve the requested Abandonment of a Public Utility Easement in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Community Owned Utilities. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Resolution Submitted By: ;Mj/ a&/ Ct* " "-. Edward . Barry, A P - Director Hildy L. Kingma, AICP Divisio of Develo ment Services Chief Planner RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED TO VACATE AND ABANDON FIFTEEN (15) FEET OF THE 25 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD (SOUTH) SETBACK OF LOT 39, BLOCK L, BERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION, SECTION SEVEN, PHASE ONE, AS RECORDED IN THE PLAT RECORDS, CABINET L, SLIDES 315-316 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND LOCATED AT 31100 LA QUINTA DRIVE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received an Application for the Vacation of fifteen (15) feet of the 25 foot wide Public Utility Easement located within the front yard (south) setback of Lot 39, Block L, Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Seven, Phase One, as recorded in Cabinet L, Slides 315-316 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, and located at 31100 La Quinta Drive; and WHEREAS, upon considering the Application and additional information pertaining to the Application, the City Council now finds that there are no utilities existing in the easements and that the utility companies serving the area including and surrounding the easements have determined that there exists no present or foreseeable need for the easements. 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 finds that this action implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan: 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. Utilities/Energy Policy 2, which states "The City will establish Utility policies which take into consideration the needs of all citizens of the community and take necessary precautions to prevent harmful ecological impact on the environment. " The City Council has found that this action 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 Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of Georgetown, a Quit Claim Deed abandoning fifteen (15) feet of the 25 foot wide Public Utility Easement located within the front yard (south) setback of Lot 39, Block L, Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Seven, Phase One, as recorded in Cabinet L, Slides 315-316 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, and located at 31100 La Quinta Drive, and the City Secretary to attest thereto on behalf of the City of Georgetown. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of ATTEST: 1996. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee By: Leo Wood City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Lot 39, Block L, Berry Creek, Section Seven, Phase One Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A 5 4. 99 rrF'. i --K ta LA QU//VTTA I/ ITA Area of P.U.E. to be abandoned